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 of the debate was no consensus, edging towards keep Proto||type 13:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of groups referred to as cults[edit]

Note: This list has been renamed many times and was AfDed without success under those other names several times. I'll link the discussions once I've found them

This list has certainly a noble intent, but it just didn't work as encyclopedic content. It has by now degenerated into a list of nearly everything, which can by linked to the word cult (in any meaning) by googling for primary sources. The immense effort some contributors put in this list, should be be redirected into adding specific, full-prose, verifiable statements about the cultishness of the groups in their articles proper.

Pjacobi 09:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The previous nominations, I've found so far:

• Talk:List of purported cults/Delete
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of purported cults/2

• AfD was initiated by Pjacobi. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian cults

• This AfD has nothing to do with List of groups referred to as cults. Christian cults is an article that was spun out of Cult, as the evidence shows: [1][2]. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of deadly cults
• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Hate groups and new religious movements

• This AfD has nothing to do with List of groups referred to as cults. Hate groups and new religious movements was a POV fork of Hate group, not of this article under its current title or any other. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of purported cults/3

• Also initiated by Pjacobi. Why is he referring to the previous nominations he's "found" when he primarily means the ones he started? -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Please, finally delete this. Per the above and for violating WP:NOR. --Pjacobi 09:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• This looks to me to be just a place to list groups or belief systems one dislikes. Delete LaszloWalrus 09:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. This is the fourth (seventh?) attempt at deletion, a seemingly regular occasion. This article has a long history, and is fully sourced. Due to the previous three AfD/VfDs, this is invalid. The nominator has not been active in the talk page and has not raised these issues there. Wikipedia has policies and procedures, let's follow them. -Will Beback 10:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I regularily raise my issues on the talk page, the last time 5 days ago [3]. In addition, the list got worse, since the last AfD. At that time, a closely limited set of sources where used (which had its problem itself, but limited the amount of very silly list entries), now everything found with Google is fair game for inclusion. It's even hard to tell apart additions by User:Cairoi, who is thought to try mocking the list (in violation of WP:POINT), from "serious" additions. --Pjacobi 10:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I readily agree that an editor has been overactive in adding new entries recently. That is not a reason to delete the entire article. In fact, there's an active discussion about splitting the article to deal with that issue. I recommend you withdraw the AfD and let the discussion and editing process take its course. -Will Beback 10:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. POV magnet, listcruft. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, a soapbox, etc etc etc KleenupKrew 11:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep this actually seems a useful research source to me. However, that said, I imagine it IS original research. Possibly merge it with [[Cult))? Markeer 11:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since this is what categories are for; the surreptitious addition of items to lists can easily pass un-noticed, whereas addition of a category will be noticed, challenged and debated. This list should only be kept if every single entry is backed by citations within the article to multiple solid reliable authorities (by which I do not mean single books or authors-on-a-mission) - and that would be much better done within the articles as part opf categorising. Many of the cited sources in this list are personal crusades. Just zis Guy you know? 12:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What category are you suggesting? I know what category leaps to mind, but it's been deleted. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...and was deleted for being "inherently biased", "POV", "matter of opinion" -- the same problems that the article has. — goethean ॐ 16:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep though this article is not looking its best, it is important. Cedars 13:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak keep - As long as the list is trimmed. I suggest coming up with a consesus for notability or number of sources that can more readily define a "cult". Clearly this cannot be a list of every group ever referred to as a cult by somebody. Wickethewok 15:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• No vote - While I think this list could be potentially useful, the term "cult" seems to have inherently negative connotation. Wickethewok 12:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per User:JzG. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Zat Guy. Fluit 18:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per LaszloWalrus ("just a place to list groups or belief systems one dislikes"). I don't think that this would pass muster as a category, so how can it be a legitimate article? — goethean ॐ 19:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• JzG's argument has convinced me to vote keep. Categories do not allow for centralized sourcing. JayW 19:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Sourcing can be done in individual articles, where the particular element of cultiness can be explored; categories added without sources would be a problem. Just zis Guy you know? 21:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Guy. A source can probably be found for every religious and/or philisophical group in which a detractor refers to the group as a "cult". KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If the list is in poor shape it is because it has been under what certainly appears to be a sustained and deliberate effort to push as many false negatives and false positives as possible into the list. Yes, this is the explanation for many of the bizarre entries such as "Chado, the cult of the the [sic] Japanese tea ceremony" and "Psychology of the self (Jungian)", which are supported solely by the 'personal crusades' that JzG mentions. Should those who sabotage Wikipedia articles be rewarded by deletion of those articles? Are we now rewarding disruptive editing? -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- a POV/troll magnet if ever there was one. As stated above, just about every religious group has been called a cult by someone at some time, and there's no verfiabile, authoritative standard for what is and isn't a cult. -- Karada 22:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - on the contrary, the article defines its terms, so can be verifiable and authoritative.WolfKeeper 22:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - inclusion is subjective ... if (insert name of theologian) calls "atheism" a cult or (insert name of atheist) calls "Christianity" a cult, (never mind that neither is a discrete organization) and some media outlet picks up on it, do atheism and Christianity make the list? What about Islam? [4] What about Bahai? Islam considers them to be a cult. Inclusion on the list is inherently subjective (aka POV) and, IMO, that has no place on Wikipedia. BigDT 23:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep since I don't see anything inherently POV or OR about this. However, the list's references do need a very vigorous overhaul. Many of the entries assert that various publications have referred to them as cults without even providing a link or other information to verify it. So the article is in poor shape as it stands, but IMO the correct approach is to fix it up rather than deleting it entirely. Bryan 00:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - nothing's inherently OR per se. But how is it not inherently POV? Here are media references to Islam as a cult [5] ... here's Bahai as a cult [6] ... Roman Catholics are a cult [7] [8] ... if they're picking and choosing which ones to include, that's an inclusion based on POINT OF VIEW. BigDT 02:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • POV is not not NPOV. Clearer: NPOV is achieved by accurately capturing reputable POVs not excluding POVs. Note that Islam isn't a cult, because it isn't unorthodox; it's well over a thousand years old.WolfKeeper 02:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It isn't unorthodox according to whom? And why does one thousand years matter? An unbiased reporting of someone's point of view is one thing. That's not a POV problem. But this isn't an unbiased reporting of someone's point of view. Rather, it's a biased reporting of someone's point of view. The requirement for inclusion given in the article is that a media source has referred to the group as a cult within the last 50 years and that the group has been in existence at some point within the last 150 years. Under that standard, Islam, Bahai, and the Roman Catholic Church all qualify. In a church I used to belong to, the pastor gave a sermon one Sunday called "How do I know if I'm in a cult" and one of the standards was that the organization does not recognize the Christian trinity. Well, just about any non-Christian religion would qualify as a cult under that standard. The fact that a subjective decision is being made about which groups to include (where does the number 1000 come from and how did you decide Islam is not unorthodox?) means that it is inherently POV. BigDT 02:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • These sort of criteria will have to be worked out and clearly stated by the editors of the article. It's not necessary to figure out every detail right here and now, that's not what AfD is about. Bryan 04:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not asking to figure out "every detail" - I'm asking about selection criteria for a list ... that's a pretty BIG detail. BigDT 14:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So include those, then, provided the sources meet whatever standards are decided on for that list. Of course it's possible to write a POV article by picking and choosing what to include, my point is that the article isn't inherently POV. It's possible to write it in an NPOV manner, and simply providing an example of how some particular version of it is POV doesn't change that. Bryan 04:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • With all due respect, I don't think that either of you have actually read the article under consideration. This article has a very specific criteria, which is not what you're talking about. -Will Beback 10:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've edited the article under consideration - it's the second-most-recent edit currently in the article's history, trivial to check. Assume good faith and such. In any event, the current guidelines for sources listed on the page are arbitrary and not set in stone; my suggestion that the article needs serious work may well include changing them if they turn out to be troublesome. Bryan 15:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have edited this list for a long time and participated in some of the previous AfDs. My view is that the problem with this list and with many other lists in WP is the lack of consistency and the lack of a solid criterion or criteria for inclusion. Many lists in WP are sometimes used as subterfuges to bypass the Wikipedia content policies of No original research, Neutral point of view, Verifiability or What Wikipedia is not. I would encourage voters here to help make WP:LISTS a guideline to avoid problems such as the one we have experienced in this list. Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:Lists_in_Wikipedia#Poll:_WP:LISTS_upgrade_to_guideline ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Wikipedia is not in Category:Cults and I'm almost certain you would have to edit war to keep it in, and yet it is easy to find sources. Categories are only for main characterstics; while lists can easily cover fringe well. Everyone always says lists are "hard to maintain," but people do it. We even have featured lists. If categories are always challenged and debated (with the correct result), why was O. J. Simpson in Category:American murderers? Kotepho 02:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There is no better-sourced list in Wikipedia. Show me one which is more rigorous than this. If we delete this list, we should delete all lists. -Will Beback 10:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The quantity and availability of sources is NOT the problem. The use of inherently subjective selection criteria is the problem. BigDT 14:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I would also add that having done a little work with the references to see how the current situation stands, I'm not tremendously impressed with them. If the article survives AfD I'm going to convert everything over to cite.php and I expect it'll bring to light a lot of very vague references (there's already a ton of nonspecific Washington Post refs I converted on my first run-through) and references to unimportant sources. Bryan 16:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Needs strict inclusion criteria, but the AfD is not the place to discuss them. Margana 14:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This article is extremely biased to minority groups. It is a good example of What Wikipedia is not in listing opinions upheld by a majority of editors - as is mentioned above, inclusions of entries even though backed by sources were being removed time after time, dispite adhering to the inclusion criteria specified at the top of the article. Either accept a sourced entry or don't justify adding one which upholds your own POV in the matter.

Sfacets 20:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Seems pretty useful and obviously important. --JJay 23:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Useful and relevant list, does need some formatting but overall worthwhile. - Solar 17:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• weak delete - Concept is not inherently POV, but it seems the criteria are inevitably POV. NPoV should be "List of cults according to authority X", but that would be copyvio. Gimmetrow 19:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • May I point out that the criteria themselves have been changed over time? Frankly, I'd like to see the criteria change to something more rational. However, what has not been addressed is the degree to which the current criteria were forced on the article as a poor compromise after the previous AfDs -- a compromise forced, in large part, by the same people who are now complaining that the poor criteria of the article are a reason to delete it on this AfD. (Frankly, I'm puzzled. Why does Pjacobi refer, above, to "The previous nominations, I've found so far"? Out of the six he lists, two of them are provably about completely different articles which happened to be of a similar nature. Of the remaining four, two shouldn't have been hard to "find", since in both cases, Pjacobi initiated them. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of purported cults/2, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of purported cults/3) Should there be some sort of limit on how many times a single person can initiate AfDs against an article? -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    • The list could be valuable, but it is the fact that the criteria do change over time that concerns me. Even "good" criteria are unstable. In most lists, the criteria for inclusion are part of the list name, or nearly so. Gimmetrow 02:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Important, and I imagine that many are interested in referencing a list of cults. However, the article should define the primary sources it accepts for inclusion in the list and why. --Monger 19:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it's very usful and important list! --Roman Nikolaev 20:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - "Religious" cults are fairly easy to pick out with limited POV. --mboverload@ 20:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, clear NPOV violation. There's no method to find out if each single religious movement is a cult or not. So the only two available options are to delete the list or to allow everyone to include to the list everything they might call cult. -- 83.237.59.172 20:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC) User's sole edit.[reply]
• A limited point of view is still a point of view. I dunno...the title has the word "referred" to in it, so it sort of has that disclaimer. But the word cult is quite negative. I could go either way on this one, but I'll say (weak) delete, as it more accurately fits my current view on such things. --Yossarian 22:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - cult is not a POV word, it's a technical term. Sourced entries which meet criteria for inclusion are the heart of keeping a list under control. This one should be commended, not crucified. -- nae'blis _(talk) 20:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It is useless. Either the list can have a definitive non-POV criteria for inclusion or it should be deleted. As it stands now it is becoming listcruft, with editors adding entries rigfht and left just because a Joe Blow referred to a group as a cult. Useless. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: criteria for inclusion is currently not just any "Joe Blow" referred to group as a cult - basically "Joe Blow" has to be a journal or mainstream media. Gimmetrow 23:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wish you were right. See the History and recent edits as well as recent comments in talk. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete What's next, List of individuals referred to as racist, List of Wikipedia editors referred to as opinionated, List of religious leaders referred to as fanatical, List of churches referred to as hate groups ? The 'referred to' part implies notability when there is none. ॐ Priyanath 05:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's a useful page that needs some work. Deleuze 14:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep The page serves a good purpose and generally works. Al 21:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A well sourced article such as this should not be deleted. -- LGagnon 21:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is what categories are for, isn't it? If it couldn't survive as a category, why should a list bypass that? Sxeptomaniac 23:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "If it couldn't survive as a category..." Well, see, we have no information that it couldn't survive as a category. The information that we have is that on one particular occasion when it was put to a vote, a majority of the very few people who knew about the vote said "delete". Since not many people have category pages on their watchlists and because category-for-deletion tags don't show up on anything the average reader sees, it's highly questionable to think that the few people who voted represented everyone who would have been concerned -- or even a reasonable sub-sample. By the way, isn't it ironic that the person attempting to get this list article deleted (who is also the one who initiated such attempts twice before that) was also the one who put that category up for deletion? And listed as one of his reasons that it couldn't do the job as well as a list could? And now he's turning around trying to delete the list, too... -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's a good list for smearing a particular group, but nothing more. We might as well have a list for "people referred to as idiots." LaszloWalrus 23:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC) Please don't attempt to vote twice, LaszloWalrus. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete This is semi-disparaging, and a category would be more useful if there isn't already one. Plus what LazloWalrus said the second time around. ViceroyInterus 23:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Interesting, encyclopedic, and better-referenced than most of our articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.