Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:33, 14 March 2007

This article was nominated for deletion on January 13, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

A source

I read about this concept in a book by Janja Lalich. Andries 10:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Today terms.

This perception of political cult will change in the future as understanding of politics matures and reaches wider society.What you think of fascism and communism could be described as ideology today,defended in terms of politics,but its really a cult.Democratic Republic of North Korea comes to mind as example of living political cult.--Unsigned

===A few small communist and fascist groups are definitely cults. Some larger ideological groups may contain a cultic core or special formations organized in a cult-like fashion (according to some accounts, the Third International operatives from various countries in the 1930s were treated virtually as cult zombies by Stalin's cynical bureaucrats). Arguably, Himmler's SS included cultic formations trained at that castle (Wewelsburg?) where they supposedly performed something called the ceremony of the stifling air (possibly this is a street legend). As to North Korea it is definitely a totalitarian state with an intense leader-cult religion (probably the most intense such formation that has ever existed--one hesitates to describe it as a Stalin-style personality cult since even Stalin never strove for such a level of quasi-religious worship and regimentation). But I'm not sure the term "political cult" is appropriate in reference to North Korea, since the term has been used up until now exclusively to refer to relatively small groups that don't wield state power and that employ elaborate psychological manipulation of their followers as a substitute for the patronage and secret-police power of a post-revolutionary state.--Dking (Dennis King), 2 Sept 2006

To elaborate on the above: Patronage of a sort is a factor in holding together members of a political cult (for instance, the granting of a job with a party-run bookstore or a job within the party's propaganda arm that involves less drudgery and stress than street organizing). Likewise, a quasi-state terror can exist in the milieu of cult-like guerrilla movements (such as the Shining Path in the mountains of Peru) or even in the milieu of thuggish urban groups like the Oakland Black Panthers. So things are murkier than in my above formulation. Still, I would say that in a political cult psychological manipulation is primary and the threat or use of violence is secondary, while in a post-revolutionary state, political repression (including violent repression to varying degrees) is primary and psychological manipulation is secondary. Patronage is a buttressing factor in both instances, and the difference between cult patronage and post-revolutionary patronage is chiefly one of scale. As to ideology, in earlier generations it may have played a powerful independent role in this process but today it survives mostly as a useful framing for psychological manipulation (and I would include most radical forms of nationalism as psychological manipulation) or through the enforcement mechanism of a state apparatus.--Dking (Dennis King), 11 Sept 2006

Ayn Rand

I question if Objectivism is really a political cult. Rand's world-view and the Objectivist movement are more oriented to values, philosophy and self-help than to politics. Obviously Rand's thinking has had an impact on the libertarian Right but I don't see evidence that this impact has come through any kind of high commitment Objectivist political organization. I left the reference to Objectivism for now, but I believe it should be removed unless there is clear evidence to the contrary.--5 Aug. 2006

Original research in this article

The whole numbered list at the start strikes me as original research, particularly this line:

There are likely other characteristics that could be added to the above list. Persons who are members of a political cult might not be aware of this, and would tend to vigorously defend and justify their political beliefs.

This seems like another way of saying "this is what I think a political cult is." I think this article needs to be cleaned up in general. --Wafulz 03:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this sentence is not useful and have deleted it. --Dking 01:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Unwarranted deletion

BabyDweezil, you deleted the Newman organization as an example once before, saying that no citations had been given. I added the citations--from the Anti-Defamation League, from Political Research Associates (a group that has tracked political cults for 30 years), and from the scholarly book on political cults by Professor Tourish and Tim Wohlforth. I could add more but these should be sufficient. There is absolutely no foundation for removing this material that has been properly cited. Nor was there any foundation for removing legitimate links as you did in one of your most recent edits. As to your stylistic changes, I find most of them legitimate and will let them stand. However, I am restoring the adjective "bizarre" in the description of the Rand Collective's wedding of rightwing libertarian ideology and communist organizational style, since this accurately reflects what Murray Rothbard and Michael Shermer have written about this now defunct group.-- Dking 19:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed reference to Newman because it is in a section headed "examples of political cults" which makes it entirely POV. The notion that there is even such a thing as a political cult is POV, which is not discussed anywhere in the article, making it an OR essay. I will edit the article and the reference to Newman to conform to NPOV as best as possible, even though this article is entirely speculative. And the description of the Rand Collective as "bizarre" will be removed, its entirely POV. You should find a reference and phrase it properly. And Tourish and Wohlforth is a trade book, not a scholarly one. BabyDweezil 22:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The leftwing review you cited didn't oppose the idea of political cults. The reviewer said he was open to considering it, and said he definitely considered LaRouche a cult. He criticized Tourish and Wohlforth because he thinks they have become anti-Trotskyist and anti-revolutionary from his own political perspective. It should be pointed out that the reviewer is the author of an online book about Healy, and his detailed description of Healy's sexual abuses and authoritarianism, although framed within the Trotskyist philosophical outlook rather than that of anti-cult sociologists and psychologists, is quite similar to the criticisms that have been leveled against some U.S. cults.--Dking 02:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Newman follower BabyDweezil's rant in defense of so-called Marxist-Leninist groups (added to the article after my last posting above) just confirms what Newman's critics have long said--that he never disbanded his pseudo-Leninist "International Workers Party," which continues to exist as an underground formation bankrolled by billionaire Republican Mike Bloomberg (and a network of sexually and financially exploitative psychotherapy clinics). Thanks for providing such telling new evidence, BabyD. Give us more!--Dking 18:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

What in God's name are you ranting about? A few minor factual edits to a ridiculously speculative and POV article confirms that a billionaire mayor is bankrolling an underground Marxist Leninist organization? mmmmmm.....okay!! BabyDweezil 20:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmmmm...You mention the billionaire mayor but are silent about the sex with psychotherapy patients. Keep the posts coming--like your recent scurrilous comments on the psychiatric condition of one of your group's former therapy patients (posted in the Fred Newman wiki article), and now your suddenly resurrected concern for defending Marxism-Leninism even though Fred told the NY Times in 2005 that your party had disbanded and that you had now entered the "mainstream." The more you post, the more you expose the true nature of your "cult." (See, I put it in quotation marks, just as you like.)--Dking 21:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Although, guided as ever by Corinthians, I always gladly hear your views, i must refer you to WP:TALK wherein it states right up top: The purpose of a Misplaced Pages talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views. BabyDweezil 01:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Guided as ever by the Book of Job, I must remind you that the purpose of Misplaced Pages articles is to provide accurate information on the subject of the article, not to use the article to wage ideological warfare on behalf of the International Workers Party against scholars and journalists who are believed by you to be revisionists or counterrevolutionaries.--Dking 02:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Consistent POVing by Dennis King

First DKing adds a book review by Lalich claiming she "had also praised the Tourish and Wohlforth book," then when I add balance by citing her criticisms, King deletes the section, declaring "this is not a book review" (as if it wasnt he who added the distorted quotaation from the book review in the first place.) When the Marxist Leninist backgrounds of all the authors he cites are noted by me in the article (which seems emininently relevant background on authors who are charging various Marxist groups—in some cases their own former groups--with being "cults"), King deletes the properly referenced section, claiming in the edit summary "Deleted ad hominen attack by follower of Fred Newman." It's annoying enough that Dennis King continued to use Misplaced Pages to attempt to publish personal essays, such as this entry and International Workers Party that he cannot find a legitimate publisher for. Yet in addition, he is using personal attacks, cult baiting, charges of sock puppetry, against anyone who challenges this. Very silly. BabyDweezil 16:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The issue of Marxist "grudges" is a red herring (no pun intended)

I wish to correct the idea that opposition to political cults is a manifestation of a grudge against former M-L groups that some cult experts were once involved in. First, I was never in a political cult. The PLP, which I left over 30 years ago, has never been accused of cultism by any ex-member to my knowledge nor will one find complaints about it that are much more than criticism of what ex-members or opponents regard as extremely dogmatic politics or the typical Marxist top-down leadership. This is a group that banned Maoist style criticism/self-criticism in the late 1960s and encouraged its members to spend their time with friends, family and co-workers OUTSIDE the party rather than hanging around with each other (that's still its "line" today). As to Janja Lalich, she and most of the leadership and membership of the DWP rose up and expelled their leader (an unstable alcoholic) and voluntarily disbanded the party--who is she supposed to have a grudge against, her fellow rebels? As to Alex Stein, I believe from reading her book that her experiences inside the "O" gave her valuable insights into the nature of cults that she could not have attained in any other way; her former membership in the O speaks to her credibility, not to any prejudice. The same could be said of Tim Wohlforth. I am not aware that the group Prof. Tourish was in was a cult (most Marxist groups are not cults although they tend to elicit high commitment from their members). As to the dean of political cult watchers, Chip Berlet, he was never a member of any communist party or pre-party formation to my knowledge. I am reverting BabyDweezil's nonsense again.--Dking 19:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It's you who is throwing in the red herring. Nowhere in my edits did I say they were grudges--thats your invention. I am simply including the documented fact that they are all former communists. stop censoring the article, and stop justifying it with pink herrings.BabyDweezil 20:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Discuss changes, then edit

To everyone involved here: Discuss the changes, and then come to a conclusion. If you continue reverting, there will be blocks placed by the Three revert rule. Also, keep in mind civility, no personal attacks, and no original research (ie conclusions must have been reached elsewhere). --Wafulz 21:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Marxism charges

BabyDweezil has failed to establish any causal connection between people being ex-Marxists and their opposition to political cults. People who have been in a cult, and left it, tend often to criticize the cult afterwards. Is there some special connection with once being in a Marxist group and today being against cults, when some of the ex-Marxists cited were never in groups that were cult-like? And what about the many scholars and journalists who have written about or defended the idea that not all cults are religious--that many are secular, including political cults? Most of these people were never in Marxist groups. All BabyD can say for sure is that two former members of Marxist political cults have written accounts of life in their former organizations, and one former member of a Marxist political cult is the co-author of a book in which one out of about 12 cults described is a British group whose U.S. affiliate he was once involved with. It is not surprisingly that these three people are ex-Marxists since at least half of all political cults have their origins in Marxism (although most Marxist groups in the U.S. and Britain are NOT cults). BabyD's examples do not add up to a meaningful causal connection, and he/she is unable to cite any reputable authority who has made such a connection. I am deleting this nonsense yet again.--Dking 04:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph you keep deleting is reporting the facts, with sources. There is no suggestion of a causal connection. You are creating a red herring simply to censor relevant, sourced information. BabyDweezil 15:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

BabyDweezil, you just confirmed my point. If there is no causal connection, as you now admit, then there is no possible justification for including this ad hominen material. As to the other person who reverted this material, if you are going to do so again please cite the precise reasons why you disagree with what I wrote above.--Dking 16:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

DKing, give up on it, what BabyDweezil wrote is relevant, sourced info. Stop deleting it. JFBurton 16:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

They're not "charges", they are facts

The fact that authors of attacks on political organizations were once long time members of those organizations or adherents to the same doctrines is not relevant and is "ad hominen?" Removing that information is pure censorship and completely at odds with even the most basic notions of disclosure and an attempt at pure POV mongering. BabyDweezil 16:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Essentially, the material by BabyDweezil that I deleted points out that two ex-members of Marxist political cults wrote about their experiences and a third was co-author of a book that described his own former organization among about ten others. (My own past is not relevant because although I was in a Marxist group I was never in a political cult; this puts me in a category of only one or two persons out of the entire statistical universe of scholars and writers who accept the concept of a political cult.) The information cited by BabyDweezil about three ex-members of Marxist cults doesn't rise to the level of evidentiary significance, since there is a much, much larger number of cult experts, scholars and journalists who accept and use the concept of political cults but were never members of Marxist parties, cultlike or otherwise (Robert Jay Lifton, Margaret Singer, Michael Langone, Chip Berlet, Paul L. Montgomery, Patricia Lynch and Jolyon West to name just a few). But even if BabyD could provide a larger list of individuals the "facts" he/she cites would still be unworthy of inclusion here because he/she fails to cite any published expert statement asserting that the facts presented have any evidentiary significance. And don't say facts are just facts: This material was clearly inserted to make a political point by indirect means. As it stands, BabyD's material is (a) an inference from insufficient data; (b) original research; and (c) argumentum ad hominem.--Dking 19:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

If you believe what is in the article is unbalanced, feel free to add sourced statements from reliable sources indicating their acceptance and usage of the term "Political Cult", which is the subject of this entry. As it stands, the most prominent purveyors of the term "Political Cult" are Wohlforth, Lalich, Stein, Tourish and King , all five former members of revolutionary Marxist Lenist organizations; in the case of the first four, they now attack their former organizations as "cults," and in the latter case, the writer was in an ill-fated romance with a member of an organization he has incessantly attacked as a cult for 30 years and slandered in these talk pages incessantly as well. BabyDweezil 20:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

This is becoming vandalism

Dking has yet again deleted factual, sourced information justified by an edit summary claiming BabyDweezil has provided no legitimate published source for his/her conclusions; original research and POV attack deleted again. A look at the deleted section syhows this to be demonstrably false. It clearly contains only sourced facts, not conclusions, is far less "original research" than the bulk of this rambling, POV article, and is not a POV attack but relevant information. Reverted. BabyDweezil 19:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, BabyDweezil has now identified me in a still narrower way (see previous section). I am now (a) a former member of a Marxist organization; (b) a person who has never been a member of a Marxist organization or any other organization widely believed to be a political cult; (c) a person who was in a personal relationship 30 years ago with a member of a Marxist organization widely believed to be a political cult. I suspect that, out of the hundreds of scholars, journalists and exit-counseling-oriented psychotherapists, psychiatrists and social workers who affirm the reality of political cults, I am in a statistical universe of one. Although that makes my personal bio utterly insignificant in determining whether or not those who affirm the existence of political cults are biased, I am not demanding that my name alone be removed from BabyD's list--I demand that all five names be deleted and that the entire paragraph be deleted. BabyD says he/she is reporting a "fact." But a fact, to be included in an article, must be demonstrated to have relevance in the eyes of a cited authority. I could add to this article the "fact" that the Moon is not made out of green cheese, but that is not relevant to political cults in the eyes of any reputable published source and therefore any editor would be justified in removing it. If I continued to restore it, Wiki administrators would be justified in blocking me from editing on this article, and that is what they should do to BabyD, who has reverted his/her ad hominem attack/original research over a dozen times without providing any citation from a reputable published source demonstrating the relevance of his/her alleged "facts."--Dking 00:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The material I added is probably the most factual bit in this whole article. One could argue what the relevance of this whole article is, and where are the reliable sources that lend credibility to the neologistic pseudo-concept "Political Cult." It seems the primary reason this article was initiated was an attempt to use Misplaced Pages to lend credence to a questionable concept largely associated with the authors I've given background on, and as such, the sourced background material on those autheros that I added is eminently relevant. I suggest you seek an admin's opinion, and rather than attempt to control the content of a pet project of yours, yuo might want to focus on the glaring inadequacies in the rest of the article.BabyDweezil 01:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I have asked again and again on this discussion page for BabyD to provide a reputable published source for the significance of five individuals (out of the hundreds of experts who recognize the existence of political cults) being former members of Marxist organizations. He/she has provided no citation, because there is none. His/her incessant reinsertion of this ad hominen attack is pure and simple vandalism and warrants him/her being blocked from editing on this article.--02:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The five main authors who are labeling Marxist Leninist organizations, among others as "political cults" were themselves all long time members of Marxist Leninist revolutionary organizations, four of the five were members of the very same groups they now label as "cults." To continually try to excise this information is pure censorship and sanitization of this article. By the logic of asking for a "reputable published source" to verify the "significance" of prima facie obvious relevant factual information, one would have to remove 99% of the facts on Misplaced Pages. BabyDweezil 02:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "prima facie obvious relevant factual information" on Misplaced Pages. It is either properly sourced or else it is original research and hence does not belong in a serious article. The reason for the sourcing rule is to prevent flat earthers, hollow earthers and pseudo-Marxist therapy cultists from inserting isolated "facts" and weaving around such facts all kinds of ideas that are relevant or truthful only in the mind of the "poorly informed person with fantastic conceptions" (as Edward Teller termed Lyndon LaRouche) who come up with this kind of original "research."--Dking 03:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

"pejorative"

This is a POV term in the context and manner in which you use it. I have no objection to your quoting a scholar as using the term, but you are NOT quoting anyone--you are citing it as one of your "prima facie obvious relevant" factoids in order to demean critics of cults. I'd say it was okay to cite, say, Melton as believing the term cult is pejorative, if in fact he said that--but his opinion and that of your other source would ONLY apply to religious cults since the books you cite are only about religious cults, not political ones. (It should be noted that some scholars who defend religious cults on grounds of religious freedom do not extend this tolerance to anti-Semitic and totalitarian political cults, but are well aware of the noxiouos nature of such groups.)--Dking 00:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Republican Party and Christian Right paragraph

Someone inserted a brief section in this article many months ago about cultism and the Christian Right in the Republican Party. I just got around to checking out the citation and agree that it doesn't provide the required specific information. The only reference to cults I could find was a sarcastic remark by a local political figure in Texas who was clearly using "cult" as a metaphor for something else. The website provides examples of activities by the Christian Right as a mass movement and as involving coalitions of hundreds or even thousands of churches. I believe that there are certain "shepherding" movements in and around the Christian Right coalition that probably classify as cults, and possibly this could be said about elements of the Dominion movement and the extremist wing of the right to life movement (although extremist beliefs are not always signs of cultism). Elements of the Christian Right actively oppose cults through the Christian "countercult" movement which over the years has tended to converge with the secular anti-cult movement in expressing a concern for psychological manipulation and exploitation, rather than focussing primarily on doctrinal issues. If a sentence is going to be added by someone later that provides a Christian Right example of politically oriented religious cults it should refer to a specific group or groups about which there is clear documentation, and should not unintentionally lump together 20 million conservative evangelicals as a conglomeration of cultists.--Dking 03:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

review material on Tourish/Wolhforth book

This article is not a book review. I moved the material to the footnote since it is clearly footnote citation material. I also shortened it. It was not proper to take a basically favorable review and present the favorable material in one sentence and then add an entire paragraph of what is clearly a secondary criticism WITHIN the favorable review. Both positive and negative remarks from the review are still here but in an abbreviated form appropriate to footnote material.--Dking 04:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

falun gong

Falun Gong's fight against the communist government in China certainly deserves to be mentioned in the section on Religious Cults and Politics, since Falun Gong's commitment to a longrange political struggle and explicit strategic political goals is so unusual for a religious group, cultic or otherwise. (I renamed the section "Religious Cults and New Religious Movements in Politics" in deference to the fact that there is no clear consensus among cult critics or anywhere else except within the Chinese govt that Falun Gong is a destructive cult.) However, the section on AFF and Falun Gong it seems to me is way outside the parameters of an article on political cults, since Falun Gong is not a political cult. I really think this material belongs in either (a) the Falun Gong article; (b) the Cults and Governments article; or (c) the AFF/ICSA article. I also suggest that at some point someone create a separate article on Religious Cults and New Religious Movements in Politics, and move everything on the topic there except a single sentence distinguishing such groups from secular political cults.--Dking 19:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The Chinese government's cult-baiting and murderous persecution of the FG is admitted by the CCP itself as suppression of a political threat and likewise, the FG characterizes the CCP as a "political cult. To the extent that the CCP has made use of the ideology of the so-called anti-cult movement and the AFF, and to the extent that the AFF has embroiled itself in a deadly political battle between two groups labeling each other political cults, the section on the AFF and Falun Gong is entirely within the parameters of an article on political cults. In fact, its probably the most salient information in what is otherwise a speculative article about a fringe sociological concept propagated largely by minor figures. BabyDweezil 20:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The Effects of Partisan Politics

This section was added long ago and is entirely original research, and likewise is based on a study which never mentions "cults." It's being deleted since no one has addressed the OR tags in quite awhile. BabyDweezil 21:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, the section in question is NOT "original research." I have always been dubious that it belonged in this article (on grounds of relevance), but I did a few weeks ago read over the original scientific study, put a footnote directly citing it, and rephrased the summary to reflect what the study actually said. Nevertheless, this article is probably better off without it, since it focuses rather narrowly on behavior in Presidential campaigns. If the person who originally inserted it can figure out a direct relevance to political cults they should by all means reinsert it.--Dking 00:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion once again

If a person has written about a group that he or she was previously a member of, that is useful information, since it speaks to their credibility. The fact that Stein, Tourish, and Lalich are former members of the leftist groups they have written about (and that those who have written about purported Trotskyist cults are former Trotskyists, which implicitly includes Wohlforth) is all in the section on examples of political cults. BabyD's rant earlier in the article simply duplicates that information in the context of implications of an anti-communist conspiracy against her International Workers Party and also presents the unsubstantiated (and indeed false) statement that usage of the concept of political cults has been "largely by" ex-members of M/L organizations. The only other info in the paragraph is that Wohlforth writes mysteries (irrelevant) and that I was once a member of a non-cultic M/L organization (also irrelevant). I am deleting again.

I am also deleting the paragraph about Fulan Gong and the AFF which has nothing to do with this article and is a cynical attempt by BabyD, on behalf of the IWP, to latch onto the plight of victims of communism (Falun Gong) and use their plight to deflect well-documented criticism of her IWP, a totalitarian organization that yearns for the same type of society (complete with its own cult of personality around Fred Newman) as the Chinese communists who persecute Falun Gong.--Dking 23:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The above arguments strike me as pure censorship, and the exceedingly relevant, factual and sourced information is being restored. Dking should enlist an admin to present his arguments to; in the meantime, these attempts to censor and sanitize this article to represent his POV with no balance need to be reverted per basic Wiki standards. A simple review of the literature ::::--on usage of the term "political cults" clearly demonstrates that the use of the term is predominantly the work of ex-members of Marxist Leninist organizations. If this is in dispute, present references to articles on the subject (NOT random phrases tossed about in the press) to balance it. BabyDweezil 00:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Your attempt to parasite off the plight of Falun Gong--victims of horrific persecution by a communist regime--in order to protect your own underground pseudo-communist cult from legitimate criticism is not only cynical, it is also morally repulsive. (Like your IWP staging a fundraiser the week after 9/11 and asking people to shell out for a Fred Newman "anti-violence" youth program as the best answer to the terror attacks--and not telling the audience that your group had taken money from Col. Gadhafi of Libya and had called for "unconditional defense" of him after he blew up over 200 Americans over Lockerbie, Scotland.) As to the other paragraph, ample arguments have been given over and over for its deletion, including that it duplicates material elsewhere in this article, draws a conclusion not supported by any citation, constitutes an ad hominen attack, and has been justified by you only on the absurd grounds of "prima facie obvious relevance." You are in total violation of Wiki policy and it is time you were blocked permanently from editing on this article and the various articles dealing with Fred Newman and the IWP.--Dking 01:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me draw your attention to WP:CIVIL, WP:TALK, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF and request that you address my legitimate points rather than engage in personal attacks and POV ranting on the discussion page. Note in particular:

• No personal attacks A personal attack is saying something negative about another person. This mainly means:
• No insults: Don't make ad hominem attacks, such as calling someone an idiot or a fascist. Instead, explain what is wrong with an edit and how to fix it.
• Don't threaten people: For example, threatening people with "admins you know" or having them banned for disagreeing with you.--BabyDweezil 01:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Removing "Ayn Rand"

Nowhere in the references are they termed a "political cult." They arent/werent even politically active to any practical extent, and were largely a philosophical debating society with a devoted following. The Rothbard ref is basically an incoherent rant, and the Schermer ref is not much better. Neither are serious studies. If anyone wants to put it back, please supply some serious documentation. BabyDweezil 21:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The distinction between a "cult" and a "political cult" seems to me to be vague and subjective. If all that is necessary for inclusion in the "cult" category is a published allegation, then the Ayn Rand people qualify. Also, the Ayn Rand Institute, which presents itself as the legitimate heir to Ayn Rand, is highly active politically. Therefore, if this article is to be neutral, it should include the Rand followers. Incidentally, it should also include Falun Gong. It seems to me that Dking uses a flexible definition of "political cult" that includes groups that he dislikes, while excluding groups that he likes. Dking should also refrain from referring to editors who disagree with him as "cultists" or "followers of ." --Tsunami Butler 23:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you at least try to find a reference attesting to this group being politically active to even a modest extent, and having been cult-baited based on their political activity? I understand the already low threshold established thus far for this article, but the Rand group doesnt even seem to have made that cut. BabyDweezil 00:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

An examination of the Schermer and Rothbard articles reveal that they are making their allegations not specifically against the Ayn Rand Collective, but against Rand followers more generally. I have changed the section to reflect that, and included the Ayn Rand Institute, which is extremely active on college campuses, promoting the idea that the Bush administration is too soft and "altruistic" in the way they conduct the Iraq war and war against Islam generally. That would seem to qualify as "political." --Tsunami Butler 00:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see how the references in any way support terming them a "political cult" but I left it and adjusted the claims to correspond to Rothbard's rant. One wonders if this supposed "scholar"--who is quoted bizarrely saying "Rand-Branden split in late 1968, a split which was the moral equivalent in miniature of, say, a split between Marx and Lenin, or between Jesus and St. Paul" has ever read a book about the history of Christianity or Marxism, much less Ayn Rand.BabyDweezil 17:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that these problems go with the territory -- this article is essentially a POV essay, masquerading as an article about a poorly-defined neologism.--Tsunami Butler 07:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Formatting this article

I think the people editing this article may have lost a bit of focus. I read through the first "introduction" section and came away confused. After reading it, I have no idea what a political cult is. I see examples being given, but at no point does the article say "A political cult is defined as ...." The essay tag has been up there for a while, so I thought I'd chime in with why I put it up there in the first place. --Wafulz 04:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I proposed the article for deletion, but it survived. I can only continue to attempt to balance the POV speculations in the article. I think its incumbent upon editors who think it is a notable subject to come up with an acceptable, reliably sourced definition.BabyDweezil 05:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Revolutionary Communist Party

I deleted this paragraph after searching the web, including the three sites that maintain comprehensive records of press clippings and scholarly articles on cults, although I did not search commercial data bases. There are a lot of accusations about the RCP being a cult, but they all come from far-left or far-right blog sites and/or from the web sites of the RCP's rival parties on the far-left. These are not sources recognized by Misplaced Pages. I see no articles from the mainstream media or from scholarly journals, and no evidence of any kind of "survivor's" group with a presence on the web. If someone can cite a source that meets Misplaced Pages standards, be my guest.--Dking 03:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC) P.S. In searching RCP leader Bob Avakian's latest book on Amazon, I find that he has said that the "cult of personality" in the RCP is a good thing. However, he seems to be using "cult of personality" in a very narrow sense, as a political leadership practice not as a systematic mode of organizing and controlling his followers' lives on all levels. The quote might be usable in the context of documentation from recognized publications regarding the RCP-is-a-cult charge, but such published sources are still lacking.--Dking 04:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Tourish and Militant

Some care should be taken before Misplaced Pages labels groups as "political cults". There are numerous sources that use this label to describe LaRouche and his groups, Fred Newman and the New Alliance Party/IWP and Gerry Healy and the WRP but Tourish is alone in describing Militant/RSL as such. Others, such as Bob Pitt who was never a member or supporter of Militant and is actually a political critic of it, reject this out of hand and even describes Tourish's allegation as "laughable". Tourish is a former member of Militant and is perhaps grinding his own axe here (indeed, how better to eschew responsibility for your former political positions and activity than to claim you were a member of a cult and therefore shouldn't be held accountable for your actions?) Without any corroborating statements by sociologists, psychologists or even political scientists to support Tourish's claims re Militant (Tourish is none of these things, he's a professor of management) I think they should be removed as per WP:Undue weight ("If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Misplaced Pages (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.") I submit that in the case of Tourish and Militant, Tourish seems to be in a minority of one in contrast to allegations against Larouche, Newman, Healy etc. In the interim I have included quotations from Pitt's review of Tourish & Wohlforth from What Next?. As that journal is cited elsewhere in the article there should be no question of it being acceptable under "reliable sources" but unless Tourish's label can be backed up with other sources I will remove the reference to Militant Tendency/RSL in a day or two as per Dking's deletion of the paragraph on the RCP. General Idea 15:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Tourish, along with Tim Wohlforth, Dennis King, and Chip Berlet, form a very tightly-knit little group that fits the discription in WP:Undue weight of "an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority." Of the four, Tourish stands out by virtue of the fact that he actually has a college degree. Wohlforth, for example, is presently employed as a "writer of crime fiction." --Tsunami Butler 22:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Since I have received a message from Dking on my talk page in which he challenges this, allow me to clarify. I don't mean that the four of them get together regularly to play badminton. I mean that they all have "new left" backgrounds, they all have negligible academic qualifications, they all write in a highly propagandistic style, and they are all featured on the Chip Berlet/PRA website, which seems to be a clearing house for this sort of thing. --Tsunami Butler 15:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

In other words, Tsunami, you have no evidence whatsoever that Tourish, Wolhforth and I are part of a "very tightly knit little group." As to your criticism of Wohlforth on grounds that he is a mystery writer, allow me to quote from my message to your user page: "LaRouche himself has written about the profound effect that Poe's 'Purloined Letter' had on his thinking. Also, LaRouche once wrote a mystery/espionage short story; it was quite entertaining and led me to think that perhaps in another of his 'universes of discourse' he ended up as the successor to Eric Ambler."--Dking 21:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

General Idea, I agree, but in fact, your argument applies across the board with respect to all the groups cited here, love them or hate them or indifferent. Fact is, there is a glaring dearth of "corroborating statements by sociologists, psychologists or even political scientists" across the board here, and what should be clear from this article and the genesis of the notion of "political cult" is that the labeling of groups as such is by and large politically motivated and conducted by declared and committed opponents of these groups, rather than objective social science/scientists. BabyDweezil 22:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Dweezil and TB, Tourish and Wohlforth are not the only sources for the cult allegation being directed at LaRouche, Newman, Healy et al. (I haven't looked closely enough to see if other sources are listed in the article - if they aren't they should be but I know other sources exist). There may be an argument for downgrading the prominence Tourish & Wholforth have in this article and for including independent criticisms such as Pitt's but I don't think the problems with Tourish & Wohlforth are sufficient to justify the action you're suggesting. General Idea 21:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

General Idea, you made a proposal to remove altogether the political cult allegation about the Militant Tendency in Britain as per my removal of that about the RCP. I am not going to get involved in editing on this point, but I wanted to give you my opinion. First, there is a crucial difference in our decisions about the MT and the RCP. I removed the stuff about the RCP because it was not properly sourced and because I could not find any proper sources. In the case of the Militant Tendency stuff, there is a proper source, a book by Tourish and Wohlforth that is well regarded by academics and professionals who study cults from a critical point of view. And it is not just one person making the charge, it is two--Wohlforth as well as Tourish. And Wohlforth was previously the author of a memoir/history of postwar U.S. Trotskism that was of sufficient interest that it triggered a conference at NYU's Tamiment Institute. Although I have done no research on the MT and have no opinion on whether it was really a political cult as opposed to a typical high-commitment "vanguard" group, I think the mention of the MT is properly sourced as the opinion of reputable authors of a reputable book and thus, according to Wiki policy, should not be excluded. However, I would suggest that Bob Pitt's criticism be mentioned since although Pitt's history of the MT was self-published on the Internet it is clearly a work of substance. Furthermore, Pitt's book on the MT should be cited in the bibliography or footnotes just as David North's book on Healy is cited. I do not think that more than a sentence or two should be devoted to this--anything more should be transferred to the Wiki article on the MT.--Dking 22:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's safe to assume that Tourish is the primary author of the sections of the book that address MT and Wohlforth is the primary author of the sections addressing WRP - in any case there's little if any difference between articles on MT authored by Tourish alone and the MT section of the co-authored book (at least not what I've seen of it). The undue weight concern remains, even if both W and T co-wrote the MT section they are the only source for this claim. If other writers (even other former MT members) echoed the MT as cult claim then I think it would merit inclusion but standing on its own it does not, particularly as Tourish (and/or Wohlforth) do not have the professional or academic standing that would give them the credibility to independently make such judgements. The difference in regards to Healy is that North partly corroborates the cult accusation against WRP (as indeed does Pitt - more explicitly so), while Pitt refutes the allegation against MT (also there are additional sources that can be found for the Healy accusations if one looks). General Idea 00:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

New changes

I moved the stuff about the Pitt-Tourish controversy to its own section at the end of the article, but did not change the wording. It seemed inappropriate to have this material at the beginning before any presentation of basic information about political cults. Also I removed the absurd rant by BabyDweezil about a plot by anti-communists ex-communists Hannah Arendt supporters etc. This stuff was all original research justified as "prima facie" facts by BabyD and was in total violation of Wiki policy. BabyD has now been banned from Misplaced Pages on grounds of his/her extremely disruptive and bullying behavior on a variety or articles. I hope we will not see his/her return via a sock puppet to start yet another edit war on this article. --Dking 22:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The BabyDweezil case is now being considered by the ArbCom. And you are hardly one to talk of "extremely disruptive and bullying behavior." Excessive self-citing is a violation of WP:COI, and attempting to dominate the article content is a violation of WP:OWN. --Tsunami Butler 11:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Re your allegation of excessive self-citing, I checked the footnotes to this article. Out of 39 citations, only one was to myself. I know that LaRouche is teaching his followers what he claims is Reimannian-Gaussian mathematics. Maybe he should teach you how to count first.--Dking 21:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Moved content

I move this here. It is irrelevant, based on fringe sources, and the first which describes Hannah Arendt's "followers" as a "cult" is obviously intended as a metaphor, and not seriously, while using a former Moon follower for source concerning the Soviet Union, a whole country, accused of being a "cult", is not only misunderstanding the definition of a cult, but obviously mistaking this page with anti-Communism. Here is the irrelevant content, moved here for the sake of it:

The historian Walter Laqueur has described the followers of Arendt as themselves comprising a cult who have latched 
on to her as a politically correct icon.<ref>The Arendt Cult: Hannah Arendt as Political Commentator Laqueur Journal
 of Contemporary History.1998; 33: 483-496.</ref>

Former Unification Church member Steven Hassan, author of Combatting Cult Mind Control, has described inhabitants
of the former Soviet Union as having been in "the political cult of communism." Hassan claims that concept of 
"destructive cult" he and others in the "anti-cult" movement use "fits the Communist model precisely."<ref>Ric. Kahn, 
   "Ex-Moonie Says Cult Groups Are Preying on Russians; Analyst Sees Ex-communists as Easy Targets," ''Boston Globe'', November 22,
   1992</ref>

The author of that last cherry piece would never have dreamed that people might amusively describe Joseph McCarthy as a cult leader who managed to convince a lot of US citizens that "Communists" were "Jews" and others hate speech which I will refrain here from repeating. Tazmaniacs 06:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

People's Mujahedins

I moved this here for consideration. While it is not like the above (completely irrelevant non-sense), it is questionable both for its accuracy, and relevancy. The People's Mujahedin of Iran is a controversed group, which has a long history both before and after the Iranian revolution, and has gone through many changes, not least in alliances and ideology. It is true that they're has been some criticisms of it as a political cult, and some well-known events do indeed tend to accredit this thesis. On the other hand, they have received support from many politicians & others members of the elites class in the Western world, often strongly varying in ideological points of views. One thing is sure: they are the target of constant attacks by the Iranian intelligence agencies, and of bargain between Tehran and Paris, Washington, Bruxelles, etc., which make these accusations rather suspicious. For these reasons, I think accusations are best kept to the relevant entry, as the matter is too complex to be easily proved (which is not the same for others movements which are listed here). In all fairness, if this content was to be included, so would the many parliamentary support it has received, both in Europe and in the States, etc., which would greatly increase the size of this article, IMO not to its advantage. Due to the current international context, I am not sure Misplaced Pages's role is to participate in this propaganda campaign.

The People's Mujahedin of Iran, a leftist guerrilla movement based in Iraq, has been described as a political cult
 by Middle Eastern history professor Ervand Abrahamian and Council of Foreign Relations Senior Fellow Max Boot, 
 <ref>Elizabeth Rubin, "The Cult of Rajavi," ''The New York Times Magazine'', July 13, 2003</ref> <ref>Karl
  Vick,  "Iran Dissident Group Labeled a Terrorist Cult," ''The Washington Post'', June 21, 2003</ref> 
 <ref>Max Boot, "How to Handle Iran," ''Los Angeles Times'', October 25, 2006</ref> in a Human Rights Watch 
report, and on "Iran Interlink", a website which claims
 to be devoted to helping members of the group leave its military encampment in Iraq and reunite with their 
families, but which has elsewhere been described as run by the Iranian Ministry of 
Intelligence and Security (MOIS).<ref>[http://www.iranterror.com/content/view/97/47/ Who is behind Iran-Interlink?
 Iran: Terror Database, online report.]</ref>

Tazmaniacs 06:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The material on the People's Mujahedin is properly sourced to the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times. It should not be removed because of extraneous political considerations or because an editor finds the issue complicated. The solution is to add properly sourced material giving a different view of the group in question (from Tazmaniacs remarks above, which appear to reflect a good grasp of the topic, I am sure he/she can easily provide such examples). However, I removed all the stuff from web sites both pro and con the People's Mujahedin since they may not constitute proper sources. I left the new sentence about the Tamil Tigers which is probably a good example of a political cult but someone should add citations for this.--Dking 16:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Controversial article

I have added the "Controversial article" template to this page, and I request that Dking not make massive revisions of the article without giving other editors the opportunity to discuss proposed changes. It is an attempt to dominate the article in violation of WP:OWN, and fatigue other editors. --Tsunami Butler 22:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted material

I will not revert all the material deleted by Dking, but rather address the issues one at a time. I think that the deletion of the Falun Gong material is biased; there seems to be a sense that it is proper for the political Right to use the term "political cult," but that we mustn't let the Commies get away with it. I also changed the POV formulation that the Falun Gong is active "to expose" the Chinese government, to the Falun Gong is active "in opposition" to the Chinese goverment. The connection to the AFF is also highly relevant to the article. It appears that some editors are uncomfortable trying to denounce the Chinese government while embracing the AFF, since there seems to be an irony there. --Tsunami Butler 23:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Tsunami, this is an article about political cults. It was appropriate to include a brief mention of Falun Gong in drawing a boundary between political cults, on the one hand, and religious cults and New Religious Movements, on the other hand. It was also appropriate to mention that Falun Gong regards the Chinese Communist Party as a cult (and for the Maoist period at least, makes a compelling argument). But Falun Gong is not itself a political cult, therefore the insertion of an entire section about its relations with two individuals (both deceased) who were active in the AFF is not relevant to this article. I have said before, take it to the Falun Gong article or the AFF article, it doesn't belong here. Furthermore, Tsunami it is clear that you are only playing games with this article. You and your fellow LaRouchians were bragging on the Lyndon LaRouche article about how close Lyn is to the Chinese government, now you reverse yourself and cry crocodile tears for Falun Gong and try to present AFF/ICSA as agents of the Chinese government. And how much does the Chinese government pay Lyn and Helga for those phony Schiller Institute conferences anyway?--Dking 00:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics