Talk:List of purported cults

This is a controversial topic, which may be disputed. Please read this talk page discussion before making substantial changes. (This message should only be placed on talk pages.)

Another article, previously at "List of deadly cults", was the source of some content merged into this page. That article (with history) is available at Talk:List of purported cults/Merged; its talk page is at Talk:List of purported cults/Talk-Merged, and explains why this all was done.

• Archive 1
• Archive 2
• Archive 3 - includes extensive discussion about the agreed taxonomy, sources, and agreed proposal.

Contents

1 Taxonomy 1.1 Cohort A - Groups cited as cults ("sects" in non-English languages) by sources considered globally as mainstream 1.1.1 Level 1, sources with widest support (Major newspapers & encyclopedias with worldwide circulation) 1.1.2 Level 2, sources with narrower support than level 1 (Magazines, leading broadcasters, major news websites) 1.2 Cohort B - Groups cited as cults by sources that seek to be in harmony with the global mainstream 1.2.1 Level 3, sources with narrower support than level 2: Official and semi-official government sources 1.2.2 Level 4, sources with narrower support than level 3 (Wide religious groups) 1.2.3 Level 5, sources with narrower support than level 4 (Scholars writing in peer-reviewed journals) 1.3 Cohort C - Groups called cults or sects by sources with little accountability to global mainstream convention 1.3.1 Level 6, sources with narrower support than level 5 (Diplomatic non-scholarly anti-cultists and anti-cult organizations) 1.3.2 Level 7 sources with narrowest support (Less-diplomatic non-scholarly anti-cultists and anti-cult organizations) 1.3.3 Level 7R sources not suitable 1.4 Groups that are not listed 1.4.1 Level 8 No source, just an editor added it 2 Agreed proposal 3 Missing sources 4 Congratulations 5 Encarta 6 Salon / Widest consensus 7 Questions about formatting 8 NPOV tag 9 Rick Ross sourcing 10 References? 10.1 Washington Post 11 Various sources 11.1 Lacking sources 12 source definitions 13 Unedfi 14 Problem with cohort 2 15 Up-to-date 16 Purported 17 New group -Villa Baviera 18 Coordination with other articles 19 Sources vs. Concensus 20 Falung Gong?

Taxonomy

This is a proposed taxonomy for organizing this article. User:Hawstom (Tom) proposed implementing it after May 1. Feel free to edit.

The taxonomy is based on the non-biased concept of listing groups that have been cited as cults by sources that have, in descending order, worldwide support (respect/recognition/circulation/funding/accountability). We make no judgement as to the knowledge, interest, or intent of the sources.

Cohort A - Groups cited as cults ("sects" in non-English languages) by sources considered globally as mainstream

Level 1, sources with widest support (Major newspapers & encyclopedias with worldwide circulation)

Cited as cults in the most careful major periodicals:

• Associated Press
• Reuters
• Wall Street Journal
• Boston Globe
• Los Angeles Times
• Washington Post The Cult Controversy series [1] (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/cult/chronology.htm)
• Der Spiegel
• Le Monde
• Guardian
• Times of London
• Jerusalem Post
• The Straits Times (Singapore)

• Current online version of Encyclopædia Britannica
  • [2] (http://www.britannica.com/ebi/article?tocId=207661&ct=), [3] (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=9114166)
• 1911 EB
• Encarta - Disputed see below

Level 2, sources with narrower support than level 1 (Magazines, leading broadcasters, major news websites)

Cited as cults in one of the following major secular magazines with worldwide circulation:

• Economist
• Time
• Newsweek
• New Yorker
• Harpers
• USA Today
• Reader's Digest
• People (magazine) not a single applicable hit searching on "cult", so it is apparently a sterling example of a source with "rare hits" and "wide appeal"

• Salon.com
• Slate.com

• BBC
• ABC
• CBS
• NBC
• CNN
• ZDF
• New York Times

Cohort B - Groups cited as cults by sources that seek to be in harmony with the global mainstream

Level 3, sources with narrower support than level 2: Official and semi-official government sources

Cited as cults by official arms of more than one other major groups(?), or by government sources.

• France's 1996 parliamentary commission French_legislation_on_cult_abuses
  • 1995 report http://cftf.com/french/Les_Sectes_en_France/cults.html
• Belgian Parliamentary Commission on Cults

Level 4, sources with narrower support than level 3 (Wide religious groups)

Cited as cults in major religious or partisan periodicals that take evident care for wider respectability:

• 1910 Catholic encycopedia? [4] (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/)
• Christian Science Monitor
• Watchman Fellowship (http://www.watchman.org/cat95.htm#Christianity)

• Local newspapers:
• Point Reyes Light

Level 5, sources with narrower support than level 4 (Scholars writing in peer-reviewed journals)

• New Religious movements scholars
• Sociologists
• Psychiatrists

Cohort C - Groups called cults or sects by sources with little accountability to global mainstream convention

Level 6, sources with narrower support than level 5 (Diplomatic non-scholarly anti-cultists and anti-cult organizations)

Cited by individuals or organizations who are prone to use the term "cult" cautiously.

• Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance www.religioustolerance.org
• culticstudies.org [5] (http://www.culticstudies.org/infoserv_idx/idx_grp_byname.htm)
• The Center for Millennial Studies www.mille.org
• Cult Awareness and Information Centre http://www.caic.org.au (dead link?)
• INFORM UK
• CESNUR (a controversial group too)
• Steve Hassan Freedom of Mind Resource Center [6] (http://www.freedomofmind.com/resourcecenter/groups/) Disputed - due to disclaimer on website

Level 7 sources with narrowest support (Less-diplomatic non-scholarly anti-cultists and anti-cult organizations)

Cited by individuals or organizations who are prone to use the term "cult" actively. They may use a custom narrow definition of the term "cult" for their own purposes.

• Info-Cult www.infocult.org
• FactNet www.factnet.org
• AFF, now International Cultic Studies Association (ICSA). Objected by Zappaz, due to disclaimer on their website
• Cults on Campus

• Cult Awareness Network (The CAN was bankrupted and now belongs to Scientology)
• Christian Research Institute

Level 7R sources not suitable

• Rick Ross Disputed See user:Zappaz's many objections below

Groups that are not listed

Level 8 No source, just an editor added it

• If no sources, we can't list. Nothing goes in this category.
• holding bin on talk page to give editors time to find source

Agreed proposal

1. Criteria for listing: Groups "referred directly as a cult by ...".
2. ... sources for citations from agreed sources provided it is within the scope explained in #1; Recommendation to editors is to start with wider consensus sources: Level I and Level II. New groups sourced from other levels than I and II, editors need to discuss their edits in the talk page;
3. Any groups already sourced can remain in the article as long as they fall within the scope #1, Otherwise these groups can be removed from the article.
4. Each group needs a reference to prove that it is within the scope of #1 and from the list of agreed sources(no exception), best if directly from the website of the original source;
5. Time horizon: Last 50 years. Keeping this article to be contemporary in nature and non-historical. We can do a separate article about the emergence of new religions and include current religions once called cults, etc.;
6. We can include groups refered as "sects" if the source is in French or in a source from the United Kingdom
7. We exclude personality cults (heads of state), fancults of popular culture, and groups that don't have actual followings (fictional or self-nominated groups);
8. We use Tom's "width of consensus" as the taxonomy measure: Widest consensus, Decreasing consensus and Narrowest application, in descending order and as the grouping to replace current sections in the article.

Thanks for your patience. Can you please explain the term "agreed sources?" Am I correct that it includes everyone except Rick Ross and lists that have disclaimers? BTW, for #5, I assume that refers to the sources, not the groups. Item #3 seems unnecessary. Cheers, -Willmcw 01:52, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Agreed sourced: Any of the sources listed in this page that do have not been disputed due to disclaimers that oppose the criteria in #1. As it stands now these include Ross, AFF and Hassan's lists. If we find any other source in the list that has a similar disclaimer, these will be not acceptable either.
• Point #5 refers to groups, of course. See previous discussion in this matter.Keeping this article to be contemporary in nature and non-historical. We can do a separate article about the emergence of new religions and include current religions once called cults, etc.
• Point #3 is absolutely necessary. Leaving groups in the article that do not fall within the agreed scope, is not possible.

--Zappaz 15:59, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Agreed" sources should be all except those that have been excluded. The only sources that we have agreed to exclude is Ross and those lists that have meaningful disclaimers. The only thing to agree on with other sources is where in the taxonomy a new source fits. Regarding #3, my point is that if the other criteria are followed it is redundant. All groups, whether currently on the list or not, have to abide by the same criteria. This list is inevitably historical - the Branch Davidians haven't been around for a long time. I think that 50 years is unnecessarily short, but I'll compromise in the interest of editorial comity. Cheers, -Willmcw 19:00, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Archived all discussions, now we can start editing. Thank you for your patience. --Zappaz 03:03, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

I take it that the criteria for inclusion of groups in the list will be (re-arranged and simplified so that they can be pasted into the article introduction):

1. Groups referred to as a "cult" directly by a source.
2. Groups referred to as a "sect" directly by French-language sources or by sources from the United Kingdom.
3. Groups must have references, preferably directly from the website of the original source.
4. Groups that have existed within the last 50 years.
5. Not included are personality cults (heads of state), fancults of popular culture, and groups that don't have actual followings (fictional or self-nominated groups).
6. Groups are arranged by the "width of consensus" of the sources: Widest consensus, Decreasing consensus and Narrowest application, in descending order. Within these "cohorts" groups are arranged alphabetically.
7. Groups sourced from the two cohorts with less consensus should be discussed in the talk page prior to their addition.

Please let me know if there are any problems with this set of criteria. Thanks, -Willmcw 01:20, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Looks good, Will. I have done one pass at the intro listing, criteria, and taxonomy. Feel free to improve it. I am now checking some of the groups to make sure they fit with the criteria. --Zappaz 00:28, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching consensus on this issue. Since it appears that we have agreed to move up the implementation date from May 1 to today, and since it will certianly take a while to review all the sources, let's re-sort the list into the taxomony right away. Cheers, -Willmcw 00:36, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Missing sources

These groups had been added to this list in the past, but no source has been added to justify their continued presence on this list.

• Al-Qaeda

Template:Location

• Amway
• Dragon Rouge
• Herbalife
• Holiday Magic
• International Peace Mission Movement
• Jews for Jesus
• Rastafari movement
• Primerica
• Swami Shyam
• Co-Counselling
• Eckankar

These groups have been added inthe past, but do not qualify according to the existing criteria:

• Kim Jong-il, Juche Template:Sup-sources - cult of personality
• The Storm- self admission - no apparent followers or independent sources

Congratulations

I would like to congratulate Zappaz and Willmcw for the harmonious way both managed to come to a consensus on this content dispute. --cesarb 01:09, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words, and thanks to other lurking editors for their implicit support. The article will be the better for it. Thanks chiefly to Zappaz. Now, back to editing... Cheers, -Willmcw 05:30, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Cesar. Ans special thanks to Will for keeping up and chosing to play ball rather than give up.... --Zappaz 15:55, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Encarta

Encarta only refers to directly as a cult the following groups: People's Temple, Branch Davidians, Haven's Gate and Aum Shinrikyo, it the section about "Destructive cults" in their "Cult" article. The wording on other sections of the article was carefully crafted to avoid labelling other groups as cults, by utilizing the following distinctions: "alternative religions", "religious groups", "new religions", "movements", and "new religious movements". Therefore I am removing the source Encarta from all groups in the list with the exception of the ones stated above. --Zappaz 16:02, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Salon / Widest consensus

Now that Will started grouping the list under the agreen taxonomy what jumps to me is the inclusion of Salon.com as a widest consensus source. I would like to argue that a group that is directly referred to as "cult" by Salon.com only is not sufficent to be grouped in the "Widest consensus" category. Would it?

I would think that to be in the "Widest Consensus" category, that group needs to have been referred by two or more sources from "cohort A". Will, what do you think? --Zappaz 16:13, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think that that is a different criteria than we'd been talking about. The idea was to array the different sources depending on the perceived accountability they have. Organizing groups by how many sources had called them cults would have been a different taxonomy. Let's first work through the taxonomy that we developed. If some group is left on the list that appears out of place then we can review the taxonomy to see if further changes are needed. Cheers, -Willmcw 19:51, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Hey, guys, I am really impressed. Thumbs up. I do think eventually there could be some value for width of consensus in distinguishing whether a gropus was listed by only a single or by several sources. After all, several is wider than a single. Tom Haws 22:09, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Tom! Will: Regarding Salon.com, is this a source that we feel comfortable to give it the coveted spot of "high perceived accountability"? and to place it at the same level as the BBC and the NYT? I would argue that it fits better within "cohort B". Concerning Tom's support of my proposal, we can wait as Will suggests and see how the article shapes up in its current taxonomy. --Zappaz 22:22, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I was wondering this too. A tell-tale sign will be if there end up a lot of groups in the top level that are only listed by Salon. That will indicate to us that Salon isn't as stiff-collared as the others. Tom Haws 22:29, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

It also means that Salon is an easily searchable website with archives that are free (after watching the ad). The New York Times may have referred to many cults, but who wants to pay to find out? Of all web-based newsmagazines, it is certainly among the more well-known. Cohort B seems to be made up of sources whose audiences are narrower, either in geography or interest. Cheers, -Willmcw 02:50, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Questions about formatting

I fiddled a little with the article, and I have a couple of questions about what I did:

1. I moved down to Narrowest a couple of groups that had only OCRT source (Jehovah's Witnesses was one of them). Is this right?
2. I rearranged the order of the source citations on some of the groups to run from widest to narrowest. I put OCRT after BBC, etc. My reasoning is that the "best" widest sources are of most interest and drive the placement of the group, so they should be cited first, if convenient and we have the time to arrange them.  :-)

--I appreciate your feedback. Tom Haws 22:26, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

I think that Will wanted to go alphabetical ... but it makes more sense to do from widets to narrowest within each one of the "widths of consensus". This will require an agreement on sorting the sources in each Cohort by relevancy/best source. --Zappaz 22:43, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tom, I think that some of the ones you moved have additinal sources that don't have the special logos that Zappaz made up. One has a Guardian source and the other an AP source. As for the order of sources, I believe Tom is referring to the order in which the citations are appended at the end of each group. I agree that it will be easier to keep the list in order if we put them in the same rough order as the taxonomy hierarchy. Cheers, -Willmcw 02:43, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Right, Will. I meant the citations appended at the end of each "cult". And thanks for fixing my bloopers. I actually had considered what Zappaz interpreted me to say, but I don't think it will work; alphabetical is probably all we can do. If we decide further breakdown is necessary, I will suggest first breaking out another level rather than opening the can of worms of sorting within levels <shiver>. Doesn't it feel great to have patiently worked this out together? Wow! Maybe we ought to get some feedback right now from the editors that have dropped in in the past months, (like Ed Poor). Tom Haws 05:04, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

If we were to break out another level the one that I would like to see is "groups associated with mass killings". Some groups, which are all widely considered cults, have been involved in large-scale murders and suicides, while other groups, also widely considered cults, have not. It seems to me that that is a more important distinction than whether they have been called a cult by the New York Times versus the Milwaukee Tribune. Also, regarding Salon above, we discussed this issue a while back. The sources that are readily available (free archives) are the ones that we are forced to use as a practical matter. Virtually all U.S. newspapers charge to access their archives, which makes them difficult to use for this purpose. Salon is sourced several times because their archives are free. Ditto Guardian and BBC. Cheers, -Willmcw 05:15, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

I would object to such classification. This list needs to remain what it is a list of purported cults based on sources. Period. --Zappaz 03:16, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, it wouldn't be adding any groups that aren't already on the list - just segregating the ones associated with mass killings. Anyway, I agree that the current scheme seems to be working. Cheers, -Willmcw 06:15, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Definitely. And ditto Zappaz. :-) Tom Haws 05:20, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Is there any reason to keep the NPOV dispute tag on the article? -Willmcw 03:23, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Do the honors, Will. --Zappaz 04:43, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. User:Ed Poor added it but never came to the talk page with his concerns (apparently he doesn't like the Washington Post). Anyway, EP can add it back if he feels it is warranted. Cheers, -Willmcw 04:51, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Rick Ross sourcing

An anon contributed to the article be adding sourcing from Rick Ross. Since prior discussions are now archived, I'm sure this editor was not aware of them. I'd urge the editor to scan the prior archives (see top of the page) first and the discuss here if still interested in the topic. Cheers, -Willmcw 23:16, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

References?

We agreed that each entry needs a reference. So far, many of the entries lack such references. In 21 days from now (May 13), I will move these groups in the list not supported by a reference to a holding area until such time a reference is found. Is 21 days is a sufficient period? --Zappaz 04:29, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is wonderfully slow. I love it. Thanks. Tom Haws 19:00, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, step at a time will get us there... :) --Zappaz 07:07, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Huh? I thought every group had a reference. Can you give an example? -Willmcw 18:09, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Huh? There are many, many groups listed without a reference. It is not enough to say Group xyz was labelled a cult by source Z, we need a reference to source Z in which we can show that indeed this was the case. We need a reference to the source i.e., a URL, or the date of publication in a newspaper (if there is an online version of the article, the better), broadcast date/ name of progrgamme (i.e. BBC) etc. --Zappaz 22:04, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See the list of url links in the top section. They were never transferred down, but they are present. (except the recent Salon reference to Westoboro Baptist, which somoene else added). -Willmcw

Silly me... I did not realize that the some of the source tags are actually links... --Zappaz 03:26, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Washington Post

In reading The cult controversies series at [7] (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/cult/chronology.htm) I can see that the WP uses terms such as "new religious movements", "new religions", etc. but is never (or hardly) uses the word cult. For example, the article on the Unification Church, does not even mentions the term "cult". (In oe of the articles WP writes (my highlight):

"Blessing '97" was the main event in the week-long, Moon-sponsored World Culture and Sports Festival III, intended to raise the profile of his Unification Church, which some have called a cult, by drawing on a "family values" theme popular among many Americans.

That is NPOV writing and hence falling out of the agreed criteria for listing.

As such, we need to revise each entry and make sure that we can use this source for these groups. --Zappaz 03:42, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Unification Church - removed WPost as a source
• TM - demoted for same reasons
• ISKON - removed Wpost as a source
• Lifespring - removed this group completely (only source was Wpost and they do not call them a cult)

... to be continued...

---

Various sources

Removed SSB from article. The link to the Salon.com piece on SSB, does not mention the word cult. If to stay, we need another source. I am sure Andries will find one. --Zappaz 04:03, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• ISKON demoted for same reason
• I do not see Scientology in the Salon.com links provided. Can someone find that article in Salon.com where they are directly called a cult?

Please do not remove groups from the article. If one source is found faulty there are likely to be others which we can find. Also, if you can list the urls here that you are referring to it would be much easier to follow what you are talking about. I'm reverting your changes so that you can discuss them here. Thanks. -Willmcw 04:29, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

The Salon article says:

Of course, outsiders expect insanity in fringe religions. But Sai Baba isn't just any cult leader. Because he isn't well known in America, it's hard to convey the awesome power he has in India. [8] (http://dir.salon.com/people/feature/2001/07/25/baba/index.html?pn=3)

But the guru's alleged interest in his followers' phalli is pretty much an open secret among old hands at the ashram. The eerie thing about this story isn't just the evidence of widespread sexual abuse in one of the world's biggest cults.. [9] (http://dir.salon.com/people/feature/2001/07/25/baba/index.html?pn=4)

Those instance of Salon directly calling Baba's following a "cult." -Willmcw 05:25, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Willmcw, I am not sure what to say about your having reverted what Zappaz did. It is true that he had said he would be going a bit more slowly, but his careful removal of groups lacking sources in full harmony with the criteria we have discussed for weeks was not something I would personally feel comfortable reverting outright. I am sure it represented a good bit of work. Would you possibly consider restoring it and then discussing, at least giving Zappaz a chance to archive the uncited groups at an archive page? Tom Haws 05:28, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

No, because an initial check makes it appear that they were not "careful" and that there are significant errors in his or her work. Zappaz is certainly capable of archiving the changes to this or some other page.

Here is what Salon says about Scientology:

While the Church of Scientology is burdened by a sinister public image resembling a cross between the KGB and a UFO-contactee cult,.. [http://dir.salon.com/books/feature/1999/09/01/christian/index.html?sid=256002[

...it's just the sort of story the media loves to bite into. It's got everything: movie stars, the reopening of Germany's old wounds, international friction and a weird cult to boot. [10] (http://archive.salon.com/feb97/news/news970225.html)

Those seem to be direct references. -Willmcw 05:54, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

You are very close to the line her... hope you can find better references than this one. In the case of Scientology, that should not be a hard thing... --Zappaz 00:44, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Regarding *Church Universal and Triumphant [11] (http://www.rickross.com/reference/cut/cut11.html)[12] (http://www.rickross.com/reference/cut/cut5.html), Zappaz removed it with the edit summary of " does not belong to agreed sources". Agreed sources are everyone except Ross. In this instance, they were the Bozeman Chronicle and the New York Times, albeit posted on Ross's website. One newspaper is national (cohort 1) and one is local (cohort 3). However, on review it appears that neither makes a direct reference to the group as a cult. I've replaced those citations with one from a U.S. congressional report, (cohort 2). -Willmcw 06:13, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional information. I just don't want any bad feelings when we've come so far. Tom Haws 14:09, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

If you reverted my work of two hours, Will, the burden is now on you to delete or demote these groups. I will not do the work twice. I am listing each group that I have deleted/demoted to allow you to comment and find alternative sources. I think that this is an appropriate approach. Undoing your revert of my edits will show that you care about being accurate and that you respect my efforts. --Zappaz 17:22, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I may have missed a couple of things on the Salon.com links (although I am surprised as I checked all the links supplied), but why have you reverted the ones from WPost? I explained clearly why I have removed them and listed them on this page just in case you want to go and dig a citation from another source. Comm'on Will, play nice! :) --Zappaz 17:38, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zappaz, I hope that you will reflect upon the time involved before you revert someone else's work. Have you considered how much time I have spent looking up these sources? Have you added any of your own yet? And no, you did not list every group here that you deleted, such as the CUT. I will go continue to go over the work you've done and I will re-remove the ones which merit it. I freely acknowledge that there are a number of sources which do not qualify for our new criteria, it would be a much better way of proceeding if those sources are listed here first, before edits are made to the article. That will reduce the amount of work for all of us. I'd also like to sugest that anyone who finds a source that needs to be removed make the effort to find a replacement source. -Willmcw 20:42, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Tough request. But fair enough. Tom Haws 21:53, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, Agreed. --Zappaz

---

Here is what the Washington Post wrote about Unification Church:

The Rev. Mr. Moon's cult has attracted thousands of young people in recent years, many of them much like David Adler. [13] (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/cult/unification/lovebmb.htm)

That is a direct reference. -Willmcw 22:02, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

---

Here is what the Washington Post wrote about Children of God:

The Children of God, a religious cult accused of promoting indiscriminate sex in the name of Jesus and which claims 12,000 members in 70 countries, was in the spotlight today after scores of its followers were arrested in Buenos Aires. [14] (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/cult/children_of_god/main.htm)

That is a direct reference. -Willmcw 22:05, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

---

Here is what the Washington Post wrote about the People's Temple:

The mass deaths in Jonestown, Guyana, helped stigmatize "cults" by dramatizing the potential dangers of people blindly following charismatic leaders.[15] (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/cult/overview70s.htm)

That is a direct reference. -Willmcw 22:08, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

yes it is, but these reference are new. When I demoted this group, the only reference provided was The Cult Controversy article series. --Zappaz 00:04, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And these are articles that are part of that series. -Willmcw 19:54, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

---

Here is what the Guardian wrote about the Jehovah's Witnesses:

James King, a former Jehovah's Witness, writes about religious cults.[16] (http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,343646,00.html)

That is the subtitle of an article solely about the JW, and thus seems like a direct reference. -Willmcw 22:22, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

No, Will. I disagree, This is an apostate claiming that they are a cult. That is an NPOV statement attributed to a third party, and not a direct reference by the journalist or newspaper. --Zappaz 00:04, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Apostates are people too. But it is not King who uses the word. That is the subtitle written by the editor. -Willmcw 00:15, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Of course they are human beings... But that is not the point. The agreement is that only direct references count. This is not a direct reference, regardless if it is a title or a subtitle. --Zappaz 00:42, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What you have showed us is not a direct reference. Is there something else that leads you to call it one? Tom Haws 18:54, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

No, except that it struck me as one. I'll withdraw it. -Willmcw 19:54, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Lacking sources

These groups were tagged with WPost, using the reference "The cult controvery" article series. I checked and these groups are not directly references:

• Unification Church - propose to remove WPost as a source
• TM - propose to demote for same reasons
• ISKON - propose to remove Wpost as a source
• Lifespring - propose to remove this group completely (only source was Wpost and they do not call them a cult)

--Zappaz 00:05, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've checked those articles again and, while they are part of a the WP's listing of articles on the "cult controversy," I agree that the articles themselves never directly refer to the groups as "cults". So I will remove the cites from those. Regarding Lifespring, I believe there may be other references that refer to it as a cult and I think we - we- should make an effort to find them before removing it. Also, I believe that it is often considered a direct successor to Est, and perhaps should be lumped together with it. (I'm think of Est and the Forum, though apparently there are links between all three). In the same vein, I haven't found the source for the recently added Westboro Chuch, but in any case Phelps should be put with it. Cheers, -Willmcw 00:22, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Correction, please see my post above about Unification Church, which has been directly referred to by the WP as a cult. -Willmcw 00:24, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Please add the new reference to the Unification Church entry. Thanks --

---

source definitions

I noticed that we never moved the definitions of the "cohorts" over from the talk page. I combined all the level definitions and added them. Thus:

• Widest consensus: Major newspapers, encyclopedias, magazines, leading broadcasters, and major news websites.
• Decreasing consensus: Official and semi-official government sources, wide religious groups, and scholars writing in peer-reviewed journals.
• Narrowest application: Non-scholarly anti-cultists and anti-cult organizations.

I hope I got it right. Cheers, -Willmcw 00:47, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Oops! I think that the Ontario Consultants would be quite pissed-off if they saw we categorized them as Non-scholarly anti-cultists! :) --Zappaz 03:22, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, we've had them included in that section of the taxonomy for a long time. How would you suggest addressing the issue? -Willmcw 03:29, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Possibly by not defining the cohorts. Could they simply be defined by the company they keep? I am a little uncomfortable with trying to put a finger on who would or wouldn't be most widely accountable. It comes down to the editorial policy of the specific publication. It's conceivable that a worldwide newspaper could be careless and agendified, while a Catholic journal could be as highly accountable and cautious as the Washington Post. For me at least, the proof is in the pudding. Namely, how many groups have they called cults? Have they called Jehovah's Witnesses a cult? Have they called Branch Davidians a cult? Have they called Heaven's Gate a cult? Have they called LDS a cult? Have they called ICOC a cult? Have they called Catholic Church a cult? How do they compare to other publications? I think it has to depend on a comparison to the overall global climate of dialogue. In other words, this article is about who is saying what about whom. Tom Haws 18:13, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Very good point, Tom. I concurr. --Zappaz 18:20, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We need definitions so that when additional sources are added we know which cohort they belong to. If a major newspaper uses the term widely, or not at all, that should not affect our placement of them. Otherwise we'll be arguing endlessly about the sources. How are we going to discern the editorial policy of a publication, etc, based on one or two articles? -Willmcw 19:52, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Willmcw, don't you think it's problematic to use any source just once or at will? I think that for the ongoing quality of the article, we need to deliberate on each source and ask all contributors to please stick to the agreed-on sources. It is a nice surrogate for arguing about groups. All editors are more likely to be reasonable about sources than about groups. And when a rogue editor shows up to put the Jews or Christianity in as a cult, we can easily say, "You have to use one of the existing sources or get consensus on a new source." Tom Haws 20:57, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Tom, Zappaz and I already agreed that all sources other than Rick Ross would be allowed. Your original taxonomy, and the discussion that followed, dealt with how to rank sources, not with having an exclusive list of allowed sources. Sources were added to the taxonomy simply as examples. Certainly, if a particulr source is introduced which seems fraudulent or otherwise unusable, then that is a different matter. Let's deal with someone adding Christianity when it happens. Allowing only sources which make multiple mentions of cults seems unnecessarily burdensome, and ironically would possibly be grounds for excluding those source ("they call everybody a cult"). -Willmcw 21:16, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Will, it will be fairly obvious which sources belong where. Let these sources surface and we can deal with them as they do. We have been doing pretty good so far, so I do not see a problem.

If we are discussing sources, I would like to bring up the issue of the "Decreasing consensus". As it stands now this only includes groups refered as cults by the 1st report on sectes produced by the Franch secret police in collaboration with an anti-cult group (UNADEFI) that certainly belongs to the "Narrowest application" cohort. Unless we find some additional sources to keep groups in that cohort, I would suggest demoting them all to "Narrow application". Don't think that is correct to call these groups "Decreasing consensus" , our middle group just due to that controversial report. --Zappaz 21:26, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this taxonomy is working well, which is why I don't understand the urge to change it. As for Cohort 2, let's find some additional sources for those groups. I believe that the Watchman Fellowship’s 2001 Index of Cults and Religions (http://www.watchman.org/cat95.htm) would be a source that would fit into Cohort 2. -Willmcw 21:34, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining about the sources not being limited, Willmcw. I agree with Zappaz that it is problematic to have a cohort with only one representative source. And I agree in general that let's dredge up the sources, see what they say, and then rank them accordingly. I obviously can't personally favor any placement for a source I don't know about. Tom Haws 21:45, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

On closer analysis, the Watchman Fellowship appears to be closer to Cohort 3 (I had thought they were associated with a major denomination, which they don't seem to be). Here is how they describe themselves:

Watchman Fellowship is an independent Christian research and apologetics ministry focusing on new religious movements, cults, the occult and the New Age. We serve the Christian and secular community as a resource for cult education, counselling, and non-coercive intervention. Watchman Fellowship began in 1979 and now has representatives in several states. We have served almost every denomination including Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, Episcopal, Assemblies of God, Church of God, Lutheran, Nazarene, etc., as well as schools, law enforcement agencies and civic groups. [17] (http://www.watchman.org/about.htm)

Which gets us back to the start of the conversation - how to describe Cohort 3. "Non-scholarly anti-cultists and anti-cult organizations". Instead of "anti-cult" would it be more NPOV to describe these as "non-scholarly cult-watching groups"? -Willmcw 21:54, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

I like that, I think. Tom Haws 23:01, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Cohort 2, there are several sources we've incorporated that belong in that class.: "U.S. Congressional Report: Suspect Organizations and Individuals Possessing Long-Range Fifty Caliber Sniper Weapons (PDF)" (government source), "Point Reyes Light" (a local newspaper), "SF Chronicle" (a local newspaper), "San Diego Union Tribune" (a local newspaper). These don't seem worth adding to the listing of cources at top since they are each single listings. -Willmcw 00:29, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Unedfi

I am still concerned about the UNDEFI list. It should go into Cohort 3, IMO. --Zappaz 23:56, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As I understnad the distinction that we've made between the levels, Cohort 2 would be official sorces, or sources that have gained official recognition, etc. Cohort 3 would be private sources with little or no accountability. You undoubtedly know more about UNEDFI than I do. Can you explain more fully? I thought it was a parliamentary report. Thanks, -Willmcw 01:11, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

In 1995, the French National Assembly established a parliamentary commission into new religious groups. The commission had no sociologists or scholars of religions on staff. They produced the "Guyard Report," which includes a listing of 173 new religious groups (this is the list we are using in Cohort 2). This report was prepared by the French intelligence service and by information provided by anti-cult groups such as the National Union of Associations for Defense of the Families and the Individual (UNADEFI or UNDEFI), The Associations of Defense of the Families and the Individual (ADFI) and the Center Against Mental Manipulation (CCMM), that clearly belong to cohort 3. This report has been used extensively by anti-cultist as "proof" that the groups they oppose are cults. The controversy was so extensive and the allegations of religios persecution so wide, that the commission was later dismantled, his controversial president (Alain Vivien) had to resign and new commission formed that was less anti-religiuos and exercised some constrain. The 1995 list was not included in the later legislation (About-Piccard) law. You can read this in French legislation on cult abuses an article I worked on quite bit. --Zappaz 04:57, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If the report was officially prepared at the behest of the French parliament, then it belongs in Cohort 2. The composition of the committee and later fate of the list are irrelevant, unless the report was explicitly withdrawn or annulled. -Willmcw 05:28, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

My point is that it belongs to cohort 3. Both the Belgian report and the French report are not considered "official" policy. --Zappaz 15:21, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I know what your point is. And no one said that the report has to be official "policy". Since it was officially prepared, then it belongs in Cohort 2. We're not talking about Belgium at the moment. -Willmcw 18:38, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

Problem with cohort 2

I am not comfortable with having our cohort 2 defined solely by the French report. We need consensus, and a single source for a cohort is quite scant. Is there any way we can do better? Are there any sources in cohort 1 that might be demoted? Tom Haws 14:56, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Cohort 2 also includes local papers and other government agencies, a total of around five other sources. In the listing itself those sources are used. However there is no other Cohort 2 source which is a listing meriting inclusion in the list of sources at the top. We could add the sources that we are using, as samples. We're still looking for additional sources, right? Cheers, -Willmcw 17:01, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. Right. We are looking for more sources. It would be nice to have more examples at the top. In fact, at the moment, the top seems to be the definitive list for the cohorts, so I think it would be nice to have all the sources up there. Tom Haws 17:21, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

I moved all the Cohort 2 sources that I could easily note to the top. Some are attached to groups that also have Cohort 1 sources. Originally the list of sources was just of those that had many citations, but we can make it inclusive. It may get rather long, but we can worry about that later. Cheers, -Willmcw 17:32, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Looks good, Will. Thanks. I don't have much time these days, maybe next week... --Zappaz 22:56, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Up-to-date

Willmcw, you referenced this article in the discussion page for Al-Qaeda:

Al-Qaeda

The actions of this terrorist organization against civilians in the name of their beliefs, along with their use of suicide bombers, classifies it as a dangerous cult according to activists and religious scholars.

I do not see this copy anywhere on the List of purported cults article.--AI 23:27, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

That material, along with all descriptions of groups, was cut from this article, and pasted into the talk pages of the respective groups. Subsequently the editors of this article agreed that for a group to be included in this list it needs to have been directly referred to as a "cult" by a legitimate source. We had no such source for Al Qaeda and so it was removed from the list. If you know of some sources which directly refers to it as a cult (or a "sect" in British papers) then we can add it back. -Willmcw 23:38, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

It should be added regardless. It meets the definition of a cult regardless of sources. This shows that your criteria for listing cults is seriously flawed. See also: Talk:List_of_purported_cults#Sources_vs._Concensus. I would appreciate your NPOV.--AI 09:06, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Purported

Why the choice of the word "purported"?

<p>

Isn't there any other word which can be used that is not so "norweigan" :).--AI 23:27, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

"Norwegian?" What's the matter with Norway? I don't see any synonyms which is better than "purported". "Supposed" comes close, I suppose. Thanks for looking, though. Cheers, -Willmcw 23:43, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Nothing is wrong with Norway, in fact I am 1/4 Norweigan. Purported has a very norweign sound when spoken, not that there is anything wrong with that. Even though it is their own problem if many people do not understand the definition of purport, the adj. defition of purport conflicts with the adv. defition. So this is my reasoning on why I think we should change from purported to supposed or suspected or perhaps just "List of cults."--AI 00:27, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

AI, we cannot use "List of cults" because of the controversy surrounded the term "cult" (Read the Cult article.) We cannot use the word "suspected", because that is not the stated purpose of this article. Purported is the correct word, as it implies supossistion by someone. This article is a list of groups purported to be cults by certain sources and under criteria as stated at the top of the article. --Zappaz 16:14, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I think "alleged" would be better. The two words are close in meaning; both article titles would convey the point that someone or other has called each of these groups a cult, but would convey that point without endorsing it. Unfortunately, either word will rile some people by conveying a connotation that the statement isn't true. The difference is that the connotation is stronger with "purported" than with "alleged". JamesMLane 17:22, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I think a new title like "Cult calling", "Usage of the word cult", "Groups called cults", "List of groups called cults", or "Cult (current usage examples)" is in order. Tom Haws 18:50, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Norwegian connotations aside, I think that "List of purported cults", "list of alleged cults", "list of supposed cults," and "list of groups called cults" are all virtually identical in meaning and any of them would be accurate. Titles that imply this article is a discussion of the meaning of the word "cult", or that it is a list of examples of usage would be inaccurate, because we have intentionally limited our use of the word. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:38, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

New group -Villa Baviera

I just saw a big article in the New York Times about a Chilean group that probably merits inclusion. The NY Times will archive this article shortly, so I'll post it now and interested editors may check it if they wish. The Times directly calls the group a "cult" both in the headline and in the text. Guru of Sadism, Safely in Jail, Leaves Cult to Fend for Itself (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/16/international/americas/16chile.html?oref=login&oref=login) The article probably requires free registration to view. The leader was Paul Schäfer and name of the group's compound was Colonia Dignidad, later changed to Villa Baviera, though I can't tell if the group itslef has a name per se. Here are a couple of excerpts from the article:

A winding dirt road leads to the compound where Chilean authorities say that Paul Schäfer, a former Nazi Luftwaffe medic turned lay preacher, sexually molested scores of young boys. A few yards away is a hospital where, according to former cult members, those who drew Mr. Schäfer's ire were drugged and tortured. And somewhere beneath the ground, human rights groups say, are the clandestine dungeons where Colonia Dignidad held the political prisoners who were entrusted to it in the 1970's by Gen. Augusto Pinochet's secret police.

Until he was arrested in March after years on the run, Mr. Schäfer, now 84, dominated the life of this bizarre and isolated place, which Chilean officials have likened to Jonestown in Guyana or the Branch Davidian compound near Waco, Tex. But with their notorious leader, known as the Permanent Uncle, now in custody, some 300 followers of his apocalyptic, anti-Communist and anti-Semitic creed have been left suddenly adrift.

Mr. Schäfer controlled every detail of the lives of his flock, most of whom were German émigrés like himself. He decided whom and when they should marry, obliged them to turn over their newborns to be raised collectively, and, according to the court that convicted him in absentia last year, chose boys between the ages of 8 and 12 to sexually abuse.

Any objections to adding this group? -Willmcw 22:47, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

According to our criteria, we can't object, right? It is directly labelled by an approved source. Put it up. I vote to call it Paul Schafer's Villa Baviera or Colonia Dignidad group in Chile, Will. Tom Haws 17:03, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Yep. It matches our criteria. Good find, Will. --Zappaz 20:51, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Excellent find and fascinating article. How on earth were they able to secure 70 SQUARE MILES of countryside?! --AStanhope 21:57, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Coordination with other articles

We should coordinate with:

• Opposition to cults and new religious movements Great article. Tom Haws 18:45, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Hello, Tom. I contributed quite a bit to that article. How do you see this coordination taking shape? I will be gone for a good few weeks (I am not sure will have Internet access), but I am willing to help. --Zappaz 19:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Sources vs. Concensus

I think this article's method for listing purported cults is flawed:

The article lists Major newspapers, encyclopedias, magazines, leading broadcasters, and major news websites as the Widest concensus. The media is not a source and is known to engage in propaganda.
The article lists Official and semi-official government sources, wide religious groups, local news sources, and scholars writing in peer-reviewed journals as Decreasing consensus. Those scholars and government sources are often the sources for the media.
This article's method relies on the media to determine what is a cult and imho is advocating POV by accumulation of concensus. What kind of Wikipedia is this? Why isn't Al Qaeda listed?--AI 08:58, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

AI, then what is your alternative? I think the problem with media as a source is not so much propaganda but inaccuracy due to deadlines and complexity of the problems. Andries 09:17, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Don't be so naive.--AI 10:02, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I really believe that one should not attribute to malice (propaganda) which can adequately be explained by ignorance, stupidity, misguided faith, self-deception, or circumstances (lack of time due to deadlines). Andries 10:04, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Ok, then you are implying such media "sources" are unprofessional and therefore should not be a source. Don't play games with me. Please read my entire message above, not just the bit about the media.--AI 10:25, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree that media sources are unprofessional but I think that is the best source available for this article. I do not think that many journalists do not study scholarly books or government sources about a cults or NRM before writing an article about it. There are of course important exceptions. Andries 11:13, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Is that your problem? Why make it Wikipedia's?--AI 11:37, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

AI, whhy don't you come up with an alternative? Many editors incl. me thought deep and long about this article and this is the best we can get, as far as I can see. Please say what you want to change. Andries 12:25, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any article on a social or cultural phenomenon in which we limit the sources to academics and scholars. Some of the "experts" on cults are not considered impartial, while newspaper, if sloppy, are at least considered to be impartial and accountable to their wide audiences. Finally, one of the benefits of this criteria is that it prevents us from doing original research and deciding on our own if a group qualifies as a cult. We are simply listing those groups that have been called "cults". As Andries said, if you can suggest a better scheme, please do so. But before criticizing this scheme further, please review the archives of discussion leading up to its adoption. Thanks, -Willmcw 19:41, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree that newspapers are impartial. That is not the case in 99% of newspapers. Each newspaper or magazine have their own constituency, which they serve, and that implies a certain political/religious/etc bias. On the other hand, this article's title is "List of purported cults", and the criteria for inclusion in the list makes it clear but maybe not clear enough. Would a disclaimer such as this, AI, be sufficient?≈ jossi ≈ 21:18, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Note: Inclusion in this list does not not imply that a group is a "cult", that is controversial or not, harmful or beneficial, etc. but only that it has been called a "cult" by the sources provided. Also note that the term "cult" and the criteria for the application of such label to a group, is highly controversial and often used as a way to criticize new and alternative religions by means of stigmatization.

Such a "disclaimer" would be acceptable only if it stopped with the first sentence. However this is all covered in the existing introduciton. -Willmcw 23:36, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

I have attempted to merge previous and proposed disclaimer sentence. I think it reads quite well. I feel comfortable to remove the disputed tag. What say you, AI? ≈ jossi ≈ 01:52, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

There were some isues with your paragraph. To begin with, being called a cult by a source certainly does imply that a group is a cult. It doesn't mean that they really are, but that is the implication. Also, it's unwise to say that something happens "often" unless we're willing to establish that point. -Willmcw 02:10, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

being called a cult by a source certainly does imply that a group is a cult. If that is your interpretation then I would agree with AI that this list is POV and has no place in WP. ≈ jossi ≈ 02:34, May 31, 2005 (UTC) Sorry. I misunderstood you. I agree with the subtle distinctions you made. ≈ jossi ≈ 02:38, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Falung Gong?

I don't think that the references provided match the criteria stated in the article's intro:

• BBC - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/845885.stm says that the Chinese govrenmet call them a cult, but not the BBC.
• The Guardian article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,440270,00.html, mentions 'cult' in the title but when you read the article you don't get the sense that they are calling them a cult. ≈ jossi ≈ 03:39, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for checking. The Guardian calls them a "sect", which is roughly equivalent in British English. In this article [18] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/2966412.stm) the BBC also calls them a "sect". However both references are so "thin" that it is as if they are trying to avoid using the term at all. On the other hand, there's the Chinese government, newspapers, and news services which aren't so reticicent. How do we fit Xinhua into the taxonomy in a way that avoids giving it the same credibility as the Associated Press? I suppose we can call it the same as the French committee - an official government source. Hmmm... How about we remove the BBC and Guardian and replace it with a Chinese source? That'd drop the group down a tier and make clearer who is doing the purporting. -Willmcw 04:30, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. Replace with Chines source and demote. ≈ jossi ≈ 18:48, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for your input. Cheers, -Willmcw 19:46, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)