Talk:Cult/Archive 4

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:

1. 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;
2. 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
3. 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.
4. Religious Leaders, especially Christian Refer to Cult as a subvert of the same root word as culture; referring to a set of traditions which have built up over any period of time; sometimes artificially constructed by organisations who would gain control, other times by minority religious groups, further to this, religous leaders would call even mainstream religions "cults". --Phil 20:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

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. --Zappaz 20:43, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Get real you jerk. All you do is go on and on and on here at Wikipedia repeating your tired mantras. OK you love your guru "Maharaji"--we get it. Stop using Wikipedia to spew your nonsense. You make Wikipedia into a joke with your bizarre entries. Get a life!208.5.214.2 23:58, 6 August 2005 (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 "cults" 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. --user:Ed Poor (talk) 15:55, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

In older versions of the dictionary, the word "cult" means a system of worship. Thus, all religions would fall under this category. The negative connotation should not also be attached.

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 Wikipedia:cooperation on the new version. Have a good weekend, everybody! --user:Ed Poor (talk) 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. --Gary D 21:59, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

I finally read (most of) Eileen Barker's "Five Types of Cult-Watching Groups". [1] 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 counter-cult groups who criticize heretical sects and NRMs. Best way to handle them (for Wikipedia 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 Jesus 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 Unification Church 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 cult 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.

• Heresy is the place for all accusations that a given teaching or group is theologically unsound.

• Anti-cult movement 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 cult checklist 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 cult). Like Steve Hassan says "Moonies are a cult" because:

• they use mind control - 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. Eileen Barker and UC official Tyler Hendricks 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 Unification Church and the way one leaves it? (Barker, AFAIK, says that victims of involuntary deprogramming are much more likely to have a negative outlook toward the group than those who simply dropped out on their own.)

Talking about God?

I'm not sure about this, but when talking about God, aren't you supposed to capitalize He? I thought it was simply the way it was supposed to be done, whether or not one believed in Him or placed Him on a higher pedestal than anyone else - I myself don't necessarily believe in God, but I still use the capitalization. I don't think it's incorrect to use lower case for such pronouns, but I would say that it is much more common to see it capitalized. See God. 24.67.253.203 10:42, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Things to do

Various topics seems neglected in WP about cults in particular and religions in general.

See, Zappaz, I have no prejudice about classifying cults as religions or not. Seems to me that both share some objectives of controlling human beings. It is just that some do it more forcefully and deviously than others ;-)). And I don't see much difference between sects and cults, oops, NRMs.

Btw, I have nothing against personal creeds, but I am wary of organized outfits playing social psychology tricks.

Well, you can say the same of some secular ideologies that verge on totalitarism, like those which poisoned Europe and were the source of war tragedies in the last century. Secular church are for me a reality also. Was not Stalin an ex seminarists? And were not some nazis adepts of pagan superstitions, which are just a mirror of religion? I could add to the lot various individual charlatans, like astrologists and the same. Just other forms of cult or guruism for me. Not a pretty bunch.

Those are the suggested topics.

• Cult and money, Religion and money
• Cult and politics, Religion and politics (1)
• Cult and media, Religion and media
• Cult and terrorism, Religion and terrorism (2)

(1)the present US govt gives an extreme example (2)here we have Osama

They can be chapter of existing articles, or article by themselves. What about it, folks? --Pgreenfinch 12:51, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Too many articles

Cult articles keep popping up. While repairing a misdirected link I found a nearly-identical sentence in three articles, a good indication of unnecessary duplication.

• Other scholars challenging the validity of apostate testimonies include Brian R. Wilson, David G. Bromley, Massimo Introvigne, Anson Shupe, amongst others.[2]
• Other scholars challenging the validity of apostate testimonies include Brian R. Wilson, Massimo Introvigne, and Anson D. Shuppe. [3]
• Other scholars challenging some of the premises of the anti-cult movement such as the existence of mind control and the reliability of apostate testimonies, include Brian R. Wilson, Massimo Introvigne, and Anson Shupe.[4]

Let's try to reduce the number of articles so as to avoid duplication and POV forks. Cheers, -Willmcw 04:09, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

I know, it's getting to be like Too Many Songs by Tom Lehrer - except that *he* was at least *funny*. On the other hand, sometimes you need to break it down before you can build it up. In my 3.5 years at Wikipedia, I've seen several topics divided into "too many" article pages, and then re-assembled after the "sub-articles" started looking good enough. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 18:17, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Good point. I can certainly see how splitting out topics for independent editing could lead to better subsections when they are ultimately rejoined. But that is the best possible outcome. Unfortunately, there are other outcomes as well that are not as benefical to the project. Duplication between the split-out articles, as exemplified by the above sentence, is perhaps a sign of things going in the wrong direction. Not to worry. Cheers, -Willmcw 20:40, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Interesting that you only found this sentence to be the one showcasing dup0lication. These have been added in ultiple articles due to the insistence of anti-cult activists here in WP, to have a multiplicilty of articles on the subject of cults. I am 100% for condesing all these articles into a few, solid ones. Let's do it. --Zappaz 21:14, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't looking for duplications, but I went to fix a misspelled link that turned up three times. The duplication hit me over the head, so to speak. Since you seem to be familiar with these edits, can you tell us if there are other duplications? Reducing the amount of duplicated material between articles would be a good place to start. -Willmcw 21:55, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

I could take these three articles Cults, Anti-cult movement and Opposition to cults and new religious movements in to my word processor and try to come up with a synthesis that I can post on a sub page of my talk page. Then I can invite you to take a look and let me know what you think. What say you? --Zappaz 05:08, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why not start with the articles Prem Rawat and Criticism of Prem Rawat? Cheers, -Willmcw 07:12, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC

Are you serious? We spent four bitter months on these articles last year... I am not up for another round, no way... Just look at what happened recently on a vFd for Criticism of Prem Rawat ... opening a can of worms is too poor of an analogy! --Zappaz 17:19, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This article needs major cleanup

This article is peppered with statements that seem either some editor's opinion or original research. One examples (highlight is mine):

• Members of groups referred to as cults have been known to engage in long discussions over the definition of the word "cult." Critics of alleged cult groups state that by doing so, these persons have been known to waste large amounts of time and effort that would be better spent examining the actions of the groups in question, in order to reveal why these groups are referred to as cults.

I am putting some sections in this article in {{Disputed}}, until information that is presented as factual is supported by some kind of reference. --Zappaz 06:41, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Another example is the last paragraph at "Definition of "cult" in dictionaries and other points of view". --Zappaz 06:49, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes... most of the text is well researched and supported by good references and citacions, but there are way to many small snippets of text that lack any without any supporting sources. These snippets in stark contrast with the parts of the article that are referenced. We shall wait for a week or so to see if anyone can come up with sources for these, before excising. --Zappaz 06:54, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This article is too long. 71.250.17.62 21:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Zappaz, I take offensive at your edits

Much of the actions taken against cults and alleged cults have been in reaction to the harm "ostensibly" experienced by some members due to their affiliation with the groups in question.

I consider the word "ostentibly" as morally reprehensible and unfair and insulting as somebody who denies the holocaust. Andries 01:07, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree, this Zappaz character seems to have a personal agenda of white-washing.

Yea, Zappaz is just some guru loving idiot that tries to use Wikipedia to go on and get people he doesn't like. What a joke. His guru Maharaji is a real con man that took in quite a few people. Wikipedia is really looking pretty bad with idiot cult members like this dominating an entry. Makes Wikipedia almost as much a loser as some cult group.208.5.214.2 23:55, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Benjamin Zablocki notable?

Andries, just drawing your attention about he "notability" of Zablocki. Google test: 960 pages [5]. Compare Google test for Gretchen Passantino: 756 pages [[6], Google test for Bob Passantino: 1,380 pages [7]. So, be careful whith your arguments on other articles about notability of sources usupportive of your POV.--Zappaz 03:38, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A google test has never been accepted or proposed as test if a person's opinion is a good NPOV source for writing an article. If that were the case we could fill this whole article with quotes by Rick Ross and Anton Hein. A google test is acceptable to determine whether something or somebody deserves its or his or own article. Zablocki has edited a book "Misunderstanding cults" about the subject and has written papers about it. He also contributes to Nova Religio. Andries 06:26, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Don't change the subject, Andries. We are discussing notability. Zablocki is as notable for this article as the Passantino's are notable for Mind control. Hope you could admit the fact that you are challenging sources being not notable only when it is convenient. Regarding Hein and Ross, go ahead and fill the article if you wish. After all both of them are notable anti-cultists. If it is good info and properly referrenced, I don't see the reason why not. --Zappaz 15:42, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think that I start to see the reason why we have so much conflicts, that is a fundamental difference of opinion about writing encyclopedic content. In that case, I hope you accept my apologies for doubting your good faith. I always thought that best the way to write a good article is to quote, use and refer to the best sources available. I do not think that Passantino, Ross, or Hassan are the best sources so I object to using them. Wikipedia:Cite_sources Andries 17:47, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Best" sources have to be looked at in context. A source may not qualify as "best" for one article, but it can qualify as such in another. --Zappaz 19:23, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

When desrcibing the views of anti-cult activists and their concepts Rick Ross and Anton Hein etc. are good sources, together with scholarly criticisms e.g. by Bromley of their opinions and methods. Passantino does not qualify as such. Please explain why you still think that Passantino is a good NPOV source for the article of mind control. Andries 05:41, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

One more time: An anti-cultist writer that speaks agains mind-control theories is notable for this article! --Zappaz 00:43, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this fact is notable enough to be mentioned but criticism of the theory of mind control theory should not come from just a website, like Passantino's but from social scientists and scholars. Andries 08:10, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Passantinos are well known writers in their domain. Relevant, of course! What difference that makes that their article was republisged on a website? If you find a better reference to of an anti-cultist that rejects the theories of mind control, that would be great. Thanks --Zappaz 07:11, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is some if you take the effort to search. Andries 08:20, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cults & wikiquette

While we could potentially argue against calling the Church of Scientology a "destructive cult", it seems to be poor wikiquette to call an editor who does so a "vandal".[8] The CoS is among the more highly-referenced additions to the list of purported cults, so it is not an off-the-wall addition. I hope that editors will demonstrate good faith towards the contributions of others. Thanks, -Willmcw 09:45, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

yuck, zappaz is an unscrupulous cult-apologizer who walks over dead bodies, beware! 62.214.155.74 13:27, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please don't engage in personal attacks on other editors. Speaking of which, I heop that user:Zappaz will explain her labelling of those edits as being that of a "vandal." -Willmcw 23:41, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

LOL, 62! But I think you meant "cult apologist". (Kind of like a black kid calling a white kid a "honker" when he really meant to say "honkie" ;-) -- Uncle Ed (talk) 19:08, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

It was vandalism. Period. --Zappaz 00:33, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How is editing an article in good faith considered vandalism? Please explain. -Willmcw 00:55, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Because it was. Read the anon's comments on the edit. Good faith? It was POV vandalism, pure and simple. --Zappaz 01:30, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Having a POV, or making a POV edit, is not vandalism. It's making a POV edit. If doing so were vandalism, then we'd all have been banned a long time ago. In fact, I see that the anon made no edit summary the first time you called him a vandal, so whatever he said the second time happened later. Please remember that this is a collaboration, and assume good faith. -Willmcw 02:12, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

You are right. Thanks for the reminder. --Zappaz 04:11, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cult aplogist? Hey, thanks! I am proud to have be put in the same category with other illustrious defenders of the 1st Ammendment, religious tolerance, religious freedoms and anti-bigotry. Thank you. --Zappaz 00:48, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Allegations section

The reference to "documented child abuse" by Thakar Singh turned out to be just a statement by Professor Lane, not documentation at all, so I changed wording to be more accurate. Documentation on serious allegations needs to be held to a high standard. Innuendo is not documentation. --Sevadar 18:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)~

Your edit (I suppose it was you) was definitely not NPOV - anyway, I replaced the reference with one containing actual quotes from Thakar Singh which should be acceptable as documentation and restored the former text. --Irmgard 17:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I oppose the use of WP as a platform to air grievances of ex-members of new religions or purported cults. These allegations are explored in the respective articles of these groups, where rebuttals and the other side's point of view are presented within an NPOV article. As it stands now it is not within NPOV. I propose to delete completely this section leaving a short summary of the controversy. If there are no objections I will do just that in a few days. Thanks. --Zappaz 03:20, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

A 'full' summary would be better. Thanks for doing that work. Cheers, -Willmcw 04:23, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

I admit that a summary would be better and move the detailed list to apostasy. Andries 12:15, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I will summarize the list and refer to the articles about these groups/people for further info. The list as is, is not suitable for display in any article. --Zappaz 15:28, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

For clarity, can you indicate exactly which section you're referring to? Is it the one labelled "Allegations made by scholars and skeptics"? Thanks, -Willmcw 16:09, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

No Will, the one that Andries, unilaterally moved to Apostasy, while we were civily discussing the issue here. Andries is not interested in consensus. I have summarized the section in the Apostasy article and deleted the grievances as discussed here. Thanks. --Zappaz 16:40, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Zappaz, okay, I am sorry and I guess you are right but the other side of the story is that if there is one place where it belong then it is in apostasy and you encouraged me to provide references for it, which took me hours and hours of work. Andries 17:25, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

References needed for doubts about the apostates testimonies

I think that the doubts about the reliability of testimonies is not about facts but about interpretations of facts and the influence of the society on this interpretation. This is an important distinction that should be made. There is, I believe, apart from Wilson no scholar so crazy to make generalizations about the reliability of apostates. Please provide references for all the other scholars or I will remove the overly generalizing statements that, I believe, these scholars never intended to make. Andries 22:10, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Andries: All the references you need are in the References section. If you need it I can provide you with more details. Thanks. --Zappaz 23:10, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Here ya go:

• The Reliability of Apostate Testimony. Study by Dr. Kliever of Southern Methodist University. [9]

• "Defectors, Ordinary Leave-takers, and Apostates: A Quantitative Study of Former Members of New Acropolis in France." Nova Religio 3 (1): 83-99, by Massimo Introvigne

• "From Parchment to Pixels: The Christian Countercult on the Internet" by Douglas E. Cowan (University of Missouri - Kansas City)

• Apostates and New Religious Movements, Bryan Ronal Wilson [10]

• Taslimi, C.R., R.W. Hood and P.J. Watson (1991) 'Assessment of Former Members of Shiloh: The Adjective Check List 17 Years Later', Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 30, pp. 306-1

• Wright, S.A. (1987) Leaving cults: The Dynamics of Defection (Monograph No. 7) Washington DC: Society for the Scientific Study of Religion, p. 87.

• Latkin, C.A., R. Hagan, R. Littman and N. Sundberg (1990) 'Who Lives in Utopia?' A Brief Research Report on the Rajneeshee Project', Sociological Analysis, 48, 1987 73-81 and C.A. Latkin 'The Self-Concept of Rajneeshpuram Members', Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 29, pp. 91-98.

• "Programming and Deprogramming the Moonies: Social Psychology Applied," by Trudy Solomon, in David G. Bromley and James T. Richardson (eds.), Brainwashing Deprogramming Controversy, p. 167

• Bryan Wilson, The Social Dimensions of Sectarianism

• David G. Bromley, Anson D. Shupe, Jr. and J.C. Ventimiglia, "The Role of Anecdotal Atrocities in the Social Construction of Evil,"

There is much more from were that comes from, if you need it. Should we now expand this section? --Zappaz 23:29, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

yes, well, I do not think that the current article incorporates the gist of Bromley's work but I have not read enough to be sure. Do you just list these books wiithout having read them because you think they support what you think is written in the article? Andries 05:18, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Dking additions

I made a substantial addition to this section (and to other sections) today, anonymously, before signing up with a user name. I decided to get a user name because the people working on this article appear to be serious and work with each other in a relatively nontoxic way. I have been writing about cults (mostly political ones) for 30 years.

I kept the reference to the word "apostate" as a term used by scholars such as Melton, but replaced it elsewhere with the more neutral word "former member." A large percentage of cults in the U.S. today are not religious, and the term "apostate" is not only less than neutral but also sounds strange when used in reference to political, marketing, self-improvement or psychotherapy cults.

In my opinion this section is too narrowly focussed on the viewpoints of sociologists and scholars of comparative religion. Former cults members (aka "sources") are seen very differently by journalists, law enforcement, libel attorneys, etc. and I have tried to add that viewpoint. I began writing about political cults some years before it became the practice for ex-cult members to go to exit counselors; I dealt with dozens of members of political cults who had never been subjected to any reframing or artifactual-narrative-building process and many of whom were not in contact with one another. I was getting consistent stories, which often could be triple checked even on minute details and which I was able to also verify through court records, Freedom of Information requests and other paper-trail sources that sociologists and comparative religion scholars never use.

The truthfulness of most of my sources stood the test of rigorous scrutiny by editors and libel attorneys and resulted in other sources coming forward with additional verification. The process was also tested by successfully weathering libel suits and, more significantly, by the fact that additional libel suits (on some of the most controversial information from my sources) were neither filed nor even threatened.

Sources I worked with by and large had no obsession with getting even. They would tell their story and then move on with their lives. I never noticed that one individual being angrier than another led to the angrier one producing less accurate information.

My experience is that former members who are willing to speak out are generally truthful and if their explanations of their memories should include some exit-counseling cant, any good journalist or investigator knows how to get around that--simply ask them to stick to the facts, like in Dragnet. Some sources will exaggerate, but I have found this is usually a function of their basic personality not of their grudge against the cult (they probably exaggerated when they were inside the cult too!). The inevitable popping up of exaggerators is one reason why journalists strive for double sourcing (at least) and backup documentation even on relatively noncontroversial allegations.

I tried to add an investigative journalist's perspective (although today I function more as an internet activist and advocacy journalist against anti-Semitic groups) in other sections where it seemed to me there also was an academic narrowness of viewpoint. For instance, I added a paragraph on following the money trail and white-collar racketeering--things which Dr. Melton and even some scholars highly critical of cults seem to be insufficiently aware of.

In reference to religious cults, I know that some groups have been treated unfairly by the media (the Unification Church in recent years, for instance). I also know that the NRMs are subjected to a double standard--they get slammed but a mainstream church doing the same thing or worse is often never criticized at all. I found the statement about the Chinese government's criminal persecution of Falun Gong to be way too weak, and I strengthened it accordingly.

I believe that a lot of the endemic problems in this article could be cleaned up by restricting the term cult to "destructive" cults. If a group is not a destructive cult, it is not a cult--it is a sect. (The definition of sects as being splinters from mainstream religions and cults as being newborn groups is superficial and prevents us from adopting a more careful terminology.) Furthermore, if the evidence is inconclusive that a group is destructive, exploitative, etc., it should be given the benefit of the doubt and referred to as a sect. This suggestion does not address the underlying issue of the need for a dialectical definition of the cult as an ongoing process, but it could clear away a lot of confusion and acrimony and enable people to communicate more clearly. dking 3 June 2005

Dking, I think you have to provide more references for what you write in the article. Andries 11:47, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

DKing, Welcome to Wikipedia. Although some of what you wrote is interesting, I removed your edits, because you need to cite your sources. FYI, Wikipedia is not a place to engage in original research (follow these wikilinks for more info. Would be also good that you read NPOV to familiarize youself on how Wikipedia works.) ≈ jossi ≈ 16:41, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Zappaz, on what pages of the books that you listed are the unreliability of apostates described? Thanks. Andries 11:47, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I do not understand why Antaeus Feldspar keeps reverting my deletions. If these are factual information, let DKing provide sources. When you read these additions, it reads very much as an opinion, not as facts. If they are facts, we need sources. ≈ jossi ≈ 18:54, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Right, and it is only civil to give DKing a chance to provide his sources, rather than to make the assumption that because what he states is inconvenient to the "all cults are innocent" POV, it is baseless and must be removed, right? I'm sure you would extend that courtesy to anyone providing pro-cult information; please don't be a [*****] by denying it to those who provide information you find less comfortable. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:28, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Antaeus, you could have made these comments on your first revert, and not after your third. And please, refrain from personal attacks, thank you. DKing: please provide sources for your additions. I think that 5 days is a good period of time, until then, I am adding a disputed tag to this article. If by June 9 you have not provided sources, your additions will be deleted. As I mentioned before, and given the fact that you seem new to WP, please read NPOV so you become familiar with the basic principles of this project. ≈ jossi ≈ 05:20, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

It is courtesy to give a new user the chance to proivide sources for his or her contributions but if this results in a factual accuracy warning until these sources are provided then I think the disadvantages outweigh the benefits of courtesy. A factual accuracy warning is one of the worst warnings one can have on an article. Hence I removed the edits by user:Dking to the last version by Jossi. Andries 08:05, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, I think that factual accuracy warnings should probably be on this article 24/7. I mean, to read the article, you would never suspect that there are cults which have nothing to do with religion: political cults, therapy cults, pseudoscience cults. Because after all, if the viewpoint that "cult" refers to the structure of the group and not its beliefs were ever to be fairly represented in the article, it would show up as a lie the well-practiced accusation that the anti-cult movement is driven by an intolerance for non-mainstream religions. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:49, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As far as I understood, this article as per the opening para - (my highlights) deals with:

In religion and sociology, a cult is a group of people (often a new religious movement) devoted to beliefs and goals which may be contradictory to those held by the majority of society. Its marginal status may come about either due to its novel belief system or due to idiosyncratic practices that cause the surrounding culture to regard it as far outside the mainstream.

As such, one coud argue that oppossing a new religion can, in some instances, be a result of religious intolerance, bigotism and hate.

I think that a disambiguation page could help here, to include other uses of the term "cult" as presented by Antaeus. ≈ jossi ≈ 23:24, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Jean Duhaime

The text from Jean Duhaime is in broken English. Anyone cares to fix that? Thanks. --Zappaz 23:13, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I translated it from French. Andries 05:21, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

External links

I oppose only the external links by the UVa. The group database that was written by students of the UVa contains serious mistakes. E.g. the entry on Sai Baba. Some are obsolete. I wrote to (i.e first Jeffrey Hadden and then Douglas Cowan) several times during the last years but until now they have not improved the website. Andries 07:03, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I admit that the article by Michael Rogge on the psychology of cults and NRMs is excellent but there are also other viewpoints that should be represented. Andries

The external links explanation says the following that justifies almost all external links

On articles with multiple Points of View, a link to sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of what their POV is.

There are so many different POVs on cults that this sentence justifies almost all external links. Andries 07:11, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I see your point, but I think at a certain point Wikipedia is not a web directory overrules including a link for every different POV. Should you be allowed to have a link to your pet op-ed just because you don't agree with the links already present? On a topic as contentious as cults, I think the only thing that'll lead to is pages-long external links sections by everybody with a blog. Anybody else what to chime in with their opinion on what links to include here? --W(t) 07:24, 2005 May 28 (UTC)

Weyes, first you give me the rules and ask me to explain why the external links follow the rules which I did and then you start saying that your own rules are overruled. I think this is a bit strange. Andries 07:35, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Not at all, there's merely a set of rules that overlap and in some cases are contradictory. I think in this case not turning wikipedia into a directory of every minority opinion out there is more important than listing every POV, but as said, policy could be interpreted either way. --W(t) 08:42, 2005 May 28 (UTC)

I removed some links but re-inserted the most important ones. They are not links to POVs of a small minority. Andries 15:27, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

A link attacking Rick Ross is not relevant as an external link concerning the subject of cults. This would be relevant to Rick Ross, which is another Wikipedia section.

Cognitive dissonance and self-deception

Cognitive dissonance is a pivotal subject in understanding cults. It was tested on a UFO cult by Festinger. The history of the concept is strongly related to cults. Andries 04:42, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

With regards to self-deception, even Barrett who is very mild about cults wrote that you cannot talk members out of their faith because logical arguments do not impress them. I had not inserted this in the article because there is already a lot by him in the article and I do not want to break copyright. Andries 08:39, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Btw, I am the first one to admit that both cognitive dissonance and self-deception are not unique to cults but I believe that those very common phenomenons can be found in extreme forms in some members of cults. Andries 08:43, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I am sure that there is an element of these in some cults. But there are also some elements of hate, religious intolerance, witch hunt. hate related tyo this subject. So I have added these as well to the See also section. ≈ jossi ≈ 19:06, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC).

Very good, Jossi! There's hope for you yet! Maybe someday this article could even include the fact that under one of the very widely used definitions of cult, a cult (or cultic group, as some prefer for clarity) is all about cognitive dissonance and self-deception, and religion actually plays no part in the definition. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:12, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your assertion above is a neat example of Cognitive dissonance.  :) I am getting real tired with all these discussions. I am taking a little break. Ciao. ≈ jossi ≈ 05:02, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

I think perhaps you understand "cognitive dissonance" about as well as you understand "[sic]". :) -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:43, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Contributions on apostasy

Please do not remove my most recent contributions about apostasy/triangulation that are for the time being unreferenced. They are all contained in the book "Politics of religious apostasy " by David G. Bromley but I need some time to write it down more accurately. Thanks. Andries 08:18, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What is the rush? If you are researching something, use a scraps page on your userspace, rather than an article for your notes. Thanks. --Zappaz 21:22, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please limit Melton bashing in this article

Melton did say about the Peoples Temple, "This wasn't a cult. This was a respectable, mainline Christian group." [11] though I think that it should be taken into account what definition of a cult he normally uses. I do not think that this is the right place for such extensive information about Melton. His own article is a better place. See J. Gordon Melton. Andries 08:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, if the article is going to contain generalities about how paranoid and suspicious those who see the possibility for harm in cults are, it seems to me that it's acceptable, perhaps necessary for NPOV, to include well-referenced and specific information about how wrong "experts" who defend cults can be. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

FYI, these that you call "experts" and indeed experts. Or should we believe more the self-proclaimed "experts" such as Ross? or the AFF? Give me a break. ---Zappaz 05:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Expert" is as "expert" does, Zappaz. When "expert" takes money from a religious group to fly halfway around the world and call a press conference to announce (based solely on the evidence provided to them by the group) that they could not have produced the nerve gas that they are accused of committing mass murder with, more than a month after police already discovered at the group's headquarters a secret laboratory quite capable of manufacturing the toxin -- then I don't see why his "expert" credentials should count for more than his actual track record. As for the "self-proclaimed" issue, it's hard to take you seriously on that issue, since you rely heavily on experts just as "self-proclaimed" as Ross. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:40, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am working on Melton's article in WP. Once I am done with it, then let's talk. --Zappaz 14:48, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is clear that we should not take these experts very seriously, self-proclaimed or otherwise because they can and make and have made serious mistakes. And also because these NRM scholars do not agree with each other. Andries 18:44, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I first thought that Anton Hein was spreading negative propaganda about Melton but when I started reading Melton's books I observed that he indeed tries to belittle and minimize every single criticism of cults. I do not think that Melton works are biased because of the donations that he occasionally receives from NRMs. I believe that he is sincerely convinced that he needs to balance the many criticisms and negative generalizations by the ACM, but the problem is that he tries to do this so strongly that he is not credible anymore. I admit though that it is very difficult to write in the hypersensitive minefield of cults and NRMs and not to exaggerate or minimize matters. He is fully correct though in his opinion that many Christian countercult organizations are biased, ignorant and spread obsolete information about non-Christian religions Andries 18:56, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Switserland

Can somebody help to create a subsection on Switserland? I don't know much about the Swiss parliamental procedures. (I have already made a blunder with regards to the European Parliament and SSB.) Besides the formal "civil servant" French and German language is diffficult for me. French or German language. Thanks Andries 13:02, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

United States

The text in the section on Governments > United States should go to the Sathya Sai Baba article. --Zappaz 14:36, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

No, it is a goverment warning and hence belongs here. It was very short but due to your usual excessive skepticism of any complaints and assertion made by critical former member it grew unfortunately longer. Andries 14:42, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

OK. I leave then just the government warning without the spin. --Zappaz 15:40, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

It is not spin. It is relevant additional information, though strangely worded because of your insistence on subjecting the testimonies of critical former members to excessive skepticism. I will revert. Andries 15:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

This is about governmments and cults. You can copy the whole text, including the exmembers statements to the Sathya Sai Baba article. Nothing is lost. --Zappaz 16:33, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

No, the information about the United States government warning must be contextualized, otherwise it is incomprehensible. If you have another person in mind to whom the government warning could refer to then please mention him. Andries 16:49, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

If the US government wanted to point the finger at SSB, it could have. The fact that it hasn't, needs to be reflected. That speaks volumes. --Zappaz 17:20, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

It is reflected both with or without comments from former followers. It is not a reason to exclude context or information to whom it most probably could refer. Andries

I added context. Hope we can agree on the current version. --Zappaz 18:39, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

No, I do not agree. Andries 19:03, 16 July 2005

(UTC)

The fact that sentence uses the words "Former followers claim..." implies that there is no official statement, so your addition is redundant and your removal of facts obfuscates the matter. Andries 19:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Zappaz, I have no intention to yield to your excessive skepticism, removal of facts, and adding redundant statements that support your strange, strange POV. Andries 19:28, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

You have nither the right, nor the knowledge to assess my POV. So please, stay within boundaries. The former follower claim that if asked, official sources will confirm that it is indeed SSB. But the fact is that the travel advisory does no mention that name. Can you explain why? --Zappaz 20:32, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I think for legal reasons, but the campaign by former devotees to have this included in the travel advice happened before I became a former devotee, so I can't tell for sure. Okay, then I won't assess your POV but only your edits which I think are strange and obfuscate the matter in this case. Andries 20:36, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

The reasons why SSB is not mentioned by name, is all in the choice of the term uncorroborated. I hope my last edit works for you. --Zappaz 20:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

The facts that about SSB are important to help the reader to make up his own mind. I see no reason to exclude them. Don't you think that they help the reader to assess the claim of the former devotees? I think it is so clear that the article should say. "Upon reques the State department confirm that they refer to SSB". Andries 21:23, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I will ask for a request for comments because I think that we will continue to disagree. Andries 21:50, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't see the need for an RfC. I am sure we can include some text in an NPOV manner. let me try once more. --Zappaz 23:21, 16 July 2005 (UTC) Your last edit is good. Thanks. --Zappaz 23:22, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Picture of the Peoples Temple, do not remove it unless you find a better one

I am aware that some contributors do not like the pic of the Peoples Temple for very understandable reasons. But there are very good reason to have this pic here

1. all Wikipedia articles should have a pic if possible
2. The peoples Temple is generally considered to be the cult by the media and the public
3. The pic was already there about half a year ago and was removed, but nobody came with an alternative

So if you have objections to this picture then please find a better alternative before removing this pic. Thanks. Andries 14:36, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Eirra 20:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC) "The peoples Temple is generally considered to be the cult by the media and the public" Not exactly. I really don't like the term 'cult' in the first place, and having a picture of a religious group seems a bit prejudiced. I think we should remove the photo. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral.

Don't tell us what to do... I reverted all your edits, because I disagree with each one of them.

• Making the People's Temple the example of cult, is original research, and an attempt to witch hunt any group that is labeled a "cult" with the pretext "they are all the same as this doomsday cult". That is not NPOV. Sorry.
• The photo of People's Temple is best kept in that article. Your idea that "each article must have a picture" is not applicable to thousands of articles in WP.
• The text about the "fit the description" is superfluous.

--Zappaz 17:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

What reasoning is this? Fits the description is not superfluous. It is written nowhere else. Please give a detailed reply to my edits. Pictures in itself cannot be POV. I will revert all your edits unless you explain you give better reason for your revert. Andries 17:51, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

To say that the Peoples Temple is seen as the example of a cult by the media and the public is not original research but common knowledge. Here is a reference

1998 article by John R. Hall and Philip Schuyler in the book edited by Bromley Apostasy, Apocalypse, and religious violence: An Exploratory comparison of Peoples Temple, the Branch Davidians, and the Solar Temple

page 145 "The tendency to treat Peoples Temple as the cultus classicus headed by Jim Jones, psychotic megaliomanic par excellence is still with us, like most myths, because it has a grain of truth to it. "

Andries 18:02, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Then you need to attribute it. This whole idea of "common knowledge" is 100% contrary to NPOV. Attribute or delete. --Zappaz 18:19, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank-you. That is basiclly what I am trying to say. Eirra 23:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair summaries of other articles of apostasy and post cult trauma

This article should have fair summaries of the articles apostasy and post-cult trauma, not selective duplications that support a POV. These summaries were already there (Wright, Barret, Wilson, van der Lans) Bromley's POV and Wilson's POV is already here and does not have to be duplicated here from apostay. Hence I think that tis justifies my revert of Zappaz' edits. Thanks. Andries 20:36, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

You create a new section in which the reliabity (or lack thereof) of apostate testimony is discussed. As it was, it presented only a partial view of the controversy. You have two options: either you include your new text into other sections in the article, or the new section needs to include ALL POVs in the controversy. Your choice. --Zappaz 20:39, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

okay, I will move some of what already had been written in this article to the methodology section. What had already been written here is, I think a fair summary of the dispute. Andries 20:42, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Andries, that edit does not work for me. On one hand you "summarize" the extensive work of Bromley, Melton, Introvigne, Wilson, Shupe and others, and then you go on on two long paragraphs from Carter's Carriers of Tales. That does not work. You will have to do better. Reverted. --Zappaz 00:32, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

The reason why Carter deserves more space here is because he wrote extensively about methodological issues, not just about apostate reliability. My summary of Carter's opinion of former members and apostates is very short. Carter's remarks about methodological issues cannot go anywhere else than here, I think. In contrast, Wilson's and Bromley's opinions are already treated in apostasy and are summarized here. Andries 08:38, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. You cannot be the judge to decide what research methodlogy is better. If you want to write about Apostate testimony, then its place is in Apostasy, not here. The moment you add a section like the one you just created, will force me to copy text from Apostasy to maintain balance. We have two options. (1) delete this section and move to Apostasy. (2) Keep this section with balanced views of all scholars that researched this. --Zappaz 16:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

The normal rules of Wikipedia is that a summary of a certain relevant article appears in this article, that is the correct way of "maintaing balance", not copying selective POVs that support your POV from another article. The "methodology section" cannot be moved to apostasy because it deals with much more than apostasy. We cannot copy all scholars who wrote about apostasy to this article because that would make the cult article too big. Andries 17:26, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

If there is somebody whose opinion deserves more space in methodological issues then it is Zablocki and possibly Barker. Zablocki did empirical research on apostate reliability. Andries 08:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Zablocki is only one scholar, amongst many. You are not to decide which one needs to be given more space. --Zappaz 16:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

There are very good reasons to give Zablocki a lot of space on the subject of apostasy reliability i.e. he does not just give his opinion based on anecdotal evidence, but he has done empirical research and he is cited in the literature a lot and not just on the website of Scientology, like Kliever and Wilson. Andries 17:26, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I absolutely disagree. Who are you to decide what research is better? That is contrary to NPOV. What you are doing with that section is to minimize the exposure to views that are contrary to your POV. FYI, mi citations database shows 124 papers citing Zablocki, 164 citing Shupe and 188 citing Introvigne, for example, I have re-instated the text that you have deleted, keeping the entry on Zablocky and your "intro". I still believe that what is needed here is one paragraph describing the controversy, wikilinks to other articles in which apostate testimonies are fully explored, and moving relevant text to the Apostasy article. These are the two options on the table: my current edit, or the proposed summary and merging. --Zappaz 20:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

no, there was and should be a fair summary of the dispute until you starting insering long quotes by Wilson and Bromley that had already been summarized here. Again Zablocki is more important than Bromley because he did empirical research. 20:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Giving more space to empirical research that is widely cited is according to NPOV. Andries 20:44, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Zappaz, can you please tell me why you think that your version with the long unsummarized quotes by Wilson and Bromley are following NPOV guidelines. Folllowing the same line of reasoning, I could insert long quotes by Hallami, Zablocki which would make this article useless. Again there was already a good summary of the dispute until you started to change it by inserting long quotes. Andries 04:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

We are getting there. I am happy with the last edit. Thanks. --Zappaz 16:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Please provide refences for Introvigne. references of Philip Lucas can be found at apostasy. Thanks Andries 20:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I mean, please provide references for Introvigne's critical attitude about the testimonies of former members. That what has already been referenced in apostasy does not have to be referenced here again. Andries 21:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Reformat References

I suggest that we change the #'s to actual numbers - the references need to keep the same number even if another reference is removed. Any objections? Comments? If not, I'll do it in a few days. SeventyThree^(Talk) 20:54, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

If you could do that then that would be great. Thanks See Wikipedia:References Andries 21:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

A most welcome proposal. Go for it. --Zappaz 03:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

With those glowing recomendations, I'll start. I'll start off by just renumbering the reference section, and then move on to changing the format of references in the main article (where appropriate). SeventyThree^(Talk) 21:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

HELLO!!! is anyone interested in reality? Wikipedia is becoming a joke with cult members posting ridiculous nonsense here. These folks are frustrated that within the real world no one takes them seriously and thinks that their "references" are losers and "cult apologists" that have sold out to rich cults. Doesn't ANYONE really watch Wikipedia and get this?

See the following links:

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/c11.html

http://www.rickross.com/apologist.html

http://home.snafu.de/tilman/faq-you/cult.apologists.txt

The "references" these people post are utter trash. Many have been exposed repeatedly as little more than whores that sell out to whoever will pay them.208.5.214.2 00:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Switzerland

The untranslated German dates (but only they) were copy-pasted from internet sources with the full sentences of the cases, because I'm not so good at copying numbers manually - I do not think that this constitutes a copyright violation. The texts as such (condensation of several pages of juristic chinese in one sentence) are my own. --Irmgard 21:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the text. I have NPOVed and Goethean has fixed some grammar and typos. --Zappaz 00:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Edits

• Reorganized article, grouping sections as needed
• Why the deletion of of Introvigne? I added the reference as requested. His views are widely known.
• I have added Kliever's reference
• The US section does not need a laundry list if allegations against SSB. These can be moved to the SSB article.

--Zappaz 05:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Where does Introvigne say that apostates are unreliable? I can't find it. Andries 05:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I meant to ask for the references of Introvigne, not Kliever, my mistake. Also I propose, not including the many references about apostate reliability here, but leave them at apostasy, because the reference section is already very long. Andries 05:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Facts about SSB are important to help the reader to make up his own mind about the claims of former followers. I have already put an Request for comments about this issue, as I had announced Andries 05:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I added a wikilink to the article about allegations agains SSB. That will give readers a chance to explore these, without having to repeat them here. --ZappaZ 03:25, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Some concerns about this article

I've been looking through this article, and I have a few concerns:

• The article is *way* too long. Some of the sections need to be in separate articles.
• The introductory paragraph doesn't mention the controversy and disagreement surrounding what cult means, which groups are cults and what proported cults do. It actually seems to present "cult" as non-controversial.
• The article mixes together information about groups AFAIK generally called cults by most everyone (People's Temple, Heaven's Gate, etc) and other groups often called, but not generally agreed on, as cults (Scientology, etc).
• The article doesn't clearly explain the practices, beliefs and techniques used by groups that can lead to accusations of being a cult; perhaps some of the information from Cult checklist could be brought over.

I know you guys have been working hard on this article, and that it's a difficult subject to work on as it's so controversial. I'm just hoping to help make it better :) --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 00:33, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

The article is very long, yes. It's also going to be quite hard to split up. I suggest moving the section Cults and government into a sepatare article, maybe Cults and governments. SeventyThree^(Talk) 17:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I support SenventyThree's proposal to move information to a new article Cults and governments and summarize it here. I want to make the section Cults and government a subsection of [[Cults#National differences]] because there are some important differences between countries that have nothing or little to do with the governments, e.g. the fact that in Germany information about cults and new religious movements is mostly disseminated by mainstream churches. I do not know where to write this in the current structure. Also I want to move the subsection "methodological issues and challenges" to the bottom, because, I think, this is only interesting for highly engaged partisans, like myself, not for the average reader. Andries 18:33, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I think a good article on this complicated, diverse, and controversial subject cannot be short. Of course, we should use summary style (create separate articles on subtopics and summarize them here), but as Seventythree wrote, this article is difficult to split up. Apart from that, I do not know how to make a summary of the entire article. Andries 18:38, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and make the new page Cults and governments now. SeventyThree^(Talk) 18:58, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Former members

, and the kinds of narratives they construct,

This expression is not NPOV - it infers that the narratives of former members are constructed without any attribution. -Irmgard 07:35, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the expression "constructing narratives" is a neutral sociological expression for the fact that everybody who tells testimonies or stories selects which facts s/he tells and what interpration of facts s/he uses. However when stated without this clarification, the expression suggest that ex-cult members make up stories, which is against NPOV guidelines. Andries 21:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

This deletion is stupid and shows a lack of understanding of the English language. There is nothing wrong with "the narratives they construct", they do as we all do construct our own narratives. I am restoring that text. --ZappaZ 05:06, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Zappaz, but how does that expression "constructing narratives" sound and is it suggestive for average native English speakers? As far as I know, it is a neutral sociological expression, not used in everyday usage but easily misunderstood, and hence it should be labelled as such to avoid confusion. Andries 10:42, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

External references

Sorted by databases and single articles, shortened descriptions and removed evaluations --Irmgard 20:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

removed Introvigne, because this site is about cults, not about the anti-cult movement. "So Many Evil Things": Anti-Cult Terrorism via the Internet Article by Massimo Introvigne, the president of CESNUR (a network of scholars working in the field of NRMs) added instead to basic and fairly neutral articles by Langone and Rosedale. --Irmgard 20:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

1. Irmgard, I agree with your removal of Introvigne's article for the reasons you stated and instead I propose to link to the homepage of CESNUR. Andries 21:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Agree. --Irmgard 13:11, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

1. I disagree a bit with your removal of descriptions of the external links (I wrote most of the descriptions). I thought these description that I never intended to be evaluations were useful to the readers. Andries 21:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I did not remove them completely, but I shortened them and removed some labels like anti-cult. If you look apologeticsindex or freedomofmind websites etc, they all state openly what they think about cults, also religious tolerance and ICSA. In such cases, the reader should be able to judge for himself. The new CAN is not so open, so the info is important. --Irmgard 13:11, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

1. I agree which the distinction that you made between articles and websites. Thanks. Andries 21:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I moved the articles to Bibliography, which is more correct, and expanded the books section there. --Irmgard 13:11, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Total disagreement:

1. NPOV requires we present all POVs in a controversy. The CESNUR is a notable POV in this controversy
2. How can you assess Langone to be "fairly neutral"? You cannot make your opinions to become facts, just because you think so.

--ZappaZ 05:09, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree on CESNUR and Andries has added the CESNUR homepage which is ok. But an anti-cult text by CESNUR belongs to an anti-cult article (imagine someone putting a cult-apologist article here - you'd sure think that doesn't fit (and I would remove it).

I assessed the specific article as fairly neutral. Have you read it or have you just read what CESNUR writes about Langone? He is, BTW, one of those people who tries to bring the fundamentalists on both sides of this controversy to the point where they at least talk with each other.

Anyway, those two disagreements do not warrant a total revert of the sorting to the former confusion. I moved now the articles to bibliography, where they belong - I also added some books. If you disagree with single points, please correct or discuss - that goes both in direction of improving an article, a revert usually doesn't. --Irmgard 13:03, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Names or name calling

Zappaz, please stop -- STOP -- calling scholars in opposition to cults by the POV expressions "anti-cultists" or "anti-cult movement" - those terms have been coined by Lewis and Bromley in 1989 and are used by the cult defender camp, so they are no more neutral that the equally POV "cult apologist". It is ok to use such terms in attributions - "Bromley says Langone is a member of the anti-cult movement" or "Hein refers to Melton as a cult apologist" but it is not ok to use them not-attributed, because then it is an attributation by the article-writer which is against NPOV. Would you care to have a mention of "Dr. Eileen Barker says" replaced by "cult apologists say" or "cult apologist Barker says"? Such a statement takes position in the cult controversy - which is not, what an encyclopedia article is supposed to do. I'm going to change such statements by you to a normal wording and I urgently ask you to not revert this again, else the question would have to escalate to mediation. --Irmgard 12:36, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

FYI this Zappaz is not doing it accidently, because of his temper or just bias. He is fighting the war of words. As an apprentice of Massimo Introvigne he is just following the recipe. Please read [12] if you want to understand what is happening here.213.76.152.186 14:53, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I am aware that this use of words has not started with ZappaZ. And I am also aware that one can get influenced vocabulary-wise by the things one is reading frequently. Such name calling is not unique to the cult subject, it's used in most every controversial field of scholarship (ecoterrorists, health apostles, etc,) - scholars are human, after all ;-) Only I do strongly feel, that an encyclopedia which is proud of its NPOV should not imitate this. --Irmgard 15:53, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Irmgard that the word anti-cult activists is often inaccurate, but it is a generally accepted word. A more accurate description, in most cases would be, "people who emphasize the risk and extent of harm associated with cults and NRMs" but that is a mouthful and not a very usual description. Andries 16:08, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

What I claim is that views and statements should be attributed to specific persons (Michael Langone, L.J. West, Rick Ross) not to anti-cult activists in general, and that these persons should, if applicable, be described by their profession and not get non-neutral qualifications. Usually, their position can easily guessed from the context anyway, and as practically all of the key persons do have their article, detailed information about their specific POV is only one click away. I'm pounding so hard on this, because of the language use of the "anti-anti-cult-movement" (expression not to be used in an article except in direct quote): they refer to sociology professor Bromley as sociology scientist prof. Bromley and to sociology professor Kent as anti-cult activist Stephen Kent. And that's something we should definitely not imitate here. Also, in case of "fuzzy words" or words mainly used by POV-positions, it is better to use a neutral expression - e.g. replace "anti-cult movement" by "secular opposition to cults" , apostate or ex-cultist with former member --Irmgard 20:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Cults and governments dispute - move to Talk:Cults and governments

At the risk of spreading this dispute to another article...shouldn't we debate this on the talk page for Cults and governments (Talk:Cults and governments)? After that article's text is settled, we can put an introduction to it in the main article. SeventyThree^(Talk) 20:23, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Makes a lot of sense --Irmgard 21:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Unused References

There are some entries in the 'References' section that appear to be unused. I've linked all the references I can using Wikipedia:Footnote2, but there are still some left. Any authors remember where the references are used? Some of them are probably for text that has been removed since.

I suggest moving these references into 'External links' or 'Bibliography'. SeventyThree^(Talk) 17:01, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. Move them to a Bibliography section. --ZappaZ 23:40, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Will do. SeventyThree^(Talk) 14:37, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Unattributed Opinions

These three paras contain lots of unattributed opinions and quite some redundancy. Please condense, clarify who says what and then re-insert into the article. --Irmgard 10:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, any religion involving unconditional worship and unquestioning obedience to God could be labelled as a cult (using the pejorative connotation of the word), since such a religion would have that high level of dependency, obedience, and unwavering compliance ascribed to cults by definition. Many mainstream religions still require their members to believe in God unquestioningly, to have faith that he is good and that what he does is good (even in light of problems of theodicy that make it reasonable to question this), to consider one's own wants and needs as unimportant while accepting the will of God as paramount. All of these are certainly characteristics commonly attributed to cults, but while it would not be unreasonable to apply this definition of a cult to any dogmatic religion that requires strict compliance with God's word and will as a condition of membership, the notion of applying the word "cult" to Christianity, Islam, Judaism, or any other major world religion today is considered absurd. There are those (e.g., Maltheists) who make this very claim: that those who worship God fit the classic depiction of cult members in their dogmatism, unswerving obedience, and denial of self. This highlights the problematic nature of defining what is and is not a cult.

Indeed, the notion of forced membership or belief in the doctrines of at least some major world religions is evidently false. Many world religions ultimately do not "require" persons to believe, think, or do anything, but rather ask adherence through the individual's private choice. In Roman Catholicism, for example, adherents must accept by individual free will the values espoused by the church, and it would be hypocritical to profess belief without actually believing. Personal moral responsibility also plays a role in making choices in such religions. Persons who disagree with articles of faith are entirely free to voice their opinions, express them in writing, or simply leave the faith, and indeed may be encouraged to do so, from both inside and outside the church. But in modern individualist and anti-authoritarian society, with criticism and rejection of Catholicism already widespread, church authority is not commonly one of these reasons. In a cult, by contrast, required adherence to authority is a key factor that distinguishes it from a religion.

Religions are also distinguished by being publicly open and accountable. To illustrate, any person may walk out of (or into) a church celebrating a Catholic mass at any stage in its celebration, and indeed such an action is not likely to be noticed by most other persons in the church. Any requirements for a person walking into such a church would not even approach the behaviour expected of entering a university lecture hall: excessively disruptive conduct would obviously create a problem, but whereas a lecturer might be required to ask for identification, the priest, ushers, readers, and all other persons in the church are not required to even acknowledge the presence of any person, whether visitor, observer, or newcomer (though in some countries it may be considered socially inept for ushers to notice a person entering a crowded Catholic church and not attempt to help find him or her a seat). Such features common to religions clearly distinguish them from cults, which generally do not allow unimpeded public access to their rituals and full access to doctrines. Cults, on the other hand, require some degree of secrecy to be kept from those outside the church, and require some degree of self-disclosure to its authorities within.

More unatributed opinions

I have removed these as well. Provide references and state which countries. Thanks. --ZappaZ 00:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• On the other hand, the countries confronted with such allegations see the United States attitude towards NMRs as lack of responsibility of the state regarding the wellbeing of its citizens, especially concerning children and incapacitated persons, and claim that the interference of the United States in their internal affairs is at least partially due to lobbying of cults and cult apologists with the United States government.

is this a cult?

http://www.gatewayrevival.org

Societal and governmental pressure on cults

A paragraph was added that I believe confused social disapproval of cults with government persecution, and framed the argument in a way that exaggerates the problem of government pressure on cults (as opposed to prosecution of individual cult members for alleged illegal acts). To rework this material meant expanding it, but I went ahead rather than just deleting it, since it seemed to me there was a valid point buried in the original formulation.-- dking, 16 Feb 2006

Political cults

A paragraph was added stating that the term political cult is not widely used and needs to be added to our vocabulary. Actually the term, which came into use in the 1970s, thanks (as I recall) to journalists Chip Berlet and Harvey Kahn, is now quite widespread as demonstrated by "On the Edge," the book by Prof. Tourish and independent scholar Wohlforth. The term has been frequently used in the media and several presentations on political cults have been given at conferences on cults and new religious movements. I reworked this paragraph to make clear that there are other types of non-religious cults besides political ones, and retained the very useful comments on "cults of personality." --dking, 19 Feb 2006

I should also have mentioned above Prof. Janja Lalich's important book, "Bounded Choice" (2004) which theorizes about how people are led from lesser to higher degrees of commitment in cults. This book is based on a comparison of a now-defunct political cult (the Democratic Workers Party) and a flying saucer cult that turned into a doomsday cult (Heaven's Gate). Anyone who believes that the term cult should be mechnically and universally replaced by "new religious movement" should read this book, since neither of the groups analyzed could be accurately described as a religious movement and yet they both operated in a manner that fits with critics' descriptions of purported religious cults. --dking, 28 Feb 2006

"Anti-cult movement"

The statement that groups labelled as cults "believe" their opponents to be part of the anti-cult movement unfairly imputes to the alleged cults an excessively paranoid mentality. Although some alleged cults do have a sense of heightened alertness to the actions of their opponents (and a very few alleged cults habitually launch preemptive strikes in the form of legal action, public relation efforts or even harassment campaigns), it is a FACT, and not just something the alleged cults "believe," that many of their opponents are affiliated with either the secular anti-cult movement or the religious counter-cult movement. If there is no such affiliation, the opponents of a particular organization nevertheless will be influenced to varying degrees by the ideas of either or both of these movements. (Certainly most journalists are.) I changed the sentence in question to reflect the essence of the above. --dking, 26 Feb 2006

can you please provide references for your assertion that opponents are affiliated with the anti-cult movement. You cannot get affiliated with the anti-cult movement for the same reason why you cannot get affiliated with the New Age movement. What are anti-cult ideas anyway? Belief in brainwashing? I do not think that many journalist believe this. Andries 01:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, the Unification Church calls itself a new religious movement Can anyone deny that Moon followers are "affiliated" with this "movement"? In addition, anti-cult movement and countercult movement are defined terms in this article. But you're right, "organization" is a better term, and I changed the text accordingly. As to many opponents of purported cults being affiliated with certain organizations--I have attended many conferences over the years, first of the old CAN and later of the AFF. The majority of people present would be "opposing" one or more purported cults, or cults in general. Furthermore, ex-members of individual groups form survivor organizations which exert great energy attempting to expose their former associates. In this broad milieu there are certain ideas about control, abuse, etc. that are almost universally held (although the term "brainwashing" is not used very often anymore) and these ideas are reflected in many places in this wikipedia article. As to journalists, certainly in the United States journalists who write on cults frame things in a way similar to that of the anti-cult movement although with a more "objective" writing style than that of the activist ex-member types in and around groups like the AFF (just look at the hundreds and hundreds of articles by journalists archived on the Rick Ross web site). I am not going to provide footnotes here because most of what I've said above is not part of the article, nor does it need to be part of the article since its pretty obvious. I just wanted to make the point (in revising the article) that when purported cults says that their opponents are part of an anti-cult movement this is in large part an accurate perception. I don't think either the AFF or the Church of Scientology would disagree with this statement.

--dking 27 Feb 06

The Anti-cult movement is not really organized unlike the Unification Church which is a single organization and I do not know how I can get affiliated with the anti-cult movement. It is not true that the anti-cult movement is defined in that article. The article does not have a good generally accepted definition, nor does it clearly state what the beliefs of the anti-cult movement are. If you state in this article that opponents of cults are influenced by anti-cult ideas then

1. please give references for this statement.

2. please define the anti-cult movement. (either in this or that article)

3. describe the beliefs of the anti-cult movement that influence opponents. Andries 20:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

dking, your generalization is untrue: some countries do not have an anti-cult movement of note, but there are still opponents of certain cults. Please provide references and try to fulfill the two other requests. Andries 18:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Why are you still harping on the semantic issue of whether one can "affiliate" with a "movement" when I changed the word to "organization" days ago? Although I believe the references you request refer to statements that are almost universally known and agreed upon by experts on cults/NRMs, I have nevertheless provided a reference (as you requested) to what I think is an accurate and well-informed piece on the anti-cult "movement" as well as a cross-reference to sections of the article above that briefly summarize the views of both the ACM and the CCM towards cults. You say my generalization about ACM influence is "untrue" because "some countries do not have an anti-cult movement of note." But the U.S., Canada, Germany, Australia and some other countries do have such movements, and there are also international organizations (such as the ICSA, formerly the AFF). In addition, web sites and "survivor" groups composed of ex-members of individual purported cults frequently have international membership or chat room participation (if the purported cult is one with an international reach) and in this manner people from countries that do not have a significant ACM network are influenced by the general ideas of secular cult opponents and of religious countercult groups that share many ideas with the ACM groups (persons in countries without strong ACM networks also are influenced via the Internet in general, books, newspaper articles, church sermons, etc.). Let me be clear: I don't think that individual scholars should be labeled mindlessly as anti-cult when this fails to capture the nuances of their thinking. But there has been a vigorous international anti-cult movement since the 1970s and there is no evidence it is going away--because the anguish of parents, the anger of many ex-members, and the factual (if sometimes one-sided) findings of "anti-cult" scholars and journalists cannot be swept under the rug. To put some kind of politically correct label on this movement is counterproductive. It is what it is. -- dking 1 March 2006

How does one "affiliate" with a movement? It's very simple, you affiliate with an organization that is self-defined (or defined by the public at large) as part of that movement AND/OR you participate in (or identify with) the activities of institutions or umbrella groups that represent the broader movement. For instance, someone in New York City who frequently attends forums at the Open Center (which sponsors a wide range of New Age speakers), hangs out at New Age bookstores, puts classified ads in the local New Age freebie, participates in internet forums on channeling and/or goes to an ashram on occasional weekends could fairly be said to be a "New Ager" and in some sense to be "affiliated" with the New Age movement. -- dking 1 March 2006

Removed external links related to AA

Removed external links related to AA. --FloNight ^talk 08:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Flo, two of the links I had added were written by legitimate sociologists whose works have been cited in numerous other books and research papers and bibliographies concerning cults and Alcoholics Anonymous. The third piece was written by Gallanter, a psychiatrist who is well known in alcoholism and cult/new religion circles. None of the three would be considered kooks or fringe by their peers nor are any of them considered A.A. or even cult critics for that matter.

And anyone who has an interest in cults and religious movements would find those books/paper fascinating (and related). They are quality, well researched works on the subject of cults, specifically the cult aspects of Alcoholics Anonymous. Had I added Charles Buffe's A.A. Cult or Cure? or Ken Ragge's More Revealed: A Critical Analysis of Alcoholics Anonymous and the Twelve Steps or Arthur Cain's Is A.A. A Cult? or Jack Trimpey's A.A.: Of Course It's a Cult! I suppose a case could be made that I was trying to slant or portray AA as a cult. But, again, I added information from known experts (and not opinion makers or A.A./cult critics) so I am curious as to why you felt they did not belong. I admit I may be missing something here :-)

And I am not wanting to argue about it, it's not that important, but I am curious why those contributions do not belong in this article? Mr Christopher 05:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Mr Christopher, first I looked at the other sources and found that they were more gerneral articles on cults or they discussed groups that the majority opinion would be that they are a cult. The article had a lot of references and didn't need more. Second, I used my knowledge of AA and cults. I know for example that many people go to AA under the threat of penality like losing MD/RN lic., court mandated diversion programs, or a condition for parole. This is not something that someone would expect to happen with a cult. Since the majority has a positive opinion of AA, I think this would needlessly provoke them for a minority opinion. Those were my reasons. --FloNight ^talk 05:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

New religious movements

I removed the link to the term "new religious movement" in the first paragraph because the phrase was being used in a different way than when it is used as a replacement (or euphemism) for "cult." To remove any ambiguity I changed the phrase to "newly founded religious movement." This is not to put down the use of "new religious movement," a term I am comfortable with in various contexts. Its use in cultic studies debates is dealt with in some detail later in the article. I don't think it should be reinserted in the first paragraph (even if used correctly) without a phrase saying that it is an easily misunderstood or misused term and referring the reader to the paragraph in which these issues are dealt with.--dking 23 March 2006

I would strongly disagree with your use of the term "euphemism", which it is not. The term cult is an emotionally charged word that religionists use to marginalize other religious groups. NRM simply removes all negative connotation. Further, I think it was used correctly in the first paragraph and it is not ambigious. Cult is an ambigous term; it can mean almost anything to the user. Can you please elaborate on what the use of the term NRM does not achieve that your edit does? Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I meant only to say that some people USE the term "new religious movement" as a euphemism for cult. This was a reference to people who are strongly critical of cults but have backed away from the use of the term "cult" because it has been overused or misused, but who mean the same thing by NRM that they meant by cult, as if an NRM is just a subcategory of cult. Others use the term NRM as a REPLACEMENT for cult because they think not just the term but the very concept of a cult is flawed. My sentence above merely attempted to allude to the differing motives of those who use NRM for different purposes and in different contexts. As to the first sentence of the article, it stated that "a cult is a cohesive group of people (often a relatively small and new religious movement)..." This does not refer to NRM as a technical term (and certainly not as a replacement technical term for cult) but is merely a phrase that happens to include "new religious movement" in a larger descriptive sense. If there is any content in the quoted sentence that implies a position re technical terminology, it actually leans toward the euphemistic usage. This is another reason for changing the phrasing of the sentence and dealing with the issue of terminology where it belongs, further down in the article. (And I was not trying in any way to repress the term "new religious movement.") Let me also say that I think we need to distinguish between (a) the issue of describing individual religious organizations as NRMs rather than cults, and (b) the issue of replacing the term cult with NRM altogether. I think the section in the article dealing with this issue makes clear that NRM is not satisfactory as an across-the-board replacement term for a variety of reasons, including the fact that many religious groups now described as cults are not new and many other groups described as cults are not religious.--dking 24 March 2006

Organization

I think that Cult#Points_of_view_regarding_definitions could be merged with Cult#Stigmatization_and_discrimination.

Cults in Fiction

I think a section on cults in fiction would be nice. if someone could write that. User:Zerath13

Following the suggestion of the person above, I have added near the end of the article a section on cults in literature. It is only a beginning. I invite others to add to it and to correct any errors. If this section grows, it should be split off as a separate article...but not yet.--dking 17 April 2006

The Possibility of an Island is one Andries 00:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Political clout of cults and sects

Someone had marked the paragraph regarding political clout (in the section "Societal and governmental pressure on cults") as needing references. This is certainly true and I rewrote the paragraph to make the statements therein less sweeping and thus easier to document (if no one adds references in the near future I will do so when I have time). I want to make clear that the point of the paragraph is NOT to claim that cults are exerting a "hidden hand" in politics. All of the examples given involve open, well-known forms of influence that are exerted by mainstream as well as non-mainstream religious organizations.--dking 16 April 2006

Remove the People's Temple photo?

I really don't like the term 'cult' in the first place, and having a picture of a religious group seems a bit prejudiced. I think we should remove the photo. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. You can call any religion a cult, but that doesn't make it one. I could put a photo up of a group of christians, but that wouldn't make it a cult. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It's supposed to be neutral. Though I will admit, wikipedia should have photos for every article if possible. Eirra 23:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC) eirra

The inclusion of the picture of the Peoples Temple has already been dicussed extensively. Please read the talk page incl. the archives. Andries 13:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I did. Eirra 23:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Rand and cults

There is a dispute on Objectivism (Ayn Rand) on the matter of whether Ayn Rand's Objectivism qualifies for the category of Cult. This may be of interest to editors of this article. Al 19:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Rev. Edits

208.222.71.16, You can't change a section that has Children of God to Hari Krishna Movement without citing the article or the reason. You have to have sources, you simply can't change the content at the drop of a hat! Please cite the sources but do not place opinions where information from sources should go. Thanks TalkAbout 07:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The original statement BEFORE I changed it was unattributed to any source. It cited two examples--the Moon church and the Children of God--of groups about which public perception has become less negative in recent years. With the Moon group this is undoubtedly true, but the COG is not a good example since public awareness of this group has never been extensive and I am unaware of any reports that the group has reformed or (even if it has) that such change has been recognized by outsiders to any significant degree. The Hari Krishnas are both (a) a historically high profile group and (b) have undergone a reform process away from authoritarian control that has been extensively reported in the media, including the NY Times. If you don't like the Hari Krishna example, just remove it (but please do not accidentally revert other recent changes) since the reference to the Unification Church makes the point well enough. I also removed the reference to the Amish as a cult that has won acceptance; first because this group dating back centuries has generally been regarded as a religious sect rather than as a "cult" in the contemporary sense; and secondly, because community discrimination against the Amish by their neighbors continues to be a problem and is probably greater than discrimination against members of contemporary "cults" who dress and behave like their neighbors to a greater degree. If you want cites on the passages in question, I suggest you address the person who originally wrote them; all I did was replace or delete inappropriate examples that confused the point the original editor was trying to make.

Note that my reverting this article to the earlier version was chiefly intended to get rid once again of POV vandal edits from other portions of the article. First the change of "established church" to "established church cult" was clearly intended to make an ideological POV jab. Second the change of the objective characterization of Barbara Harrison's book on the Jehovah's Witnesses into a tirade that demeans her is clearly POV. Her book was favorably reviewed by both academics and media reviewers, regardless of what the POV editor may contend, and is indeed a good example of how "apostates" participate in a serious manner in the study of cults.-- dking (Dennis King) 13 July 2006

I went back to the paragraph in which I changed COG to Hari Krishnas the other day, and find that I was myself one of the earlier editors on it! However, I did not write the sentence in which the COG was given as an example but instead added stuff later in the paragraph. I have now rephrased the sentence in dispute in a manner that makes clearer the distinction between groups that are still notorious (rightly or wrongly) and groups that have made progress in winning a less negative public image. -- dking (Dennis King), 13 July 2006

Dennis King, Thanks, it makes sense now that it is explained. It is often difficult to sort out the edits when it looks like swapping.Thanks & PEACETalkAbout 19:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Removal of summary from sociology of religion section

I removed the summary inserted by User:Paulscf [13], because I don't feel it accurately reflects the sociological definition. Concepts such as "small group", "limited structure" are inherently vague, and size is not the most important component of the sociological definition -- the most important components are novelty and tension. Of course, tension implies that cults will be tend to be smaller than denominations/ecclessia, but cults come in vastly different size ranges -- some cults have dozens of members (or even less), but others have thousands, tens of thousands.... Secondly, small size or limited structure, insofar as they are consequences of tension, are equally features of both cults and sects, and thus fail to properly distinguish them. Similarly, a "charismatic leader" is not a component of the most common definitions of a cult in terms of church-state typology. Certainly, many cults (by that definition) do indeed have charismatic leaders, but charismatic leadership is not part of the definition (i.e. its absence does not render a group not a cult). "Ideology outside dominant religions" could be referring to the novelty part of the definition, but again its not very clear...

Furthermore, why do we need to stick these summaries on the end of paragraphs? The paragraphs alone are clearer than the summaries, and will do. --SJK 10:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree the summary was not good. Please note that there are several significantly different sociological definitions of cults. Andries 12:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean definitions in the context of Weberian church-sect typology, or definitions outside that context? Certainly, in the context of the typology, different authors give different definitions of "cult", but I think they are best seen as different aspects or emphasises on the same basic definition. And, compared to that definition, paulscf's material doesn't seems largely unrelated. Now, if you mean definitions outside that typology, well I am not really familiar with them (I have some broad knowledge of this field, but I'm not an expert in it) -- but in any case, my impression is that in sociologically the Weberian typology definition definitely predominates. --SJK 10:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The only reason that needed to be cited for removal was that the material lacked the support of a reliable source. If a reliable source described such summary, it needs to go back into the article, regardless of what you I and Andries think about the subject. The way to do this, SKJ, is to ask Paulscf to provide a source for the material he added, and if he does not produce that within a few days, then delete as established by WP:V. In the meantime, you can tag that material with {{fact}}. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)