Talk:New religious movements and cults in popular culture/Archive 1

Arbitrary section header
I disagree with the assertion made at talk:cult that this article must be referenced with the same rigour using scholarly sources as the article cult, because this is highly unusual for popular culture articles. Andries 19:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Opus Dei
Kindly take note of this discussion of three editors (one of whom is myself) at the Opus Dei talk page, here. I copy it here:


 * I have just finished reading Dan Browns The Da Vinci Code, and have to disagree with the section on Activities and work about Opus Dei being depicted as a sinister cult. Only two characters from OD were mentioned, and even then they were conned them sleves into doing bad things, thinking that it was for the best. It is those two that were depicted as sinister, not the organisation. I am not associated with OD or anything in the story, but I do like facts, and as such I think the section on The Da Vinci Code should be re written slightly. But, as many people have said before, this is only my view...


 * Kindly check this out: opus dei and da vinci and catholic answers. I have not read the book myself, so kindly help disentagle the issue. Thanks. :) Thomas S. Major 04:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't even agree that "two" characters are described as sinister. One is portraied as fanatically devout and misguided simpleton who was deceived into commiting murders, which eventually result in accidental death of his mentor who specically tell this simpleton not to resort to revenge for his death. My guess is that most Opus Dei members or for that matter Catholic haven't read the book. And lastly, the book was so s£$%, I want my money back. FWBOarticle 11:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Riders of the Purple sage
Ive tagged the section as POV since it is too loose in its distinction between the fictional characters in the story and having Mormons referred to "cults in literature." BabyDweezil 00:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The section adequately attributes the information directly to the source itself. Smee 00:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC).


 * The interpretion that this book represents anything to do with "cults in literature" is entirely the POV of whoever added this. One would have to find a WP:RS that describes this book as being literature about "cults." BabyDweezil 15:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As the source is attributed within the article, rather than simply cited, this avoids this problem entirely. Smee 22:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC).
 * The source does not in anyway verify the POV inclusion of this book in an artcile about "cults in literature", since the author does not mention cults. Thus it is original research representing the POV that this book discusses cults--a claim which is UNSOURCED.BabyDweezil 22:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, it is not OR, because it is a secondary source, not a primary source. And the book was written in 1912 - when many did believe the group contained these qualities.  Smee 03:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC).
 * No its the book that being discussed--of course its a primary source--a secondary source would say Grey characterized the Mormons as a cult. And your opinions of what "many did believe" are just your POV. Find a source to back it up. BabyDweezil 04:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Wilhelm Reich did not start a psychotherapy cult
This clearly distorted and unsourced claim has been removed. This is an article about literature, anyway. BabyDweezil 04:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Another inappropriate inclusion
A "Growing Up Gotti" episode in 2005 featured a Social Therapist (follower of Fred Newman and Lenora Fulani) intervening in the family problems of Victoria Gotti and her teenage sons.---a social therapist is not a cultist nor did the show portray the therapist as a cultist. BabyDweezil 21:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV
Citing groups as cults here is POV, for example mentioning Scientology etc. at the end of the article. I have added a NPOV template until this has been discussed/resolved. S facets 00:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding the NPOV tag. However the issue here is not one of classification, merely as referenced by popular culture, literature over time.  Smee 04:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC).


 * So why is Scientology (just one example) being given as an example re the Southpark episode? Does the episode mention that the group is a cult? S facets 04:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the article title should be moved to: "Cults and new religious movements in literature and popular culture". I will do so.  Smee 05:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Doesnt matter--inclusion without citing secondary sources makes it entirely POV and original research. BabyDweezil 22:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it does not. We are not going to always find instances where something refers to a cult or new religious movement in popular culture, and directly afterwards, a secondary sources states:  "This was a reference to Cults and new religious movements in literature and popular culture."  That is simply silly.  Smee 22:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

Entirely POV and Original Research
This article cites no secondary sources to support claims of any of this being examples of "Cults and new religious movements in literature and popular culture." The article is entirely original research and POV. BabyDweezil 17:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The name of the article has been changed in order to be more inclusionary and accomodating to those who object to the term "cult". Smee 22:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Unless you have a secondary source stating that any particular work is an example of "Cults and new religious movements in literature and popular culture", it is original research and the inclusion is entirely arbitrary. BabyDweezil 22:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

copying quote from different editor here below because it is relevant to this discussion :
 * I disagree with the assertion made at talk:cult that this article must be referenced with the same rigour using scholarly sources as the article cult, because this is highly unusual for popular culture articles. Andries 19:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC) [added by Smee 22:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC). ]


 * So anyone can claim whatever they want, for instance, the entirely bogus claim that Wilhelm Reich started a therapy cult? BabyDweezil 22:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You may wish to add the "citation needed" tag, instead of simply removing whole sections of an article without consensus.  Smee 22:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC).


 * Editors of popular culture articles have the same burden. as it pertains to sources, as any other article when material is challenged. See WP:ATT ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That is untrue. If you believe otherwise then please start deleting half of Wikipedia. Andries 21:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The argument to the effect of "if X (citing a particular, standard guideline such as WP:ATT) is true then you have to delete half of Wikipedia" has always struck me as a bit fishy. BabyDweezil 21:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You are not a newebie, Andries, so I am surprised by your comment. You know that if any an challenges any material in any article on the basis of lack of sources, the burden to provide sources is on the editor wanting to keep that material, not on the one wanting to delete it. From WP:ATT and WP:V: Editors should provide attribution for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The article has lacked sources for two months, and includes OR as per above comments. We could replace the two tags with noncompliant. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And why not replace them with in specific places where certain editors have issues?  Compare to Religion in The Simpsons, where there are almost no citations at all.  Or all of the "Trivia" section from The Joy of Sect.  (Also a pop culture reference style article...)  I maintain that with literary popular culture references, the standards are often not the same.  Adding  tags would be a more neutral way to go...  Smee 06:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC).


 * Pop culture articles do not have a special set of policies. If not challenged, these articles may remain un-sourced and unattributed for years to come. But the moment that a challenge is made, WP:V (or the new WP:ATT) kicks immediately in. As for your proposal to add fact to the specific places, I do not thing that it is possible, Smee. Almost all sentences are either OR or are not attributed to a reliable published source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, that is your opinion. The fact of the matter is, most sentences refer, in one way or another, to the actual source they are talking about.  There is just no formal "citation" afterwards.  This is an easy remedy, just a tedious one that will take time.  Thus the need for citation tags, and not obtrusive label headings...  Smee 10:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC).
 * No Smee, that is not my opinion, but Wikipedia's official policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No, they refer to the subject being discussed, but they do not refer to a secondary source that verifies the claim that this is an example of cults in literature or culture. I can't say "Harry Potter is an example of Satanism in literature" and use a Harry Potter book as a source. Refer to WP:RS. So citing the example your talking about as a source will not be sufficient--that simply makes this an original research essay, and needs to be tagged as such. BabyDweezil 13:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That is a very silly argument. See The Joy of Sect, the section on "Cultural References".  Every single example is not backed up by a secondary source - in certain cases the example itself is self-explanatory.  In any event, more citations will be provided.  Smee 14:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Before you make offensive remarks and call my explanations "silly," please note that this article is called "Cults and new religious movements in literature and popular culture" and NOT the name of a particular specified work like the "Joy of Sects." Thus, you cannot include specific works in the category simply based on your own interpretation of which one is a cult and which one is an example of cults in literature. So spare me your incessant condescending remarks and refer instead to WP:RS and WP:V. BabyDweezil 14:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I will not respond to uncivil language and violations of No Personal Attacks. Smee 14:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

WP:BLP issue
The article currently has the following sentence:

''A "Growing Up Gotti" episode in 2005 featured a Social Therapist (follower of Fred Newman and Lenora Fulani) intervening in the family problems of Victoria Gotti and her teenage sons. ''

No source is given that indicates that this is an example of "Cults and new religious movements in literature and popular culture," but instead is a labeling of an unnamed living individual who is characteried as a "follower" of two named living individuals as cultists. This is in violation of WP:BLP and I will remove it unless someone can provide a reliable source indicating that this episode is an example of "Cults and new religious movements in literature and popular culture." BabyDweezil 15:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If anything, it would be a reference to a fictional "Fred Newman and Lenora Fulani", and would thus not be a violation of WP:BLP, but rather something that falls within the perfectly acceptable realm of satire and parody. Smee 15:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

This is becoming quite a strange discussion. If there is no willingness to cleanup the article, maybe the best course of action will be to AfD it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There was consensus to create the article initially from a discussion on the talkpage of the Cult article. Smee 15:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC).


 * Fred Newman and Lenora Fulani are not mentioned in the TV show, satirically, or otherwise; they are mentioned in this article, and clearly not as "fictional characters.". I'm not at all following the line of argumentation. BabyDweezil 15:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, just because something appears on this article, does not mean it is classified as anything, just that it has appeared in the discussion of "Cults and new religious movements in literature and popular culture", in the general public space. Smee 15:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC).
 * I am totally not following your explanation. Putting it in an article called ""Cults and new religious movements in literature and popular culture" would mean its being given as an example of ""Cults and new religious movements in literature and popular culture." What else could it possibly mean to include it in the article?BabyDweezil 16:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but inclusion in such an article does not denote something in particular as a "cult", rather simply as part of the relevant discussion in popular culture. Smee 16:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Then there is no reason to put it in the article, and per WP:BLP, it is being removed since it is implying these individuals are cultists by its inclusion. BabyDweezil 16:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not implying that anyone is "cultist" that is your opinion. If you read the material it merely states that the therapist was a follower of their methodologies.  Smee 16:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC).


 * If there is no implication that anyone is a cultist, then why is it in this article? BabyDweezil 16:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section header
I disagree with the assertion made at talk:cult that this article must be referenced with the same rigour using scholarly sources as the article cult, because this is highly unusual for popular culture articles. Andries 19:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Opus Dei
Kindly take note of this discussion of three editors (one of whom is myself) at the Opus Dei talk page, here. I copy it here:


 * I have just finished reading Dan Browns The Da Vinci Code, and have to disagree with the section on Activities and work about Opus Dei being depicted as a sinister cult. Only two characters from OD were mentioned, and even then they were conned them sleves into doing bad things, thinking that it was for the best. It is those two that were depicted as sinister, not the organisation. I am not associated with OD or anything in the story, but I do like facts, and as such I think the section on The Da Vinci Code should be re written slightly. But, as many people have said before, this is only my view...


 * Kindly check this out: opus dei and da vinci and catholic answers. I have not read the book myself, so kindly help disentagle the issue. Thanks. :) Thomas S. Major 04:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't even agree that "two" characters are described as sinister. One is portraied as fanatically devout and misguided simpleton who was deceived into commiting murders, which eventually result in accidental death of his mentor who specically tell this simpleton not to resort to revenge for his death. My guess is that most Opus Dei members or for that matter Catholic haven't read the book. And lastly, the book was so s£$%, I want my money back. FWBOarticle 11:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Riders of the Purple sage
Ive tagged the section as POV since it is too loose in its distinction between the fictional characters in the story and having Mormons referred to "cults in literature." BabyDweezil 00:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The section adequately attributes the information directly to the source itself. Smee 00:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC).


 * The interpretion that this book represents anything to do with "cults in literature" is entirely the POV of whoever added this. One would have to find a WP:RS that describes this book as being literature about "cults." BabyDweezil 15:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As the source is attributed within the article, rather than simply cited, this avoids this problem entirely. Smee 22:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC).
 * The source does not in anyway verify the POV inclusion of this book in an artcile about "cults in literature", since the author does not mention cults. Thus it is original research representing the POV that this book discusses cults--a claim which is UNSOURCED.BabyDweezil 22:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, it is not OR, because it is a secondary source, not a primary source. And the book was written in 1912 - when many did believe the group contained these qualities.  Smee 03:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC).
 * No its the book that being discussed--of course its a primary source--a secondary source would say Grey characterized the Mormons as a cult. And your opinions of what "many did believe" are just your POV. Find a source to back it up. BabyDweezil 04:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Wilhelm Reich did not start a psychotherapy cult
This clearly distorted and unsourced claim has been removed. This is an article about literature, anyway. BabyDweezil 04:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Another inappropriate inclusion
A "Growing Up Gotti" episode in 2005 featured a Social Therapist (follower of Fred Newman and Lenora Fulani) intervening in the family problems of Victoria Gotti and her teenage sons.---a social therapist is not a cultist nor did the show portray the therapist as a cultist. BabyDweezil 21:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV
Citing groups as cults here is POV, for example mentioning Scientology etc. at the end of the article. I have added a NPOV template until this has been discussed/resolved. S facets 00:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding the NPOV tag. However the issue here is not one of classification, merely as referenced by popular culture, literature over time.  Smee 04:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC).


 * So why is Scientology (just one example) being given as an example re the Southpark episode? Does the episode mention that the group is a cult? S facets 04:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the article title should be moved to: "Cults and new religious movements in literature and popular culture". I will do so.  Smee 05:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Doesnt matter--inclusion without citing secondary sources makes it entirely POV and original research. BabyDweezil 22:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it does not. We are not going to always find instances where something refers to a cult or new religious movement in popular culture, and directly afterwards, a secondary sources states:  "This was a reference to Cults and new religious movements in literature and popular culture."  That is simply silly.  Smee 22:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

Entirely POV and Original Research
This article cites no secondary sources to support claims of any of this being examples of "Cults and new religious movements in literature and popular culture." The article is entirely original research and POV. BabyDweezil 17:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The name of the article has been changed in order to be more inclusionary and accomodating to those who object to the term "cult". Smee 22:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Unless you have a secondary source stating that any particular work is an example of "Cults and new religious movements in literature and popular culture", it is original research and the inclusion is entirely arbitrary. BabyDweezil 22:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

copying quote from different editor here below because it is relevant to this discussion :
 * I disagree with the assertion made at talk:cult that this article must be referenced with the same rigour using scholarly sources as the article cult, because this is highly unusual for popular culture articles. Andries 19:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC) [added by Smee 22:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC). ]


 * So anyone can claim whatever they want, for instance, the entirely bogus claim that Wilhelm Reich started a therapy cult? BabyDweezil 22:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You may wish to add the "citation needed" tag, instead of simply removing whole sections of an article without consensus.  Smee 22:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC).


 * Editors of popular culture articles have the same burden. as it pertains to sources, as any other article when material is challenged. See WP:ATT ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That is untrue. If you believe otherwise then please start deleting half of Wikipedia. Andries 21:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The argument to the effect of "if X (citing a particular, standard guideline such as WP:ATT) is true then you have to delete half of Wikipedia" has always struck me as a bit fishy. BabyDweezil 21:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You are not a newebie, Andries, so I am surprised by your comment. You know that if any an challenges any material in any article on the basis of lack of sources, the burden to provide sources is on the editor wanting to keep that material, not on the one wanting to delete it. From WP:ATT and WP:V: Editors should provide attribution for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The article has lacked sources for two months, and includes OR as per above comments. We could replace the two tags with noncompliant. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And why not replace them with in specific places where certain editors have issues?  Compare to Religion in The Simpsons, where there are almost no citations at all.  Or all of the "Trivia" section from The Joy of Sect.  (Also a pop culture reference style article...)  I maintain that with literary popular culture references, the standards are often not the same.  Adding  tags would be a more neutral way to go...  Smee 06:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC).


 * Pop culture articles do not have a special set of policies. If not challenged, these articles may remain un-sourced and unattributed for years to come. But the moment that a challenge is made, WP:V (or the new WP:ATT) kicks immediately in. As for your proposal to add fact to the specific places, I do not thing that it is possible, Smee. Almost all sentences are either OR or are not attributed to a reliable published source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, that is your opinion. The fact of the matter is, most sentences refer, in one way or another, to the actual source they are talking about.  There is just no formal "citation" afterwards.  This is an easy remedy, just a tedious one that will take time.  Thus the need for citation tags, and not obtrusive label headings...  Smee 10:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC).
 * No Smee, that is not my opinion, but Wikipedia's official policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No, they refer to the subject being discussed, but they do not refer to a secondary source that verifies the claim that this is an example of cults in literature or culture. I can't say "Harry Potter is an example of Satanism in literature" and use a Harry Potter book as a source. Refer to WP:RS. So citing the example your talking about as a source will not be sufficient--that simply makes this an original research essay, and needs to be tagged as such. BabyDweezil 13:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That is a very silly argument. See The Joy of Sect, the section on "Cultural References".  Every single example is not backed up by a secondary source - in certain cases the example itself is self-explanatory.  In any event, more citations will be provided.  Smee 14:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Before you make offensive remarks and call my explanations "silly," please note that this article is called "Cults and new religious movements in literature and popular culture" and NOT the name of a particular specified work like the "Joy of Sects." Thus, you cannot include specific works in the category simply based on your own interpretation of which one is a cult and which one is an example of cults in literature. So spare me your incessant condescending remarks and refer instead to WP:RS and WP:V. BabyDweezil 14:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I will not respond to uncivil language and violations of No Personal Attacks. Smee 14:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

WP:BLP issue
The article currently has the following sentence:

''A "Growing Up Gotti" episode in 2005 featured a Social Therapist (follower of Fred Newman and Lenora Fulani) intervening in the family problems of Victoria Gotti and her teenage sons. ''

No source is given that indicates that this is an example of "Cults and new religious movements in literature and popular culture," but instead is a labeling of an unnamed living individual who is characteried as a "follower" of two named living individuals as cultists. This is in violation of WP:BLP and I will remove it unless someone can provide a reliable source indicating that this episode is an example of "Cults and new religious movements in literature and popular culture." BabyDweezil 15:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If anything, it would be a reference to a fictional "Fred Newman and Lenora Fulani", and would thus not be a violation of WP:BLP, but rather something that falls within the perfectly acceptable realm of satire and parody. Smee 15:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

This is becoming quite a strange discussion. If there is no willingness to cleanup the article, maybe the best course of action will be to AfD it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There was consensus to create the article initially from a discussion on the talkpage of the Cult article. Smee 15:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC).


 * Fred Newman and Lenora Fulani are not mentioned in the TV show, satirically, or otherwise; they are mentioned in this article, and clearly not as "fictional characters.". I'm not at all following the line of argumentation. BabyDweezil 15:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, just because something appears on this article, does not mean it is classified as anything, just that it has appeared in the discussion of "Cults and new religious movements in literature and popular culture", in the general public space. Smee 15:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC).
 * I am totally not following your explanation. Putting it in an article called ""Cults and new religious movements in literature and popular culture" would mean its being given as an example of ""Cults and new religious movements in literature and popular culture." What else could it possibly mean to include it in the article?BabyDweezil 16:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but inclusion in such an article does not denote something in particular as a "cult", rather simply as part of the relevant discussion in popular culture. Smee 16:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Then there is no reason to put it in the article, and per WP:BLP, it is being removed since it is implying these individuals are cultists by its inclusion. BabyDweezil 16:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not implying that anyone is "cultist" that is your opinion. If you read the material it merely states that the therapist was a follower of their methodologies.  Smee 16:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC).


 * If there is no implication that anyone is a cultist, then why is it in this article? BabyDweezil 16:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

AFD
I have placed the article in AfD, given the lack of willingness to cleanup this article from OR and the lack of sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The result of the AFD was no consensus, see above. Smee 15:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

Can we add Holy Smoke!?
Holy Smoke! starring kate Winslet ? See CESNUR article about it. Andries 18:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good addition to me, there are even plenty of sources for it... Smee 18:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

Connecting material between two sections; Fred Newman as playwright
The first sentence of the paragraph on major figures (Blavatsky, etc.) had been moved to the last sentence of the previous paragraph about NRM/cult leaders as novelists, poets, etc. This gave a false impression, since most of the people in this paragraph never had broad cultural influence comparable to that of Blavatsky and Reich. I deleted this sentence rather than restoring it to the correct paragraph, since a subhead had been added making clear the topic of the Blavatsky et al. section. Also I restored the sentence in the section on NRM/cult leaders as novelists, poets, etc. referring to Fred Newman, founder of social therapy, but called it "social therapy" instead of the "social therapy cult". I would be surprised if Newman would continue to object to his "Sally and Tom" being listed in the same breath with works of the caliber of Eli Siegel's "Hot Afternoons Have Been in Montana" and Gurdjieff's Meetings with Remarkable Men. Lighten up, Fred; it's actually a pretty good play.--Dking 21:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOR
Please do not add unattributed opinions or original research to this article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In Wikipedia, we only report what published / reliable sources say about a subject. This article is a compilatons of tidbits of information that some editors here believe to be about Cults and new religious movements in literature and popular culture. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

mergefrom - List of Scientology references in popular culture
I will add a bit more later but for now, I think List of Scientology references in popular culture violates WP:NOT, an indiscriminate collection of information. I think that we are trying to build a real article here which is not the case at List of Scientology references in popular culture and the list should be merged in. --Justanother 20:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The other issue is Avoid trivia sections in articles. Again, the true article is this one here. A separated list of trivia is not appropriate. --Justanother 20:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Polls are not needed, Justanother. If there are any objections to the merge, these will be made and addressed in discussions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts on the mechanics of bringing Scn list over here
OK, I know some will say I am premature but I want to have a place separate from any debate where we can discuss ideas of how such a merge would look. Thinks like 1) do we make a separate Scn section; 2) can we find RS that discusses the near meme-like appearance of Scn in technorati culture; etc. --Justanother 20:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss
I am concerned about the lack of discussion about adding material to this article that is purely original research, or editor's opinion. That is not acceptable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

This article, as it stands, does not comply with Wikipedia content policies. Tagged as such. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Jossi, you have been arbitrarily deleting large chunks of material from this article (and without adequately describing on the history page what you had done). The issue is not my "adding" material but my restoring what you deleted. I have just restored the material on Christian Science with citations. There is no reason for keeping this organization out of the article--it is included in Melton's Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America and I could provide more citations if necessary on this point. Twain and Cather's criticisms of Christian Science are mentioned in the Wiki articles on these two writers without anyone deciding they had to be deleted. The paragraph I wrote is not hostile to Christian Science--I made it clear that this church became more accepted in later years. But any article on cults and literature certainly must mention that two of the greatest novelists in American history felt strongly enough about Christian Science's alleged abuses in the first decade of the 20th century that they both wrote books about it.

I have also restored Ayn Rand and Wilhelm Reich to the list with citations showing that serious charges of cult-like behavior were leveled against their movements. You may be among those who insist that only religious groups can be defined as cults. This is a minority viewpoint. Most experts on cults agree that a large number of secular oriented groups (self-improvement, marketing, psychotherapy, political) fall under the rubric because of their attempts at totalistic control of the lives of their followers. Also, it is important to keep both Rand and Reich in this article since their influence in the world of ideas demonstrates that even groups on the fringe sometimes have important things to say and exert significant influence beyond their ranks.

Finally, Jossi, you have been after me for many months to footnote this article exhaustively even though such demands are not usually made about popular culture articles. But when I exhaustively footnoted the paragraph on social therapy and the "Growing Up Gotti" episode, you promptly removed it. Isn't this inconsistent?--Dking 18:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * A POV that group X may be considered a "cult" does not warrant an inclusion in this article, unless that POV is widely held. Otherwise you are violating WP:NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * For example, there is only one citation about Wilhelm Reich referring to "cult" (Brady). Same for Ayn Rand (Walker). Same for Christian Science (Martin). So, you are simply asserting these to be "cults" on the basis of minority viewpoints by fact of including these in this article, and that is simply not acceptable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

If you do not agree to the removal of that material, I will bring this up in an WP:RFC and proceed with additional steps of dispute resolution process, if that does not resolve this content dispute. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Example of original research
This: "One of the earliest descriptions of an individual resembling a cult leader in the modern sense of the term was in "Alexander the False Prophet," a satire by Lucian of Samosata, a second century AD writer." That means that we could add the same about Jesus, Moses, or any other charismatic prophets in the Abrahamic religions. That sentence is an examplate of what  we do not do in Wikipedia. Unless you can find a source that describes "Alexander the False Prophet" as a cult leader, that material does not belong in this article (or any other article for that matter). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Warpath
Last month, you tried unsuccessfully to get this article removed from Wikipedia. I was totally unaware of this until afterwards--you didn't have the courtesy to send a message to my discussion page. (If I had known I would have vigorously participated in the discussion.) Curiously this came right after an attempt by one BabyDweezil (now banned indefinitely from Wikipedia for bullying and disruption) to get the article on "political cults" (which I have also worked on for many months although I did not create it), deleted from Wikipedia. BabyDweezil also strongly supported your attempt to ban this article as well. The new tactic seems to be to kill the article bit by bit. You have apparently picked arbitrary items to focus on in your first stage, since I can't see any difference between the things you object to and those you don't object to. And I ask you: (a) if Christian Science has its own entry in Melton's encyclopedia on cults, why can't it be mentioned in an article on cults in literature? (b) If persons as eminent as Michael Shermer and the late Murray Rothbard describe the Ayn Rand movement as having had cult-like characteristics in its heydey, why can't the late Rand be included in a section on fiction writers who have been regarded rightly or wrongly as cult leaders? (c) Why are you objecting to properly cited material about the literary work of the founder of social therapy (BabyDweezil's organization) being included in this article? I am including below a screed that BabyDweezil put up yesterday on his or her own discussion page (which is still active since it is not included in the ban) as part of continuing his/her bullying tactics from afar re this article and my participation in editing this and other articles.--Dking 20:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * "AWRIGHT, DKING'S CRAP IS GETTING ANNOYING


 * In the article Cults and new religious movements in literature and popular culture


 * Dking has headed a section "Literary works by founders of NRMs or cults." In that section he has inserted


 * "Fred Newman, founder of social therapy, is a prolific playwright whose best-known work is Sally and Tom (The American Way) (1995), a musical (with Annie Roboff) about the slave-master romance of Sally Hemings and Thomas Jefferson."


 * For the zillionth time, Dennis King, like Chip Berlet, has proclaimed a living person as a cultist, in this instance as "founder of a cult" by virtue of being in that subsection. With no documentation. Simply flagrant, defamatory POV pushing. Dennis King knows the rules here. But continues to violate them, because he is ALLOWED to violate them. I am currently sick to death of complaining about this flagrant POV pushing by marginal, opinioned, and nasty writers like Dennis King who are using Wikipedia as a forum for defamatory crap they cannot get printed by a legitimate publisher, and Wikipedia tolerating it. It is precisely my attempts to try to counterbalance this nonsense that has landed me in "trouble." That and nothing more. Is Wikipedia going to do something about it or not? I mean, poop or get off the pot already. It's not like this is a secret, or that a zillion admins arent aware of this. BabyDweezil 15:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)"

Rather that make spurious claims, it would be better if you address the concerns expressed by me above, as well as address the concerns raised in the AFD. The article survived AFD, but that does not mean that some of the material in the article belongs here. Address the concerns, Dking. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I notice that you failed to answer any of the questions I asked you. Why not?--Dking 21:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I replied:


 * For example, there is only one citation about Wilhelm Reich referring to "cult" (Brady). Same for Ayn Rand (Walker). Same for Christian Science (Martin). So, you are simply asserting these to be "cults" on the basis of minority viewpoints by fact of including these in this article, and that is simply not acceptable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Who is Walker? (I cited Shermer and Rothbard.) Who is Martin? (I cited Melton's Encyclopedic Handbook on Cults in America). And are you going to persist in trying to remove Fred Newman and social therapy from this article? If so, why?--Dking 21:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not even know who Fred Newman is, Dking. I am reading the articles in Wikipedia about Rand, Reich, and others. These articles represent the consensus of sources about subjects treated. I do not see in these articles anything but minority POVs as it relates to the label "cult". As such, adding them here as "cults" is the facto asserting them to be such, and unacceptable from WP:NPOV. If you believe that these articles are incorrect, go fix them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I was unaware that when I work on a Wikipedia article my ultimate source of authority and citation should be other Wikipedia articles! Truly, this is a closed-loop theory of editing. Whatever the Wiki article on Rand says, both Rothbart and Shermer, distinguished and famous public intellectuals, flat-out call the group a cult. And if you don't even know who Fred Newman is, what was your motivation for removing mention of him and his social therapy from this article (in one case even after I provided more than adequate citations)?--Dking 22:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Straw man argument, Dking. I am not asserting that you need to use WP articles as sources for other articles. What I am arguing is about wide consensus of sources, which these articles may represent (and if they don't, then go fix them). Otherwise, in an article about Dictators in literature and popular culture we could add any person who has been described as such by someone who has an antagonistic/politically motivated POV against a political leader. In that article, you would list only those about which there is wide consensus of sources about being dictators. You see, in an article about Fidel Castro we can present competing viewpoints about Castro being or not being a dictator. But in the pop culture article we could not, and that would violate WP:NPOV and certainly the undue weight provision. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Same applies to this Fred Newman. In that article, it is mentioned that some critics assert a cultic dependency. That is well sourced in that article where there are rebuttals and counter arguments. By placing this person in this article you are de facto asserting the viewpoint of these critics as a fact. That is not what NPOV is about, Dking. Also note that you may be violating WP:BLP in this case. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Framing this content dispute
My intention is seek the removal content from this article that is not based on wide consensus of sources. The argument for removal is a violation of WP:NPOV. This includes mentions of:


 * Mark Twain, Willa Cather, and Christian Science
 * Wilhelm Reich
 * Ayn Rand
 * Fred Newman

I am also arguing for the removal of the "Ancient" section, on the basis of violation opf WP:NOR, as well as the removal of the sentence "Since the advent of the anti-cult movement in the 1970s, numerous thrillers have been written in which the hero, often a private detective, rescues a young person from a cult and/or uncovers nefarious murders plotted by a cult", on the same basis of OR violation.

I have no problems with other material in the article. If there is no consensus for that removal, I would proceed with the first step in dispute resolution, by means of an RfC. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Jossi, there is no logic to your choice of these particular items for dispute. This is just the opening wedge for whittling down this article and establishing policies on Wikipedia that no one can even allude to the fact that a group is widely regarded as a cult (either benign or destructive) if the cult disputes being called a cult. This whole thing is absurd. Do you deny that scores of detective-style thrillers featuring real or fictional cults have been published since the advent of heightened controversy over cults in the 1970s? Do you deny that Mark Twain wrote a book highly critical of Christian Science at a time when it was regarded in a manner similar to today's cults by many? Or that it has its own entry in Melton's book? Or that it is controversial today because of recent media attention to the issue of its denial of medical care to children? And why do you dispute the reference to Twain but not to Willa Cather? Finally I note that although you say you've never heard of Fred Newman, you are quite eager to make him the hinge of this dispute.--Dking 00:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * DKing, you are making statements that are in contradiction with the explicit principles on our content policies. But first, let me address your arguments:
 * "Do you deny that scores of detective-style thrillers featuring real or fictional cults have been published since the advent of heightened controversy over cults in the 1970s?" 
 * I do neither deny, nor affirm that. Produce a source that supports that statement and it can remain. The burden is on you, as the editor wanting to add the material. See WP:ATT
 * "Do you deny that Mark Twain wrote a book highly critical of Christian Science at a time when it was regarded in a manner similar to today's cults by many?"
 * The fact that Twain wrote such a book, is not denied. What is being challenged is your unattributed assertion that it was regarded by unnamed many as a cult at that time. That is a violation of WP:NOR, unless you can provide a source that describe Christian Science as such at that time
 * "Finally I note that although you say you've never heard of Fred Newman, you are quite eager to make him the hinge of this dispute"
 * You are violating WP:AGF, in asserting that I have a hidden motive in making that Fred Newman the hinge of this dispute. That is not so. First time I heard about him was a few days back when I looked to cleanup this article.
 * The material that I have outlined stands challenged. There is no "absurdity" in applying our content policies to articles. If there is disagreement about the application of these policies, we need to pursue dispute resolution. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Name change
The use of the term cult is contentious. It is also subjective. It is also POV and derogatory. There is no "Big Book of Cults" (the "Periodic Table of Cults"?) that is the definitive answer to whether or not a particular group is a cult. Is there a MOS for NRMs? If not, I will start one and this has got to be the first issue we cover. For now we should change the name to New religious movements in literature and popular culture. You can mention in the intro that some NRM's are alleged to be "cults". And please, we should not get into older or less-used definitions of the word "cult". Its modern usage is derogatory. Thanks. Comments, please? --Justanother 03:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The chief secular usage of "cult" today is to refer to totalistic groups that abuse and control the lives of their members on behalf of a charismatic leader. With various modifications, the term is used in this way by the secular anti-cult movement, by the Christian countercult movement (as supplemental to its doctrinal considerations), by a solid and broad grouping of scholars and social scientists, and by the media and the general public. (Whether a particular group actually fits the above definition is another question.) This usage is reflected in the fact that Wikipedia has a lengthy article on cults and several subsidiary articles that also use the word "cult" in their titles.


 * On this page, we are seeing a kind of Orwellian language game reflecting the viewpoint of various cults and of cult apologist scholars. First, you define cults as ONLY including religious groups. Then you define controversial religious groups as being New Religious Movements and demand that "NRM" replace "cult" because the latter is allegedly unfair and bigoted. Once this inversion of language is accomplished it becomes extremely difficult to carry on any discourse about the very real problem of abusive cults, both religious and non-religious, that are in reality doing great harm to society and to large numbers of individuals.


 * I have no objection to the term NRM being used to designate certain well-known groups such as the Unification Church, and even as a term embracing all nonmainstream religious groups that are relatively new (no matter where on the spectrum of cult/non-cult they may lie). Such groups do have common characteristics (e.g., the influence in many cases of New Age ideas, an "outsider" status in American religious life, a cross-fertilization of ideas and techniques between one another, a tendency towards charismatic leadership, etc.) apart from whether or not they are cults. But NRM is not a satisfactory replacement for cult, because (a) many cults are not religious; (b) many cults, including the most important religious ones, are not new; (c) some cults are not "movements" but rather are small secretive groups that do not reach out and grow in the manner of a real movement; (d) the concept of an NRM does not address the real attributes and real problems included in the concept of a cult; and (e) an Orwellian inversion of terminology can only degrade intellectual and scholarly discourse by enabling cult apologists to more easily engage in denial, and encouraging cult critics to adopt a hypocritical code language.


 * Some months ago, I put in this article various phrases like "groups regarded as cults, whether rightly or wrong" "alleged cults" etc. Someone other than myself removed all these phrases on grounds they were weasel words. I have no objection to such qualifications being restored, perhaps in different phrasing. But I doubt that would satisfy anyone at this point.--Dking 17:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I would appreciate it if you stop re-adding disputed material to this article. I have filed an RfC, and now the appropriate thing is to make our arguments and to wait for non-involved editors to assist with the dispute. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I would appreciate it if you would withdraw your comment that my cites on Lucian were misleading. I cited the online text of Lucian, and I cited remarks by two translators that called into question the provenance of Lucian's story. I did not claim that any of these three cites answered your own objection.--Dking 21:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC) However, the Harmon intro does refer to archeological evidence for Alexander's existence and influence during Lucian's time, so my cite to Harmon was in that sense wrong. I have removed the reference to Harmon's introduction along with the comment from the later translator which becomes moot for our purposes; it may be that Lucian mixed a real Alexander with someone from an earlier Hellenistic satire, but that is not relevant for this article.--Dking 22:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You keep editing the article despite the filing of the RfC. When an RfC is filed, best is to wait for third-party input. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Your edit reads: "One of the earliest descriptions of a cult leader who allegedly manipulated and exploited his followers was in "Alexander the False Prophet,". Produce a reliable published source that describes that work in these terms. Otherwise that text is unattributed opinion and in violation of WP:ATT. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

RFC Summary
A dispute about the appropriateness of the inclusion of literary works of Mark Twain, Willa Cather, Wilhelm Reich, Ayn Rand, and Fred Newman in this article.

Comments by involved editors
''Please do place your comments on your section only. Do not reply or comment on the section marked for third-party editors responding to this RfC.

Comment by
My intention is seek the removal content from this article that is not based on wide consensus of sources as it pertains to their association of being "leading members of cults" or related to "cults". The argument for removal is a violation of WP:NPOV and original research, as the sources provided do not support the assertion that their authors are "leaders of cults" or that they wrote about "cults". This includes mentions of:


 * Mark Twain, Willa Cather, and Christian Science
 * Wilhelm Reich
 * Ayn Rand
 * Fred Newman

I am also arguing for the removal of the "Ancient" section, on the basis of violation of WP:NOR, as well as the removal of the sentence "Since the advent of the anti-cult movement in the 1970s, numerous thrillers have been written in which the hero, often a private detective, rescues a young person from a cult and/or uncovers nefarious murders plotted by a cult", on the same basis of OR violation and lack of attribution. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I will reply to Dking's lengthy comments in a few days, as I am busy now with another project in Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * But I can start by saying that these references are better discussed and added alongside other sources which do not assert that narrow viewpoint, in the articles about these people. Otherwise we will be adding just the viewpoints of critics of these people and would end up in violation of WP:BLP in those cases that the person is alive, and in all cases in violation of WP:NPOV. I will add my counter arguments point by point, in a few days. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I fail to see the need to put the citations above in the article at all. They are only for the purpose of establishing that particular individuals or movements can validly be included in this article because proper citations exist. This is an article about cults in literature and popular culture; it is not the appropriate place for a bibliography of charges and defenses re particular groups which should be (and many of them are) in the Wikipedia articles on those groups.--Dking 16:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You are avoiding my main argument, Dking. I do not dispute that these sources exist, neither I dispute that some of these sources characterize certain individuals or groups as related to "cults". What I am disputing is that by adding these people and groups to this article you are asserting that as a fact, when actually it is only the opinion of these sources that can hardly be considered anything else than partisan (i.e. the opinion of critics of these people and groups). If a certain group is widely considered a "cult" by the fact that theres is wide consensus of sources about it (such as in the case of CoS), then fine it can be included. I have asked you several times to read WP:NPOV, have you? An extreme analogy may throw some light. An article about "Mass murder in popular culture", should include a mention of George W. Bush based on Islamist sources? Would the same article allow the inclusion of Ariel Sharon based on anti-Israeli sources? Surely not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by
I see the problem as using a derogatory term to indicate NRM's. Anti-religious and/or anti-NRM activists like to tar groups with the "cult" epithet but there is no consensus on whether many such groups are "cults" in the pejorative sense or even how you would clearly define the term. One real and easy solution I see is just remove the vast majority of uses of the term "cult. A line in the intro that "some consider some, etc" is sufficient. This also speaks to the need for a NRM MOS as once suggested to me by my friend, Mr. User:Anynobody. --Justanother 21:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments by
[''I revised my comments below on March 27, adding an additional section for citations proving that scholars and mental health professionals take the concept of psychotherapy cults seriously. I also added cites or quotes to the Christian Science, Ayn Rand and Reich sections, and corrected a mistake in the Reich section in which I had attributed a Gardner quote to the wrong Gardner book.'']

I agree that after an opening statement it should not be necessary to use the term "cult" to designate any real (and still existing) organizations or movements mentioned in this article. Thus, I agree that Reich should be described as the "founder of orgonomy" not as the "founder of a psychotherapy cult" (actually Reichian therapy was as much bodywork as psychotherapy--my mistake). I also agree that Fred Newman's movement should continue to be called simply "social therapy" not the "social therapy cult" (I made that change some time ago). In terms of fictional cults mentioned in the descriptions of novels, I suggest we keep the use of the word "cult" if the author uses it for his own fictional creation.

What follows is not presented as "proof" that any particular group is a cult; it is only a compilation of published sources recognized by Wikipedia that I think validates the inclusion of the particular group and/or its founder in this article.

1. Ayn Rand belongs in this article. Citations are as follows:

a. Jeff Walker, The Ayn Rand Cult, Open Court, 1998. Called a "solid contribution to 20th century intellectual history" by Library Journal.

b. Nathaniel Branden, My Years with Ayn Rand, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, 1999. Branden was the head of the Rand "Collective" until 1968 and also was Rand's lover. "There was terrible violence done to every one's emotional life--the repression or suppression of any feeling that clashed with what an ideal Objectivist was supposed to experience..." p. 223. "To our more fanatical and conformist students, Objectivism did not signify merely the body of abstract philosophical propositions and arguments that we wrote about and taught. Its meaning was expanded to include every personal like and dislike of Ayn's....These students proved that they were good Objectivists through their skill at mimicking Ayn's viewpoints down to the smallest detail--re-creating Ayn, as it were, within themselves. They further proved it by watching one another, suspiciously and critically, for deviations; if they could not match Ayn in intellect, they could at least match her in harshness." p. 307. Also see the list of basic premises of life in the Rand movement ("Ayn Rand is the greatest human being who has ever lived," etc. etc.), p. 226.

c. Ellen Plasil, Therapist, New York: St. Martin's Press, 1985. Harrowing account of sexual abuse of patients in Objectivist therapy. Nathaniel Branden's review ("The Dark Side of Objectivism," Free Inquiry, Summer 1987), is especially pertinent here. "I recommend it [Plasil's book] to anyone interested in the psychology of cultism and how individuals can be led to suspend their moral judgment and common sense in the name of idealism and loyalty--and out of an overzealous desire to belong somewhere." And: "There is an irrational, cultish tendency in many intellectual movements, and Objectivism, alas, is no exception." 

d. Michael Shermer, "The Unlikeliest Cult in History," Skeptic, vol. 2, no. 2, 1993.

e. Murray N. Rothbard, "The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult," 1972 (Murray Rothbard Archives). Rothbard, a major American economic thinker, wrote from personal experience. He was associated briefly with the Rand movement as described in Branden's book.

f. Donna Greiner and Theodore B. Kinni, Ayn Rand and Business, New York: TEXERE, 2001. These authors are fans of Rand's ideas but nevertheless do not try to cover up the cultish history of the Collective: "Unhappily, as Objectivism spread, so did the authoritarianism and intolerance of its inner circle. Members who questioned the philosophy or decisions of Ayn or the Brandens often found themselves excommunicated from the group. The Saturday night sessions in Ayn's apartment would often degenerate into prolonged attacks on flaws in the thinking of specific members....Objectivism was beginning to look more like a cult than a philosophical movement." (pp. 22-23)

2. Fred Newman and social therapy belong in this article. Citations are as follows:

a. "A Cult by Any Other Name: The New Alliance Party Dismantled and Reincarnated," Anti-Defamation League Special Report, New York, 1995

b. "Fred Newman: Lenin as Therapist," Chapter 7 of Dennis Tourish and Tim Wolhforth's On the Edge, 2000

c. Chip Berlet, "Clouds Blur the Rainbow," pamphlet, Political Research Associates: Cambridge, MA, 1987

d. Joe Conason, "Psychopolitics," Village Voice, June 1, 1982

e. Bruce Shapiro, "The New Alliance Party: Dr. Fulani's Snake-Oil Show," The Nation, May 4, 1992

f. Liz Spikol, "Group Hug: Is Social Therapy a political cult, as some have said?" Philadelphia Weekly, June 12, 2002 ; author answers her own own question in "Boycott This Play!" Philadelphia Weekly, Sept. 4, 2002

g. David Grann, "The Infiltrators," The New Republic, Dec. 13, 1999

h. Rita Nissan, "Psychopolitics," six part series on NY1 News, Oct. 31-Nov. 5, 2005 (won the New York Press Association "Golden Gloves" award)

i. Archive of many more citable published works, as well as a vast amount of noncitable backup information. 

3. Christian Science, Mark Twain and Willa Cather belong in this article.

a. The fact that Twain and Cather wrote critically about Christian Science is included without dispute elsewhere on Wikipedia (for instance in the biographical article on Cather and in a brief article on Twain's book that describes it as "highly critical" of Christian Science).

b. Christian Science is included in J. Gordon Melton's Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America (New York, Garland Publishing, 1992).

c. Mary Baker Eddy, founder of Christian Science, is included in J. Gordon Melton's Biographical Dictionary of American Cult and Sect Leaders, New York, Garland Publishing, 1986, pp. 80-82.

d. Serious charges of cultism (in the secular meaning of that term) continue to be levelled at Christian Science today. See, for instance, Linda Kramer, The Religion That Kills: Christian Science, Abuse, Neglect and Mind Control, Huntington House, 2000. "Is Christian Science a cult? Are its followers the victims of mind control? In a word, yes...." writes Kramer, a former Church member (p. 19). A favorable review of this book from the standpoint of the academic anti-cult movement (by Frank MacHover, Ph.D.) can be found in the Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 2, No. 3, 2003. See also Caroline Fraser's God's Perfect Child, New York: Metropolitan Books, 1999. The preface of this book, esp. pp. 5-7, says it all in terms of Fraser's experience growing up in CS. On pp. 16-17, she writes in a more historical context: "The vitality of Christian Science gradually faded, giving way to a new, darker phase, particularly following the life-saving medical discoveries made during World War II, which cast a shadow over the Church's healing. The Church had inherited from its founder and Mother not only money and property, but detailed, perversely autocratic, often eccentric. instructions on how the Church was to be run....Mary Baker Eddy was a deeply fearful person. She hid herself from her followers and from the world. Her child--the Church--has taken after her." As to the use of the "C" word: "The suggestibility, infatuation, and enthusiasm that sparked Christian Science and has also sparked many other religious cults and sects lies behind our current anxious fixations on imaginary perils and medical conspiracies." (p. 447) See also interview with Fraser in Salon magazine ("Like Jonestown in Slow Motion," Laura Miller, Salon, Sept. 1, 1999) and review of Fraser's book by Miller in the same issue ("The Respectable Cult"). Other recent articles include Savannah Waring Walker, "The Residue of Faith and Fury," New York Times, June 12, 2001. Additional recent articles critical of Christian Science can be found at the anti-cult web archive run by Rick Ross. It should also be noted that the Christian counter-cult movement regards Christian Science as one of the major cults in the United States; see Walter Martin's The Kingdom of the Cults (rev. ed., Bethany House Publishers, 1997)--the most influential book of the countercult movement.

e. Willa Cather's biography of Eddy and profile of the Church includes crystal clear examples of cultism, although, unlike Twain (see below), she does not use the word "cult." See Cather's description of the rigid discipline in the Church in which total obedience was expected and little personal initiative allowed (pp. 460-65); how Eddy adopted the title of "Mother" and instituted pilgrimages to her home (p. 442); and how she instituted a total personal dictatorship over the Church (pp. 470-78). Fraser (pp. 138-139) describes the lengths that Christian Science went to in trying to prevent McClure's magazine from publishing the investigative series on which Cather's book would be based, and how, once the book was published, they prevented it from being widely read. "The Christian Scientists essentially succeeded in suppressing it the entire time in which it was under copyright." (This incident, which makes some of the attempts by contemporary cults to squelch media criticism look feeble in comparison, should be reason enought to include mention of Cather in this article.) f. Mark Twain repeatedly refers to Christian Science as a cult. "A prominent Christian Scientist has assured me that the Scientists do not worship Mrs. Eddy, and I think it likely that there may be five or six of the cult in the world who do not worship her." (Book Two, Chap. 8; this example is characteristic Twain lecture-circuit humor.) More clearly: "Eddy-Worship will be taught in the Sunday-schools and pulpits of the cult." (Book One, Chap. 7). And most clearly of all in a letter commenting on how the Christian Scientists had scared Harper's into deciding not to publish his book: "I had been doing my best to show in print that the Xn Scientist cult was become a power in the land--well, here was proof: it had scared the biggest publisher in the Union!" (Quoted in Fraser, pp. 123-4.) Fraser writes that Twain "conveys the force of his subject's ego better than anyone else before or since. His analysis of her character and the quality of her writing is ruthlessly accurate." (p. 126)

4. Wilhelm Reich belongs in this article.

a. Mildred E. Brady, "The New Cult of Sex and Anarchy," Harper's Magazine, April 1947.

b. Martin Gardner, In the Name of Science (Fads and Fallacies In the Name of Science), New York: Dover, 1952 (compares Reich to L. Ron Hubbard). It should be noted that Gardner is widely regarded as the father of the contemporary skeptical movement; and his Fads and Fallacies, as a classic of that movement.

c. Martin Gardner, "The Hermit Scientist," Antioch Review, Dec. 1950. This influential essay has a section on Reich: "Let us turn to a more colorful scientist whose work has recently become a lively cult among the more bohemian intellectuals of New York and elsewhere--the psychiatrist Wilhelm Reich."

d. Christopher Evans, Cults of Unreason, London, Harrap, 1973. Evans, an experimental psychologist, includes a brief section re orgonomy and Reich; says the subject needs more treatment; refers the reader to Gardner. e. Martin Gardner, "Reich the Rainmaker," Skeptical Inquirer, Fall 1988. Reprinted in Gardner's Walk on the Wild Side, Prometheus Books, 1992. Compares the Reich movement to Scientology in very strong language (p. 23). In reference to "today's orgonomists," Gardner comments that "science cults never die, they just slowly fade after the death of their charismatic guru." (p. 26)

f. Martin Gardner, The Night is Large: Collected Essays, 1938-1995, New York: St. Martin's Press, 1996. This book reprints the chapter on Reich from Fads and Fallacies with a postcript updating it. That Gardner's use of the word "cult" refers to the Reichian movement and not just to a Reichian public "craze" is made crystal clear in the postscript: "Orgonomy is still a flourishing cult....In 1967 the remnant faithful founded the Journal of Orgonomy and a year later the American College of Orgonomy. In 1987 it moved its headquarters from Manhattan to near Princeton, New Jersey....[A] committee...raised more than $2.5 million to finance construction of the new headquarters." (pp. 205-206)

g. Joel Carlinksy, "Epigones of Orgonomy: The Incredible History of Wilhelm Reich and His Followers," Skeptic, Vol. 2, No. 3, 1994. "Most of the 30 or so members of the [American College of Orgonomy] are psychiatrists. Most of the 4,000 or so people who have donated money to the A.C.O. fundraising campaign ($5,000,000 to date) are patients or former patients. This exploitation of emotionally vulnerable people is facilitated by the fact that Orgone Therapy seems to render the patient more or less permanently emotionally dependent on the therapist. In any case, it is a flagrant breach of ethics for psychiatrists to solicit funds from patients for a cause in which the doctor has an interest."

h. Myron Sharaf, Fury on Earth: A Biography of Wilhelm Reich, St. Martin's Press, New York, 1983. Sharaf was a former follower of Reich and remained sympathetic to him, but he also was aware of the weaknesses in Reich and his movement. The following statement on p. 430 fully qualifies the Reich movement (and Reich as its founder) for inclusion in this Wiki article: "There was some tension between those who worked closely with Reich in Maine [at his Orgonon community]...or who followed him absolutely...and the New York [Reichian] physicians...who were often uncomfortable with certain of Reich's positions, especially his dealings with the FDA. However, when Reich issued orders everybody fell in line, with greater or less importance. Increasingly, Reich saw himself as a general with lieutenants, sergeants and privates in his small army. At the very least they were locked in a life-and-death struggle against the emotional plague on earth; possibly they were at war with space men. Like a general, Reich demanded and usually obtained total obedience from those around him."

i. The writings about orgonomy of Roger M. Wilcox, who grew up in the Reichian movement, are available on the Internet. They are self-published and thus cannot be cited, but I include them as backup material. See "My Personal Experiences with Orgone Therapy" in which Wilcox describes being forced by his parents, as a child, to undergo extremely painful bodywork sessions with an apparently sadistic Reichian therapist. See also the statement by Susanna Steig at about her memories of the encouragement of sex between small children at Orgonon. Wilcox's account of painful poking and prodding is backed up by the account given by Reich's son Peter in his memoir of growing up at Orgonon, A Book of Dreams, New York: Harper & Row, 1973 (although the bodywork with Peter, conducted by his own father, seems to have been done in a less harsh manner than what Wilcox remembers). Steig's memories are backed in part (if inadvertently) by a dingbat article entitled "Children in Love" on the American College of Orgonomy web page. 

5. Other items. The statement that the anti-cult upsurge in the 1970s has stimulated many thrillers about cults is the type of obvious statement for which citation is almost never demanded in articles on popular culture. The statement was left without an example after someone other than myself removed what was previously there. I have added two examples and doubtless other mystery buffs will provide more. Likewise, the statement about Lucian's "Alexander the False Prophet" as now worded is a description of the satire's theme no different from the many other brief descriptions of literary works in this article. Such descriptions can and should be cited to the works themselves, which I have done in the case of the Lucian satire.

6. Psychotherapy Cults. It would appear from studying the history of this discussion, that Joshi's current editorial objections are focussed mostly on the issue of therapy cults--since of his four main complaints three refer to such movements: (a) Fred Newman's social therapy; (b) Wilhelm Reich's orgonomy (a mixture of psychotherapy and bodywork); and (c) Ayn Rand's objectivism (an ideological movement that has offered its own brand of psychotherapy). I understand that many cult apologists assert that the word "cult" should ONLY apply to religious groups, not to psychotherapy or political groups. But their view is by no means the dominant one--as demonstrated by the following articles and books (and I could provide many more) that affirm the validity of the concept of psychotherapy cultism.

a. Temerlin MK, Temerlin JW, "Psychotherapy Cults: an iatrogenic perversion," Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 1982; 19: 131-141.

b. Singer MT, Temerlin MK, Langone MD, "Psychotherapy cults," Cultic Studies Journal, 1990, 7: 101-105.

c. Hochman J, "Iatrogenic symptoms associated with a therapy cult," Psychiatry, 1984 Nov;47(4):366-377.

d. Marybeth F. Ayella, Insane Therapy: Portrait of a Psychotherapy Cult, Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1998. See favorable review by Anson Shupe in Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, March 1999, 38:1, p 191.

e. William Sims Bainbridge, Satan's Power: A Deviant Psychotherapy Cult, Berkeley, U. of California Press, 1978.

f. Tamar Lewin, "Custody case lifts veil on a 'psychotherapy cult,'" New York Times, June 3, 1988.

g. Schwartz LL, Kaslow, FW, "The Cult Phenomenon: A Turn of the Century Update," American Journal of Family Therapy, Jan/Feb 2001, 29:1, pp. 13-22 (includes section on "Psychotherapy Cults").

h. Margaret T. Singer and Janja Lalich, Crazy Therapies, Jossey-Bass, 1996. Two of the leading figures in cultic studies survey the world of quack therapies, including therapy cults. I hope that those who wish to comment on the above argument will not place interpolations within it but will rather comment below in their own space, referring to the above by reference to the outline numbering.--Dking 23:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of non-compliant material
I have removed all material that is non-compliant with WP policies as it pertains to this article's title. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the long list of refs above, no one is disputing that these sources exist, neither I dispute that some of these sources characterize certain individuals or groups as related to "cults". What I am disputing is that by adding these people and groups to this article you are asserting that as a fact, when actually it is only the opinion of these sources that can hardly be considered anything else than partisan (i.e. the opinion of critics of these people and groups), and therefore in violation of WP:NPOV, as well as WP:SYN. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Restored the massive amount of material deleted by Jossi. He had no answer to the list of citations above and therefore is resorting to vandalism, pure and simple.--Dking 21:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I responded to your concerns above, and I would ask you not to accuse me of vandalism. You can provide as many sources you want but that does not address the main concern, which I repeat below in case you missed it ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * In addition:
 * This text is asserting that Christian Science is a cult, but that is disputed. There is only one mention of "cult" or "new religious movement" in the Christian Science article.
 * This text is asserting that Mormonism is a cult, but that is disputed. There is no mention of neither "cult" or "NRM" in the Mormonism article
 * This text is asserting that Opus Dei is a cult, but that is disputed. Some people characterize them as such, sure (Some ex-members and their families, liberal Catholics, secularists, and supporters of liberation theology have argued that Opus Dei is cult-like, secretive, and highly controlling), but by including them here, you are asserting that as a 'fact which isn't.
 * This text is asserting that Ayn Rand is a founder of a cult/NRM, but that is disputed. Sure, Several authors, such as Murray Rothbard, the critic of Objectivism Jeff Walker author of The Ayn Rand Cult, and Michael Shermer, founder of The Skeptics Society, have accused Objectivism of being a cult. But that does not make it such, does it?
 * and so on and so forth. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This text is asserting that Opus Dei is a cult, but that is disputed. Some people characterize them as such, sure (Some ex-members and their families, liberal Catholics, secularists, and supporters of liberation theology have argued that Opus Dei is cult-like, secretive, and highly controlling), but by including them here, you are asserting that as a 'fact which isn't.
 * This text is asserting that Ayn Rand is a founder of a cult/NRM, but that is disputed. Sure, Several authors, such as Murray Rothbard, the critic of Objectivism Jeff Walker author of The Ayn Rand Cult, and Michael Shermer, founder of The Skeptics Society, have accused Objectivism of being a cult. But that does not make it such, does it?
 * and so on and so forth. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * and so on and so forth. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * and so on and so forth. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As the RfC yielded only one comment, I am reverting again to force following the established dispute resolution process. If you revert again, we will need to engage a mediator. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You are referring only to Wiki articles, which is a closed loop form of editing. I cited an exhaustive number of proper sources beyond Wikipedia. It is ludicrous that you are defending Mormonism (listed in Melton's Handbook of Cults, by the way) and Opus Dei against me when my paragraphs about them are actually rather favorable to them. You had cited certain items that you said were the only ones you objected to. I answered your questions on each of these items and your response is not only to delete these items but many more as well and to now add the LDS and Opus Dei to the list of items you object to. You have established no basis whatsoever for removing any of this material and I am going to continuing restoring it, so I suggest you file a request for mediation rather than engaging in an edit war that will only waste a lot of time for both of us.--Dking 02:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That is exactly what I did. See below. Regardless of the excellent work on sources, (that BTW, you could offer to editors of the respective articles), that does not change my argument: That the inclusion of these people and groups in this list is in violation of WP content policies, as you are asserting opinions as fact by the mere inclusion of these people and groups in this article. If group X being a "cult" is disputed you simply cannot include that group in an article about "Cults in popular culture". You are welcome to add the disputed material to their respective article, so that they can be read alongside other opinions as WP:NPOV requires. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Also note that the use of the term "cult" varies on specific contexts. A religious scholar definition of "cult" (such as J. Gordon Melton) is very different than the definition of "cult" as defined  by a secular anti-cult movement protagonist such as Margaret Singer (See Cult), making this article so much more difficult to keep within the boundaries set by WP content policies.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * By your line of reasoning all references to particular organizations would have to be removed from all of the Wiki articles relating to cults, rendering any encyclopedic examination of the subject matters of these articles impossible. Indeed, you want to extend your Orwellian censorship back in time to prevent examination not only of 19th century literary perceptions of Mormonism and pre-World War One perceptions of Christian Science (by two of America's greatest novelists) but even of Lucian's sardonic views on a cult that ceased to exist almost two millennia ago.--Dking 03:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please tone down the rhetoric, if you just could. As I said above, the sources you have researched may be excellent additions to articles about the groups or people discussed in them. This article is not an article on "19th century literary perceptions" as you argue, but even if it was, you will still need to abide by WP content policies as argued above. Lucian's "Alexander the False Prophet," is a satire about false prophet, and this article is not an essay in which you can engage in original research and make associations such as  "one of the earliest descriptions of a cult leader was depicted in Alexander the False Prophet." Find a source in which he is described as such and you are most welcome to keep that text about Lucian, but you, as an editor in this project, simply cannot come up with these assertions based on your own understanding of the subject. In Wikipedia we only describe what published, reliable sources say about a subject, and not editor's opinions, deductions, or their brilliant ideas. You may need to re-read carefully our policy of no original research, as by the look of that edit and sveral others, you may not have understood the boundaries it demarcates.  ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Request for informal mediation is filed here ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediation
Okay, I would like to help here, but need some clarifications. This is for my benefit and so we can maintain an on-topic, productive discussion. First, what exactly is this non-compliant with? I would encourage you to replace the tag with  (see the template page for usage instructions) as it can display specific issues. The main concerns seem to be WP:OR and WP:NPOV over the correct interpretation/usage and possible POV of some sources. Second, what parts of the article does this dispute refer to? The RfC summary above mentions some authors, but recent discussion has brought up religions as well. I can't quite tell if this is over the interpretation of sources, the inclusion of certain works into the article, and/or the classification of a cult. I look forward to continuing this civil discussion and a resolution to the issue(s). Mr.Z-man  talk ¢ 19:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for accepting to mediate this case.
 * Changed to articleissues as requested. Note that the dispute tags have been up since Jan 2007
 * The main concern is of violation of WP:OR in some cases, and of WP:NPOV in others
 * Example of WP:OR violation:
 * Lucian's "Alexander the False Prophet," is a satire about false prophet, and Dking's edit states that the work is an example of "one of the earliest descriptions of a cult leader was depicted in Alexander the False Prophet". The source provided does not speak of "cult leaders" or of that being the earliest example of such. A good example of original research.
 * Example of WP:NPOV and WP:OR violation
 * Dking's edit states: Zane Grey, in his Riders of the Purple Sage (1912), a Western novel that would have a major influence on Hollywood, lambasts the Mormons and has his gunslinger hero rescue a wealthy young woman in the early 1870s from the clutches of elderly polygamists via exceedingly bloody gunfights. The novel contains a portrayal of the psychological conflicts of the young woman, raised a Mormon but gradually coming to the realization that she wants a supposedly freer life. The Mormon misdeeds depicted in the story take place on the southern frontier of Utah and there is no suggestion that Mormon leaders in Salt Lake City are involved. The harassment of the young woman reflects a popular literary theme in Victoria's England rather than Brigham Young's Utah — the orphaned young heiress besieged by unscrupulous suitors who often profess the Anglican or Catholic faith. This is implying that Mormonism is a cult, when that is a disputed fact. That material would be excellent for the Mormonism article, to be available to readers alongside other opinions, as dictated by WP:NPOV. Adding that text to this article is de facto asserting Mormonism to be a cult, as this is an article about "Cults and new religious movements in literature and popular culture," thus violating NPOV. In addition, the ending sentence in which Dking is asserting his opinion, or an unattributed opinion about "a popular literally theme in Victorian England", is another case of WP:NOR violation.
 * OR and NPOV violations apply to other texts as well on a similar basis, as argued in the previous section
 * The version that excludes all these violations is here.
 * Dking seems to be very knowledgeable on the subject (he is a notable Wikipedian, see Dennis_King), but that does not mean that he can bypass our content policies based on his expertise. His efforts will be more rewarding if he learns to abide by these rather than exercise his expertise at the expense of creating articles that are non-compliant with our content policies. (Please note that I respect Dking's scholarship and his work as an author, and appreciate the difficulty in abiding by WP's content policies when you are a notable expert in a subject. Nonetheless, WP polices apply to all editors and have to be followed by experts as well.) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * In my opinion (I'm not sure if there is a policy/guideline that says this) when referring to something as a cult, it should be decided how to apply sources that define it. Mormonism is a good example. Nowadays, it is a mainstream faith, few would call the the main religion (not counting some splinter groups) a cult. However, it was formerly considered a cult. Should sources be applied so that only modern interpretations are used in all cases, even in interpreting historic literature? Example, no book that refers to Mormonism as a cult would likely be included as modern sources no longer call it a cult. Or, should definitions of the time of writing be used? Example, a book calling Mormonism a cult from 1900 would be included but a recent book would not. If this has not been decided already, it would probably be a good idea to do so, else we could end up with varying definitions throughout the article. A definition of a cult should probably be incuded in the lead section. The link to cult is not all that helpful as cult has a POV tag on it and its first sentence has a fact tag on it. Mr.Z-man  talk ¢ 20:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Dking: Please address the mediator's comments. Adding more material while mediation in underway, is not acceptable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Initial suggestions for mediator (by HG)
A. The major issue here seems to be WP:NPOV. Within NPOV, the main concern is (1) the use of the word 'cult', and (2) the criteria for applying the 'cult' to a given leader or group. Ideally, this dispute would be resolved by relying on WP:Cult or WP:New Religious Movements (NRMs), but at least the former is already a problematic article, as Z-Man says above.

It is difficult to agree on NPOV for cult, of course, because cult itself has become a highly charged pejorative POV term in the world. I am not saying that the pejorative meaning is untrue or undeserved, merely that it is highly contested and hence a POV. On the other hand, it is fine for WP to have articles about strong points-of-view, the difficulty is finding an NPOV way to describe the content. Dking wants to use the word cult. It is my impression that Jossi is not objecting to the use of the word 'cult' per se, but rather to whom the word refers.


 * Granted, we might try to change the article to refer only to NRMs. But I think that, at best, this would lead to a POV fork. That is, we'd cordon off an uncontested "NRM in pop culture" article. However, this would not alter the fact that even derogatory uses of 'cult' are sometimes used in pop culture. Also, some groups are not religions yet called cults (e.g., Wikipedia has been called a cult!). Thus, we'd still need to mediate over "Cult in pop culture" for valid data.

Therefore, I recommend that we focus on finding a mutually-agreed NPOV means of using the word 'cult' in this article in order to identify and describe valid references to cults in cultural works.

B. I sense that original research (NOR) is a less crucial point of dispute here. It covers less ground, at this point, because Dking provided many sources after NOR was raised (see #RFC Summary, above). Perhaps there's little text disputed purely as OR yet accepted as NPOV. Therefore, I recommend that we try to resolve NPOV and only deal with outstanding NOR problems afterwards.

C. What constitutes a valid reference to cults in cultural works?

C1. One route would be to differentiate "destructive" and "benign" cults. For instance, XYZ may be a destructive cult and deserves the pejorative label. ABC may be a cult due to NPOV sociological criteria, but not harmful. Perhaps there is a primary authority, such as a governmental list, that all parties could agree to utilize for WP. Or perhaps somebody can compare the competing "authoritative" lists and identify their overlap/agreement. I don't think this would solve the whole dispute. Still, it might help, it would narrow down the mediation list to those groups in the middle, where a notable set of people dispute the authority's inclusions or exclusions.

C2. Another route would be to qualify OUR use of the 'cult' so as to acknowledge explicitly the contested nature of its semantic range. For instance, Dking suggested using the phrases: "groups regarded as cults, whether rightly or wrong" or "alleged cults." Due to other process issues, Jossi did not respond to this suggestion. I recommend that we explore some NPOV phrasing such as "alleged cults."

D. If this (C2) is the right direction, I think we need to classify each disputed group.

The article should distinguish between groups currently alleged and those that faced such allegations in a previous century alone. However, historical allegations face a problem of anachronism. If the old criticism did not use the term cult, in what circumstances should we? If the group has revised its conduct to be less [cult-like?] then do we drop the term? This may be a key issue with the Mormons. Does we need to explain that a 19th Century usage of 'cult' may not have the same connotations today.

D2. Without myself evaluating his sources, I can see that Dking believes he has references to support notable allegations concerning a few key entities. I suggest we ask both parties: What phrasing would you accept for the following individual or groups? D3. What phrases would you find NPOV useful? "cult-like" (see Wikipedia), "alleged cult," "occasionally deemed a cult," "an alleged destructive cult according to <REF", "a movement/religion intermittently alleged to be a cult," "a group often alleged to be a cult, rightly or wrongly" "a religion sometimes disparaged as a cult" etc. etc.
 * 1) Christian Science
 * 2) Fred Newman and social therapy
 * 3) Ayn Rand and objectivism
 * 4) Wilhelm Reich
 * 5) Scientology (id'd as the first NPOV challenge by Sfacets, Feb. 20, above)
 * Thanks for reading all this. Even if you are not a party to the dispute, you are welcome to comment on any points in A,B,C or D, especially to discuss wording for the 5 groups listed above. Thanks. HG | Talk 20:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as C1 and C2 go, I think that C2 may be the best route for here. While it may be tricky to come up with our own NPOV definition of a cult, I'm not sure if any authoritative list would cover most of the grey areas. Obviously Jonestown would be a "listed" cult, while Methodism would not, but Scientology, while controversial (maybe controversy could be part of a definition) may not be considered a cult by some authorities but may be by others. Mr.Z-man  talk ¢ 23:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I would like to thank both Mr. Z-man and HG for their time in studying this article and for assisting in mediating this dispute. I will be succinct in my answers as much as possible as to keep the conversation focused.
 * If we want to proceed via C2, (i.e. using a form such as "alleged" or "purported"), we will need first to agree on what definition of the term to use;
 * There are competing definitions of the term Cult, as one can gather from reading the Wikipedia article, or reading the many sources on the subject. There is the religious scholar definition, the counter-cult definition, the secular anti-cult definition, the sociologist definition. The Cult article has been tagged for POV violation since December of 2006, and not for lack of trying. The fact that there is such a disparity in the definition and the identification of such traits, as well as the disparity and competing views about many of the groups and people referred in the current version of the article, makes it very difficult for this article to comply with NPOV and NOR;
 * Even if we decide and agree on one specific variation of the term "cult" to be used for this article, the sources provided by Dking may not fit that definition. For example, if we use the sociologist's definition: a term designating a cohesive group of people (generally, but not exclusively a relatively small and recently founded religious movement) devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture or society considers to be outside the mainstream, that will in itself remove most if not all the disputed content, leaving Dking unhappy.
 * If we base our criteria on one source or another that considers them as "cults" (e.g. critics of Ayn Rand), we are violating NPOV as we do not describe neither the context of these allegations, nor the other significant/opposing viewpoints on the group, organization, or person.


 * I would offer this proposal: (a) Rename this article "Cults in pop culture", or "Cults in fictional works"; (b) Keep in this article all pop-culture references to "cult" such as TV, science fiction and all other fiction works; (d) Move all other content and its sources for non-fictional groups and people to their respective articles, to be incorporated into the article's text under a section "In popular culture". This way we save Dking's hard work, end up with an article that is compliant with our content policies, and with better articles overall. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for both comments. Let me ask Jossi some follow-up questions. On your pt 3, why would cult need more specific definition when used in a phrase like "alleged cult"? Wouldn't it be clear that there's some derogatory connotation? The qualification itself is a common (e.g., journalistic) NPOV way of dealing with situations where the precise meaning (or truth value) is disputed. But maybe this punts to #4 anyway. For #4, doesn't the situation depend on the amount of context/balance needed for each group? For instance, if the allegation is common knowledge (let's say Scientology), then isn't "alleged cult" perhaps NPOV (whereas simply "cult" or "religion" might be POV by effacing the controversy). On the other hand, if the allegation is uncommon, it deserves some context right there. If need be, could the context can be given by citing the cult allegations in the group's main article?
 * I appreciate Jossi's proposal. (Incidentally, I think the remaining article here would be "Fictional cults" and could include both fictional and non-fictional references.) One benefit is that it would eliminate much of the concern over the synthesis of this article as original research. If accepted, it would resolve the matter quickly and not rely on continuous attention to a brokered "alleged cult" compromise. On the other hand, the article brings together an overall picture that would be lost. Plus, the article might elicit WP users to add more examples and expand the article, which would be less likely were each point dispersed. I encourage Dking to consider and comment on this proposal. Thanks again. HG | Talk 07:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The use of "alleged cult" as way to NPOV this article is a poor choice, in my opinion. "Alleged cult" does not resolve the concerns raised, as these allegations are made, of course, by critics and does not allow the perspective and/or context that can be explored in the specific articles about these people or groups. For example Ayn Rand article contains just a short mention for these allegations, and without the complete article about Rand, no NPOV is possible. Another concern is the lack of participation by Dking. Unless he engages in this mediation in a day or two, I intend to remove the disputed material, until such time he does engage. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Twenty days have elapsed since filing this mediation case and user:Dking has not responded as yet. I am restoring the version that does not contain disputed material. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There are two basic approaches to the cult question that are included in Wikipedia articles: first, the definition used by religious acholars to designate nonmainstream religious groups, often with charismatic founders; and second, the "secular" definition that designates what Robert Jay Lifton calls "totalistic organizations", which can be either religious or secular. Both of these definitions have coexisted fairly well within the main "cult" article on Wikipedia, which has been edited to a significant extent by real scholars. The coexistence should not be surprising, since many religious scholars and many of the social scientists and mental health professionals who study (or treat the purported victims of) totalistic cults use both definitions in their discourse depending on the context. Contradictions are muted, for some, by advancing a distinction between "destructive" and "benign" cults.


 * Jossi seems to believe that the term "cult" should have only one meaning per Wiki article. This is clear in his complaint that I cited Melton's Handbook on Cults to justify a mention of the LDS in this article--Jossi says that Melton meant cult in a different sense from the way I mean it. In fact, I have used the term "cult" to designate groups that fall under both senses of the word--just as the main Wiki article on cults does.


 * The complaint about including Zane Grey's treatment of the LDS makes no sense to me. The title of this article includes "cults and new religious movements." Surely the Mormons were a new religious movement at the time Grey wrote his book, and surely they were also regarded by many Americans in the same way that cults would come to be regarded in the 1970s. Today, they are included in Melton's Handbook and in Martin's countercult book. Many Christians still regard the LDS as a cult (according to the countercult movement's viewpoint), and some secular experts on cults continue to regard the LDS as having authoritarian, cult-like features. I personally would not call the LDS a cult today, but its history and that of the public's perception of the LDS in previous generations fully qualifies the Grey book (and other popular works about the Mormons, such as Conan Doyle's Victorian thriller) for inclusion in this article.


 * Some months ago, Jossi cited a finite list of items that he thought should be removed from the article. He explicitly stated that these were the only things he wanted removed. When I provided a comprehensive bibliography to justify their inclusion, his response was simply to broaden his demands to include the LDS example and indeed entire sections of the article involving a score or more organizations not on his previous list. He is even objecting to the inclusion of information about literary works by leaders of New Religious Movements (which may or may not have been, or be today, cults) which are clearly of great historical influence--the works for instance, of Helena Blavatsky.


 * Jossi had attempted unsuccessfully to get the entire article removed from Wikipedia. He now is trying to gut it so that it only includes popular works of fiction about imaginary cults. He even objects to the mention of now defunct historical cults or of groups that were controversial in past generations although less so today. He has attempted to impose standards of footnoting on this article that go far beyond what is expected on other articles on popular culture (see comments by others in the discussion earlier this year).


 * As a compromise, Jossi has suggested that material I have accumulated be moved to the individual articles on the persons and groups mentioned. I reject this idea, since it is simply another way of gutting this article. The significance of the facts in this article (as in any good encyclopedia article) comes from their synergy--in this case revealing (without original research, I might add) that cults and new religious movement have stimulated an impressive amount of literary creativity both from within their own ranks and from writers in the outside society. The overall impression, I think, is by no means a negative one.


 * As I have stated repeatedly Jossi is advocating a form of censorship that, if adopted as policy on Wikipedia articles about cults, would make it impossible for Wikipedia to provide meaningful information on the topic. I am restoring the version of the article that was deleted once again by Joshi.--Dking 18:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree in particular with the casting of motives that Dking misrepresents based on baseless assumptions. Now that we have stated our positions, I would appreciate mediators' work to commence. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)