Talk:Cult image

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 June 2021 and 1 August 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tuj36557.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Non-NPOV text
The "Idols in Mecca" section has a very non-objective view placing Islamic Religious claims as "the Historical truth". Someone should probably edit this to give it more neutral language —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.6.246.240 (talk) 20:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I gave it a try yesterday. Does it work..? Harabanar

Cited Sources Required!
So, why were no sources cited? I, for one, would like to know the academic data from which this article has been cullt, because it is a subject that I am in the process of researching, at the moment.

Christianity is one of the three Abrahamic religions
so why is there a seperate section for it? Terrasidius (talk) 18:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Because Christianity has a complex history of accepting idols/"icons", in direct contrast to all the other Abrahamic religions SOW93 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It should still be treated as a section on the Abrahamic religions or the Judaic and Muslim sections split out. — Llywelyn II   13:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * All of the Abrahamic material should be compressed into a WP:SUMMARY of Idolatry, with at the top of it. Otherwise this is going to turn into a WP:POV fork to present alternative views of idolatry in Abrahamic religions.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Where's the non-Western?
It's surprising how little there is outside the Abrahamic, given how pervasive this is in world religions. Why is that? And how is it particularly relevant/part of christianity? 66.170.243.1 (talk) 17:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Because most of the editing goes on at idolatry. — Llywelyn II   13:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * In turn because the scopes of these articles have been confused.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

An idol is not the same as a cult image
An idol is worship, a cult image can be worshipped or venerated.Rafaelosornio (talk) 17:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * In English, those concepts are synonyms, so try again. Other editors just won't split those hairs precisely as you do. Further note that almost all of the content at cult image is precisely the former content at idolatry, shunted there by an editor pushing an openly . Further note that the   name of this topic is "idol", a point the original editor noted and simply ignored. The whole fork was a misguided exercise in oikophobia and should be fixed sooner better than later. —  Llywelyn II   13:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually he is right; they are only full synonyms if you are a very bigoted Evangelical, Muslim etc. Johnbod (talk) 14:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope. They are synonyms and only fail to be if you are oikophobic and believe the English language to be bigoted by default. (Surely you were joking that Thesaurus.com is a Pentecostal front organization.) Idol is not restricted to a pejorative sense and is (as documented at Idolatry's talk page) by far the name for these items in neutral contexts as well. As demonstrated at Idolatry's talk page, your gut feeling on this topic is simply incorrect and even major museums use "idol" more often than they use "cult image". (Of course, the preferred usage is truly neutral terms like "statue of an Assyrian god", "figure of a seated Sakyamuni Buddha", &c.) This page is currently a, until the article at idolatry is edited to restrict it to only discussing the pejorative aspects of idolatry.  I get that you feel the term is tainted: but actual editors keep turning idolatry into a neutral article instead of feeling that it's discriminatory against their beliefs. You should stop being offended on their behalf or creating distinctions that simply don't exist in English as it is spoken. —  Llywelyn II   13:54, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Rafaelosornio's point is valid, even if not expressed clearly in anthropological jargon. The present name of this article is unduly limiting the scope to what certain editors want to talk about.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 14 September 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Reasonable arguments from both sides and votes are roughly split. Jenks24 (talk) 16:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Cult image → Ritual object – Use modern, broad, non-confusing anthropological term. While "cult" does have a non-PoV definition in that field, that is also sometimes used in art history, etc., its use has been declining markedly over the last couple of generations, with the rise of "cult" in everyday English meaning "weird little pseudo-religious group full of nutjobs", the meaning virtually all of our readers are familiar with, and which is very difficult to shake. It's objectionable to many Hindus, Native Americans, and others, to have their ritual objects referred to as "cult" images/objects. "Image" is also too narrow, as many ritual objects are not images per se. The present name of the article has encouraged the shifting of this page toward a Christianity-focused WP:POVFORK of Idolatry, and presents both WP:UNDUE and WP:POV problems as well as this viewpoint splitting redundancy. We already have an article about idols (and ikons, and other "cult images") in Abrahamic religions at that other article. What we do not have is a balanced article on ritual objects and their uses, cultural roles, similarities and differences, cultural appropriation, etc., from an objective, analytical point of view, though the present article can and should be that, and has been trying to be that, both for anthropological and closely related art historical approaches. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 10:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose I agree with "What we do not have ..." but I think it is wrong to blame that on the title. It does not do that for the same reason that most of our articles on broad topics in the humanities do not provide balanced & comprehensive accounts of their subject, namely too few editors able to write at that level, and many of those who can preferring to spend their time arguing on talk pages rather than actually writing articles. Changing the title will do nothing to change that. "Ritual object" lacks any clear agreed definition, and generally means a different type of thing from "Cult image", in some cultures more than others admittedly. It generally is used to mean any object that is used in ritual - a paten or incense burner say - rather than one that is itself the focus and sometimes the point of the ritual. It could be developed as a new article on that subject. I agree the present title has problems, & am open to better suggestions, but I don't think this one is. Apart from anything else, the word "ritual" is now headed down the same path of tabloidal debasement in modern English. Johnbod (talk) 14:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The "debasement" of ritual is not reflected in anthro. sources abandoning the term, though, so it's not our concern. Perhaps we could have separate articles on objects of worship in particular and a more general one on ritual objects more generally, but as you point out yourself we don't have enough material for that. Ergo, there seems to be no reason to cover them separately until we do, and having a separate only for the former appears to lend itself to PoV pushing about idolatry, which is how we ended up here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Ngrams, not that they might be thought to be greatly important in the context of such a glaring NPOV issue, are pretty even. This is a crystal clear case of WP:SYSTEMICBIAS in relation to the modern use of the word "cult".  If editors have any doubts about the defamatory use of the word, see this image search.  It is prejudice similar to that supported by the current titling that agrees with the current desecration of ancient archaeological sites.  These were images that were involved in religious practice and I don't think that it would be right to present them as being any less than that.  Top marks to the nom.
 * GregKaye 10:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You obviously are completely unfamiliar with the academic terminology, and the history of the word. Don't ever go to France, unless you want to be outraged by the use of "culte" as a heading for services on church noticeboards! Does it bother you at all that the proposed new title actually represents a different, far broader, subject? Johnbod (talk) 12:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Obviously, I wouldn't agree "cult" is "defamatory", but we can't expect everyday readers to intuit the anthropological meaning. And English isn't French. That's like comparing "embarrassed" in English and embarazada in Spanish. The very issue is that, yes, the proposed title has a broader meaning. That's explicit in the rename nomination.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Johnbod: a "ritual object [could be] any object that is used in ritual", but a cult image is an image that is the object of a cult. Both "cult" and "image" have meanings in modern everyday English quite unlike the technical (and older) meanings used here. The proposed renaming broadens the scope of the article when it would be better to simply improve the more limited article we currently have. Srnec (talk) 01:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "Better" on what basis? I've provided a rationale for broadening this; just stating that the opposite would be better isn't an argument. It's routine for us to take overly-specific approaches and broaden them a bit, especially when the broader topic is inadequately covered, and the excessively narrow one is prone to PoV pushing, which is exactly what's been going on here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Nobody is pushing any POV here - who and what POV? The article is badly neglected since it was split off, we can all surely agree. The current article is about cult images, who is going to add material on the (much) broader topic? Not you, that's for sure. And really, what could one find to say?  As I said above, if you want ritual object, you're very welcome to start it. You rather mysteriously said above "The present name of this article is unduly limiting the scope to what certain editors want to talk about." - which editors, and what do they want to "talk about"?  Johnbod (talk) 03:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I share User:Johnbod's concerns that a renaming would represent a significant widening of the article's scope with the risk of loss of clarity.  —  AjaxSmack   21:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, a little late to the party here, but even the word 'image' is probably wrong. A Ritual Object is a closer definition of what these objects often symbolize in their cultures, and they do much to define a culture. "Cult" has taken on a new meaning, and this page should probably reflect that by changing the name per the nom. Randy Kryn 12:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * What objects? Cult images are one type of thing, and being an image is an essential part of their nature, ritual objects a much broader category, as others have said above. Johnbod (talk) 12:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cult image. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070628175007/http://www.jaina.org/educationcommittee/education_material/C15_Jain_Rituals_and_Holidays/Jain%20Rituals%20and%20Ceremonies%20-%20%20Hansa%20Sutaria.doc to http://www.jaina.org/educationcommittee/education_material/C15_Jain_Rituals_and_Holidays/Jain%20Rituals%20and%20Ceremonies%20-%20%20Hansa%20Sutaria.doc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:43, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

“Pejorative”
The lead cites three dictionaries to say that idol is a pejorative term. None of these dictionaries actually say that though. We either need an actual source that says that idol is pejorative or we should remove the sentence. Perhaps we even consider moving the easily misunderstood “cult” image to “idol “. When the average person thinks of a “cult”, they don’t have nicer associations than they do with an “idol”.—Ermenrich (talk) 11:52, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree. No. 1 says:
 * "1.
 * a. An image used as an object of worship.
 * b. A false god.
 * 2. One that is adored, often blindly or excessively." and so on
 * -sounds pretty pejorative to me.
 * And here is David Frawley, from this pretty conclusive google search. If you're bothered, why don't you add the additional references?  "Cult image" is often misunderstood (especially in India), but IS the correct academic term, whereas at least modern Christian scholarship shuns "idol".

Johnbod (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * How is "an image used as an object of worship" pejorative?--Ermenrich (talk) 16:20, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. It clearly has three distinct meanings, and meaning a. shows that it is fine to use.--Berig (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't think we should introduce it to articles, except in limited contexts (eg Jewish ones). In fact many Indian temple articles do use it - as the article explains, it is usually not considered pejorative in Indian English. I don't agree that a & b above are "distinct meanings" at all. They are ways of looking at the same meaning. c is just a metaphor. Johnbod (talk) 17:35, 17 October 2022 (UTC)