Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of groups referred to as cults (5th nomination)

Pedant17 comments
Re the claim that only the list (within the article) has significance: The introductory explanatory material makes the list(s) valid in its own terms and thus has high significance as well. -- Pedant17 03:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Re the practice of collecting as "original research": The characterization of a collection of items as "original research" would potentally ban any summary article or "See also" subsection from Wikipedia. As a sometime contributor to the listing, I deny that the collection of information here represents collecting "exclusively for the purpose of a single list". -- Pedant17 03:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Re factual and not-so-factual lists: A list of groups which reliable sources have dubbed "cults" does comprise a list of the facts: source X called org Y a cult (fact 1, an act of labelling) and source A called org B a cult (fact 2, another act of labelling ); etc. That makes this list factual -- and interesting, and worthy of retention and expansion. -- Pedant17 03:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Re the alleged lack of "provision for rebuttal" -- rebuttal can take place, in the normal and appropriate manner, in the individual linked articles, which can offer the space and the structure for such discussions. -- Pedant17 03:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Re the alleged lack of "other side" opinions: if anyone can prove that a given source did not use the "cult" label; or if anyone can prove that an editor has wrenched an included quotation from a contrary context, then we can then remove that cite. This article's lists simply report the facts that someone published such labelling. Compare a list of satellites of Jupiter: such lists leave little scope for and have little need of dissenting points of view. The demand for "other side" opinions arises principally if one misinterprets the "list of references as cults" as a "list of cults". - But as to the inclusion of various classes of cult, the article does indeed amalgamate different viewpoints. It includes references to religious groups as well as to apparently secular organizations. It includes sociologically-defined cults as well as media-defined cults. It covers spirituality as whell as psycho-cults. -- It seems unlikely that any one reader -- even one with encyclopedic knowledge of each of the groups listed -- would agree with all the labellings as "cults". In this sense the article represents and presents various views, and does so in an impartially NPOV omnium-gatherum manner. -- Pedant17 03:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Re the alleged prejudicial nature of the term "cult": Just because some people see the word "cult" only as expressing "prejudicial nature" does not mean that Wikipedia cannot present and foster an established and standard broader view of culthood. The article defines "cult" quite precisely for its own use, but the mere range of entities in the lists demonstrates that other writers use the term differently. We do not need to shy away from controversy by suppressing the content of the article: we can instead accept multiple uses of the expression "cult" and link to the usage of various writers. -- Popular media may not have the right to definitively determine "cult status", but they have the right to discuss the matter, as do the less popular media which also receives a place in the article. The idea that "cults" exist occurs in popular culture. Wikipedia can and should acknowledge and deal with popular culture -- and to do so may involve a less strict application of some of the ideals of citation. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/examples suggests:

Articles related to popular culture and fiction must be backed up by reliable sources like all other articles. However, due to the subject matter, many may not be discussed in the same academic contexts as science, law, philosophy and so on; [...] When a substantial body of material is available the best material available is acceptable, especially when comments on its reliability are included. -- Pedant17 03:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

For situations more reminiscent of McCarthyism, compare the separate but equal List of groups referred to as cults in government reports. Here the emphasis on the popular and not-so-popular press makes discussing and labeling "cults" more a freedom-of-speech issue. -- Pedant17 03:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The article under discussion does indeed list groups. But it lists such groups because some writers have referred to them as cults. In this context I find discussion of the word "cult" in its various meanings and connotations entirely appropriate and a useful antidote to the narrow view that "cult" merely constitutes a snarl-word. -- I stand by my reasons (detailed above) for supporting the retention of this article, which I regard not as a blacklist, but as a work-in-progress summary of opinion about cultishness in the noosphere. -- Pedant17 03:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This Wikipedia article makes in and of itself no judgments on the negativity sometimes associated with the term "cult", nor does it generically extrapolate from the groups to judge the members of those groups, or even to judge the leadership of those groups which have leaders. The article also includes mention of groups not specifically religious in nature, demonstrating the diversity in the use of the term "cult". -- Note that in some spheres (especially sociology and anthropology), recognized scholars have employed and do employ the word "cult" as part of their specific technical jargon. -- Pedant17 03:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The editors of the article have not assembled the material in the article "indiscriminately", but in accordance with clearly-defined and sometimes somewhat restrictive criteria. The word "cult" has many non-derogatory connotations as well as disparaging ones. -- And I may not like certain groups (some governments, several political parties, most commercial enterprises), but I (and others) generally find other, more appropriate insults to hurl at them other than the word "cult". This article provides object lessons in what people do and do not call a "cult', and thus adds to our understanding of language -- a worthy function of an encyclopedia. -- Pedant17 03:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Good or semi-good cults (at least in appropriate contexts): the cult of Mary, the cult of respectability, the (benevolent) cargo cult. The current article needs to exclude these (and others), but they exist nonetheless. The word "cult" has not entirely "morphed in to a pejorative term", and we can discuss cults and exemplify people labelling them without the need to exclude the concept from Wikipedia. -- Pedant17 03:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Closed as "No consensus."
This seems a fair closure by the closing Admin as "No consensus." Looks like there were about 17 Keeps, and 14 Deletes... Smee 09:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC).


 * Yes thank you Smee. I do think that we got some useful reminders out of the exercise though. I do think we could add more to the list using good research. For starters it would probably be a good idea to search through the archives of certain articles that are considered by some to be cults as knowing the nature of those articles there may be deleted information there to help add information to the list and it may be well sourced. Docleaf 15:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. And a good idea...  Smee 20:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC).