Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:33, 23 July 2005

List of purported cults

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)
• Delete 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 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)
• 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 File:Uk flag large.png 15:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • 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 File:Uk flag large.png 21:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
      • 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 Misplaced Pages. -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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
• 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 17:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • 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 19:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• 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)
  • Proposed changes to WP policy should be posted at Misplaced Pages: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)
    • "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)
• Delete. Even the title is POV. Thorns Among Our Leaves 19:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
• 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)
• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
        • You raise a serious point. I will go away and think about that. -Splash 00:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• 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)
  • "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)
  • 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)
• Keep. Highly sourced. This is an example of best practice, not "POV hell". —Seselwa 00:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
  • 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)
• Delete, inherently POV and subjective. Radiant_>|< 12:36, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• It's this tuff that makes Misplaced Pages so interesting! (Unsigned comment by 131.247.165.35 (talk · contribs)
• Delete. Inherently defamatory and POV lists really don't belong on Misplaced Pages. Kaibabsquirrel 02:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - difficult, but that's not a reason to delete - David Gerard 00:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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, the BBC,] and Encarta." This way we maintain NPOV, and we don't lose the extensive work done Willmcw and others. (Sorry Will...) --ZappaZ File:Yin yang.png 04:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • 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 File:Yin yang.png 12:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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. Pjacobi nominated it only four days and seven talk-page comments after he first raised a concern. 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)
• Keep, as this dispassionately and usefully lists what are verifiably described as cults. -- Hoary 06:49, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The Misplaced Pages 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)
  • 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)