Talk:Cult suicide

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Multiple Issues" confusing 

message: 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)
thread_title:  -- 

message: (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)
thread_title:  (Advertisement) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Groups to replace 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Islamic Fundamentalism  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cross-article disagreement: 

message: 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)
thread_title: Sidebars (templates)

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance 

message: Does this belong in an article about "Cult Suicide"?  Paddy 21:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I took that stuff out. Some were arguing that religions which deny medicine are cult suicide, but on reflection I don't think that's valid. I may have taken too many groups out though.--T. Anthony 02:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jehovah's Witness 

message: An editor posted an {OR} tag on the artilce with the edit summary:
* (OR probably refers to the lack of sources and conclusions drawn without said sources.)
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)
replies: text: It'd be more helpful if you could tag the parts you are concerned about, rather than the whole article. Since there are so many sources a general tag somplaining about the lack of sources won't get any serious attention (as indeed it hasn't since you put it up many months ago). ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research? 

message: 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".--Asdfg12345 11:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just watch again the footage http://falsefire.com/, those so called self-immolator's where dressed very thick, do you think that they where afraid to catch a cold, or they where afraid of actually getting burned? Plus if they actually wanted to make a good call, why did they drag a minor along? Just to give the perfect sentimental cocktail for the CCP's hate campaign? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: All the details of this case still aren't fully known, but it's beggar's belief that the CCP did not set it up, whoever the people were (that is my opinion based on the set of facts presented in a variety of sources, and in the CCP's own media). It's also a known fact that Falun Gong practitioners everywhere state decisively that Falun Gong is opposed to killing, including suicide, and a cursory examination of the main book, Zhuan Falun, also makes this clear (that isn't an opinion). Just thought I'd throw those two points in. About the article, I don't think it belongs here because it bestows a kind of legitimacy to two sets of highly disputed and heavily discredited allegations: 1) that Falun Gong is a cult, 2) that the immolators were Falun Gong practitioners. To put it in perspective, why not include the suicide of some CCP members, as reported in reliable sources, as an example of a cult suicide? With such a highly disputed and tenuous connection, does not inclusion in this article inherently bias the CCP view?
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)

text:  The title of this article says nothing about this being an article of disputed suicides or suicides done in protest or anything like that. This article is about Cult suicide and the Tiananmen self immolation is not about cults, and is not even clearly suicide, since it is more likely to be just another hate campaign organized by CCP. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 22:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

text:  Thank you for the mediation attempt. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 22:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that paragraph above is fair, but there's still an issue. The issue is that it's on the "Cult suicide" page, where it doesn't really belong. The idea that Falun Gong is a cult has been roundly rejected by the relevant sources, and the only source arguing that the incident is a "cult suicide" is the CCP, which isn't a reliable source. Yes, Time and others have some speculations, but they don't speculate that it was a cult suicide, merely that it could have been people who apparently practiced Falun Gong. Time doesn't warrant that Falun Gong is a cult, nor does it use the term "cult suicide" to characterise the event. Let me put it this way: what reliable sources do we have that allege that the event was a "cult suicide?" If there are none, then what's it doing on this page?--Asdfg12345 07:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

text: My point is that its inclusion here constitutes original research. There's no source for the claim that the event is a cult suicide, or even a "disputed cult suicide." On these grounds it doesn't belong.--Asdfg12345 07:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You didn't respond to the basic problem, please do so now: what reliable sources do we have that allege that the event was a "cult suicide?" Your implicit suggestion that if we have sources saying it was a self-immolation, and sources saying that Falun Gong is a cult, that therefore the event can be called a "cult suicide" (or "disputed cult suicide) violates WP:SYN, does it not? --Asdfg12345 08:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So you admit that the only source for the incident being a "cult suicide" is the CCP's own propaganda organs? That's a joke.--Asdfg12345 07:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: When you put it that way - who is your only source for the incident being "clearly a set-up by the Chinese Communist Party to frame Falun Gong and ramp up the persecution"? It wouldn't be the Epoch Times, would it? PerEdman (talk) 16:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: remove Tiananmen Square Self-immolation

message: 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)
replies: text: The citequote tag is needed to ascertain that the reference provided really does define the term "cult suicide" the way it is portrayed here. It will also prove that the term exists, since (see discussion) there isn't any evidence that it does. So you see the answers you gave in the edit summary were neither straightforward or adequate, since they missed the point entirely. Sfacets 07:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not making sense.  Read Template:Citequote; you should see from it that the tag is misplaced.  I'm sorry to say that you are just too incoherent for me to respond further.-- Lonewolf BC 08:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: from Template:Citequote:"Use this tag, , for quotations that are used without a citation. Per Wikipedia:Citing sources: "You should always add a citation when quoting published material, and the citation should be placed directly after the quote, which should be enclosed within double quotation marks — "like this" — or single quotation marks if it's a quote-within-a-quote — "and here is such a 'quote' as an example." - what don't you understand? I am requesting citations. Simple. Sfacets 08:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no quote involved here. -- Lonewolf BC 08:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is why I ask you and have asked you time and time again to read Talk:Cult_suicide#The_term_.22Cult_suicide.22. Sfacets 08:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hate to break it to you, but I followed that as it went on.  You didn't (and don't) make much sense there, either -- you seem stubbornly disatisfied, but not on any reasonable or coherent basis.If you're going to explain why you want to keep the tag, please do so.  Ditto for the three words.  Otherwise this is wasting my time.-- Lonewolf BC 08:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You repeat yourself, I have already explained the reasons for the tag and the three words. Sfacets 09:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've never explained who calls "cult suicide" a pejorative term or challenges its use.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason I gave was that it was a neologism issued from some editor's Original Research - and requested proof of it's existence. Sfacets 03:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

text: You've never explained the other two things comprehensibly, either. -- Lonewolf BC 03:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I have - if you can't understand, don't blame me. Sfacets 03:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Ample references were provided.  Erasing them and putting an new citation demand instead is disingenuous and disruptive.  I've reversed your edit. -- Lonewolf BC 18:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ample does not mean that these are valid references - which is why requested the citation(s) to be quoted. Please read previous discussions on this matter. Sfacets 21:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Media sources, such as major newspapers, are reliable sources. No one has provided a single source to show that "cult suicide" is a neologism created by Wikipedia editors. Removing proper sources is disruptive and violates NPOV and other policies.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

text: ...and yet you refuse to provide citations to show that the term is used in-text and not just in the titles. Sfacets 22:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't refused. If I provide them will you accept them as reliable sources?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Too late for what? It's a simple question: will you accept citations from newspaper article to show that this is not a term made up by Wikipedia editors?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Too late as in I already made the RFC. But yes, as long as they appear in multiple reliable sources... Sfacets 23:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "citequote" tag and "...are reported to...", in lead 

message: Here are the headlines in question (emphasis added for clarity):
:*Rights Body Condemns Kanungu Cult Suicide, Katamba G. Mohammed. Africa News Service. Durham: Mar 26, 2000. p. 1
:*It was murder, say family of boy in cult suicide riddle GORDON RAYNER. Daily Mail. London (UK): Mar 28, 2007. p. 19
:*JONESTOWN MASSACRE RECALLED NO MEMORIALS IN GUYANA 25 YEARS AFTER MORE THAN 900 CULT SUICIDES Bert Wilkinson The Associated Press. South Florida Sun - Sentinel. Fort Lauderdale, Fla.: Nov 19, 2003. p. 26.A
:*Coroner denounces cult suicide claim, Terry Kirby Chief Reporter. The Independent. London (UK): Nov 5, 2003. p. 4
:*Cult suicide, Stephen S Schade. Chicago Tribune. Chicago, Ill.: Apr 28, 2001. p. 23
:*Cult suicide victims stable in hospital, WANG YING, China Daily staff. China Daily (North American ed.). New York, N.Y.: Feb 3, 2001. p. 1
:*Details on cult suicide attempts, China Daily (North American ed.). New York, N.Y.: Jan 31, 2001. p. 1
:*Cult's suicide protest embarrasses China Calum MacLeod in Beijing and James Palmer. The Independent. London (UK): Jan 24, 2001. p. 14
:*Kanungu Deaths Similar To Other Cult Suicides, Paul Redfern. Africa News Service. Durham: Mar 29, 2000. p. 1
:*Difficulties hamper cult-suicide probe, The Globe and Mail. Toronto, Ont.: Mar 23, 2000. p. A.11
:*Death toll 500 in cult suicides Cincinnati Post. Cincinnati, Ohio: Mar 21, 2000. p. 2.A
:*600 feared burned alive in doomsday cult suicide, Evening Standard. London (UK): Mar 20, 2000. p. 7
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)
replies: text: Responding to "Was that so hard?", Sfacets' edit-summary for the above remark:I doubt it much.  Regardless, the demand was an unreasonable time-waster. Unless you've been living under a rock, you knew perfectly well that "cult suicide" is a commonplace term. -- Lonewolf BC 01:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a reasonable request - Google search results for instance list WP articles first, followed by News headings. I have never heard anyone going around using the term "cult suicide" - Guy1: "Did you hear about that group up on the hill"? Guy2: "yes, a tragedy - a tragic example of cult suicide". The term is a juxtaposition of two buzz words, combined for sensationalist effect. What really wasted time here was the reluctance of editors to provide citations. Sfacets 01:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pull the other one. -- Lonewolf BC 01:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for comment:Use of News headlines to prove existence of term

message: 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)
thread_title:  Suicide Laws? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Just realized, a Family Guy episode used that same idea, i thinkh it was the 2nd (episode).--68.3.18.11 (talk) 21:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not these guys? PerEdman (talk) 16:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing something 

message: I added them as a kind of placeholder back when. Should it be removed?--T. Anthony (talk) 16:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Family International 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Not Fit for an Encyclopedia 

message: 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)
replies: text: deleted Weaponbb7 (talk) 05:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Martydom

message: 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)
replies: text: It could also be merged with Mass suicide, which seems to be a notable topic.  Borock (talk) 18:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete/Merge into Cults