This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

We need to establish a clear and consistent policy regarding what is or is not categorized as a cult in Wikipedia. That is, which articles get this category tag, and which do not, and why. -- Serge 18:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

If there are cited accusations in the article (such as in the case of Objectivism (Ayn Rand), which is clearly why you are making this argument), then it's fair enough to put it here. -- LGagnon 00:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The NPOV solution is to put those movements for which there is not a consensus of sources claiming they're cults in the "Alleged cults" category. It's a major POV violation to brand something definitively with a "Cult" tag when there are sources that disagree. RJII 15:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It's also POV to brand known good cults like Alcoholics Anonymous with "alleged", since that label causes Wikipedia to 'decide' that being called a cult is always bad. See my further comments at § Category cleanup. Milo 06:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Attempts at defining a 'cult'

"A cult is a group of like-minded people who seek to change the way individuals feel about one key or several key philosophical issues. A religion nothing more than a cult that have made it." - My definition, by Jack (talk) 15:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance (OCRT) report that members of the public typically know only one definition of "cult". As a result, some editors who encounter other definitions say there is none generally accepted. There is in fact a set of generally accepted definitions, more of which OCRT says the public should learn. I propose that these be summarized at the top of articles and categories where editors have expressed this confusion. Milo 06:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

POV tag

I put a POV tag on this article. Someone needs to go through and make sure everything in the list can be asserted as Cults. If there is disagreement among sources then it's a clear violation of NPOV policy to present them definitively as Cults. When sources disagree, the proper location for them would be under "Alleged cults." RJII 15:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Although I've been heavily critical on Wikipedia of certain religious movements with charismatic, authoritarian, abusive leaders, I'd be very hesitant to put many of them in this category due to NPOV issues. Consider these criteria from WP:CG:

Questions to ask to determine whether it is appropriate to add an article to a category:

• If the category does not already exist, is it possible to write a few paragraphs or more on the subject of the category, explaining it?
• If you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why the article was put in the category? Is the category subject prominently discussed in the article?

If the answer to either of these questions is no, then the category is probably inappropriate. ....

Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category. ....

Whatever categories you add, make sure they do not implicitly violate the neutral point of view policy. If the nature of something is in dispute (like whether or not it's fictional or scientific or whatever), you may want to avoid labelling it or mark the categorization as disputed.

These NPOV considerations apply particularly, IMO, to:

• Categories that have unclear boundaries. In popular usage, people may mean different things by the term. This is certainly true with cult, as that article makes clear. NPOV suggests that we should include all important POV's on what the term means, and the cult article does a nice job of that. But how are we to handle the range of definitions when we use it as a category? Is it possible to do so without engaging in original research?
• Categories that are pejorative. No question about that in this case.
• Categories that can be fuzzily populated (as with the example of "being in the kitchen" in the fuzzy logic article). Even when we agree on a clear definition, a group can still be partly cultic: it can have some characteristics of a cult, or certain aspects of the group but not others may be cultic.

Do these concerns make sense to other editors? cheers, Jim Butler^{( talk)} 07:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly that this category probably violates NPOV. There's an article I'm working on that some people would say belongs in this category-- but I would never just stick it in this category-- eseentialy declaring its cult-status as a fact.

Is there an "alleged cults" category? Or can we somehow re-name this category? -- Alecmconroy 05:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I second that suggestion. What people see as a cult is entirely subjective and I think people label groups as cult when: 1) the groups threaten a fundamental belief of mainstream society either by attacking it directly, running away from it or developing their own belief system (See the the Merton section [1]) 2) when we happen to have a looser connection to society than the other group who we tend to see as more primative (and perhaps at the same time envy for their social cohesion and strong belief structure, See the Durkheim section, same link). My point is that this labeling of a group as a cult depends very much on who is doing the labeling. For example, European editors might have no problem categorizing American Fundamentalism as a cult in part due to their relative lack of religiosity and most Americans would disagree.

So I propose two changes (which I'm planning to implement as well):

1. that the article be renamed to 'Alleged Cults' where alleged is determined by typical wikipedia standards of evidence (e.g. avoiding marginal cases and category bloat). Ideally, when the tag is added it should have a parallel comment in the Talk page to build consensus towards retaining it
2. that the article only focus on organizations that are alleged to be cults, and not people who study them, etc.

I've made a brief heading to the category to make this clear. This may be in conflict with a policy concerning categories or an overly literal interpretation of the category. Comments on either issue would be useful. What I'm suggesting avoiding is making a category that includes: 'works of fiction that cite cults', 'people who have studied cults', ad naseum. Each of these should have its own list in my mind, although an argument can be made, like Category:Hospitals as an example, the key is to include all related articles that are of potential interest to people reading about the subject. In either case, I think if Philadelphians passes this test, then so should most sports teams, etc. making the category of little use. Antonrojo 00:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Formal request to rename is here [2]. Antonrojo 01:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, will have a look. I think that the use of such "alleged" categories has been rejected in the past as being too broad. Probably better to keep them very narrow; I doubt Jim Jones's thing is controversial. But I don't know offhand how I'd state the criteria explicitly, either. Thanks, Jim Butler^{( talk)} 20:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

To sidestep the issue of 'what is the cult' and reduce redunancy, I'm going to try out a restructuring of the category into a 'meta category' (in other words dealing with topics about cults rather than becoming a list). Organizations that have been called cults in media, government reports and academic research will be moved to List of groups referred to as cults, researchers about cults to a List of cult researchers, etc. and guidelines added to the article to make it clear where to put new articles in the category. If labeling of a group can't meet the criteria listed over at List of groups referred to as cults, I think that it probably shouldn't be called a cult. The current category takes the kitchen sink approach: anyone who wants to apply the cult label can do so. Antonrojo 22:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that'll work real well. *looks at watch* Although it'll probably move up the timetable for the next attempt to delete List of groups referred to as cults... -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It sounds to me like you are simply removing entries from the category. If a group is included in List of groups referred to as cults, and there is mention of cult charges on the article page, then it should be in the category. This proposal isn't satisfactory. - Will Beback 01:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

My intentions may not be clear. Specifically, what I'm referring to above is converting inclusion within Category:Cults to a ==See also== reference. The motivation for the proposal above is that when users see the category in its present form, they are presented with a long list of names of people who may be cult researchers, leaders or opponents, names of groups, literature, etc. which they can only sort out after a lot of clicking and reading of articles. Readers who are interested in learning more about cults would have an easier time if the information were parsed for them. The listing under '*' in the category is one way to do this.

Also, you asked on my userpage about consensus for this approach which I agree is lacking. Related ideas were proposed or supported in this discussion [3] which I notice you also posted in. The comments of Pharos, Glen, Jossi and Samuel Wantmen raised the idea for me.

Are you proposing that every item on the List of groups referred to as cults, Category:Cult leaders, etc. belongs in the cults category? Antonrojo 01:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I propose that groups which have been widely called cults should be in the cults category. I can see no benefit from removing the Branch Davidians, et al, from the Cult category, which makes that category less complete. Articles about topics which are not cults, such as cult researcheers, should not be in the category, though a "See also" link may be appropriate. - Will Beback 03:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I've done some reading on the subject and realized that there is fair amount of uncertainty around the proper purpose of categories. For general reference, here are a few of those links:

• [4] when to use categories
• [5] An older discussion that seems to be often referred to in 'when to use categories' discussions
• Wikipedia:Categorization

One thing that puzzled me a little was this statement from Wikipedia:Categorization: "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." A literal reading of this rule suggests that categories founded on at least partially subjective criteria, such as Category:Cults should have few if any items because there are really no criteria to prove that a group is 'at conflict with larger society' and 'has novel religious view', to take two examples from the cults list, in a way that is 'self-evident and uncontroversial.' Consensus on including an item is not enough for an item to be 'self-evident' which is defined as 'requiring no proof or explanation'.

Anyhow, in my opinion, including only cults in the category is tantamount to making it a list. Downsides of using a category for this instead of a list include: 1) the fact that the tag can be applied without reading its criteria--presumably this could be corrected by editors watching the category however, 2) watching a category for changes is much more difficult than watching a list. When a new article gets added to a category there is no notice so that editors notice it only if they regularly check the category and don't mind sifting through a long list of items or use a tool other than the watchlist, 3) the rationale for adding items to a list is visible both in edit comments and the talk page while for categories this requires backtracking. Similarly, the rationale can be directly integrated into the list, as is the case with List of groups referred to as cults. Antonrojo 17:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Well you've certainly covered many of the differences between categories and lists. You omit the main reason for categories - navigation. Categories are a tool to allow readers to find articles on similar topics. There is no controvsery over whether Synanon or Pana Wave should be included in a category of cults. For individual articles where there is a dispute than that can be handled by the editors of the article. It appears to me as if you are trying to delete or reamke this category without going through the proper procedure. In fact, this just survived a CfD, in which many editors indicated their support for the concept. I'd like to encourage you to undo your actions here, as there is not consensus for them. - Will Beback 20:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

This is what I wrote on the WP:CfD page:

• Strong Keep but with strict classification criteria This is similar to say Category:Rapists which says

"This category is for individuals who have been criminally convicted of rape, or those for whom there is little academic doubt among historians as to whether they committed the crime."

The criteria for Category:Cults should state something similar such as (note this is a very rough and initial example off te top of my head)

"This category is for groups or organizations of which there is a widespread acceptance of their cult status ( Jonestown or Heaven's Gate for example) or have been labelled as a cult by notable experts (Rick Ross, Steve Hassan for example)."

The definiton of a cult is not POV, it is a very specialized list of traits that said group will have. If it has negative associations to some than that has little relevance on the facts. I believe this is the best solution - Glen 16:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Some refactoring of the category has been started with a very similar eventual goal. Category:Cults has been moving towards a 'meta category' (in other words, topics about cults) so that lists of cult researcher, etc. get included as items. The change relevant to your comment is that there is an effort underway to move cults listed in this category to List of groups referred to as cults. Topics such as reliable sources are discussed extensively in the talk page there (See for example archive 3). Doing so requires finding reputable sources for the cult allegation or, failing that, not including the organization on the list or in the cults category. Antonrojo 17:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is my response to Glen on the WP:CfD page

Glen, I can appreciate your point that there is a small ‘hard core’ of groups that most would agree fit the ‘lowest common denominator’ concept of a cult, such as the Peoples Temple or Heaven’s Gate. However, there are several fundamental flaws in your recommended approach:

1) The analogy with Category:Rapists is unhelpful, because there is little controversy over the definition of rape, and therefore the decision whether to include someone in that category is at heart a question of fact, not opinion. The same does not hold true for the word cult. There is no generally accepted definition and therefore one’s use of the label is inevitably linked to his or her POV.

2) How does one go about determining whether there is ‘widespread acceptance of a group’s cult status’? Who is going to determine this?

3) Deference to the opinions of ‘notable experts’ only exacerbates matters, since the issue is equally controversial among scholars. Which experts will be relied upon as the ‘objective arbiter’? Many would argue that Rick Ross and Steve Hassan are not experts at all, but anti-cult activists, and for every Rick Ross and Steve Hassan arguing that a group is a ‘cult’ there is an Eileen Barker and Gordon Melton who will say otherwise.

4) Finally, and most importantly, most people are not familiar with the way the term is used in sociology. In its popular use, the word ‘cult’ does not simply have negative connotations, it is in fact widely perceived as a pejorative, which makes it singularly inappropriate as a category heading irrespective of other considerations. Most would be offended if you suggested their religion was a ‘cult’, and not merely think you had got your facts wrong. Should Wikipedia have a category called bastards, even if you could compile a list of people that most would agree fit the description?

For all the above reasons, including the fact that 'cult' is a word to avoid on Wikipedia, IMHO "cult" is a word that is inappropriate to use in category names. That is not to say it should not be used in articles themselves as per WP:WTA, i.e. where it is clear from the context how and why the label has been used and by whom. Perhaps "Category:Controversial religious groups" would be an acceptable alternative, since it would cover most if not all of the subject matter currently under "Catergory:Cults" without the POV problems -- the existence of controversy surrounding a group is a more objective criteria and something on which it is possible to achieve consensus on even with "cult apologists". Really Spooky 19:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

While all of this sounds really neutral, it's anything but. 'Controversial religious groups,' for example, makes the assumption that a cult must be a religious one -- which is untrue. The technical defintion of "cult" is that of a group led by a single, living person whose orders they follow unquestioningly. Additional requirements are the use of deceptive techniques -- a lack of transparency, both within and without the organization -- and the use of what are brainwashing techniques upon those within the cult, particularly noviates. (I highly suggest that those claiming that the term 'cult' is not neutral check such works as "Cults in Our Midst," a sociological/psychological examination of cults.) [ 71.76.238.227 00:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC) [6] ]

Please remember to sign your posts - it's hard to follow this thread. - Will Beback 04:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Ummm... Where did you get that 'technical definition' of 'cult' from? It sounds like your own definition of a cult. In fact, the first problem with the use of the word 'cult' as a category title is that it has no universally accepted definition and means different things to different people.

Even if your 'technical definition' of the word 'cult' was decisive, however, that would make inclusion of groups in such a category irremediably POV. What objective criteria can be used to determine whether people follow a single living person's orders 'unquestioningly'? Or that a group 'lacks transparency'? Many would argue those criteria apply with equal force to mainstream religions such as the Roman Catholic Church with its doctrine of papal infallibility or Eastern Orthodoxy with its use of Old Church Slavonic in liturgy and the prevalence of mysticism. These problems only multiply if, as you say, the word 'cult' requires the application of further controversial concepts such as 'deceptive techniques' or 'brainwashing'. Wikipedia's own article on ' brainwashing' notes "Whether any techniques at all exist that will actually work to change thought and behavior to the degree that the term "brainwashing" connotes is a controversial and at times hotly debated question."

The proposed alternative 'Controversial religious groups' makes no assumption about 'cults' at all, it is simply an NPOV category that would cover most if not all of the subject matter currently included here. If a group is not religious in nature, then it would simply not be included. Ironically, your objection applies equally to the word 'cult'. One of the few aspects of the word 'cult' that most would agree upon is that it presumes the group is a religious one [7]. Really Spooky 08:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

'Transparency' is the access outsiders have to information reguarding how the group works and its goals/beliefs/practices. This applies very much to the modern Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodoxy. The fact that Eastern Orthodoxy uses Old Church Slavonic in its liturgy is not important: it is possible to learn the language through secular means, and in fact the WikiPedia page on it has a link to a site with online lessons. (I have not checked, but I suspect that one can find English translations of the liturgy as well.) Papal infallibility is also not accurate: the modern Roman Catholic Church has placed strict limits upon it, and knowing the history of the RCC, it is hard to believe that any took it to apply to topics outside of its current limits when it did not suit them politically.

As for mysticism, it in itself is not a bar to transparency. Requiring intiation to gain access to mystical secrets, however, is.

'Deceptive practices' are such things as 'bait-and-switch' -- what they tell outsiders about their beliefs does not match particularly well what their beliefs actually are. Think 'going to a Wiccian Sabbat and getting a lecture from the high priest about how Allah is God and Muhammed his prophet.' Most, admittedly, are not that bad (or obvious), but some have in internal documents advocated, for various reasons, not telling prospective converts exactly what they are converting to.

Of course, both of these things can change over time; several groups are on record as at least offically deciding to abandon previous policies of secrecy, and in theory, at least, it is possible for it to occur in the opposite direction. (This might be a good reason to remove the category, as such a change would rarely justify a new entry for the religious group.)

Choosing to remove 'religion' from the definition would actually move it away from being attached to a PoV; 'religion' can often be a matter of self-definition, once you start dealing with ones which lack gods. Would you say that a group which believes they are aliens trapped in human form was a religion? This qualifies as a 'strange belief,' but it being a religious belief is their own choice. I doubt one could say that their own opinion lacks a point of view, and somehow it seems a bit arbitrary to resort to their tax status under such circumstances, particularly as not all juristictions may recognize them as such.

'Controversial religious groups' has the simular problem that, when you get down to it, it would be either PoV due to what is included & excluded or simply a full duplication of the 'Religious groups' category. The bottom line here is that all religions are going to be controversial somewhere, particularly as there are some regions where only a single sect of a particular religion is accepted. unregistered person

There is no consensus here to change the purpose of this category. I have deleted the new criteria added by Antonrojo. Please get agreement before changing it again. - Will Beback 22:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Where is the criteria on this page? I don't see it. Really Spooky 09:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Her's what the editor added:

• This category includes topics related to cults. If you are looking for a list of cults, see List of groups referred to as cults which is also a member of this category. Specific individuals and groups should be added to one of the lists linked below at the top of 'pages in category' section.

That takes it from being "category:cults" to "category:topics related to cults", which is a major change. - Will Beback 18:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You say the criteria was 'changed', but after your removal I don't see any criteria at all. So what was the criteria before the alleged 'change'?

More importantly, the criteria you have removed in fact accurately describes the content of this category. To name just to a few examples, About-Picard law, Coercive persuasion, Deprogramming, Exit counseling, French Parliamentary Commission of investigation of Cults activities, Indoctrination, Love bombing, Personality alteration, Reachout Trust, Recovery from Cults (book), Snapping and Ticket to Heaven are not cults by any accepted definition, but rather ancillary topics related to cults. Yet those pages are included in the category.

If you believe Antonrojo's "new" criteria is inaccurate, then you should also remove the links to all those pages which do not discuss 'cults' but topics related to cults. Really Spooky 11:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Antonrojo's "new" criteria changed the nature of the category. After he changed it he started removing groups from the category. That's when I objected but he went ahead anyway. I having no objection to having a subcategory for "cult-related topics". In the meantime there's little problem with having cults and cult-related topics in the same category. - Will Beback 17:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I can see the problem with Antonrojo removing groups from the category without discussion. But the criteria is a different issue. What is wrong with the criteria he included if, as you say, "there's little problem with having cults and cult-related topics in the same category"? It seems to me that having some criteria, even if broadly defined, is better than having none at all. The title 'cults' itself is insufficient because few people agree on what a 'cult' is and there is no generally accepted definition. Really Spooky 10:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

(reset tab) I'm adding back the criteria and I'm interested on suggested changes to it. The 'removal of groups' what Will is referring to was an effort to migrate them over to List of cults which has some criteria for determining what a cult is. The subcategory approach that Dr U has taken instead is a good alternative for organizing the category. The second 'cleanup' issue was related to a lack of criteria for labeling groups as cults. The list of cults has a specified criteria for this, and the current alternative, labeling them as 'alleged cults' works as well.

The term 'alleged' is WP:AWW without some criteria for determining which sources are legitimate for these allegations (alleged by whom?), as well as providing a cite to them. Unfortunately categories, unlike articles, don't allow editors to add references to added items and are harder to police because changes don't show up on watchlists. Maybe someone could tweak this approach to better deal with the problems of creating and policing a criteria for whether a group is a cult. A first rough draft of criteria is at Category:Alleged_cults. Antonrojo 14:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

This reminds me over the arguments about what is a planet. Very scientific indeed. Cough! Note however that Encarta uses this word as well [8]. I think I will create a category for "controversial terms". Kmarinas86 01:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully suggest that "cult" is an objective word in psychology and sociology. As well, France has objectively reported on cultwatch issues (1995/2005; see List of groups referred to as cults#Exclusive to the French Report). Typical of many governments, France was compelled by citizens' concerns about mind control and member exploitation. See my further comment under § Policy. Milo 06:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

To tie in with the article List of groups referred to as cults as well as to remove any percieved POV/bias.

What do people think? Sfacets 03:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd view it as an improvement over the current situation. -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree that this is an acceptable alternative. The advantage of tying in to the List of groups referred to as cults is that this way Wikipedia remains "on the sidelines" of the dispute, whilst allowing a categorisation of sorts, which some feel is important. If such a list is to exist, I think the fact that it identifies the source labelling a particular group as a cult is quite helpful, since it provides at least some context. Really Spooky 15:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I support "Referred to as..." in a name change. IMHO, that phrase has been successfully vetted as NPOV. After several name changes at List of groups referred to as cults, I don't recall any recent complaints. See my further reasoning under § Category cleanup below. For the navigation purpose of categorization, including to accommodate researchers of cults, perhaps the name should be "Category:About groups and practices referred to as cults" Milo 02:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't seem to find the CfD discussion. Did it really happen? I go to the link above and there doesn't seem to be a Cults entry. -- Tbeatty 05:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I've corrected the tag to point to the CfD discussion of June 28, 2006 (not May). Milo 06:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The CfD was closed with a "nealry consensus to keep". I would understand that by saying that there is no consensus to keep, hence it needs to be deleted. I have asked the closing admin to clarify. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Per prior discussion I placed most of the articles in category Cults into subcategories. There seemed to be agreement that something needed to be done. There didn't seem to be agreement on how to accomplish the tasks, so I used an amalgamization of ideas previously suggested, and thought up a few of my own. I think we can all agree it is tidier. I doubt there will be universal agreement that it is better. Let the bitching begin. Dr U 05:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I see your change from Category:Cults to Category:Alleged cults. "Category: Referred to as cults" (or maybe just "Category: Referred cults") is connotatively better. • Will Beback is on Wikivacation currently, but I'd like to ask him whether this "alleged" idea was long ago considered and passed over at List of groups referred to as cults. Using "alleged" implies that being called a cult is always bad. This is formally not true in the sociology of church-sect typology, and is informally not true of known "good" cults. Good cults include devotional cults like the old Cult of Mary, and certain modern (1920 onward) cults. List of groups referred to as cults has listed at least one to debatably five non-religious "good" cults: Alcoholics Anonymous, Wikipedia, Mary Kay cosmetics, Selfism psychology, and Jung Cult. Most firmly of the five, AA has been scientifically studied to be "good" for its participants (Vaillant, 2005), yet AA also uses mind-control techniques and has other cultic characteristics firmly correlated in sociological studies (Alexander & Rollins, 1984, quoted). • OCRT - Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance has recommended that the public learn more than their typical one definition of "cult". IMHO, "Category:Alleged cults" is a step in the wrong educational direction. Milo 10:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

No doubt, it would be good if people had a more nuanced understanding of 'cult'. In my opinion, the meaning that the vast majority of readers will expect is a pejorative term. The other two meanings: a Catholic devotional cult and a term for an Islamic sect are, as you state, uncommonly used. Cult is also defined by some academics and again, readers will typically not have this background. The reason I think 'alleged' is appropriate language is that groups listed as cults never (from what I've seen) self-identify as cults and generally react negatively to the label, unless they happen to see humor in the miscatagorization (as Mary Kay ladies might). Also, 'alleged' implies that there is are specific named parties making the allegations rather than wikipedia saying this IS a cult.

IIRC one of the main arguments against using alleged in the past was that the consensus process should determine whether a group belongs or not. Cult, as commonly used, is such a vague term that without explicit criteria and/or a reference to reputable sources, that method of categorization is likely to lead to a lack of consensus in any but the most clear-cut cases. Antonrojo 17:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with much of what you've stated, including the desirability of nuanced education. Ok, so at least don't bias WP against it. • I agree that readers do expect a pejorative "cult" term, yet the list is up to 6% (currently 5 of 81) not pejorative, at least in typical expectation. Why unnecessarily reinforce the readers' majoritarian POV by category? • Furthermore, that 6%-ish number could be an iceberg tip. An issue raised by a fact at Cult#Prevalence_of_purported_cults is that there exist 3,000 to 5,000 cults (USA, 1995). Presumeably thousands of cults are good enough to avoid attention, and only, say, 100, are "bad", or at least publicly annoying (e.g., mass begging). Why contribute to tarnishing the good enough ones when it's avoidable? • I view WP:Avoidance, as a critical principle in reporting cult references. The apparent success of the 1920+ Rule (based on J. Gordon Melton's research quoted at OCRT) results from avoidance of referencing groups and practices as cults prior to the modern meanings of that word. Likewise, by using "alleged", why should Wikipedia 'decide' that being called a cult is pejorative when "referred" avoids that 'decision'? • If "alleged" were the only alternative, I might support it for the reasons you listed, but "Referred to as" is now vetted. After several title changes at List of groups referred to as cults the title itself works as NPOV, because WP references many sources without "is"-ing or otherwise endorsing them. I suggest, if you and I can't firmly defend the unendorsed Reliable Source reference, Wikipedia has no future. Milo 23:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that migrating members of Category:Cult leaders over to Category:Leaders of alleged cults makes sense. Feedback? Antonrojo 17:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The latter is on CfD. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The result of the CfD was "nearly a consensus to keep". That means in my book, that there is no consensus to keep. If there was such consensus the closing admin would have said so. I have asked clarification from the clsoing admin. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

We only delete when there is a consensus to delete. - Will Beback 04:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Nearly a consensus to keep is a pretty strange way to close a CfD. I have asked the closing admin to clarify. You may also want to check the votes. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that items on this list should be migrated over to List of groups referred to as cults based on WP policy [9] [10] and the latter states that "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category" and the other cite basically states that the term should be avoided unless it is defined in a strict academic sense. Moving these cases over to that list also seems to be supported by consensus, both in comments in the talk page, and the recent CfD for this category. If this category is to be retained, it should be a 'cult topics' category, in name or in practice. Antonrojo 15:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Some groups are self-evident and non-controversial, for example, Heaven's Gate (cult). - Will Beback 16:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that most of these are groups that 1) are no longer around and 2) culminated in group suicide or other violence. For anything short of that, I'm not sure how we could definitely say that a group is a cult or not without well-defined standards. Consensus works well for defining whether a specific person, etc. falls within a given category. When the consensus process also attempts to simultaneously resolve what the category itself means, then the debate won't reach resolution (e.g. "According to Scholar X's definition of cult, this should not belong" v. "Le Monde just called this a cult"...ad nauseam). Also, this debate likely will be spread across many talk pages for articles that apply the tag which is a lot of redundant effort that could be prevented with a clear definition of a cult.

The difficulty with having a category that includes 'cults' is that the term 'cult' refers to something important yet difficult to define that includes groups outside of concrete categories such as 'group suicides', 'religions with less than 1,000 members', etc. For example, India has a long history of religious leaders such as Fakirs and yogis who gain a large and devoted following, collect large mandatory tithes, have bizarre and sometimes dangerous practices (such as extended fasting) and the like, and I wouldn't know where to place any of these leaders and their followers along the 'good religion' v. 'bad cult' spectrum. At the same time I have to admit that groups such as Mary Kay have cultlike aspects--which in my mind is just another way to say that they are a cohesive group with sacred practices, both of which conflict with my cultural prejudices. Based on my understanding of WP guidelines, it should be possible to police categories by removing additions stating 'this is not an X because it does not meet standard Y'. Antonrojo 19:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Minor editor of Scientology here. I've glanced through your debating and it all seems sensible but could you please give a thought to us down here editing the actual articles? We were having a nice debate on Talk:Scientology as to whether Scientology belonged in 'Cult' when an editor rearranged Category:Cults and dumped us into 'alleged cult'. Which, on the whole, we felt fair. Now 'alleged cult' has gone and we aren't anywhere because a bot tidied us away! So now I guess we have to recategorize Scientology into List_of_groups_referred_to_as_cults, where fortunately it already has a listing which we were ignoring as the List was, just the other day, depreciated.

As an opinion, I thought the previous version of Category:Cults, wherein actual organisations were all inside subcategories such as 'alleged cults', was the correct one. It is not for Wikipedia to say which organisations are or are not cults but to set out definitions and facts and let readers come to their own conclusions. -- Hartley Patterson 00:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I am sure that whoever wants to find info on Scientology on WP will do without the need to resort to looking into categories... ˜ jossi ˜ t • @ 01:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

One advantage of categories is hierarchical navigation. A user might visit Scientology and then wonder 'what other cults are out there' or 'who is fighting for/against cults and who's doing research on them that I might cite in my paper?'. Answering these questions using WP searching or google is generally unsatisfactory because the signal to noise ratio is too low. Categories are also pretty good for non-linear navigation a lá http://everything2.com because they lead readers to interesting related subjects they never would have read about otherwise. Antonrojo 21:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

"not for Wikipedia to say which organisations are or are not cults" Yes, we are consensed about WP not "areing" or "ising" or labeling groups as cults, but that doesn't prevent cult reporting or categorizing by reference. "Referred to" and probably "reference" works NPOV, where "alleged" and "purported" don't, because WP points (refers) to others (reliable sources) who do the cult labeling. • But after understanding the cult reference as a basic tool, editors still get hung up on categorizing degrees of cult badness (often not realizing there are good and ok cults). It's consensed that WP can bad-cat Destructive cults, but NPOV paralysis tends to set in on categorizing most others. Some cults are notoriously abusive, others are no worse than annoying, still others are inoffensive, presumed good enough, or actually beneficial. • To solve this problem (also for templates) I have proposed a category of cult references that point to subcategories of governments' cult judgments, including the subcategory of no judgment. See that proposal in the section below "Proposed Category:Cult references"
—Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Milomedes ( talk • contribs)

The (sub)main category is:
Cult references or Cult topics

one subcategory of which is:

Groups referred to as cults* by reliable sources.† (Asterisk in title that displays on all cat articles.)

(Top heading at the cat page with asterisk-->) "*Category content must conform to the rules listed at List of groups referred to as cults" (or whatever better wording was previously used.).

Subcategories are:

1. Destructive groups referred to as cults or Destructive cults

2. Legally entangled groups referred to as cults

subcats:

...civil court suits

...other court interactions

...administrative orders/sanctions

...police interactions

...other legal entanglements

2. Groups referred to as cults and named in civil suits

3. Groups referred to as cults with non-civil court interactions

4. Groups referred to as cults served with administrative orders or sanctions

5. Groups referred to as cults having police interactions

6. Groups referred to as cults with other legal entanglements

7. Other groups, practices, and sets of practitioners referred to as cults

• Destructive cults is currently accepted Wikipedia usage - they have been judged by governments as violent or as advocating violence.
• Legally entangled groups is an objective reporting standard, meaning reliable source reports about groups referred to as cults, who have also become legally entangled with civil court suits as plaintif or defendant, other court interactions/orders/fines including criminal cases, administrative orders/sanctions/fines, or police interactions/orders. When groups become involved with the law, they become subject to police/court/government/commercial journalism, and that includes how their neighbors refer to them, if relevant to the case.
• Other groups... are all the rest that reliable sources called a cult including beneficial cults (AA), probably good cults (Wikipedia), useful cults (Mary Kay), and the thousands of trouble-free local cults, old devotional cults, and fan-cults of popular culture.
† Sfacets proposed this title; maybe others did also. Milo 10:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC) 01:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC) 14:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC) 18:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

This really demonstrates perfectly why the 'cult' label is so problematic. Proceeding from the definitions above, 'Destructive cults' (judged (BY WHOM?) violent or as advocating violence) could easily encompass the Roman Catholic Church, Islam and Judaism; 'Legally entangled groups' would also include mainstream religions (paedophile priests, imams arrested for justifying terrorism)... Why are certain Wikipedia editors so intent on categorising religions as 'good' or 'bad'? Really Spooky 17:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• "'Destructive cults' (judged (BY WHOM?)" Governments.
• "violent or as advocating violence) could easily encompass the Roman Catholic Church, Islam and Judaism .... 'Legally entangled groups' would also include mainstream religions " Those issues were previously resolved by linking the late "Category:Alleged cults" to the 1920+ rule and others at List of groups referred to as cults. Accordingly, I have added that restriction to the proposal above (which also excludes old devotional cults, and fan-cults of popular culture).
• "Why are certain Wikipedia editors so intent on categorising religions as 'good' or 'bad'?" Literally — perhaps lack of conceptual tools that I'm proposing for middle cases. Only 10-some cases fit into the good/bad dicotomy. Milo 01:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me like a good proposal. However I'm not sure we need all of the subcategories. "Destructive cults" is a helpful subcat because it means that a benign group doesn't have to be on the same list as the Manson family. Also, those groups are usually defunct, which makes the POV issues less pressing. In fact, maybe we should just start with a "Destructive cults" subcategory. - Will Beback 09:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Smeelgova 09:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC).

I've refined and reordered the subcats. Adding "other" avoids the need to place any groups outside of a subcat. • The several subcategories are for the same reason as avoiding listing a benign group next to the Manson family. An annoying group charged with an administrative infraction for blocking a sidewalk during mass begging, doesn't believe it's fair to list them next to a group whose leaders were convicted of non-violent felonies or sued for sex abuse. If a group paid fines for administrative infractions and was also sued for sex abuse, I think they could be listed in both administrative and civil court subcategories. • Technically it might be better to promote the dotted subcats to the numbered level (that's why there are elipses), but the titles would be long of necessity, maybe too long. For example:
9. Groups referred to as cults and legally entangled in civil court suits or
9. Groups referred to as cults and named in civil suits
but maybe longish titles promoted to the numbered level are the cleanest way to handle the categories? Milo 14:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. There is no need to have a category "Groups referred to as cults" as we have an article about that subject with proper disclaimers and context. All other categories are based on value judgements some of which are contested. These categories are neither encyclopedic, nor in accordance with categorization guidelines. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

My preface is that I think those opposed to things should suggest something better to accomplish the goal. I opposed "Category:Alleged cults" only because of the "alleged" part. I now feel the obligation to help reconstruct that category with referring instead of alleging.††

• "These categories are neither encyclopedic" I did Wikiguide research on this concept via the "un-encyclopedic" tag. The Wikipedia guide says unencyclopedic is a simple opinion, so without supporting parameters it can't be logically debated. I respect your opinions (and not infrequently agree) but I suggest saving this one for an AfD context, the only forum which can validate it.

• "All other categories are based on value judgements some of which are contested." It was my understanding that formal argument went silent after linking the category content to the rules at List of groups referred to as cults? (Not my idea, but I think it was a insightful Wiki-innovation by Antonrojo, Antaeus Feldspar, and/or others - let me know who deserves credit.)

• I have a technical fix idea of adding an asterisk to the category title when there are disclaimers and conditions attached. Thus Category:Groups referred to as cults*. I think this asterisk will show up in the info box, and when the category is clicked on, the disclaimer will be displayed at the top of the category page. I think this may help alleviate the oft-heard issue of how WP can't annotate categories.

• "no need to have a category "Groups referred to as cults" as we have an article about that subject" That sounds like an anti-categorization argument, but I'm not sure that's your position. The counter-argument I've seen is the aid to navigation, which I did find persuasive when I experienced it at the "Cult" template. Technical problems aside, the volume of the cult reference articles is now one of the better arguments of the need for both categories and templates for navigation.

• "nor in accordance with categorization guidelines" Can you provide more details?

Milo 10:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

"Legally entangled groups referred to as cults", what's next? Category:People entagled in legal disputes? Please.... ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

"Category:People entangled in legal disputes" That doesn't seem analogous for a number of full debate reasons. The number one reason is that available Wikipedia edit labor couldn't reasonably create or reasonably keep up with it. Thousands of people are entangled in only USA legal disputes, and those public computer lists (I've used them) probably have hundreds of total changes daily. By comparison about a hundred-some cult references are currently available to manage, and their status changes very slowly, especially using the 50-year time window required by the rules at List of groups referred to as cults. Milo 10:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Destructive cults, could be added, providing that only those about which there is a wide consensus of reputable sources are included, abd such disclaoner added to the cat page. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with User:Jossi and User:Will Beback here. We should add the Category, Category:Destructive cults for the time being, for there are a number of groups that have achieved a consensus and are highly referenced in this matter. In particular, groups which are related to mass suicides, high numbers of deaths, and the like. I agree with User:Jossi that, for the time being, the other categories are most likely too specific and inappropriate. Smeelgova 06:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC).

Sounds like a consensus either as a small main cat (10-some) or a subcat of Cult references. Agree with Will Beback that POV isn't an issue, but I have a slight preference to maintain the "referred to" version as a fairness token. Yet I also have no problem with the article Destructive cult being in the category titled as "referred to". • That said "Category:Destructive cult", however justifiable as police journalism - and it is - added by itself it's externally viewable as another layer of fear-monger cult baiting that won't improve Jiva's mood at at all.

---------------------------------------

†† "I now feel the obligation to help reconstruct that category with referring instead of alleging" But I don't feel much obligation. If the previous heavy promoters of "Category:Alleged cults" don't weigh in soon with support, this "Category:Cult references" proposal may get miniaturized in a way that's not much progress toward cult/NRM fairness. If that's the outcome passively desired by the regular cult cat editors, I'll feel ok about it. :) Milo 10:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I generally support the proposals above and that categories need to refer to objective qualities of the groups listed as cults, etc. 'Destructive cults' qualifies provided this is defined based on crimes against people or property or at least the advocation of destruction by a group leader--and not simply a government designation of such (e.g. China with Falun Gong, nearly every country with the term 'terrorist'). I also think a meta-category of 'cult topics' is clearer than 'cult references'.

One option to consider for the 'groups referred to as cults' (or whatever similar name we agree on) is to wed the members of the category to the List of groups referred to as cults. This would help overcome the 'categories don't have annotations' problem and could be enforced by editors crosschecking the list and category members and removing articles not on that list (with a Talk note pointing them towards the List). Antonrojo 14:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Antonrojo, I know you are busy, but you really should read this whole section thread.

• The link to List of groups referred to as cults is already done.

• There's also a technical fix, a title asterisk, to allow categories to have annotations.

• From your Falon Gong remark it's also not clear that you have read the new "legally entangled" concept for subcats. For its objectivity, it depends on what governments declare about cults that they so label. Falon Gong is for certain legally entangled with the ROC, and is probably listable in more than one subcat. {Interesting, I was just interrupted at word processing and there was a pre-1920 cult member at the door!} If the ROC refers to Falon Gong as violent, then objectivity dictates that they be so subcated. On the flip side, that's one of reasons for additional subcats, so that a clearer picture of a groups legally entangled activities will be visible, and, say, ROC's listing of Falun Gong next to Aum Shinrikyo wouldn't be the only reference.

• I've added "Cult topics" as an alternative. The reason for "references" is to add extra CfD and AfD protection, but if no actual groups will be mentioned under the top category, then it's optional. Even if optional, "references" serves the top level symbolic purpose of making editors think and ask about the importance of preserving the fairness of the reference in editing the cult topics. A draft of the earlier method remains is visible in strikeout type.

Milo 18:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

To illustrate the shallower way of categorizing mentioned by Will Beback, I have outline-promoted the legally-entangled subcats with short names on the dotted/elipses level, to long names on the numbered level. (See the top of this section.) Milo 18:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I renamed the category 'Anti-cult organizations' to 'Anti-cult organizations and individuals' so that it includes people such as Rick Ross who are better known as individuals than leaders of a specific organization. I think this is a trivial change.

There was some earlier debate regarding the inclusion of Rick Ross in the 'Researchers of cults and new religious movements'. I think he fits better in the 'anti-cult...' category because he's active in anti-cult interventions. This bias in research for or against cults is at least as important as requiring that individuals be published in academic journals--though for most individuals either rule will yield the same effect. Antonrojo 14:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

As per the consensus from the discussion above, it seemed like most people did not agree with created necessarily all of the sub-categories recommended by User:Milomedes, but one that most people kept coming back to related to the article Destructive cult. I have been bold and created the Category, Category:Destructive cults. Obviously, this category should only be populated with well-referenced examples, and I took the lead and populated it with well referenced examples from the article Destructive cult. Smeelgova 03:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC).

Does anyone think this is an overly POV category? I've noticed this category has been added to several organizations, etc. that are merely anti-cult, for example International Cultic Studies Association which doesn't mention Mormonism at all. This is very similar to Category:Anti-Semitic people and several others categories and pages listed at Category:Prejudices. I think that all of these conflict with the WP Guideline that categories should be self evident. Since editors working on the Cults category have had success working on similar issues, this might be a good project for a few editors to take on. Antonrojo 01:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps some better-defined sub-categories would help? - Will Beback · † · 11:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see this related discussion. -- FishUtah 17:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Better defined subcategories would help quite a bit. Category membership should be 'self evident' based on WP category guidelines and defining these criteria on the category page is also discouraged. Offhand, it's not evident to me who or what would belong in an 'Anti-Mormon' or any of the 'Anti-Xist' categories. For example, I don't think the category should include people who criticize the Mormon church (which may include reform-minded Mormons) or the role of Mormons in politics, or a specific Mormon, etc. yet I've seen 'racist' and 'Anti-Semitic' labels applied for similar reasons. The model we've moved towards with the Cults category has been to make subcategories with concrete criteria for membership, for example groups advocating or participating in the destroying of property or violence are listed as 'Destructive cults'. You might consider filtering the items you have in the main Anti-Mormonist category into these sorts of subcategories. Antonrojo 18:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

"editors working on the Cults category have had success working on similar issues" Hi FishUtah, I think Antonrojo made a useful suggestion. • I looked at your categories list here (same as your link above), all of which contain the phrase "related to". From the CfD discussions I've seen, categories are routinely attacked for the kind of broad brush inclusions suggested by "related to". It wasn't my idea, but elsewhere I've written a lot about a theory of Wikipedia and the NPOV power of "referred to" or "references" in titles. Accordingly, you might think through and see if these work if renamed as follows:

1. Category:Laws referred to as anti-Mormon
   
2. Category:Material referred to as anti-Mormon
   
3. Category:Organizations referred to as anti-Mormon
   
4. Category:People referred to as anti-Mormon
   
5. Category:Places referred to as anti-Mormon
   

No. 2 is on CfD as currently named, and does seem overly broad even after renaming. No. 5 may mean more to you than me, if there are a number of towns in Utah known to be anti-Mormon. If there aren't such towns, I have doubts about this cat. • You may or not need category rules to define what statements are "anti-Mormon". The regular Category:Cults editors have developed a method to do that if needed. Milo 05:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who has been following the cult categorization discussions might want to weigh in on a related CfD proposal here. Antonrojo 03:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this would help alleviate some of the limitations with categories, mainly the problem that categories "appear without annotation". This would provide a criteria for adding/weeding entries to the category and can be policed by editors checking new members in the category against the list (at least until Wikimedia comes up with a better way to handle categories). The full WP:CAT guideline states: "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." Antonrojo 02:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree. There are currently few groups in the cat. Does this change make it self-evident that all the ones listed at List of groups referred to as cults ( LOGRTAC) that have an article can now be placed in the cat? Or does the article itself have to mention "cult"? • An important effect may be that it keeps the established religions (subjected to special pleading or obsolete cult labels), out of the cat. This in turn helps protect the cat from CfD using the arguments that nearly AfD'd LOGRTAC (knock on wood). Milo 04:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. Placing the groups from List of groups referred to as cults here is a huge leap. Including a group in the category just because somebody, somewhere, in the past 50 years has called it a cult (yes, that is essentially the criteria at LOGRTAC), not only leaves the category open to abuse, but also renders it almost meaningless (even Wikipedia and Mary Kay Cosmetics are in the list). As stated in LOGRTAC itself:

"...inclusion in this list does not prove, in any manner, that a group is a "cult" or "sect". Additionally, media attention alone is not an objective analysis of a group's status as a "cult" or "sect". This list serves only to aggregate a sampling of references to facilitate further research."

Given that caveat, how can inclusion of groups from the list possibly meet the "self-evident and uncontroversial" standard required by WP:CG? I suppose the list is acceptable as a minimum precondition for inclusion (which is the current position), but it should not be determinative. --- Really Spooky 11:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the list may include questionable items. The main check on this would be editors who watch the tagged articles who could discuss or revert the tags if necessary. Also, the LOGRTAC criteria can be refined to require more than a quote from a reliable source. One option is requiring that a group be listed on one of the more reputable cultwatch lists (e.g. gov't maintained), or that a respected academic labeled the organization as such. Antonrojo 12:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

"just because somebody, somewhere, in the past 50 years has called it a cult" That sounds capritious until one discovers that each somebody, somewhere had to convince an investigative reporter, skeptical editors, often a cautious publisher, and frequently a lawyer before their reference to a cult was published in a reliable source. There's not much room for abuse in such a system, and so far I haven't read any LOGRTAC cult-reference articles that were abusive. So until there's more than zero evidence, let's not worry about abuse. • I dare say you wouldn't dismiss the Mary Kay listing as meaningless if you knew much about the sins of MLM, complete with religious coercion — educate yourself on the downsides of the pink cult here. • As for the Wikipedia listing, it proves the fairness of LOGRTAC — Wikipedia does have some cult characteristics that have been remarked on a number of times, including in the reliable source article that's listed. I could analyze this point, but it would become self-referential. Instead I'll paraphrase Eric Idle's humor line from Monty Python: Join our cult-watching cult, or I shall taunt you again! (hehe) Milo 21:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

You're going to have to do a better job of taunting than that. So far, I see you have an unquestioning faith in the media, which on LOGRTAC includes editorial comment, personal web-sites, international sources and blogs (I note someone just included the United States Police as a cult). Apparently you haven't had any dealings with the media yourself to experience how frequently they demonstrate bias or simply get things wrong, or you choose to overlook this here. Your defence of the inclusion of Wikipedia and Mary Kay Cosmetics as cults only persuades me that you subscribe to a sensationalist/metaphorical defintion of cult. And yes, I would describe that as abuse of the cult category if they were to be included.

PS - I also note you have completely ignored the heading to LOGRTAC that states "...inclusion in this list does not prove, in any manner, that a group is a "cult" or "sect". Additionally, media attention alone is not an objective analysis of a group's status as a "cult" or "sect". This list serves only to aggregate a sampling of references to facilitate further research". Does that not, in itself, make the list wholly inappropriate as a determination of what belongs in the "cult" category, irrespective of its actual content? Your father was a hamster and your mother smells of elderberries!! ---- Really Spooky 01:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

"You're going to have to do a better job" Ok, I'll go for the goal. You believe that you should be vigilant against logical fallacies. There's a big logical fallacy underlying your anti-rules position, which I will work into following minor bits of rebuttal.

• " LOGRTAC includes editorial comment, personal web-sites, international sources and blogs (I note someone just included the United States Police as a cult)." Thanks for illustrating that LOGRTAC is working to rule. You forgot to mention the vandalism that regular editors routinely have to revert along with unacceptable blogs and personal website additions; they with their reference to the U.S.P. were transient and are now gone. • It would be POV not to allow international sources to report international phenomena. • Editorial comments published in reliable sources must go through the same editor - publisher - lawyer vetting process as field reporting does. (Note that reliable sources is a WP:V policy not subject to modification at either LOGRTAC or Category:Cult.)
  
• "Your defence of the inclusion of Wikipedia and Mary Kay Cosmetics as cults only persuades me that you subscribe to a sensationalist/metaphorical definition of cult." Like all compromises, what I personally subscribe to is somewhat different than my defense of the LOGRTAC consensus. That defense is not founded on definition, but the inverse: excluded definition. My questionable faith in the media aside, from reading the reliable source authors' descriptions, Wikipedia and Mary Kay are not excludable fan-cults. You are correct that LOGRTAC accepts all definitions not excluded, and that could include some sensationalist/metaphorical definitions of cult.
  
• "[quote non-rules part of LOGRTAC header] Does that not, in itself, make the list wholly inappropriate as a determination of what belongs in the "cult" category, irrespective of its actual content?" No, for two reasons. (1) The header commentary section you quote applies only to LOGRTAC. Category:Cult is making independent use of a common set of rules. Most importantly, (2) you are misunderstanding how the in-common rules work. They don't determine what is included in the list or the category — they determine what is kept out.
  

Q.E.D.→ Unless you think fan-cults, fictional cults, political personality cults, RCC, Islam, Baptists, and Quakers should be listed as cults, then you actually agree with these rules that exclude them. • Your complaint may be that they don't yet exclude your additional choice of cult references such as sensationalist and metaphorical. The perfect is the enemy of the good. Promote a consensus to add those exclusions if you wish, but why try to block exclusion rules that you presently do agree with? • Please rethink your entire position. Now that you understand why this strong current consensus exists, I ask you to join it for Category:Cult. Milo 11:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Your ‘q.e.d.’ demonstrates a failure to understand the issue raised. Somehow you have concluded that I have a problem with the List of groups referred to as cults. I don’t, and primarily because of the caveat it uses. In fact, the list is rather useful because it illustrates that usage of the word ‘cult’ is wide and varied and usally says more about the source’s point of view than the group itself. For example, the sensationalist and metaphorical media references in the list far outstrip the academic ones.

So I’ll emphasise my point again here for clarity: “Placing the groups from List of groups referred to as cults [in Category:Cults] is a huge leap.” Why? Because, just because someone referred to a group as a cult in the past 50 years (whether the source was media or academic) doesn’t necessarily make it a cult, something that LOGRTAC expressly acknowledges. And WP:CG clearly states: “Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category.”

Now, unless you disagree with the principles at WP:CG, your position amounts to an assertion that a single media refence (apparently irrespective of the context) in the past 50 years is enough to establish “self-evident and uncontroversial” cult status warranting inclusion in Category:Cults, because presumably every media organisation has armies of conservative editors and lawyers poring over every word before it is ever printed in a book or newspaper, mentioned on a TV programme or placed on a web site. I am a bit more sceptical, if only because the media rarely agree on anything. Nevertheless, if I were an editor or lawyer the sight of the word ‘cult’ in a piece presented for my review wouldn’t bother me one bit (assuming my country respects freedom of speech) since it is nothing more than a value judgment. In fact I would probably even like it if it ruffled a few feathers: controversy and sensationalism attracts readers.

So my q.e.d. is this: You are the one diverging from the consensus. You are the only person on this page suggesting that LOGRTAC should be the definitive criteria for Category:Cults; even Antonrojo, who proposed LOGRTAC as a mere precondition for inclusion, seems to agree that using it as THE definitive criteria would be going too far. So why not include Wikipedia in Category:Cults, and see what happens? After all, it is in LOGRTAC too. Then we can better assess how strong the “consensus” is. :) (<mildly taunting daring smile) -- Really Spooky 18:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• I support Antonrojo's proposal, and don't suggest any deviation from it. I hope I can get answers to couple of questions I posed in the second post.

• In my opinion, the most important issues you've raised would go away if the category was renamed to Category:Cult references or Category:Groups referred to as cults. You have consensed to the latter in § Proposal: Rename to Category:Groups referred to as cults.

• Other issues you've raised are known problems at LOGRTAC, I have proposed improvements, but the strong consensus there (not here) is currently for no change. Even though the rules are not entirely as I would wish them at LOGRTAC, it's a consensus, and I accept it.

• I read this as a take it or leave it proposal and I accept that your final position is leave it. Now we'll need to hear from other editors to establish a consensus. Milo 14:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Milo: You need to known when you are beating a dead horse. Absolutely oppose, for reasons already discussed in the many CFDs related to this subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hm? Perhaps you need to address that to the proposer, who is not me. See post 1. And no, since I don't know what CfDs you are referring to, therefore I'm not exactly sure what you are opposing. Milo 20:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

And what in the world is LOGTARC? That is an inappropriate use of article namespace. I will delete. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you actually read the previous thread? [11] Note the parenthetical abbreviation in post 2. It's a combination abbreviation and navigation aid to avoid having to spell out List of groups referred to as cults over and over and over again. Look at how many retypings it saved above. I wanted it to be a hotlink so editors could not only navigate with it, but newer editors could find out what the acronym was by clicking on it. No one is forced to use it; three of us found it convenient to do so. • After you delete, I'll name the LOGRTAC redlinks "jossi's redlinks" in your honor. Milo 20:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• This is an unnecessary clarification, and one made without consensus or discussion, from a prior version of the description that had been stable for months. Smee 05:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

It is apparent from discussions on List of groups referred to as cults that cult is a derogative word - and this also implies that categorizing a group as a cult is POV and biased towards that group. You can't justify reverting by saying that the description had been stable for months, things change constantly. Sfacets 05:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I posted some weeks ago that something like this complaint was going to happen. I said then and now that the cat needs to be renamed Category:Cult references. Milo 10:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The category is fine the way it is. Compare to other categories of similar scope and character, and you will see. Smee 14:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

This has been discussed previously in a number of occasions. The List of groups referred to as cults articles contain the necessary disclaimers and criteria for NPOV. A category does not. That is why this list should not be used to categorize groups as "cults". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but nevertheless, the disclaimer is fine as is at present. Smee 04:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

If it is agreed that the category shouldn't be used to categorize the groups themselves, shouldn't the intro reflect this? This will prevent future attemps at pushing POV by labeling groups as cults... Sfacets 06:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

And what about extremely obvious cases, where the term cult is in the title of the group itself? Surely those cults can go here... Smee 16:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

It sounds like the debate is whether to include the list of groups referred to as cults list in this category. To me, as long as these are legitimate sources, stating that a group was referred to as a cult is much different than saying that it is a cult. The difference is that the group such labeled would agree that the reference was made, which I see as a pretty good test of neutrality. Is there more to this debate? Antonrojo 04:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

My rationale for adding the cults category back to the list is that, at least until the list is deleted, that as long as both a cult list and category exist that linking them does a service to the reader. Antonrojo 04:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)]

Scratch that. I see there is a 'list of lists' in the category. A diplomatic if inelegent solution. Antonrojo 04:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)