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 DELETE. -Doc ask? 23:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of religions once classed as cults[edit]

This article practically brags about being a POV fork of List of groups referred to as cults. There also appear to be exactly two sources for the article: a single Encarta article and a personal website, and if the essays written by the owner of the personal website are eliminated as a source (which I believe they would have to be, by WP:RS) then the list is exactly four entries long. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The article has three reference because only one editor has had time to add any other links. Lists have to start somewhere. I'm sure there are many other sources.
  2. The OCRT reference is considered a reliable resource for other lists. Specifically the List for Groups Referred to as Cults which Antaeus Feldspar frequently edits.
  3. There does not seem to be room for these quotes on the Groups Referred to as Cults list.
  4. If Encarta considers making a list like this (albeit shorter) to be encyclopedic then why wouldn't Wikipedia?
  5. The list is designed to be Neutral in POV in that it only reports on the viewpoint of reliable sources and does not express the views of the author. I don't think it can be any less POV than the list of groups referred to as cults which expresses the view points of journalists and cult experts.
  6. The article needs to be viewed with the other articles in its category. It enhances the information provided by providing a heading which shows a real life viewpoint. If you look at the cult categories below you will notice that all the articles refer to the scholarly groups which point the finger at what they thing are cults. This list brings up the real world viewpoint that some other scholarly groups have to the contrary. I think it looks good in the category list below. It feels right to provide a balancing article on such a controversial topic. But if you all think it's too much of a POV fork and that then means that the article needs to be merged into another then so be it.
Please take the time to reconsider your votes. cairoi 05:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but theres no chance i'm going to reconsider my vote. ILovEPlankton 12:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's alright if you feel that way. Do you have any feelings about the usefullness of the information if it were combined with another article? cairoi 13:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you could find a good article to merge it with I would change my vote to merge. ILovEPlankton 05:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The first merge candidate that springs to mind is the List of groups referred to as cults. That may or may not work. But perhaps it really needs flushing out into a broader topic: "The Transition from Cult to Religion." That might make a very interesting wikipedia article. cairoi 15:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But it lacks NPOV, seeming, as it does, to invite approval for such transitions in each and every case. I would replace 'once' with 'formerly' on the grounds that 'once' is subtly POV, with its subtle connotation of a distant and therefore relatively primitive, wrong-headed past. Etaonsh 20:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I am very surprised that OCRT was ever generally accepted as a source for any article. Part of the reason I have not protested it as a source for List of groups referred to as cults, however, is that OCRT has a strong tendency (I would say "bias" except it might be misinterpreted as criticism of OCRT) against referring to groups as cults; thus, it is far more indicative when OCRT does come out and say "yes, this group actually should be regarded as a cult" than when they say "this group should be regarded as a new religious movement and not as a cult." (Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Partisan websites.) To put the shoe on the other foot -- Rick Ross is specifically not accepted as a source for List of groups referred to as cults, and you've never once complained about that. If Ross were to declare, however, that "X group was once referred to as a cult but should not be any longer", don't you think it would be noteworthy that a man who's supposedly so predisposed to see cults everywhere he looks, looks in this direction and sees the opposite? -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be addressing 'me' there as tho I represent some camp in the matter, which I don't. Etaonsh 22:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're completely correct. I was attempting to reply to cairoi but I indented incorrectly. I have fixed the indentation. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, If this were the Gita and there were two camps, who would be Krishna? ;) cairoi 03:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
references approved on other sites and additonal references can be found with elbow grease. cairoi 05:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Governments, technically - including democracies. Etaonsh 20:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Problems could be fixed by editing. Reliable sources give their opionion that the groups are religions. cairoi 05:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've reconsidered as you want, and I still say it's subjective. Microsoft does not determine what is encyclopedic; they clearly have a POV conflict of interest in producing an encyclopedia. The difference between a 'cult' and a 'religion' is whether the community accepts it or not. The Hare Krishna movement are a cult in Australia, but in India they'd be pretty tame. In Japan, Mormons are considered cultish whereas in Utah, they're normal. It's impossible to draw a distinction without being subjective. I don't accept the Scientology movement as anything other than a dangerous cult of folie a deux, but that doesn't stop Hollywood from accepting it. - Richardcavell 05:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Take your logic and apply it to the list of groups referred to as cults: It should include everything then! That list is not concerned about whether the Scientologists are a cult inside or outside of Hollywood it is only concerned about opinions expressed by reliable references. I think the religions once classed as cults list should be able to do the same thing but on the other side of the coin. cairoi 06:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly are the Hare Krishnas a cult in Australia? lol! I think the word cult itself is almost used like a word of insult so it's difficult to describe any movement as a cult without being non-NPOV, thus in reverse it's hard to see a logic behind things being non-cult aswell (in terms of Wikipedia). Could the article exist as The findings of research into supposed cults? Your friendly, neighbourhood cult member, GourangaUK 14:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC) :-)[reply]
Hi Cairoi, this is exactly the point. There is no religion which would not be on this list. This makes this a POV fork, simply because if this list is identical to the List of religions, then the title of this article is simply a sideways way to push "cult" into the mix. Why not just insert the line "Note that almost all religions were considered cults when they were young" in Religion and be done with it? --Deville (Talk) 16:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Generalisation, hinduism, animism? cairoi 05:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure: are you asking me a question? If so, could you restate? Interpreting what I think you're asking me, yes, there are certainly subsets of Hinduism that "are classed" as cults. The Hare Krishnas (ISKCON) come to mind: in New York or Sydney, they're considered a cult, whereas in Mumbai or Chennai ISKCON is a wholly unremarkable organization. All I'm saying is that every young religion was once considered a cult, because frankly a reasonable definition of cult is "a religion without any political or economic power". Can you name one religion which would not appear on this list? --Deville (Talk) 16:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mammon? Etaonsh 21:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Coffee? Tea? --Deville (Talk) 02:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not just now, thanks, I'm discussing deities. Etaonsh 08:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would you suggest merging it into the groups referred to as cults list then? cairoi 05:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it should be called a list of controversial religions once classed as cults. cairoi 05:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're missing the point. The article is not expressing my point of view it is expressing a verifiable point of view held in the community at large. The list differs enough from it's siter list to be difficult to format. cairoi 06:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I feel the need to complicate the issue at that point by drawing a distinction between 'the view of the community at large' and the verifiable views, investigation-based decisions, evaluations, proscriptions and legalisations of elected and unelected government. The former are clearly affected by the latter (e.g., guided, and/or 'kept in the dark'), and often vice versa. Etaonsh 20:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why?cairoi 14:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1. Because the editor you are addressing confuses majority with unanimity, and thereby/-fore seems to seek to undermine consensus.
2. Because the term remains troublingly ambiguous. Is a 'cult' defined by its small/minority/non-mainstream following, or by government proscription? But as stated elsewhere here, deletion is not = clarification, is it though? Etaonsh 20:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Simplificateur. It isn't 'all in the eye of the beholder' when national legislation/proscription/legalisation play a role, worldwide, albeit one which starry-eyed Westerners might prefer not to notice. :D Etaonsh 20:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe retitling it would point us in a new direction? cairoi 15:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - this is overdue, but as usual the madding majoritarian mob is instead baying for blood against all decent and truly Wiki principles. ;( Etaonsh 19:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But: where does anti-religion fit into that? - is that not a religion, by definition, based around the God/spirituality issue, and bringing people together? Etaonsh 08:56, 1 May 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.
More