Talk:Anti-cult movement/Archive 4

This Hamletian screaming!

 * "To be or not to be"

Why don't you just add a posterior "s" to the article name? ... said: Rursus (bork²) 18:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles are always singular, except where plurals are unavoidable (e.g. "scissors").   Will Beback    talk    19:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Democracy
Does anyone mention that the difference between cult and religion might just be a matter of dictatorship vs. democracy? Would be nice if it was not just me. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 18:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We're not here to discuss cults, only how to improve this article. There are many discussion forums where that question would be appropriate.   Will Beback    talk    19:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge and Split
I proposed a merge with Opposition to cults and new religious movements and split to create a new Cult watching groups. it would talk a little work to do but the labeling of many of the "cult watch", i.e. more academic institutes, as "Anti-cult" is quite wrong. Ditto lumping many of the academics, e.g. Eileen Barker, in with openly anti-religious activists, e.g. the Rick Rosses of the world.

To label many cult watching groups as "anti-cult" is obviously a NPOV issue, there having been general shifts and changes on both the cultic and suppprt or awareness groups sides from the early days. --Soulslearn (talk) 09:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Given the duplication of material some form of merge is probably necessary, but I'm not sure what direction is preferable. You seem to be suggesting that if we move "cult watching groups" out of the umbrella of the "anti-cult movement", then the rest of the "opposition" can accurately be labeled as part of the ACM.  This would make the awkwardly titled "opposition" entry redundant and all content could be merged into one of the two other locations.  Of course, keep in mind that some "cult watching groups" are/were part of the anti-cult movement and some obviously not.  In the end we should take the lead of reliable sources here, but I think this is a positive suggestion which is more readily supported by reliable sourcing than the current state of affairs.  A request for comment might be a good idea at this point.PelleSmith (talk) 12:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me throw out an example to make sure that my response is clear. If we rely on WP:RS, groups like The Family Survival Trust (formerly FAIR), and people like Rick Ross clearly fall within the "anti-cult movement".  I do not support an attempt to POV push certain groups and individuals out of the ACM entry (and against reliable sourcing) for political motivations.PelleSmith (talk) 12:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your support and reasonable tone in a topic area which is fraught with tensions.


 * From where I see, both the major "cultic" religions and the more mature elements of what is called here the "anti-cult" movement have moved in on life, developing from the 70s when they came to public prominence, e.g. mass suicides versus forced deprogramming. I think we all have to accept that. Society had broadened.


 * On reflection, I'd rather use the word "cult awareness" than "cult watch" as the latter gives to me the NPOV impression of "crime watch" (NPOV towards cultic religions).


 * If we were to agree on a scale, I would suggest it could be;


 * anti-cult ... victim support/cult awareness ... pro-cult


 * accepting that, in approximate order and scale, I think I would do something like;


 * Rick Ross ... Anonyous ... ... ... Family Survival Trust .. ICSA .... INFORM.


 * I question what one has to do to be "anti-cult". I suggest it has to be some kind of direct, prejudicial and overtly damaging action. I cant see how academic groups would fit into that, nor family support orientated, e.g. the emphasis on supporting victims rather than "persecuting" cultic religions. In the same breath, I cant see society reacting against excesses with it, e.g. criminal actions, sexual abuse, frauds etc as being "anti" per se.


 * It strikes me those sort of grounds are more a reaction against the crimes and abuses rather than the beliefs. So I think we have to be very clear about this and anyone to be bundled into the "anti-cult" group would have to have demonstrated or advertized just that, e.g. religious hate crimes. In this case, I have moved TFST to the right because whatever FAIR was in the 70s, they membership etc has changed.


 * Technically, how can we best combine discussion on both topics rather than repeat it at both topics?


 * Thank you. --Soulslearn (talk) 04:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The bottom line here is that we need reliable sources for any claims we make in an entry. If reliable sources place such and such group within the ACM, then that is what we state.  Your own categorization cannot be used here because it is original research.  No amount of arguments about where you think the FST sits, for instance, matters according to our policies unless reliable sources agree with you.  As you can see in the discussion at the FST entry the academic sources place FAIR, their old acronym, squarely within the ACM.  So the thing to do here is to find reliable sources for your claims.PelleSmith (talk) 15:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As I say on the topic discussion page, TFST is not FAIR. We can report the facts but are forced to remain neutral.


 * My comments are based on fairly broad reading around the subject. Discussion requires some framework to work with, or against, in order to progress.


 * Where do you consider is the best definition of what constitutes as "anti-cult"? What actions are required to have been carried out in order to earn such a title?


 * Obviously, there is point scoring and name calling going on from extremes which we would have to filter out. The dialogue has developed since the 1970s.


 * --Soulslearn (talk) 09:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Arweck clearly and distinctly places FAIR in the "cult monitoring" or observation category rather than the anti-cult category and notes many distinct disapprovals of extreme measures such as kidnapping and deprogramming that would place it in anti-cult category. Discussion is around page 128 to 131. So I guess that is your "reliable source". --Soulslearn (talk) 09:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Arweck clearly places them in the ACM ... whether or not she also places them in a "cult monitoring" category. Please bring quotes to this discussion.  Please also read WP:NOR.  I do not consider what constitutes "anti-cult" nor do you.  Reliable sources use this term for groups like FAIR, and you haven't proven otherwise.  Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 16:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello Soulslearn, as you've already pointed out above, this a 'touchy' subject matter and because of that I'd like to ask you to please do not begin to make what some people might consider potentially highly controversial changes in articles, or the categorization of articles, without entering into a discussion regarding them first. For instance, I noticed that you've already attempted to remove the article International Cultic Studies Association from an existing referenced category‎ and insert it into a categorization schema that you personally appear to be trying to develop. As was mentioned above, without proper referencing to support what you're contending I agree that your actions appear to constitute "original research" according to the encyclopedia's policy. My reading of the literature in this area of study indicates to me that terms like "anti-cult" and "counter cult" have specific definitions, that are often quite useful in attempting to understand the contextual approach of the organization under discussion. In my opinion, your approach is a notable departure from an accepted standard utilized within mainstream social science and without proper support from reliable references, should not appear in Wikipedia. As has already been suggested WP:OR should be closely examined in this instance. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 01:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Deconstructhis. Anti-cult and counter cult are not just any opposition, they're actively working to inform about cults and save people from those cults that use to have a very destructive impact on those people's life and their families. Any opposition to "new religions" and to "cults" might just be malinformed (or well informed) critics of just about any religion to which they oppose. ... said: Rursus ( m bork³ ) 18:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * For the record, user:Soulslearn is blocked as a sock puppet of banned user Lucyintheskywithdada.   Will Beback    talk    21:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)