Talk:New religious movements and cults in popular culture/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Suggestion

Suggestion

I propose that the subsection that currently exists at: Cults_and_new_religious_movements_in_literature_and_popular_culture#Television_and_other_media, should become its own article:

• Cults in film and television.

The inclusion criteria would be tight, i.e. the group in question would have to have been referred to as such in that particular program. Thoughts? Smee 20:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Yes. My thought is that first the current mediation needs to be completed, and then we can talk about splits or merges. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Are there more TV and film examples? Right now, that's not that big of a section and this isn't that long of an article really. (Or it's at least not triggering the "article size" notices when editing.) Though it does seem a little more "trivial" then the rest of the article. Perhaps if it isn't split it should be trimmed. From what I remember of Vanished, the cult aspect wasn't covered much before it was cancelled. As for that section, some parts don't seem to have sources and one sentence ([Growing Up Gotti]]) has 9 refs. Are these all used to cite that 1 sentence or are they to cite the whole section? Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 20:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• I know that this is a subject that is often discussed in film and television. Perhaps what I may do at some point is simply create a new article from scratch on the topic, with new citations, instead of splitting off from this article... Smee 07:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

Mediation (cont)

No progress is being made so far. A proposal I made was rejected by Dking, and instead of addressing the arguments on its merits or making a counterproposal, Diking has attempted to frame the dispute as if it was a personal matter. This is unacceptable behavior. The status quo is not acceptable, and continuing to edit the article as if nothing has been challenged is neither. I would ask the mediators to make efforts to bring Dking back to the discussion table so that he endeavors in making a counter-proposal. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I presented my opinion on a particular proposal, and Jossi then urged that the "mediators' work commence," meaning that the mediators should respond. In the past week the mediators have not responded (and this is not a criticism of them), but now Jossi says I'm the one who is not addressing issues and should be "brought back" to a discussion table that in fact I have never left. (Rejecting a particular proposal that would gut this article is not the same thing as rejecting any and all proposals.) I have no objection to some kind of introductory paragraph that frames the presentation in line with suggestions that have already been made. I also have no objection to and indeed have already suggested that the term "cult" be used only very sparingly within the text of the article. As to continued editing, I merely did some minor tweaking on the Gurdjieff paragraph (since the original Gurdjieff movement easily classifies as an NRM, it should not be a matter of dispute here). I did this tweaking because we were lucky enough to get someone really knowledgeable about Gurdjieff to take an interest. He (or she?) raised issues and I responded by trying to help fix the paragraph.--Dking 17:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

For the record (in response to "HG" and "Mr. Z-man" above), I have no objection to NPOV phrasing, including the restoration of such phrasing that I put into this article earlier but which was deleted by others. I also have no objection to an introductory section that

(a) makes a distinction between benign and destructive cults (or something to that effect), or merely notes, as does the main "cult" article, that the word is used in different ways by different experts,

(b) points out that some groups were widely regarded as cults in a negative sense in literary works written in previous generations but may not be regarded as such to the same degree, or at all, today,

(c) points out that most designations of a group as a "cult" (in the sense of a totalistic organization) are disputed by the members and leaders of those groups and that inclusion in this article of any group (if it cannot be defined simply as a New Religious Movement) merely means that a significant body of scholars, journalists, social scientists, mental health professionals, public intellectuals or ex-members, etc., have published citable writings in which the group is depicted in such a manner.

With that out of the way we could proceed in the rest of the text to simply refer to groups in neutral language (like "orgonomy" rather than "cult of orgonomy") and use the word cult itself only in describing the plots or themes of works of literature when appropriate.

As to referencing some kind of governmental list of cults, I don't think that's a good idea. Governments probably shouldn't be in the business of compiling such lists, but even if such lists exist in some democratic European Union countries, they only focus on a very small number of groups that happen to be active in the country in question and happen to have triggered a response through allegedly provocative behavior. Thus such a list would only cover a tiny fraction of the universe of either destructive or benign cults and would do so on a basically arbitrary basis.--Dking 19:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

<< Thank you for making these proposals. I would appreciate if you can propose the wording for such disclaimer in the introductory section. Once we have that in place, we can discuss the specific sections and entries in these sections to ensure NPOV treatment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

(e/c) So basically, we need to come up with an NPOV, fairly strict definition of a cult. Anything that is not a cult under that definition or a NRM, should be removed from the article. A dictionary definition of cult that may be a start is

A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.

While "generally considered" is too vague to use here, I would suggest that if multiple unrelated (to each other and the group) reliable sources call a group a cult, we use refer to it as such here. Basically, to be a cult, the group is widely considered extreme or false (heretical), has unconventional living/worship, and an authoritarian and/or charismatic leader. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 19:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we're quite there with the above suggestion. Although it has the benefit of embracing both "benign" and "destructive" religious cults (e.g., "authoritarian and/or charismatic leader"), and can also be applied to most "new religious movements," it doesn't address the issue of nonreligious cults, a category of organizations that a large number of experts (probably the majority in the field) recognize as an important part of the picture. I think if you re-read the above dictionary definition, you will find that it applies rather well also to the groups widely regarded as nonreligious cults. (The only caveat is the word "worship" but that should actually be phrased "unconventional living and/or unconventional worship" since some purported cults, both religious and secular, do not have unconventional living arrangements although they do have "unconventional modes of expression" ("worship," more or less) of their unconventional beliefs. I will try my hand at a draft intro over the next few days.--Dking 20:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think we would use it word for word, we do need to establish some sort of objective-ish criteria though as opposed to just saying: "That's a cult". Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 20:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed draft introduction to "Cults and NRMs in Literature and Culture"

INTRODUCTION

The term "cult," as applied to nonmainstream religious or secular organizations, has multiple overlapping or contradictory meanings in both scholarly and popular usage.

Sociologists of religion often use it to refer to a religious group with novel doctrines, charismatic leadership and a high degree of tension with the surrounding society. In popular usage and in the opinion of many social scientists, psychologists and mental health professionals, the term is also used to designate secular and religious groups with the above characteristics that also are widely regarded as exploiting their members financially and psychologically through "coercive" methods. However even strong critics of "cultism" make a distinction between degrees of authoritarianism in cults; for instance, Steve Hassan divides them into "destructive" and "benign" categories.

The term "New Religious Movement" is also used by scholars with the implication that the group in question either is not a "destructive" cult, has evolved away from past controversial practices, or is being discussed in a context that embraces both destructive and benign movements that share common characteristics as per "neutral" definitions of cults and cultism.

The term "cult," especially as used in the media and popular culture, is usually disputed strongly by members of the groups in question, and some scholars and social scientists regard all definitions that focus on special authoritarian characteristics as being flawed. .

The article below deals with the treatment of cults in literature and popular culture, where the perceptions of particular groups may be exaggerated and inaccurate. The mention of any real (as opposed to fictional) organization in this article reflects only that a substantial body of informed opinion (and in the case of well-known groups, much of the general public) regards it as having the characteristics of a cult or NRM. Some organizations or movements mentioned herein have evolved over the years, as has the surrounding culture, and are no longer viewed in the negative way they were viewed at the time particular literary works about them (or literary works by their founders or members) were written. Other historical groups, such as Theosophy, were known for their novel beliefs and charismatic leadership but not necessarily for abusive psychological practices, and are best described as the NRMs of their day.--Dking 20:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem with that lead, Dking is that it is a great example of original research. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This would be more appropriate:

This article deals with descriptions of groups and people that have been characterized as cults by their critics, or that have wide consensus of sources that describe them as such.

In the sociology of religion, the term cult refers to one of four terms making up the church-sect typology. Under this definition, "cult" refers to a religious group with a high degree of tension with the surrounding society combined with novel religious beliefs. Due to the pejorative connotations associated with the term, its use by the media and in popular culture, is usually disputed strongly by members of the groups in question, and differs from the definitions used in other academic disciplines. For a presentation of the competing viewpoints in the definition of the term, see Cult.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

After writing the above I understood the impossibility of the task. As there are competing definitions of the term, and as it would be impossible to differentiate who called who a cult and under which definition, any attempt to have an article that is compliant with WP content policies would be an impossibility. I go back to my original proposal: to keep in this article only fictional cults and move all other material to their respective articles so that NPOV and V can be maintained. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Far from being original research, my draft introduction was an attempt to summarize the properly referenced discussion on varying definitions of cults that appears in Wikipedia's main cult article (I even reproduced the references and added new ones). If Jossi were to be consistent, he would demand also that all references to individual cults and NRMs be removed from the main Wiki cult article and from all subsidiary cult articles. However, this particular article is being singled out for a special attack; I wonder why. I have gone out of the way to provide voluminous documentation on this discussion page and to provide references in the text to a far greater degree than in most Wiki articles on popular literature and popular culture. Each such attempt on my part merely triggers further and even more excessive demands from Jossi. I do not at present see any basis for a constructive mediation process with this individual.--Dking 23:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

"This individual" is having second thoughts about the possibility of NPOVing this article as per the arguments presented. Bringing forth a straw man argument or ad-hominemns only shows the difficulties we are facing. There is no such "special attack", just that the article as it stands has no chance to being compliant with out core content policies. All the research done my my honorable adversary , can be kept by moving the material to the relevant articles where they can stand alongside with other significant viewpoints, where WP:NPOV , which is non-negotiable, can be achieved. Maybe my honorable adversary needs to read WP:OWN. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Wanted to check in briefly and appreciate both of you for continuing this discussion. Though it clearly has been strained, it does look like progress is being made. (Personally, I have taken what in hindsight could be called a wikibreak, for reasons unrelated to this mediation. Sorry. I'm not sure I can contribute regularly in the near future.) Anyway, I think it is helpful that Dking took the time to craft the above proposed introduction. Jossi also deserves credit for grappling with the text. Though Jossi then seems to have found it frustrating to edit (striking out his own effort and expressing futility), I do think with patience this will enable Jossi and others to pinpoint why the wording and the characterization(s) feel so hard to get neutral. Both parties agree that it's impossible to have a monolithic and neutral definition of 'cult' -- so then the question becomes (#1) how to explain the multiplicity of definitions, which I think the draft above begins to tackle nicely, and (#2), as Jossi says above, how to differentiate which groups belong under a pluralizing (non-monolithic?) definition of 'cult' (i.e., who gets called a cult either now or as a matter of historical interest) and which would be excluded from this article. While (2) may feel impossible, I think if several people collaborate it will emerge. If we keep in mind that the article would insist on admitting a broad semantic range (i.e., a pluralizing definition), then hopefully the stakes would not seem so high. HG | Talk 04:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Specifically, in my view the opening sentence is helpful. The second paragraph is useful, too, though some editing might strike a somewhat better balance. The 1st sentence of para 4 is important, maybe it could include NRMs and be moved up higher. Now then... the next sentence is pivotal because it seems like Dking's proposal on (#2) above, i.e., when to apply NRM and cult here. He proposes: "The mention of any real (as opposed to fictional) organization in this article reflects only that a substantial body of informed opinion (and in the case of well-known groups, much of the general public) regards it as having the characteristics of a cult or NRM." This seems to address Jossi's concern about who gets included in the article by being implicated as an NRM or cult, rightly or wrongly. Perhaps the "substantial body of informed opinion" is persuasive, and it does sound rather like Notability. If so, "informed" can be omitted, since the intro itself emphasizes that such perceptions may be "exaggerated and inaccurate." Perhaps the article might "reflect only that a NOTABLE opinion regards the organization...." (N.B. Notability is not a truth criterion. A false theory of astronomy may still be notable.) In any case, I would encourage Jossi and others to help revise the intro above. Maybe keep in mind that sometimes a dispute seems most frustrating, most intractable, just before it gets resolved -- because that's when the parties have boiled it down to the real gist of the matter. P.S. Please let me know if I'm this is helpful and email me if I fall back out of touch. Thanks. HG | Talk 04:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the intro is a good start. While I normally disagree with disclaimers in articles (as the last paragraph is to an extent) it will probably be necessary here to include a wide range of groups and usages and maintain NPOV. The NRM paragraph comes off a little confusing; specifically: "is being discussed in a context that embraces both destructive and benign movements that share common characteristics as per "neutral" definitions of cults and cultism." This either needs to be simplified or elaborated, the latter would be more helpful. Also, I would stray away from the "and in the case of well-known groups, much of the general public" part, mainly for practical reasons. It may be very hard to define a group as a cult simply by the opinion of the general public. Unless a scientific poll was conducted asking something like "Do you think Group A is a cult?" that we can cite, any use of "public opinion" is likely to be original research. Unfortunately, I also will not be able to contribute regularly though it appears that discussion here appears to be moving fairly smoothly. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

What about the Death Eaters.

After learning more about the Harry Potter series, I am rather convinced that Lord Voldermort's organization, the Death Eaters, can be safely refered to as a cult. Sorry but I will need some actually Harry Potter fans to discuss this. I am mainly a Star Wars person. Fusion7 22:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Alexander the false prophet

The more I research and read about this character, the more obvious it becomes that Kent's analogy is singular. No other scholar make the same claims. I will be expanding that section with more material from the abundant sources on the subject, with the intention to spin off a main article on Alexander. After that we shall see what can we do about Kent's minority position. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "other scholars do not use...but prefer..." implies a conscious choice. Hume, one of the scholars quoted, lived before the era of modern psychiatry and would not have known about "malignant narcissists" (a term that has only become current in recent decades). More recent commentators on or scholars of ancient literature may simply not have been aware of or interested in the types of issues that Prof. Kent raises. If some scholar has explicitly stated that he personally prefers an alternative interpretation to Kent's, then certainly that scholar should be quoted as to his own opinion. All that said, I think that the changed wording keeps the essence of the previous editor's point, which is a legitimate one.--Dking 20:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not know what to make of Jossi’s initial statements (on 18 August 2007) about my article on Alexander—an article that will appear in hard copy by the end of the year. Jossi states, “the more I research and read about this character, the more obvious it becomes that Kent’s analogy is singular. No other scholar make[s] the same claims.” Then he refers to “Kent’s minority position.” Surely it is worth stating that no other scholars have even had the chance to adopt or respond to my position (i.e., that Alexander appears to have been a malignant narcissist) because the article has not yet even appeared in print! (Jossi seems to be working only from the article’s abstract.) Rather than calling it a “minority position,” surely it would be more accurate to call it a “new position.” StephenAKent 19:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Stephen and welcome to Wikipedia. I have added some pointers in your talk page that can inform you how Wikipedia works. As for your question, note that the article does talk neither about a "minority position", nor about a "new position". Rather, the article says that some authors have described Alexander one way and others in another way, as per our policy of neutral point of view, that instruct us to describe significant viewpoints and ascribe these to those that hold them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, NPOV is perhaps the cornerstone of Wikipedia's editorial policy. In that spirit, as well as for clarity and with a nod to avoiding weasel words I have made a minor edit to the noted subject. It should be more than enough to note the other/past scholarly points of view on the subject without needlessly implying that they are necessarily or consciously oppositional to Kent's or Freckelton's views, which the prior wording seemed to (admittedly depending on how one read it, but after all, an important part of remaining NPOV is avoiding things that could be interpreted in differing ways by different people, right?). Phil Urich 07:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Non-social scientists in cultic studies

Distinction is between scientists (basically, social scientists and people who do psychological research) and non-scientists, not between academics and lay persons. Otherwise, the point is valid.--Dking 21:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Page move

The page was moved without any disucssion. I'm going to move it back penidng a consensus on this. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. To be honest, the article smells like AfD for me, on the basis of apples & oranges approach (i.e. bordering on WP:SYN), but I'll put that aside. Duja► 07:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Please comment on the proposal Sfacets 03:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

"Apart from the obvious POV conflict, New religious movements encompass groups that are refered to as 'cults'. " -Sfacets

I have no problems with the suggested move. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. This suggested move just another part of the requesters attempts to expurgate "cult" from Wikipedia. -- Lonewolf BC 07:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I don't believe that was the reason I gave - I have no intention of expurgating the term, since it is a real term - however my aim definitely is to insure that it is used correctly (ie supported by sources and put into context) to avoid POV and OR issues. Arbitrarily calling groups "cults", (a pejorative) is POV and OR. Sfacets 08:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the proposed logic here. Are all cults NRMs? If someone refers to a cult in popular culture is that the same as referring to an NRM? It seems to me that the two terms have different, though overlapping meanings. and that there is value in keeping them distinct. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

If that is the case, why not use either, and title the article something like "Religions in popular culture"? This would remove any confusion as to dates (which would probably be the only difference between them, aside from the negative connotations) and which groups should or shouldn't be mentionned. Sfacets 09:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It is a proposal - if any one has any other ideas on how to rename the article so that neutrality is present? Sfacets 23:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

"Cult" is neutral if that is what is included in the literature. Can you clarify if you consider cults to new religious movements or not? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

"Cults" are not necessarily NRM's. Which is why I opened this discussion following my proposal - to find a neutral title (obviously my proposal is flawed). The article contains references to real groups, and it is non-neutral to term them "cults". Sfacets 00:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

So if they are different then why did you say that using NRM" alone in the title would be "all-encompassing". Are all items mentioned in this page NRMs? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Didn't I just answer that? Sfacets 01:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

If there are real groups that are new religious movements rather than cults then they are covered by "new religious movements". The groups that are cults are covered by that term. That's why it's useful to have both terms. If I may say, it appears you are on a campaign to remove the word "cult" wherever it appears in Wikipedia. POV pushing does not help the necyclopedia. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying other, older religions haven't been termed "cults"? Sfacets 09:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Just the opposite. I think the general belief is that cults and NRMs are overlapping but distinct sets. Some NRMs are cults and some cults are NRMs. But they overlap enough so that it is easiest to treat them together. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

If you can find a source that says that, please provide it. Until then NRMs≠Cults and Cults≠NRMs. Putting them together is not the way to go. I am not trying to remove the instance of cult from Wikipedia, I am trying to put it into a neutral context, becase at the moment articles dealing with cults are seriously flawed. Sfacets 12:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Cults, Sects, and New Religious Movements

Such groups are sometimes called new religious movements (NRMs), cults, or sects.

"We have chosen to use the concepts "cults" and "sects" in the title of this volume for two reasons. First, the concepts do have more or less precise meanings as employed by social scientists. Second, it has become abundantly clear that after nearly two decades, the concept new religious movements has virtually no recognition either in the mass media or the general public. By calling attention to the concepts as they are used by social scientists, we hope to begin the long process of educating the mass media and public regarding the non-pejorative meaning of these words."

While I have long called my course "new religious movements," and have similarly identified the web site, I believe "cult" and "sect" are valuable concepts for scholarly discourse.

No attempt should be made to define too precisely the term ‘new religious movement’ as it is merely a term used to provide a common sense starting point to cover what others call non-conventional religions, alternative religions, self religions or ‘cults’.

And so on. There are numerous sources that say NRMs, sects, and cults are more or less then same thing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, from your first source:

"Often called "cults" by secular and religious media, many new religious movements are not really new at all. Some are sectarian variations of established religious traditions; others are syncretistic, combining elements of two or more traditions. Some are innovative; others are imported. What is clear is that they are not all the same."

Can you see any problem here? Sfacets 18:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

No attempt should be made to define too precisely the term ‘new religious movement’ as it is merely a term used to provide a common sense starting point to cover what others call non-conventional religions, alternative religions, self religions or ‘cults’. The terms cover the same groups, exceopt that some cults aren't religious, and some new reiligions aren't cults. I've provided ample sources. Please proide a source that says cults and NRMS are totally unrelated. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Despite it's negative connotations, one advantage of "cults" is that it is a commonly used term, which is important for article titles. As a minimum, I would think that an explanatory note (at top) would be needed for readers who are thinking in terms of cults (and unfamiliar w/NRM). Similarly, "cult" may be helpful for DAB, Redirects(?), and maybe See alsos for this page. On the other hand, "cult" may be a problem since it is no longer a self-identifying name for the groups. Since self-identification is based on the core policy of neutrality, I would think that "cult" would be deprecated in the title -- but allowed in article text, especially since the cultural references themselves will use the term "cult" rather than anything like NRM. So, while NRM is not a popular term, we have a responsibility to ensure that article titles are as neutral and encyclopedic as possible. Thanks. HG | Talk 19:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Opposed. I don't think we should change the title to encompass only "New Religious Movements." Many groups commonly referred to as cults are not religious, some (whether or not religious) are not new, and some are tiny, ingrown religious or nonreligious circles that do not reach out to aggressively recruit new members or to influence society (and hence are not "movements"). The term cult is commonly used by scholars as well as journalists and the general public. Attempts to mechanically replace it with "New Religious Movement" have not succeeded in the world of scholarship or with the general public and hence should not be adopted by Wikipedia.

Let me say that I do NOT regard the term NRM as simply a sanitized euphemism for cult; there are many NRMs that are not cults by the secular definition emphasizing exploitation and tight control of members' lives (for instance, most of the Wicca movement is non-authoritarian and Wiccans have published some of the best warnings against "cultic" methods that I've seen anywhere). But the two terms belong logically together because cults, whether religious or secular, and NRMs are outside the cultural mainstream (thus experiencing common problems and challenges) and tend to have a charismatic leadership and a higher level of commitment than comparable mainstream groups. (Also, and especially pertinent to this article, there is a great cross-fertilization of ideas between non-cultic NRMs and cults, with the latter borrowing from the former, and with splinter groups from the former sometimes turning to cultism and beginning to use the ideas of the parent NRM in a new way.)

In part the term NRM is an admirable attempt to carry on the old meaning of "cult" used in the sociology and history of religion--a term that does not carry the connotation of excessive control and exploitation that has become attached to the term "cult" over the course of the past century. It would be nice to legislate a new and ultra-precise terminology that could clear up the confusion, but that is not Wikipedia's job. As an encyclopedia it has to deal with the meanings of words as given to us in the contemporary, very messy English language. The best thing I can think of is that someone begin an article about the definitions of "cult," "sect" and "NRM" (on which there is an abundance of scholarly debate) and that this article link to it.--Dking 22:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I compiled a list of Wikipedia articles that use the word "cult" in their titles. These include:

Cult (the main article)

Opposition to cults and new religious movements

Cult apologist

Political cult

Classifications of cults and new religious movements

Cult suicide

Cults and governments

Destructive cult

List of groups referred to as cults

Cult checklist

Christian cults

Post-cult trauma

Cult-watching group

List of cult and new religious movement researchers

Cults and new religious movements in literature and popular culture

And then there's the Wiki articles about books with "cult" in their titles: Cults: Faith, Healing and Coercion, Recovery from Cults, Cults in Our Midst, Cult-Proofing Your Kids and Combatting Cult Mind Control.

Now some of these examples are more relevant to the current controversy than others (and obviously no one is suggesting removing a Wiki article about a book simply because it has "cult" in its title), but the list as a whole reveals that the use of the term "cult" has long been accepted on Wikipedia (reflecting its routine use by scholars, scientists, journalists, mental health professionals and law enforcement personnel). If we remove "cult" from the title of this article are we going to go through and remove it from "Opposition to cults and new religious movements," "Christian cults," "Classification of cults and new religious movements," "List of cult and new religious movement researchers," "Cult-watching group," etc? Are we going to take the main Wikipedia article, entitled "Cult," and change its name to "New Religious Movement" even though the view that cults should be called NRMs is very much a minority viewpoint among scholars and indeed has not taken hold to any significant extent in publishing and journalism?--Dking 21:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it would ever come to that - no one is claiming that the term cult doesn't exist - or derived terminologies such as destructive cult or Christian cult do not exist - however it is important to insure that there is no OR present. Why are cults and Nrms put together in articles such as Opposition to cults and new religious movements and Classifications of cults and new religious movements? As you say above, the view that Nrms are cults is a minority viewpoint.

There is as much controversy surrounding this area, as in the definition of cult. There are many, many modern definitions of 'cult' - The [[Christian countercult movement]Christian counter-cult movement]] has one, Scientology has one as do any number of "cult specialists". How then can we title an article with a word that doesn't have a clear meaning? The one thing each 'counter-cultist' does have in common though is that the meaning of the word is pejorative.

Some time ago I had to argue with editors who were persuaded that naming the Heaven's Gate group Heaven's Gate (cult). They saw no reason for the title not to change, despite the obvious neutrality issue. The article is still categorized under "Cult suicides" - but that is another issue.

Defining a group or groups as cults, or implying that they are by association (as in the case of Classifications of cults and new religious movements, for example) is non-neutal, and worse - Original research. Sfacets 21:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Sfacets asks: "How then can we title an article with a word that doesn't have a clear meaning?" If Wikipedia had to meet that standard, we'd have to retitle at least 20 percent of all Wiki articles, including all with "God" in the title, since God means so many different things to so many different people. The fact is that most words have multiple meanings. You do the best you can with the terminology given. Attempts to change the terminology re: "cults" have failed and it would be Original Research for Wikipedia to attempt to impose new terminology on its own.--Dking 22:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Objection to change: Various people have pointed out that the term, cult, has widespread popular usage. This observation is true, and certainly because of this point, the title of the entry should remain, “Cults and New Religious Movements in Literature and Popular Culture.” In essence, this article wants to discuss how popular culture represents a variety of ideologically driven groups, and the most likely popular culture term used to identify them (rightly or wrongly) will be ‘cult.’ Others are correct in saying that the term, new religious movement, has not caught on in popular culture circles, and some groups often called ‘new religions’ are multifaceted with only aspects that are religious per se.

Worth mentioning, too, is that many academics have used the term, cult, in their book titles precisely for reasons of recognition (or so it seems). I have in mind here: James Beckford, Cult Controversies (1985); Geoffrey K. Nelson, Cults, New Religions and Religious Creativity (1987); Thomas Robbins, Cults, Converts, and Charisma 1988); Benjamin Zablocki and Thomas Robbins (eds.), Misunderstanding Cults (2001); and Lorne Dawson, Comprehending Cults (2nd edition, 2006). While some of these authors may qualify their usage in their texts, the fact remains that they used the ‘cult’ word in their titles.

One final note: again today I checked the Oxford English Dictionary to refresh my memory about how it defines ‘cult.’ After its rather innocuous second definition, “A particular form or system of religious worship, esp. in reference to its external rites and ceremonies,” the OED offers as support a wonderful quote from the esteemed Quaker, William Penn. In 1679, Penn wrote a treatise entitled, An address to Protestants on the present conjuncture. (I do not have my volumes of Penn’s collected works readily available, but I presume that this publication may have deal with the fact that Protestant dissenters were being treated as if they were Catholic recusants.) In what I take to be a reference to part II, apparently on page 245, Penn observed, “Let not every circumstantial difference or Variety of Cult be Nick-named a new Religion.” And let not Wikipedia make that very mistake. StephenAKent 21:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not surprising that the list of authors you mention, are all somewhat associated with Opposition to cults and new religious movements, and will use the term "cult" in that specific context. But this article is not and can not be representative of just that vidwpoint, as all articles have to comply with WP:NPOV, which is a non-negotiable policy of this project. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

If you think Prof. Kent's list is skewed, how about the following list of titles written or edited by the distinguished religious scholar J. Gordon Melton, whose views are so favorable to cults and NRMs that he has been called a "cult apologist" by his opponents. Here it is: Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America, Why Cults Succeed Where the Church Fails, Cults, Religion and Violence, The Cult Experience: Responding to the New Religious Pluralism, Biographical Dictionary of American Cult and Sect Leaders and Cults and New Religions. And I didn't even begin to collect a list of the articles in scholarly journals by Melton that include "cult" in the title.--Dking 00:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I am really surprised by this comment. You must be aware of the vast difference between the use of the term cult by religious scholars , dictionaries and encyclopedias, and the pejorative use of the term by secular anti-cult advocates. A source used in this very article the excellent Ancient Religions The Belknap Press of Harvard University (2007), uses the term "cult" almost in every page, and never in the context to which you and Mr Kent refer. You may want to read the poorly written article on Cults to see some competing definitions of the term. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's put it this way: Until such a time in which the article in Wikipedia about Cults is in a stable and NPOV state, this article will remain a mess, and with permanent dispute tags as per that article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't get your point. Gordon Melton writes primarily about modern cults and sects in the U.S., not about ancient religions.--Dking 01:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

That is right. But Melton is a religious scholar, and when he writes about "cults" he writes about them from a different perspective than Kent, Zablocki, Robbins and other authors that write from a secular anti-cult perspective. You must know that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. The current title seems perfectly fine. Personally I've always thought of cults primarily as a term with connotations on size and group dynamics, not inevitably "good" or "bad". As well, as noted above, "cults" covers some territory that "new religious movements" does not, so unless one manages to propose a term that replaces "cults" that still covers those then I remain unconvinced. Phil Urich 02:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could split the article into two - one being "New Religious Movements in literature and culture", the other being "Cults in literature and culture". The second would need to be deleted as POV, of course. This illustrates that the only thing keeping this article from being deleted is the arbitrary mingling of two different concepts. Sfacets 03:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.