This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 06:47, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Extremely POV and non-encyclopedic. The anonymous creator includes such "cults" as the Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and Unitarian Universalists.

• Technically any sect with a ritual religious practice is a cultus, so the title arguably has that problem. Delete extremely POV article. Probably not a speedy, but it is tempting. Fire Star 23:43, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I fear. Being a crappy article about a real thing is not a delete reason. Cults in the sociological sense that happen to be Christian are an entirely encyclopaedic topic - David Gerard 01:46, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but with a drastic rewrite. This is an encyclopedic topic, but many forms of Christianity have a habit of misusing the word "cult" to describe any group whose doctrine is at variance with their idea of Christianity. This definition is inherently POV, and therefore if the article is rewritten can't be used. I would suggest a stub along the lines of "Christian cults are those groups a) whose doctrine is based in some way on traditional Christian doctrine and b) are known to employ the mind-control tactics ascribed to cults. The term is also used by some Christians, particularly conservative or evangelical denominations, to describe any group whose doctrine they claim to be an aberrant or incorrect form of Christianity." I'd make the change myself, but the VfD note directs us not to make such changes. Haikupoet 02:19, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Sure you can. Constructive edits during VfD are fine. In fact the notice used to encourage them. You just shouldn't "blank, merge, or move this article" or tinker with the VfD notice itself. If you make large edits it's nice to mention them in the VfD discussion and give a link to the previous version, so it will be clear that earlier comments refer to a different version. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:33, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Then that's what I did. And in some ways, you're right -- it is a Christian-vs-Christian thing. As far as Christians defining who's a Member Of The Tribe or not, sometimes they have a point, sometimes they don't, but anyone who calls the UUs a cult is abusing the term beyond any reasonable definition of the term. Anyway, it should now be quite a bit less POV. I marked it as a stub; IMHO it's a bit on the long side for a stub but I think much more can be done with it.Haikupoet 02:47, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This is probably an accurate expression of the point of view of The Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (CARM), but we don't have an article on them, and I don't think they are an organization so notable that their particular POV needs to be documented by WIkipedia. One dictionary definition for "cult" is "A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader." To me, and I think to most people, that obviously does not fit the present-day Christian Scientists, Jehovah's Witnesses, LDS Church (Mormons), practitioners of Transcendental meditation, Unitarians, or probably others on the list I'm not familiar with. So, this is a private definition of the word "cult." (Actually it strikes me as being some sort of doctrinal blacklist, a Christian-against-Christian thing. Very unpleasant). Dpbsmith (talk) 02:33, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • P. S. If it's to be kept in its present form, it should be moved to CARM or Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry and open with a brief description of the organization, since the article is in fact specificially a presentation of CARM's concept of "Christian cult." Dpbsmith (talk) 02:44, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, needs work is my vote on Haikupoet's version. I think the article in its present form does have serious problems. The present article is actually a (IMHO valid!) POV critique of the way the phrase is used by CARM and friends, and worse yet is a disguised critique. The present article says, in effect, Christian cult ought to mean thus-and-such; if it did it would include thus-and-such groups; and some unspecified Christian authorities "extend" this definition in a way that is as being overly slanted and inflammatory outside some unspecified conservative circles. So, is it factual that there is a well-established phrase "Christian cults" whose meaning can be deduced from the meanings of the word "Christian" and "cult," and that CARM and friends have extended that meaning? Who gets to define the phrase? Not Wikipedia; we should limit ourselves to reporting how other define it. But this is really for the article's Talk page... Dpbsmith (talk) 13:59, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This duplicates/overlaps an existing article. Also, misnamed -these are groups regard as cults by "mainstream" Christian groups. "Krishna" is not a Christian cult. Move appropriate groups to List of purported cults.-Willmcw 02:59, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are and have been Christian cults and sects. For example, the "Cult of Mary", Opus Dei, and similar groupings would probably be more appropriate here than in other articles. As a topic, it is appropriate. Now we just have to make the article fit the topic. -Willmcw 08:33, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep after User:Haikupoet's excellent rewrite. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 03:07, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 04:00, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Er... how exactly is it POV? Haikupoet 04:07, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think it's probably POV. See above. Specifically, I think it's a disguised critique of CARM's definition of the phrase. The fact that I think it's an utterly valid critique is beside the point... Dpbsmith (talk) 14:19, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you're saying, but I still defend the rewrite as the common Christian definition seems to be, by and large, a deceptive one. My experience with Christian use of the word "cult" indicates that those who do use the word in the original sense of this article don't really care about the distinction between "destructive cult" and "heresy" -- they conflate two very different (though sometimes overlapping) categories for rhetorical purposes. Haikupoet 22:12, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Valid article topic. Rewrite as necessary.--Gene_poole 04:10, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as rewritten. Rename so that it isn't plural. DaveTheRed 04:17, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Move groups to List of purported cults, according to the taxonomy in that article. Each of named groups have already their own articles. --Zappaz 05:34, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The rewrite is commendable and makes the article encyclopedic and useful. Arkyan 06:31, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• delete and move a little of the contents to Christian countercult movement Andries 08:00, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, concurring with Zappaz. Radiant! 09:08, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with counter-cult movement and/or [[list of purported cults]. Note that I have NO DESIRE to suppress or censor the POV that the Unification Church (which I'm in; or other groups I like) is a "cult". The only issue for me is WHERE and HOW this POV ought to be stated. Readers looking for assertions that the UC is a cult, ought to be able to find this easily, along with the REASONS various parties think it's a cult. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 15:28, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Have I told you lately that I love you, Ed? I can't really decide my vote right now, but I think that if it's to be merged, it should be with Christian countercult movement rather than counter-cult movement, since the former is only a subset of the latter and the article under VfD only applies to the former. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:41, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Note should be taken of Hank Hanegraaff and his Christian Research Institute ([1]) as well. Various Christian fundamentalists call any Christian group that deviates from their idea of orthodoxy a "Christian cult." -- Smerdis of Tlön 16:37, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as rewritten. Edeans 03:52, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Whatever you may think about CARM, their description of the origins of the Unification Church is accurate:

"Moon was born to parents who adhered to Confucianism until their conversion to Presbyterianism in 1930. Moon claims that in 1935 Jesus appeared to him on a mountain in Korea and told him to finish the work of establishing God’s kingdom on earth. By 1945 he had written down the precepts of his new system in the book, Divine Principles. He went to North Korea to preach and was imprisoned in 1946. In April of 1948 he was again sentenced to longer 5 year sentence in Hungnam. In 1950 he was liberated from the prison by the Americans involved in the Korean War. On May 1, 1954, in Seoul, Moon founded the Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity. In 1958 he sent missionaries to Japan and in 1959 to America. Moon moved to the United States in 1971. He has been invited to the White house and spoken to Congress." [2]

I think I'll quote from them. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 17:36, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Oops, maybe not! I just read the rest of the page I cited above, and it ends with a non sequitur: "Through his political social outreaches he has deceived a great many people into believing his self-exalting and self-serving theology. It is a dangerous group." (I didn't see any explanation of how Moon's outreaches have deceived any one, or any reasons that they consider his theology "self-exalting or self-serving". Worst of all, they did not specify the "dangers". (Unless we're supposed to guess that believing false doctrine is, um, hazardous to your spiritual life, e.g., you'll burn in hell; that would be dangerous, I'll grant you! :-) -- Uncle Ed (talk) 17:42, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Antaeus: I love you too.

DPB: (1) Let's fix the problem you detected re: "a disguised critique of CARM's definition" (now that I've started the CARM page). (2) I've copied the bartleby definition of cult you cited, to Definitions of cult. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 17:56, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

I'll be glad to help nibble away at it as time permits (unless of course the outcome of the VfD is deletion). Dpbsmith (talk) 18:00, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• keep Yuckfoo 21:02, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.