User talk:Cairoi

Cults, etc
Hi. Please continue to edit the encyclopedia in the area of cults/religion/etc. We need people who have an interest in this sort of thing. Don't take the article-for-deletion vote personally. It's not that we don't like your work, just that the article doesn't belong in the encyclopedia. - Richardcavell 07:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Richardcavell, that's very encouraging. I'm not going to take it personally. But I am going to continue arguing for the list's inclusion. If you look at the cult category you will see that all the articles refer to the scholarly groups which point the finger at what they thing are cults. This list brings up the real world viewpoint that some other scholarly groups have to the contrary. If that means that the article needs to be merged into another then so be it. cairoi 13:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

move
I have moved Usertalk:Cairoi-Archive to User:Cairoi/Cults. If there is a next time, use the move command! -- RHaworth 16:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. It was the /cults option that I didn't understand...cairoi 18:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Articles_for_deletion/List_of_religions_once_classed_as_cults
If you find a good article to merge it with I would change my vote to merge. I Lov  E Plankton 05:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Transition from cult to religon
You can write an article like that, and imho it would be more likely to survive afd than a laundry list of alleged former cults. The problem is "cult" is a very ill-defined term, so that might be problematic too. In regards to the original list, I don't see any reason to merge the content with the list of groups referred to as cults. Borisblue 15:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that this could potentially be a very interesting and encyclopedic entry. I bet you could find a lot of good historical information about how groups that were once considered dangerous fringe movements gained mainstream status.  I don't see any point in changing my vote on the deletion debate per WP:SNOW, but I would suggest that you take the information you need and start working on a Transition from cult to religion article, perhaps on a userpage (User:Cairoi/Transition from cult to religion?) at first. - AdelaMa e  (talk - contribs) 03:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I also think that it would be a better forum for those ideas. You should simply create the page, cairoi, and see what happens. - Richardcavell 22:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

http://www.sg.emb-japan.go.jp/JapanAccess/sado.htm


 * If you want to write about the subject of transformation from cults to sects, called sectarianization then I think that the book by Meredith McGuire listed in the references of the sect article is helpful. See also church-sect typology and development of religion. Andries 20:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the tip. I'm ruminating now but hope to start soon.  cairoi 20:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Sectes

 * Je suis tout a fait d'accord sur l'idée d'inclure toutes les organisations qui adherent aux principes décrits selon les critères établies sur l'article. (Actually I do speak english, it's my mother tongue ;) )

I plan on paying closer attention to this article, and look forward to joining in the discussion on why it is essential for a balanced and non-Pov article to include a varied list of 'any' organisation that has been described as a sect. (I was actually just about to add AA myself, when I noticed you had just added it to the list). Sfacets 04:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Cults
Perhaps there is some sensitivity on my part. On the other hand, I think I know fairly well what is "cult of Mary". I assume you honestly consider these entries as groups the same as Sunni or Opus Dei are groups, and do not realize how they are abstract practices like "singing". A group is not the practice, and even if we grant that the practice is referred to as a cult in some sense ("cult of singing"), it doesn't seem to me to mean the group of practitioners ("singers") is referred to as a cult because of that, in any sense of the word "cult". Gimmetrow 19:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * How to proceed? Well, first these need to be removed from the list pending some determination, but you should add "Caritas of Birmingham" per the one source (if it's RS). How would one get other editors to express an opinion on this topic? Gimmetrow 22:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Soliciting an opinion is not the same as soliticing an emotional response. You could have left your argumentation out of that section to let other editors express their reasoned opinions without bias. Gimmetrow 00:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This list includes all meanings of cult, but not non-groups. I don't have a problem with groups being included: but for some reason you are not including them. Gimmetrow 15:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Cairoi, none of the 3 points you put at the end of the cults talk page represent what I have suggested. Gimmetrow 16:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Cairoi, In the article Talk page, you were the only editor who objected to the deletion of Sunni when it was discussed early in July. I took that as a consensus to delete that was long overdue (since July 19.)  I have now commented on the talk page that I am not interested in a revert war, so since you put Sunni and Shi'a back in again, I will leave them there.  If you choose to follow-up the issues involved, which are thorny, I would be happy to discuss it more at Talk:List_of_groups_referred_to_as_cults (or here if you prefer.) --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Impressed to see your and addhoc's long list of edits today. Cool. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Temporary Editing area
We were able to achieve consensus on the following rules:

Preamble: This list is a bibliography of references to groups as cults according to the following rules. A group's inclusion in this list does not means that such group is a cult or imply any harmful or benificial qualities. 1. Only references to groups can be included where groups may be organisations or sets of individual practitioners.

2. The groups must be referenced as a "cult" directly by sources that qualify according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources. A reference may include the name of the cult if that cult includes the word "cult".

4. The groups must be referenced as a "cult" within the last 50 years.

5. The groups referenced as cults must not have been named by Reliable Sources to independently exist prior to 1920 in their substantially present form of beliefs and earthly practices.

6. Not included in this list are personality cults (heads of state, government, and media celebrities of popular culture) and groups that don't have actual followings (fictional or self-nominated groups).

9. [New rule to implement foregn term identification:] "Each reference to a group is to be followed by parentheses containing identification of the actual word used to refer to them as a cult or foreign translation meaning cult; like "(cult)", or "(secte)", or "(cult/secte/sekte/etc.)" for multiple references." Milo 10:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The following questions arose:

1. "index" to "bibliography 4. five years 5. What earlier date?

No consensus was achieved in:

3. The groups must be referenced any foreign language word, phrase, or contextual translation which by its plain meaning refers to one of the non-excluded definitions of "cult" in English 7. [New rule for Multiple Keyword sublists:] Suggested: "Editors may define a sublist, by adding zero or more additional search keywords to { "cult OR cults" }." "Examples: { "cult" & "devotion" }, { "cult" & "police" }, { "cult" & "brainwashing OR "mind control" } ", etc. Adding zero keywords allows the editor to change other named parameters associated with the baseline list of { "cult OR cults" }", such as to require Multiple Sources." 8. [New rule to implement Multiple Sources:] "Editors who create sublists may define and label them to require either ONE or TWO Reliable Sources for the same referred cult."

Second Draft Inclusion Criteria
cairoi 17:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, consensus is achieved in Wikipedia not by 100% agreement but not by a 51% majority either. We were able to achieve consensus on the following rules. If anyone would like to propose wording changes for any of the rules you could do it below:


 * Preamble: This list is a bibliography of references to groups as cults according to the following rules. A group's inclusion in this list does not means that such group is a cult or imply any harmful or benificial qualities.


 * 1. Only references to groups can be included where groups may be organisations or sets of individual practitioners.


 * 2. The groups must be referenced as a "cult" directly by sources that qualify according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources. A reference may include the name of the cult if that cult includes the word "cult".


 * 3. The groups must be referenced as a "cult" within the last 50 years.


 * 4. The groups referenced as cults must not have been named by Reliable Sources to independently exist prior to 1920 in their substantially present form of beliefs and earthly practices.


 * 5. Not included in this list are personality cults (heads of state, government, and media celebrities of popular culture) and groups that don't have actual followings (fictional or self-nominated groups).


 * 6. Each reference to a group is to be followed by parentheses containing identification of the actual word used to refer to them as a cult or foreign translation meaning cult; like "(cult)", or "(secte)", or "(cult/secte/sekte/etc.)" for multiple references."

- The following questions arose pertaining to the above rules. How do you all feel about them? (I'm hoping you'll put your Y's and N's below):

1. Should the proposed preamble replace or meld with the current pramble? (that is only the sentence preceding the rules)
 * Y cairoi 17:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

2. Should the proposed preamble replace the word "index" with the word "bibliography"?
 * Y cairoi 17:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

3. Five years was proposed instead of 50 for acceptable cult references. Could be nominate our preferred dates a date for acceptable references?
 * Y I'd like to see 1990 as gut feeling but will be happy if everyone leave the status quo cairoi 17:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

5. 1920 is proposed as the acceptable conception date for groups on the list. Should we look at an different date?
 * N 1920 seems reasonable to me for the reasoning put forward by Milo cairoi 17:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

-

LOGRTAC Editorials delisting - please vote in poll
Hi cairoi, I saw a recent edit by you but maybe you aren't actively editing any more. I sure miss your stabilizing influence at List of groups referred to as cults. Seriously, I think you are the best editor LOGRTAC has had. Right now there's a major change that's been edited into the rules that if a slippery slope could cause ripples across the encyclopedia and beyond. A member of the Wikipedia cult is acting just like other cults in trying to get WP delisted. It would be funny if it didn't make WP lose PR. Anyway, if you're still around, please vote in the poll. Thanks for all your excellent LOGRTAC work in 2006. Because of your influence it works dramatically better, and I award you a barnstar! Milo 12:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk page link
The symbol at the end of my signature is a "Dagger", a typographical symbol used like an asterisk to indicate a footnote. I chose it because of its resemblance to the letter "t", as in "talk". Why do you ask? -Will Beback · † · 19:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

LOGRTAC AfD 5th nomination
I think you are not online, but if you do check in soon enough...

The metaphorical Hμns are at the gates of metaphorical Rőme.

Articles for deletion/List of groups referred to as cults (5th nomination), 09:46, 28 April 2007.

If you would like to preserve the record of your excellent editing work, I suggest that you make private copies of the article List of groups referred to as cults and archives of Talk:List of groups referred to as cults.

With the gradual departure of most of the pro-reporting editors, the article has fallen under control of the anti-reporting coalition. As nominated by a member of a listed group, they are now engaged in an AfD debate. The votes in favor of deletion are sometimes emotional, some are poorly reasoned, others are based on false notions that would take too long to dispell, such as the totally false assertion that the article was never "cleaned up". While I can't be certain of the outcome in advance, currently more than half of the votes are to delete. Milo 19:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)