Talk:Cult/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

"Cult" and "Occult"

For me, these words sound synonymous. But there probably some differences between them. What are they?61.9.126.41 04:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

If you read the introduction to the article Occult, you should get an idea of the difference. (RookZERO 01:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC))

That is one of the reasons these words are used so often by religious groups when speaking of other religious groups. However, the words evolve from two different lating words; cult evolved from the latin cultus meaning worship. Occult evolved from the latin occultus meaning hidden or secret.

In propaganda words are used to enfer meaning, either positive or negative. When studying religions it is interesting to note what words are used. IMO, it is one of the ways I use to determine if the literature I am reading is a philosophical discussion, or just an attack meant to achieve an emotional response. Excellent question; it woudl be well worth your time to investigate all of the articles to gain a better understanding. Cheers. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Article issues

Taken from the template: This article or section has multiple issues:

• It may contain original research or unverified claims. (tagged since December 2006)
• It does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by citing reliable sources. (tagged since December 2006)
• It may be too long. Some content may need to be summarized or split.

Where is the original research, and what sources ar needed?? Also, where can it be split??

I'll try and fix the relevant issues if anyone discusses them here. If you want to help me, leave a note on my talk page. --SunStar Net ^talk 21:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The article is a huge mess. Many sections are poorly sourced, have OR, undue weight issues, and the cites are not made using the proper cite format, making it difficult to check the sourced used. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 10:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out the whole citation issue here -- I've never seen this format before. But then we have a standard refs section as well. Is it alright if I convert the "notes" to "refs"? Mackan79 17:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Related question: Can I trust, if it says {{fn | 32}} that this corresponds with note 32, or does each need to be checked? Mackan79 17:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

While these sections have some weaknesses, it doesn't seem quite constructive to delete them without making any effort to retain quite useful information. For instance, there is quite helpful information about the types of organizations that have been called cults and the development of discourse on cult. I think somebody should revert the two recent deletions and try to edit the sections to meet any specific concerns. These sections are not so weak that they should be blanked due to blanked concerns. HG | Talk 14:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

There were no reputable sources cited for the section "cult debate" which was unreferenced ever since it was merged in to this article (Oct. 2006). There were only a few links that hardly supported the text. A text in Wikipedia should not make generalizations from a single incident or freely interpret sources. Andries 14:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Possibly redundant article Cult (religious practice)

Why is the article cult (religious practice) possibly redundant? I can find no explanation, no pending merge, no pending AFD. Apart from procedural reasons, I cannot think of a good reason from a content's point of view. At least explain. Andries 00:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it wouldn't necessarily be redundant. I had just been looking through this article, where the focus seems to be very much on religious groups as well. Certainly that article is useful as a more specific focus on religious groups; I suppose I was more speaking of the current content rather than the idea of the article itself. Just a thought. Mackan79 13:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The article cult (religious practice) discusses the term cult as applied to the forms of religious devotion rather than organizations or groups deemed cults. The term "cult" referring simply to a type of devotion is older but less popular today than the term "cult" used in this article, to describe disfunctional or at least far-out-of-the-mainstreme religious or pseudoreligious groups. (RookZERO 16:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC))

"less popular today than the term "cult" used in this article" Yet the article isn't titled Cult (populist) ('popular/unpopular' are also ambiguous). Many people want to argue about mainstream-unpopular cults without having enough words to know what other people mean when they write "cult", especially in the non-pejoritive scientific sense. Religious Tolerance.org recommends learning more formal "cult" meanings, and CultFAQ.org recommends asking people what they mean by saying "cult". Milo 18:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The term cult is used to mean several different and has for some time. We have separate article for several of them. (RookZERO 03:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC))

A cult (or cultus) as described in the "Cult (religious practice)" article is completely distinct from the usage of the word cult in the article "Cult". The cultus of a saint is a widespread and main-stream religious devotion among Catholic and Orthodox Christians to a saint. The "Cult (religious practice)" article has a significant amount of information that should be kept distinct from the main "Cult" article. Dgf32 01:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

"A little-known example is the Alexander and Rollins, 1984, scientific study concluding that the socially well-received group Alcoholics Anonymous is a cult,[4]" This cites an article but the citation leads to a biased and questionable web source and not to the article cited. Unless the citation is accurate, it should not be included.

Definitions

Misconceptions notwithstanding, I can't imagine 18 definitions is the right way to start an encyclopedia article (see reversion here [1]). I believe the guide for this is at Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Body_sections. I'd think a clear layout of the important definitions would surely get the information across more efficiently. Mackan79 05:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Milomedes, thanks for the great revisions. I still wonder, though: would the list of definitions not better fit in footnotes? I think the clarification that there are 8 definitions is helpful, but the actual list seems to add quite a lot of raw data to an already long article. I'll look at other sections for now. Mackan79 14:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome here, but I take it that you are new to the Cult topics. These are among Wikipedia's most controversial articles (listed in WP:Words to avoid), which explains why the large amount of detail is considered important in a disputateous debate over details that will never end. The article is not well organized, I think partly because few want to risk disturbing the status quo by editing someone else's important details, but also it's just a really hard task. When I rewrote the intro, I later realized I hadn't even mentioned the thorny Cult debate and membership joining and leaving issues.

There are publicly famous and numerous private disputants who work on this article, and keeping some degree of peace among them is important to most of the regular editors. I think keeping that peace begins with an anchor to what several dictionaries say "cult" means.

The English word "cult" has dramatically changed in popular use, and added several junior homonym meanings in the previous hundred years. I noticed last night that even with three dictionaries, there still seems to be a missing meaning. Along with similar shifts in "sect", and opposite usages in European foreign languages, the word is hard to follow even for well-educated readers and editors. Unlike most other Wikipedia articles, the definitions are a feature of the cult story.

Religious Tolerance.org has determined that most people growing up, learning only one definition of "cult", is a major reason for populist misunderstandings that fuel dislike of groups referred to as cults, and learning more "cult" meanings is an important educational goal toward tolerance. This is one reason why the definitions are so prominently displayed.

In addition, because inexperienced readers who don't read footnotes (teenagers most likely), can edit the article, without the prominently featured definitions they start changing or snipping things out based on their one definition, thinking 'well that's not what a cult is'.

Also, with the prominent definitions display, even regular editors read them more frequently. When POV rhetoric appears, it takes less debate to consense what edits are definitionally correct. Milo 18:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I am new to these articles, though I have worked on several relating to sociology of religion. It seems people are in some agreement that this article is pretty messy, so hopefully some work here won't be minded. In terms of the definitions, I'm tempted to say your little explanation here is probably much more helpful in getting this point across than a list of 18 (!) definitions, in an already very long article. Possibly we'll get people to read the definitions; at the same time, reading through definitions like that requires some amount of work, trying to decide exactly what they're saying and how they all differ. In the end, I'd think an encyclopedia could do much better to provide a clear explanation of the differences, while sourcing those statements either to the dictionaries or to other reliable sources who explain the shifts, etc. Surely anyone who questioned this could then be pointed to the specific definitions. If we want to make a stronger article out of this, this would seem to me a big improvement. Mackan79 13:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Overall, you're describing an aspect of the meta problem at Cult, which on one dimension is to craft a local balance between superficial things like the Manual of Style, and utility factors like elements of resistance to POV warriers. The kind of "strong" article to which you're referring is a metaphor for featured article status. The kind of "strong" I want is more literal: a bulwark against artful quibbling and free-floating word meanings as practiced by the now-removed BabyDweezil.

"reading through definitions like that requires some amount of work" That's exactly right. Readers can and do skip the work of reading the definitions, but when they do that they forfeit the status to quibble. Light readers skip them and don't care, serious learners will absorb them (maybe later), but read them or don't, the prominent definitions place at a disadvantage those too many readers/editors who arrive intending to jam or halt the flow of factual cult information, whether NRM members, anti-cultists, counter-cultists, WP:Deletionists ('WP shouldn't be covering this subjective topic'), and others. Being "pointed to the specific definitions" is an indirection requiring even more work which tendentious debaters know even fewer readers will do, thus allowing even simple deception a greater chance to prevail.

I've had my say on retaining the prominently featured definitions. It's time for others to consense. Milo 00:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

uh? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you should give it a chance, Milo. You seem to have pretty low expectations, thinking we have to frame the entire article so best to fend off POV warriors. The manual of style isn't just superficial; it's designed to create an article that will best convey its topic, and that people will want to read. Let's raise our expectations of what we can do here? Mackan79 19:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I actually would prefer to see the definitions. Cult is a term that is used so perjoratively in our society that many don't know the vast majority of the way i is used. Having the definitions allows readers to understand the meaning of the term, why it should be used, and better yet, the context that is most appropriate for the term. I am most sensitive to the religious use of the term cult. This article has a definite need and we would be wise to learn from history; it is not an issue of low expectations, but a knowledge born of experience. I know of no better teacher. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 01:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, of course, I'm not saying we shouldn't offer clear definitions of the terms. The idea that a list of unexplained definitions is the best way to clear people up on this just doesn't seem very well considered. From what I can tell, the definitions are there to show the difference between U.S. and UK definitions. From just reading them, however, the point isn't at all clear. Are we saying that there are a greater number of definitions in the U.S., or used to be? Looking through the various lists, several of them also aren't what this article is about, while a novice reader would have a very hard time figuring out which are which. For instance "formal religious veneration" does a casual reader, familiar with "cults" from the popular media, know what that is saying? Ultimately, if the idea here is to be most helpful and clearest about differing definitions, I don't think this approach works.

One option might be to better separate this material out. For instance, have people discussed the idea of an article on "Cult (Sociology)"? I don't know if this solves everything, but could also help with how the term is used throughout the article (at least in that article, one wouldn't have to clarify each time which meaning was intended). Any thoughts on that? Mackan79 02:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

"article on "Cult (Sociology)"?" I gave that serious consideration, but splitting off the cult science has a serious problem: the more narrowly the cult article is focused on cult populism, the more hurt and angrier some readers/editors get, because minority isolation is part of what's wrong in the real world. Some sociologists are pejoratively known as "cult apologists" to counter-cultists (and anti-cultists?) because they are not cult members, but they explain the cult POV to the mainstream POV. In a battle for souls, the counter-cultists don't want cults explained, so they paint the scientists as fellow travelers.

I suggest keeping the cult sociologists close to the article's populist controveries.

There is a way (saw this somewhere else) to identify what each junior homonym use of the article "cult" term means, by adding a superscript to each like: cult⁵, where each superscript number is keyed to a definition in the definitions listings, and more than one superscript can be used if necessary.

I can go along with explaining the definitions as long as they are laid out quoted first, which prevents POV drift of the explanation. This would be essentially an expansion of the specialized definition sections such as the #Definition of 'cult' according to secular opposition.

"low expectations" I see it as a pragmatic response to the general case of the specifically tendentious BabyDweezil debate above (particularly the Bonewitz-authority 'debate'). I think you would benefit from researching this topic's POV-warrier history, extending to off-site, and RFC/U or Arbcom, IIRC.

Please give regular editors here credit for understanding the special problems of a 'most controversial' article. A substantial number of well-educated editors post here, and each especially knows some aspect of this article. That includes the articulate NRM members who tell/edit how they experience being unfairly treated.

There exist issues rooted in this article, indirectly described by another editor, which could in actual practice take down the project. It would not be prudent to detail it further, but anyone willing to put in as much research as I have, and locate certain disturbing statistics on site, will figure it out. If you do, please keep it to yourself.

"raise our expectations" My raised expectations favor the collective intelligence of the editorial talent pool here over the lowest-common-denominator manual of style, which was not designed to proactively defend against a ... (ah, no point in attracting search attention). Milo 09:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm a little perplexed in how to respond here. I'm definitely wanting to respect the work that's been done here; I think we also need to respect the ability of new editors to come in and improve the page, though. I'll set aside the idea of a new article for a now. You: I can go along with explaining the definitions as long as they are laid out quoted first, which prevents POV drift of the explanation. Ok, do you mean quoted in the long list, with all 18? I'm still trying to figure out exactly why you think that's going to inform people better than a clear and concise explanation of the necessary points. I mean, POV drift, is that not the constant concern with Wikipedia? To say we're going to try to stop that by simply quoting a large number of dictionaries rather than even trying to provide our own explanation doesn't seem like a viable idea. I'm looking for other options. Could we try coming up with a good summary that would make all the necessary points? If these are sourced to dictionaries along with other sources, I think the result would probably be at least as stable as what we have now. Mackan79 23:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I think what's going on here is an article styling controversy in the form versus function tradition. First, you are doing a job that needs to be done, much of it being in the role of the Hindu god Shiva. The work of Shiva is a thing to be endured, not enjoyed. Beware of the karma associated with playing that role.

To me your position is somewhat analogous to that of a "suit" in a talent production corporation, but the talent is unexpectedly an academic and minority religious community.

When I parse and sum all of your statements, what I hear you saying is that you are here to enforce the manual of style on this article. While you are saying polite things, your underlying position seems to be that Cult is nothing special, just another article, and it should be made to conform to style standards just the way all of the other articles you have edited have been made to conform. You may politely claim otherwise, but at the bottom line you seem to have little interest in the special functions of this article which have evolved due to its history. Therefore you constructively value form over function. You also think POV attacks can't be limited, more or less because other articles you've edited haven't been able to do so. Again Cult and its editors are nothing special, so if other articles can't, you can't either.

I, on the other hand, being perhaps philosophical talent, value form only up to point that it does not interfere with function.

I also think the Cult topics are exceptional in many ways. I've explained to you the global multifaction struggle for people's very souls being sampled here, particular POV attack methods experienced, the ways in which definitions are a key to limiting them, and even a bit about the delicate special case project situation here, yet you politely but persistently keep returning to what I hear as, 'Um, whatever, all that egghead philosophy and article history stuff doesn't matter, because other articles don't have 18 definitions featured in them'.

So, while your polite demeanor is appreciated by everyone, I hear you as having constructively joined a subset of the the WP:Deletionist faction here. If you have in fact made a decision that the 18 definitions shall be deleted, how do you plan to enforce your editorial will on the article? Milo 04:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Theological and Sociological terms

In my world religions class in college, the way I learned the sociological definition was that by definition any religion in its begining was called a cult by sociologists, with no negative connotations. For a Theological Cult, catholisism's veneration of the Virgin Mary was of course a major example, but it was also extended to include special veneration of any diety or saint from a group. Artemis of the Ephesians from Acts 19 was of course cited, as well as the popularity of Krishna among followers of various forms of Hinduism. DO you guys think we should make this clearer in the main entry?

There was another definition i was given, my memory is a big vague on it though, that references following of a specific non-divine being. I seem to remember that it implied that for exaple, those who admire the teachings of John Wesley, Martin Luther, John Calvin, etc, could reasonably be called cults - no negative conotation necesarily implied.

Alienburrito 19:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)alienburrito

Unrelated material

Looking through the article, I'm seeing a fair amount of material that people have drawn in but isn't directly about cults. This seems to be part of why the article is so long and scattered, but more importantly, a significant problem under WP:SYNTH. Here's a section I just removed: I'd suggest people either find sources discussing this in the context of cults, or it would have to go in another article. Mackan79 14:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Political partisans and closed-mindedness

Recent research reveals that political partisans ignore facts that contradict their own sense of reality, according to a report on research by Drew Westen, director of clinical psychology at Emory University

The test subjects on both sides of the political aisle reached totally biased conclusions by ignoring information that could not rationally be discounted, Westen and his colleagues say.

Then, with their minds made up, brain activity ceased in the areas that deal with negative emotions such as disgust. But activity spiked in the circuits involved in reward, a response similar to what addicts experience when they get a fix, Westen explained.

The study points to a total lack of reason in political decision-making.

"None of the circuits involved in conscious reasoning were particularly engaged," Westen said. "Essentially, it appears as if partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the conclusions they want, and then they get massively reinforced for it, with the elimination of negative emotional states and activation of positive ones."

Notably absent were any increases in activation of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain most associated with reasoning.

Simply put, the emotional considerations overwhelm critical thinking. If anything, the rational part of the mind works to rationalize the emotional conclusion that was reached in advance. Thus, in the end, extremes in partisan politics form one of the bases for a "political cult", where rational thinking and discussion only takes place within narrow us-versus-them parameters, and where emotion-based assumptions and/or unquestioned ideological dogma dominate the political organization, facilitating the other questionable activities cited above and elsewhere.

Theological definition

Upon doing a google search, I saw that the material in the "Theological definition" appears to be taken directly from the New Catholic Encyclopedia.[2] That appears to have been published in 1910, and thus may not be a problem. Still, the material seems not particularly helpful, plus appears to be the topic that our disambiguation statement says we aren't covering in this article. Is it alright if we remove this section? Mackan79 23:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Discrimination

Can someone provide a source for the "discrimination" category? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Religious Intolerance in Europe Today: Hearing Before the Commission on Security and Cooperation ...

edited by Alfonse M. D'Amato p46

• One-Sided Arguments: A Dialectical Analysis of Bias

By Douglas N. Walton p121

• Lynne Hume, ‘A Reappraisal of the term ‘Cult’ and consideration of ‘Danger Markers’ in Charismatic Religious Groups page 36

Sfacets 10:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Since those sources aren't online can you please quote from the passages where they cal cults discrimination? I'm not sure how the term applies. Do people in cults discriminate against those who aren't in them? I suppose they might. Even so, it doesn't seem like a logical category. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 15:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Are people discriminated because they are members of cults? I admit that this may happen in a few cases some countries, but I think this is an exception. Andries 23:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you might want to talk with members of organizations labeled as cults; I would be certain that you would find they "feel" discriminated against and you will find that that discrimination is found in every nation. The article itself has a section on discrimination. Who gets to call who a cult? That is one of the important things about this article. Some Baptists call the Catholic church a cult. Many Christians churches label The Chruch of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints a cult. That epithet is used for a reason; to belittle, deride, and discrimiate another group. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I was a member of a cult for 9 years. I did not feel discriminated. Andries 23:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

"epithet is used for a reason; to belittle, deride," Baptist and other Fundamentalist Counter-Cult 'calling who is a cult' is significantly different than you have suggested. It is a genuine theological dispute with the RCC, based on the fact that RCC considers church tradition as important as Biblical adherence. Work through the logic at Christian countercult movement and you'll see that it makes sense that RCC can be called a cult, as non-epithet and non-pejorative, using that theological definition. Maybe this point should be added to the article. Milo 07:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that you are confusing a pejorative label with discrimination. The article is in the category pejoratives,though there there many listed meanings of the word that are not pejorative. Andries 23:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Ultimately, it's not what we think that matters. What matters are the sources we can find that call cults "discrimination". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that the term discrimination means that member of cults are discriminated in business, by the governments, in court etc. I do not think tha this is very common in democratic countries. Andries 23:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

To use a pejorative is to discriminate. That the groups in question are targeted more than "mainstream" religions is certainly true - the very fact that they are referred to with the pejorative "cult" or "sect" is evidence of this. Please have a look at Groups_referred_to_as_cults_in_government_reports for example. Sfacets 23:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

"To use a pejorative is to discriminate. " According to whom? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, say you have two religious group, one large, the other small. Would you designate the larger one with a pejorative term? The discrimination therefore is in differenciating between larger and smaller groups, and only applying the pejorative to the smaller one. It's logical. Sfacets 00:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

"designate the larger one with a pejorative term?" Sure, take Catholics and Jews. Middle class mainstream white Protestants haven't spoken about Jews using pejoratives for many decades. But referring to Catholics using the mildly pejorative term "papists" ("adherents of the Pope") has been fairly common among many Protestants since the Reformation, at least up until Vatican II.

m-w.com — discrimination: "3 a : the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually b : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment <racial discrimination>"

"differenciating between larger and smaller groups" Using the "b" definition, if one claimed there was such a thing as 'cult discrimination' (like not renting to cults), one is left in the difficult position of trying to explain how "cult discrimination" differs from "religious discrimination". Religious discrimination is not a cult-specific phenomenon, but maybe there is a reference that says groups referred to as cults get more than their share.

In practice, cults are usually reported as annoying neighbors somewhere else, across town or across the world. Most people only have a chance to meet face-to-face with one cult in a lifetime, if that. As a result, categorical discrimination against cults, plural, is hypothetical.

"Please have a look at Groups_referred_to_as_cults_in_government_reports" Ignoring the exceptional instances of controversial government actions, that article is about what governments did about groups that were doing anti-social things, typically exploiting members. That's not discrimination, that's law enforcement. Milo 07:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure, but aren't there three refereces above for this? You have indicated that you can not find them on the web, but that does not mean they do not exist. If we assume good faith that the references are legitimate, what is your position? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I've asked the editor who posted them to tell us what they say on the subject. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any references that state that there is no discrimination against members of groups identified as cults? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 15:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

No. However the burden of proof is on those who add information, not on those who remove it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Storm Rider (23:19) wrote: "The article itself has a section on discrimination" That section currently reads:

"A website affiliated with Adi Da Samraj † sees the activities of cult opponents as the exercise of prejudice and discrimination against them, and regards the use of the words "cult" and "cult leader" as similar to political or racial epithets.[51]"

† LOGRTAC listing Adidam (San Francisco Examiner archived at Rickross.com)

Reference 51 is the website http://www.firmstand.org and the relevant web page there is cult_myth.html titled Discrimination against Minority Religions.

I vetted the article reference text, which reads in part as follows:

"In the exercise of prejudice against religious minorities, the "cult" myth is used today as "Jim Crow" was used in discriminating against people of color."

That's it. It's a simple unsupported claim. No discrimination examples, no discrimination testimonials.

Indeed, the word "discrimination" isn't even mentioned again, as the article launches into a series of red herring distractions (h-word, n-word, McCarthyism, fear and loathing, detest avoid fear, "crime" in scare quotes, attacking by mainstream religions, oil or coal industry vs. alternative energy, back to n-word again). IMHO, as a high school English class essay, it would get a passing grade somewhere in the C range, mostly because of its skill at propaganda.

Storm Rider (23:19) wrote: "they "feel" discriminated against" I agree this is likely. The problem is just that, it appears to be a feeling of discrimination rather than a fact of discrimination. Such a feeling could develop along the lines of:

(hypothetical example of thought:) We read that African-Americans are disliked. We read that African-Americans are discriminated against because they are disliked. We read that cults are disliked, and our group has been called a cult. Therefore we must be discriminated against somewhere, even if we haven't noticed it locally, and as a consequence, we feel discriminated against.

Such a free-floating feeling of discrimination would be a valid statement of minority religion experience, but it would need a reliable source. Finding an actual example of discrimination might be easier to find – perhaps a landlord not renting a house to a known cult, because of the reputation of cults generally.

The web site itself appears to be an Adidam religious publisher, of which there is one associated with every denomination, sect, and faction of belief. Except when speaking about themselves (Adidam), Firmstand.org is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. A closer examination of this essay shows why reliable source is a sound policy.

Beyond the lack of support for the title claim of discrimination, the web essay engages in intellectual dishonesty of Orwellian-revisionist proportions by ignoring the secular public and media's legitimate fear due to the thousand-some suicide and murder victims of destructive cults.

This essay wants us to simply dismiss "incredible baggage that goes with words like "cult" and "cult leader" ", again comparing them to the n-word. Oh really? Let's see, African-Americans were called the n-word and lynched. Groups were called cults, but not lynched, while a group called a cult chemically-engineered the ultimate outrage of Aum Shinrikyo's nerve gas attack on random innocent victims in a Tokyo subway. Aum Shinrikyo still exists under a new name. Who among us can honestly say we wouldn't fear a tinge of fear, were we to take that exact same subway ride today?

Pardon, but this web essay offends me somewhat personally. At Talk:List of groups referred to as cults, I've taken more generic responsibility for my siblinghood's spawning of the Peoples Temple cult than this essay took for the many antisocial actions of "cult" and "cult leader" they airily defend, especially considering that Adi Da was sued (settled out of court) by some of his groups members for typical cultic abuses. Milo 09:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Here are a few references to consider:

1. Discrimination in France against members of groups identified as cults, See report on discrimination here.
2. The Foundation against Religious Intolerance, See here: a selection of articles on discrimination against New Religious Movements. I found this to reputable, which does contradict Milo's position above. I believe if you compared it to wikipeida standards for reputabel references it would qualify.
3. Discrimination against Wiccans, See here (This may not be appropriate; I don't know if Wicca is recognized as a cult or just another religion]
4. Numerous articles on the problems incurred by Scientology, See [here
5. Maryland Cult Task Force, See here, an article on various forms of discrimination against NRMs.
6. The brainwashing controversy and its discriminatory practices, See here
7. An experience of a Mormon child and the problems of having her religion respected, See here: this is a blog and should only be used as an example; given that it is not peer-reviewed it can not be used as a reference, but interesting.
8. Marburg Journal of Religion and discrimination against Scientology, See here

These are just a few that I found that support the concept that there is very real discrimination throughout the world in most, if not all, countries against groups identified as cults. The Scientologists have a vast number of articles written about discrimination against their group. I believe they could be used as references for the article to support discrmination.

I sensed a very real disconnect in an understanding between groups identified as cults and those that are dangerous cults. That is the problem with the term! It is used to label the dangerous and the benign and is why Sociologists reject the term in place of New Religious Movement. Unfortunately, religionists still prefer the pejorative term "cult" when discussing groups with beliefs different from their own; it maintains that wonderful taint of disdain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Storm Rider (talk • contribs) 10:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Theories about joining cults and NRMs

I removed this as POV, however Milo re-added it saying "rv - NRM recruitment/joining is central to the cult debate". It may be central, however how cults are related to the list by Jeffrey Hadden is not specified. Sfacets 08:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Prof. Hadden universally links "cult" and "New Religious Movement (NRM)" for the entire article in the intro's current reference [7 ]. There are some cases where "cult" and "NRM" are unrelated (e.g., political cult; fan cult), but by original design they were intended to be academic synonyms. Milo 09:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hadden says he uses the term "NRM" to encompass both cults and sects.

• There are clearly proper occasions to use the concept "new religious movement." It is an appropriate overarching concept when discourse means to communicate information that would be true of both cults and sects. [3]

I don't know why Sfacets deleted that link. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Its a very weazly sort of word however. Awfully apologetic. Not saying don't use it, but just putting it out there. Duck Monster 11:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Suspicious Cult Activities on Editorial -Cult-POV or CTPOV?

The last sentence on the definition looks like it was inserted in as follows: "but a negative connotation for new religious, extreme political, questionable therapeutic, and pyramidal business groups.[2] For this reason, most, if not all,- non-fan groups that are called cults reject this label."

Examine the logic here please, does it imply cults don't view themselves as cults, by whom? Cult leaders, multi-level marketing? Please comment and review. Be aware Wiki-editors as who may be want to skew public information on cults when doing general searches in the internet.

Please note the article on Cults needs to seriously improve, the overall tone strikes more of Creationwiki.org by written by Conservapedia.com religious hacks. View by constrasting their samples: http://www.conservapedia.com/Cult

--220.239.179.128 (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

"does it imply cults don't view themselves as cults" That is correct. With rare exceptions, only the leaders and members of fan-cults acknowledge themselves as cults, and that is how the article correctly reads in English.

"Wiki-editors as who may be want to skew public information on cults" Editors with every POV have worked on this controversial article. Hopefully, they have balanced each other to obtain as neutral an article as is possible. Because the topic is controversial, this article will never be considered satisfactory by all of its readers.

The Conservapedia.com Cult article is just a stub. It cannot be seriously compared to the long and heavily referenced Wikipedia article by tone or most other ways. Milo 06:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Dictionary definitions

I am removing the dictionary definitions. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Evilrhino (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Without the immutable dictionary definitions of eight-some homonyms all spelled c-u-l-t, as well as the substantial variations in describing each definition in two dialects of world English, it is not possible for a typically biased reader to understand this controversial subject from a neutral point of view. Learning additional definitions is recommended by both Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance and CultFAQ.org. Milo 07:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I see that you have reverted my deletion. I'm not sure I understand how a dictionary definition helps maintain a NPOV. Maybe you could provide some reasoning or a synopsis? I think that the information is redundant both internally, and with the rest of the article. This article is way too long, and I don't think anyone is going to read all of them.Evilrhino (talk) 16:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

←According to OCRT (as I accessed it a couple of years ago), most people grow up with only one definition of c-u-l-t learned from their family or the media, and it's too often a bigoted stereotype definition that promotes religious and cultural intolerance. That bigotry leads to Cult topics editorial disputes, where editors who hold a negative populist definition of cults meet actual members of new religious movements (and non-religious groups) referred to as cults in the media. These group members almost universally claim not to be members of a "cult", while other editors think they are, with both sides reflecting a wider cultural clash beyond Wikipedia. Therefore, a central feature of the article is a minority vs. majority cultural dispute over the meaning of c-u-l-t in the English language.

How is such a dispute to be mediated? Primarily, by quoting the authority of mainstream dictionary definitions. They have to be quotes because paraphrases would become skewed by POV editors. Yet, any one dictionary can be quibbled, because supposed "brainwashing" cults are unquestionably expert at manipulating language (as beneficially demonstrated by AA). Therefore, the collective weight of several mainstream dictionary definitions, plus the specialized academic and theological glossary definitions, proves what a c-u-l-t is by eight-some formal meanings. Without the immutably quoted dictionary definitions, there is no reference center from which to anchor a provably neutral point of view.

Since you have indirectly asked about this language dispute feature, it makes some sense to put it in the header of the dictionary definitions, but so far I've not wanted to add to the article length by doing so.

There does seem to be consensus that the article can be improved, but not that the article is necessarily too long for an officially controversial article — especially since the article was somewhat reduced in size last year. Some new editors make changes without understanding either the subject or the disputatious editorial culture that developed the article over a period of years. This can easily reopen old disputes, which no regular editor here wants to see happen.

Apparently some new editors don't even read the entire article, and may decide to shorten it because they get bored. Since there are perhaps five or six stridently held points of view cautiously expressed in the article, the problem is whose text material gets removed, merely so that the occasional passing editor won't get bored by the length? The article-length concerns of the passing editor are likely to remain secondary to, say, text obliquely referencing the disposition of immortal souls within the lineage of families.

The casual reader may well skip over and not read all the definitions. They are all there for the seriously studious reader, or those editors who decide to engage in POV disputing of the article. Those not willing to study all the definitions as the regular editors have, are less likely to engage in meritless POV disputes.

An additional set of dictionary definitions has been added since I last discussed this issue. It might be reasonable to examine the dictionary definitions and remove the least authoritative, or least comprehensive, American dictionary quote, if all the dictionary meanings are covered by the other dictionary quotations. Milo 21:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the dictionary defintions are helpful. The spirit of the policy of Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary is that an article is not a mere dictionary definition. Andries (talk) 18:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Alcoholics Anonymous

Coffeepusher added some text with a citation that may be scientifically incompatible with the article, but in a way that's difficult to sort out. I've removed it to here for discussion:

And Kevin [Wright], in a study of several members, concluded that although the [Lifton] techniques [were] present in the Alexander and Rollins study, the conclusion that AA was a cult was erroneous because AA bore little semblence to religious cults because the techniques appeared beneficial in AA.[6]^ Wright, K[B] (1997) "Shared Ideology in Alcoholics Anonymous: A Grounded Theory Approach". Journal of Health Communication, Volume 2, pp. 83–99

First, a quote from the Wright (1997) PubMed abstract reads, "Little support was found for Alexander and Rollins's (1984) comparison of AA to religious cults." which is not the same as "erroneous", though I don't yet know whether "erroneous" appeared in Wright's 1997 full text.
Second, as paraphrased by Coffeepusher, Wright seems to be saying that Alexander and Rollins must be wrong about AA being a cult even though AA met Lifton's criteria, apparently because Wright assumes cults are inherently non-beneficial? Such an assumption would require a vague negative populist definition of "cult", which I think is not compatible with a scientific definition.
It seems to me that a full text of Wright, 1997 is needed for study before deciding whether to cite it in this article. Milo 07:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

That section was in the paragraph that talked about how even though we can come up with charictoristics of a cult, we find it hard to actually define what a cult is. The kea part was that although lifton's techniques where present, does that make somthing a cult? what we had was two scientific studies that came up with the same data and concluded two opposite results as to wither somthing was a cult. it is a better addition than other study, because that study dosn't mention Rollins or cults at all and thus is WP:SYNTH. You can change the word Eronious, that was my paraphrase, and although I believe it was fathfull to the origonal text, I am not married to that word.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you have the full text of Wright, 1997? Milo 18:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I usually have access to that databace...except for today it is gliching out a bit. the section spacificly referencing Rollins is small enough that I could post it here, once I get access. I should have that by later tonight or tomorow.Coffeepusher (talk) 18:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, here is the sectons dealing with the report itself:

• 1. Summery of prior reserch

"Alexander and Rollins (1984) examined what they considered to be the somewhat negative role of AA ideology in their study of AA as a cult. The authors identified eight of Lifton's (1961) thought reform techniques in the AA group's indoctrination methodology. The eight techniques were ranked in order of their observed frequency of occurrence. The authors argued that members' references to a "higher power" represented Lifton's technique of "mystical manipulation" (Alexander & Rollins, 1984, p. 34). This was the most frequently reported thought reform technique. Second was the reported control over members' contacts outside of the AA group. Third was a technique described as "love bombing," or the apparent unconditional love offered by the AA group members. Finally, the authors argued that AA members reexamined their personal histories and reinterpreted life events in the light of the group's ideology."

• 2. Conclusion

"Finally, Alexander and Rollins's (1984) findings that AA uses techniques similar to those in cults was given only limited support by the data. Although the techniques suggested by those authors do exist, they appear to be constructive, because they enable AA members to make drastic improvements in their lives. Many of the techniques that Alexander and Rollins considered negative were found to be interpreted positively by AA members."

I can get you the full text, but that is pritty much the sections that deal with the 1984 study.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the Wright 1997 relevant text, that's helpful.

But two key questions aren't answered by this excerpt of Wright:

(1) Did sociologists Alexander and Rollins create the scientific definition of "cult" they used (based on Lifton's list), or did they modify one originally created by Lifton which was accompanied by a discussion of cults?

(2) Did Alexander and Rollins include such terms as "negative" (or positive) and "constructive" (or not) in their definition of "cult"? Or did they identify AA as a "cult" based on the defined list of thought reform techniques, and then separately conclude that AA was a negative influence on its members, by offering evidence per Lifton that all thought reform techniques are a negative influence?

The best way to accurately context Wright's conclusions is to answer these questions by studying the full text of Alexander and Rollins, 1984.

Does your available database have Alexander and Rollins in California Sociologist of 1984? Milo 17:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

no, I have been serching but can't get ahold of it. I will probably do an inner library and see what I can find (sorry for the delay, real life takes presidence over third life)Coffeepusher (talk) 19:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I may have located a copy, but will have to wait some days to know for sure. Milo 07:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I now have a copy of Alexander and Rollins, 1984, but analysis is going to take awhile. Milo 00:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Claim of POV text in sociology section

[Cult‎] 20:34, 16 March 2008 Coffeepusher (Sociological definitions of religion: removed pov section...used words like "could be a cult"...no referance to back up statements)

Coffeepusher deleted the bolded section in the following article context:

"As set out by Stark and Bainbridge, the term "cult", is used distinctly among the general definitions, and is closely related to the historically changed definitions of "sect." In this contemporary view, a "sect" is specifically "a deviant religious organization with traditional beliefs and practices," as compared to a "cult" which indicates a "a deviant religious organization with novel beliefs and practices."[22] ¶ Since this definition of "cult" is defined in part in terms of tension with the surrounding society, the same group may both be and not a cult at different places or times. For example, Christianity was by this definition a cult in 1st and 2nd century Rome, while in fifth century Rome it became rather an ecclesia (the state religion). Similarly, very conservative Islam could constitute a cult in the West but also the ecclesia in some conservative Muslim countries. Likewise, because novelty of beliefs and tension are elements in the definition: the Hare Krishnas are not a cult but a sect in India (since their beliefs are largely traditional to Hindu culture), while they are by this definition a cult in the Western world (since their beliefs are largely novel to Christian culture). There is a current dispute as to whether scientology is a cult."

I have updated the stale Prof. Jeffery K. Hadden link [22], and added his text and full citation of Stark and Bainbridge:

"CHURCH: a conventional religious organization."

"SECT: a deviant religious organization with traditional beliefs and practices."

"CULT: a deviant religious organization with novel beliefs and practices."

[Hadden cites] Stark and Bainbridge, 1987:[p]124; (1987:124 full citation: Stark, Rodney, and William Sims Bainbridge, 1987. A Theory of Religion. New York: Peter Land. [Reprinted, 1996 by Rutgers University Press])"

I've read over the deleted text. It appears to be sociologically correct, and therefore is not obviously POV. "Could" is not an arbitrary speculation; it's a clear reference to the sociological context of cultural tension existing or not.
Since I can't find anything wrong with the deleted text, I've restored it to the article pending outcome of this discussion.
What are the details of your objection? Milo 00:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

highlighting a single sect with the blanket term "could..." and then giving unreferanced examples that obviously come from WP:OR is POV by definition. I have no problem with this section if it is referanced properly, however right now I don't feel like it belongs. There is also a current dispute on weather the Assembily of God is a cult...also the southern baptists...AA...NA...Rush Limbaugh (no really, it is going on)... so without referances anyone can put a pov into this section under the guise of "could".Coffeepusher (talk) 13:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Coffeepusher (13:42): "... giving unreferanced examples that obviously come from WP:OR is POV by definition."

I've read WP:OR, and I don't see that definition. Please provide the quote to which you are referring.

My reading is that WP:OR is silent on the referencing of examples, although it is clear that all text including examples must fit closely to the references. Therefore, what appropriate examples to choose is currently an editorial decision.

Examples are important for the reader to understand abstract concepts. WP:OR makes that point indirectly by using examples no less than six times.

Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism (represented by Hare Krishnas) are prominent examples, and certainly by using all of them no one can claim bias toward one or another.

However, the example of Scientology is not an example of the point under discussion. The other three examples are traditional in one culture but not another. Scientology is traditional in no culture; therefore I propose deleting that sentence.

Coffeepusher (13:42): "with the blanket term "could...""

First, note that "could" and "may" are used interchangeably. Since you removed "could", but not "may", your argument isn't parallel. And if you did remove "may", you would be removing a concept. This shows that the concept and the examples are tightly integrated, as they should be.

Second, I disagree with your assertion that "could" has a blanket effect on the concept. As stated, the church-sect-cult concept is narrowly delimited by culture, tradition, and tension. Sociology is a soft science, so while the concept is more likely than not, "could" acknowledges an inevitable ability to quibble exceptions.

Third, it's true that anyone can insert another example which fits the sociological "could" facts. But that's not a POV (which would be arbitrary). There also don't seem to be many valid examples left, and if so, it's likely to be a non-problem. Milo 03:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I could probably try and tackle each point in turn, but then I would just be being argumentitive(...and probably wrong) because in reading this I realise that I was wrong in my deletion and for whatever reason didn't come to understand the context of the section as a whole and now I undersand the reason for the example and why it should stand...except the scientology referance which I will note in a second...I would like to see referances if avalible, just because I believe everything should be referanced on wikipedia if possable (personal philosophy).

I do think that the Scientology quote should be removed. that was what triggered my blanket "POV rant" (in hindsight). If anyone would care to hear me elaberate I will, but I don't really see the reason for that narritive at this time.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Sexual gratification and cult leaders

I reverted the edit by Milo regarding Joseph Smith. What Joseph Smith taught is plural marriage. The problem with the edit is that there is no evidence that Joseph ever slept with any of the women he was sealed to. The concept of sealing is different from marrying or the concept of polygamy practiced by Brigham Young and later prophets of the LDS church.

Considerable sums of money, over $100,000 in one case, have been expended attempting to prove there was some progeny from at least one of Smith sealings. The edit also did not share the rest of the story in that some of the women sealed to Joseph were older than he was. In addition, men were sealed to Joseph Smith also. It is a concept of eternal family and not sexual relationships that is significant here. Unless someone has a deeper understanding of LDS history, certainly more than you find on anti-Mormon websites, this area is much more convoluted and complex than this simple allegation. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Milo, do you think you might be mixing wholly different things? Your recent edit is stretching to meet your agenda, rather than being NPOV. If this is how we are going to treat things then Muslims who practice polygamy will have to be included. You will also have to include all of the religious groups in Africa that practice polygamy. You are out on a ledge and it is all sand beneath you. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

If Joseph Smith, Jr. used either the terms "marriage" or "wives" in reference to his women, and assuming that the numerical facts are correct, I've fixed it with:

=== Sexual gratification or plural marriage by leaders ===

Leaders of groups referred to as cults have used their positions to obtain sexual gratification from followers, or have engaged in plural marriage.

* Joseph Smith, Jr. (1805-1844), founder of LDS, convinced his followers that polygamy was necessary and began to marry women. He eventually married 24 women, one third of them younger than age 18, and some as young as 14. LDS officially ceased polygamy in 1890, and excommunicates members who practice it. Some non-LDS schism churches who also claim founding by Joseph Smith, Jr. (see Mormon fundamentalism), have continued the practice of polygamy with underage women, and have been called cults in the media.

The point is about Mormon fundamentalists, who apparently claim their plural marriage practices arise from founder Joseph Smith, Jr., and specifically about underage marriages arranged by cult(s) as named in the media. The post-1890 LDS mainstream, as well as global polygamy with culturally of-age women in other countries, is not at issue.

In the USA last week, 400 underage women/girls were seized from FLDS in Texas and placed in foster homes. This follows the headline conviction of Warren Jeffs leader of FLDS (ABC News called it a cult), for unpleasantly named crimes involving underage women, with very serious penalties – apparently directly traceable to the teachings and actions of Joseph Smith, Jr. If that's factual, using the standard dictionary definitions of the words "marriage" or "wives", it belongs in this encyclopedia. Milo 20:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC) Re-edited 21:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I suspected you were reacting from current events rather than an understanding of the topic or history. Joseph Smith was sealed to women. Let me repeat what I said above; THERE IS NO HISTORIAL EVIDENCE THAT HE HAD SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH ANY WOMAN EXCEPT HIS FIRST WIFE, EMMA. One woman who alleged she was a descendant of Joseph Smith has spent of $100,000 attempting to prove through DNA analysis that her claim was legitimate. However, there has been no support for her claim. Joseph Smith did teach plural marriage, but the teaching was not fully realized until Brigham Young lead the LDS church. I.E. Men began to have marital relationships with more than one wife.

In LDS history a younger women being married was the exception. A problem in early LDS history was that Mormon men had a tendency of being killed by their favorite local Christian mobs; which left a lot of women as widows. Most of those widows became the plural wives of men. These were more often than not caretaker relationships. I have heard estimates as low as 3% to as high as 30% of the membership (men and women) practiced plural marriage up until 1890. Thereafter the practice of plural marriage was discontinued. Sealing is not the same thing as living in a full, marital relationship. They don't always equate and one needs to be careful.

Your topic is sexual gratification, which has nothing to do with polygamy. None of the people you have listed practiced anything similar to polygamy. Each situation was pure devotion to sexual gratification only. A polygamist's primary objective is to produce children. Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Moses, Solomon, and Daniel were all polygamists. Was there primary objective sexual gratification? Of course not! You are stretching the boundaries of the topic to meet your POV and the yammerings of news people who don't have a clue about polygamy or history. Their sole objective is to sell air time.

More importantly, the current event is happening and it is not finished. When you see that the first buses to arrive on the scene had the name "First Baptist Church" plastered on the front of them, one must realize that something stinks in Denmark. 416 children (boys and girls) were taken from the ranch. Not one case of sexual abuse has been produced yet and the star witness is not to be found. The man accused of the sexual abuse has not been in Texas in years (pretty tough to abuse someone on a ranch in Texas when you have lived in Arizona for the last three years. Two years ago Texas changed the legal age from 14 to 16 to get married; who in the heck was getting married at 14 in Texas prior to arrival of the FLDS. Not one 14 year old has yet been identified in court and the only girls talked about were of legal age for marriage. Let's wait until this story is finished before we start writing it as a factual.

Also, usually when an edit is disputed it is discussed on the discussion page until a compromise has been achieved. No compromise has begun to materialize. Please do not continue to edit this section of the article until a compromise is produced. It causes senseless edit wars and that are unnecessary. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 08:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Could someone else please sort through and explain the editing history facts to Storm Rider so we can get back on the new topic without the distractions? Milo 15:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I would greatly appreciate it because attempting to interact with Milo would appear...unnfruitful. The main problem is that there has been zero discussion, zero attempt by Milo to explain herself; just a consistent display of ownership and insistence on having it her way. If one can be so kind as to simply explain the logic for the proposed edits. Particularly how one has sexual gratification with no sexual relationship. Also, the concept of numerous sexual relationships obtained through manipulation and deceit versus the concept of plural marriage where the commitment is viewed as eternal and focused on progeny. Please just stick to "facts" as indicated by Milo and distinguish between ignorance of historical facts and media stupidity. This would be very helpful. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I have done extensive studies on Mormonism, the fact that it could not be proven in court that Joseph Smith had sex is irrelevant, since many woman claimed they had his children. That alone is an admission of sexual intercourse. Brigham Young later confirmed the sexuality of Josephs wives since they openly accepted him and had his children. The problem with Joseph Smith is that he repeatedly lied to his congregation about living polygamy, he hid it, and even spoke against it and denounced it while his wives listened in the audience. Joseph Smith is a statistical average in cult leadership, he certainly gained the sexual advantages, including an affair that Emma had caught him in with their 14 year old maid. See In Sacred Loneliness by Todd Compton. In fact, sex is a normal, healthy and normal part of life, but it can indeed be abused such as when it is inconsistent with what the leader is teaching and the members hold to as part of that teaching, a hypocrisy in this case. Preceeding signed by: Bnaur Talk 03:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I am glad that you have done extensive research on Mormonism; I am sure that you are an expert. Allegations have never been equated to fact in the history of American law or in other civil society that has ever existed in the history of the world, much to the dismay of those making unfounded allegations. What is significant of about this claim is the one woman who made a statement near her death that her child was from a union with Joseph Smith was proved wrong through DNA research. Whether she had sex with Joseph Smith or not is anyone's guess.

Bushman, the noted historian from Columbia (but also a LDS) has stated that one may assume that Smith must have had sex with some of these women, but it remains conjecture including Compton's research. The difficulty with these allegations is that science, so often used to prove religion false, in this instance, to this date, confirms that there are no other children of Joseph Smith outside of Emma's. There is no evidence that Joseph Smith had sex with anyone other than Emma Hale Smith, his wife and mother of his children. There is ample allegation, innuendo, and other comparable statements. Now, if you are asking me for a personal opinion, I suspect that Smith had sexual relations with some of the women sealed to him, but not all. Sealing, during the life of Smith, was different than plural marriage. Of course, with you expertise I am sure you are aware of this and possibly forgot.

Polygamy, or more appropriately plural marriage, did not become fully practiced, i.e. actual marriage with more than one wife and living in full relationship, did not really function until Brigham Young became the leader of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I have read a range from as low as 3% of the members to as high as 30% of the members practiced plural marriage prior to 1890.

My position remains as I have stated above; there is nothing in common with the practice of plural marriage/polygamy as practiced by Mormons, Muslims, Indians, or any other group in the history of the world and what is being called sexual manipulation and gratification by cult leaders. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's do be careful to stay on track, avoid polemic interpretations or moral judgments, and focus on facts for reliable source referencing of the text which was originally entered by 209.128.98.90 on 06:53, 13 April 2008.

The issue is not Smith as the founder of LDS, it's Joseph Smith, Jr. as the claimed founder of FLDS and other Mormon fundamentalists, who unlike LDS, still practice what they say Smith practiced – plural marraige with sexual relations.

There is no need to debate about whether Smith might not been married in the full sense of the word or might have had polygamous sex. Smith's same-faith religious contemporaries say that he was fully plural married (Compton, Summer 1996, p16), "sealing" also meant "marriage" (p31), and included sexual relations (p31), he had ample opportunities for sex (p16-17), and did have actual carnal intercourse (p16).

This is no anti-Mormon screed, rather, it's a set of long-established facts still embarrassing to one schism of Mormonism.

"Because of claims by Reorganized Latter-day Saints that Joseph was not really married polygamously in the full (i.e., sexual) sense of the term, Utah Mormons (including Joseph's wives) affirmed repeatedly that Joseph had physical sexual relations with his plural wives..." (Compton, Summer 1996, p16).

Wife (~#32 of Sep. 20, 1843 per Compton) 'Melissa Lott (Smith Willes) testified that she had been Joseph's wife "in very deed" ' . Despite the unresearched mythical claim in the above post (08:50, 18 April 2008), there is direct and starkly unambiguous courtroom testimony by Joseph Smith, Jr.'s wife Emily Dow Partridge, (wife ~#24 of March 4, 1843 per Compton), who in the Temple Lot case of 1891 testified under oath 'that she "roomed" with Joseph and had "carnal intercourse" with him' (Compton, p.16). That's the "smoking gun" reference, but there's exhaustively more evidence for anyone willing to accept the academically-documented facts.

You can access this journal on line at Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Compton, Todd (Summer 1996), A Trajectory of Plurality; An Overview of Joseph Smith's Thirty-three Plural Wives. See section Sex in Joseph Smith's Marraiges, p.16. Milo 07:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

B I T E

I am not sure that BITE has become the recognized model in mental health. Is there a reason that this has now become highlighted versus all the other models that exist today? It seems out of balance to me. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Raelian sessions invited or required?

Bnaur made an edit which does not match the cited reference. This entry is BLP sensitive, so uninformed reverting is not appropriate. Showing Bnaur's edit, Cult reads:
"Raelism openly teaches a belief in sexual freedom, which is used to recruit new members, who are required invited to participate in Sensual Meditation sessions. {ref} Sex used to recruit Raelians The Edmonton Sun - 2003-10-11."{/ref} (Currently reference [77])
23:56, 3 May 2008 Bnaur (?Sexual gratification or plural marriage by leaders: require to invites) diff

The relevant sentence in The Edmonton Sun, October 11, 2003 reads:
"There are mandatory sensual meditation sessions in which a "guide" instructs Raelian members how to..."

"Mandatory" means "required". What information do you have that conflicts with The Edmonton Sun's report? Milo 04:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Sexual gratification and plural marriage

I am moving David Koresh's information here:

"* David Koresh (1959-1993), one leader of the Branch Davidians, announced to his followers that polygamy was allowed for him, and preached that he was entitled to 140 wives, sixty women as his "queens" and eighty as concubines. He fathered children with several women and girls at his Waco Texas compound, including girls as young as 12."

Though it needs references, which I assume are forthcoming, I am more concerned about painting Koresh with the same brush stroke as the others. The practice of polygamy has been practiced since almost the beginning of Judaism and is practiced today by several cultures. U.S. social mores may denigrate the practice, but that is meaningless on the world stage. The major objective of polygamy has always been to produce offspring and not the d'alliances found in the sexual exploits of the other characters cited in the section. Further, polygamy came with the social contract of providing care and financial and emotional support, which is totally lacking among the others. If you want to cite groups that practice polygamy, that is another matter, but it is not the equivalent of irresponsible sexual exploits of the other individuals. The section was erroneously expanded to meet an editor's agenda, rather than a well-thought out format for the article. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I would strongly encourage you to avoid speculation on anothers perceved agenda no matter how much evidance you may have, it makes your argument appear to be a personal despute rather than a content despute.

Right now you are claiming that Polygamy is not a sexual exploitive practice (I agree) that was used historically to procreate (I agree) and to form aliances and help support women (I agree)and you argue that these principals where the foundation for the decision of David Koresh to state that he could have 140 wives, while his followers where not allowed to practice polygamy (I strongly disagree). I personaly think that it does belong in the article because the practice by David Koresh was seperate from the origional precepts of the Branch Davidians and somthing reserved for him and him alone. this follows the introduction of this section as an explotive practice because it wasn't used for either material or emotional support (they lived in a comune, thus the practice of a man defending women is null unless the comune breaks apart) and I don't buy it was to produce more children. it needs a citation, but I think it belongs.Coffeepusher (talk) 02:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I have reworked the entery to make clear that David Koresh was not engaging in any form of traditional Polygamy. it is cited as well (time magazine and USA today)Coffeepusher (talk) 03:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Koresh is not in my area of expertise whereas polygamy is. When one introduces concubines it certainly becomes unusual. What maybe helpful, though not for his article, is to attempt to understand what justification he gave for this practice. There ususally is an element of raising righteous seed, which in turn is based upon some belief of being a chosen people. Of course, Koresh did not appear to set up community mores for all, but rather something centered soley upon him. Nothing in my reading of him talked about formal marriages ceremonies, but just "we get to have sex together". That is not a typical form of polygamy. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I have a better than average knowledge of the Waco Siege, as well as a friend who has closely (and sympathetically) studied Branch Davidians' theology. I've tweaked Coffeepusher's usefully researched post into main and footnote entries, which give a balance of Koresh's views with mainstream views, and approximate the size of the other main entries.

I've also added a line to the section intro to distinguish traditional polygamous cultures from those of groups referred to as cults. Milo 10:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Exiting Cultus Section

The entire section seems to be based on non-empirical conjecture by counselors who make money from counseling people who exit cults. I think that this section should be a abridged to a couple of sentences that say something along the lines of "a lot of people leave cults, they temporarily feel guilty, and a few people may find it difficult" and to emphasize the lack of empirical research in this area. --PB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.151.171 (talk) 15:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Plural marriage by leaders

Storm Rider made the following change edit:

19:05, 18 May 2008 Storm Rider (correcting section title)

=== Sexual gratification or plural marriage by leaders ===

to

=== Sexual gratification by leaders ===

This section title edit has the unacceptable effect of suppressing a front-page-notable topic in Wikipedia: cultic plural marriage. Accordingly, I have reverted it.

Storm Rider also made the following removal edits:

19:02, 18 May 2008 Storm Rider (Sexual gratification or plural marriage by leaders: there is nothing comprable in these individuals and plural marriage) (diff)

19:05, 18 May 2008 Storm Rider (Sexual gratification or plural marriage by leaders: cleaning up) (diff)

Hereticpod (18:01, 18 May 2008), with no edit summary explanation, changed the Joseph Smith, Jr entry which was:

* [[Joseph Smith, Jr.]] (1805-1844), founder of [[LDS]], was confidentially married to 33 plural wives, with some as young as 14.<ref>Smith's same-faith religious contemporaries said that he was fully plural married (p. 16), "sealing" also meant "marriage" (p. 31), and included sexual relations (p. 31). Joseph Smith, Jr.'s wife Emily Dow Partridge, (wife ~#24 of March 4, 1843 per Compton), in the [[Temple Lot]] case of 1891, testified under oath '' 'that she "roomed" with Joseph and had "carnal intercourse" with him' ''(Compton, Summer 1996, p. 16). [http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/dialogue&CISOPTR=11460&REC=12&CISOSHOW=11268 Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Compton, Todd (Summer 1996), A Trajectory of Plurality; An Overview of Joseph Smith's Thirty-three Plural Wives]. See section ''<u>Sex in Joseph Smith's Marriages</u>.''</ref> LDS officially ceased polygamy in 1890, and excommunicates members who practice it. Some non-LDS schism churches who also claim founding by Joseph Smith, Jr., including [[FLDS]], have continued the practice of polygamy with legally underage women (see [[Mormon fundamentalism]]).

to:

"confidentially rumored to have married to 33 plural wives, with some as young as 14 , however this c[a]nnot be confirmed."

Hereticpod apparently failed to read the footnote source in the reference, since journaled research is not a rumor. Compton's journal research is unequivocally titled: Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Compton, Todd (Summer 1996), A Trajectory of Plurality; An Overview of Joseph Smith's Thirty-three Plural Wives. This is verified information which is the Wikipedia equivalent of "confirmed". Compton also lists Helen Mar Kimball, at age 14, married May, 1843, as wife ~#26 to Joseph Smith, Jr.

SR removed the entry on Joseph Smith, Jr., the claimed founder of FLDS, a group that has been front page news for months for practicing polygamy with legally underage women. ABC evening news called FLDS a cult. Last Friday, 2008-05-16, ABC's 20/20 documented the story of the unwilling underage bride who was forced by convicted FLDS leader Warren Jeffs into a plural marriage with an older member, and then transferred like property into a second marriage with unconsensual sex by a younger man.
It is a verifiable and scholarly fact that FLDS (and other Mormon fundamentalist groups, practice plural marriage because Joseph Smith, Jr. confidentially taught and practiced it himself (see Talk:Cult#Sexual gratification and cult leaders above for reliable sources).

Storm Rider (19:02, 18 May 2008) edit summary: "...nothing comprable in these individuals and plural marriage"
This seems to be an unsupported opinion. In comparison:

• Joseph Smith, Jr. engaged in plural marriage.
• David Koresh engaged in plural marriage.
• Individuals in FLDS engaged in plural marriage.
• All engaged in plural marriages that were not traditional to the culture outside of the group.
• All belonged to groups that have been referred to as cults.

Accordingly, I have restored the Joseph Smith, Jr. / FLDS entry. Milo 02:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC) Re-edited 04:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe it would be incorrect to say that Joseph Smith, Jr. was the founder of the FLDS Church. It appears that is was founded almost 100 years after his death by those that selected some of his teachings, made some changes, and then founded their own church. Alanraywiki (talk) 02:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Your point is historical/sociological. The article phrase used is "claimed founder", meaning, as I understand it, FLDS and other Mormon fundamentalists claim Smith as their founder – but please post links to sources that state otherwise. In any case, the key is that FLDS/others today follow the relevant inner circle teachings and practice of Joseph Smith, Jr.

Religious fundamentalism (of all religions) usually means that they, fundamentalists, claim that that the mainstream church/belief has deviated from the fundamental teachings of the original founder, and therefore they, not the mainstream group, are the true original church/belief. If fundamentalists were to claim a (second) founding as sociologists do from the branching date, that undercuts their claim to be the original church, so it would be unexpected. Milo 07:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is an FLDS "about themselves"-type reliable source (FLDS magazine "TRUTH", 1950's) that lists Joseph Smith (Jr.) as first in the line of authority: "Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, John Woolley, Lorin Woolley, Leslie Broadbent, Joseph Musser, and Charles Zitting."[4] While the citing source is a personal blog specializing in "information about the basic teachings and history of the FLDS Church", it can be convenience-linked to show the cited reliable source for the list. Milo 04:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It is interesting what you call opinion. What you (whoever who insists on this edit) have done is synthesis. There is nothing remotely in common between Koresh's concept of polygamy and Smith's teaching of plural marriage. Second, you seem to be confusing the term culture. It was the culture of early Mormonism to practice plural marriage. It's purpose was not for sexual gratification which is the topic of the section. Third, the FLDS is a sect of the LDS church and Joseph Smith is not the founder of their church. Fifth, please explain your definition of cult. The LDS church has existed since 1830 (well beyond the 50 year time frame of the defintion of cults) and Smith died in the 1840's again, not within the cult time frame. I am removing the information for violation of synthesis. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The more I read these comments the more I think no one knows what they are talking about. The prophet most of these guys follow is Brigham Young, which really discussed and defended plural marriage in the Latter Day Saint movement.

Furthermore, there is nothing in common between plural marriage or polygamy and a pack of fornicating individuals. That is pure synthesis and cultural arrogance to the extreme. Polygamy has been practiced in civialized society for as long as history has existed. Please leave your personal puritanical views at the door; welcome to an encyclopedia that is for a world audience. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Storm Rider (03:32): "nothing remotely in common between Koresh's concept of polygamy and Smith's teaching of plural marriage."

The in-common fact is clear. Koresh and Smith both engaged in "plural marriages that were not traditional to the culture outside of the group." Nothing more in common is needed for the article entry.

Storm Rider (03:32): "culture of early Mormonism to practice plural marriage"

Early Mormonism plural marriages were "not traditional to the culture outside of the group."

Storm Rider (03:32): "definition of cult" ...."50 year time frame"

Check the article - other than old cults of veneration (cultus), it's 1920 onward per Melton. (50 years is a LOGRTAC list criterion that doesn't affect Cult.)

Storm Rider (03:32): "Joseph Smith is not the founder of their church."

See my above post responding to Alanraywiki.

Storm Rider (03:32): "The prophet most of these guys follow is Brigham Young."

Please post your sources for this claim in regard to FLDS.

Storm Rider (03:32): "synthesis"

You can't simply make a unsupported synthesis claim and make an article statement disappear. You have to list the facts that you claim are synthesized, read and analyze the sources referenced, provide quotes, and make a series of logical statements about them to show that the references don't support the synthesized article facts. A synthesis claim takes lot of academic-style research work to prove, so if you can't do that work you will have to accept the article statements as being properly referenced.

Storm Rider (03:32): "sexual gratification which is the topic of the section."

This issue has already been settled. The topic also covers plural marriage. The text was originally entered by 209.128.98.90 on 06:53, 13 April 2008. 209.128.98.90 did not choose a section title which covered his two plural marriage entries. You complained about the (excessively narrow) section topic on 19:33, 17 April 2008 and I corrected the section title at Milo 19:48, 17 April 2008. Now you are reverting the title back to the too-narrow title that you complained about and was fixed. This is tendentious editing not permitted at Wikpedia. Please stop.

What you are doing in effect is claiming that because 209.128.98.90 didn't provide a set of entries with a section title that perfectly matched them, that some of those entries have to be removed rather than the title being adjusted to the entries. That is constructively (by actions) wikilawyering (attempting to trump principle with detail).

Both sexual gratification and plural marriage are not only notable to this article, but front-page-notable, week after week in the current news. Attempting to suppress relevant article entries and section titles with front page news notability is unacceptable. Please move on. Milo 07:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

What a wonderfully creative of looking at things. The section topic was sexual gratification. Every entry except Koresh and Smith were accounts of the exploits of men who did nothing but fornicate. There is nothing in common with fornication and plural marriage. To enlarge the title is not acceptable and never has been. It allows a highly POV position to force readers to assume that fornication and plural marriage are the same things. Your solution was irresponsible and POV; it amounts to synthesis.

Upon further review of Koresh's article it appears it may be possible to put him in this category; He reserved the practice to himself and had concubines. Smith's concept of plural marriage was taught as a principle for all to follow. It was a principle that he resisted following for most of his life as leader of the church. Most of the "wives" he had were only sealed to him and there is no evidence that he had sexual relations with them. None have been proved to ever have had sexual relations, but there is certainly historical evidence that leads us to believe he may have had sexual relations with at least a few of them. It is more innuendo than open fact, which is what was found under Brigham Young. It is open and children were the result of the marriages.

I can see a section entitled "Leaders who taught polygamy/plural marriage", but the current title is not acceptable. Plural marriage was never taught or characterized as something for sex except by other religious polemic writers. Plural marriage was fully realized under Brigham Young and it was a marriage in every sense of the word. It was not the one night stand and sexual dalliances of the other individuals in the current section. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to substantially summarize your editing positions and their logical fallacies:

1. Storm Rider (16:36): "The section topic was sexual gratification."

You ignore that 209.128.98.90's section entries were 1/3 2/5ths plural marriage related. (Note: 2/5ths counts Koresh as having engaged in plural marriage, which Storm Rider 07:01, 20 May 2008 disputes)

2. Storm Rider (16:36): "To enlarge the title is not acceptable and never has been."

You refuse to allow editing of 209.128.98.90's section title to more completely describe the section contents.

3. Storm Rider (16:36): "There is nothing in common with fornication and plural marriage."

You gloss over that sexual gratification and plural marriage have sex in common.

4. Storm Rider (16:36): "...force readers to assume that fornication and plural marriage are the same things."

You assume that Wikipedia readers are too stupid or confused to understand the meaning of "or" in a section title, or to distinguish sexual gratification from plural marriage.

5. Storm Rider (16:36): "it amounts to synthesis"

Your claim amounts to a claim that WP:Synthesis says something that it does not; there is no synthesis here because there is no stated opinion or conclusion at all.

6.Storm Rider (16:36): "Plural marriage was never taught or characterized as something for sex...".

You suggest a strawman because the section and title do not say that plural marriage is taught or characterized as something for sexual gratification.

7. Storm Rider (16:36): "Smith's concept of plural marriage was taught as a principle for all to follow."

You deny that Smith kept his plural marriage teaching and practice secret from all but his inner circle.

8. Storm Rider (16:36): "...there is no evidence that he had sexual relations with them."

You deny as "no evidence" or "innuendo" the sworn court testimony of Emily Dow Partridge, Smith's wife ~#24 – that she had "carnal intercourse" with Smith – rather than her testimony being a keystone fact of Smith's having had sexual relations with multiple wives, who during their lifetimes repeatedly affirmed to his embarrassed and denying RLDS son that they did "in very deed" have sex with Joseph Smith, Jr. (See quote of Compton, Summer 1996, p16, in Milo 07:39, 4 May 2008).

9. Storm Rider (16:36): "It was not the one night stand and sexual dalliances of the other individuals in the current section."

You want a special section kid glove treatment for your POV – and this claim is not true enough to justify it, even if taken at face value.

Ignoring the dictionary meaning of the word "or" (or mischaracterizing its use as "synthesis") is disturbing enough, but you are also starting to recycle positions such as the Smith sexual relations denial that have already been dismissed by verified reliable sources. That is tendentious debating. BabyDweezil and Sfacets were banned inclusively for their tendentious activities in this very article. Your tendentious debating and editing also exposes a position so weak that you are clutching at straws to support it, and now have run out of straws to clutch.

Your editing dispute is based on your inference of, or fear of, things not stated or implied in the article. These inferences are only imagined, and I think other editors will be disturbed that humoring them calls for preferential treatment of your POV. Since you have been able to muster only a tissue of rational arguments, and since there is no necessary limit to article faults that you can imagine by inference, ultimately you can't be satisfied. Milo 05:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC) Re-edited 04:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

What a wonderfully closed-minded presentation, if not an outright fabrication on several points. Please stick to facts and give up on your POV; the objective is to produce a better article and not meet the private agendas of editors. Let's start with a few facts and move from there. I will not follow your recitation format because it takes too much space and is rather infantile, but I will try to respond to each of your points such as they are:

1. User:209.128.98.90 initial edit was not even close to 1/3 related to polygamy (new math does not even make 1/5 = to 1/3). As the diff clearly shows the first edit from this Anon included: Jim Jones, Claude Vorihon, Charles Manson, David Koresh, and Joseph Smith. As you and I have already made abundantly clear; Koresh went well beyond polygamy and into concubinage. Joseph Smith is the only one that does not fit the description of the section. All of the others preyed upon women as things, used drugs to gain sexual favors, and their only objective was sexual gratification. There is nothing in Joseph Smith's history that compares to this type of behavior. You did not only misstate the facts, but you twisted them to meet your ends. If you cannot be honest, I suggest to take a break from Wikipedia or at least reread each of the five pillars.
2. You were the editor that blithely changed the title on a whim without any attempt to answer the issue at hand. We do not enlarge a section title only to meet personal objectives. There must be something in common between the individuals to group them together and there is nothing in common between them. Fornication was never plural marriage; it is the antithesis of it. As I stated above, another section is appropriate, but not this one single section for all of these individuals and their actions.
3. Sex in common? My god man, do you not understand the difference between going from woman to woman for sexual favors and marriage? Of course within a marriage one has a sexual relationship, but that quality of relationship has nothing in common with mounting some woman at your whim. This is the very definition of synthesis!
4. Do not play stupid with words; you will lose. It is this very stretch in the section title that has caused this silliness. You know very well that the result of your including Joseph Smith is a blatant attempt to color him with the actions of morally bankrupt individuals. If you do not understand this, then it is evidence clear as day that your abilities are sorely lacking and it is time to take a break. You are editing to meet your personal agenda.
5. You can't see the bloody conclusion that you have drawn by including such a dissimilar group with Joseph Smith? What have you wrapped your eyes in? You and this Anon have attempted to lead readers to assume that the actions of all five are the equivalent and they are not.
6. I have clearly told you that Brigham Young was the LDS leader that brought plural marriage to the forefront of practice. How is that denying or even anything else about Joseph Smith? Stick to facts and quit this silliness.
7. Joseph Smith III did deny his father's actions during his life time, but near the end of his life admitted that his father did practice plural marriage. I have never denied that fact; not once. What I have denied is that several women have admitted to having sexual relations with Joseph Smith after his death. None of them have been substantiated with facts and those who have said they have had progeny have not been able to prove their case through DNA analysis. Having fathered many children with Emma it seems odd that he was suddenly sterile with these women.
8. Bushman has stated that it is almost certain that he had sexual relations with some of his wives. That is the most that can be said. However, having sexual relations with one's wife is hardly the same as having sexual relations with "n'import qui". Or maybe I am mistaken; what was the culture in the U.S. 170 years ago? Are you saying that marital relations are the same as fornication? Please enlighten us with this reference.

When reading the article I have a difficult time understanding the purpose of the section. It is at the end of the article and has nothing to do with the sections around it. Are we trying to improve the article or just add on anything that comes to mind? What is the purpose of the article? The end of the article is a hodge podge of ideas and concepts that bleed everywhere. I suspect that much of it could either be merged into earlier sections or deleted altogether. Regardless, each of your points was either a misstatement of facts or purposely twisting them to meet your objectives. I will assume they are simply a misstatement, but I tire of silliness. I again strongly suggest you take a break because your evaluative abilities are presently off. If Joseph Smith needs to be listed I would suggest a new section about cult leaders that taught plural marriage or polygyny. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

(Note to future admins, RFC/U posters, and Arbcom participants. Storm Rider's above post has a diff link of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cult&diff=213651425&oldid=213641416 Storm Rider 07:01, 20 May 2008)

Here is an evidence list of two libels included in four WP:NPA personal attacks, in your above post of Storm Rider 07:01, 20 May 2008:

• A. Storm Rider (07:01): "...if not an outright fabrication..."

"if not an outright fabrication" is a WP:Libel against a scholar (if believed it would cause loss of anonymous scholarly reputation and loss of non-anonymous academic employment), a speculation that is a WP:NPA personal attack on character (since "fabrication" is cheating that always goes to character), and a speculation that violates WP:AGF.

• B. Storm Rider (07:01): "Do not play stupid with words;..."

It being impossible to prove that a rigorous scholar plays at stupid, this statement is a WP:NPA insult-type personal attack, and a violation of WP:AGF.

• C. Storm Rider (07:01): "...is rather infantile..."

It's impossible to prove that a rigorous scholar has done anything "infantile", so this statement is a WP:NPA insult-type personal attack.

• D. Storm Rider (07:01): "...facts, you twisted them to meet your ends. If you cannot be honest..."

"If you cannot be honest..." is a WP:Libel against a scholar (if believed it would cause loss of anonymous scholarly reputation and loss of non-anonymous academic employment). The antecedent reference to "facts" is a set of disputes mixed with a math fraction, some or all of which are characterized as twisted to the point of dishonesty. Considering with benefit of doubt only the math fraction, this statement is a speculative leap to conclusion that a misstated count of one plus a disputed count of one – with the outcome being the difference among 2/6ths, 2/5ths, or 1/5th – is of necessity a dishonest misstatement. This is an obvious violation of WP:AGF, but because of its careless disregard for prudent investigating prior to making a libelous charge against a scholar, it is also a WP:NPA personal attack on character.

Precisely to make sure that the baseline facts were correctly known, I posted a diff of 209.128.98.90 on 06:53, 13 April 2008 in Milo 07:15, 19 May 2008. 209.128.98.90 did indeed post only five entries. A sixth entry (L. Ron) was added and removed later. You noticed an error, the correcting of which is a normal academic and Wikipedia process, and I have corrected my miscount posted fraction from 1/3 (=2/6ths) to 2/5ths. I have also posted a note following that correction that you dispute 2/5ths because you dispute that Koresh engaged in plural marriage.

In any case, your uttering of two libels included in four personal attacks ends this part of the article content debate.

No Wikipedia editor needs to risk their scholarly reputation by further debating with a violator like yourself. If you have anything else to say about Cult content, you'll have to get another editor to restate it for you, and I will debate with them.

Your WP:GAME – of removing items and insisting that they stay out during debate, and then creating an indefinite stall with tendentious debating, such as you did above by repeatedly restating POV claims, already settled by reliable sources as firm as sworn court testimony – that game is checkmated for now. Milo 04:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you representing yourself as a "scholar"? Do you really think that a "scholar", however loosely you employ the term, is superior to any other editor and is therefore meritorious of some higher degree of respect or deference from all other editors? Pray tell, how might other editors become aware of your elevated station? I would suggest that a scholar is not a title assumed, but rather one that is earned and evidenced by their contributions in the context of Wikipedia. Frankly, this is just too rich; it is worth a chuckle and I thank you for it.

My advice is, "If the shoe fits, wear it!". You misrepresented facts and twisted statements to support your POV. As I stated above, "I will assume they are simply a misstatement"; however, if you continue on in this silliness I will begin to think you have no interest in improving the article and are only seeking to be contentious. I again suggest you may need to take a break from Wikipedia; you are highly POV and have forgotten what the purpose of Wikipedia is; it is not your private soapbox. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Warren Jeffs entry

To other editors: Despite the irrelevant POV noise generated during this debate, it does seem to me as though the Joseph Smith, Jr. entry needs to be recast as a primary Warren Jeffs entry. Nearly everyone agrees that Jeffs is or was a cult leader in the post-1920 populist sense.
But Jeffs and FLDS didn't get their plural marriage lifestyle from nowhere, and it would be POV to ignore that Joseph Smith, Jr. is Jeffs' source in both teaching and practice for non-traditional-to-outside-culture plural marriages to women at ages as young as 14 (re Helen Mar Kimball, age 14, married May, 1843, wife ~#26 to Joseph Smith, Jr., per Compton).
With Jeffs apparently having 40-some plural wives with sex (apparently DNA tests revealed that he has children), the new Jeffs entry should include the existing reference citations to Joseph Smith, Jr. as the practicing teacher to Warren Jeffs and FLDS, of plural sealed marriage with sex, and add a Compton citation to include Smith's wife aged 14 (Helen Mar Kimball).
According to ABC 20/20, Jeffs has been tagged with two public testimonies (including an outstanding lawsuit or two), which claim he engaged in homosexual molestation, and reportedly he has admitted to heterosexual behavior outside of plural marriage. Depending on details not yet known, these cases may mean that Jeffs has engaged in both sexual gratification and plural marriage, suggesting that #Sexual gratification or plural marriage by leaders should remain a unified section. Milo 04:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

In this context several leaders could be added. There are several fundamentalists sects, each with their own leader. Also, a teaching perverted, if it has been, is a new teaching. I do think that Jeffs and most others practice a form of plural marriage. They seem to focus on just young girls, but most of Joseph Smith's wives where older; though certainly not exclusively. It is best to shy away from innuendo, particularly thatt provided in the media, and wait for evidence to be produced to support all the claims against some of these sect leaders. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this thread and the thread above: Storm Rider suggests handling the plural marriage issue as a separate section from the sexual gratification section. Would that be a workable compromise? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

No, not workable, because Storm Rider ultimately cannot be satisfied. SR has already indicated that Koresh would not be allowed on a list with Smith (Storm Rider (07:01): "including Joseph Smith is a blatant attempt to color him with the actions of morally bankrupt individuals"), so a separation of sexual gratification from plural marriage listings is just an attempt to put Smith in a POV moral class by himself.

No secular scholar would call Rajneesh/Osho morally bankrupt (his inner circle betrayed him – a problem familiar from the original Jesus cult). It's also illogical to judge morality among the cult leaders who went insane. And then Smith himself wasn't so morally pure, a point with which he might agree.

Secular scholars might highlight the Freudian subconscious need for Smith to justify the discovered affair with his maid, as the logical origin of his plural marriage revelation via bicameralism. Compton reviews early sources that believe Smith himself concluded that plural marriage was a false revelation, and then he or his first wife burned its writing. Thus had he lived, Smith might have ended the teaching of plural marriage, and quietly ended his practice of it as a self-judged immorality.

There are several logical reasons to keep the sexual gratification or plural marriage listings together, such as, to avoid endless debates about how to classify Koresh and Jeffs; and so far, no logical reasons to separate them. Milo 20:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Will, you stepped into this and I hope you have the courage to see it through. The above diatribe is so full of holes I will not respond to it. Cannot be satisfied? I was the one that suggested it int he first place. Milo was the one that stated Koresh was more than just a polygamist. As far as I am concerned he could easily fit in both sections. I suggest you keep personal comments out of the conversation unless the position can be supported with reputable references. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Storm Rider (23:01): "Milo was the one that stated Koresh was more than just a polygamist." What does that mean? Let's see the diff quote of me stating that.

Previously I let it slide when you wrote, (Storm Rider 07:01): "As you and I have already made abundantly clear; Koresh went well beyond polygamy and into concubinage." No, I didn't make any such thing clear (abundantly or otherwise), so you can't provide a diff quote of it. Are you misrepresenting facts and twisting statements to support your POV[5], or did you just make an attribution error by confusing me with 209.128.98.90?

Storm Rider (23:01): "I suggest you keep personal comments out of the conversation..."

See WP:Pot-kettle. Recant the two libels, and I'll give you slack on the two kiddy-insult personal attacks. Milo 02:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to put my 2 cents in, the above logic about including Joseph Smith dosn't appear to work for me. by that logic, we need to include David from the bible (the one who Joseph smith referanced as a figure of poligamy) as well as abraham, Moses, etc. (actually I am not shure about the moses thing, but we get the point). additionaly while marying a 14 year old is appaling by todays standards (unless you live in south carolina, or the district of columbia, Georga, Alabama, louisianna) when Joseph Smith did it, it was seen as normal (or at least not illegal). I am curious about the logic on why plural marrage needs to be included at all? if it allows poligamy, does it automaticaly become a cult, and if so what is the secondary source backing up that statement? in the case of warren Jeffs and David Korresh (as well as that guy in new mexico who's name excapes me but definatly needs to be included on the list) they where obviously abusing minors (according to the standards of the times), but Joseph smith wasn't (nither was King David, or Socraties for that matter).Coffeepusher (talk) 04:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

There are several questions, and one requires a long analysis, so I've moved them to four new subsections below: • Why should plural marriage be included? • Is a polygamous group always a cult? • Did Smith illegally abuse minors? • If Smith incited Jeffs' crime, didn't King David also? • Milo 12:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there a time limit to the individuals being included? It seems odd to include an individual from the early 1800s when everyone else is from the last 50 years. What reason is there to ignore all other polygynists in the intervening years or every other individual for having sex with multiple partners both young and old? Are we looking for the sensational or what?

I still don't understand the reason for the section generally. How does it improve the article? The topic is "Cult" and not specifically the behavior of cults. Is the objective for this to evolve into a list of the peculair behaviors of those identified by cults? Does it matter who is identifying whom as cult members?

The current section is just thrown in at the end of the article with very little tying it to the article as a whole. The purpose of this article is to explain the wide differences in what groups are labeled as cults and why. We cover from the Evangelical position to the academic, sociological position. This section seems incongruent with the topic than anything else. Can someone please explain if this is the beginning of an article of lists or is this just so important that it needs to be included? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Why should plural marriage be included?

Coffeepusher (04:32, 22 May 2008): "why plural marriage needs to be included at all?"

From a project reporting viewpoint, plural marriage is always encyclopedic notable, because people want to read about this timeless subject (for example see the bibliography of Robert Rimmer). When there is cultural or legal trouble over plural marriage in the U.S., it's typically associated with groups referred to as cults, and is currently front page notable.

The article states that sexual abuse is the most frequently reported complaint against cults. That makes questionable sexual behavior a notably important risk of cults rather than a tabloid exception. If it's important, it should be a priority to report it.

Marriage (plural or single) is a surrogate concept for sexual gratification in the Victorian tradition. (The Victorian newlywed joke goes: "My dear, I have a most unpleasant duty to perform...") In Victorian times, one did sexual things, but did not talk about them, which is probably why Joseph Smith III was so much in denial about what his father's wives and contemporaries told him about his father's sex life.

Fundamentalist Christian preachers who today perpetuate the Victorian ethic, carry wallets filled with pictures of their family. They show and discuss these family pictures with other men as a sublimation for discussions of sex not permitted to their profession.

Plural marriage in 1840 included a plurally expanded function of undiscussed sexual gratification. Plural marriage can serve a similar function in modern Judeo-Christian cults. Milo 12:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Is a polygamous group always a cult?

Coffeepusher (04:32, 22 May 2008): "allows poligamy, does it automaticaly become a cult...?"

In Church-sect typology (see article), a cult has nontraditional practices and high tension with the surrounding community. If a group practiced nontraditional polygamy, but got along with its neighbors (low tension), it would not be a cult. Not a cult, may describe Koresh's Seven Seals group prior to investigations of them, but a cult in retrospect as named by The Waco Tribune-Herald Series, ( "The Sinful Messiah" - March 3, 1993, and NYT 1994-01-15).

Koresh is a perfect example of ambiguity between sexual gratification and/or plural marriage. Sinful Messiah says Koresh 'had at least 15 so-called "wives."'. The source questions whether they were wives, but Koresh's remaining followers apparently believed they were actual wives rather than sexual gratifiers. By putting Koresh in a section titled #Sexual gratification or plural marriage by leaders, a potentially controversial editorial decision about this ambiguity is WP:Avoided. The same avoidance applies to Smith and Jeffs. Milo 12:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Did Smith illegally abuse minors?

Coffeepusher (04:32, 22 May 2008): "obviously abusing minors (according to the standards of the times), but Joseph smith wasn't"

The evidence suggests otherwise. Whether Smith was illegally abusing minor(s) depends on whether he had sex with any of his under-18 teenage wives, which would have been the crime of fornication without a marriage license, or bigamy with one. Lucy Walker Smith, wife ~#22, married May 1, 1843 at age 17, seems to fit this category. Lucy told Angus Cannon that Smith's wives, "were so nervous and lived in such constant fear that they could not conceive" (Compton p.17). Since Lucy was one of the wives who could not conceive, she was having sex with Smith.

Smith was charged with fornication and adultery by "Grand Jurors of Hancock County, at the May term 1844", though no specific partners were named in the newspaper report(Nauvoo Expositor). Smith's trial was set for October, but he was killed by a mob before it was held. Milo 12:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I think you will find the average age of marriages in the United States to be less than 18 years of age in the early and mid 1800s. Interestingly, it was not until 2004 that Texas changed the legal age of marriage from 14 to the current age. Any girl who married prior to 2004 at the age of 14 and older was perfectly within her rights to do so. This does not absolve girls or boys or men who break the law in Texas today, but it does demonstrate that accountability and the position of a minor is certainly a flexible concept in society.

One of the difficulties of this entire article is the fact that "cult" is not defined uniformily across society. Within a number of Evangelcial groups today, Roman Catholicism is defined as a cult due to her aberant doctrines and beliefs. I find putting the label on one of the oldest Christian churches almost laughable and it is one of the complex issues associted with the term cult. In fact, I would suspect that almost any denomination/church/religion could be made appropriately labeled a cult based on the broad set of definitions in this article.--Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

If Smith incited Jeffs' crime, didn't King David also?

Coffeepusher (04:32, 22 May 2008): "including Joseph Smith dosn't appear to work for me. by that logic, we need to include David from the bible (the one who Joseph smith referanced as a figure of poligamy)"

• Smith founded a non-traditional church where members, to avoid damnation, were to obey his prophetic revelations from God without reservation.

• Smith incited his members to break state sex and marriage laws, by revealing that God had decreed that all civil marriages were void, and plural marriage was a required practice.

• Based on the testimonial evidence, Smith set an example by breaking state laws:

(1) prohibiting fornication with women having no civil marriage license (court testimony of Emily Dow Partidge, Smith wife ~#19), and

(2) prohibiting adultery with women having a marriage license with another man (sworn affidavit of the daughter of Sylvia Sessions (Lyon), Smith wife ~#7).

• Smith was grand jury charged with fornication and adultery, and the testimonial evidence points to his guilt of both.

• Smith strongly pressured Helen Mar Kimball to marry him, and he only gave her a short time to agree. She did consent to guarantee her family's salvation, though she was initially "livid" at the entire idea of violating Victorian legal and social monogamous marriage customs.

• Thus Smith incited, and practiced, sex and marriage law-breaking, taught future generations that they would suffer eternal damnation if they did not engage in either sex or marriage law-breaking (theoretically one could avoid breaking both), and set an example of high-pressure tactics to obtain marriage consent from a 14 year old woman.

• King David's plural marriages were traditional and legal in his time. Smith's justification for practicing illegal plural marriage in the 19th century United States, by pointing to King David thousands of years ago in Israel, is legally a mere excuse. (Smith and God might have similarly revealed that Old Testament Exodus 21:7-10, justified selling U.S. white daughters into slavery.)

• Warren Jeffs was raised to believe that Smith was first prophet in the FLDS line of authority. ("Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, John Woolley, Lorin Woolley, Leslie Broadbent, Joseph Musser, and Charles Zitting."[6]) Smith was to be obeyed, the deviant 1890 LDS revelations against plural marriage notwithstanding.

• Jeffs obeyed the plural marriage teaching and followed Smith's example of marriage practice with women as young as 14. While 14 was a legal consent age in 1840, by the 21st century it was not.

• Warren Jeffs (and possibly his predecessors) interpreted Smith's marriage to one or two 14-year-olds to mean that modern age of consent laws didn't apply to FLDS. However, Rulon Jeffs (and possibly his predecessors) previously avoided social and legal trouble by simply waiting until young FLDS women volunteered that they were ready to marry.

• Warren Jeffs took Smith's example of pressure tactics with Helen a few steps further, by forcing a 14 year-old to marry another man completely against her will. In doing so, Jeffs committed a crime of accessory to rape for which he was convicted.

Now suppose Smith and David were still alive along with Jeffs, and the 21st century victim who was 14 years old later sues them all for damages. Who is culpable for the forced-marriage victim's pain and suffering, under the civil standard of more likely than not?

Obviously, if Jeffs is sane, he is most culpable since he actually did it, and committed a crime while doing it. In deciding more distant culpabilities of Smith and David, a judge would determine how much influence they had on Jeffs, and whether they broke laws, or acted in some other unreasonable way that exerted undue influence toward inciting Jeffs to commit a crime or tort.

In his own time, David did nothing nontraditional, or wrong (except in the matter of Uriah, which neither Smith or Jeffs copied). Therefore, David can't be held responsible for incitment to future lawbreaking by Smith or Jeffs.

By comparison to David, Smith did several illegal things personally, incited others to act illegally in his own time, and also incited future lawbreaking with the threat of eternal damnation for not breaking certain laws. He also set a poor but not quite illegal example by using high pressure tactics to obtain consent to marriage from a gullible young teenager.

While one can't say for certain that a jury would hold Smith partly responsible for inciting Jeffs actions, Smith's teaching Jeffs to obey or face damnation, Smith's teaching illegal plural marriage, and then Jeffs stepping over the line from Smith's high-pressure young teen marriage to Jeffs' forced young teen marriage, strikes me as a case where I would vote to hold Smith as being partly responsible, more likely than not.

Accordingly, I reason that Smith's partial incitement of Jeffs' crime should be included in the Warren Jeffs entry at #Sexual gratification or plural marriage by leaders Milo 12:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

This logic gets very fuzzy very quickly and attempts to paint guild by innuendo. In US law system and person is not guilty until convicted. In the list above you have listed being charged is the equivalent of guilt; this is not acceptable and is deceitful.

You have hearsay and misstated a great deal of historical fact about Helen Mar Kimball. It was Heber Kimball, Helen father, that introduced Helen to the concept of plural marriage and Heber wanted to have a member of his family sealed to the prophet Joseph Smith. The pressure was in the family and not exerted by Joseph Smith. Though she felt the doctrine initially strange, she consented to her father's request. Further, Helen was a defender of the practice of plural marriage later in life.

Smith had more older women sealed to him than younger. In fact, women were sealed to Smith after his death and men were sealed to him as his sons. This concept of plural marriage is much more than sexual gratification as you have attempted to portray it. It has more to say about a lack of knowledge of its practice during the life of Joseph Smith than anything else.

I have seen no evidence that polygamy was the norm during the time of Daniel, Moses, Abraham, etc. Are you speaking within the Hebrew society or the society at large?

I don't know of a religion that has been around longer than 50 years that does not have a splinter group. You are attempting to equate the truthfulness of a revelation to obedience to a man. There is no evidence that obedience to Joseph Smith was a prerequisite of LDS theology. In fact, what Smith said was in direct conflict to this proposition, "I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves." That is not the definition of a dictatorial society.

Warren Jeffs took Joseph Smith example??? Do you have any references that the actions of Jeffs is directly correlated to Smith's? More importantly, as I have stated above it was Heber Kimball that put the pressure on Helen and not Joseph. Just read the bloody article on Helen Mar Kimball. This is a preposterous statement and has no basis in reality. It is pure synthesis and original research made from whole cloth.

The discussion on contributive culpability is silliness in the extreme and is unworthy of discussion.

In closing, if this policy of polygyny was a requirement for salvation then the Mormon people had a pitiful way of obedience. During the life of Smith less than 1% of the membership practiced plural marriage. During the life of Brigham Young less than 30% of the membership engaged in plural marriage. If this was taught as a requirement or if it was understood to be such, one would think that they would have obeyed more completely, particularly in a society where leaders were supposed to be talking to God. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The Helen Mar Kimball article is a good example of why Wikipedia is not permitted as a citable reference source at the university level. Milo 09:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Why should plural marriage be included, and other responses

this entire discussion focuses on this one question. Let me tell you how I read your responce, so that I can make shure we are on the same page.

1. people are interested in reports about plural marrage
2. When a contriversy over plural marrage occurs it usually involves a cult
3. marrage=sex, talking about marrage or children is bragging about sex without saying sex
4. common complaints about cults involve sex
5. so therefore if a group engages in sexual practices that are considered outside the norm by society they obviously may engage in sexualy abusive practices therefore we can include them in this article as a preemptive strike.

my primary problem with this entire train of thought is that we allowed a section called "abusive sexual practices" but the word "plural marrage" kept beeing included, and the only entery that falls exclusively under "plural marrage" is Joseph smith. all the others as they where writen would remain under the title "abusive sexual practices". This article has become less of a explination of the sociological practices of cults, and has become a soapbox for people to bite at spacific groups (look at how many times "scientology" has been deleted from the "see also" section). if we include Joseph smith, it will be a very verrry weighted entery that would push a spacific POV, even if it wasn't the intention of the incuder to push that POV. It will appear to be a back door way of including the mormons into this article (especially since it was only included after the section was entitled "plural marrage" as a way of including exclusively Joseph smith). although the responce to the rest of my statement is very good, I think that "plural marrage" should be deleted as well as joseph smith.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Coffeepusher (17:46): "we allowed a section called "abusive sexual practices""

Um, no, the section was originally titled "#Sexual Gratification by Cult Leaders" by 209.128.98.90 on 06:53, 13 April 2008. A section titled "#Abusive sexual practices" would be difficult to uncontroversially disambiguate, because large cultures believe that all sexual gratification outside of marriage is abusive, and other large cultures believe just the opposite.

Coffeepusher (17:46): "as a preemptive strike."

Preemptive strike, no. Historic examples, yes.

Coffeepusher (17:46): "This article has become less of a explination of the sociological practices of cults, and has become a soapbox for people to bite at spacific groups"

The article title is "Cult", not "Sociological practices of cults", though that subject is importantly included. This article also includes #Documented crimes, which is both history and a starting point for the criminology of cults. It is the latter, not the former in which average global citizens are most interested. The current section is similar to #Documented crimes, with an indirect approach to a companion coverage of torts, which are most frequently reported as sexual abuse within cults.

It is the decision of governments and historians that crimes, torts, mistakes, and social turmoil need to be recorded and repeatedly re-judged as a warning to future citizens against repeating the past. History accordingly includes a soapbox for people to publicize the faults (or benefits) of specific groups – to bring pressure for reform, to prevent their spread, or to prevent others like them from arising. Obviously, established religions also use this soapbox for competitive proselytization, but educated analysis can distinguish partisan religious competition from bona fide warnings of social challenges. The specific mandate to reform cults through watching and correction is found in the Parliamentary Commission on Cults in France (a.k.a., the French Report - see this unofficial translation of the French Report).

Coffeepusher (17:46): "marrage=sex, talking about marrage or children is bragging about sex without saying sex"

That applies to repressed cultures and individuals in expressing subconscious Freudian drives, or without bragging as a means of implementing cult-leader hidden agendas for sex, but doesn't apply to everyone all the time.

What both of these involve is either an overt agenda or subconscious denial means to confound judgments (such as this discussion) through ambiguity. Either creates conflict with the encyclopedic function of disambiguation judgment.

WP:Avoid is a conceptual way to sidestep that conflict while still making a report. By organizing the ambiguous examples under an "or" header (#Sexual gratification or plural marriage by leaders), the report is made, but the decision as to whether a particular example is sex or marriage or both is made by the reader.

Coffeepusher (17:46): ""plural marrage" kept be[]ing included" .... "it was only included after the section was entitled "plural marrage" as a way of including exclusively Joseph smith."

I don't understand how you got that idea. As "polygamy" it was there from the beginning for both Smith and Koresh. 209.128.98.90 on 06:53, 13 April 2008 originally included two "polygamy" entries, David Koresh and Joseph Smith, of the original five in "#Sexual Gratification by Cult Leaders".

209.128.98.90 probably knew what I've just related about polygamy/plural marriage being a well-known Victorian-ethic cover for expanded sexual gratification, so s/he didn't write a disambiguated title – and no need to since Wikipedia operates on WP:Eventualism, so that I provided it.

Smith engaged in both polygynous and polyandrous marriages, so I changed the article terminology from "polygamy" to "plural marriage". I also added the term "or plural marriage" to the section title to satisfy a coverage dispute (to topic-cover polygamy/plural marriage that was always present), and to avoid future disputes in ambiguous cases where factions can't agree whether it's plural marriage or merely sexual gratification or both.

209.128.98.90 on 06:29, 17 April 2008 added L. Ron Hubbard and Rajneesh for a total of seven entries by 209.128.98.90.

After some back and forth, L Ron lacked a source on sexual gratification. I entered his bigamous plural marriages, and then you pointed out that they took place before he was a group leader. Therefore his entry was deleted pending new sources, if any.

Coffeepusher (17:46): "the only entery that falls exclusively under "plural marrage" is Joseph smith"

That statement's problem is that it requires presumption that Smith's form of religious plural marriage is the only valid form, meaning that Koresh's religious form is not valid. Neither form is civilly valid. In the U.S. where they both had citizenship, the only legally-noticed form of plural marriage is illegal bigamy – the simultaneous holding of two or more marriage licenses without divorce. Under that standard, both Smith and Koresh are fornicating and/or adulterous sexual gratifiers. Using the dispute avoidance title #Sexual gratification or plural marriage by leaders, the reader can decide whose plural marriage form is valid, or both, or neither, without a dispute.

Coffeepusher (17:46): "if we include Joseph smith"

I'm not sure if you mean as a top-level entry or as background for a Warren Jeffs entry. I agree that Smith should not be a top-level entry.

Coffeepusher (17:46): "weighted entery that would push a spacific POV, even if it wasn't the intention of the incuder to push that POV"

I think you may be saying that some factual reporting would comfort anti-Mormons, just as publicizing the Spanish Inquisition comforts anti-Catholics, and that publicizing the agenda of the Israeli lobby comforts anti-Semites. It's just one of the problems of professional-grade reporting, that bigots aren't uniformly wrong, and that good reporters once had to expect accusations of fellow-traveling to report the genuine achievements of the Soviet Union.

Coffeepusher (17:46): "It will appear to be a back door way of including the mormons into this article"

If by "Mormons" you mean Fundamentalist Church of the Latter Day Saints, that's a done deal as FLDS has become a major and historic U.S. cult case, and is already in the article elsewhere. If by "Mormons" you mean Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints, they bear no responsibility for what FLDS did. LDS has separated themselves from at least two of Joseph Smith's teachings (the other being on persons of African descent).

It seems unencyclopedic to describe Smith as "first authority" of FLDS and not mention his founding of LDS, but if that's a compromise that has to be made to report Jeffs' close obedience to Smith's teachings and practice in the Warren Jeffs entry, I'll go along with it. Milo 09:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Of all the groups identified as cults sexuality is not the overriding feature or the characteristic that binds them all. If sexuality is tie that binds, why are we jumping from the 1960's back to 1840? Surely there must a be a broad list of people to include given the number of groups that have been identified as cults.

In this article, I still see no reason for the entire section. The criticism section, which should be a section that is critical of the information of the article as normally done on wikipedia, has turned into a "let's attack those called members of cults". The artcile has been addressing cults from a macro level and then all of sudden it goes to the micro level and then immediately goes back to the macro level; it just does not fit nor sense. How is this appropriate? That is not criticism...criticism would be a critique of the definitions and the fact that there is no agreement, an review of the theories discussed and their weaknesses, how the use of the term cult is used to demean (which is discussed in the article, but should be handled in depth in a criticism section), etc. All of this criticism is more appropriately handled in the pages of the respective individuals. At least there you will find experts in each field capable of discussing the history from a factual position.--Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

sorry about the difference between sexual gratification and sexual abuce...but we all understood what section I was talking about. Koresh was origionaly writen by you (I believe, but could be wrong)as exclusively plural marrage, that is true. it was deleted as that entery, and rewriten to show that he didn't practice poligamy...so my statement that Plural Marrage is included in order to accomidate Joseph Smith is correct. and yes, it is a back door way of pushing an anti mormon pov(church of latter day saints) because it mentions its founder...and leaves it at that. The reasons you have given to inlcude Joseph Smith would be accomplished by stating that "Warren Jeffs is the leader for Fundamentalist Church of the Latter Day Saints which is a breakaway group of The Church Of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints (LDS). They claim to practice the true teachings of Joseph Smith, and seperated over reforms that took place within the LDS. and "plural marrage" should be deleted from the title.Coffeepusher (talk) 13:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Coffeepusher (13:29): "Koresh was origionaly writen by you (I believe, but could be wrong)as exclusively plural marrage, that is true. it was deleted as that entery, and rewriten to show that he didn't practice poligamy...so my statement that Plural Marrage is included in order to accomidate Joseph Smith is correct."

I'm disappointed that you were for some reason unable to examine the evidence link that I provided that shows I did not write the original Koresh entry, nor follow my explanation to show that did I not rewrite Koresh to show that he didn't practice polygamy, since plural marriage includes both polygamy and polyandry.

Being unable to get past issues of editorial things that didn't happen, it is impossible to work any more on the actual issues of holding Joseph Smith responsible for instructing Warren Jeffs, while avoiding a perception that LDS was responsible since they had parted from those same Smith teachings. Milo 19:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I checked the link, didn't pay attention to the author, and when I was writing my reponce I decided it wasn't really important to the case because if I was wrong you would correct me and who wrote it was actually irrelivent to the argument. policy debate style right? are you are unable to continue to work on this problem? I offered a compromise to this issue which you havn't told me your opinion...except to state that you want to hold joseph smith responcible for instructing warren jeffs.Coffeepusher (talk) 22:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Coffeepusher (22:49): "if I was wrong you would correct me"

Ok, if you've taken my evidenced points about what I did/didn't write, and that I didn't have the include/exclude Smith/Koresh agenda as you had perceived, we can work on this a little more.

Maybe it will help if I point you to my actual posted cult-topic agenda originally of 2007-01-31 here.

Coffeepusher (22:49): "I offered a compromise to this issue"

You mean your draft statement in bold? I see nothing I disagree with in concepts. I think I would word it to reduce the emphasis on the LDS name by just putting "LDS" instead, which also reduces the footprint of the entry.

Coffeepusher (22:49): "because it mentions its founder...and leaves it at that"

I got the idea from previous debates that it was better to not mention LDS here without a reference to it as a cult. You're saying it's better to mention LDS if Smith is mentioned. I can go either way on this one, meaning if Smith is mentioned, it's ok with me to either mention LDS or not mention LDS. Later I also realized that Joseph Smith, Jr. is linked, so if a reader clicks, they will find the LDS connection.

Coffeepusher (13:29): "plural marrage" should be deleted from the title"

Looks to me like Koresh's and Jeffs' entries both go away without plural marriage in the title.

Dunno, maybe this is where we'll have to give up because the Victorian ethic which uses (plural) marital duty to cover up provable (plural) sexual gratification, is perhaps just too cleverly ambiguous. Milo 06:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

as long as we wikilink the LDS, I see no problems with your correction. I think that the Koresh entery has enough personal sexual gradification in it to remain without the plural marrage (seeing as he didn't practice plural marrage per say, rather mass fornication without cerimony) if jeffs entery goes, so be it. my main consern is not to keep the entery, rather improve the article.Coffeepusher (talk) 01:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

AA

This material was removed:

• ..though he was also a member of their board. Though usually popular with the public, AA has some cult-apostate-style critics of their methodology and history (see Cult#External links).

With the edit summary, "rmv link to personal web page - unreliable source. This is not worthy of an encyclopedic article"[7] However the sources are the Washington Post and "NBC4.com", neither of which appear to be personal web pages. Was that edit a mistake? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I just removed similar copy to other editor. The copy: ..though he was also a member of their board seems to be suggesting that Vaillant was biased due to his affiliation with Alcoholics Anonymous, that argument will need support from a reliable source. I also removed the copy: The AA brand has community... how is this relevant? The person who wrote this section seems to be making some point, but it isn't clear. 82.35.59.169 (talk) 00:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You deleted two mainstream news references, but you didn't claim they were wrong. I assume that as an IP anon, you didn't know that removing correct references from Wikipedia is seriously frowned on. You are welcome to discuss your issues here, but in the meantime I have restored the references.

82.35.59.169 (00:23): "seems to be suggesting that Vaillant was biased"

Vaillant has a conflict of interest, so this is a routine scientific research disclosure. Please read the Conflict of interest article.

82.35.59.169 (00:23): "The AA brand has community... how is this relevant?"

AA is evidenced as a cult, cults have critics with variable credibilities, and the references are evidence that AA critics have a factual basis for some local criticism – as a NPOV counterview to the evidence of AA being beneficial.

Btw, a usage note about your 00:17, 28 May 2008 Cult edit summary "...Editor seems to be inferring some point...". Writing editors imply, reading editors infer. (See COED "imply"). Milo 06:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

First, apologies for not signing in, I was being lazy.

I'm not a newbie to Wiki, my understanding is that the removal of correct references from Wikipedia is in no way seriously frowned upon. I removed the text as it is completely irrelevant - a bunch of crazies abusing one AA meeting does not provide a factual basis for cult tendencies (remember there are over 100,000 AA meetings in the world), the assertion is certainly not NPOV, and smacks of gossip.

I understand what conflict of interest means. The use of the conjunction 'though' in the sentence though he was also a member of their board implies that his research was influenced by his position on AA's board, unless you can support that statement with reliable referencing, it is also gossip and doesn't belong in Wikipedia.

I've also removed the cult-apostate-style critics part of the text and the links, if you read the Orange-Papers, it is clear that Agent Orange was skeptical from his first exposure to AA and didn't apostatize at all. The Green Papers is just a critique of Orange-Papers written by a non-alcoholic, non-AA individual, and consequently completely unrelated to this article.

Thanks for correcting my English, my dictionary states that to infer is to 'informally suggest or imply something', guess I was being informal!

Mr Miles (talk) 23:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

←Had you discussed your edits first (or at least done a smooth 'wiki-professional' bold, revert, discuss cycle for all the edits), you could have avoided adding a little more controversy to this controversial article. I can see from the turbulent AA article history that the editors there might doubt the propriety of such aggressive and questionable editing (including 2nd reversions), at the AA article like you have done here – especially not having the newbie excuse of being an IP anon.

Mr Miles (23:28):"...removed the text as it is completely irrelevant - a bunch of crazies abusing one AA meeting does not provide a factual basis for cult tendencies..." You removed correct references based on your absolute conclusion, dismissive of a nuanced set of cult-critic issues that you seem unable to restate with understanding.
The dismissed references exposed a pervasive big-city problem for which the AA slang is "13th steppers", about whom there are widespread warnings to newbie female members. Yet you seem in denial of what a sampling of the web forums accept as multi-city AA facts (New York, Chicago, LA, etc.), and which the Washington, D.C. references reliably sourced. It's just a fact that people act irresponsibly in big cities in a way that is rarer in 99,900 smaller places. Unfortunately, PR image trouble in a few big cities tarnishes the whole brand and begets critics. Cults have critics, and that both fact-checked and apostate AA critics exist is the cult-issue point being made. (Fact-checked critics help prove that angry apostate(s) aren't telling false stories.)

Mr Miles (23:28): "Agent Orange was skeptical from his first exposure to AA and didn't apostatize at all."
That's not what Agent Orange says in four clear and progressive stages toward cult apostasy: initial acceptance and belief, persistence through doubts, a watershed insight to loss of belief, and the final angry rejection.
(Pardon, you may want to skip over the following unpleasant cult-apostasy quotes from Orange's web site Introduction, but I have to show the other editors that you removed the Orange links for logically unjustified reasons, and ask for their consensus and help to restore them.)

Agent Orange says: "I started out with a very positive view of Alcoholics Anonymous. Like most people, I had only heard good things about A.A., and thought that it was just a wonderful self-help group where alcoholics got together to give each other moral support and advice in quitting drinking." .... "I continued going to A.A. and N.A. meetings, and continued to overlook the goofy stuff." .... "When people were saying things that were obviously crazy, I just thought, "Well, whatever. If believing that stuff helps them to keep from drinking, then okay, any port in a storm." ...."Then, a friend remarked that some people had accused A.A. of being a cult. That got me to thinking. Then I stumbled across Charles Bufe's book, Alcoholics Anonymous, Cult or Cure?, in the public library, and that was it. The dam burst, and a giant wall of water swept across the landscape." .... "I think the thing that really gets to me the most, the thing that angers me the most, is how almost everybody connected with the drug and alcohol treatment industry just assumes that the whole 12-Step program works great, and is the answer to everything, and really does help lots of people. The so-called "counselors" are nothing but disguised cult recruiters who shove their 12-Step religion on everybody they can, and they simply assume that if you are recovering from drug or alcohol problems, then you will of course become a happily-converted member of their 12-Step religion that they won't admit is a religion."

In other words, Agent Orange experienced a classic apostasy.

Mr Miles (23:28): "I understand what conflict of interest means."
You arbitrarily removed rather than editing a disclosure while claiming to understand COI.
From the sentence, "Vaillant, 2005, concluded that AA is beneficial, though he was also a member of their board.", (as IP) you removed [8] the clause in strikeout. The problem here is that you have (re) created a scientifically-unethical COI non-disclosure currently attributable to Wikipedia (this problem had occurred previously). As an ethical scientist, Vaillant would support a COI disclosure.

Mr Miles (23:28): "though he was also a member of their board implies that his research was influenced by his position on AA's board"
Again, you have misused "implies" (formal usage matters in Wikipedia debates). You didn't have enough evidence to state that, and in this case you were wrong. You actually inferred "was influenced", but what was actually implied was 'COI' (with a potential for bias, including unconscious bias).

Ok, it's reasonable to assume that others could also infer incorrectly, as you did. What main text replacement clause do you suggest to make the necessary COI disclosure? Milo 11:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Milo, I'm not going to respond to your ongoing sarcasm (Milo: "Pardon, you may want to skip over the following unpleasant cult-apostasy quotes from Orange's web site..." - what an immature comment!). However, if you believe that a Wikipedia article will be improved by the inclusion of a personal website set up by one individual with a grudge, then good luck to you. Mr Miles (talk) 00:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

How is politeness and consideration for your feelings equivalent to sarcasm by a juvenile?

You seem to like AA to the point where you would not like reading harsh cult-apostasy criticism. Since it was quoted as proof for other editors, I suggested the option to not read it, (and simply accept the analysis that it was indeed the rhetoric of cult apostasy).

This issue is relatively easy to satisfy for yourself. Print out this dialogue and take it to a counselor at the university where you are studying. Counselors will tell you that I expressed no sarcasm, and acted in a mature fashion. I also suggest that you read or re-read Wikipedia:Assume good faith.

Mr Miles (00:11): "...if you believe that a Wikipedia article will be improved by the inclusion of a personal website set up by one individual with a grudge..."

It looks to me as though you are trying to extend the purpose of the AA article to the Cult article. The two articles have different purposes, including that Cult is a much larger subject area.

At Cult, evidence of Agent Orange's cult-apostasy grudge, itself is the point, and a thousand-page web site makes Orange probably the best evidentiary example of that point. Since this article is about cults, there would be no reason to link to Agent Orange if he did not have a cult-apostasy grudge. Agent Green also approved of Orange's AA research collection, so it's not like Orange's site is without factual value.

The link to Agent Green is to NPOV-counterbalance the doubtful parts of Orange's conclusions, including those that are cult-specific. Both Orange and Green links were properly POV-annotated per Wikipedia:External Links.

Please contribute to repairing the disclosure problem you recreated. What main text replacement clause do you suggest to make the necessary COI disclosure for Vaillant? Milo 09:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Strange sentence

Some authors in the cult opposition dislike the word cult to the extent it implies that there is a continuum with a large gray area separating "cult" from "noncult" which they do not see. (Section "Stigmatization and discrimination".)

I think that sentence should be recast. What is it we are trying to say? And does the sentence really come from the indicated source? None of the occurrences of "cult" in the cited text seems to match. Jayen466 00:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Definition

I would define a cult as any group who's beliefs are based on faith without tangible evidence supporting those beliefs. Eav (talk) 19:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Another one

In general, translation of the pejorative connotation from modern English to use of the same term in other languages can be misleading as they (e.g. French) may retain the original meaning. Meaning? Rumiton (talk) 06:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it is supposed to draw attention to the fact that "culte" in French does not have pejorative connotations, but has retained its meaning of cult in the sense of religious worship (as in the "cult of St. Mary"). In French, the word with the pejorative connotation is "secte." I agree this is not apparent from the sentence as it stands. Jayen466 10:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

This seems senseless. I think the editor is trying to make clear that words in foreign languages that looks like the English word may not carry the negative connotation. I would think that a professional translator understands perfectly what cult means in English and when translating will always use une secte, for example, when translating into French. An person unfamiliar with French may use culte, but why would someone ignorant of French, or any other language, be translating in the first palce? It should be deleted. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 15:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it doesn't seem to make much sense. But I think WRT translated statements there is ignorance and there is mischief. The French government "List of cults" that came out some years ago and has since been de-officialised has caused a lot of the latter on Wikipedia. Rumiton (talk) 15:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I deleted it from the article. Cheers.--Storm Rider ^(talk) 15:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

You might be interested in a discussion going on here [[9]] on Non-English sources. Rumiton (talk) 15:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

haha

a cult is a system of religous worshipers Italic text —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.66.212 (talk) 15:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Email address for Axiom Books

Copied from User talk:Will Beback

* Brear, David: 'The Universal Identifying Characteristics of a Cult', Axiom Books, London, 2005, axiombooks@wanadoo.fr

Will, you removed the email address 09:03, 22 September 2008, but it seems to be legitimate. I'm fascinated by the title claim, and I'm hoping someone will obtain and review a copy to see if he is actually onto something.

I did extensive research perhaps two months ago when this book was added. I found an article by the author, IIRC on the subject of his second book. He believes his brother is a financial ruin victim of Amway-as-cult. I recall my conclusion that email address (in France) is currently the only way to obtain the first book.

Is there a guiderule against an email address to obtain a limited edition book, centrally related to the article but not used as a reliable source? (Please reply here if desired) Milo 13:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The book is self-published and was added to the article by the author, both of which make it of dubious merit. The claimed "2nd book" he has been hawking around for years and is still not published. --Insider201283 (talk) 21:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

How do we know it's self-published? Do we have a source for Brear owning Axiom Books? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/. I checked it back in July. Axiom Books was setup by Brear and Lottick (who also apparently wrote the forward to the new, as yet unpublished Amway book). Incorporated 2000, struck off in 2007. It'll cost you a couple of bucks to download the docs to confirm. --Insider201283 (talk) 21:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Hm, a website with hours:

http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/

"Access to the service is closed"

"Companies House is available from Monday to Saturday 07:00 - 12 Midnight UK Time"

←But ok, assuming Insider201283's research is correct, Brear was a part owner of the Axiom Books publishing business. That's not quite classic self-publishing, but it's similar.

Next question is, even if Axiom Books is too much like self-publishing, does it matter in an external book list? Since 'The Universal Identifying Characteristics of a Cult' is not used as a reliable source, the standards for listing are looser. I didn't find any guiderules for external books, but here's a guiderule that might be parallel:

Wikipedia:External links#Links to be considered: 4. Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.

Taking author David Brear at face value, he has two knowledgeable sources:

1. Brear has long-term observed his brother's experience with what he and many others believe to be a pyramidal business cult, possibly the world's largest; and
2. his former Axiom Books business partner and introduction writer, Dr. Edward Lottick, is a heavyweight in international cultic studies. (Lottick is a physician, medical inventor, 1993 co-winner of the John G. Clark Award for Distinguished Scholarship in Cultic Studies, was on Board of Directors of an International Cultic Studies Association, and was President of the old Cult Awareness Network. See Edward Lottick. Dr. Lottick became internationally notable because of his family's tragedy described in the May 6, 1991, Time Magazine article: The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power.)

Dr. Lottick, the honored cultic studies expert, has endorsed book author Brear to the point of going into the publishing business with him. By deduction from professional medical ethics and business logic, Lottick has read Brear's book 'The Universal Identifying Characteristics of a Cult', approves of its contents, and recommends it to be read by the public.

As an experienced Wikipedia cult topics editor, it seems to me the above are good reasons to list this as an external book. I may or not agree with Dr. Lottick's endorsement once I read what Brear thinks are those universal characterics of a cult, but with such a good endorsement, I think most people interested in this topic would like to know what Brear has to say. At the least, Brear might become a potential candidate for the cult checklist subtopic. No one checklist is perfect, but an academic study of the increasing number of them could yield a new scientific profile of what is a populist cult.

Wikipedia:External links calls for a summary of such facts to be presented with a link. With an email address for Axiom Books, a book listing becomes more similar to an External link.

That returns to the topic of the Axiom Books email address. If the author's heavyweight endorsement is established to motivate WP's external listing and reader obtaining of a book, is listing of an internet email address substantially different from listing an internet web link? Given that the email address is the only way to obtain the book, does it make sense to list the book without it? If the email address is somehow unacceptable, would a personal website link labeled Axiom Books be any better?? Milo 02:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, without getting in to the silly "business pyramid cult" rubbish and how one persons experience with one person out of tens of millions could make anyone remotely an authority, the fact remains this is a self-published book, and the author, not a third party, attempted to add it to the wikipedia article. (As a side note, that direct experience with 1 person is 1 more than 3 other supposed "cult" authorities have had with Amway, but that's another topic!). Anyway, if we are to consider it under "external link" guidelines, then it would appear to fail Wikipedia:External links#Advertising and conflicts of interest. --Insider201283 (talk) 01:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Insider201283 (01:02): "...if we are to consider it under "external link" guidelines, then it would appear to fail Wikipedia:External links#Advertising and conflicts of interest" Since that section discusses only website links, your position presumes the Axiom Books email address should be treated the same as an External link to a website. I request Will to join our consensus on that point.

Insider201283 (01:02): "...the author, not a third party, attempted to add it to the wikipedia article." Not a problem.

Wikipedia:External links#Advertising and conflicts of interest: If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it.

Whomever added the original, I can delete it and recreate, as I noted previously, a commented version guided by External links: "Add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view." Milo 05:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I question any self-published source or book as an addition to an article, but especially when the person adding it is the author (smacks of self-promotion) or hasn't even read the book (smacks of POV). Wikipedia in general frowns upon self-published material of any nature. If a book is to be listed, then it should have it's ISBN number noted. If it doesn't have an ISBN number, then it's notability is questionable. As it is, the book is listed in the bibliography for the article, but is not referenced at all and was added to the listing by the author. Clearly this is a questionable approach to editing! --Insider201283 (talk) 19:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Insider201283 (19:06): "I question any self-published source or book" ... "Wikipedia in general frowns upon self-published material of any nature." Also not a problem. Your own research established that the book was published by a commercial corporation of whom you named two known owners. But, ok, if we pierce the corporate shield, the book was co-published by corporate owners Brear and Lottick.

In either case, the book is not literally self-published. Accordingly, you will need to drop claims suggesting that Wikipedia in general frowns upon this situation, since, as far as I'm aware, Wikipedia guidelines do not discuss this situation.

Insider201283 (19:06): "notability is questionable" I can locate no notability guiderule for a corporate or co-published book listed with an External link/email address.

Insider201283 (19:06): "the book is listed in the bibliography for the article, but is not referenced at all" I can locate no guiderule that all or any books in the bibliography must be article references. However, as I previously noted (Milo 05:41), your position presumes the Axiom Books email address should be treated the same as an External link to a website. So, these may be reasons to move the book and its email address to the External links section.

As an External link, the significant reason for listing the book remains: Wikipedia:External links#Links to be considered: "4. Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." I previously listed the knowledgeable sources (Milo 02:38).

Insider201283 (19:06): "hasn't even read the book (smacks of POV)" I've read as much of the book as I can – the title – "The Universal Identifying Characteristics of a Cult". The title claim, if true, is a significant claim in cultic studies (see the Cult article for why).

I want to read more, but I can't afford to buy it. The next best thing is to recommend that others who can afford it, read it and review it. If several neutral reviews of the book turn up significant problems with it, I have no problem with eventually dropping it from the list.

Understand that this listing isn't merely my personal point of view. My recommendation is supported by Dr. Lottick's co-publication of the book – his international cultic studies prestige and notability are behind the book. Milo 06:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I've little knowledge of Lottick, but having had numerous online conversations with Brear, his endorsing of Brear does not bode well for a positive view of Lottick. Indeed, a brief review finds Lottick appears to have little "prestige" outside the rather insular and self-reinforcing anti-cult movement. --Insider201283 (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Many if not most people in the anti-cult movement have been scarred by family or personal tragedy. As a result, I hesitate to judge anything other than their work. Since Jonestown, Solar Temple, and Aum Shinrikyo, governments have constructively concluded that their work is important.

Dr. Lottick is famously included, due to his son's death described in the May 6, 1991, Time Magazine article, media coverage of the decade-long multi-million dollar libel lawsuit that followed, and Lottick's alignment with Time Inc.'s winning side.

As a matter of recent PR image, the 2007-2008 public response to global protests by Anonymous for Project Chanology has strongly affirmed Dr. Lottick's early judgments. As the saying goes, you can't argue with success.

←Here's my draft for an External link entry to replace the one in Bibliography:

• The Universal Identifying Characteristics of a Cult; Brear, David; Axiom Books, London, 2005. Limited edition book co-published by anti-cult authority Edward Lottick, 1993 co-winner of the John G. Clark Award for Distinguished Scholarship in Cultic Studies.

Milo 04:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, someone having "been scarred by family or personal tragedy" with regard a topic immediately puts their objectivity in extreme doubt. The anti-cult movement suffers greatly from this issue, with this being a common background of a number of folk considered "authorities" within the field. The so called "cult apologists" on the other hand seem primarily to have academic backgrounds and in another field would normally be considered far more authoritive. IMO there's too much internally-reinforced opinion and subjectivity accepted around this whole topic area on wikipedia. --Insider201283 (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Insider201283 (15:07): ""been scarred by family or personal tragedy" with regard a topic immediately puts their objectivity in extreme doubt." Since religious or well-educated people can be relatively objective following family or personal tragedy, simple doubt is more reasonable. However, Edward Lottick in particular is a doctor trained in medical ethics, so WP presumes that he treats facts objectively, and ethically separates facts from his and others' subjective opinions.

The important question for Wikipedia references is not objectivity. Rather it's do they have some process for checking their facts, which allows Wikipedia articles to cite them as reliable sources?

But, External links do not have to be reliable sources nor objective (though ELs can't be grossly extremist except in articles about themselves). ELs only need to provide a knowledgeable resource, and be listed with a comment indicating the EL's POV. My link draft above has provided that comment as "...co-published by anti-cult authority...", which together with the title make the anti-cult POV clear.

Insider201283 (15:07): "The anti-cult movement suffers greatly from this issue, with this being a common background of a number of folk considered "authorities" within the field." I'd agree that the cultic studies academics are assumed to be fact-objective, and have the fewest biases of subjective opinion. However, the authoritative counter-cultists and anti-cultists may be expected to state subjectively harsh and negative opinions of cults, while also stating facts objectively. They are sensitive to the loss of authority they would suffer if they did not do so.

Insider201283 (15:07): "there's too much internally-reinforced opinion and subjectivity accepted around this whole topic area on wikipedia." That's probably a typical impression among new editors of WP's controversial topics, and the cult topics are officially controversial. Milo 07:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Steven Alan Hassan / B.I.T.E.

I removed a COPYVIO from what appeared to be a self-published reference - but according to the next editor's edit summary that source looks like a good one even though self-published.

I don't know enough about the topic to do the rewrite, so I'm posting this here- if someone wants to re-add the section with non-copyvio text, I will not revert based on the use of that source. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Scientology See also consensus

I'm not contesting that this belongs on the cult page, but it does not belong in the opening paragraphs describing what a cult is. Could someone fix this up? Fllmtlchcb (talk) 07:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I just deleted it from the See also section because it is obvious POV...no other single orgonization was on the list but somehow Scientology out ranked the "cultness" of Heavens Gate, the Waco Branch Dividians, Jonestown, Coach purce culture, Star Wars Culture, That crazy group in Russia who locked themselves in a cave, Mormons, Jahova Witnesses, and Dungeons and Dragons (TSR version). The point is, it is already listed on the "list of cults" page which is extensive, and unless we start transcribing that entire list we really shouldn't single out a single orgonization.Coffeepusher (talk) 07:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Over the recent months a less vocal but possibly larger number of editors have persistently added "Scientology" to the "See also" section. Another possibly smaller group of editors has repeatedly removed it. This is a consensus controversy. From WP:Consensus: "Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved. This can be reached through discussion, action (editing), or more often, a combination of the two."

Time for a notability and consensus check.

2008-07-20 Google searches:

43,200 for "scientology is a cult"

13,300 for "Mormons are a cult".

62 for "Jehovah's Witnesses are a cult".

8 for "Star Wars is a cult".

7 for "Branch Davidians are a cult".

2 for "Peoples temple is a cult".

0 "Heavens Gate is a cult"

0 "Dungeons and Dragons is a cult".

Scientology does notably outrank the "cultness" of the other groups in current culture. Scientology has been labeled a cult by several governments, a top-10 news magazine, and so many ordinary citizens that Scientology vandalism at Wikipedia has become a meme. OTOH, Peoples Temple was a cult of vast historic importance even though it gets few Google hits. Both are notable, verifiable, and reportable as cults named by reliable sources.

Notability is also the answer to both the "singling out" and "entire list" issues. Notability reporting for disambiguated encyclopedia articles requires "singling out" which is ok. The idea that "singling out" is a bad thing comes from confusing journalism with the legal principles forbidding selective enforcement of laws. Wikipedia is a form of journalism, not law. "Singling out" is what journalism does.

In the other extreme, an entire list from somewhere else does not have to be transcribed, as that is an anti-editing position. The available publishing space is always limited in some way; therefore, one of the most important functions of editing is selection of what is to be published.

If so many editors want a Scientology See also, why not accept that as consensus? Milo 20:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Not to defend scientology, but if what a google search returns on a phrase helps define the standard -

41,100 for "apple cult" (2,560 for "apple is a cult")

36,600 for "obama cult" (7,770 for "obama is a cult")

28,200 for "christianity is a cult"

--Insider201283 (talk) 01:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The first half of your first two aren't parallel to my searches. I deliberately chose the "...is a cult" search because posters of it seem to be rhetorically certain that they want to make an emphatic statement of a group's cultism.

However, the third is a result that I hadn't previously seen. Its origin was also probably the cover of a major news magazine, which made reference to Christianity's origin as a cult – though they meant an ancient "cultus" of veneration, not one of the seven-some homonyms of c-u-l-t coined 1920+.

The point of my top-hit Google search is another characteristic in a profile-of-characteristics suggesting consensus change in See-alsoing of Scientology. By comparison there aren't flocks of editors adding "Apple", "Obama", or even the exact title "Christianity" to the "See also" section. Milo 02:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

A quick review of the first couple of pages does not at all support your thesis with regards to "christianity is a cult" being a response to a newspaper article. My point is that your methodology for deciding what should be listed as a cult or not is lacking. I'd note that on sheer numbers alone, Scientology seems to have good claims to be considered a mainstream religion. Adherents.com lists them as 22 on it's list of major world religions[10] --Insider201283 (talk) 12:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

"Christianity is a cult" is just an Google phrase sidebar not at issue here. (Christian cult is already in the article.)

I wrote "origin" which could include a possibly untraceable rumor or meme, not just "response" to that specific story. To trace the origin of a meme, one would need to at least study a statistically significant sample of the 28,200. I also wrote "probably"; I could be wrong. Milo 21:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

There are two different arguments in play here. The first is whether any specific cult should be mentioned in the see-also section. The second is whether scientology is a good enough example of a cult to be chosen as an example if we want one in the see also section. I would maintain that there is no reason to include a single example of a cult in the see also link - the article text has mentions of most of the important cults as it is and room for more - any further examples and or discussion should be included in the main text in my opinion. Secondly I don't think scientology would be the best example of a cult, partly because it is controversial to call it a cult and it is not widely agreed that it is the case and secondly because even if it is a cult it does have have some characteristics that are not in line with the sociological definition of a cult. A better example would be a movement about which there is wide agreement that it is a cult and one that conforms better to the sociological definition.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Insider201283 (12:19): "deciding what should be listed as a cult"

I didn't.

I'm describing evidence for what I seem to observe as a major consensus shift, for one and only one particular "See also" listing – singled out due to a major new global notability. For example, I went on a sidebar search and got so many unexpected Scientology-as-cult mentions (26%) that I had to specifically exclude it to continue the search.

Maunus (12:48): "The first is whether any specific cult should be mentioned in the see-also section." ... "The second is whether scientology is a good enough example of a cult to be chosen as an example if we want one in the see also section."

Those are both a normal science approach using the old consensus paradigm. What I'm possibly observing is a paradigm shift of consensus, that eventually trumps normal science, establishing a new paradigm. A new consensus paradigm would be that both of your arguments are done deals for this one particular case. In other words, Scientology may have been singled out for special notability coverage in "See also" by a new editors' consensus.

Scientology may not be a good enough sociological example for you, but it could be that the majority of the present global generation of students know of, or at least care about no other cult in the populist sense.[11] The global citizens' populist definition of c-u-l-t is probably the most significant view, however much sociological scholars may disdain it.

Maunus (12:48): "not widely agreed that it is the case"

Has the world moved on since you last investigated this issue? Maybe you don't watch celebrity television coverage, and missed the now-suppressed video that touched off the 2008 global Scientology protests by Anonymous.[12] See a casual transcript of one key section (find "hojoki"). Then do this Google search [13] to see that many others got the same impression.

Milo 21:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You forget that this is an encyclopedia and as such committed to the current "normal" scientific consensus - untill a change in wikipedia policies is affected no "paradigm change" will affect that. If a consensus of editors decide that it is a good idea to single out scientology in the see also section it can be included - but up until now you are arguing alone. And the silent masses you seem to believe are supporting you apparently choose to remain silent.·Maunus·ƛ· 07:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you didn't grasp my application of paradigm shift to this Cult-See-also consensus process, rather than science per se. See Paradigm shift#Other uses

Maunus (07:22): "committed to the current "normal" scientific consensus"

Committed, no; unlike Evowiki I'm unaware of a Wikipedia policy commitment to science. Science-oriented editors usually have that notion, simply because it's the typical outcome of NPOV. The most significant test of such commitment failed in the 2005 proposal to selectively equate neutral-point-of-view with science-point-of-view. (See Wikipedia:SPOV)

Maunus (07:22): "up until now you are arguing alone" ... "silent masses"

Could you please put more effort into following this debate? That issue was covered in my first post. Milo (20:18): From WP:Consensus: "Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved. This can be reached through discussion, action (editing), or more often, a combination of the two." That means a consensus can form without a talk page discussion.

Maunus (07:22): "you seem to believe are supporting you"

Straw man fallacy. I was passive about the previous consensus, and I don't recall making a "See also" edit for either position. As I wrote, my actual position is (Milo 21:05): "I'm describing evidence for what I seem to observe..."

I'm pointing out that what the "silent masses" of editors are doing might be a consensus formation, and linked to the cultural news that may rationally explain why they are doing it. You don't seem to like what they are doing, so I get the impression that you are also engaged in a Shooting the messenger fallacy – because I raised an issue equivalent to an elephant in the room. Perhaps that is unscientific of you? Milo 15:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I don't think it belongs because we don't list every single suspected cult on the see also section. by making an exclusive exception to one or two groups, it adds an increadably heavy weight on those groups beeing labled as cults. no one is arguing against Jonestown, I do not think there is anyone who believes that they do not belong. Scientology, however is contested. right now I think you are the only one arguing for this milo (on the discussion board). and the multiple unnamed editors who have added it I believe did it in bad faith (to discredit the orgonization rather than inform the article). are you fixed in your stance, or are you willing to discuss this possiblilityCoffeepusher (talk) 07:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

"it adds an increadably heavy weight on those groups beeing labled as cults"

You might have persuaded me of that at one time, but not since Wikipedia became the world's largest pro-cult propaganda outlet, following the AfD of "List of groups referred to as cults". One important reason for this is probably that Wikipedia itself is a cult, and so is inherently cult-friendly. Another is that relatively normal people are trying to control relatively obsessed people, and that's a Sisyphus task. Still another is that Arbcom simply shrugged off pro-cult propaganda that horribly embarrassed Wikipedia in the press. Jimbo being caught cheating further encouraged some group members who already cheat whenever they can.

"you are the only one arguing for this"

I shouldn't be the only one. Consensus-by-edit is in the guiderules. I pointed it out because it's so obvious. The only other example that I recall is the IP consensus by repeatedly added spoiler tags, that six pyramidal elitists at the top of the Wikipedia cult won't allow. They repeatedly cheated to get their way, basically just to show the IPs and readers who owns the encyclopedia (them).

"multiple unnamed editors who have added it I believe did it in bad faith (to discredit the orgonization rather than inform the article)."

Think about the effect of what you are saying. You're saying in effect that Scientology has such a bad set of facts that to merely create a link to the supposedly neutral Wikipedia Scientology article is to discredit that group. Wow. You're saying in effect that the regular editors at Cult should take steps to prevent IP editors from pointing readers to notice and read the facts at the Scientology article, apparently because Scientology facts are so terrible that no one can read that article without fear and loathing. I doubt that you actually believe that, so why allow it to be inferred?

"are you fixed in your stance"

As previously noted, I don't feel all that strongly about it. Once I get regular editors here to admit that they are willing to cheat the guiderules and suppress the IP consensus-by-edit to get Scientology looking good again, I'll have more evidence to prove that Wikipedia has became the world's largest pro-cult propaganda outlet. Milo 09:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I am a little confused. so you are doing this to prove a point? Im not trying to get into metawiki with a good dose of politics and hurt feelings, Im just pointing out that if we add Scientology to the "see also" section, what we are in fact saying (to all those who are unaware of this discussion and just want to learn about a cult) that Scientology, according to the research done by the editors of this page, is a textbook example of a cult. this is why I have no problem with Jonestown, it is a textbook cult. so is Scientology a textbook cult?Coffeepusher (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

"are doing this to prove a point?"

I'm doing this because consensus-by-edit is in the guiderules, and this is exactly the situation covered by that guiderule. Due to very bad experience with the spoiler tag issue, I feel strongly about the correctness of upholding consensus-by-edit. If upheld, it limits the insularity of insider editors, who as previously noted have taken on an encyclopedia-wide pro-cult bias.

"Jonestown, it is a textbook cult"

Just to show how slippery these "textbook" judgments can get, I have some good arguments that Peoples Temple was not a cult until after it left the United States. You might find that you agree with much of the social gospel that Jones preached (inclusion of the poor and racially discriminated). Also, blaming an insane man for his illness and its consequences has philosophical problems of the sort discussed in the AA community.

"so is Scientology a textbook cult?"

That's not a judgment that any regular Cult editor needs to make, but under the standard that you have proposed ("if we add Scientology to the "see also" section, what we are in fact saying ... that Scientology, according to the research done by the editors of this page, is a textbook example of a cult."), many IP editors did reach that consensus.

As I understand the editorial consensus guiderules, I'm supposed to either join a strong consensus or stand aside. I'd say that I'm standing aside on the judgment itself, but strongly upholding IP editors' right to make that consensus judgment by edit. Milo 22:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

so you have no other reason to uphold this other than that the masses tell you to?Coffeepusher (talk) 22:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

No other reason? That's a stunning caricaturization of my nuanced position.

But the basic principle of Wikipedia is an encyclopedia anyone can edit, closely followed by the principle of consensus among those who do.

Do you agree with these principles? If not, why are you editing here? Milo 00:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with consensus, not blind rule by force or wikilawyaring...or editing to prove a point. is it a charicaturization of your position, I asked if you thought that scientology was a textbook cult, and your answer was that lots of IP's said so, and that while you where personally staying out of the actuall dscussion, you where maintaining the force of the consensus without explaining the details of the edit.Coffeepusher (talk) 01:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You have placed yourself in a bind.

1. You agree with consensus, but not "blind rule by force".
2. "Blind rule by force", and the collective edits of many non-discussing IP editors, are apparently indistinguishable concepts.
3. So, consensus-by-edit guiderules apparently authorize, or at least accept, "blind rule by force".
4. You don't agree with "blind rule by force", therefore, you apparently don't agree with that kind of consensus.

It sounds like you either must pursue the slow week-to-week edit war with IP editors which has been going on for months now, or need to stand aside of a by-edit type of consensus with which you don't agree. Milo 04:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

With appologies to derrida, "based on your responce, you didn't read the question". So does Scientology qualify as a textbook case of a cult?Coffeepusher (talk) 16:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

"you didn't read the question" ... "does Scientology qualify as a textbook case of a cult?"

If you are referring to Coffeepusher (17:11), I answered that question in Milo (22:12) above. The short version is that I don't have a position on whether Scientology qualifies as a cult (textbook or otherwise), many IP editors apparently do, and under the guiderules they have a right to form a consensus-by-edit which you apparently consider "blind rule by force".

If you don't agree with that consensus, you have the obvious choices of either slow edit-warring with them or standing aside. Of course, edit warring is a violation of consensus policy, and if you do that you'll have to give up your good standing as a Wikipedia editor.

What are you going to do? Milo 01:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually I would not be edit waring, I have been discussing the position and the "consensus" you are referancing hasn't come up with a resonable explination for why Scientology should be there, so I am going to assume it is to discredit the orgonization, and not to inform this article. I actually have no problem removing uncited entries that are added with no justification. ps. I got a paper out of this discussion, so thank you for the discource (it involves how we are both setting up frames via Goffman in order to add credance to our point of view, tell you how it goes later). Thank you for the go ahead on changing the artcle.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I did not give you any kind of go ahead. I am not authorized to give you a go ahead to edit war, and I did not do so. I simply asked what you were going to do.

Your reasoning is flawed:

1. There is no requirement to cite or justify "See also" entries. So that is not a valid reason to remove them ordinarily, and in any case does not justify edit warring.
2. You have simply ignored a reasonable explanation why Scientology should be listed, which I provided in cited detail at the top of this section. Even if you don't agree that explanation is reasonable, you may not edit war.
3. The edit warring policy ("An edit war occurs when individual editors or groups of editors repeatedly revert each other's edits to a page or subject area.") does not permit reversions because you have assumed that IPs are discrediting an organization, even if you think they lack a reasonable explanation. You have a content dispute with the IP editors, and you may not edit war over a content dispute.

Since you have knowingly reverted in opposition to the IP editors over content, it appears that while denying it, you have now become an edit warrior as defined by Wikipedia policy. Milo 01:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Sewn Together

This article is a poorly written Frankenstein's Monster. Chopped up and sewn back together, there are so many incomplete sentences that no longer make sense and sentences with callbacks to other information that is no longer there. I've looked through the whole article and given up on it. It gets a 'D.' More like Lowest Common Denominator POV policy, amirite? --24.241.228.210 (talk) 05:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• Example: This section makes very little sense, and mentioned "deprivation theory" with no other mention of such a theory in the page, or even on Wikipedia. It should probably be deleted or rewritten completely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.241.228.210 (talk) 05:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Some of your criticisms are justified, but from those you may be overgeneralizing. Some sections are reasonably well written, others are not. For example, I've made an effort to keep the intro well written.

Sometimes editors complain but can't or won't be specific. 71.202.65.243 added a copyedit tag circa August 25. When I asked him/her to point out what needed copyediting here at talk, they read and archived my request but failed to respond, so unless copyedit needs can be identified, that tag should be removed.

I've read the section that made little sense to you Cult#Joining_NRMs (version 10:07, 16 October 2008), which consists of nine numbered points summarizing Prof. Hadden's lecture (which may have mentioned deprivation theory - read the cited reference when you find something like this). Each of these points is expressed as a complete sentence that does make sense to me, but I'm an experienced scholar. This section assumes that one is familiar with the contextual relationship among abstract concepts like "NRMs", "groups", "joining", "conversion", "convert" (noun form meaning a person who has been converted), and so on.

Since you appear to be a high school student, you may be relatively new to reading summaries of academic research on sociology topics. Everyone is new to academic topics at some time in their life, and one of the functions of teaching is to make advanced topics accessible to interested new students. Your perspective may be useful toward adding introductory sentences that makes the context of Hadden's points more understandable.

I agree that the article is somewhat "chopped up"; this can be fixed if you help locate the sections that don't flow well. I wasn't aware of incomplete sentences; perhaps you can point them out.

I have a limited amount of editing time. If you can identify specific problems a little at a time, I can fix them a little at a time. Milo 01:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

POV tag

An editor added a {POV} with the comment:

• this article does not reflect the scholarly POV but the popular POV ... yet by using dated scholarship this fact is not reflected adequately [14]

Could we get a better explanation of that objection? The popular POV is legitimate and siginficant, and needs to be in the article. The article does not ignore the scholarly POV, as most of the citations appear to be to scholarly sources. The accusation of "dated scholarship" needs clarification. Which scholarship is dated, and what has changed in the field to make older scholarship obsolete? Note that this article has had extensive editing in the past and yet has been fairly stable recently. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The article is in horrible shape stylistically and organizationally, not to mention its been tagged for ages with these issues. Why did I add the POV tag? The very first sentence is a great example. "Cult" does not typically refer to the old sociological definition of the term, as it is claimed, it "typically" refers to the negative media usage of the term -- that is it typically refers to the the popular POV. The contemporary scholarly POV is not that the old sociological definition is by any means typical, but precisely that the term "cult" is problematic because of its primary popular definition which is based on a series of misrepresentations. See (Richardson 1993) for instance. It is deceptive, in other words, to conflate an old academic definition with common usage, as if common usage has a solid basis in pertinent and current scholarship. A NPOV lead would report common usage and the then describe current scholarly consensus about the common usage. "Cult is a term used commonly to refer to X, Y, and Z. Scholars have for the most part abandoned the term because ... " In other word, using the old sociological definition legitimizes the term in a way that most scholars no longer do. Its inherently deceptive. Current scholarship also notes the growth of the popular negative usage throughout the 70s, 80s, and 90s and the resulting de-legitimization of the old sociological definition. Yet this entry utilizes older scholarship and perspectives in key sections, like the lead. For instance, Gordon Melton notably abandoned the term and also come up with a definition of NRM that accounts for the social process behind the popular usage of the term "cult" (See Melton, 2004 "Perspective: Toward a Definition of 'New Religion'", Nova Religio. 8(1):73-87).PelleSmith (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

"New religious movement" is covered in an article of its own. If the most common usage is the popular definition then that is what should receive the appropriate weight. If the concepts have changed then we should include both the old and the new versions, not wipe away the previous one and leave on the current one. It's fine to say that Melton later rejected his earlier views, it's wrong to throw those notable views down the memory hole and pretend they never existed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Cult as an academic term is dated. NRM = what used to be referred to as "cult". Currently, scholarship on "cult" mostly points out how popular culture utilizes the term and nothing else. You would likewise propose two seperate entries on Myanmar and Burma? What we should do is cut this entry down to size almost entirely. Move all scholarly materials utilizing the old definition to NRM and expand that entry to accurately reflect the position that a handful of scholars have not abandoned "cult" and others prefer yet other terms like "alternative religions". This entry should become about the term "cult" which scholarship most notably and currently describes as a social phenomenon involving the negative stereotyping of NRMs based upon a handful of heavily reported accounts of destructive cults. Disambiguation should be clear that for the old and/or minority scholarly usage of "cult" as referring to new religious groups in tension with their surroundings, the correct entry is NRM.PelleSmith (talk) 21:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

We have separate entries for USSR and Russian Empire, for Evolution and Creationism, for Phlogiston and Oxygen. Just because something new comes along doesn't mean that older concepts never existed. I disagree with your proposal. If scholars or other sources used the term "cult" then it's appropriate for those viewpoints to be covered here. When they use the term "NRM" then they should be discussed in that article. Because of the overlap, there will inevitably be some mention of both terms in both articles. The assertion that the "correct term is NRM" appears to be your own POV. We're not here to decide which term is better - we're just here to verifiably summarize what reliable sources say using the neutral point of view. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually your examples exactly illustrate my point because each entry in your pairing is factually and/or theoretically about two distinct things - yet there is no such theoretical or factual distinction between the old sociological usage of cult and new usage of NRM, but simply a terminological one. On the other hand there is such a distinction between the old academic usage of "cult" and the popular usage of "cult". The USSR and the Russian empire are not and were not ever used to describe the same period of Russian political history. They are two distinct and seperate entities. Evolution and Creationism may encompass competing claims of human beginnings, but they are rather essentially describing two completely distinct theories. Phlogiston clearly is not simply an older term for Oxygen either. In fact "phlogiston as first conceived was a sort of anti-oxygen". In scholarship, however, "cult" is actually an antiquated term for what is now called, among other things, a new religious movement -- it is the exact same phenomena. The only reference to the academic usage of cult needed in this entry is a short bit on how the phenomenon now covered in the NRM entry used to be called "cult", but due to the popular take over of the term it has been mostly abandoned. The current scheme is simply confusing and conflates distinctly different perspectives in a very unhelpful way.PelleSmith (talk) 22:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Do the preponderance of contemporary sources say that "NRM"="Cult"? Just one article by Melton isn't enough to establish that as a universal truth. If a hundred scholarly and popular articles use "cult", and only a dozen use "NRM", then that's not sufficient to erase the material which uses "cult". We can't decide on our own that a writer who used the term "cult" in 1970 would have used the term "NRM" if he were writing in 2008. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

No one is suggesting erasing any scholarship. Please do not put words in my mouth. I suggest retaining the content of older scholarship in the now more accurately named entry (NRM), and leaving this entry for the popular usage of "cult". There is no suggestion of deleting any content, but simply a separation of what is now being deceptively conflated. Do you actually contend that the old sociological definition is accurately reflected in popular usage? Please answer this question because I am contending that it is not. And by the way this is exactly why we have disambiguation. The even older term that derives from "cultus" is also related to this whole mess but it is given seperate treatment. Its time that we get with the program here and stop conflating scholarship with popular discourse.PelleSmith (talk) 23:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It appears that your suggestion is to change old scholarship that talked about "cults" and say, with no evidence, that they really were talking about "NRMs" without knowing it. As for popular usage, that's a separate issue. "NRM" has not gained much ground in popular usage, so far as I'm aware. This article already does a fine job of separating the various uses of "cult". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Its a confusing mess. See the tags that have been up for months. Please stop pretending that NRM isn't a new term for "cult". How many references will be enough? There is nothing different about these groups except for the academic attempt to rescue them from a word butchered by popular use. I know NRM has not gained traction in popular culture. I'm not sure what your point is though. If it had replaced "cult" in popular discourse we'd be back to square one again.PelleSmith (talk) 00:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that modern scholars use "NRM" instead of "cult". That is well-covered in the article already. I don't agree that we should recategorize old discussions of "cults" as discussions of "NRMs". But I am impressed by your quick research. You're obviously well-veresed on this topic. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Will Beback's position speaks for me also.

Milo 03:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose changing the article in this manner and agree with above comments by Will Beback (talk · contribs). In actuality both terms are still used. The sources listed below are not exactly the best representation of all sources out there, but it is rather instead quite a selective list, to say the least. Cirt (talk) 16:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Cirt's position speaks for me also.

Milo 03:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

It is not at all a selective list. It spans a spectrum of sources from those that have given up the term altogether to those that still use it. Please provide some evidence that contradicts my assessment below, otherwise you're simply stating an unfounded opinion. Also please clarify what part of the assessment you found problematic since the one thing you stated, that both terms are still used, is clearly stated by myself in the very first sentence below and reflected in many of the sources.PelleSmith (talk) 16:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Even scholars who argue for retaining the academic use of the term (see Goldman below) are capable of acknowledging the overwhelming consensus amongst other scholars. In case you were salivating, Goldman's argument is based on anecdote, and the very next article in the same journal was the Olson piece listed below which empirically shows the negative resonance that "cult" still has amongst the public. I'm looking forward to the evidence of my selectivity.PelleSmith (talk) 17:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

These sources would be great for adding information. I don't see them as a reason to delete information. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Who said anything about "deleting information"? I'm still waiting for Cirt to back up the assertion that I have presented an unbalanced list. BTW, try to search for "cult" in ATLA Religion Database, and you will see that 99% of the articles from the last century relate to Cult (religious practice). Search for "new religious movement" (which is but one of the alternatives) and you will also find several times more articles than you do for the sociological/academic use of "cult".PelleSmith (talk) 19:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed most certainly quite a selective list, choosing from academics who are for the most part proponents of the term "new religious movement" which for one thing does not cover all groups referred to as "cults" that are not "religious movements" in nature, for example political groups or for-profit companies. I will work on providing a list of sources, and list them in a different subsection, below, but it will not be immediately. Cirt (talk) 19:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Please note that I have specifically not simply listed scholars who use NRM, or an alternative instead of cult. Such a list would be endless and also pointless. I've listed scholars who have actively engaged the issue of terminology either directly related to cult vs. an alternative or regarding the baggage that comes with the term "cult" (a list that itself could be much much longer). If you respond with a list of sources that simply use the term cult without reflecting actively on terminology you will pointlessly ask us to compare apples to oranges. Regards and good luck.PelleSmith (talk) 19:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

A Few Sources

The term "cult" is still used by some scholars to this date, but never without the knowledge of how distorted the popular/media usage is. Most often when this is done it is done in conjunction with a more neutral terms like NRM and/or with "cult" in scare quotes. Other scholars have abandoned the term altogether. Two things are abundantly clear. 1) NRM and academic usages of "cult" in this context refer to the exact same thing and 2) all scholars of "cults" or NRMs acknowledge the media butchering of the term readily. Here is diversity of quotes from sources that fit all the categories I described initially.PelleSmith (talk) 02:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: Not included here are any of the numerous sources that simply do not refer to or use "cult" at all -- instead utilizing one of its more recent synonyms. The sources listed here are ones that directly engage or reflect upon the "cult" vs. alternative terms issue.PelleSmith (talk) 18:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Melton, J. Gordon. 1992. Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America. Garland Publishing.

• "It should be noted that most writers, except for the harshest anti-cult polemicists, have moved away from the term 'cult' and now use the less pejorative term 'new religion' to designate the more non-conventional groups in Western society." (7)

Wilson, Bryan R. 1992. The Social Dimensions of Sectarianism. Oxford University Press.

• "It appears that the appearance of the new religious movements, the cults as their detractors chose to call them, has, if not arrested, at least hindered the general process of religious toleration." (44)

Richardson, James T. 1993. "Definitions of Cult: From Sociological-Technical to Popular Negative." 34(4):348-356.

• "Indeed, some would claim that the term cult is useless, and should be avoided because of the confusion between the historic meaning of the term and current pejorative use." (348)
• "Given the obvious negative connotations of the term cult, as shown by a number of surveys and by Pfeiffer's research, it seems reasonable to suggest that the term "cult" should be severely limited in scholarly and other writings about religious groups. [...] Scholars should abandon the term cult, in favor of terms which have not been so taken over with popular negative usage." (355)

Richardson, James T. and van Driel, Barend. 1997. "Journalists' Attitudes toward New Religious Movements." Review of Religious Research. 39(2):116-136.

• "Our report of how the print media have used the terms 'cult' and 'sect,' which have been the topic of longstanding study in the sociology of religion, revealed that the media generally failed to recognize social-scientific effort in this important area (van Driel and Richardson, 1988b; see also Richardson, 1993a). Instead, when seeking definitions for the terms "cult" and "sect," they usually turned to those advanced by acknowledged anti-cultists." (123)

Campbell, Colin. 1998. "Cult". In Encyclopedia of Religion and Society. Edited by Henry Swatos Jr. Altamira Press.

• " ... the careless application of the cult concept by both the media and opponents of specific groups has made the social scientific use of the cult concept increasingly difficult." (123)

Dawson, Lorne L. 2003 Cults and New Religious Movements: A Reader. Blackwell.

• "Most people in North America or Europe have never met anyone who is a member of a 'cult,' or what scholars prefer to call 'new religious movements.'" (1)
• "When used in this book [cult] will be accompanied by scare quotes (i.e. 'cults') in acknowledgment of its recent problematic history. In most instances the term new religious movements will be used and in line with current academic practice it will be abbreviated NRMs." (2)

Giddens, Anthony. 2006. Sociology. Polity Press.

• "Today, sociologists are aware that the terms sect and cult have negative connotations and this is something they wish to avoid." (564)

Olson, Paul J. 2006. "The Public Perception of 'Cults' and 'New Religious Movements'". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 45(1):97–106.

• "For the better part of two decades, Barker (1986, 1989), Richardson (1993), and several other sociologists of religion, as well as religious studies scholars such as Miller (1996) and Wessinger (2000), have argued that the term 'cult' has become laden with negative connotations among the general public and media and have advocated dropping its use in academia." (97)
• "Furthermore, scholars who have examined the 1993 Branch Davidian standoff have almost routinely argued that the ability of the government, media, and former members to define the Davidians as a 'cult' and David Koresh as a 'cult leader' played a significant role in bringing about the horrific conclusion of the siege (Lewis 1995; Richardson 1995; Tabor and Gallagher 1995; Wessinger 2000; Wright 1995)." (97)
• "Christiano, Swatos, and Kivisto (2002:11) take the position that use of the term cult in academic literature is an 'ethical breach' for modern social scientists." (97)
• "The results of the 2003 NASIS reveal that, at least in Nebraska, the general public certainly does not view cults in a neutral way. Because the use of the term has such potentially severe consequences, we must be extremely careful with it and, I believe, that it is time that we become 'cultphobic'(Richardson 1993:355) and do our research with more neutral terminology." (105)

Goldman, Marion. 2006. "Review Essay: Cults, New Religions, and the Spiritual Landscape: A Review of Four Collections." Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 45(1):87–96.

• "The synonyms 'new religious movements,' 'NRMs,' 'novel religions,' 'alternative religions,' and 'cults' are almost interchangeable, though most sociologists argue that the word 'cult' is too loaded to be useful." (91)

Berger, Helen A. 2007. "Book Review: The New Religious Movements Experience in America by Eugene V. Gallagher." Sociology of Religion 68(2):225-226

• "The current anti-cult movement has absorbed and further developed the negative connotations of this term. It is because the term has become so blemished that the author chooses to avoid it, relying instead on the term NRMs, which he notes is also an imperfect term insofar as some of the religions are new only in the U.S., not in other parts of the world."

Buxant, Coralie; Saroglou, Vassilis; Casalfiore, Stefania; Christians, Louis-Léon 2007. "Cognitive and emotional characteristics of New Religious Movement Members: New questions and Data on the Mental Health Issue" Mental Health, Religion & Culture 10(3):219–238

• "Common representations of people who join groups called 'cults' by some parts of society or 'new religious movements' (NRMs) by many scholars in religious studies include the idea of some pathology or psychological disturbance in their adherents." (219)

Cowan, Douglas E. and Bromley, David G. 2008. Cults and New Religions: A Brief History. Blackwell.

• "in reality most people get a majority of their information about new and controversial religions through the media. And though there are occasional exceptions, 'cult' has become little more than a convenient, if largely inaccurate and always pejorative, shorthand for a religious group that must be presented as odd or dangerous for the purposes of an emerging news story." (2)

Some other sources of note

The term cult is most certainly still in use in other sources other than simply the media. Not only that, it is a term that is not simply an alternative to "new religious movement" - but rather as acknowledged by Religion Newswriters Association is a wholly distinct term separate from cult. Furthermore, the term "new religious movement" as a catch-all for various types of controversial groups and movements is inappropriate - as it encapsulates other organizations that are not religious in nature, such as groups that have been referred to historically as "political cults", "psychotherapy cults", etc. Cirt (talk) 01:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

1. Galanter, Marc (1989). Cults and New Religious Movements: A Report of the American Psychiatric Association. American Psychiatric Pub. p. 170. ISBN 0890422125. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
   • Terms such as "new religious movement" have been used by some to describe certain cultic groups. A problem with this approach is that it may lend unwarranted respectability to a less-than-respectable enterprise. Jim Jones' Peoples Temple was once considered a new religious movement. The term is also inappropriate to describe cultlike groups that are not religious; or groups of devotees that form around charismatic healers who then exploit their patients and followers in various ways; or nonprofessional psychotherapies, even if they convert themselves to "religions" in order to obtain various tax benefits and legal protections; or cabals of Satan worshipers which, while perhaps qualifying as "religious," could hardly qualify as "new."
2. Langone, Michael D. (July 1, 1996). "Clinical Update on Cults". Psychiatric Times. 13 (7). Retrieved 2008-10-22.
   • Although some scholars of religion now favor the term new religious movement over cult, many mental health professionals, perhaps because they are more likely to see the casualties of new groups, feel comfortable using the term cult (Langone; Singer and Lalich; Tobias and Lalich). They see cults as highly manipulative groups that exploit and otherwise abuse their members. Although most groups accused of being cults are religious, some claim to be psychological (Singer and colleagues; Temerlin and Temerlin) or political (Lalich).
3. Bainbridge, William Sims (1997). The Sociology of Religious Movements. Routledge. p. 24. ISBN 0415912024.
   • The mass media occasionally call these groups sects, but often they came into being without a schism and they do not belong to familiar religious traditions. Consequently, many sociologists have used the word "cult" for culturally innovative new groups. Others feel that the mass media have brought the word "cult" into disrepute, applying it only when they want to disparage a group. Therefore, many scholars now employ the phrase "new religious movement," often abbreviated NRM. This also is an unfortunate term. Sects, too, are new. Rodney Stark has suggested to me that NRM should mean novel religious movement.
     These are unfortunate responses to an unfortunate situation, because the word cult has much to recommend it. "Cult is culture writ small" and has been defined as "a culturally innovative cohesive group oriented to supernatural concerns" (Bainbridge 1978:14). The word need not carry any negative connotations. In Roman Catholicism, for example, devotions dedicated to Mary can be called the cult of the Virgin, carrying neutral or even positive connotations (O'Dea 1966:39). The word is connected to the favorable concept "cultivate" which means devoting oneself to something to make it grow. Ultimately we like the word "cult" because it is a short version of culture, and surely religious cults are subcultures.
4. Lalich, Janja (2004). Bounded Choice: True Believers and Charismatic Cults. University of California Press. pp. 6–7. ISBN 0520240189.
   • The long-standing debate over cults, or new religions, is so highly charged that participants and observers tend to call it "the cult wars." The contributions of those who take a freedom of religion stance are important, especially to combat ethnocentrism, bigotry, and acts of political repression or social oppression. At the same time, using solely a religious studies paradigm to study these groups hampers us. I say this not because I am antireligion but rather because I recognize the existence of cults and the behavior of people in them as much more than a religious phenomenon. Some cults may be part of the new religious movement landscape, but many more have ideologies that stem from other sources: political, philosophy, nationalism, psychological theories, psychotherapeutic approaches, belief in extraterrestrial life, self-improvement regimens, a charismatic figure, and so on.
5. Zablocki, Benjamin David (2001). Misunderstanding Cults: Searching for Objectivity in a Controversial Field. University of Toronto Press. p. 5. ISBN 0802081886. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
   • The term cult is an insult to those who are positively disposed towards these groups or who feel that it is important to actively support their right to exist even while perhaps deploring some of their practices. The term new religious movement is a misleading euphemism to those who are negatively disposed. It is also thought to be misleading in that it ignores political and psychotherapeutic cults, implying, as it does, that all such groups are religious in nature.
6. Hinnells, John R. (2005). The Routledge Companion to the Study of Religion. Routledge. p. 326. ISBN 0415333113.
   • More recently, scholars have also noted that the phrase 'new religious movements' has begun to accumulate many of the negative connotations previously ascribed to 'cults.' Opponents of the phrase have charged that academics introduced it in order to deflect what they consider to be legitimate criticism about these movements. In the face of such considerations, one suggestion has been that scholars of religion abandon the label and return to using the technical terms 'sect' and 'cult', having first agreed on their definition.
7. Religion Newswriters Foundation (2008). Religion Style Book. Religion Newswriters Association. pp. C, N.
   • cult: A term that has come to be associated with religious groups far outside the mainstream that have overly controlling leadership or dangerous practices. For that reason, journalists should use it with the greatest care and only when they are certain it fits. On rare occasions, cult is an appropriate description. Two groups whose members committed mass suicide are examples: the Peoples Temple (Jonestown in Guyana, South America, 1978) and Heaven’s Gate (1997, California). Another example is the Branch Davidians, whose founder, David Koresh, died along with 75 followers in a 1993 standoff with government officials.
   • New Religious Movement: A widely accepted term that describes religious groups outside the mainstream. These fringe groups often have roots in Christianity, Judaism or other major faiths but have beliefs and practices that are rejected by mainstream organizations. Some New Religious Movements are not new, and a few eventually evolve into mainstream religious groups. Cults, which are generally considered groups with overly controlling leadership or dangerous practices, are included in this category. New Religious Movements are sometimes called NRMs, but journalists should avoid using the abbreviation. See cult and sect.

Why all sources aren't created equal

1. As the Hinnels source you have at #7 so aptly explains, the psychological community has always maintained a different definition of "cult" and has been more resistant in letting it go. For them authoritarian leadership and coercion are key aspects of a cult, something that was not as fundamental to the more common older sociological and religious studies usages of the term. This source, almost 20 years old now, is no surprise at all.
2. See #1, with the added caveat that Psychiatric Times isn't exactly a top of the line source to begin with -- try some peer-reviewed publications. Not to mention that the author is the editor for Cultic Studies Review.
3. Bainbridge is arguing for the benefits of using this term in scholarship. He makes no claims that it hasn't been abandoned by most scholars (in fact his tone suggests that it has) and makes no comment on how its popular use relates to this equation. One scholars opinion on the technical merits of the term in scholarship doesn't exactly address the point. Goldman, quoted above, also argues for the use of "cult" in scholarship ... but nevertheless acknowledges that most scholars have dropped it. What is the point of this reference?
4. I'm not exactly sure what to make of this. I'll have to look at the book more closely. It seems like Lalich is in fact proposing an entirely new sociological framework for looking at groups popularly labeled as cults and that she isn't happy with simply treating them as religious groups. It certainly isn't a defense of the old sociological paradigm. Notably Lalich also co-authored several books with Margaret Singer, including Cults in our Midst, and seems not to have published in any mainstream sociology journals -- in fact it appears she has published exclusively in CSJ/CSR. This places here well within a group that represents a very extreme position in the academy regarding "cults" and NRMs.
5. This book in fact takes a middle ground in the terminological controversy. It also readily acknowledges the biased popular/media usage of the term and does not equate it with any legitimate scholarly usage.
6. I find it exceedingly odd that you use this book as a source since it explicates the history of abuse the term has suffered at the hands of the anti-cult movement and the media. In terms of academic popularity also includes the following sentence: In the absence of a commonly agreed upon definition from the movements themselves, the term "new religious movement" - chosen for its apparent neutrality - became widely used in the academic community. This book presents various technical difficulties with NRM, but it clearly states that NRM is more widely accepted than "cult" in the academic community. In fact the full quote you used after you edited it so nicely actually reads like this: "More recently, scholars have also noted that the phrase 'new religious movements' has begun to accumulate many of the negative connotations previously ascribed to 'cults.' Opponents of the phrase have charged that academics introduced it in order to deflect what they consider to be legitimate criticism about these movements. In the face of such considerations, one suggestion has been that scholars of religion abandon the label and return to using the technical terms 'sect' and 'cult', having first agreed on their definition. However, most believe that it would be impossible to turn back the clock in this manner."
7. This isn't an academic source at all. Now we're going to take cues from the media about the technicality of using terms like "cult" vs "NRM" after they were the catalysts in ruining the credibility of term cult in the first place? Now that's funny.PelleSmith (talk) 02:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

break

Your points are indeed interesting, though they do not support your notion of somehow merging this article with "New religious movement" - as noted by many of the above cited sources the terms are different and have different applications. You yourself acknowledge that there is a gap and general disagreement between usage in the "sociology of religion" community, and by psychologists and psychiatrists and other academics in science. Cirt (talk) 02:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly. The preponderance of sources support the notion that "cult" is a problematic term when applied to religious groups, and in no small part because of how the media has butchered it. Some sources suggest also that there are technical difficulties with NRM and even fewer argue against using it altogether. One of the more mainstream usages I've seen in the last decade is to use NRM and "cult" with "cult" always in scare quotes. This signifies the fact that the groups are commonly known as cults but NRM is a preferred scholarly term for the reasons I've already stated above several times. I do not and have not denied any of this. NRM still reflects a more widely used and more neutral alternative to describing religious groups, and the material on them should be moved there. Psychologists and psychiatrists do not unanimously use the term "cult" either. "Other academics in science" is a red herring. What other academics in science? What other "sciences"? The fact also remains that primarily sociologists and secondarily religious studies scholars together author almost all of the academic material on this topic in the first place. To suggest that there is some sort of even split here between cult and NRM is deceptive. In the end, the real problem is that those groups that were discussed under the old sociological definition of "cult" should not remain on this entry in that discussion but should be merged into NRM where they belong. The terminological debates can be discussed there.PelleSmith (talk) 11:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Strongly oppose the merge idea you suggest. The fact is that the term cult is still widely used, not just by academics and psychologists and psychiatrists and experts on crime, but as mentioned by Will Beback (talk · contribs) also in the media. "new religious movement" = 405 to cult = 638,000. The term simply has not gained much traction at all in popular use, and many continue not to use it or to consider it inadequate and inappropriate. I see you have attempted to discount some of the sources I presented above, the same could be said for many of your sources as well. Cirt (talk) 19:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

In a search of United States government sites: "new religious movement = 18, and cult = 78,200. Trying to push out the term to make it more prevalent or in-use more by mainstream media, government officials, crime experts, psychologists, psychiatrists, and many noted experts on cults, will not make it so. Cirt (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not object at all to leaving a well sourced treatment of media usage of the term "cult" in this entry. In fact that's my very suggestion. Of course if you research "cult" and "media" in academic sources you'll see exactly the explanation I've been trying to highlight all along. The media (along with various interest groups) has distorted the term to the point that it now suggests scientifically unverifiable phenomena like brainwashing and mind-control and while exagerating danger by highlighting occurances of mass-suicide (which are in fact very rare). "Cult" is not a neutral analytical term in the media or in popular parlance, but a discursive weapon. I'll be happy to help you source such an entry of course.PelleSmith (talk) 20:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I have already stated above that I oppose going that route. And apparently, so do Will Beback (talk · contribs) and Milomedes (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 20:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You oppose using the most reliable sources we have (from peer reviewed journals and academic presses) to source the entry? To source the part of the entry that deals with the media? How about we start simply with not moving anything but taking a good stab at using scholarly sources in reference to the popular/media usage of the term "cult"? The media itself should be treated as a "primary source" in this context, btw.PelleSmith (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Not if there are specific media articles which themselves discuss usage of the term itself, with comments from various academics. Cirt (talk) 20:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

PelleSmith (talk · contribs), you have not responded to points made by multiple sources that "new religious movement" as a catch-all term is inappropriate for political cults, psychotherapy cults, and other cults that are not religious in nature. As noted by Lalich: "political, philosophy, nationalism, psychological theories, psychotherapeutic approaches, belief in extraterrestrial life, self-improvement regimens, a charismatic figure, and so on." Cirt (talk) 20:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not particularly comfortable with taking Lalich's lead on these categories given her various affiliations. New religious movement is of course not appropriate for non-religious groups or organizations. On the other hand the old sociological definition of "cult" comes from a religious typology. Later derivations used by a small minority of scholars, mostly from psychology related fields, which include non-religious groups are not of any particular interest or significance. The inclusion of these non-religious groups is much more intrinsic to later incarnations of popular usage than anything else. I'm not entirely sure what it is I'm supposed to answer, but I'm happy to separate the old (and in a few cases new) sociological usage of the term from these various later and much less common academic usages that you refer to above. You failed to answer my proposal. How's about we use available scholarly sources to write the section on popular and media usage of the term ... which, after all, is the most common usage amongst most English speakers. What do you say?PelleSmith (talk) 02:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

If you are referring to Cult#Media_attention, I think the current among of text size given to the treatment at present is appropriate, though of course it would be best if sourced properly. I remember seeing some sources specifically addressing that with interviews from various academics, I will post that here soon. Cirt (talk) 02:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

In cultic studies, the big six players are the public, theologians, sociologists, psychologists, governments, and interest groups including those referred to as cults. In cultic studies, science does not get the last word, pro or con, or necessarily get it at Wikipedia, which has no formal commitment to the scientific point of view, sociological or otherwise. The neutral point of view is not necessarily the science point of view, and the Cult article is a specific example.
By overall weight of numbers and influence, the most important homonym of c-u-l-t is the popular positive meaning of cult following (or fan cult). By Google test there are 1,110,000 hits for "cult following". Not to consider the global cult following legions of Harry Potter, the number of fans in the Star Trek and Star Wars fiction cults alone is so large that they might exceed numbers of members in all of the other kinds of non-theological cults. The influence of entertainment cult followings is enormous in financial and social trends. Were it not for mass entertainment cult followings, the U.S. global trade deficit would be much worse than it is.
The second most important homonym of c-u-l-t includes the theological cults defined by Protestant fundamentalism. The numbers claimed are very large since it includes major religions, but its importance by influence is limited to those knowledgeable of the theology, and those who misunderstand which homonym is in use.
The c-u-l-t homonym which includes the popular negative meaning, in provable numbers of members totaling all groups is some number of millions. It is important by influence because of human destruction infamously committed by less than 20 groups, lesser crimes and torts committed by about 200 groups, and perceived excessive control of members that seems to be the most common factor causing the public to identify groups as popular negative cults – not NRMs but just plain "cults".
I will oppose unbalanced, undue-weighted Cult article coverage of the eight-some homonym meanings of c-u-l-t. Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance and CultFAQ.org have identified insufficient knowledge of multiple c-u-l-t meanings as a significant public knowledge problem. In the past group members have falsely attempted to portray c-u-l-t as solely a negative word, and used the article to perpetuate narrow agendas focused on victim propaganda, sometimes empty of victim supporting fact in the style of the cited Adidam publisher's website.
I will oppose attempts to suppress mass media references, which are the most important source of court, police-incident, public complaint, and legal entanglement reporting about popular negative cults, as well as being almost the only source for popular positive cults. That the media may have general biases is not a valid reason to suppress specific media references. Evidence that the media is generally biased can be covered in its own section.
(Note the self-contradictory way that "popular negative cults" reads; though the usage is odd "populist negative cults" reads without self-contradiction.)
I will also oppose unethical historic revisionism. What scientific scholars say today adds to, but does not replace what they said in the past, particularly when what they said then or now is disputed by significant factions of the other big players. Milo 09:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

"Cult" is primarily a negative word, and that can be very well sourced in scholarly literature. The identification of your opponents here as "group members" is a serious problem, an obvious lack of AGF, and in my mind a clear self-identification on your part regarding your own perspectival affiliations. "Cultic studies" is an insignificant and dubiously biased field in the academy (in fact it is largely populated by non-academics in the first place). Most scholarly work on these groups simply comes from the sociology of religion, religious studies, and otherwise the study of NRMs. Your reference to cultic studies is an appeal to authority for a particular (academically) minority POV. The discussion of homonymic conflict is a red herring. There is one common negative connotation widely used in the media and popular culture. No amount of older or newer usages that differ from that negative usage changes the basic facts of its prominence.PelleSmith (talk) 11:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Majority of non-fan cults being well-behaved and known only to their neighbors

Regarding edits [15] [16] on this text (emphasis mine):

• Between 3,000 and 5,000 neutrally-defined sociological cults existed in the United States in 1995. Since less than 200 groups have been reported by governments as cults entangled with the law, and less than 20 have been described as destructive cults, the vast majority of non-fan groups referred to as cults are well-behaved and known only to their neighbors.

1. Singer, M with Lalich, J (1995). Cults in Our Midst, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. ISBN 0-7879-0051-6

2. See the summarized cult reports of seven governments at List of groups referred to as cults in government documents. The largest summary #French parliamentary commission report (1995), includes 173 groups compiled from the French Report, 1995 (English translation), a Parliamentary Commission report authorized by the National Assembly of France.

3. —Ontario Consultants On Religious Tolerance: Doomsday, destructive religious cults

while the conclusion could possibly be true, Wikipedia:Nor#Synthesis of published material that advances a position specifically says that arguments of the form "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. In this case, we are taking three lists from three different sources (a list published by Singer & Lalich of groups in US, a french report on groups in France, a list of destructive cults published on religioustolerance.org) and deriving a conclusion from it. What are the criteria for a group's inclusion in such lists? Given the widely different positions held by different governments regarding cults, any such conclusion made by us editors is problematic. --Knverma (talk) 11:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree - that does appears to be a classic case of WP:SYNTH.   Will Beback  talk  17:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree too; a good point that I overlooked. WP:Synth is a limit on otherwise acceptable logic derived from calculations and counts.

However, the position of governments regarding cults, and criteria for a group's inclusion in such lists has no relationship to the calculated logical validity of the synthesized statement. Less than 200 groups came to the reported behavioral notice of seven sovereign governments. 3 to 5 thousand existed in the U.S. per Singer, 1995 (and tens of thousands existed per Barker, 1984). Therefore the vast majority of cults not reported were logically well-behaved (or to a quibble, well-enough behaved to not get reported by a listed government).

I am also familiar with U.S. media-reported cults. U.S. media reports amount to perhaps a few hundred or less - nothing like thousands. If they aren't media-reported as cults, groups are likely to be known only to their neighborhood or town as a church, ashram, co-op, or some such, but perhaps locally gossiped about as a cult that remains out of the media – due to considerable caution by U.S. media concerned about libel.

In any case, I agree that the statement I wrote needs to be changed to conform. This is a fact of top-level-importance in the ongoing cult debate. Can you or Will make suggestions for a text which usefully states that large numbers of cults didn't get reported for their behavior, without becoming WP:Synth? Milo 21:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The lists in List of groups referred to as cults in government documents#United States are very specific. For example, the Project Meggido report focusses on groups likely to indulge in "millenial violence". (BTW, Section VII of this report suggests that it is following Singer & Lalich for its definition of cults.) How about:

• Singer and Lalich's book Cults in our midst lists around 3000-5000 neutrally-defined sociological cults in the United States. Around a dozen groups are listed by ReligiousTolerance.org as destructive cults that have caused or are likely to cause loss of people's lives. The Rick A. Ross Institute archives information on around 400 groups it considers controversial. Steve Hassan maintains files on around 175 groups about whom he has received inquiries. --Knverma (talk) 10:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this research; that text does look useful for the article. However, so far it's about numbers of groups who did get reported for cultic destruction, media controversy, or concerned inquiry (which can be added to the approximate numbers of groups reported by governments).

I was asking about how to describe the calculated inverse statistic of large numbers of groups that have existed who didn't get reported, which is an NPOV WP:UNDUE issue. Milo 04:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It is always difficult talk in Wikipedia articles about the absence of something in media/other sources. I haven't read Singer & Lalich's book. Does it categorize the groups into well-behaved and problematic one's, or between well-known or unknown ones? In the absence of some source directly discussing this issue, the best I can suggest is to let the readers make those conclusions on their own. We can adjust the wording to something like "Some other sources attempt to list those groups that are well-known and possibly a cause of concern. For example, ReligiousTolerance.org lists arond a dozen groups ....", --Knverma (talk) 09:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I've used references found in various cult topics articles, Singer, 1995, being among them, but it's not available on line so I haven't searched it. The structure of Singer's 2003 revised edition is described by the editorial reviews here, by Publishers Weekly and Library Journal.

Singer's 2003 edition is available for search: search "Cults in Our Midst: The Continuing Fight...". I have searched it and found a subchapter headed "Small Cults Can Be Just as Harmful as Large" (p. 90), so Singer is probably not a source for finding any text about "well-behaved" cults.

Dr. J. Gordon Melton, a well-known "cult apologist" is more likely to state something of that type: search "Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America". The problem with Melton (or Singer as referenced by other editors) is that Melton denies that there are 3,000 to 5,000 groups. "...no evidence of the existence of such a large number of religious groups, cultic or otherwise, has been produced." (p. 6). Milo 09:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Coverage of Walter Martin

These sentences appear under 'Word Origins':

"Conservative Christian authors, especially evangelical Protestants, define a cult as a religion which claims to be in conformance with Biblical truth, yet that is believed to deviate from it based upon Evangelical interpretation. Walter Martin, the pioneer of the Christian countercult movement, gave in his 1955 book the following definition:[5]

"By cultism we mean the adherence to doctrines which are pointedly contradictory to orthodox Christianity and which yet claim the distinction of either tracing their origin to orthodox sources or of being in essential harmony with those sources. Cultism, in short, is any major deviation from orthodox Christianity relative to the cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith."

The above sentences seem to be the existing workable (usage) definition in this century. It is recognized that the origins of the word "cult" refer to obsessive worship of a god/goddess or entity beyond reach of its worshipers. In this sense, even today's "Startrekers" could be considered a cult. In the 1500-1900's, the term seemed to reflect upon a minory group looked down upon by a majority, usually associated with religious connotations, such as the group of Hollanders and British who left England for religious freedom, or witches.

Nevertheless, the word cult should not be considered a "negative" term, but neutral, and relative in its usage within context of its use. It should not have an absolute meaning as one might find in the dictionary. - Rick Mueller. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachmaninovpc3dminor (talk • contribs) 12:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The huge Star Trek positive cult following is covered in current footnote [3].

"cult should not be considered a "negative" term" Another editor has strongly asserted the exact opposite argument.

WP:UNDUE requires coverage of all notable POVs meanings, including those found in a dictionary. That's why the current lead focus of the article is that, the at least nine "cult" definitions sort into positive, negative, and neutral connotations, reflecting three notable POVs:

• popular positive (cult followings/fan-cults, and classic veneration groups (e.g., for Greek gods))
• popular negative (destructive cults, legally entangled groups, and theological cults per evangelicals/fundamentalists)
• scientific neutral (per Stark, Richardson, Melton, et al).

I noticed last week that coverage of Martin doesn't best belong under "Word origins", rather under "Christianity and definitions" with reference to theological cult(s) seems more appropriate.

Milo 23:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)