Talk:Governmental lists of cults and sects

Points in lede

[1] - this edit by Pedant17 (talk · contribs) makes the lede look quite awkward. Let's please stick to a paragraph format in the WP:LEAD of the article. Cirt (talk) 08:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

OR

I have placed an WP:OR tag on this entry because it is currently a synthesis. Some of these lists actually refer to "sects" others to things like "Doomesday Religious Movements". This means at the very least that the current title is not acceptable. If the argument is that "cult" has a coherent referent and that the various terms used by these governments are synonymous with this referent then a pretty strong case needs to be made for that. As it is no such case is made in the entry. I don't believe that such a case can be made, but I welcome one.PelleSmith (talk) 21:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

All of the lists refer to "cults", in the cult sense of the term. There is no ambiguity here, and certainly no synthesis or OR, as the material is simply presented at face value, with no original analysis or assumptions drawn. Cirt (talk) 21:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "face value"? If it is presented at face value please remove all references to something other than "cult". Many/most of the European documents refer to "sect" and not cult. If the actual term is not used some criteria for inclusion has to be made to justify conclusion.PelleSmith (talk) 21:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

You are talking about semantics of language. The term "cult" is not used in certain other European countries, they use "sect" or "secte" to refer to the exact same thing, thus in an English-language encyclopedia wiki inclusion of both in this article is quite appropriate. Cirt (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not talking about "semantics of language" at all, I'm talking about an incoherent subject matter that currently lacks definition. "Exact same thing" being what? Sociologists and psychologists do not use the term "cult" the way anti-cult activists do. Religious studies scholars often use it to refer to cultus and not new religious movements. On who's athority are we to take that the European "sect" is equivalent to the North American "cult"? In what social contexts is it closest to equivalent? I can answer that last one for you if you want, but it is not a social context that should be defining a subject matter for an encyclopedia.PelleSmith (talk) 21:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

You may be familiar with this concept already: in many countries, the term "sect" takes on the negative meanings associated with the word "cult." The two terms are considered synonyms in some cases. With respect to this usage used by these government documents as listed on this page, the usage of these words is synonymous. Cirt (talk) 21:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

"In many countries?" Which countries? The statement you link says -- "The two terms are considered synonyms in some cases." This is not verification for the specific cases presented in the entry being synonymous. So I ask again by whose authority do we have it that they are synonymous? Yours? That's what it sounds like as of now. How is that not original research?PelleSmith (talk) 21:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be raising a larger issue of the usage of these words in the naming of articles and usage in article text across many pages, not simply this one. So far it is common practice and knowledge that the usage referring to "cult" in the English language is synonymous with "sect" in other languages. I am not sure how you would see fit to remedy this situation apart from going to France, Germany, etc., and asking all the speakers of those languages to shift from using the word "sect", to all start using the word "cult", to refer to the exact same thing... Cirt (talk) 21:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest doing what we do at every entry. Using reliable sources to verify entry content. How is that such a novel idea?PelleSmith (talk) 22:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

That is exactly what is already being done here. Please remove the tag. Cirt (talk) 22:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the tag should remain until reliable sources verify the claims you are making for inclusion of content that does not use the term "cult" or until the article title reflects the current content. All you have responded with is "this is common knowledge" so far. If it is common then you can source it no problem. This entry is subject to our policies regarding verification just as much as any other entry is. The OR tag is better than the current one but you seemed particularly allergic to it so I used the SYNTH tag.PelleSmith (talk) 22:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, each entry is directly sourced to the accompanying government document. There is no "synthesis", or "original research" going on here - simply recounting of the facts from the documents themselves. Thus, this tag is inappropriate and its continued placement disruptive. Cirt (talk) 22:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Then I ask again to delete all references other than to "cult". The government documents do not all refer to the groups as "cults". If they did we would not be having this discussion and you would not have linked religioustolerance.org. If there is a criteria for including groups that are called something other than "cult" this should be spelled out an sourced. Otherwise it is your original research that the groups not called "cult" explicitly should be included. I suggest posting to the original research noticeboard if you do not see it that way. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 22:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Please be more specific about which specific report and/or group you object to being included in this list. Cirt (talk) 22:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Any group not being called a "cult" explicitly does not belong in this entry unless the title changes or there is some verifiable way of sourcing inclusion other than "common knowledge". This includes all the indigenous variations of "sect" used by European countries like Austria, Germany, and France. These terms literally translate to "sect" in English and not "cult". Clearly the Canadian "Doomsday Religious Movement" fits the bill as well. Maybe we should change the tile to Religious movements identified as dangerous or possibly dangerous in government documents? The negative usage of "cult" in the United States does indeed often share this particular quality with the negative use of "sect" in various European nations. However, this by no means make the terms "cult" and "sect" synonyms. Perhaps you may recall that both have their roots in church-sect typlogies and in sociological classification they are by definition seperate concepts. When scholars do compare the terms on this plane they do so in relation to their negative use by the American and European anti-cult movements. Again, this does not make the terms synonyms. It does equate their socio-political function however. If you want to explicate an inclusion criteria based upon socio-political function I'll be happy to help you source it. There are several reliable scholarly sources available for that job.PelleSmith (talk) 01:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be mistaken. The Canadian report is clearly about cults, the word cult is itself used in the report several times. There are multiple WP:RS sources that show that in this specific usage "sect" in other languages is synonymous with "cult", I can provide these here on the talk page. Cirt (talk) 04:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Great lets see them.PelleSmith (talk) 11:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way what is the objection to changing the title to something that actually describes the content without these terminological or translational issues? What is wrong with something like Religious movements identified as dangerous or possibly dangerous in government documents? A title like that doesn't simply solve translational problems but also semantic problems regarding "cult" within the English language, of which there are several.PelleSmith (talk) 11:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Another suggestion might be List of religious movements classified as "cults" or "sects" in government documents. The lede would explain the inclusion criteria ...in what sense the two terms can be seen as interchangeable between cultural and linguistic contexts. As it is this entry simply assumes one English use of "cult" and equates it without explanation or verification with one European use of "sect".PelleSmith (talk) 13:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Moved to List of groups referred to as cults or sects in government documents.  Done. Cirt (talk) 14:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

A partial fix of the OR issue?

I've tried fixing the problem with a bold edit. I almost boldly moved the page to a title including "cults" and "sects" but thought better of it for now. Are there concerns with my recent edit? The point is to increase precision. Cult is not a precise term in and of itself for various reasons, some of which have been touched upon already above. There are also reliable sources about government reporting on or "listing of" these groups which should be integrated into the entry. I've tried starting to do this.PelleSmith (talk) 13:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

These changes look alright. Hopefully we can also get some commentary from individuals that have not been directly associated with/influenced by these groups themselves, for some NPOV balance. Cirt (talk) 14:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Further input is needed for sure. However I'm not sure I understand your implication. Do you mean commentary from sources by scholars who have not been associated with these groups (implying that Richardson and Robbins have)? Or do you mean commentary from editors who have been so influenced? I hope you don't mean the latter since I in no way belong to such a category and other than yourself am the only other commentator here presently. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 15:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to the authors. Cirt (talk) 15:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 15:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Empty space in templates

Please do not add empty spaces to templates, this is nonconstructive and only serves to add space to the overall size of the article, and make editing cumbersome. Cirt (talk) 03:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree that the edit was not constructive and also agree that formatting references in that manner may be one of the more annoying things I've encountered editing Wikipedia. I come across this all the time in NRM/cult related entries and it makes editing very cumbersome indeed.PelleSmith (talk) 03:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)