Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian cult (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep Erik9 (talk) 00:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Christian cult
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Violates WP:No original research. Most Christians would deny that a group can be both Christian and a cult. The article does not make it clear how the expression "Christian cult" is used, nor does it even provide any evidence that it is used at all. Borock (talk) 05:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * note: article moved to Christian new religious movements — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbachmann (talk • contribs) 07:48, 26 May 2009
 * Keep. The article does in fact define 'cult,' and does so quite carefully, separating it from other uses of the word and specifying the term. What "most Christians" would deny is entirely irrelevant here--and I might note that precisely that turn of phrase suggests that the nominator is not aware of the term 'cult' in all its nuances: the average Catholic knows (or should know) exactly what, for instance, the cult of Mary is, but that is not the use we are talking about here. Moreover, there are some pretty freaky Christian cults out there, as many Christians would agree. Article has plenty of references to pass the test, though not nearly enough for my taste, and it could do with serious improvement (more narrative, less schematics). But this nomination has no merit, in my opinion, and I hope other editors agree quickly, in order to close this discussion. Drmies (talk) 05:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Many Christians would not agree that there are freaky Christian cults. A better title would be "Cults who say they are Christian." Borock (talk) 06:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * How is that at all relevant? It seems to me that you have an implicit definition of "Christian" here, which defines what you claim to be Christian or not, and excludes what you think of as cults. The article is much more clear and explicit than you are. What Christians or non-Christians think of this article as Christians or non-Christians is far beside the point. Drmies (talk) 15:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There have been Christian sects and cults from the Ebionites onward. The issue isn't whether some Christians regard these sects and cults as "true Christians". The issue is simply whether the term is used as a significant concept in scholarly discussions.   Will Beback    talk    06:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The article specifically excludes eary Christian "sects and cults." The first thing it says is: This article does not discuss Christian cults in the original and typically ancient sense of "religious practice". Borock (talk) 06:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I know. I just meant that Christian cults aren't a new phenomenon.   Will Beback    talk    06:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Not simply discussed in books (894), but the term appears in the title of many books (43). Cirt (talk) 06:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Most of the books you cited seem to refer to groups in the first few centuries after Christ. I also don't think many people in the mainstream would consider the Maccabees to be a "Christian cult" as one book seems to. (Some of the book titles refer to "pre-Christian cults.") Borock (talk) 06:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, archived news articles = 527. Cirt (talk) 06:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The first page of that search includes a letter to the editor complaining about someone calling Heaven's Gate a "Christian cult" and someone else calling the Mormons a "non-Christian cult." It's clear that this is not an expression that is used in any neutral or even consistant way. Borock (talk) 06:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * See also additional sources, from JSTOR. Cirt (talk) 06:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. The topic is interesting and potentially encyclopaedic, and the sparse refs there show some promise, but the article needs a lot of cleanup, possibly even a complete rewrite. That said, XfD is not cleanup, so i'm leaning towards keep on this one. Firestorm  Talk 06:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Topic is notable and verifiable. Google Scholar shows 1920 hits for  the article title as search term.  Note that the definition of the term "cult" does not imply non-Christian in any way;  its first definition in the Random House Dictionary is simply "a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies."   --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A quick look at that search shows that most of these books are refering to early Christian sects, which are specifically excluded from this article. Another book seems to be saying that Christianity itself is a cult.Borock (talk) 06:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If the book you found that makes that statement is a reliable source, maybe it would be a good idea to add that info to the article. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that every source that puts the words "Christian" and "cult" together in the same sentence should be cited in the article. That's pretty much what it does now. You might as well have an article on Dishonest Christian. (Look 864 ghits)Borock (talk) 06:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * On further considerations of your concerns about the article title, maybe rather than AfD, what you are seeking for the topic to be disambiguated. There could be two articles, one about Christianity as a cult, in the sense of a "a particular system of religious worship..." per the dictionary definition and the various historical & anthropological references that use the term "cult" in regards to Christianity, just as the term is used with regards to other major religions such as Judaism, etc..  The disambiguated article could be something like Christian cult (contemporary), and that could describe modern cults that happen to be based in Christian ideology. That might resolve the questions that result from the use of that particular term, but it would depend on whether or not the sources can be found to support the disambiguated uses. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There already is Christian cult (disambiguation). And yes, I mainly object to the title. If a very large number of concerned people (most Christians) don't think that a "cult" in the modern sense of the word can even possibly be Christian then the present title is not WP:Neutral. I think a better title would be "Cults that draw on Christian traditions."Borock (talk) 07:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * keep but if possible move to a more satisfactory title. "Christian cult" should be the disambiguation page now at Christian cult (disambiguation)". Note List_of_new_religious_movements. "Christianity-oriented new religious movements" may be a more neutral title, but would also widen the scope to include nrms not usually or necessarily considered cults, such as Mormonism --dab (𒁳) 09:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per given reasons.-- The Legendary   Sky Attacker  10:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The first section is supported by sources, and the numerous other Keep editors here have convinced me that there are sufficient sources to make a solid article, and that the term is not inherently pejorative nor a neologism, though I don't like the list nor it's classification, each listed group needs citation to support how it has been categorized. ThuranX (talk) 11:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * keep This is notable and significant and religious groups are classified this way. POV or attacking any particular group should be carefully avoided in the article. Drawn Some (talk) 11:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep albeit with a less POV title. It could use more sourcing, but it's a valid topic.  I agree that the title is too POV.  Whether something is a cult is a matter of opinion, and one person's "cult" is another person's "way of life".  For the same reason, we don't have an article entitled "Moslem extremist" ("Muslim extremism" redirects to an article about extremism in general).  Although I understand the nominator's statement that "Most Christians would deny that a group can be both Christian and a cult", it's not our prerogative to judge whether someone is "walking the walk" or just "talking the talk".  Nevertheless, within any religion there are going to be groups of people whose interpretation of the written word and practice of faith is far enough from the mainstream that the media has used the word "cult".  Mandsford (talk) 13:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Disclosure: This AFD was linked from AN after an early non-admin closure, which I reverted. –xenotalk 15:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Topic clearly meets notability and verifiability guidelines. Questions regarding the nature of the content are a separate matter, which can be addressed in the article itself, not in the deletion discussion. John Carter (talk) 18:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  —John Carter (talk) 18:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Article may require some work to provide nuance to what is a complex area. POV issues arise, in my opinion, because cult has both pejorative and technical usages. Need is for disambiguation of the term cult rather than deletion and this is achievable. Agree that the subject be regarded as notable. Muzhogg (talk) 22:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The main Cult article linked in "See also" already covers complex nuanced usages. This article is specifically for the notable phrase "Christian cult", and it's only one small part of extensive coverage of the cult topics as shown in the navigation template. Milo 10:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep – Wikipedia is not censored. Notable title terms are often non-neutral to somebody (e.g., the n-word article, and even the term "American" as a demonym for "U.S.A."). The title is a robustly notable term. Google has 48,900 hits today on "Christian cult", and additional WP:RS references are available. Cirt and Jack-A-Roe pointed to scholars' literature or Google news archives above. Here is a pointer to some news articles in the NYT archive: . Nine references since only 1981 (the free archive) refer to "Christian cult" (I didn't bother with the plural form). Two are about the ancient Christian cult (religious practice), and one is a contemporary veneration of Mary (also a religious practice), leaving six which are on topic. Two are arts and theater reviews which do count toward notability of the term. Four are news stories. The most important is a direct quote of officials of the government of Israel who deported 26 members of "an extreme Christian cult".   Milo 10:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I never questioned that the two words "Christian" and "cult" can be put together. I do question that that has any consistent meaning. I also have no idea what the government of Israel would consider an extreme Christian cult. I don't think they are experts on the topic.Borock (talk) 14:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Israel's long history of cult expertise dates at least from religious and social conflict with the Samaritans starting about 2700 years ago.
 * "I do question that that has any consistent meaning." Editors who are new to the cult topics often say things like that, because they usually don't know that the spelling c-u-l-t is a homonym with at least nine meanings. As with any homonym, the exact meaning must be deduced from the context, but the usage is consistent within each context. This also applies to phrases containing c-u-l-t.
 * Speaking for evangelicals as a group, "Christian cult" is quoted from a position statement made by Pastor Ted Haggard, then president of the National Association of Evangelicals (LATimes, 2006-10-10). Haggard describes a certain "Christian cult" as having two characteristics: "claims exclusive revelation" and "hard to get out of". These two characteristics are part of two contexts described by the article (1."Christian fundamental beliefs"; 2. "thought-reform and life-control") as those of the counter-cult movement and anti-cult movement respectively. Milo 22:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge to Christian cult (disambiguation) and redirect accordingly. A note to Borock, just because the term has a rather fuzzy meaning doesn't mean we should get rid of it  That, and if you move it to that other suggestion (list of cults who say they are Christian, or soemthing), then there exists a whole new can of worms that's been opened.  As for the merge, there is much information in there that really needs to be on the dab page - make it a one stop shop of sorts, and remove the redundancy of the examples hereon.  -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 15:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep but move to make it plural (that is, to Christian cults). No one can dispute the fact that some cults are referred to as "Christian" only by themselves, and that's what the article is about. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 17:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep -- My view would result in the addition of a lot more, but this is based on objective source lists. Conceivably Christian cult (disambiguation) might be merged here, certainly not the ther way around, vut that article is really concerned with something else.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I just wanted to point out that there is nothing POV about the title of this article. These cults identify themselves as Christians; therefore we can classify them as Christian.  It is not for us to decide how faithfully they adhere to the tenets by which other people define Christianity.  Powers T 00:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * But do these "cults" also identify themselves as cults? Mandsford (talk) 14:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's exactly the problem I see. Someone calls them "cults" and someone else calls them "Christian" and the two things are put together to create this article. Borock (talk) 14:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It superficially appeared to be that way only because of currently inadequate references. Multiple reliable source references to the complete phrase "Christian cult" in the article's modern context have been posted above, so it is now Wikipedia policy to keep the article: WP:AFD: "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." Milo 05:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Discussions on scope and terminology belong on article talk. I have no idea why this is supposed to be debated on an AfD page. "Cult" is an unhappy term for the intended scope. It'll probably end up being about "Christian new religious movements". So let's do it, but let AfD stick to actual deletion debates. --dab (𒁳) 07:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this AfD should be SNOWed in view of all the keep votes above, and I have move it to Christian new religious movements and begun expanding its scope along the lines suggested above. --dab (𒁳) 07:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Dbachmann/dab has hijacked "Christian cult", the article title under AfD discussion, without consensus. He used admin tools to move the article ( "26 May 2009" ... "(Deletion log); 07:33 . . Dbachmann" ... "deleted "Christian new religious movements" (G6: Deleted to make way for move)"  ), to an occupied title, "Christian new religious movements", which is not the same topic. Fundamentalists/Evangelicals call as "cults", two major religions which are obviously not "new religious movements"; one such major religion was named by Evangelicals President Ted Haggard in the LAT source above.
 * Then dab did a major rewrite that spans 16 revisions, which (unsurprisingly) makes it difficult to restore the article to a condition suitable for installing the new reliable source references posted here.
 * Dab previously tried a move using another title last August, 2008, with the result of "...no consensus to support move"
 * Therefore, I call for admins to restore the Christian cult article to its condition before dab altered it, and transfer dab's new text to a stub with the new title. The new title "Christian new religious movements" has only 176 Google hits today, so it may be difficult to reliably source it. If Christian cult isn't restored, so few Google hits on the new title could mean that dab has engaged in a backdoor AfD of the Christian cult article against the WP:SNOW consensus here.
 * Dab's remark above, " 'Cult' is an unhappy term...", and followup actions with lack of consensus and tool misuse suggests that he may be following too closely in the footsteps of an editor who was banned in 2008, inclusively because of: "...Sfacets's ongoing campaign to expunge the word "cult" from Wikipedia..." ((17:27, 20 September 2007)).
 * Since dab used tools to gain the upper hand in a content dispute, I call for an investigation to determine if he should be topic banned or desysopped. Milo 13:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:ANI is where you need to take your grievance. Mandsford (talk) 22:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Milo, I think here I'll trust dab's judgement on this - he was, in short, exercising WP:SOFIXIT. WP:SNOW would be appropriate for the AFD in my opinion, but he's right - fixing the problem rather than removing the article is the right thing. I still think a merge to the disambig page would have been better, but that's just my thing. [ Dennisthe2 13:29, 27 May 2009(UTC)  ]
 * "merge to the disambig page" Disambig pages can't be used that way: Disambigation: "...disambiguation pages are not articles"
 * "dab's judgment" This isn't an issue for judgment, it's about following a clear consensus. This AfD has already been closed once as SNOW KEEP, and no one is claiming otherwise. Keep means  keep as titled , not merge or move/rename (especially from a notable title to a non-notable title). To do otherwise condones backdoor AfDs, a mockery of consensus and process.
 * ←This is a policies violation issue. Dab broke at least two, and he has been previously much discussed and reminded:
 * 1. Administrators (policy)  : "Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist."
 * 2. WP:Consensus (policy)  : "... consensus is the rule on Wikipedia"  AfD: "... decision to Keep, Delete, Merge, Redirect, or Transwiki the article based on a judgment of the consensus of the discussion."
 * "trust dab's" That rubicon has already been crossed. Dab has had no less than three RFCUs (RFC/U/Dbachmann 3), culminating in an RFAR, Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann: "'1) is reminded to avoid using his administrative tools in editorial disputes in which he is personally involved, and to avoid misusing the administrative rollback tool for content reversions. ¶ Passed 9 to 0, 19:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)'"
 * Arbitrator Fred Bauder also wanted dab desysopped in 2006.
 * Milo 22:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Milo, let's take this to either WP:ANI or WP:RFC. We aren't here to discuss behavior of an administrator, we're here to discuss whether this article should be deleted.  Anything beyond this is little more than clutter we don't need here. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 15:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.