Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of groups referred to as cults (6th nomination)

Huh?
How can this possibly be deleted when the nominator offers no rationale to delete the page, and in fact votes himself to keep it? I'd love to see this entry get axed, but what is the procedure here?PelleSmith (talk) 12:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Rule 1 should have closed this AfD as soon as it was posted. Townlake (talk) 19:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "No-one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted" This is clearly not the case.--T. Anthony (talk) 05:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This discussion concluded before you arrived. Get yourself a beer and join us in the new conversation. Townlake (talk) 04:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Except no one had PRODed the entry ... which is what the example says in full.PelleSmith (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * ...or you could look at the part that dings procedural nominations. Six of one really, we're obviously past that point... Townlake (talk) 21:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not that this is worth arguing but you are conflating the procedural part with the example itself to synthesize clarity that isn't actually there. Here is what the procedural part says: "Also, there are some cases where the nominator specifies they are nominating for the sake of process, for someone else, or some other reason but are not stating an opinion themselves."  But he did state an opinion, it was just a keep opinion.  Then the example says: "An example of this includes posting a nomination in response to a proposed deletion but advocating a keep position."  Except here he didn't PROD the entry first.  You may be right about what is intended, but as stated this rule actually does not clearly apply.  Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 21:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We disagree, but it's moot. Let's grab another beer and talk about something else. Townlake (talk) 20:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. :)PelleSmith (talk) 21:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Some Pertinant Scholarship
I've noted under my own "delete" vote that I will copy two sections here from Talk:List of groups referred to as cults that relate to my argument. Please see below.PelleSmith (talk) 17:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

A pejorative term in mass culture
A sociological study conducted in 2003 explored the public perception of the term "cult" by surveying 2,400 Nebraskans. This study was published in a leading peer reviewed publication--Olson, Paul J. 2006. "The Public Perception of 'Cults' and 'New Religious Movements'." Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 45(1):97–106. Here is what the author concluded: Does anyone have a peer reviewed study that suggests otherwise? This term is inherently problematic, and clearly seen as pejorative in mass culture (media and popular usage). We should be doing everything in our power not to use it ourselves in describing NRMs. It should be attributed to the cultural space in which it is used. This should be obvious to all.PelleSmith (talk) 20:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "The results of this survey demonstrate that an NRM (despite the problems several scholars have with that term) is viewed much more positively by Nebraskans than a cult is, but perhaps an alternative religious movement, emergent religion, or marginal religious movement would have been equally well received ... The results of the 2003 NASIS reveal that, at least in Nebraska, the general public certainly does not view cults in a neutral way. Because the use of the term has such potentially severe consequences, we must be extremely careful with it and, I believe, that it is time that we become “cultphobic” (Richardson 1993:355) and do our research with more neutral terminology."

A term descriptive of cultural politics
J. Gordon Melton recently reflected on the problem of defining NRMs, a term he now seems to prefer to "cult": Melton, J. Gordon. 2004. "Perspective: Toward a Definition of New Religion." Nova Religio. 8(1):73-87. In his essay he uses both "cult" and "NRM" but favors the latter while recognizing the cultural politics involved in the labeling process (emphasis mine): He proposes, in studying NRMs to first locate the NRM within the larger tradition it finds itself, but then to pay attention directly to the cultural politics of othering: This point is of utmost importance to our problems here. A "list of groups referred to as cults" drops itself directly into the mess of cultural politics Melton makes reference too. Sure, a nuanced and thorough academic study of these politics would be both informative and interesting, but you have to be crazy to think that this is what is striven for currently. Note that in Melton's lens the media is not a secondary source, but a primary source. We should take that as a lesson on how the media, the anti-cult movement, and popular hysterias should not be considered as reliable sources for objectively identifying cults, but as primary sources of "cult" labeling.PelleSmith (talk) 21:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "This essay has offered a different way of defining the field of new religions by viewing the object of study not as a group of religions that share particular attributes, but as a set of religions assigned an outsider status by the dominant religious culture and then by elements within the secular culture ... "
 * "Having placed the group on the religious landscape (relative to its own religious tradition and its relationship to the dominant religious community), we can begin to look for factors leading to its assignment of outsider status, always keeping in mind that those factors will be located both within the group (behavior/belief patterns) and in the larger society (level of religious tolerance, presence of cult-monitoring groups, etc.)."


 * You're referring to Melton, the author of:
 * The Cult Experience: Responding to the New Religious Pluralism
 * Why Cults Succeed Where The Church Fails
 * Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America
 * Biographical Dictionary of American Cult and Sect Leaders
 * Cults, Religion, and Violence
 * The topic is encyclopedic enough to have an entire encyclopedia devoted to it. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Does anyone dispute that "cult" was the term of choice in sociology until more recently? NO.  Is NRM a more recent replacement? YES.  Are the reasons for this the ones I outlined above?  YES.  Do you dispute the fact that Melton has decided to drop "cult" for NRM?  What exactly does any of those older book titles prove?  You are the person who tried to convince me that NRM and "cult" are not synonymous in sociology, which is completely and utterly wrong.  Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 21:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not all groups called "cults" are religions (new or otherwise). That's a fact. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not all groups called "cults" in popular parlance, and/or in some rather specific academic contexts are strictly speaking "religious". If you want I can provide you with several references that sum up the development of the term NRM, and its use in the sociology of religion.  It is specifically geared towards replacing the term "cult".  Your argument seems to be based upon the popular notion, which is a confusion of and expansion of the original sociological notion of "cult".  Do you seriously want to argue for the incredibly misleading, confusing, and usually pejoritive popular usage?  If so I don't think we have much to discuss.PelleSmith (talk) 23:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We're not here to make the world a better place, we're here to describe the world as reported in reliable sources. Scholarly views are important, but they don't trump or nullify popular views. Melton has found the term "cult" useful enough to write five major books with the term in the title. Note that "cult" and "NRM" aren't the only terms in use. Another term used by scholars is "marginal religious movement". And there are others terms too (it sometimes appears as if scholars are trying to make names for themselves by coining new terms). This list includes a listing of the term "cult" used in scholarly and popular sources to describe groups (some religious and some not). ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In my case I'm not arguing we abandon all articles on cults. I'm just saying a list of cults (referred to as cults, purported cults, alleged cults, etc) is not going to be maintanable or useful. For an analogy we have Fascism, Category:Fascism, and List of fascist movements by country but we deleted List of fascists. I love lists, but there are times and phenomena where list format is unhelpful or unworkable. If this is deleted we'll still have Cult suicide, Category:Cult suicides, Christian cult, Destructive cult, Doomsday cult, Groups referred to as cults in government documents, and Political cult.--T. Anthony (talk) 05:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that something like List of NRMs referred to as "cults" by the media is maintainable. First you would require one (or more) scholarly sources that claims the group is an NRM, or "cult" from those scholars who refuse the newer terminology, and then you have two (or more) sources from the media claiming it is a "cult".  What I'm seeing is opposition to this suggestion precisely because of the clarity that it brings, vis-a-vis the expert (scholarly) perspective.  I don't think it is useless to have a list of groups popularly referred to as cults, and some of these groups are indeed "destructive" or "exploitative" but it has to be done with as much clarity as possible, and not by insinuating accuracy in the hysteria promoted by the Anti-cult movement and perpetuated by various cultural institutions (e.g. the media).PelleSmith (talk) 13:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I could support List of NRMs referred to as cults by the media. I think it'd probably have the same problems, but maybe starting over would clear out some cobwebs. The only problem is "NRM" is potentially unclear to the casual viewer and not all groups who have to deal with cult allegations are in fact religious movements of any kind. (Example the LaRouche movement and perhaps someday Paulville, Texas)--T. Anthony (talk) 11:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you and with Will that there are a handful of groups called "cults" that one would not labeled outright as "religious" (except perhaps by the most ambitious neo-Durkheimian functionalists around). However I also believe that even the popular understanding of cult usually  has overt religious connotations to it, and that separation the non-religious groups from the religious ones may be a very informative enterprise for our readers.  My practical suggestion for doing so would be either to include the non-religious groups on the NRM list under a subheading, explaining that not all groups that have the "cult" label are religious, or to create a separate list.  List of non-religious groups referred to as cults by the media could be linked to from the NRM list.  There are other options as well of course, which would stick to this basic premise and include: 1) Instead of NRM, which isn't widely known in mass culture, use "Religious groups",  2) forgo the religious part altogether and simply use List of groups referred to as "cults" by the media.  In both of these suggestions I would maintain the level of precision and explanation suggested in the NRM list, keeping a vital separation between religious and non-religious groups (perhaps only by subheading).  Are any of those palpable?PelleSmith (talk) 12:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll have to think on this and maybe get back to you.--T. Anthony (talk) 13:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Cult topics editor agendas
T. Anthony is insisting that LOGRTAC be AfD'd now, but there isn't enough time to debate every point in the remaining AfD time. There might be enough time if PelleSmith weren't participating, but he is, so some debate shortcuts are necessary.

I appreciate Merzul's attention to the Wikipedia ideal of discussing edits, not editors, but that's not realistic in the nationalist topics, nor in the cult topics. This AfD is occurring directly and indirectly because of cult editing agendas, and it must be addressed. I have no problem discussing my own agenda, and since agendas do come up on a regular basis, I've had mine posted for a long time: see Milo's Cult topic centrism. Milo 02:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There's three days left or possibly more. (AfD's can go longer than five days) If the concern is a matter of length we can have an arbitrary break or something. Or I can restart the AfD for today.--T. Anthony (talk) 03:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Restart the AfD? What does that mean? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That if it's closed for "bad procedure" or whatever I'll restart it. I'm coming at this from a different perspective than some of the others. I favor deletion because I think this is a tad redundant to other cult-related-lists and I don't see how this list can possibly work. It's like List of Stalinists. I worked on it and thought it was interesting, but it was never going to work because "Stalinist" is a disputed term and activists would always poison the well. (A List of Stalinist organizations I don't think would do any better)--T. Anthony (talk) 08:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't appreciate the insinuation that I have a "cult" related agenda, but maybe we have different interpretations of this. I do have a "social science" related agenda, and I'm happy to admit to it.  I also find it difficult to understand how someone who refuses so stubbornly to deal with the available scholarly literature on this topic, instead favoring the media, can be associated with "Cult topic centrism" (by this I mean Milo).  Is it centrist to shun "expertise"?  While I've certainly added length to this debate I also 1) tried to kill this malformed AfD from the beginning only adding my delete rationale when it was clear non one wished to do so and 2) tried to suggest a viable alternative that is in line with scholarship, which has been rejected vehemently by those who claim that I want to censor the Wiki and have some kind of anti-anti-cult agenda.  Since I'm hardly getting anywhere anyway, and since few seem interested in my perspective I'll gladly disengage for the "greater good".  Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 10:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not mention you by name or explain what I meant by "a different perspective." Part of what I meant was those who are members of such groups, but I also meant those who feel the term "cult" is unuseful for sociological or other reasons. As well as people who feel such a list is a negative attack, but an attack on people unrelated to themselves. I think "cult" can be useful in certain restricted circumstances and I'm not too worried that it's inevitably an attack.--T. Anthony (talk) 10:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you mean it is possible that the term can be useful in certain restricted circumstances when referring to contemporary religious and social movements? For instance, I think it has been and remains highly useful in the history of religions.  I do admit that I find it much less useful, if not a problem, in terms of NRMs and social movements. That said, and without inferring that you are claiming this of me, I do not believe the list is being used as an attack, however I do believe that the list unhelpfully suggests a few things that are anti-informative--that is unless the list is brought in line with, or prefaced by the available research (which is essentially all that I'm suggesting).  I also don't believe the media is agenda drive, but instead that the social process working upon it are such that it has little concern for thorough investigation, or for the fact that certain of the stereotypes that exist in the popular imagination may be perpetuated by the media despite the lack of evidence in scholarly research (e.g. "brainwashing and mind-control").  There are several contemporary religious and social movements that are highly destructive, oppressive, exploitative, etc., but that doesn't change the fact that there is also a general media bias in reportage on NRMs and that there are popular misconceptions perpetuated by this bias.  Given the popular usage of the term "cult" (and in fact the maintained usage by a group of scholars who have chosen to stick to their guns or to redefine the term instead of dropping it), we certainly need to "use it" on Wikipedia.  If, for instance, "cult" redirected to "NRM" that would be an even bigger disservice to our readers.  That said, given the discrepancy between scholarship and media reportage/popular opinion we are left with a situation in which no one can be accurately informed without some explanation.  Groups that the media labels as "cults" are not simply groups the media labels as cults, but they are usually also groups that scholars label as NRMs (or "cults" by social scientific usage).  Maybe my suggestion isn't the best one around, but I fail to see how the current list deals with this important discrepancy.  Simply separating the media from the academy doesn't explain a thing.  Sorry for the essay, especially since I claimed I would disengage, but I felt that maybe I should at least give one last toned down effort in describing my position on this matter.  Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 11:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally I do think there are a limited group of high-intensity, closed-off, and pro-criminal organizations where the word "cult" is more useful than "New religious movement." In part because not all these organizations are religions. For encyclopedic purposes I think destructive cult and cult suicide are sufficient on that. I also think certain groups have to deal with "cult allegations" far more than other groups, to the point that they may feel it necessary to discuss the allegations on their website or official information. Ideally this list should be like that, dealing with groups where there's a consensus that they often have to deal with "being a cult" allegations. However I think that ideal is impossible to realize on Wikipedia or can not be dealt with in a list. It might require something more like a standard article.--T. Anthony (talk) 11:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You do make a very good point about those organizations. The existence of those organizations, and the fact that many of them have been seminal in shaping the popular understanding of what a "cult" is, contributes quite directly to my own desire to seperate that popular understanding from the various other groups that do not engage in these behaviors.  I think that lies at the heart of the efforts by many sociologists to promote NRM and other such terms.  What you point out is that in only adopting the label NRM it may be suggested that the "destructive cults" aren't themselves destructive when they clearly are.  My suggestion would be, in terms of this list, to make this plain as well, and to point out that no label, either "cult" or "NRM" explains the particular qualities of a given group.  Such qualities can must be garnered by informing onself about  the group iteself, and can be better understood by reading about related and more specific topics like destructive cults and cult suicide.PelleSmith (talk) 12:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The study I referenced above, reported by Paul J. Olson in his JSSR article, is very interesting in this regard. In this study 3 groups of randomly selected respondents were asked two identical questions but for one variable (which I will put in parens):
 * "Researchers at the university are interested in the growing diversity of religious groups in the United States. How comfortable would you be if your neighbor joined a (cult/new religious movement/new Christian church)?"
 * "Do you agree with the following statement? The government should have the right to regulate the activities and practices of (cults/new religious movements/new Christian churchs)?"
 * Respondents were overwhelmingly "uncomfortable" with a neighbor joining a "cult" but comfortable with the other two. Respondents overwhelmingly agreed with the government regulating "cults" but disagreed with the government regulating the other two.  The "cult" label is quite clearly negative, but I think the opposite is also clear, that "NRM" is not understood as negative. As you suggest it may be just as inappropriate to use NRM for an abusive organization, as it is to use "cult" for a non-abusive new religious movement.  While Olson did not ask any questions about the source of respondents perceptions about these terms, he also suggests that these are "most likely created an reinforced by exposure to negative representations in the media."  He goes on to suggest that NRM is not seen as negative exactly because it is mostly used in scholarship unread by the masses so most people don't have any reason to associate it with "Jonestown, the Branch Davidians, or Heaven's Gate."PelleSmith (talk) 13:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Righting Great Wrongs
I've looked over the project page and counted that PelleSmith has mentioned "anti-cult" and "Anti-cult movement" currently twelve times. No one else has mentioned it, other than by generalization of my Eight reasons why  List of groups referred to as cults is useful. The anti-cult movement is so outdated I hadn't thought of them. Also I assume that they would consult the Rick Ross archive, of which LOGRTAC has only a sampling.

It's obvious to me that the anti-cult movement is the focus of PelleSmith's retro-agenda. He encapsulates it by writing, "'...Milo is suggesting is that this article should be useful furthering the aims of the Anti-cult movement, in indoctrinating social institutions with the inaccuracies of the media/popular/anti-cult perspective...'"

My own actual position is that the anti-cult movement went into eclipse around 1995 with impending bankruptcies of two major players, Cult Awareness Network and Rick Ross. In 1995 Aum Shinrikyo culminated 17 years of increasing destructive-cult horrors by mass-murdering Tokyo subway passengers with nerve gas. That era began in 1978 with Jonestown's 900-some mass suicides and Congressman/media murders, followed in 1994 by the Order of the Solar Temple infant murder and mass suicide on two continents. The people and government of France decided something had to be done, and they created the Parliamentary Commission on Cults in France, a.k.a. French Report (unofficial translation), which founded the basis for international law to prevent the legal risks of cults, including human rights abuses and exploitation too much like slavery. The French Report is far more important to my thinking than the fading anti-cult movement in which I never had much interest.

PelleSmith continues, "'We're not just talking about helping people learn, we're talking about furthering hysteria. That's simply not our job at Wikipedia.'" In other words, PelleSmith's claim is that anti-cultists are furthering hysteria, and Wikipedians should take sides against them by eliminating tools that are (even marginally?) useful to them.

To further his anti-anti-cult agenda PelleSmith is voting delete of the LOGRTAC index to archived reliable-source cult journalism, and calls for others to do likewise – thus Righting a Great Wrong. It may be true that "furthering hysteria .... not our job at Wikipedia", but it's reciprocally true that prevention of furthering hysteria is also not Wikipedia's job. Milo 02:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Milo my agenda is pro-scholariship (not anti-anti-cult) if your agenda is something described better in different terms than "anti-cult" then my sincerest apologies for the insinuation. I use the term anti-cult movement loosely to label those elements of society who would rather overlook well researched scholarship in order to promote a POV that is more or less associated with said movement.  I would prefer that you dealt with the problems presented by scholarship instead of just labeling me with an agenda of hate towards anti-cultists (though perhaps I deserve it given my own insinuations).  As I see it we need to acknowledge that both pro-cult (members) and anti-cultists represent POVs that are harmful to the encyclopedic quality of this topic.  For the record: I do not simply vote delete, but have gone through the trouble to suggest a new list which would have most of the current entries on it, but would list them in a way that is consistent with scholarship about NRMs, and the popular use of the term cult. I don't want censorship, I want accuracy.  And BTW, I still do not believe should promote inaccuracy or that we should create entries in order to be lobbying tools, or for the purpose of helping government institutions track down supposed "cults".PelleSmith (talk) 10:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * PelleSmith (10:30): "As I see it we need to acknowledge that ... anti-cultists represent POVs that are harmful to the encyclopedic quality of this topic."
 * That which does not exist at Wikipedia is unlikely to be harmful. Maybe I would be concerned if I was sure that I had ever met an anti-cultist at Wikipedia. I've met editors who are opposed to specific groups, but no generalized "anti-cultists". There are a number of editors, myself included, who are annoyed by the similar tendentious editing and debating behavior of individuals from several different groups, but I object to them as "anti-reporters" not here to further the project, rather than "cultists".
 * My impression is that the few famous anti-cultists such as Rick Ross, Cynthia Kisser, Steve Hassan, and Isaac Bonewits, were in the 1980s and beyond, collectively exaggerated into a propaganda bogeyman by the Unification Church billions. Until I read you spouting it, I didn't realize what a problem it had once been.
 * "I use the term anti-cult movement loosely to label those elements of society who would rather overlook well researched scholarship in order to promote a POV that is more or less associated with said movement."
 * Whatever your intentions, you present as a propaganda victim who has bought into an eye-rolling "crack babies" myth.
 * "I still do not believe should promote inaccuracy or that we should create entries in order to be lobbying tools, or for the purpose of helping government institutions track down supposed "cults"."
 * Straw man fallacies – no one here is trying to promote inaccuracy, create entries in order to be lobbying tools, or help government institutions track down supposed "cults"."
 * That you are still discussing it, shows that you still don't get it. You still want to Right Great Wrongs with a censorship agenda to prevent readers from hypothetically doing those things. Milo 14:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You fail again and again to address the actual proposal I have made. Could you please do so.  I suggest that this proposal clearly shows that I am not interested in censorship.  You also fail again and again to address the idea that scholarship on this subject should be used to elucidate the nature of various sources, such as the media.  Why do you keep on harping on my use of the word "anti-cult" as if your only purpose is to make me seem like a foaming at the mouth fanatic who is fighting windmills.  As I said above I'm using the term in a very general sense, for the lack of a better one (though I admit below that this might have lead to your misinterpretations).  Here are some of my other references from this larger AfD discussion to the "anti-cult" boogeyman, which do a better job articulating why I have (no doubt over)used this term:
 * "There are a handful of related scholarly usages of ["cult"] and then there are a mish mash of related popular/media usages of the term all of which are pejorative and fall on a scale of relative similarity to the usage by the Anti-cult movement ... 13:38, 15 June 2008."
 * "What makes this issue more difficult is (and there exists easily sourced scholarly consensus here) that the [Anti-cult movement]'s agendas and misinformation are unfortunately assimilated to lesser and greater extents into cultural institutions like the media, as well as popular opinion ... 15:06, 15 June 2008."
 * "It is, as I said already anti-informational, and only to the advantage of those who wish to obscure the scholarship here in favor of the bias presented by the media and by the Anti-cult movement. Scholarship not only offers a different perspective than the media it offers a perspective critical of the media ... 00:14, 16 June 2008."
 * "I also don't believe the media is agenda drive, but instead that the social process[es] working upon it are such that it has little concern for thorough investigation, or for the fact that certain of the stereotypes that exist in the popular imagination may be perpetuated by the media despite the lack of evidence in scholarly research (e.g. "brainwashing and mind-control") ... 11:39, 16 June 2008."
 * I might have spoken too strongly when I said that both members of cults and anti-cultists may harm the encyclopedic quality of these entries (please note that you selectively quoted me above to imply I only say this about the supposed anti-cult boogeyman you think I believe in). The reason I say I might have spoken too strongly then, and in any other occasion where you read me to say that the anti-cult movement is an active influence here on Wikipedia, is because I do not in fact believe that they are active in that way at all.  I believe, on the other hand, that the anti-cult movement represents the extreme end of a spectrum of beliefs about "cults" and NRMs.  The unfortunate situation is that the media, and popular opinion swings too often for comfort towards this polarity and away from the more reliable information provided by scholarship.  In other words the media is a cultural institution that at times more and at times less has taken a similar POV to that of the anti-cult movement (again a convenient point of reference more than anything else).  Popular opinion on these matters follows the media here, creating a situation where a novel religious group emerges, the label cult is applied, and everyone is thinking "these people must be dangerous".  I don't see anything in the scholarly literature about the "cult wars", about the popular use of this term "cult", or about the media portrayal of these groups to suggest otherwise (though I see a lot that supports my reading).  I welcome some sources here, I really do.  I have provided two and I can provide many more, but I've seen nothing in response except accusations of censorship and accusations wild-eyed fanaticism.  I should also note that the latter points in your 8 points of utility are what have triggered my responses about lobbying.  If you think that's an unfair reading of your suggestions, then so be it, but I think it is reasonable to read #s 5,6, and 8 as a justification of the list because of its possible influence on social and political institutions as well as local communities.  I simply suggest that community advocacy and socio-political lobbying isn't what the encyclopedia is about.  I see we disagree, fine.  I would suggest, however, that if these types of lists are to be useful in the capacity you wish them to be, then separating the wheat from the chaff is of even more importance.  In other words there is no point in implying that some harmless NRM is in the same category as a destructive cult just because the media has lose lips and courts sensationalism.  Please see the above discussion with T. Anthony in this regard.PelleSmith (talk) 15:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The media bias with regard to religious minorities is well documented by scholars and has also been noted by the United Nations here for example:




 * This U.N. report is from the nineties. The problem is potentially compounded when WP articles are based on press reports from the seventies, where media bias was even more pronounced. Government and court attitudes have shifted; the U.S. State Department these days criticizes some European countries for religious discrimination (with regard to Scientology) for espousing essentially the same stance that the U.S. maintained thirty years ago. Looking beyond this article here, government descriptions of NRMs as "destructive cults" are not unproblematic either. In 2002, the German government was held by the German Supreme Court to have defamed an NRM by referring to it as "pseudoreligious" and "destructive". The labels were held to be defamatory because the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that there was no factual basis warranting such a description. . By including this sort of thing in a list, we are potentially repeating descriptions that have been condemned as defamatory by scholars, international human rights bodies and national courts. Is this really what we want to be doing? Jayen 466 13:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Depends on who you mean by "we" ... User:PelleSmith certainly doesn't want to be doing that. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 14:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Rick Ross, Steven Hassan, etc.
As part of a longer post Milo wrote to me: I'm not sure I understand this quote entirely and ask for Milo to please explain his meaning. Does Milo mean that these individuals are not controversial figures, and that all criticism of them is an "exaggeration" perpetuated by the Unification Church? Does he also mean that the critical scholarship produced by sociologists on the various aspects of counter-cult and anti-cult activity is also a gross exaggeration perpetuated by the Unification Church? Could you please clarify. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 18:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "My impression is that the few famous anti-cultists such as Rick Ross, Cynthia Kisser, Steve Hassan, and Isaac Bonewits, were in the 1980s and beyond, collectively exaggerated into a propaganda bogeyman by the Unification Church billions. Until I read you spouting it, I didn't realize what a problem it had once been."

My new problem
Looking through newly edit versions I think I have a new problem with this list. That being "the media" is inevitably going to end up including papers of oppressive/semi-oppressive regimes. If Rodong Sinmun, the Jamahiriya News Agency, Mehr News Agency, or Zviazda called something a cult is that meaningful? Yet how could we say it's not without risking POV?--T. Anthony (talk) 13:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * From WP:RS - "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context." So you're right to raise this issue, but it's probably a relatively easy hurdle to clear - aggressively POV sources would hopefully be good-faith recognized as such.  Townlake (talk) 20:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * So then, is a Christian apologetic group an expert source for declaring which groups are cults? If so, when are Christian groups not qualified to identify which groups are cult. Does it matter if the label is only found on their website and in their publications, but not in a secular newspaper. This gets slippery very quickly. I recently added the Roman Catholic Church to this article, but it was quickly deleted because the sources weren't really qualified. I made no effort to find specific sources, just did a search for "Catholic, cult" and copied the first few I found. The sources were all, as I recall, Christian groups identifying the Roman Catholic Church as a cult. My initial motivation was to demonstrate how meaningless is this article. However, given the definition of reliable resources, I would appreciate some clarification. When is a source acceptable to this article and when is it not? --Storm Rider (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppression as approved by reliable sources issue is moot because the problem is now obsolete as an article editing concern – since directly addressing it requires LOGRTAC editors to make a class of judgments impossible of consensus.
 * For example, if some LOGRTAC editors judge that ROC-government-friendly newspapers are oppressive of Falon Gong, group-member editors supporting up to 150-some nondestructive but legally-challenged groups, can charge French-government-friendly newspapers with oppression due to their support for the French Report (unofficial translation).
 * Older article editor Wjhonson wrote (20:09, 24 January 2008): ".... Because our previous attempts were constantly under attack. So the article has a mechanical approach now, not a judgemental one."
 * I searched the Talk:LOGRTAC archive for "regime" and found that you had expressed the same concern in a 2005 "List of purported cults" (now LOGRTAC) criterion model that required editors to make extensive and burdensome judgments. See Archive 4#Changes (T. Anthony 08:57, 7 September 2005). Milo 21:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh, I forgot that. My memory's usually good, but brief things from 3 years ago sometimes slip by.--T. Anthony (talk) 00:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Hot dang it's history!
I was fully expecting it'd get no consensus and I'd need to look for things listing Amway as a cult. Instead it's finally been eighty-sixed. Now this nonsense is over and cults will only be dealt with in articles more equipped to deal with them. (Like destructive cult and cult suicide)--T. Anthony (talk) 04:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It was a very clear consensus and a good close. --Justallofthem (talk) 13:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hallelujah, my faith is restored! Rumiton (talk) 14:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It will go to a review. The closing was extremly poorly done and ignored the strongest policy arguements which were to keep and based the decision on the multiple personal objections to content, the erroneous belief that wikipedia is 'truth', that NPOV is 'no point of view' and the disruptive straw man arguements that plagued the afd. -- neon white talk 17:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In the spirit of collegiality might one ask for examples of the various problems you claim with this AfD--e.g. all of these inappropriate reasons for deletion? Given that your main reason to keep was an invocation of WP:IDONTLIKEIT I think it would help to actually see examples of all these objections.
 * "Multiple personal objections to content"
 * people erroneously believing that Wikipedia is the truth
 * people erroneously believing that NPOV = no point of view
 * "Disruptive straw man arguments"
 * I'm particularly interested in the last one, but as I don't see what you see, it would be really helpful to get examples of all them. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 17:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Waiting game DRV
Aside from the bad arguments, the AfD was process-dirty, which is a valid reason for deletion review. However, if a DRV is done right now, the outcome will be the same because a mob has formed. A mob trumps process at Wikipedia, and Wikipedia process always hovers on the edge of being an oxymoron. Deletion review: "It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion." I suggest waiting until sometime in mid-fall 2008 for a DRV. By that time, whatever editing community supports LOGRTAC will have noticed its disappearance, the mob may have dispersed, and maybe a clean AfD can be done. Milo 22:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, there is a mob: "When you start accusing everyone of being in on a conspiracy, you shouldn't be surprised if they decide to confirm your paranoia by banding together against you." ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Jossi|(23:03): " there is a mob : ... conspiracy"
 * COED "mob": 1 a disorderly crowd of people.
 * COED "cabal": noun a secret political clique or faction.
 * Speaking of oxymorons – a secret conspiratorial disorderly crowd? LOL
 * Milo 23:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * A secret cabal of disorderly oxymorons referred to as a cult. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 00:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Milo, you're aware a DRV on this was started today, right? Just mentioning it as a courtesy, in case you hadn't gone over there already. Townlake (talk) 00:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No, but thanks for posting a notice here. I guess everyone else knew that "It will go to a review" meant 'I'm going to start a DRV 17 minutes from right now.' Milo 01:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

While We're in the Mood
While we're in the mood why don't we delete List of groups referred to as cults in government documents too? Chee Chahko (talk) 01:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I would not support that. That list is more stable and it's simply stating the opinions of specific governments. It's useful in understanding government reactions or restrictions to religious freedom as much as anything. The list deleted here was a willy-nilly "I found a newspaper somewhere that called it a cult" list and therefore less useful.--T. Anthony (talk) 04:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with T. Anthony. The criteria for that article are clean and unbiased; the article simply reports the verifiable stance of various governments. Jayen 466 04:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Chee, if you have another and more valid reason for deleting that article then you do not need anyone's agreement to list it for AfD provided only that it has not recently (last 4 - 6 months or less I would say) survived an Afd. --Justallofthem (talk) 04:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you Justall, I'm seeing Anthony's point. The list is useful in stating the recorded opinions of specific governments. I'm thinking of proposing a name change though. It's really a List of Government Documents on the subject of Cults. I'm going propose that on it's talk page. Chee Chahko (talk) 04:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you're right in that regard. Jayen 466 05:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, Chee Chahko is planning an end run on an AfD. Once the name is changed to "List of Government Documents on the subject of Cults", then of course it will be a different article and the actual listed groups can and will eventually be deleted as "cruft". Milo 07:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)