256:
make up false accusations against people, but please don't. As to the
Jehovah's Witness that keeps messing up the article, he hasn't presented any solutions to fix the article, he's just trying like hell to put his group in the most favorable light possible by making up all-new 'non-unanimous' categories pretty much just for his group, while apparently being unaware that his proposed category is exactly the way the present categories work (and that there are a lot of groups on there that have a lot less sources next to them than his). Are you saying that if I want an article to change, I just have to slap a disputed tag on there, and leave it "for several months" until I get whatever it is I want? Members of these groups are going to dispute the article no matter what we do. I do not foresee all such members coming to a consensus that they are in fact cult members. In such a case, the decisions have to be made without them, whether everyone is happy or not. How do you propose presenting their side of this, posting statements next to each source where each group declares 'we say that we're not a cult?'
536:-- the article as written seems to be about as NPOV as it can get, it serves a useful purpose to people studying New Religious Movements, and the system is designed to err on the side of inclusion when no consensus can be reached. IMHO that is a reasonable position to take -- keep as is, NPOV tag and all.
196:
So if it's hard to make a certain list, we shouldn't try? Or not try until every last person is happy, which again reduces to never making the list, or making an empty list, since members of groups so fingered would always complain, no matter how it is done? Does anyone envision us ever making a list
255:
Please don't go around falsely accusing people of crap. I only recently made my first edit to that page (a couple of weeks or so ago, I would guess), and I haven't seen any grand proposals for fixing it; in fact, when I asked a question, I never got a response from anyone. It's undoubtedly easier to
110:
The intention of the article is to present a list groups which are named "cult" in the media. No reference to scholarly research on this topic has been provided by the contributors, so they replace that with their own research. Starting with a selection, which media outlets should be considered most
224:
an option, not when a disputed tag is on the page for several months. We either find a solution that gains consensus, or this article will remain in disputed land and will end up on AFD again and again. Note that the issue is not that is not NPOV to say that the
Guardian referred to People's Temple
314:
No, that doesn't make something original research, unless we outlaw primary sources as being against the original research policy. Then again, these sources in question aren't raw scientific studies or anything of the sort anyway; the authors presumably obtained facts from wherever, and evaluated
201:
cults, that everyone is going to agree on, especially members of the groups listed? Should we just remove 'negative' words from the language, since those described by them disagree with those words being applied to them? In any case, I don't think it is a violation of NPOV to state that a certain
430:
but was not accepted. If it was accepted, this AfD, would have been redundant. Such a name for the article would made it clear that the groups included may or may not be cults, only that they were referred as such in the media. Why do you think it was not accepted? That is the real question....
292:
original research. This is not only a serious problem in the cult articles, but in the pseudoscience category as well. There are zillions of primary sources for all sort of positions. Selecting and weighting these, instead of relying on secondary sources (academic studies of the topic, review
215:
Those are good questions but not applicable here, IMO. There where proposals made that could have resolved the dispute that you, amongst others, chose to ignore and continued editing the article without attempting to find a resolution. I find your characterization of "bitching and moaning",
202:
source has declared a certain group to be a cult, it's just a fact. Whether the original source is NPOV or not is a different question for a much different day. We shouldn't avoid hard subjects just because we're always going to have bitching and moaning. Or should we?
477:
The fact that the article would then be misnamed probably had something to do with it. There are government reports, cult-watching organizations, all kinds of other stuff besides the media. "Purported" serves the purpose just fine, as
274:
with POV tag. We cannot have a precedent that equates citing sources with original research. There is an article on the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict and there can be an article about this. This list has improved over time.
93:
572:--but narrow list of cults to those assemblies whose founder has not died and still guides the cult. Any organization with enough stability to survive the death of its founder has passed from cult to movement.
388:. See arguments at previous AfD. Also note, that the current list doesn't care at all, what the article in question is saying about the group in question, but only whether it is called "cult" somewhere in it. --
73:
510:
and protect page from further nominations for deletion. Come on, if its survived twice, does it really need a third try? Its obviously valid. POV it and get on with trying to improve it.
417:
The "purported" is there to make it clear that the "cult" designation is not absolute, and that people have to source entries. It supports the very policies you claim that it violates.
88:
225:
as a cult. The issue is that to have NPOV, all conflicting views needs to be presented, and that is not the case here. One small mention in a periodical is enough for inclusion, a
83:
637:
617:
601:
585:
576:
564:
552:
540:
528:
486:
444:
421:
392:
359:
338:
319:
301:
279:
260:
242:
206:
186:
152:
125:
52:
355:
Perhaps, but this isn't the place to discuss changing the encyclopedia's original research policy. Press articles aren't raw primary sources anyway.
162:
334:
Yes, that is exactly my point. An encyclopedia would better outlaw raw primary sources as as original research in non-trivial cases. --
427:
17:
113:
British
Broadcasting Corporation, Encarta online encyclopedia, The Guardian, The New York Times, Salon.com, Washington Post
440:
238:
182:
148:
68:
652:
36:
613:
will always be controversial, but intro gives adequate context to understand the inherent POV nature of "purported"
651:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
518:
385:
58:
436:
234:
178:
144:
139:
that is not acceptable. Delete as per nom or implement one of many proposals raised to NPOV the article.
598:
432:
230:
174:
140:
49:
582:
514:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
100:
119:
in place: A group is added to the list, if it is named "cult" in one article of one source.
104:
614:
537:
483:
356:
316:
257:
203:
107:
problems. The four months since the last debate have proven, that it is beyond repair.
170:
573:
479:
418:
381:
276:
226:
116:
597:
and narrow the citera for inclusion to news programs, papers and periodicals only.--
561:
511:
389:
335:
298:
122:
220:
editors that have attempted constructively to resolve the dispute. Status quo is
549:
524:
521:
173:. Those groups with more sources at the top, thpoose with less at the bottom)
135:
All attempts and proposals have been rejected, with the negative result of a
94:
Knowledge (XXG):Votes for deletion/Hate groups and new religious movements
315:
them; those facts were presumably obtained from somewhere else also, etc.
581:
Keep - hating the idea of the article does not make it deletable -
645:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
380:
Press articles wouldn't necessarily be raw primary sources for
74:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of purported cults/2
89:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of deadly cults
229:
that is unacceptable in such a controversial article.
99:
I re-nominate the article for deletion due to inherent
548:β nicely referenced list; encyclopedic information. β
115:, if you bother). Then there is the equivalent of the
84:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Christian cults
216:
unacceptable as it assumes bad faith on the part of
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
655:). No further edits should be made to this page.
428:List of groups referred to as cults in the media
8:
288:In my not so humble opinion, citing sources
426:A proposal was made to name the article
625:as per others who voted keep in this
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
163:List of groups referred to as cults
69:Talk:List of purported cults/Delete
24:
165:, a list sorted by the number of
1:
638:00:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
618:22:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
602:20:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
586:14:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
577:06:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
53:02:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
44:The result of the debate was
565:22:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
553:17:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
541:04:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
529:23:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
487:06:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
445:16:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
422:09:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
393:08:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
360:08:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
339:07:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
320:07:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
302:07:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
280:23:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
261:07:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
243:22:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
207:18:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
187:16:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
153:17:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
126:16:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
672:
64:Previous AfD discussions:
648:Please do not modify it.
560:per Haikupoet and RJH --
197:of, not cults, but even
32:Please do not modify it.
386:List of purported cults
59:List of purported cults
297:original research. --
384:, but they are for
482:pointed out above.
527:
443:
241:
185:
151:
663:
650:
636:
628:and two previous
599:HistoricalPisces
517:
435:
433:β jossi fresco β
233:
231:β jossi fresco β
177:
175:β jossi fresco β
169:sources as per
143:
141:β jossi fresco β
34:
671:
670:
666:
665:
664:
662:
661:
660:
659:
653:deletion review
646:
632:
62:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
669:
667:
658:
657:
641:
640:
620:
607:
606:
605:
604:
589:
588:
579:
567:
555:
543:
531:
504:
503:
502:
501:
500:
499:
498:
497:
496:
495:
494:
493:
492:
491:
490:
489:
460:
459:
458:
457:
456:
455:
454:
453:
452:
451:
450:
449:
448:
447:
404:
403:
402:
401:
400:
399:
398:
397:
396:
395:
369:
368:
367:
366:
365:
364:
363:
362:
346:
345:
344:
343:
342:
341:
327:
326:
325:
324:
323:
322:
307:
306:
305:
304:
283:
282:
268:
267:
266:
265:
264:
263:
248:
247:
246:
245:
210:
209:
190:
189:
156:
111:authorative. (
97:
96:
91:
86:
77:
76:
71:
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
668:
656:
654:
649:
643:
642:
639:
635:
630:
629:
624:
621:
619:
616:
612:
609:
608:
603:
600:
596:
593:
592:
591:
590:
587:
584:
580:
578:
575:
571:
568:
566:
563:
559:
556:
554:
551:
547:
544:
542:
539:
535:
532:
530:
526:
523:
520:
516:
513:
509:
506:
505:
488:
485:
481:
476:
475:
474:
473:
472:
471:
470:
469:
468:
467:
466:
465:
464:
463:
462:
461:
446:
442:
438:
434:
429:
425:
424:
423:
420:
416:
415:
414:
413:
412:
411:
410:
409:
408:
407:
406:
405:
394:
391:
387:
383:
382:List of cults
379:
378:
377:
376:
375:
374:
373:
372:
371:
370:
361:
358:
354:
353:
352:
351:
350:
349:
348:
347:
340:
337:
333:
332:
331:
330:
329:
328:
321:
318:
313:
312:
311:
310:
309:
308:
303:
300:
296:
291:
287:
286:
285:
284:
281:
278:
273:
270:
269:
262:
259:
254:
253:
252:
251:
250:
249:
244:
240:
236:
232:
228:
227:one drop rule
223:
219:
214:
213:
212:
211:
208:
205:
200:
195:
192:
191:
188:
184:
180:
176:
172:
168:
164:
160:
157:
155:
154:
150:
146:
142:
138:
134:
130:
129:
128:
127:
124:
120:
118:
117:one drop rule
114:
108:
106:
102:
95:
92:
90:
87:
85:
82:
81:
80:
75:
72:
70:
67:
66:
65:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
50:Mailer Diablo
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
647:
644:
633:
627:
626:
622:
610:
594:
583:David Gerard
569:
557:
545:
533:
507:
294:
289:
271:
221:
217:
198:
193:
166:
161:and move to
158:
136:
132:
131:
121:
112:
109:
98:
78:
63:
45:
43:
31:
28:
634:ΠΠΈΠ±ΠΎΡΠΎΠ²ΡΠΊΠΈΠΉ
558:Strong Keep
534:Strong Keep
525:Eventualist
522:Darwikinian
519:Wishy Washy
508:Speedy Keep
615:CarbonCopy
293:articles)
137:status-quo
79:See also:
631:AfDs. --
538:Haikupoet
484:Tommstein
357:Tommstein
317:Tommstein
258:Tommstein
204:Tommstein
199:purported
167:reputable
574:Endomion
480:Gazpacho
419:Gazpacho
277:Gazpacho
562:Irmgard
512:Zordrac
390:Pjacobi
336:Pjacobi
299:Pjacobi
123:Pjacobi
101:WP:NPOV
515:(talk)
290:can be
133:Delete
105:WP:NOR
16:<
623:Keep
611:Keep
595:Keep
570:Keep
546:Keep
272:Keep
218:many
194:Keep
171:WP:V
159:Keep
103:and
48:. -
46:keep
550:RJH
222:not
439:β’
295:is
237:β’
181:β’
147:β’
441:@
437:t
239:@
235:t
183:@
179:t
149:@
145:t
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.