Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of purported cults/1

Article was listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion July 2 to July 10 2004, consensus was not reached but there were more votes to keep than any other.

This is an archived version of the delete discussion and should not be edited. If you wish to comment on this discussion please do so at Talk:List of purported cults.

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

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

So, my view is that this page should be deleted.--jossi 15:43, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Keep but move. I agree that "cult" now has an extremely negative connotation, but it was once a more flatly descriptive term. Perhaps this page could be moved somewhere where it would attract less counter-cultists. I think the content of the page is valuable and has often been admirably NPOV in spite of its subject. CHL 15:45, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Moving it where? The whole ide of a page who's title is "purported" is devinitively based on POV. As the term "cult" is nowadays peyorative, just the fact that a perosn's belief system is categorize as that, carries undeniable negative consequences. In tis page alone editors have bundled Al-Quaida, Rajneesh, Scientology and Falun Gong under one term: "cult". What use is this type of classification other than asserying a PoV? --jossi 17:29, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  - No: "purported cult". They all are. The more I think about it, the more I think the title is also correct. Nothing is inherently POV about "purported cults". Being the raised member of one of them (LDS), I think inclusion on this list is actually imperative. If nothing else it documents a reasonably popular strain of thought, even if it is misguided--but articles shouldn't pass moral judgement, right? Any other title would be clumsy, less accurate, and counter-intuitive. I think it's unfortuate that the word "cult" makes this article a lightening rod for counter-cultists. I also think that the disputed notice will probably never disappear, but this is a good article with lots of eyeballs on it. I think this sort of controversy is sort of the cost of doing business on an open encyclopedia. Keep. CHL 18:13, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    - So who decides and with which criteria a group can be categorized as a 'purported cut' and added to this page? One can argue that Kabbalists, Wiccans and similar are also purported cults. My PoV is that anti-cultists are using this page to declare their displease/bias against with 'cults'... and they should not use Wikipeda for these purposes. Write a page about Wicca, about Scientology, about Satanism. That is the purpose of an encyclopaedia.--jossi 23:04, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      - Sociologists decide, generally. It's a term that has an actual meaning - David Gerard 00:17, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        I argue below that for purposes of this article, anyone leveling the charge also validly gets to decide, so long as that accusation is interesting and newsworthy. --Gary D 00:42, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      - Counter-cultist's claims also deserve an entry. Encyclopedias ought to cover religion and anti-religious claims without POV, yes? CHL 15:09, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Keep. user:jossifresco is quoting the Church of Scientology directly on hate group to push a POV. This is part of that - David Gerard 19:18, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Pay attention Gerard. I am not a member of the Church of Scientology. That quote was an honest mistake.--jossi 19:26, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Keep. Though this can be a very sensitive topic, if we stretch our patience and maturity as Wikipedians (see Wikilove), it will turn out fine. In one sense, this is an article about an objective phenomenon: that these groups have been or are being labeled as cults by other people or groups—whether or not any particular label appears justified to any particular observer—is a fact and is also interesting and newsworthy. Does this mean we should include on this page some raving mendicant street preacher labeling the Roman Catholic Church a cult? Well, yes, if that occurrence is interesting and newsworthy, because the subtext of this article is also about religious friction, and the forms that can take. --Gary D 00:41, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Interesting. I'm inclined to vote keep. I don't think the title is inherently non-NPOV, but it's important to note by whom a particular group is purported to be a cult. So far the list is pretty incomplete though. The article could also use some major cleanup, but that's another question. Exploding Boy 01:17, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. This is, to put it bluntly, garbage. I can make an argument that Christianity, Islam and Judaism are all cults, just as people have already claimed with Scientology and Falun Gong. Who decides? Ambivalenthysteria 01:47, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Delete: I'm on the fence, but there is a sociological meaning to "cult": it's the thing you are before you're a religion. In the literature of the social sciences, people try to use the word "cultus" in preference to indicate a devoted group with common religious beliefs. It's a neutral term, except that it denotes size. On the other hand, I think "purported" is a sneaky word that ends up being a bias of selection. The list will either include everything or nothing, as whoever chooses to include/exclude is exercising a type of POV that's tantamount to judgment of value. Geogre 02:06, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
"Cult" is inherently POV and "purported cult" is no improvement. Rename to List of minor religions. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:10, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Disagree with rename, the descriptions are mostly about why people think the group is a cult, and thus does not belong in list of minor religions —siro χ o 03:17, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. This list is either far too POV or far too incomplete to justify as encyclopedic. Much of it is based solely on hearsay of former members and outsiders. While valid to a point, this does not offer enough reason for so few groups to be distinguished as cults. I understand that wikipedia articles are meant to grow as time goes on, but the selection in this is too POV, and needs major revision to be saved. As such I think it should be deleted until someone shows me that it can be saved. —siroχo 03:17, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
- I disagree. This selection is as such because these are some of the most-cited groups named by counter-cultists. I do think it can be more comprehensive. I'm with Gary D that any group that's verifiably called a cult by a significant or newsworthy group should merit inclusion on this list. CHL 15:09, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Siroxo, your assertion that the list is "bases solely on hearsay of former members and outsiders" can be proven to be untrue and is, I think, very unfair to all ex-followers of Sathya Sai Baba including myself. For example, Glen Meloy and Robert Priddy who both have been members for decades have enough experience that something is wrong with Sathya Sai Baba.[1] & [2] Andries 13:48, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Cult is NPOV, it means the same as minority religion. Whatever you may feel the word means (especially in the current climate), is another thing, but I'm quite sure the etymology isn't terroristic. Ie. christianity is a cult in Egypt. Keep. Lussmu 15:07, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- That's the problem. "Cult" is almost two words now. "Cult" has an academic and a non-academic meaning. The academic one is NPOV (small group of believers), and you can't be "purported" it. No one "purports" that the Isis cult in Rome was a cult. But "cult" also has a pejorative meaning in the lay community. That is entirely POV, and people "purport" each other cults all the time as a way of de-legitimizing (ick) and criminalizing them. True, this article attempts to catalog all the groups who have been called cults and tries to not pass judgment on whether they are or not, but what's the purpose of such a list? Why does this bit of listmania exist? Geogre 02:30, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  - Are we sure that academic use of "cult" means only that there are a small number of followers? If I'm not mistaken the term "Marian cult" is used in mainstream works on religion and in the same sense as in "cult of Isis". I don't know who counts exactly but devotees of the Marian cult must number in the millions. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:25, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  - The other academic use is sociological, and means closer to the lay idea of "destructive cult". Now we have multiple academic uses ... - David Gerard 10:19, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Delete, but a) if a religion is often called a cult, the article on that religion should say why; and b) cult should link to religions that are typically referred to as such, with a brief explanation. -Sean Curtin 04:55, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Keep the list.207.69.51.151 23:39, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Keep but use only for the clearest cases like People's Temple, Order of the Solar Temple, Heaven's gate, Branch Davidians and Manson Family. I think that the word "cult" has become so much a form of hate speech that term has little added value. I mean as David V. Barret wrote in his book "The New Believers" one should focus on what the the controversial groups do and believe. Move the bulk of the groups on the list to List of controversial new religious movements which should only list groups that have, relative to their size, a lot of controversy around them. Andries 13:03, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I would change my vote to Keep if this were the case. It's putting groups like the Falun Gong on here that makes this messy. Ambivalenthysteria 14:13, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Why? Falun Gong are purported to be a cult, by the Chinese government. How much more clear cut do you want it? Exploding Boy 14:28, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)
  - This is precisely why this article will always be POV. Andries' article is perhaps a more sensible way of dealing with this, as it avoids the ultimately pejorative-laden term cult. - User:Ambivalenthysteria
  - The term "New religious movement" was created by groups branded "cult" to avoid the negative connotations of the word "cult". Unfortunately, as several of the groups continued to act in a socially questionable manner, "NRM" is acquiring the same connotations. Changing the word doesn't change what is being described - David Gerard 17:27, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Just to let you now that I created the article List of controversial new religious movements which is now just a copy of the list of purported cults. Please improve if you have time. Thanks. Andries 16:01, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  - The two should be combined, else Scientology for example would go in both. "New Religious Movement" is essentially a euphemism for "cult" coined by organisations branded "cult" that attempts to escape the connotations of that word - making a new article won't stop arguments, as this discussion should have already demonstrated there isn't a consensus delineation - David Gerard 16:08, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    - I do not agree that new religious movement is a euphemistic term for cult. The advantage of the list of controversial religious movements is that it is objective. Every movement can be included there if there is a lot of controversy. Andries 16:45, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      - I agree. Ambivalenthysteria 16:48, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      - True. Take out 'new' in the title, then - because 'new religious movement' is a phrase in itself - David Gerard 17:28, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        Agreed -- rm "new", then list of controversial religious movements is an OK title. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:11, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Keep or redirect to List of controversial new religious movements. Fire Star 19:13, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Agree with Andries. Rename to List of controversial new religious movements--jossi 21:13, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- - - - Jossi and David, please be aware that taking out the word "new" means that Islam would have to be included. It is a controversial religious movement here in the Netherlands, relative to its size. I am not exaggerating. I am not sure if taking out the word "new" is a good idea. Andries 18:17, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Why is "controversial" better than "purported"? It's an almost meaningless term. I've been thinking about this and I think it should be moved to something like "Cults purported by Christian Countercultists". That's in fact almost exactly what this page is about. With a few exceptions, it's the greatest hits list of the countercultists. Such a move would tighten the subject and explain exactly who's purporting these "cults", and avoid an overly broad subject (which it now is, and "controversial new religious movements" certainly is). CHL 18:00, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- The key difference is that the word "cult" has been taken out - which is what most of us, I believe, are objecting to. And unless the Chinese government became a Christian theocracy last night, your suggestion for a title doesn't seem to match all of the existing content. Ambivalenthysteria 01:34, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  - You're not very charitable. I said the majority of these are countercultists' targets. I don't think Falun Gong is on their "greatest hits" list, but they are named by christian countercultists [3]. At any rate, if it's moved off of this page (which I now agree is a good idea), I think I'll copy most of it into Cults purported by Christian countercultists. It's a much better fit with existing content than List of controversial new religious movements anyway. The articles can diverge from there. CHL 04:49, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    - Cool Hand Luke, please not that Cults purported by Christian countercultists will contain all religious movements minus conservative evangelical churches plus all mainstream religions. I can not see a good reason for this list. Andries 18:17, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      - It's not as if "controversial new religions" will not contain every new religion. This is not alarming to me. Rigt now only the most often and furiously purported cults need to be mentioned, and is they are. What is concerning to me are the links to the list of purported cults. Many of them are looking for purported cults. They need a page to go to, and this isn't a bad one. It acknowledges the bias in the subject matter in bold at the top, and I think it's a useful article--especially if more explicitly defined. CHL 21:04, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Keep. I believe this should be kept, and should stay where it is. It was split out from Cult some months ago. The content is going to end up somewhere, because people are going to add it, and it is better of here than elsewhere. UninvitedCompany 21:29, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Tally

Can someone help corroborate my tally of votes so far? Thanks. Keep: 6 Delete: 5 Move/Rename/redirect: 4

Sysop intevention required

Given that 5 votes request delete and 4 votes request move/rename/redirect, can it be considered concensus that a change is needed, at least in renaming the page in a way that does not denotes bias as suggested? --jossi 19:51, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Not after 3 days. I note you don't need a vote on VfD to move or redirect a page. Morwen - Talk 19:53, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I see now that it is required 5 days minimum or more time to see if concensus is reached about deletion.--jossi 20:39, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Delete - Inherent POV in the title and decision to include. - Tεx τ urε 03:35, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)