Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Cults and new religious movements in literature and popular culture


 * If only "some" is not OR, why have you not endeavor to delete that which was? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have hardly edited the article. Andries 17:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have attempted to remove some of the most egregious OR material, which consistently gets reverted, justified by explanations I am at a loss to understand. See the article's Talk Page--if anyone can explain the rationale offered there for the reversions, I would appreciate it. BabyDweezil 17:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I admit that it is highly undersourced, but again, it should follow the generally accepted practice of other Wikipedia popular culture articles. That is, that it does not have to be perfectly sourced with third party scholarly sources. Andries 21:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * ... unless challenged, Andries, unless challenged.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Highly undersourced? not "perfectly sourced"? It has one single reference...in French! Sacrebleu! BabyDweezil 21:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I added that reference. So what if it is in French? Andries 21:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * so this means that I can get half of Wikipedia deleted just by challenging material in popular culture articles that is in >95% unsourced and unsourcable with third party references? Andries 21:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a red herring argument. We are discussing the problems with this article. BabyDweezil 21:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it is fair to compare this article with the generally accepted standards in other pop culture articles. Andries 22:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What other pop culture articles arbitrarily lump in everyone from the Mormons to fictional bad guys under the pejorative and demeaning label "cult" without any secondary sourcing at all and all tied together under the rubric of an idiosyncratic and entirely original research POV essay? Might not be a bd idea to make a list of them all, since you bring it up. BabyDweezil 22:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Untrue, the article is called "cults and new religious movements ...." I admit that the current contents of the article is essentially an essay. Andries 22:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Andries, that doesnt quite answer my query, which was--what other pop culture articles are comparable to this one in arbitrarily assigning people and groups into a largely pejorative category class without any reliable sourcing? BabyDweezil 16:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not consider the clasiffication "new religious movement" pejorative, though it is ill-defined and vague. Andries 17:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Andries, I'm sure youre aware that the article is called "cults and new religious movements ....", not "new religious movements..." Would you agree to be in a category called "Nazi child abusers and Wikipedia editors," since the latter is not pejorative? BabyDweezil 17:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Most people do not even know the term NRM, so the term cult must be in the title. Andries


 * Cult and NRM are closely related, "Nazi child abusers and Wikipedia editors" are not. I think an article "Amateur writers and Wikipedia editors" would be an acceptable title. Andries 17:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

<---Most people don't know the neutral phrase "new religious movement", so we have to lump it with the abusive and pejorative label "cult"? I give up. And yes, they are closely related, the way someone telling someone else "I respectfully disagree with you" and someone telling someone else "Go shove your opinions, you friggin moron" are "closely related." So we should use both, because people not accustomed to the former will respond to the latter? BabyDweezil 17:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is more or less my reasoning. The term NRM is not widely known in contrast to the term cult. Andries 18:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, then, we would all likely still be using derogatory and oppressive terms for racial minorities, women, different sexual preferences, minority nationalities and religions and the like if our guiding principle on usage is whats "widely known." BabyDweezil 18:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)