Talk:Cult debate

NPOV

Any article like this, which attempts to give an overview of the debate, must be scrupulously well-sourced, even moreso than the average Wikipedia article. It may not be obvious that it is original research for an editor to state "the ending of the Vietnam War and the subsiding of the Red Scare were what made it possible for a large public concern to rise up about cults", but if that assertion can't be sourced, then original research is just what it is. Remember, "original research" includes "... any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, or arguments that appears to advance a position" (emphasis added) -- if you have a reputable source, and they make claims about the history of the "cult debate", then we can include such claims, attributing them to their source.

Even if all the opinions here were properly sourced, however, the article still has severe NPOV problems since it is only presenting one side. Public concern about cults is labelled as an "idée fixe"; actors in the debate are labelled as "so-called 'anti-cult' ministries" and accused of bad faith, of "attempt[ing] to calumniate even large, established faiths". Perhaps the most glaring error is the fact that cult checklists are attributed solely to the already-maligned religiously-motivated counter-cult groups, and are said to have been calculated specifically to designate the doctrines of a "target religious faith". In fact many such checklists (particularly those created by social scientists, something you would never guess even occurred from the article as it is) mention little or nothing about the contents of the group's doctrines, only how the doctrines are employed as an instrument to control followers.

Finally and frankly, I think this article is a content fork. Cult covers the same debate; while there might be merits to spinning out the details of the debate to another article, it should have started with what was already in Cult and related articles, which was more likely to represent both sides. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not useful to misquote or misrepresent the article to further a point of view. The article does not say "the ending of A made B possible," as asserted above. The article, in fact, says "B started at about the time A ended." That there is a coincidence of time does not make, as asserted above, a causal link, so POV concern, as argued above, is not demonstrated. --The Editrix 00:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct on that point, I should have picked a different opinion statement which was easier to quote in its entirety rather than paraphrasing and counting on the essential point, that we need sources for opinion statements because editor opinions are original research, coming through. If you think that "POV concern is not demonstrated" because you responded to that one particular sentence, I'm afraid you're mistaken. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Original research: Note dual sources, one from an existing WP article, the other from an academic journal affiliated with the Institute for Psychological Therapies. Not original resource if sourced. This is. --AuntieMormom 01:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles are not acceptable sources, and we need all the questionable opinion statements in the article backed up with sources, not just two. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me if I am not the learned scholar that you others are, not am I as avid a consumer of Wikipedia. However perhaps it is those very facts that might add a perspective to my comments. I read the article as a "survivor" of the seventies, one time beatnik, and a person who has been dismayed at the idea with which the term "cult" has been liberally sprayed about by those who choose to use it to mean "a group whose beliefs do not agree exactly with mine". I find the article outlined here to be comprehensive, concise, and accurate as well as helpful and informative. If there are others that cover some similar ground, all I can say is "more power to them".--DaveB 08:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dave, I keep reading your response, and trying to translate it, and what I keep getting is "It's all right that this article is full of unattributed opinions, because they match my opinions." It's not all right. One of the most basic, non-negotiable principles of Wikipedia is WP:NPOV, which clearly states "Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in." Engaging in the debate is exactly what the article does when it accuses one side of "attempt[ing] to calumniate even large, established faiths". The fact that it takes the same side of the debate you do does not make this an acceptable article for Wikipedia. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to WP, DaveB. Thank you for pointing out that this article describes a specific event that took place in a particular place and time, thus making it NOT a fork of the wider discussion of Cults.

AF, this article began as an attempt to repair a red link that appeared in both the New religious movement and the Anticult movement articles (going on memory there for the two article titles. I reserve the right to correct myself). If the two editors who originally saw a need for an article about the 1970s Cult debate both independently thought it important enough to develop a separate article on the topic, it's counterproductive to then call the good-faith effort to produce that article a fork. --The Editrix 14:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outdenting here: AF, I believe the sentence you quote above is a precise attempt to describe a behavior. Allow me to illustrate.

If I were to go to the police and report that Person X flashed me, I would be calumniating Person X with the label Flasher. But if Person X did, in fact, flash me, the label is appropriate. For a news reporter to then say "Person Y sought to have Person X arrested for flashing" is mere reporting of the facts.

In the instant case, Persons X seek to attach the label "Cult" to a large number of organizations with whom they hold divergent theological viewpoints. Use of the label is, in fact, an attempt to make those divergent organizations seem frightening or heretical. Perhaps it is appropriate to make those organizations seem frightening or heretical. It is not POV to make note of the fact that Persons X are using a particular label to achieve a particular end, any more than it is POV to note that I'm reporting a flasher in an attempt to get him arrested. --The Editrix 14:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yes it is very much POV when it is not "fact" at all, but actually your own conclusion. To use your analogy of Persons X and Y, the NPOV way to handle the situation is to report "Person X called in a report to police that Person Y had flashed them. Person Y claimed to have been elsewhere at the time of the alleged incident." What you are writing in the article, by contrast, is closer to: "Person X called in a false report to police that Person Y had flashed them, clearly trying to get Person Y in trouble." That is not NPOV; you may fully believe that Person Y is innocent and Person X's report is false; you are even free, if you like, to conclude that Person X could only be making a report of something you don't believe happened out of a desire to get Person Y into trouble. But you can't put it in the article. That is called original research. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it merely the onset of my incipient antiquity, or is some other dark force at work on me here? Forgive me, good Sir AF, for I know nothing of you, but were you sentient and active during the '70s period of which we speak? Please do not misunderstand that question, it is not offered in any way as a flame, not even an ember, but I have the most profound recollection of the vigor and intensity of the debate that arose, magma like, in the 70s even as the POV item states, creating the precise shift in emphasis referenced in the POV item. Does that, then, not meet the stated requirement of uniqueness for a Wikipedia article? Again, I do apologise, for I feel like such an interloper, barging in like this and flailing around. Perhaps I should just pick up my toys and go home -- but, OTOH, is not the Wikipedia her to be a learning tool for the world? If so, then, verily, I am of the world. DaveB 00:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See above regarding original research and why it matters little whether you or I were either of us "sentient and active" during the 70's. As for the "stated requirement of uniqueness", you misunderstand. The point is not to make every article on Wikipedia fit exactly into a single niche that doesn't overlap with any other article at all; that would be artificial and counterproductive. What is against Wikipedia's standards (and its goals as well) is people trying to exploit the fact that a subject can be described in multiple places to try and give their own POV on the subject greater representation than the POVs they disagree with. If this article had been started with what the existing cult articles already said on the subject of "the cult debate" (a very ill-defined topic, I must note here in passing) and if TheEditrix had notified those who were editing those other articles that now there was a new article which focused specifically on "the cult debate", there wouldn't be POV fork concerns. The fact that she chose to start a completely new article and start it with, among other things, POV assertions and original research made the POV fork concerns quite significant. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a body of knowledge out there about "cult debate", as presented in this article. I would suggest expanding it by providing more material from reliable sources, then make a summary of the article and add it as a section to Cult, thus avoiding a POV fork. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uninteresting

I rather suggest that this article be deleted, it is closely related to other definitions, it isn't even a real term. --Tilman 05:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The term is referred to in NRM literature:

The Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements, book by James R. Lewis; Oxford University Press, 2004
Odd Gods: New Religions and the Cult Controversy, book by James R. Lewis; Prometheus Books, 2001

It could be merged to Cult, although that article is already over the size limit. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The little referenced contents in this article can be treated in one or two sentences. Andries 19:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever is referenced should stay, otherwise it would be fine with me if merged. Also note the two books by Lewis above. I still need to read these passages referring to this debate. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]