This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
The little box at the top of the "article" page (which box I can't seem to edit) says that the page "has multiple issues." That is confusing since it could mean that the page has been re-issued several times or appears under different names in Wikipedia. Better to say "multiple problems." Anybody who knows how to fix the box feel free.... Carrionluggage ( talk) 06:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
This is about tag cleanup. As all of the tags are more than a year old, there is no current discussion relating to them, and there is a great deal of editing done since the tags were placed, they will be removed. This is not a judgement of content. If there is cause to re-tag, then that of course may be done, with the necessary posting of a discussion as to why, and what improvements could be made. This is only an effort to clean out old tags, and permit them to be updated with current issues if warranted.
I'll remove the entire box, and anyone who has cause to put new tags can do so, and comment here. Jjdon ( talk) 20:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I removed this side comment from the article:
discuss prevailing belief systems in such cults
-- cprompt 02:46, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
I think the essential disctinction should be made between religious groups that have encourage suicide such as Heaven's gate and People's temple and the groups that have not done that such as scientology.
Andries 20:00, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I don't know why Unification Church is described in a paragraph here, while other groups which have ACTUALLY condoned or carried out suicide only get links. Same with Scientology.
Article should be rewritten to distinguish between:
Especially when the group in question (like UC) is on record as OPPOSING suicide. For example, we show the movie What Dreams May Come in our Bible camps to teenagers, to warn them of the consequences: as Cuba Gooding says, "Suicides go to hell." --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 18:17, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
After reading this section 3 times, I am still having a hard time understanding how "martyrdom, as found in religions such as Christianity and Islam, is tantamount to suicide". I understand the idea of a suicide bomber, or some sort of ascetic suicide, perhaps, but being burnt at the stake because of your religious beliefs or practices -- 'how' is this "cult suicide"? If anyone could clarify this I would really appreciate it, or I will severely edit this section. I should also mention that the grammar of this paragraph is atrocious. Ddddan 22:15, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Distinguish better between:
And in the Scientology section, we apparently endorse the view that former scientologists are more suicidal while condemning Scientology for predicting that departing members are apt to be suicidal. Let's pick one of these, or note the contradiction.
Also, if Conway doesn't say how Scientology makes people suicidal, it's more of a detractor's claim than a sociological statement of fact. Has anyone read her book? (I tried twice to get through it, but it was so low in vitamin content I'd rather eat junk food). -- Uncle Ed (talk) 15:49, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
On 10 Mar 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Cult suicide for a record of the discussion. — Korath ( Talk) 17:49, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
Maybe Martyrdom should be a separate article? It does tend to be an individual act, whereas cult suicide is more of a group act. StuTheSheep 03:20, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
(This section contained an advertisement trying to get people to join a yahoo group, I have removed it. Feel free to look at it in the history of this page if you really want to) -- Xyzzyplugh 13:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I admit I don't have a positive view of the Unification Church as a whole, but even at my most negative I didn't see them as suicidal. I'm tempted to remove them and replace them with something else. If I can find a suitable replacement to fit the bracket they are currently in would there be objections?-- T. Anthony 06:13, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Can we add this one, I mean the Suicide bombings?
I for one think it is a great idea but it has to have some disclaimers like just because someone is an Islamic Fundamentalist by no means they are part of a cult just for strong strict interpretations of th Quran and Hadith I think Al-Qaeda,ELJ,MEK would but does. BUT FOR MARTYRDOM TO even be on the same page is wrong . The difference between suicide and martyrdom is if the act is guaranteed lead to death of the one carrying out the act and this is the belief of most muslim clarics today.Here are a few quotes " incriminate mujahedin (Islamic fighters) who fight against aggressors? How can he consider these aggressors as innocent civilians?" or According to Islamic jurist and scholar Khaled Abou Al-Fadl, The classical jurists, nearly without exception, argued that those who attack by stealth, while targeting noncombatants in order to terrorize the resident and wayfarer, are corrupters of the earth. "Resident and wayfarer" was a legal expression that meant that whether the attackers terrorize people in their urban centers or terrorize travelers, the result was the same: all such attacks constitute a corruption of the earth. The legal term given to people who act this way was muharibun (those who wage war against society), and the crime is called the crime of hiraba (waging war against society). The crime of hiraba was so serious and repugnant that, according to Islamic law, those guilty of this crime were considered enemies of humankind and were not to be given quarter or sanctuary anywhere. ... Those who are familiar with the classical tradition will find the parallels between what were described as crimes of hiraba and what is often called terrorism today nothing short of remarkable. The classical jurists considered crimes such as assassinations, setting fires, or poisoning water wells - that could indiscriminately kill the innocent - as offenses of hiraba. Furthermore, hijacking methods of transportation or crucifying people in order to spread fear and terror are also crimes of hiraba. Importantly, Islamic law strictly prohibited the taking of hostages, the mutilation of corpses, and torture.[90] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.176.172 ( talk) 01:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
In the Cult Suicide article, on the subject of the Heaven's Gate Cult, it says:
"Some male members of the cult underwent voluntary castration in preparation for the genderless life they believed awaited them after the suicide."
However, in the main Heaven's Gate Article, it says:
"Many male members of the cult voluntarily underwent castration as an extreme means of maintaining the ascetic lifestyle."
---
So which is it?
And I've also been noticing a lot of direct copying between some of these articles. Is that allowed?
Inspector Baynes 17:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
The Cults template and the Suicide template are making the formatting of the main body of the article look bad. Everything is piled together visually, but I don't know how to fix it. Joie de Vivre 18:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
This site has been questioned as a reliable source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/dc_solar.htm. On what basis? - Will Beback · † · 19:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Does this belong in an article about "Cult Suicide"? Paddy 21:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Totally erroneous in the first place. JW's don't deny themselves medical treatment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.60.32.13 ( talk) 20:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Bethany Huges(sp?) disagrees with you. They refuse blood transfusions and also encourage Martyrdom. Nonsane ( talk) 18:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
An editor posted an {OR} tag on the artilce with the edit summary:
There are 21 inline sources and another dozen listed at the end. That doesn't appear to be a lack of sources. Are there particular sourcing problems that can be identified? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
(just an example) The section 'Martyrdom' contains no sources and a lot of OR. Similarly, many sections/subsections are devoid of sources.
Sfacets 00:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Is the term "Cult suicide" an actual term, or is it simply the juxtaposition of two words 'cult' and 'suicide'? Sfacets 22:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Again I ask: is this just a term arising from someone's Original research, or can it be attributed? Sfacets 21:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
That comes under the category of silly questions. Just google it if you really need proof that this is an established term. -- Lonewolf BC 23:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately for us all, Google search results are not valid references. Sfacets 23:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Again, I'm asking for a valid source which proves that this is a term used in a sociological context. What you gave above are headlines or titles which are often abbreviated/changed and have no academic standing. Sfacets 00:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Are anti-cult activists journalists? Sfacets 01:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
There is no indication that it is used generally. newspaper headlines usually will summarize/shorten a long headline. There is no indication of it being used generally (in-text) in an article. So it would appear to be an invented term. Sfacets 01:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Examples? Then add them to the article! Sfacets 02:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Melbourne is not a pejorative (mostly). Its use is not challenged. "Cult suicide" is a non-neutral way to describe the groups in question. Sfacets 09:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
on the grounds that it was clearly a set-up by the Chinese Communist Party to frame Falun Gong and ramp up the persecution, and thus should not be put in the same category as groups which have actually committed suicidal acts, even as "questionable".-- Asdfg 12345 11:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
According to whom, it's a "clear set-up"? There's different sources alleging that the the self-imolators acted on their own free will. And Falun Gong is regarded as a cult by many in the west, irrelevant of the "persecution" and what the FLG-associated media wants people to believe.-- PCPP 07:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Danny Schecter clearly states that "CCP's charges are unsubstantiated by outside parties." All third-party analysis state it was a fabricated incident. Dilip rajeev ( talk) 09:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
A few people's view doesn't make it a fact. As for "All third-party analysis state it was a fabricated incident", care to back that up? It's ridiculous to suggest that people are willing to burn themselves to death in the name of the CCP and sit in jail for it.-- PCPP ( talk) 09:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
So you're saying that every FLG practitioner will follow LI Hongzhi's 100%? The section is already listed under "disputed suicide". It's up to the reader to decide who they really are. Buddhist monks burnt themselves to death to make aware of their ordeal during the Vietnam War despite Buddhism's stressing non-violence, and I find it doubtful that there's people stupid enough to agree with the PRC government to burn themselves to death and then sit in jail.-- PCPP ( talk) 12:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
PCPP, the issue here is simple:
Dilip rajeev ( talk) 17:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Dilip rajeev ( talk) 05:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Amnesty, HRW, and US Congress simply opposed the crackdown of FLG practitioners, they did not anything specific about the nature of FLG. Kilgour and Matas are hired by FLG and has strong links with them, their claims are suspicious at best.
The TIME article is its own independent report suggesting its own version of the incident. Schechter is not an expert on the issue, he is only one observer. His views does not deserve greater emphasis than anyone else's. These evidence are circumstantial at best, no one had any conclusive evidence that the PRC actually staged it, and it's ridiculous to draw conclusions based on these evidence.-- PCPP ( talk) 08:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't why you continue to insist on its removal. There's already plenty of sources covering both the PRC government and the Western critics and FLG's views, and paragraph tells the story on all sides without issuing judgment. The views of the PRC is still held by a significant number of people, particularly inside the PRC. It's up to the reader to decide what is truth and what is propaganda.-- PCPP ( talk) 08:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I am not insisting on its removal - but you being the one who added it is obliged to justify this misrepresentation and baseless accusation made on a peaceful practice. Presenting a staged incident as a "cult suicide." Who exactly, if u'd care to clarify is the "cult" here? Am not asking you to copy-paste yet another line from CCP propaganda to support your edit. You cannot just dismiss academic views and the perspective of the Human Rights community as mere opinions, Friend. Also accusations as above on Hon. David Kilgour, David Matas, etc. - might work in the CCP, where media is restricted and people have to swallow what the state media says - but obviously not here, you should be aware that you cannot use such slander to "support" your edits on wiki. Dilip rajeev ( talk) 17:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
The exact disputed paragraph:
On January 23, 2001, six people set themselves on fire in Tiananmen Square, Beijing. The state-media claimed them to be Falun Gong practitioners. Time magazine said that it was possible for misguided practitioners to have taken it upon themselves to demonstrate in this manner, sparking a "propaganda bonanza" for the Chinese authorities. Falun Gong in New York denies that these people could have been practitioners on grounds that the teachings explicitly forbid suicide and killing. Falun Gong and some third-party commentators point to apparent inconsistencies in the government's version of events, and claim that the incident was staged in order to turn public opinion against the practice and build support for its crackdown against the movement.
If there's reliable third party sources that criticises the cult label by the PRC government, you're welcome to list it in the Tiananment Square suicide section. Views by academics, not matter how prestigeous, remain views and should not be represented as reported facts. -- PCPP ( talk) 05:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
The PRC government's views is significant and should be represented in this article. The fact that many Western sources disagree with their views also should be represented. As I stressed before it's up to the reader to decide whether FLG is or isn't a cult. So I suggest adding an additional sentence like this:
"While FLG is considered a cult by the PRC government and some cult critics [insert sources], the classification is widely disputed by human rights organizations and academics, who view the term as religious persecution [insert sources].-- PCPP ( talk) 14:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
[2]. Which is why it's under the "disputed" section. The PRC sources especially clearly considers FLG a cult and the Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident a FLG-influenced suicide. -- PCPP ( talk) 12:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
The above logic is precisely an example of an original synthesis--I outlined why above. You need a source that says the event was actually a "cult suicide," even for the disputed section. Otherwise it's original research, and can be removed according to policy.-- Asdfg 12345 03:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I've already gave you sources that referred to the TAM Square incident as "cult suicide". And there's plenty of Chinese sources eg [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] that referred to FLG as an "evil cult", and the immolation incident as "cult suicide"-- PCPP ( talk) 05:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I've given my reasons for deleting these, by edit-summary. Those reasons are quite straightforward, not needing explanation at length on the talk-page. If you, Sfacets, have a rationale for including the tag, or those 3 words, please use the talk-page to explain it. As far as I can see the one is just clutter and the other is either mere verbosity or else verbosity meant to imply doubt (i.e. "weaseling"). If the reliable sources say the cult suicides happened, then the article should simply say that they happened. -- Lonewolf BC 07:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Since there has been an inability to provide the citation(s) requested, I have removed the reference. Sfacets 11:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Too late, this has been going on for days now, with both you and LoneWolf reverting without even bothering to answer my request for in-text citations to prove that the term existed. Feel free to comment on the RFC. Sfacets 23:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Here are the headlines in question (emphasis added for clarity):
I've offered to cite text of articles as well, but this should be sufficient to prove that the term is not a neologism created by Wikipedia editors. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for providing the in-text citations. Sfacets 00:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
RfC Response Yes the citations do amply prove the existence of the common and familiar term. Dlabtot 18:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm Currently writing a fictional novel on a type of 'Cult suicide' and i couldn't find alot of information on the laws of of suicide.
For instance, there should be a section stating the laws taken by the government in the case of a suicide. Should one survive a suicide attempt, what charges will be filed?
Also, if anybody finds any information about Communal towns, i would be very gratfull if they would contact me with it. Michael hibbs ( talk) 19:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
suicide is bad —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.109.110.20 ( talk) 17:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't khnow if it was wrtten weird but i thought you missed one of the biggest ones. One guy had told people that this rockhet behind a giant asteroid was going to takhe them to heaven or aliens (can't rember) and he gave them all matching jumpsuits and said to drink this stuff and they would wakhe up on the ship but really it was a cult, but more of a mass murder? I think it happened in 1994, and he last name was apple-something, can't remember? Can anyone clear this up for me?-- 68.3.18.11 ( talk) 20:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I added them as a kind of placeholder back when. Should it be removed?-- T. Anthony ( talk) 16:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
The 'Martyrdom' section, worthy as some of its idea may be for discussion, is now an opinionated pile of random ramblings where every sentence starts with 'Some people think that...' Is the writer referring to his or her mom? Could someone please remove that section or at least entirely replace it with an encyclopedia-style entry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.145.45.120 ( talk) 21:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Its all OR as far as i can tell, if some one can find a Reliable source, Al-quaedia might fit. For most part its junk. i am giving it till January 26th a month from when i tagged the section unless we can get references. it can always be restored later. Weaponbb7 ( talk) 16:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to leave a few spaces since it's been more than two years since the last posting and frankly, it's a little difficult to follow. But I did get the feeling that a good number of wikipedians are keen on removing a disputed piece of information from the disputed section because they don't deem it disputed enough. It seems that user:PCPP up to 2009 is the only one who cared enough to write about it in English.
There are preciously little information on this cult/religion/spiritual movement. Any information given is biased towards either side of the argument big time. So, here's something safe to say: it's disputed. So why the heck are we taking it out of the disputed section?
Also, it's clear that the FLG are a human rights concern for the PRC. And makes perfect sense for the US, the self-proclaimed archenemy of the PRC to make it an attack point. Ok, maybe that's a little speculative for me to say, but to say that the US have no political interest in helping the FLG would be hilarious, for human rights concern or for more practical realistic and sinister reasons.
Now, many here proclaims that the PRC had it set up, so says the western media as well as the US congress, which are both OBVIOUS non-biased reliable sources of information. The fact of the matter is, the PRC claims otherwise, and so, it's disputed. I also find amusing that some would use FLG's own doctrines to prove this as a non related thing. It's like saying because God's forbids killing, Christians don't kill, and those who do are not Christians. Also amusing is that by classifying the FLG as a non-cult organizations, it can somehow be excluded from such scrutiny. Oh but it's not a cult you say, so it doesn't belong under cult suicide. I wonder why there's not a page for religious suicide, oh right, because those that performs suicides are cast out from the main religious fraction and are named as cults. How convenient.
Frankly, only a precious few academics (independent academics might I add) even bothered with venturing into this, for the fear of being being prosecuted politically on either side of the Pacific. And that the cult leader is him self being under constant protection by the US government shows that there are serious political interest invested into this organization, and so nothing is certain and EVERYTHING is disputed. For the love of invisible pink unicorn there's a "Anomalies and discrepancies" section in the gravitation article, but we FLG won't make into a article on cult activity (under the disputed section no less) because the majority of the wikipedians editing this are of a certain opinion, and so what is disputed is no longer? I'm no devotee to wikipedia and haven't read all of its many rules, but for such blatant show of academic biases, I bet there's something on that, even if no knowledgeable wikipedian is brave enough to point it out. Gw2005 ( talk) 03:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
If there are no reliable sources calling this a cult suicide, then it does not belong on a list of "cult suicides". There's nothing more to say. Homunculus ( duihua) 06:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
The central problem to this still remains: there is no reliable source saying this event was a cult suicide. It has not been presented. We have the former HK executive saying it, and that is it. He isn't an RS. We cannot have on the one hand RS saying that Falun Gong is or might be a cult,* and on the other claims that the event may have been an attempted suicide by Falun Gong members, then combine that together and say the event was a cult suicide. The attempts at "compromise" here are heartening, but the only thing that would be compromised by this is Wikipedia content policies. It seems rather banal, but we need a reliable source to actually say this event was a cult suicide, or it will be an original synthesis.
*(to the contrary, the opinion of reliable sources on this is that Falun Gong is not a cult. So half the argument is not even formed. As for the other half, the FLG-identity of the individuals is itself in question. The separate elements of the synthesis are themselves broken, despite the fact that syntheses are not allowed anyway.)
Or, could it be that I have somehow misapprehended the WP:SYN policy? If so, the logic setting out how this wouldn't constitute an original synthesis would be welcome. I'm stuck on this. The Sound and the Fury ( talk) 03:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Yea...there are a number of challenges here. This page itself is problematic. I've looked for a definition of "cult suicide," and cannot find one. The definition provided on this page refers to mass suicides, but it's quite unclear how one measures a 'mass suicide.' So that's the first issue. If I were making a page like this, establishing a definition based on reliable sources would be the first task.
Secondly, I keep reading WP:OR, and although I am trying to see it otherwise, I'm having difficulty justifying inclusion on this page on the basis of that policy. There are primary sources—in this case the Chinese government—saying that Tibetan Buddhist monks and Falun Gong members are part of "cults" and partake in suicide, but reliable source coverage does not endorse these views. The policy on original research stipulates that ""A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article." In my view we don't have that. Not only do reliable sources not make the 'A and B, therefore C' argument, but most of them don't even assert A or B individually (that is, most reliable sources say Falun Gong is not a cult, and many express reservations about the authenticity of suicide reports, which cannot be independently verified. None make the leap to "cult suicide" from what I've seen).
With that said, I maintain the Chinese media coverage itself may be is notable. The material would be better placed in the relevant articles (eg. under 'media campaign' for Falun Gong, or an equivalent space for Tibet, etc.). Failing that, the best we could do would be to ensure that our framing and presentation of the material is based strictly on the tenor and tone of reliable, secondary sources. I can scour some more sources and see what I can find. One of the first things that came to mind here is Hu Ping's analysis, which I'll copy here (redacted to the relevant parts). Here he addresses the question of suicide within Falun Gong pretty holistically—I know Ian Johnson and Porter have made several of the same points, but not all:
I'm not sure how to proceed from here. I suppose I can say only that I hope interested parties will discuss this calmly, in accordance with the relevant policies and on the basis of reliable sources. I'm happy to work with anyone on those terms. Homunculus ( duihua) 01:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
The heading starts off as "A cult suicide is a term used to describe the mass suicide by the members of groups that have been described as cults" - there is currently no evidence for this to be factual, which means that the entire article is non-relevant and non-notable. If deaths within certain groups have been described as "cult suicides" then this can be noted in the respective articles, or in a subsection of the Cult article. The inclusion of groups in this article is Original Research, since there is no evidence of "Cult Suicide" being a term used explicitly to refer to the phenomenon. Zambelo; talk 01:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
The little box at the top of the "article" page (which box I can't seem to edit) says that the page "has multiple issues." That is confusing since it could mean that the page has been re-issued several times or appears under different names in Wikipedia. Better to say "multiple problems." Anybody who knows how to fix the box feel free.... Carrionluggage ( talk) 06:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
This is about tag cleanup. As all of the tags are more than a year old, there is no current discussion relating to them, and there is a great deal of editing done since the tags were placed, they will be removed. This is not a judgement of content. If there is cause to re-tag, then that of course may be done, with the necessary posting of a discussion as to why, and what improvements could be made. This is only an effort to clean out old tags, and permit them to be updated with current issues if warranted.
I'll remove the entire box, and anyone who has cause to put new tags can do so, and comment here. Jjdon ( talk) 20:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I removed this side comment from the article:
discuss prevailing belief systems in such cults
-- cprompt 02:46, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
I think the essential disctinction should be made between religious groups that have encourage suicide such as Heaven's gate and People's temple and the groups that have not done that such as scientology.
Andries 20:00, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I don't know why Unification Church is described in a paragraph here, while other groups which have ACTUALLY condoned or carried out suicide only get links. Same with Scientology.
Article should be rewritten to distinguish between:
Especially when the group in question (like UC) is on record as OPPOSING suicide. For example, we show the movie What Dreams May Come in our Bible camps to teenagers, to warn them of the consequences: as Cuba Gooding says, "Suicides go to hell." --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 18:17, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
After reading this section 3 times, I am still having a hard time understanding how "martyrdom, as found in religions such as Christianity and Islam, is tantamount to suicide". I understand the idea of a suicide bomber, or some sort of ascetic suicide, perhaps, but being burnt at the stake because of your religious beliefs or practices -- 'how' is this "cult suicide"? If anyone could clarify this I would really appreciate it, or I will severely edit this section. I should also mention that the grammar of this paragraph is atrocious. Ddddan 22:15, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Distinguish better between:
And in the Scientology section, we apparently endorse the view that former scientologists are more suicidal while condemning Scientology for predicting that departing members are apt to be suicidal. Let's pick one of these, or note the contradiction.
Also, if Conway doesn't say how Scientology makes people suicidal, it's more of a detractor's claim than a sociological statement of fact. Has anyone read her book? (I tried twice to get through it, but it was so low in vitamin content I'd rather eat junk food). -- Uncle Ed (talk) 15:49, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
On 10 Mar 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Cult suicide for a record of the discussion. — Korath ( Talk) 17:49, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
Maybe Martyrdom should be a separate article? It does tend to be an individual act, whereas cult suicide is more of a group act. StuTheSheep 03:20, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
(This section contained an advertisement trying to get people to join a yahoo group, I have removed it. Feel free to look at it in the history of this page if you really want to) -- Xyzzyplugh 13:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I admit I don't have a positive view of the Unification Church as a whole, but even at my most negative I didn't see them as suicidal. I'm tempted to remove them and replace them with something else. If I can find a suitable replacement to fit the bracket they are currently in would there be objections?-- T. Anthony 06:13, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Can we add this one, I mean the Suicide bombings?
I for one think it is a great idea but it has to have some disclaimers like just because someone is an Islamic Fundamentalist by no means they are part of a cult just for strong strict interpretations of th Quran and Hadith I think Al-Qaeda,ELJ,MEK would but does. BUT FOR MARTYRDOM TO even be on the same page is wrong . The difference between suicide and martyrdom is if the act is guaranteed lead to death of the one carrying out the act and this is the belief of most muslim clarics today.Here are a few quotes " incriminate mujahedin (Islamic fighters) who fight against aggressors? How can he consider these aggressors as innocent civilians?" or According to Islamic jurist and scholar Khaled Abou Al-Fadl, The classical jurists, nearly without exception, argued that those who attack by stealth, while targeting noncombatants in order to terrorize the resident and wayfarer, are corrupters of the earth. "Resident and wayfarer" was a legal expression that meant that whether the attackers terrorize people in their urban centers or terrorize travelers, the result was the same: all such attacks constitute a corruption of the earth. The legal term given to people who act this way was muharibun (those who wage war against society), and the crime is called the crime of hiraba (waging war against society). The crime of hiraba was so serious and repugnant that, according to Islamic law, those guilty of this crime were considered enemies of humankind and were not to be given quarter or sanctuary anywhere. ... Those who are familiar with the classical tradition will find the parallels between what were described as crimes of hiraba and what is often called terrorism today nothing short of remarkable. The classical jurists considered crimes such as assassinations, setting fires, or poisoning water wells - that could indiscriminately kill the innocent - as offenses of hiraba. Furthermore, hijacking methods of transportation or crucifying people in order to spread fear and terror are also crimes of hiraba. Importantly, Islamic law strictly prohibited the taking of hostages, the mutilation of corpses, and torture.[90] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.176.172 ( talk) 01:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
In the Cult Suicide article, on the subject of the Heaven's Gate Cult, it says:
"Some male members of the cult underwent voluntary castration in preparation for the genderless life they believed awaited them after the suicide."
However, in the main Heaven's Gate Article, it says:
"Many male members of the cult voluntarily underwent castration as an extreme means of maintaining the ascetic lifestyle."
---
So which is it?
And I've also been noticing a lot of direct copying between some of these articles. Is that allowed?
Inspector Baynes 17:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
The Cults template and the Suicide template are making the formatting of the main body of the article look bad. Everything is piled together visually, but I don't know how to fix it. Joie de Vivre 18:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
This site has been questioned as a reliable source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/dc_solar.htm. On what basis? - Will Beback · † · 19:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Does this belong in an article about "Cult Suicide"? Paddy 21:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Totally erroneous in the first place. JW's don't deny themselves medical treatment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.60.32.13 ( talk) 20:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Bethany Huges(sp?) disagrees with you. They refuse blood transfusions and also encourage Martyrdom. Nonsane ( talk) 18:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
An editor posted an {OR} tag on the artilce with the edit summary:
There are 21 inline sources and another dozen listed at the end. That doesn't appear to be a lack of sources. Are there particular sourcing problems that can be identified? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
(just an example) The section 'Martyrdom' contains no sources and a lot of OR. Similarly, many sections/subsections are devoid of sources.
Sfacets 00:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Is the term "Cult suicide" an actual term, or is it simply the juxtaposition of two words 'cult' and 'suicide'? Sfacets 22:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Again I ask: is this just a term arising from someone's Original research, or can it be attributed? Sfacets 21:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
That comes under the category of silly questions. Just google it if you really need proof that this is an established term. -- Lonewolf BC 23:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately for us all, Google search results are not valid references. Sfacets 23:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Again, I'm asking for a valid source which proves that this is a term used in a sociological context. What you gave above are headlines or titles which are often abbreviated/changed and have no academic standing. Sfacets 00:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Are anti-cult activists journalists? Sfacets 01:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
There is no indication that it is used generally. newspaper headlines usually will summarize/shorten a long headline. There is no indication of it being used generally (in-text) in an article. So it would appear to be an invented term. Sfacets 01:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Examples? Then add them to the article! Sfacets 02:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Melbourne is not a pejorative (mostly). Its use is not challenged. "Cult suicide" is a non-neutral way to describe the groups in question. Sfacets 09:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
on the grounds that it was clearly a set-up by the Chinese Communist Party to frame Falun Gong and ramp up the persecution, and thus should not be put in the same category as groups which have actually committed suicidal acts, even as "questionable".-- Asdfg 12345 11:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
According to whom, it's a "clear set-up"? There's different sources alleging that the the self-imolators acted on their own free will. And Falun Gong is regarded as a cult by many in the west, irrelevant of the "persecution" and what the FLG-associated media wants people to believe.-- PCPP 07:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Danny Schecter clearly states that "CCP's charges are unsubstantiated by outside parties." All third-party analysis state it was a fabricated incident. Dilip rajeev ( talk) 09:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
A few people's view doesn't make it a fact. As for "All third-party analysis state it was a fabricated incident", care to back that up? It's ridiculous to suggest that people are willing to burn themselves to death in the name of the CCP and sit in jail for it.-- PCPP ( talk) 09:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
So you're saying that every FLG practitioner will follow LI Hongzhi's 100%? The section is already listed under "disputed suicide". It's up to the reader to decide who they really are. Buddhist monks burnt themselves to death to make aware of their ordeal during the Vietnam War despite Buddhism's stressing non-violence, and I find it doubtful that there's people stupid enough to agree with the PRC government to burn themselves to death and then sit in jail.-- PCPP ( talk) 12:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
PCPP, the issue here is simple:
Dilip rajeev ( talk) 17:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Dilip rajeev ( talk) 05:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Amnesty, HRW, and US Congress simply opposed the crackdown of FLG practitioners, they did not anything specific about the nature of FLG. Kilgour and Matas are hired by FLG and has strong links with them, their claims are suspicious at best.
The TIME article is its own independent report suggesting its own version of the incident. Schechter is not an expert on the issue, he is only one observer. His views does not deserve greater emphasis than anyone else's. These evidence are circumstantial at best, no one had any conclusive evidence that the PRC actually staged it, and it's ridiculous to draw conclusions based on these evidence.-- PCPP ( talk) 08:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't why you continue to insist on its removal. There's already plenty of sources covering both the PRC government and the Western critics and FLG's views, and paragraph tells the story on all sides without issuing judgment. The views of the PRC is still held by a significant number of people, particularly inside the PRC. It's up to the reader to decide what is truth and what is propaganda.-- PCPP ( talk) 08:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I am not insisting on its removal - but you being the one who added it is obliged to justify this misrepresentation and baseless accusation made on a peaceful practice. Presenting a staged incident as a "cult suicide." Who exactly, if u'd care to clarify is the "cult" here? Am not asking you to copy-paste yet another line from CCP propaganda to support your edit. You cannot just dismiss academic views and the perspective of the Human Rights community as mere opinions, Friend. Also accusations as above on Hon. David Kilgour, David Matas, etc. - might work in the CCP, where media is restricted and people have to swallow what the state media says - but obviously not here, you should be aware that you cannot use such slander to "support" your edits on wiki. Dilip rajeev ( talk) 17:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
The exact disputed paragraph:
On January 23, 2001, six people set themselves on fire in Tiananmen Square, Beijing. The state-media claimed them to be Falun Gong practitioners. Time magazine said that it was possible for misguided practitioners to have taken it upon themselves to demonstrate in this manner, sparking a "propaganda bonanza" for the Chinese authorities. Falun Gong in New York denies that these people could have been practitioners on grounds that the teachings explicitly forbid suicide and killing. Falun Gong and some third-party commentators point to apparent inconsistencies in the government's version of events, and claim that the incident was staged in order to turn public opinion against the practice and build support for its crackdown against the movement.
If there's reliable third party sources that criticises the cult label by the PRC government, you're welcome to list it in the Tiananment Square suicide section. Views by academics, not matter how prestigeous, remain views and should not be represented as reported facts. -- PCPP ( talk) 05:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
The PRC government's views is significant and should be represented in this article. The fact that many Western sources disagree with their views also should be represented. As I stressed before it's up to the reader to decide whether FLG is or isn't a cult. So I suggest adding an additional sentence like this:
"While FLG is considered a cult by the PRC government and some cult critics [insert sources], the classification is widely disputed by human rights organizations and academics, who view the term as religious persecution [insert sources].-- PCPP ( talk) 14:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
[2]. Which is why it's under the "disputed" section. The PRC sources especially clearly considers FLG a cult and the Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident a FLG-influenced suicide. -- PCPP ( talk) 12:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
The above logic is precisely an example of an original synthesis--I outlined why above. You need a source that says the event was actually a "cult suicide," even for the disputed section. Otherwise it's original research, and can be removed according to policy.-- Asdfg 12345 03:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I've already gave you sources that referred to the TAM Square incident as "cult suicide". And there's plenty of Chinese sources eg [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] that referred to FLG as an "evil cult", and the immolation incident as "cult suicide"-- PCPP ( talk) 05:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I've given my reasons for deleting these, by edit-summary. Those reasons are quite straightforward, not needing explanation at length on the talk-page. If you, Sfacets, have a rationale for including the tag, or those 3 words, please use the talk-page to explain it. As far as I can see the one is just clutter and the other is either mere verbosity or else verbosity meant to imply doubt (i.e. "weaseling"). If the reliable sources say the cult suicides happened, then the article should simply say that they happened. -- Lonewolf BC 07:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Since there has been an inability to provide the citation(s) requested, I have removed the reference. Sfacets 11:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Too late, this has been going on for days now, with both you and LoneWolf reverting without even bothering to answer my request for in-text citations to prove that the term existed. Feel free to comment on the RFC. Sfacets 23:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Here are the headlines in question (emphasis added for clarity):
I've offered to cite text of articles as well, but this should be sufficient to prove that the term is not a neologism created by Wikipedia editors. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for providing the in-text citations. Sfacets 00:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
RfC Response Yes the citations do amply prove the existence of the common and familiar term. Dlabtot 18:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm Currently writing a fictional novel on a type of 'Cult suicide' and i couldn't find alot of information on the laws of of suicide.
For instance, there should be a section stating the laws taken by the government in the case of a suicide. Should one survive a suicide attempt, what charges will be filed?
Also, if anybody finds any information about Communal towns, i would be very gratfull if they would contact me with it. Michael hibbs ( talk) 19:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
suicide is bad —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.109.110.20 ( talk) 17:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't khnow if it was wrtten weird but i thought you missed one of the biggest ones. One guy had told people that this rockhet behind a giant asteroid was going to takhe them to heaven or aliens (can't rember) and he gave them all matching jumpsuits and said to drink this stuff and they would wakhe up on the ship but really it was a cult, but more of a mass murder? I think it happened in 1994, and he last name was apple-something, can't remember? Can anyone clear this up for me?-- 68.3.18.11 ( talk) 20:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I added them as a kind of placeholder back when. Should it be removed?-- T. Anthony ( talk) 16:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
The 'Martyrdom' section, worthy as some of its idea may be for discussion, is now an opinionated pile of random ramblings where every sentence starts with 'Some people think that...' Is the writer referring to his or her mom? Could someone please remove that section or at least entirely replace it with an encyclopedia-style entry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.145.45.120 ( talk) 21:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Its all OR as far as i can tell, if some one can find a Reliable source, Al-quaedia might fit. For most part its junk. i am giving it till January 26th a month from when i tagged the section unless we can get references. it can always be restored later. Weaponbb7 ( talk) 16:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to leave a few spaces since it's been more than two years since the last posting and frankly, it's a little difficult to follow. But I did get the feeling that a good number of wikipedians are keen on removing a disputed piece of information from the disputed section because they don't deem it disputed enough. It seems that user:PCPP up to 2009 is the only one who cared enough to write about it in English.
There are preciously little information on this cult/religion/spiritual movement. Any information given is biased towards either side of the argument big time. So, here's something safe to say: it's disputed. So why the heck are we taking it out of the disputed section?
Also, it's clear that the FLG are a human rights concern for the PRC. And makes perfect sense for the US, the self-proclaimed archenemy of the PRC to make it an attack point. Ok, maybe that's a little speculative for me to say, but to say that the US have no political interest in helping the FLG would be hilarious, for human rights concern or for more practical realistic and sinister reasons.
Now, many here proclaims that the PRC had it set up, so says the western media as well as the US congress, which are both OBVIOUS non-biased reliable sources of information. The fact of the matter is, the PRC claims otherwise, and so, it's disputed. I also find amusing that some would use FLG's own doctrines to prove this as a non related thing. It's like saying because God's forbids killing, Christians don't kill, and those who do are not Christians. Also amusing is that by classifying the FLG as a non-cult organizations, it can somehow be excluded from such scrutiny. Oh but it's not a cult you say, so it doesn't belong under cult suicide. I wonder why there's not a page for religious suicide, oh right, because those that performs suicides are cast out from the main religious fraction and are named as cults. How convenient.
Frankly, only a precious few academics (independent academics might I add) even bothered with venturing into this, for the fear of being being prosecuted politically on either side of the Pacific. And that the cult leader is him self being under constant protection by the US government shows that there are serious political interest invested into this organization, and so nothing is certain and EVERYTHING is disputed. For the love of invisible pink unicorn there's a "Anomalies and discrepancies" section in the gravitation article, but we FLG won't make into a article on cult activity (under the disputed section no less) because the majority of the wikipedians editing this are of a certain opinion, and so what is disputed is no longer? I'm no devotee to wikipedia and haven't read all of its many rules, but for such blatant show of academic biases, I bet there's something on that, even if no knowledgeable wikipedian is brave enough to point it out. Gw2005 ( talk) 03:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
If there are no reliable sources calling this a cult suicide, then it does not belong on a list of "cult suicides". There's nothing more to say. Homunculus ( duihua) 06:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
The central problem to this still remains: there is no reliable source saying this event was a cult suicide. It has not been presented. We have the former HK executive saying it, and that is it. He isn't an RS. We cannot have on the one hand RS saying that Falun Gong is or might be a cult,* and on the other claims that the event may have been an attempted suicide by Falun Gong members, then combine that together and say the event was a cult suicide. The attempts at "compromise" here are heartening, but the only thing that would be compromised by this is Wikipedia content policies. It seems rather banal, but we need a reliable source to actually say this event was a cult suicide, or it will be an original synthesis.
*(to the contrary, the opinion of reliable sources on this is that Falun Gong is not a cult. So half the argument is not even formed. As for the other half, the FLG-identity of the individuals is itself in question. The separate elements of the synthesis are themselves broken, despite the fact that syntheses are not allowed anyway.)
Or, could it be that I have somehow misapprehended the WP:SYN policy? If so, the logic setting out how this wouldn't constitute an original synthesis would be welcome. I'm stuck on this. The Sound and the Fury ( talk) 03:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Yea...there are a number of challenges here. This page itself is problematic. I've looked for a definition of "cult suicide," and cannot find one. The definition provided on this page refers to mass suicides, but it's quite unclear how one measures a 'mass suicide.' So that's the first issue. If I were making a page like this, establishing a definition based on reliable sources would be the first task.
Secondly, I keep reading WP:OR, and although I am trying to see it otherwise, I'm having difficulty justifying inclusion on this page on the basis of that policy. There are primary sources—in this case the Chinese government—saying that Tibetan Buddhist monks and Falun Gong members are part of "cults" and partake in suicide, but reliable source coverage does not endorse these views. The policy on original research stipulates that ""A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article." In my view we don't have that. Not only do reliable sources not make the 'A and B, therefore C' argument, but most of them don't even assert A or B individually (that is, most reliable sources say Falun Gong is not a cult, and many express reservations about the authenticity of suicide reports, which cannot be independently verified. None make the leap to "cult suicide" from what I've seen).
With that said, I maintain the Chinese media coverage itself may be is notable. The material would be better placed in the relevant articles (eg. under 'media campaign' for Falun Gong, or an equivalent space for Tibet, etc.). Failing that, the best we could do would be to ensure that our framing and presentation of the material is based strictly on the tenor and tone of reliable, secondary sources. I can scour some more sources and see what I can find. One of the first things that came to mind here is Hu Ping's analysis, which I'll copy here (redacted to the relevant parts). Here he addresses the question of suicide within Falun Gong pretty holistically—I know Ian Johnson and Porter have made several of the same points, but not all:
I'm not sure how to proceed from here. I suppose I can say only that I hope interested parties will discuss this calmly, in accordance with the relevant policies and on the basis of reliable sources. I'm happy to work with anyone on those terms. Homunculus ( duihua) 01:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
The heading starts off as "A cult suicide is a term used to describe the mass suicide by the members of groups that have been described as cults" - there is currently no evidence for this to be factual, which means that the entire article is non-relevant and non-notable. If deaths within certain groups have been described as "cult suicides" then this can be noted in the respective articles, or in a subsection of the Cult article. The inclusion of groups in this article is Original Research, since there is no evidence of "Cult Suicide" being a term used explicitly to refer to the phenomenon. Zambelo; talk 01:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)