Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of groups referred to as cults (5th 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 No consensus. Wal ton  Need some help?  09:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

List of groups referred to as cults

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Procedural listing. Correcting malformed nomination by Kkrystian. Serpent&#39;s Choice 09:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * See also Previous AFD, closed "no consensus, edging towards keep" on 16 June 2006. Serpent&#39;s Choice 09:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is a totally-sourced list that follows a stringent criteria developed by editors over several years. It is stable, with only small changes made and no recent notable edit wars. The list has survived several VfDs and AfDs. -Will Beback · † · 10:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Here are more previous deletion discussions:
 * Articles for deletion/List of purported cults/1
 * Articles for deletion/List of purported cults/2
 * Articles for deletion/List of purported cults/3


 * Keep. Despite my being the procedural re-lister of this article, I do not find any POV issues that result in inherent inadmissability as an article.  The article is in need of work; there are self-reference issues, and some very nonstandard formatting (plus the brightly-colored nonstandard warning label hatbox).  But AFD is not cleanup, and the history of this article through a number of pagemoves and deletion discussions makes clear that something can and should be written on this topic.  Serpent&#39;s Choice 10:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, well referenced, though I'm amused Wikipedia is on the list. --Candy-Panda 10:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep- per references. Eaomatrix 11:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions.  -- Pax:Vobiscum 14:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Youd have to place nearly every religion/group/institution out there in the world (AA is a cult?, Al Qaeda is a cult??... someones using the term too loosely here), so far this only seems to cover a western view on the matter (all sources are from western media). This is the kind of article that becomes chaotic from so many additions, not to mention being highly unreliable (it needs far more than just a couple of magazines as credible sources). Kessingler


 * Provisional Keep But it definitely needs some cleanup and some peer review/guidance in the process. There needs to be a clear definition of what the editor means by "Sociological Sources"--scholarly journals? Books? A certain kind of degree? AFAIK, there are a /lot/ more groups called "cults" by sociologists and psychologists than the four or five listed now.
 * And it might be helpful to eliminate the "Cult in the media" section altogether. The media flings the word around like it's going out of style, and Salon (which I saw cited a few times) isn't known for its unbiased reporting as it is for its semi-sensarionalism and pundit-editorialists. And who for the luvva Pete considers "Insight" (published by one of the "cults"--says so right there on the page) a media source for purposes of this list? One cult newspaper being used to call other cults "cults" is a circular reference that makes my teeth ache. The media section appears hopelessly conflicted and I can only see this section crippling the article, as it's going to be attacked over and over.
 * Thems my thoughts: Clean up + Clearly define + Re-source/cite as necessary = keep. Wysdom 21:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Question Wysdom, Given that this AfD has come up (more than once) in the past, with similar clean up suggestions that were never done, may I ask your opinion on the AfD with respect to keep/delete, rather than provisional? Or, perhaps differently, are you committed to following through and getting it cleaned up and can you give a compelling arguement that it actually can be cleaned up? Lsi john 16:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. • "There needs to be a clear definition" There is, and had you read the recent article edit summaries, you would have seen references to it. The sociology source specifications appear at edit time as follows: "All references should be articles in peer-reviewed sociological journals or books by academics who have published extensively on the topic in peer-reviewed journals."
 * • "Salon" Salon is a reliable source. Salon survived a major attempt in Nov 2006 to remove its status as a Wikipedia reliable source, essentially because it reports extensively on groups referred to as cults. Naturally, it's a prominent source for LOGRTAC. See Talk:Salon.com/as a source for Wikipedia.
 * • "Insight" A Washington Times / Unification Church publication. Cult or not, if they check their facts, they are a reliable source. Do you have serious evidence to the contrary? Consider that the Christian Science Monitor rose to international honor from similar origins.
 * • "The media flings the [cult] word around like it's going out of style" I completely disagree with this reckless charge which gets periodically flung around by those with little knowledge of news publishing. Libel suits (non-Christian NRMs) and potential loss of advertisers (Christian NRMs) cause editors and publishers to be very careful of using the "cult" word unless there is, for example, a significant record of neighborhood grievances, member abuse, and/or activities contrary to law. I've encountered several examples of attempted cult reference listings at LOGRTAC, including a Jewish-related, and a Catholic-related group, for which there did seem to be a bunch of cult references by Google search, yet no reliable source to quote.
 * • "hopelessly conflicted" Interesting that someone else called LOGRTAC the best-referenced page in Wikipedia. Both things can't be simultaneously true.
 * • "attacked over and over" You're correct about that, but it can't be avoided. The originator of this AfD says on his user page that he's a follower of a listed group. I'm aware of other editors who are followers of listed groups or formerly listed groups. Groups have disappeared from the list, but are not always noticed and restored, as there are now too few "pro-reporting" editors remaining to patrol the page. I assume the anti-reporters will never rest until this article is gone, so even your "Provisional Keep" is welcome. Milo 07:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I think? Whoa, there, little camper! Save the snippy defensiveness for your enemies and detractors, or something. I was making suggestions I felt would legitimately improve the article and reduce the possible success of future AfDs--if those had been reasons supporting a "Delete" vote, I could kinda see...? Look, here's something to consider: what I thought off-the-cuff upon seeing your article for the first time? Is what some other people (readers) are going to think, too. And the perception of conflicted, convoluted whatever--you could be as right and correct as the day is long--is going to undermine your credibility with (at least some of, can't speak for what percentage of the population I represent) your readership. And you're not going to get a chance to explain/defend your rationale at-length to each and every one of them. That's got nothing to do with my vote, it's not personal--it's just well meant advice. In Good Faith. Assume what you will. Best regards, Wysdom 18:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I worked on this back in the day. You are right that the nominator is of a group named in it, but whether his reasons are valid or not are not per se important. Although they do show part of the problem. Point by point.
 * •Definition: The definition might be clear, but it was created by us. I say us because I was somewhat involved at the time. We can create our own clear definition for many things, but it still runs the risk of being original research.
 * •Salon and Washington Times are only two sources. Whether they're respectable or not doesn't say much about the validity of the list. If they're not respectable you just edit, it doesn't relate to validity or viability.
 * •Media: As to the media "flinging it around" that was misleading from the keep voter. However there are a huge number of respected news sources in the world. They do an enormous amount of stories. Because of this each one can use the term "cult" sparingly and it will still add up to a mountain of groups called cults inaccurately. Especially as in much of the world news sources are speaking for a specific political ideology. (Hence small denominations opposed to same-sex marriage may "push buttons" for say liberal papers in the UK, while denominations that emphasize global-warming concerns may not have the benefit of the doubt for a conservative paper in the US)
 * •Conflicted and sourced? Being conflicted and well sourced is easy to do. I can find valid sources that say a number of contradictory things, even on matters that are basically agreed to be fact.
 * •Attacks: That you can't avoid constant attack, as you admit to, means that you have a list that will never be accurate for long and will be almost constantly on warning. This seems far from ideal.--T. Anthony 07:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. For those of you unaware, the "French Report" (Parliamentary Commission on Cults in France), is a kind of government manifesto describing thoughtful efforts to stop the rise of yet more Destructive cults, feared by average citizens who demand government protection from groups like Aum Shinrikyo. On the smaller scale of cultic abuse, the individual human rights principles of the French Report have been quietly accepted by many world governments. Though there is considerable global agreement with the principles, there is some disagreement with the means of implementation known as "cultwatching". Exactly how to cultwatch with a balance of fairness to the human and civil rights of all persons and groups involved is a global work in progress. Nonetheless, the French Report principles confirmed, with some form of cultwatching rightly understood, form a basis-in-principle, that something like List of groups referred to as cults can and should exist at Wikipedia. Milo 07:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You are in serious need to re-read WP:NOT, Milo. And it will be nice if you listen to the concerns of editors in this page, rather than defend the current implementation of that list, as if there were no concerns. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh... and I thought that this was not a list of cults... but just an NPOV list of groups referred to as such. See the problem? You are trying to create a list of cults, that it is not doable, maintainable, or NPOV, and call it something else. Your argument gives it away, Milo, and that problem needs to be acknowledged by you, primarily as the main "patroller" of this list. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Holy cow! If this isn't enough all by itself to justify deletion, then probably nothing is. A cult watchlist?!!!!! Damn. Gota give him credit, at least he acknowledges it for what it is.
 * "Milo"
 * Lsi john 22:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment First, thanks, but what I think doesn't matter to Wikipedia. Second, as a matter of intellectual honesty, do try to avoid claiming that I take a singular "is" position that I don't think exists. Unlike the absolutist philosophers here, I have no problem with modern dualistic reality. Electrons and baseballs are simultaneously waves and particles in the popular usage of really are. They really are both, and there is no way to separate these two natures.
 * Likewise List of groups referred to as cults is dualistically real. Internally its references are as NPOV as editors including me can make it. Really. You will know if NPOV has been achieved if the list appears 'equally unfair to everyone'. OTOH, externally, anyone who reads and researches with it, can use its references to make a cultwatch list. Really.
 * And no, just because you don't like the way other people use neutrally-constructed tools, is not a reason to delete. Milo 07:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If I misintrepreted your words, then I do apologize. The way I read it (my interpretation): You were making the claim that the report provided a basis-in-principle that some form of cultwatching should exist on wiki. My explitives were based on what appeared to be an honest and outright claim that cultwatching should be represented on wiki. A recent opening paragraph, in a similar list, also cited a form of cultwatching as a reason for that list, hence part of the reason for my interpretation of your words. If that is not what you meant then I stand corrected and offer apologies for my outspoken amazement. Lsi john 21:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * • Comment. No offense taken. This subject is nuanced and inherently easy to misunderstand.
 * My position has evolved as I've gradually learned things obscured from public view — most importantly that there is a global public policy mandate to engage in cultwatching. I agree that Wikipedia should not actively engage in cultwatching, but I think it should passively support public policy by providing neutrally-constructed tools that are interesting or useful to curious readers, cult historians, and outright cultwatchers fulfilling that mandate. I didn't know about this mandate until long after I became a LOGRTAC editor, so I have no connection to a cultwatching agenda. If that mandate is eventually revoked, my position will shift along with public policy.
 * My quoted statement is a reference to the potential effect of global public policy on Wikipedia article retention attitudes by editors. The French Report principles, plus some form of cultwatching rightly understood, are currently global public policy. If you as an editor don't care about cults one way or another, I think you shouldn't cast article deletion votes that might stand in the way of what the majority of citizens and governments in the world want to do to prevent the rise of future Destructive cults.
 * In this case, LOGRTAC is a neutrally-constructed cult-references tool, which for 1920+ cult historians, appears to be the best compact reference list on the net, and perhaps is a usefully well-organized place to begin a cultwatch project. Yet it's not a Wikipedia cultwatch list, because it's not labeled or compiled that way. For example, there is no logic in watching historic-listed cults that no longer exist. Someone could edit the list to remove historic references and create a cultwatch list, though the result would still not be an investigation hotlist, since LOGRTAC doesn't list recent references from unreliable sources that a Google search finds. Milo 13:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * global public policy? That is the most absurd comment I have heard in a long time, Milo. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. I would prefer a delete or substantial overhaul, though I don't expect it to happen, because in many ways the list is quite good. The article content is fairly stable and listings are maintained in accord with the criteria, with a reference. I don't have a problem with the concept of such a list, given objective criteria. However, the list criteria don't really have a solid ground, are malleable, and are subject to consensus themselves. It might be argued that the list stability is an effect of the way the criteria have evolved such that the groups listed do not generate enough protest to overturn "consensus" - a tyranny of the majority obscured by the inclusion of a couple outliers. I'm not convinced that's the case, but I do rather think the criteria express an implicit bias, arising mainly from needing only one source, allowing use of the term "sect", and the 1920 cutoff. I don't have an ideal solution, but perhaps something like a "list of lists of cults", linking any list of cults notable enough to support its own article (like the French one), along with commentary on the meaning of these lists in general. Gimmetrow 22:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. Hi Gimmetrow, we don't always agree on what to do following conclusions from an agreed set of facts, but I enjoy the depth of your insights into process.
 * • "the list criteria don't really have a solid ground" It varies. There's a range from solid as rock to whatever is the current consensus.
 * • "allowing use of the term "sect" " Rule #1 is so solid, that the ambiguities of which I was initially concerned have actually decreased. The USA "cult" meaning has been propagated by UK mainstream news. I know, because I did the British English definitions research (with fortuitous newspaper research help from a resident Brit at Talk:LOGRTAC). Read that research in the sourced definitions at the top of the Cult article.
 * • "are malleable, and are subject to consensus themselves" Yes, but that merely reflects the current consensus nature of Wikipedia.
 * • "list stability is an effect of the way the criteria have evolved such that the groups listed do not generate enough protest to overturn "consensus" " I agree, but it's a natural evolution, not a contrivance for the sake of stability. Global citizens (because most countries have NRMs) do not believe a major religion can be a cult (and they don't significantly care about the anti-Catholic, anti-Mormon, cult-related theological dispute promoted by the Christian fundamentalist Counter-cult movement).
 * • "the 1920 cutoff" J. Gordon Melton's authoritative declaration, that the modern use of one or more "cult" junior homonyms began circa 1920 — cleanly removes LOGRTAC from the need to list references to major religions under modern, populist cult labels at which global citizens scoff. Debates such as whether to list an obscure cult massacred in the middle ages, by a major religion listable as a cult of antiquity — thankfully those just went away following the 1920+ rule #4. With stability came ability, to debate the cult references most editors care about.
 * • "tyranny of the majority" Now that I have seen how the pro-reporting majority are distractible, while anti-reporters never give up, I no longer consider that to be a long-term problem. It's the majority of Wikipedia users who are currently at risk of losing access to information. As pro-reporters who built the list have melted away, the consensus has reverted toward the anti-reporters (a diverse group of philosophers and NRM followers or supporters.) If they can't AfD LOGRTAC, they will delete it piece-by-piece. It's already happening.
 * • "needing only one source" That would be rule #0. It's just the current consensus. Early on I debated in favor of multiple sources, but the consensus remained at single-source. After LOGRTAC lost the government reports, I now no longer favor multiple sources. With suitable compromises on again including government reports, I could change my mind again on multiple sources.
 * • "list of lists of cults" That is a separate article. It sounds like a good idea, and perhaps is useful, but it's not a replacement for LOGRTAC described as "one-stop shopping" for researchers. AFAIK, for cult reference research there's nothing else as useful as LOGRTAC on the net. Milo 07:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Milo's response is convincing. This list has its basis in "cultwatching" and "there's nothing else as useful... on the net." This article is an attempt to find some middle ground between List of new religious movements and Destructive cult by a "pro-reporting" majority, and not simply a neutral compiled list of media references. As such it is original research, synthesizing multiple references in ways those references wouldn't necessarily support. Gimmetrow 06:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * • Comment. I don't know that LOGRTAC's origins are from cultwatching, but that's a reasonable assumption. I recall a report at LOGRTACIGR, which suggested that after Peoples Temple imploded in 1978, the U.S. government began to consider what to do about cults of which the public had generally been complaining for years (the Cult debate). The problem then and now is how to observe the U.S. Constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion, while preventing future deaths of citizens and government employees by Destructive cults. Obviously, cults can't just be ignored, and governments obviously can't go back to the middle ages solution of massacres.
 * The point I think you are overlooking is that cultwatching is the neutral, middle ground solution that they devised. Recall that the Peoples Republic of China was then considered a communist enemy, yet too powerful to actively oppose, so the solution was "containment" and "China watching". It wouldn't surprise me if "cultwatching" was suggested as a parallel concept.
 * The "pro-reporting" position is the neutral compiled list of references (media and other types). As taught in journalism schools ideal reporting is unbiased (what Wikipedia calls NPOV); while commentary, editorial, and opinion are biased or point-of-view statements. The inverse, anti-reporting, is not biased POV, rather it just tries to stop the flow of information. Currently anti-reporting is achieving success at LOGRTAC. One editor in particular became so successful that he was able to remove his NRM from the list and there remained too few pro-reporters to stop him.
 * I respectfully disagree that there is any original research in gathering of LOGRTAC references. Nothing there can be fairly described as "synthesizing" during the compilation of references, in what is the near-equivalent of a white pages business telephone book (a selection of just businesses). (U.S. Courts have ruled that telephone listings are not original and therefore not eligible for copyright). There is certainly nothing described about the references that they don't support, since the list is purely descriptive. It says only that the letters c-u-l-t and s-e-c-t (and foreign equivalents) appear at the pointed-to locations along with a group name that was described as a c-u-l-t or s-e-c-t. That's it! "c-u-l-t" and "s-e-c-t" don't even have to meet a definition test to be listed. All definitions not excluded are accepted (fancults are excluded). Milo 13:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete I think I may have voted keep in the past, but it's been given over three years and several AfD "let's clean it up" recommendations. That didn't solve things because it's just not solvable. It's always going to attract a morass of activists and arguments. Destructive cult, Category:Destructive cults, Cult suicide, and Category:Cult suicides probably cover the matter of cults enough.--T. Anthony 02:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - Every religious group that has ever existed has been referred to as a cult at some point in its history. Otto4711 02:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as per T. Anthony. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep provided the bar for cult reference is higher than a simple pop culture reference that a group might be a cult. The criteria for listing cults seem to do a good job of this. Avoiding the statement that 'these groups are cults' by focusing on references to cults is a smart way to get around the subjectivity issue. Antonrojo 04:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - Keep, highly sourced, with highly developed inclusionary criteria. Also per excellent points by User:Will Beback.  Smee 15:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC).


 * Delete The inclusion criteria are clear, but there is arbitrariness which masks POV; Why is an organization that existed in 1919 automatically not a cult per this list, regardless of references? And a single reference warrants inclusion is a very low threshhold. The Roman Catholic Church would likely have been called a cult by someone, so if it hadn't existed before 1919, it would be included.  Not sure how this can be surmounted? If this is kept it should be renamed to List of groups founded since 1920 referred to as cults by at least one source to accurately reflect the real inclusion criteria. Carlossuarez46 20:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Article is useless and arbitrary, practically serving as an outlet for editors who don't like certain groups; the groups' articles present more balanced views, and are much more useful. This list is unencyclopedic and it's inclusion does not serve Wikipedia.  Gatorgalen 20:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Article has no significant or socially redeeming value. WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:V & WP:NOT
 * It is not an encyclopedia article, it appears to be a hit list which has no strict criteria for inclusion. If virtually any group can be added to this list, by being referred to as a cult, by any reliable source, the list can and will easily grow to include virtually every organization in existence.
 * Wiki rules already prevent us from saying an organization is a cult, by virtue of the pejorative nature of the word. Creating a virtually unregulated list of purported cults, without any strict definition being applied for inclusion, would seem to violate the rationale for not allowing us to specifically call a group a cult in the first place.
 * To the unsuspecting reader who is unaware of the subtle implication of "referred to as": List of groups referred to as cults  equates to: List of Cults and thus violates wiki policy at least in spirit.
 * WP:OR - This is a collection of individual organizations, gathered together. It appears to be a form of original research. The only significant aspect of the article is the list itself. The entries are not cited as cited lists of cult, but as individual organizations referred to as cults. The collection of those individual items into one article-list, would seem to be the work product of original-research. The individual citations may be WP:RS, however for wiki editors to do the collecting, under one single banner, exclusively for the purpose of a single list, is WP:OR. 16:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The first TWO full paragraphs, are a disclaimer which seek to exculpate, explain and rationalize the list with double speak. A wiki article should not need two full paragraphs talking about the article and why it isn't bad, rather than the subject matter itself. 17:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And, McCarthyism comes to mind. Lsi john 21:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "The individual citations may be WP:RS, however for wiki editors to do the collecting, under one single banner, exclusively for the purpose of a single list, is WP:OR." That's quite a surprising statement, seeing as how creating an overall overview of a subject from individual citations that are reliable sources is what Wikipedians are supposed to do, and not original research.  It seems what you're saying is that even if there's no lack of reliable sources to say that Nixon was a U.S. President and no lack of reliable sources to say that Washington was a U.S. President, it would be original research to put them in List of U.S. Presidents unless you can cite a reliable source which is itself a list which contains them both.  That's a rather interesting view of what the original research policy means but I don't think it's the correct one. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed does appear to be a paradox. The more I look at the LIST aspect, the more it appears to technically violate WP:OR. I believe the contradiction is solved with Categories (though those also are subject to POV). So, yes, technically, a List of Presidents would WP:OR unless someone else publishes the list and we cite it. (Fortunately for us, such lists exist already!) There is a subtle difference however. A List of Presidents would be a list of factual data. A list of groups referred to as cults is a list of individual opinions, which is significantly different from list of factual data.
 * And, yes, I am being very technical, but I believe I am also being accurate. Courts regularly strike down laws, due to technical paradox and contradiction and thus close loopholes. When loopholes are closed, the good along with the bad are thrown out.
 * In a normal article, there needs to be a consensus of opinion for information to be included, with minority opinions being given lesser importance. For example, in an article about dogs, it is doubtful that an author who writes "all dogs are vicious" would get any representation in the article. In this article we do not have a general consensus for each item in the list which would be required in any other article. In this article a minority opinion of 1 (from popular media) qualifies for inclusion. And there is no provision for rebuttal.
 * Even if you disagree with this being WP:OR, or ignore the WP:OR and cite WP:LIST for validity, it is WP:POV by definition because there is no other side represented.
 * It also violates WP:LIST due to the prejudicial nature of the term cult and is fairly indiscriminate in the inclusion criteria (popular media?) and appears to recognize that it violates WP policy, in its clear attempt to divest itself from being used for any particular purpose. And the popular media seems to back-door the WP:RS policy, as popular media is generally not qualified to determine cult status.
 * Lsi john 20:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - This highly-regulated and self-policing encyclopedic (meaning all-encompassing and comprehensive) article provides valuable resources. It has not yet expanded to include my local Scrabble Club, which suggests that the defined criteria operate effectively; and indeed the article has not shown the dynamism of some individually debated topics, but has appeared to stabilize well without becoming scerotic. If an influx of newly-defined "referred to as cults" were to arrive, we could readily set up an equally encyclopedia-worthy parallel article with slightly more restrictive entry-criteria. -- The format of the article readily allows a researcher to distinguish a single reference citing a less-known source from a series of references spanning the spectrum of various media. Alphabetical listings show neither fear nor favor and provide a well-known organizing principle militating against chaos, and the use of Wikilinks preserves the article from much of the convoluted edit-warring associated with some individual groups or sets of groups. -- The use of the word "cult" in viciously pejorative or strictly legalistic senses receives a useful counter here. The dynamic genius of the English language allows respected sociologists to speak of "the cult of higher education" or "the cult of professionalism", and such usages may serve to remind us not to use the word "cult" as a narrow proper noun, but as a tool for characterizing numerous aspects of the world -- even in an encyclopedia which can reflect popular usage. This "reality" transcends the views of the lawyer or of the soldier in the NRM-wars, and seems all the more refreshing for that. People talk about "cults" or "cultishness", some of that talk seeps (selectively) into various sorts of media (from popular rags to scholarly tomes) and there results a Wikipedia article reflecting this cultural phenomenon: people with a view on certain organizations -- organizations grouped under this one rubric and/or under others (compare religion, Large Group Awareness Training, Destructive cult, business...) -- I would like to see a little more up-front discussion on the page itself as to the evolution and application of the criteria for inclusion. -- The alleged uselessness of the article does not per se provide a valid criterion for deletion; nor does bad-mouthing it as an alleged hit-list. The article does indeed offer lists, but that function has become firmly established in Wikipedia and forms one of the great merits of a collaborative Wiki: everyone gets to expand and expatiate on the concept. -- Pedant17 02:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice slight of hand there. This is a list of groups. I don't believe that "Cult of professionalism" or "cult of higher education" are considered groups. How many of the 80+ entries in this list represent your proposed innocuous usage of the label cult? Maybe 1, if you count wiki's entry. At least have the decency to acknowledge the list for what it is and provide your justification for keeping it. Lsi john 22:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per Carlossuarez46 - the criteria have indeed been wrangled over by many editors, however that doesn't stop the result being original research. Addhoc 13:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a black list but not a Wikipedia article. "Cult" is used right here as a negative term. Negative classification of people because they are member in some religious/esoteric etc group? No way. Non-RS are used throughout. Media is NOT a source for religious questions, especially when quoting someone's opinion, and scholars don't use "cult" as a term. Misou 17:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you meant to say "no true scholar", there. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Will Beback. Many of these arguments, such as  "Media is NOT a source for religious questions" and "scholars don't use "cult" as a term" seem to disclose the true major reason why this article's non-existence has been and continues to be sought:  not because it does anything wrong in sourcing the significant POV that cults do exist, but because it gives that significant POV appropriate representation.  Were it somehow possible to source the list to God Himself, I'm sure we would still regularly deal with AfDs packed with complaints that He is not a reliable source for this matter; that by definition no one who does not reject the possibility of the existence of cults could be reliable. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * From the way I read WP:LIST, an wiki-list should be NPOV. The list name should not imply guilt or conduct. And, we are specifically prohibited from saying "ABC is a cult". The rules for WP:CIVIL are also clear: my saying This is not an attack, but Jossi is an arrogant ass. would not magically make my comment WP:CIVIL. By the same logic, 2 full paragraphs as a disclaimer on why its not a pejorative list and doesn't violate wiki rules, doesn't mean it isn't pejorative and that it complies.
 * I would be interested to hear your explanation for why this article requires two full paragraphs of disclaimer and instruction to the reader. Lsi john 20:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. 'Cult' is simply a derogatory term for a group. What we have here is a well-referenced list of groups that other people don't like. Why would Wikipedia keep a list like that? ...except for the fact that a group of anti-religious editors like to keep it here as a poke in the eye of other editors and readers. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 21:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Inherently POV. The term cult has thoroughly morphed into a pejorative term; there is no "good cult" (unless, of course, it is a "dead cult"). For every RS that quotes a POV-pusher calling something a cult there is RS quoting a POV-pusher saying it is not - so what do we do? Let's just not. --Justanother 21:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. At least for NPOV. Wikipedia does have some of the charateristics of a cult.  Whether it is or not is a different issue.   Otherwite,  it looks like censorship,  which is what a cult would do.Jewishprincess 23:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC) Note to closing adomin: This edit was this user's 5th edit in Wikipedia
 * Comment It's just amazing what an education at LOGRTAC will do for a totally negative "cult" attitude. First, Alcoholics Anonymous has been scientifically proved to be a beneficial cult. Second, by calculation on the prevalence of cults shown in the Cult article, something like 96-98% of all cults are good or good enough to not annoy their neighbors, or otherwise cause themselves to be written about as a cult in the newspaper. Milo 07:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Observation: Then you add to the claim that the article should be deleted or at least seriously modified. Acoholics Anonymous is listed in a very short non-aphabetized list which is completely overshadowed by the Huge alphabetized media-list below. In fact, I double checked the list before responding and didn't see it. Then to be sure I didn't type something stupid, I did a word search and found it. I had to look twice. Lsi john 13:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete or radically alter it's terms of reference. Cult is almost invariably seen as a perjorative word. I don't see the point of a list of 99% media opinions or passing references on what a particular journalist (from some pretty minor papers in some cases) may choose to call a cult on any particular day. Some references are clearly ironical. Whats so special about journalists? What does each journalist mean by 'cult'? Do we care? The list is quite entertaining, but that's not enough. The opening paragraphs are so full of disclaimers it becomes meaningless as an article and in fact not an article at all. Now a list of bodies described as cults, by notable researchers or commentators in the field (which may well include some journalists) in an article that discussed the meaning of 'cult'; now that may be worth it. Fainites 23:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve. Cults are the subject of serious academic study. Anywhere the term is used in such a way it can be added anywhere to Wikipedia. If its used pejoratively (in a pejorative phrase) then there is a question. In academic studies - eg cultic studies, its not used pejoratively. Any information from cultic studies, including lists of cults, will be a benefit to Wikipedia. Docleaf 04:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * comment. You are right, but this list is not about academic studies of cults. It is a list of groups that were referred at least once in the media a such (a random criteria agreed by some editors). That is not "academic". If your comment means that all the media-related references should be removed, then I say so. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * comment In reply. I don't think I have ever read a media report of a cult that is strictly pejorative. I have read many that have stated their view that a group is a cult though. If someone states in a newspaper that "McDonalds is a stinking cult" then that would be pejorative. I would exclude that. If it was a report categorising, or calling something a cult with a view to describing it as such then its fine, especially if it describes behaviours that are consistent with cults. All according to sensible editing. I have to consider the consequences of allowing the dismissal of media sources(I know you're not dismissing btw, but it could lead there). A lot of media sources are reliable after all. I feel the solution really isn't to delete: Just focus on adding reliable sources and improving the list. Some of the information is fine already and there's a wealth of other even more reliable quality sources to add. Docleaf 15:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * comment Reply. Your comments speak to cults in general, not specifically to the value of this article. WP:RS and WP:V when applied to other articles are intended to make sure we are citing accurate and verifiable facts. The nature of the title of this article in combination with the requirements to be listed circumvent the rules for proper sourcing. A reporter (or letter to the editor) for popular media, do not necessarily have any credentials to call something a cult. In a normal article, an offhand remark by a journalist that McDonalds is a cult would not be admissable in an article about McDonalds (unless that reporter is a recognized expert of course). However, that reporter could be cited in this article and McDonalds could be listed. (notice wiki's presence on the list) \
 * The AfD is not to remove cult from wiki, it is to remove this particular article. Lsi john 15:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * comment-- The problem, Docleaf, is that the article never manages to get cleaned up, and that is why it ends up again and again in AfD. When you have editors that unequivocally see this a source for cult-watchers, the article suffers, disclaimers upon disclaimers need to be added to the article, and the mess remains a mess. In previous AFD's there were many editors that asked for tightening criteria and cleaning up the article, but that has not happened, and I am afraid it will not happen if the Afd closes again with no consensus. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * comment. I'd apply patience (of Job). The subject of cults is increasing in importance and significance and more reliable sources are being generated in cults/sects/sektes/sectes/new alternative religions or whatever synonym or collection of synonyms you like to apply. In fact the way the subject is being handled in general is increasingly intelligent and informed by both academia and the media. The list is pretty much guaranteed to be improved in short or long term. Docleaf 05:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * keep per above--Sefringle 04:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Jossi's comment -- The qualification for this list, being mentioned in a media outlet, does not retain the academic notability an accurate list of cults, as defined by experts, would have. Ichibani 19:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep List is clear from its name that it is not objectively trying to identify what is and isn't a cult, but rather what has been referred to as a cult in a reliable source. Because that is the case, I don't feel it violates NPOV principles to have such a list, and see it as an important listing to be kept up to date by Wikipedia editors. Article may always be a source of controversy, edit wars, and debate, especially given the open nature of Wikipedia and the sheer number of members of groups on the list who don't agree with the label their group has gotten; but the only other option is to throw up our hands and give up trying to document notable but controversial topics. Xanthius 20:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The title does not say "list of groups referred to as cults by reliable sources". You are adding that based on your wiki-knowledge and I don't see what you see. Reliable source or Qualified source are neither in the title, nor the inclusion criteria. Popular media is the inclusion criteria. This would allow a high school student to write an article or letter-to-the-editor in The Montgomery County Sentinel, and get a group listed here, which seems to back-door WP:RS rules. This article has had 5-AfD's, and it still containing these flaws. That seems to indicate that it can't or won't be fixed and it needs to go.
 * If we accept that:
 * The list is not trying to identify what is and is not a cult.
 * The list criteria only requires a single popular media source to refer to a group as a cult and it can be listed here.
 * There is no method for any group, or anyone on their behalf, to contest inclusion on the basis of cult status. This makes it an easy-on, never-off list. (hence my earlier McCarthyism comment).
 * Then, how could this not be a POV article? Simply referring to a group as a cult, without scientifically establishing the fact, is the POV of the author. Whether or not the author is correct in his claim, is not important to this article, because our requirement is simply that the group was referred to as a cult, not that it has been established that the group is a cult. Collecting a list of POV references with no place for rebuttal or removal, creates a POV article. ::For counter opinions, I suppose we could create an article: "List of groups referred to as cults but claimed by others to not be a cult".
 * Collecting a list of groups which were referred to as cults, is a back door way to make a list we would not otherwise be able to make. And, if, as you say, its not really a list of cults, wouldn't that make it a WP:TRIVIA article?
 * List of groups which have been determined to be cults by a consensus of scientists and academics would be a true and accurate list; where professionals identified and tagged groups, and validated the claim with a cult litmus test.
 * List of groups referred to as cults by more than one qualified scientist and/or academic, might be an acceptable list.
 * This list, with its present title and criteria, is a collection of WP:POV, thus making it WP:POV and WP:TRIVIA IMO.
 * We may be on technically legal ground, by using "referred to as", but I suspect the typical reader will still see this title as "List of cults". And before someone says "we can't help what the reader thinks", I say yes we can, by being clear and staying on morally solid ground. Change the name to: "list of cults", and I'll say keep.
 * Notable or conversational topics are not the issue here. This article is neither.
 * Lsi john 22:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This list is as close to a list of cults as we can get without being POV. We could never have an article named "List of cults" because we would have to objectively define what a cult is, something even experts in the field have not been able to do. This is the best way to have such a list without objectively defining what a cult is. As long as the sources are reliable, which brings me to my next point..
 * The reliable source guidelines apply to the list, because they apply to any article in Wikipedia. If a religious group has been identified as a cult in a media source that is reliable, odds are pretty likely that it is a cult/has cult-like tendencies, and belongs on the list. The list is very useful to readers interested in cults, while still maintaining an understanding that (especially in instances like the "Wikipedia" mention) further looking into every case is certainly needed because the list only contains groups "referred to" as cults, which in some cases gets them on this list because of somebody's choice of words rather than true cultic behaviors in the group. Looking over the list, however, it seems to primarily be a list of groups that most researchers would consider cults/cultic. That says to me the list has been a success thus far, with a few expected kinks, and should carry on and continue to be developed. Xanthius 00:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This article is not an article on Groups that exhibited cultic behavior. It is a list that only requires one media source as criteria for inclusion, regardless what that media source is and how the word cult was used by the journalist, and with no possibility whatsoever to describe alternative opinions of that group, and thus in violation of WP:NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Rebuttal opportunity is provided in the article of the particular group. Anyone wanting further information as to how and why a group is listed on the page would have to either check into the sources (which are very well linked on this page) or click the wikilink and read the group's entry where they would generally find criticism/controversy and a response to that criticism. Again, in my opinion, having the title of the page include "referred to as cults" makes it very clear to readers that groups that aren't considered "cults" by researchers (like Wikipedia) may end up on the list, and invites the reader to look into it each instance further. Xanthius 00:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, I think this quote from above really summarizes the whole issue "We could never have an article named "List of cults" because we would have to objectively define what a cult is, something even experts in the field have not been able to do. This is the best way to have such a list without objectively defining what a cult is." That I think really summarizes the motive of having such an article, and makes it clear why this article should be deleted.  It is nothing more than attempt at making a List of Cults without having to remain NPOV or be objective in any way in defining cult.Gatorgalen 01:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Interest in cults which are perceived as such by the media is just as valid as interest in cults as defined by researchers. Most newspaper articles that refer to a group as a cult do so via the quote of a researcher or research group that has classified them as such. Using "referred to" is a necessary evil, but I believe it is the best way to accomplish a list of cult groups while still maintaining NPOV. I will say that I would not be opposed to something like A list of groups classified as a cult by prominent research group X. Determining which research group(s) to trust may fall within the bounds of original research however, which is why I think the list has settled into the name/rules it has. Xanthius 02:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes the not-defined problem is easily solved. Just define it as for example - science - is defined. Actually science is vaguely and variously defined but Wikipedia chooses a definition. Then goes on to include all subjects that are thought to be science. Many WP subjects are vaguely defined or even wrongly defined according to some sources. The main point of the list is to help the reader browse related subjects. Its helpful and complies with NPOV (especially in terms of its links to other reliable information)Docleaf 05:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Yes this is an electronic medium. I would make improvements though all the same. With entries like Branch Davidians, Falun Gong, Landmark, and such I think this article has such a lot going for it. It helps the reader really understand the cult subject quite well. Still improve and defintiely keep. Docleaf 01:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per above.Biophys 21:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I am inquiring as to the notability of the list, based on its criteria, on the article's talk page. An AfD doesn't seem to be the best place to explore that question right now. Ichibani 01:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Will Beback. This is totally sourced. &mdash; Michael Linnear   03:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Historically, groups such as the Council on Mind Abuse and the Cult Awareness Network have been subject to intense attacks simply for stating their position towards groups who exhibit authoritarian tendencies. Freedom of Religion should never be construed to be superior to Freedom of Speech.  Wikipedians should have the moral courage to report where it has been pointed out by experts that groups have used coercive persuasion to control its members.  I like this article and I think it is well that the criteria is general and non-selective.  My compliments to its editors. ClaudeReigns 08:33, 4 May 2007 (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.