This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). For those interested in the vote count I find 17 delete votes and 15 or 16 keep votes depending on whether or not the anonymous vote near the start of the debate is counted. Otherwise moving this page to some other title has been suggested, such discussions should go on the article's talkpage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:48, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of purported cults[edit]

First note that there is a previous VfD from July 2004 which didn't reach consensus.

This new VfD is for an unrelated reason, as I judge the List of purported cults to be original research and as such violating the WP:NOR. This list tries to avoid the POV problems and endless struggles which would plague a "List of cults" (but accept a redirect from there). Only the solution found by the authors of List of purported cults has a massive Original Research problem. The authors are doing their own research which of the zillions of possible sources in mass media are ignored, or put in one three categories of varying degrees of consensus. To make matters worse the authors are also attempting own research, which word in languages other than English should be considered equivalent to "cult". (Unfortunately they ignore the question of the different meanings of "cult" itself, but this is not central to VfD).

Pjacobi 13:54, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. This is simply a list of organizations that have been cited as cults by one or more news sources. Perhaps if the article's title were changed to "List of movements and religious groups cited by one or more news sources as being cults," we would not have to consider it for deletion. (Unsigned comment by anon User:68.163.158.3)
• Keep This is definitely not original research - such lists exist by the score in the internet (only none which is so excellently documented regarding its sources and criteria). --Irmgard 19:09, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hehe, if this is outstanding from all other attempts to create such a list, how is it not original research. Also please note that this is the 6th vote in response of a call for help from Antaeus Feldspar (talk · contribs). --Pjacobi 19:23, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • • Being very active in two Wikipedias (admin in one) I don't always take the time to check systematically for every vote or article I might be interested in - so I'm really glad if other people inform me about ongoing discussions or problematic articles where I might throw in my two cents, though I never see this as obligation to participate, just as invitation - and if I respond to it, I see it as invitation to state my view on the subject or contribute my knowledge to the article, not echoing someone elses views. --Irmgard 07:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, firstly, "original research" does not mean and has never meant "the very act of doing research." One might as well ask of any Wikipedia article, "if it is not a copyvio of some existing article on a subject, how is it not 'original research'?" Second of all, why should it be noted which Wikipedians voted on this VfD in response to my letting them know the vote was going on? It almost sounds as if you're suggesting that there is something untoward in doing so, but the only policy or guideline I know which discourages such things applies to notifying non-Wikipedians of a VfD and encouraging them to come and vote. I'm not aware of anything that suggests it's a wrong thing to notify interested Wikipedians of a vote that may affect them. If you find any place where consensus has in fact determined that to be a bad thing, however, I'll get in line behind AI [1] and Zappaz [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] for my chastisement. However, such a policy (if there is one) should really be better publicized, shouldn't it? Otherwise people will not only notify other editors, they'll even [7] instruct them to alert other editors in turn. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:53, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see nothing wrong with publicizing polls to get as many outside views as possible. If the Wikipedia communities agrees that such action is not good faith, then please point it out. --AI 22:59, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is to my knowlegde not forbidden, but it might be less helpful than it looks - see Wikipedia:Suffrage, Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus, and Wikipedia:Sockpuppets --Irmgard 15:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. With all due respect the article is the opposite of original research. Over several months editors worked together on the talk page to develop a strict criteria for inclusion on the list - a direct description of a group as a "cult" by one or more carefully ranked sourced. There have been questions over how to translate foreign words, and it was previously agreed that "sect" is sometimes used in British english and french with the same meaning. A discussion is now underway, which Pjacobi refers to, about the german word "Sekte". But we are treating the matter carefully, seeking citations and working slowly. -Willmcw 15:07, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikisource (if they'll have it)Delete. I have no problem with a list of purported cults (although it'd be a nightmare to maintain and remain npov) but this page is original research, not an encyclopedia article. -- Francs2000 | Talk 15:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you actually read it? It is now easy to maintain because of the clear criteria that we have. -Willmcw 15:45, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • It is that very criteria that makes it original research. Where is the reference that these are widely agreed criteria among academics of what makes an organisation a purported cult? I know you have references of where other media agencies have called something a cult, but is that really NPOV? If you take that out, you're just left with the criteria at the start that may as well have been plucked from nowhere. -- Francs2000 | Talk 21:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • One of the article in the "Cult" template is Cult checklists which covers exactly that topic. However, if we were to use one of those checklists to decide on our own if a group was a cult then that would be original research. Like any good NPOV article, we are not making assertions of our own but instead are sourcing every opinion. Should we eschew sources and make determinations on our own logic? That seems totally contrary to the normal methods of Wikipedia. -Willmcw 02:48, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
        • • You keep pursuing the argument of "if it sourced, it is NPOV". But it is not so. A controversial subject (and don't tell me that this is not one of these...), needs to represent all sides of a controversy in a balanced manner to attain NPOV. The groups listed here does not have a recourse to present their POV in the matter. This list is a blacklist in camouflage and deserves to be deleted. ≈ jossi ≈ 04:08, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
            • You're right, Jossi. For purposes of NPOV, it is important, and in fact, the guiding principles of Wikipedia specify, that both sides of the controversy should be represented. The question is, though, when both sides of a controversy about a group are covered in the most logical place -- i.e. in the group's own entry -- is it a violation of NPOV to acknowledge the fact of the controversy in any other place? Because that's what this article is about, about acknowledging these controversies. You've been telling everyone that no, this article goes farther, this article presents the "anti-cult" POV, and only the anti-cult POV, and my question for you is "where?" Where is this article presenting the dissection of doctrines with a critical eye? the testimonies of those harmed and degraded by the group? the secret documents seized by law enforcement and brought out at trials? The answer is, nowhere. The list says "This is the group; these are the sources that raise the issue; you must follow the link if you want to know the arguments on either side of the issue." The list simply does not contain the "anti-cult" POV you are arguing that it presents out of proportion to any other view -- except to the degree that that POV is acknowledged as existing in order to acknowledge the existence of a controversy. And you seem to be arguing that even that much acknowledgement of the existence of a POV that says "this group is a cult" is automatically so damaging an NPOV violation that we must burn the article with fire. How come you've never shown so much concern about, say, whether a group is called a hate group or not? Have you been as fervent in your belief there that an accusation against a group cannot be allowed to exist within a Wikipedia article, unless the opposite POV is presented right then and there, when it's not a group you approve of as the target? -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The term cult is a minefield if one is to judge by the numerous definitions of the term in the Cult article. In an attempt to make a list of cults NPOV, a group of editors came up with the current idea that somehow skirts the controversy around the term. Admirable as their effort may be, it is unfortunately not NPOV, it is dangerously close to being original research (in particular the taxonomy upon which the source "cohorts" was designed) and the fact that it is still used as a blacklist for many religious groups: Note that List of cults redirects to this article. ≈ jossi ≈ 15:24, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Just read the criteria established for including a group in the list, for an example of the extent to which this article resorts to original research. Highlights are mine: Groups are arranged by the "width of consensus" of the sources: sources aligned with widest consensus are first, sources aligned with decreasing consensus follow, and sources that are aligned with only a very narrow consensus in their use of the term "cult" are last. Within these "cohorts" groups are arranged alphabetically. The decision of what "width of consensus" means, the choice of certain sources and exclusion of other sources to have bearing or not on that "consensus" is 100% original research and arbitrary at most. ≈ jossi ≈ 16:13, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Note that all of the sources are on the list, just some are ranked higher than others- so it isn't a matter of picking and choosing. I don't see what you mean by calling the use of sources "original research." It's just the opposite. -Willmcw 16:50, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • Don't you see it? Why Source A is higher than source B? Why source X is included and Source Y is excluded? The ranking of these sources is indeed, original research. ≈ jossi ≈ 18:31, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
      • You know perfectly well- you helpd develop the criteria, disclaimer, and listing of sources. You didn't complain then. This sudden disgust with the article is surprising since you helped make it what it is. -Willmcw 05:38, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep because the article is a list of purported cults. The list makes plain that it is "purported" (i.e. commonly put forward). Although I disagree that some of the entities listed are cults (for instance Mormons and JWs are, IMHO, too widespread to be cults), I accept the listing because they are often purported to be, whether or not they in fact are. --Scimitar ^parley 17:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is exactly the problem. In one breath you speak of purported cults (i.e. maybe not really a cult, just purported), and on the next one you disagree about a group being a cult by virtue of its inclusion on a list about purported cults. If you get confused by this, think of the reader! A blacklist is a blacklist is a blacklist. ≈ jossi ≈ 18:30, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't think it's neccessary to be a cult to be included on a list of purported cults, however your last point (on blacklists) has made me reconsider my vote. Even the MILS report (a horribly biased anti-religion piece) views the term "cult" as overly perjorative, and IMHO it's unfair to list organizations with huge memberships (mormons, adventists, jws, etc) on this list. Regrettably (given the obvious effort put into the article) delete. --Scimitar ^parley 19:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The restriction on "no original research" is not a bright line. Almost every article involves the exercise of editorial judgement to some extent. When the list seems to be useful, seems to represent a reasonable consensus judgement, and where the items are either noncontroversial or where the interplay of editorial give-and-take has created a reasonably neutral point of view, I think they can be kept. If someone wanted to argue that lists should be formally declared to be held to a looser standard than articles, and should accordingly carry a warning that they represent Wikipedian consensus judgement rather than verifiable fact, I'd go along. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposed changes to WP policy should be posted at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), not here. ≈ jossi ≈ 23:07, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • It's not a change in policy. Observation of actual behavior with VfDs on lists shows that this is de facto policy. I agree that it would be helpful to articulate this explicitly as part of our written policy, but it is not essential. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:02, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "A change in policy" would be changing the definition of "original research" so that it now includes the evaluation of sources for reliability and importance which is part of every well-written article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Even the title is POV. Thorns Among Our Leaves 19:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The title deals with matters about which people have strong POVs, that is true. Are you arguing, then, that it is not possible to write about people's POV in an NPOV fashion? If that were true then we'd have to give up on Wikipedia now, because it is founded on the principle that we can write about people's beliefs without endorsing them. Read WP:NPOV if you don't believe it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The current title is not NPOV. The approach of determining degrees of purported cult-ness is original research - it applies a new metric, original with us. If the article is kept after all, the content could be recreated, revised, under a new article: List of controversial religious movements — appropriate portions might be merged into another new article: List of controversial new religious movements as the target (instead of a redirect). The derogatory nature of those terms, and the blacklisting abuse especially of the word, cult, ought to be described. Mkmcconn (Talk) 20:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: "purported" : POV, "cult" : POV. The contents of the article then, are POV. Userfy it and then delete it. -Splash 21:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I have concerns over method, methodology and content, but I am convinced there is encyclopedic information in this article. It is a question of how to extract it, and that cannot be done if it is deleted. This is a close call, however, for the persuasive deletion arguments presented here do not, to my mind, outweigh the keep arguments. -Splash 03:46, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Text does not have to be lost if moved to userspace. Keep it there and extract whatever useful. --ZappaZ 03:48, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, then, you do not believe what WP:NPOV states, that our ideal of unbiased writing is "presenting conflicting views without asserting them"? You are instead proposing that to adhere to NPOV, we must refrain from presenting any views that anyone conflicts with? That seems to be what you're arguing, if you're saying "The article is clearly about POVs; therefore, it is clearly POV itself." -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:08, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see anywhere in the article any conflicting views. Aum Shinkiryo doesn't provide cites that say it's not a cult, and I'll hazard it doesn't call itself one. To cover the conflicting views would essentially be a "List of organisation that are sometime called cults and sometimes not called cults", and then to present a battle-of-the-googles or something. Which, to me at any rate, doesn't impart much encyclopedic information. I suspect that many of these organisations appear on various countries' "restricted organisations" (or whatever) list; a collection along those lines under a relevant title might not be POV and I suspect already exists, somewhere. -Splash 04:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually a big chunk of the article is sourced from a French parliamentary report (all of the groups marked "FR"). -Willmcw 04:42, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
      • Splash, have you really considered what you're asking? If you're saying that there are conflicting views which could be added to the article, which have not been, then you've just pointed out why the article should be kept -- because perceived lack of NPOV is not an excuse to delete. If you're arguing, on the other hand, that the charges could not be answered, and therefore it is inherently POV to acknowledge that the charge has been made... well, then, I can think of an awful lot of information on Wikipedia that would have to be thrown out. Most religions, for instance. If I disbelieve in the existence of the angel Moroni, but there is nothing I can say which could disprove his existence, then obviously it is POV for Wikipedia to acknowledge the Mormon belief in his existence -- after all, the conflicting view cannot be presented, right? -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • You raise a serious point. I will go away and think about that. -Splash 00:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - POV hell - even if we could agree what has been called a cult or sect - the words have so many shades of meaning that placing groups on a list would be pretty pointless --Doc (?) 00:19, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "if we could agree what has been called a cult or sect" -- with all due respect, this makes me think you haven't even looked at the article. A group goes into the article because we have a firm citation that a source has indeed called it a cult or a sect, along with which source it was. An article that tries to go further than that and decide which callings are accurate, now that would have the kind of problems you describe, but again, that is not the article under discussion. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did read it, and I'll grant you all of the above - but my point is that if a journalist has called something a cult that in itself is pretty meaningless. All users of the word mean different (derogatory) things by it - 'one man's sect is another man's denomination'. An article listing religious groups called 'cult' might list them all. It would be a bit like having an article list of purported right-wing groups each cite is just a record of some journalist’s POV --Doc (?) 10:24, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Highly sourced. This is an example of best practice, not "POV hell". —Seselwa 00:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Inherently POV. LDS is on this list?!?! I would be comfortable calling all Christianity a cult (although few others might agree), but placing a major denomination on this, without including the others, is an enormous error and a disservice to public discussion on the topic. Note that this is merely a symptom of a larger problem: I find LDS troubling, but others might find any entry troubling. Hence, inherently POV. Xoloz 03:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is not original research. It is stretching the imagination to try and call it original research. If we delete this article because it is "original research" then we may as well delete all of Wikipedia, because there is no article on here that doesn't require exactly the same sort of "original research" -- considering the various points of view put forth by various sources, trying to decide which sources are credible, which sources are prominent even if not fully credible -- and the average article calls for editors to synthesize from those largely unspoken judgements that an accusation by CBS News needs to be reported and an accusation on an anonymous Geocities webpage does not. This article goes farther than most Wikipedia articles do to avoid any NPOV problems coming from editors' undiscussed, undisclosed decisions about which sources are worthy of mention and why by discussing it and disclosing it and putting that information into the article. To pretend we have to destroy this article to satisfy NPOV is to willfully misread WP:NPOV and what it says about not letting NPOV spill over into false balance where no judgements may be made about sources. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where are the conflicting views presented to be able to adhere to NPOV? Where are all the newspaper articles, or encyclopedias in which these groups were not labelled as "cults". And what about the blacklist from the France government? Where is the opposite view to that? Can we say than group XYZ is not considered a cult by the governments of Italy, Canda, Spain, Greece, Venezuela, etc.? It does not make sense. NPOV requires that a controversial subject is treated in such way that the controversy is described and conflicting views be given a balanced coverage. This cannot happen here and thus, this article is POV and fundamentally flawed. ≈ jossi ≈ 14:15, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • You've never mentioned this concern on the talk page of the article before. You particpated in the discussions that developed the current criteria. If it was a problem why didn't you say so? -Willmcw 16:53, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Extensively researched, and gives a fairly good picture of the general views of the organizations in the article. Haikupoet 04:45, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, inherently POV and subjective. Radiant_>|< 12:36, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• It's this tuff that makes Wikipedia so interesting! (Unsigned comment by 131.247.165.35 (talk · contribs)
• Delete. Inherently defamatory and POV lists really don't belong on Wikipedia. Kaibabsquirrel 02:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - difficult, but that's not a reason to delete - David Gerard 00:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The regular participants on this article have made a Herculean effort to maintain NPOV while still noting the fact that there are groups considered to be cults. The fact that they are considered to be cults is, just that -- a fact -- and as such it is NPOV. The articles supporting these groups' inclusion on this list are a way of maintaining NPOV, by noting the fact that the groups in question are considered to be cults by many different sources -- not just the POV statement of Wikipedians with an "agenda." In fact, a persistent attempt to include Judaism on the list of cults was rebuffed for precisely that reason: someone was pushing a POV. Therefore, I will support this article because it supports NPOV. --Modemac 03:43, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge citations into each group's article. Being one of the editors whose "herculean" efforts are praised above, and after heavy consideration, I have decided to vote for the deletion of the article for many of the reasons stated by my peers above. So that we do not lose the extensive work done (mainly by User:Willmcw), I propose to move the text to userspace, delete the article, and slowly and carefully merge citations into each group's article (e. g. in Aum Shinrikyo we add: "This group was refered to as a cult in The Washington Post[8], the BBC[9],] and Encarta[10]." This way we maintain NPOV, and we don't lose the extensive work done Willmcw and others. (Sorry Will...) --ZappaZ 04:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you mind explaining how information is POV if combined in one article, but is NPOV if distributed to 50 articles? I don't see how that makes a difference. thanks Willmcw 05:24, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • It is obvious: In a group's article is good information and valid as it read within context. Readers can then make up their minds about what that group is or is not. In the list, it is a one sided POV expressed: the one of the sources we chose. The complaint about original research about our cohorts, the initial basis for this VfD, gets adressed as well. --ZappaZ 12:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge. Early Christianity, in all its various sects, was considered a cult for centuries until its endorsement by Constantine. After the definition of Christian orthodoxy, many long established Christian viewpoints were considered heretical cults. All emerging Protestant denominations were considered heretical cults by the Roman Catholic church - and the later movements (i.e. Quakers and Puritans) by the mainline Protestant churches as well. Almost all religious movements begin as a "cult" - a movement based on the charismatic appeal of one individual. So where in history should the article start? The sources for the article are very recent and reflect modern perspectives and prejudices (which are usually based on old ideas lurking in the mist). Although an interesting, and exhausting effort, I would have to vote to delete. But incorporating the sources -- and the reasons the sources assert these movements are cults -- into existing articles could be useful. Controversial and edgy, perhaps, but useful. This would allow counterpoints and sources to be presented. WBardwin 06:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I must point out that this article was nominated for deletion without any real attempt to improve or correct it by the nominators. It has not had a POV tag on it since May 31, 2005, when Jossifresco removed one that had been up for a day.[11] Pjacobi nominated it only four days and seven talk-page comments after he first raised a concern.[12] We have numerouos mechanisms for improving articles–none of them have been tried. I think that it is a very poor consideration of the dozens, maybe hundreds of hours of volunteer time that have gone into this article over its long history. I also note that this article was nominated when two key editors of the article, user:Hawstom (who proposed the criteria that we're using) and user:Ed Poor, are on announced wikiholidays. -Willmcw 06:35, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Please read my rationale for deletion just at the top of this page. I didn't nominate for POV (which not even is a valid deletion reason) but for Original Research, whis is a valid deletion reason. I also commented why thing, this is an essentially uncurable problem. --Pjacobi 17:09, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

• • Don't know if this is possible (you may know better, Will), but we could ask the admin that assumes responsibility for this VfD, to allow for Ed Poor and Tom's votes to count even if casted after the 5 day period and to tally the votes only after receiving these two votes. --ZappaZ 12:38, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Zappaz, you here seem to be mistaking WP for a democracy. Please see Guide to VfD, specifically the part that starts "The purpose of the discussion is to achieve consensus upon a course of action. The votes are a means to gauge consensus, and not the ends in themselves." I agree that something about the timing of this VfD seems very fishy. -- Hoary 03:05, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
      • I regret that you are insinuating that something is "fishy", because it isn't. See Talk:List of purported cults and read User:Pjacobi's intention to VfD this article being clearly stated. Please do not start with conspiracy theories. That is not needed as it reduces the quality of this discussion. Thanks. --ZappaZ 03:39, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your comment puzzles me. I don't think I insinuated anything, certainly nothing about any "conspiracy". -- Hoary 04:59, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as this dispassionately and usefully lists what are verifiably described as cults. -- Hoary 06:49, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The Wikipedia article Cult gives sufficient reasons for a "delete" vote, I think, but Googling "cult" will bring out even more strongly that labelling any group a cult is essentially subjective — either directly, or indirectly through the choice of one specific set of criteria out of many posible sets (as in the case of the approach taken here). It's difficult, then, to see the point or usefulness of the article, but easy to see how it might mislead and offend. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The Cult article strikes me as odd, with its introductory paragraph about "cult" in what is now a less-used sense, and its continuation with "Definitions of 'cult'" whose concluding paragraph reads "However, in common usage, 'cult' has a very negative connotation, and is generally applied to a group in order to criticize it." (Perhaps to criticize. Or perhaps simply to describe the unpleasant reality of the organization in a terse and immediately understandable way.) If "cult" indeed usually meant something like "locally unusual or unorthodox religious group", it would indeed be meaningless, but since it (I think) usually means a (pseudo-/quasi-) organization that has a fairly well recognized number of traits, a list seems, if not useful, then potentially useful. -- Hoary 09:13, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I'm not normally going to delete an article because of its content, merely flag for a rewrite, but in this case I think we're at an inherently unencyolpedic article. I really don't think this list tells us anything encyolopedic. Its just a list against a certain criterion, that has reached a limited wikipedian consensus, but does not reflect and report the mainstream, near consensus view of the world at large, not to mention a systemic bais on American, UK, and French Journals. Perhaps I might be persuaded that a list of dangerous cults is encylcopedic, with the critereon of dangerous being on a law enforcment agency's watch list. I am afraid though that list of purported cults is likley to get us into a trap where inorder to remain NPOV, we become utterly useless and unencyclopedic.--Tznkai 17:43, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I don't think that this list is original research. On second thought I agree with Pjacobi that this may veers off into original research if we use each and every (fringe) source. So the sources have to be confined to clearly mainstream English articles, excl. among others opinion pieces by columnists. I however think that this is a list made purely by the POV of the media and sources. If this is not allowed, and may be it should not be allowed, then we should also delete several other articles and categories e.g. the List_of_people_widely_considered_eccentric Andries 20:53, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no reason for this purported list or that list of eccentrics other than to be used as reference by those who wish to push a particular POV. I agree that List of people widely considered eccentric should also be put up for VfD. --AI 21:07, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Andries most recent comment. Why are dutch sources being used where they label groups as sectes. In english "sect" is not simply synonymous with "cult" Why are media opinions that call groups "sectes" uses to attribute claims that those groups have been called "cults" The problem is not only original research, but "poor" research. How about a List of Wikipedia contributors who have engaged in bad research. :) --AI 21:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • • Followin the same reasoning here is another VfD candidate List of films that have been cited as being among the worst ever made, and List of controversial non-fiction books (that is not sourced, so it has a huge POV problem), and there must be far more lists and categories. Andries 11:53, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is a fact that some organisations are branded 'cults' by others. A list of such organisations and movements is definitely needed. Many of the votes above seem to based on the validity of 'cult' as a concept. It might be a wrong concept but it still exists, and we can't pretend otherwise. The exact formatting and presentation of the information is debeatable, I think the current highly-sourced article is a vast improvement on what was there before (which was kept anyway). Morwen - Talk 21:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename into List of groups reported as cults Andries 23:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:You are ignoring all the points made as the reasons to delete this article. The problem is not with the title. ≈ jossi ≈ 00:26, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Why are you leaping to the conclusion that those points are being ignored? Instead of, say, just being found wrong-headed and inadequate? I know I, for one, don't believe that simply mentioning that a certain group has been accused of something by somebody to automatically be POV. AND NEITHER DO YOU. A bit of the good ol' "Do as I say, not as I do", eh, Jossi? A far cry from when you were fighting hard to keep that unproven accusation in an article without presenting the opposition, isn't it? Let's see who else has found unproven accusations just fine and dandy when it's not the accusation of being a cult... Ooooh, here's this little gem... "And yes, John: If any other organization, controversial or not, (church, NRM, group, etc.) makes a substantial point of calling another organization or group a "hate group" and publish that in their literature, then definitively it should be mentioned in this article as well." So an unproven accusation is perfectly fine to report on, as long as a "substantial point" is made of it, and the credibility of the source doesn't even matter! So clearly, the argument that List of purported cults has to be deleted because it contains carefully sourced claims is not one swallowed by this chap, who argued passionately that Hate group must, for NPOV, contain an allegation that certain critics of a certain NRM are a hate group! Oh, wait... that was User:Zappaz, who is calling for the article's deletion... You know, I take back what I said above. I don't find your "points" presented for deletion of the article to be wrong-headed and inadequate. I find them wrong-headed, inadequate and BLATANTLY HYPOCRITICAL. I frankly call for the admin who tallies this vote to take the extreme bad faith being blatantly displayed by some of those voting "delete" into account.-- Antaeus Feldspar 16:17, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: I find your rethoric appalling and unbecoming. You are sending a very clear message to each and everyone of your fellow editors about your behavior in this project. Speaks for itself. --ZappaZ 16:46, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I find your shifting of the topic from "what principles do we practice on Wikipedia, and are the people who claim we should delete this article because of principle X actually adhering to principle X?" to "oooh! rhetoric! bad! look at the nasty rhetoric! pay no attention to the double standard behind the curtain!" to send a "very clear message", too. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:42, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I do not think that I am ignoring the problems. I thought about them and I think they have too little merit. May be we should remove the redirect from list of cults, list of purported cults, to list of groups reported as cults to get rid of, at least some, of the blacklisting idea. Frivolous classification by the media of a group as a cult will backfire on these media, I believe. Andries 08:06, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Backfire on the media? Yes, and pigs fly too. :) --≈ jossi ≈ 10:17, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
          • I personally think and I think that I am not the only one that the Chines reaction to Falun Gong and the view of the German Federal Govt. that the tiny Scientology Curch with its extremely negative public image is a threat to the German democracy that has shown great stability during the last 50 years is paranoid and ridiculous and backfires on them. Scientology and Falun Gong may harm deeply involved members but that is a different mattter. Andries 11:44, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • The biggest threat to any democracy is the most dangerous cult which is not even listed on this list: Al-Qaeda. Just because the media hasn't labelled them a cult. What do you personally think about that? --AI 12:42, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Actually, the media has called Al-Qaeda a cult.[13] Feel free to add it. -Willmcw 12:49, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
              • It is not true that Al-Qaeda has not been labelled a cult by the media. The Dutch Muslim broadcasting organization called Al-Qaeda a "sekte" Dutch for cult. Discussions about brainwashing, typically associated with the debates about cults, resurfaced in the debates about Al-Qaeda, rarely heard about since the great cult scare of the 1970s and the 1980s here in the Netherlands. Just yesterday 23-7-2005, the Volkskrant newspaper wrote about brainwashing related to the Al Qaeda terrorist attacks on page 5. The list is work in progress. Andries 12:54, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Al-Qaeda was actually included on this list for quite a while, though it was removed from the list with this edit on April 11. --Modemac 17:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm somewhat disappointed, that a lot of fellow editors voting here, seem not to have read the reason for deletion at the very top (and instead start quarreling about POV). If the question which media and government labels which organization a cult (in which meaning of the word "cult", preferably) is an area of active research on scholarly base, and results of this research can be quoted, then there would be no problem with putting up a list. But in the case to be decided here, the article contributors decided to take the research in their own hands. That's the problem. --Pjacobi 16:52, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Comment (reply to Pjacobi) Some scholars have documented that there are some groups that were or are generally considered cults by the media and the public. E.g. Saul Levine M.D. in his article Life in the cults published in the 1989 book edited by the psychiatrist Marc Galanter called Cults and new religious movements, publised by the American Psychiatric Association writes

"Groups that this author has heard called cults by concerned relatives of members have included Catholics, Mormons, Orthodox Jewry, Born Again Christians, Bahai, IBM, est, and Gestalt to name a few. For purposes of this chapter however, we will use as examples which there appears to be considerable unanimity. That is, these four - Hare krishna, the Unification Church, Children of God, and the Divine Light Mission - have probably been held in less esteem by more people than most of the other groups combined [..]"

Andries 17:10, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Pjacobi, it sounds like what you are saying is that this article would avoid the "original research" problem you think you see if we simply included every single accusation ever from any source at all no matter how fringe -- that way we'd be doing no "original research" in trying to determine which claims have any credibility or notability, which is the objection you raised. The prohibition on "original research" is just that -- a prohibition on original research. Looking at what others before you have said on the subject isn't original research, it's just research. Weighing the significance of what others have said on the subject by factors such as credibility and notability doesn't make it original research, either, just still plain research. As I've said, if we start misclassifying the sourcing of articles and the weighing of sources as "original research" there's little on Wikipedia we won't have to delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:42, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Antaeus, you know that we cannot included every single accusation ever from any source at all no matter how fringe, so you shouldn't assume, I'm proposing this. But it must be work outside the Wikipedia, summarizing and evaluating the vast area of all these who says what mess. To be done by academic scholars and published in a peer reviewed journal, preferably. --Pjacobi 17:52, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not saying that you proposed that. What I'm saying is that that is the logical outcome of what you are proposing; namely, that weighing and selecting and attributing sources, all of which are recommended practices on Wikipedia, should be reclassified as "original research" contrary to how that term has always been defined on Wikipedia. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:52, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weighting, selecting and attributing of scholarly sources is typipal encyclopedic work. But weighting, selecting and attributing common use of language is research. --Pjacobi 19:15, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Comment Pjacobi has a point, but I think that many lists and articles are based on the media whithout getting VfD'd for original research. To minimize the possible original research at least we should confine ourselves to English language mainstream media. Andries 15:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing useful in this article which is based on an arbitrary definition applied in a speculative manner.--Fahrenheit451 22:09, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep However badly written designed (a problem which can be corrected), this page is still vital because of the nature of the topic. Sweetfreek 23:22, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article will never be more than an exercise in namecalling, or a survey of namecalling. Do we have a List of purported cads? Why not? That's why we shouldn't have this article, either. --goethean ॐ 14:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That would be correct -- if it were true that saying something is a "cult" is "never [anything] more" than namecalling. While many people like to claim exactly that as if it were true, all it takes to prove it untrue is to look at cult checklist. These are professionals in government and in academia who are clearly using the word and the concept in an attempt to predict and to understand, not to namecall. You may not agree with their theories, and that's fine. You may have the POV that every scholar who ever entertained the notion that the theoretical construct of "cult" ever had any value has their head up their backside -- and that's a legitimate POV. But to claim that no allegation that a group is a cult can ever be more than namecalling, and to call for deletion of this article based on that opinion, is to ask Wikipedia to endorse your POV above all those others. We don't have a list of purported cads because no professional has ever tried to classify exactly what distinguishes a cad from a non-cad. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The cult checklists — plural — are subjective, vague and contradictory. The cult checklists are not specific enough to objectively include some groups while excluding more mainstream ones. It is namecalling and an ideological weapon, not science.

As I've said before, you are completely entitled to your opinion that the science involved is bad. However, if you are claiming that there is no science involved, and that the word only exists so that purported experts can dress up namecalling -- would you care to explain why said purported namecallers would try to define criteria that could then be used to exclude groups from said namecalling? The intent is clearly more than namecalling. Your POV may be that that intent can never be realized, that there is something inherent in the word "cult" that prevents it from ever being used to designate a legitimate sociological concept. But don't expect that Wikipedia has to endorse your POV. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at the list more closely, I am disgusted. Harmless groups like the Hare Krishnas, Christian Scientists, and Sathya Sai Baba are not distinguished from groups of murderers like Al Qaeda and the Manson Family. Recommend renaming article to List of religious groups that people don't like, or, even more accurately, List of religious groups disliked by people who we like. --goethean ॐ 17:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This is what is a clear example of Guilt by association:Al-Qaeda is evil, and it is listed here, so group XYZ that is also listed must be evil', a fallacy abused by those in our society that are intolerant of non-conforming beliefs. These non-conforming beliefs are being shamelessly targeted and blacklisted. Another example of intolerance dressed as NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ 17:30, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Some editors tried to get a separation between "deadly cults" and the rest, however other editors, including those voting in foavor of deletion, vetoed it. If you think that such a division is appropriate then you might add a note onthe article talk page. Cheers, -Willmcw 19:59, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

I don't. I think that the whole article is an exercise in anti-religious sentiment and witch-hunting. Seperating the vicious murderers from those who merely hold beliefs that you dislike might be a good first step towards making it less obviously so. --goethean ॐ 20:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dislike any of these groups. Please assume good faith. -Willmcw 21:04, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I have been observing this discussion from the sidelines, and what I see is that editors are missing the fact that this is a political ethical, and deeply personal discussion, not a POV vs. NPOV, blacklisting/namecalling, original researrch or the like. This is all about the politics of the countercult/anti-cult (a very unlikely coalition of new leftists, evangelical Christian fundamentalists, and skeptics) vs. the politics of the moderate religious, the academia, and some open minded libertarians, are at the core. These politics are unlikely to disappear precisely because of the political act's ability to polarize issues, to disguise aspects of those issues which do not serve the various poles or positions. A huge amount of intellectual energy has been spent on defining (or more correctly, attempting to define) the word "cult". This discussion being yet another one in that cacophony of voices, is not unique or any different. Then, of course, there are the no less powerful arguments fueled by a deep personal agenda: apostates vs. new religions, rightist vs. leftists, and the wide gamut of strong opinions stirring the pot of any discussion about beliefs, God, human nature, freedom, liberty, and human rights. If one is to judge the related articles on mind control, brainwashing, cults, cult apologists, and the like, one will find the same political divide as in this discussion, and the same editors at each side of the battlefield. It will be interesting to see if Wikipedia and its NPOV policy can move from utopia to reality: Accepting the politics involved will be a honest first step. The outcome of debates like this one, and the dismissal or acceptance of articles like this one into the Wikipedia fold, will undoubtedly shape the future and relevance of this encyclopedia. --38.119.107.70 03:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• In that case I propose that we declare "no consensus" and move on. There is often no coming to terms when there is an emotional note to the facts in a debate. Haikupoet 03:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an encyclopedic topic of general interest. The article may have to be renamed and/or reworded, but that is beside the point. Fact is, the word "cult" gets used (not by us, but demonstrably by others), and the question of who uses it to describe which organizations is inherently interesting. One may think that the article title is POV, but that only warrants a call for improvement, not deletion. There are many articles with seemingly POV titles (e.g. list of countries that are considered the greatest) and neutral, factual contents. This particular list clearly strives for accuracy and includes relevant disclaimers as well as a definition of its scope. That's more than can be said about other lists on controversial topics. --MarkSweep 19:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment those articles you mention are useless for an encyclopedia unless you think Wikipedia is a a propaganda tool. --AI 21:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: We are not comparing like with like. Read list of countries that are considered the greatest - it actually deals in verifiable and notable facts. So, in a manner does this article, but the fact that some journalist once called a certain group a cult, although verifiable, is not notable. There are so many definitions of 'cult' that anything might have been meant, and different things will have been meant, on each occaasion. To gather these disparate references together to create a list - creates a meaningless list. We might as well have a 'list of organizations at one time called bizzare' --Doc (?) 21:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a cult in my opinion and I am notable. :) --AI 01:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Useful list. Not inherently POV, since the list serves to explain who thinks these things and why in brief, while implicitly referring to the pages on the movements in question for details. Lord Bob 22:07, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Propaganda. The method for deciding on inclusion of groups in this list is original research. IMHO, use of the word purported to avoid List of cults is not good faith: Purported[14] is vague and refers to a assumptions. The assumptions used are not necessarily from experts on religion and in many cases the opinions are from the media. --AI 14:30, 20 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.