Talk:Opposition to cults

Ed, I think this article makes some good points but it should also mention the fact that people label religious groups cults because they do not know a better word and also because of concrete abuses, authoritarian structures, excessive devotion to an unreliable living leader etc. Oh, and the style is unencyclopedic and we also need references for it. It seems that you are talking a lot about your personal experiences but I tend to believe what you write. I come from a totally different background and really had a horrible experience due to a cult. Andries 11:05, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't see any sources: this article appears to be written "off the top of the head". Unless this material can be sourced the article should be deleted. -Willmcw 01:11, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * If someone would please cut and paste to a better place, I'd be happy. And yes, it's all off the top of my head - except for a bit I got off my chest! Cheers. and have a great weekend!! -- Uncle Ed (talk) 22:26, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Ed, I'm in favor of cutting the material. But it shouldn't be pasted anywhere unless it has sources. This is as good a place as any to provide those sources. Once it has been sourced then it can be pasted into the appropriate articles (or left here, as the case may be). Cheers, -Willmcw 22:33, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * This really is dire. I had a go at rewriting it, but I couldn't form it into anything. It's tone is completely informal too. Unless somebody can make something of it, it should be removed. --Sanguinus 03:42, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input. Would editor User:Ed Poor be willing to move this to his personal polemics page? -Willmcw 07:24, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Apologies. I meant no offence. My message was intended to convey that it needs work as it's really not of any use in terms of enyclopaedic content. --Sanguinus 00:46, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * You certainly didn't offend me, maybe Ed Poor feels differently. I think it should either be moved out of the public space or deleted. -Willmcw 01:05, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

If the page must be deleted - because no one, including me, can figure out how to turn it into an acceptable article, then I'll just move it to my, er, "personal polemics page" as suggested. But I have hopes.

With a little effort, I think I can source some of these statements. I'll have to review my notes and/or google up some references. The Unification Theological Seminary has 3 or 4 shelves full of books about "cults", from the anti-cult and counter-cult books like "Snapping" and "Puppet Masters" to the calmer and more methodical sociologists' analyses. Everything I wrote is based on the sociologists, by the way. I'm just sloppy about taking notes.

I'm a generalist. I synthesize what I've read and experienced. Only it's like Thoreau and his "castles in the air": now I've got to build the foundations underneath them.

I appreciate your patience, guys. I can't believe no one's vfd'ed the article already. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:57, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply, User:Ed Poor. It has been a month since this article was created. I hope that finding sources can be made a priority. If doing so will take much longer perhaps the page can be moved to a personal space for editing, redirected to some appropriate article, and then resurrected once the work is completed. Cheers, -Willmcw 22:10, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Still no progress. I assume that user:Ed Poor knows how to find things in history logs, and he apparently agrees that is it not an acceptable article at present. Also, the title itself is not bad. Therefore, I propose blanking the content and making this a redirect to Opposition to cults and new religious movements. When sources are found, the material should be added to that article. Cheers, -Willmcw 00:24, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)