Template talk:New Religious Movements/Archive 1

message: The exact content of this page is somewhat debatable.  To mention one doubt that has been raised (and to which I don't exactly disagree), it is arguable that Rajneesh's followers don't have much of an established hierarchy currently, so perhaps they don't qualify as a cult.  On the other hand they have strong proselitism here in Brazil, and the image of Rajneesh and the dangers associated with it are very much alive still. Luis Dantas 18:56, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Khym, it will be called a cult by the public even if this is unfair and unjustified. Most cult leaders can be considered gurus in the contempary meaning of the word, whether we like it or not. Andries 07:17, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrary section header 

message: I see references to cults in Witch hunt, but none in Bigotry. Why is Bigotry on the template? -Willmcw 20:37, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
:I a direct reference to bigotry needed? ≈ jossi ≈ 04:58, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
:If not, why else is it on the template? There are lots of other terms that don't have a direct reference either. I suppose we could make arguments for including them. But a navigation template's purpose is to help readers find their way among related articles. -Willmcw 05:28, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
:::If not, why else is it on the template? Because, Willmcw, people that belong to minority religions, see some of the activism of the anti-cult as an expression of bigotism and religious intolerance. Read the related articles in which this template is linked to. ≈ jossi ≈ 23:56, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
:::Aren't there several other articles on the template that discuss anti-cult bigotry? The topic seems to be covered well elsewhere and not at all in "bigotry".  It doesn't seem to add anything. -Willmcw 00:08, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
::::Yes, a template would seem to be for articles closely related to the template topic.  That seems to be a principle that some people have trouble grasping -- after all, Zappaz only added "Witch hunt" and "Bigotry" to the template after he couldn't get away with removing "Mind control" (his edit summary makes clear that he viewed it as quid pro quo, not as, y'know, trying to be accurate and helpful to the reader...)  Poor Zappaz must've been extremely confused; give him half a chance and he'll go into a tizzy and tirade about how "mind control" is the entirely scientifically disproven concept around which is based the whole of the anti-cult movement's opposition to what they pejoratively refer to cults, yadda yadda yadda (a complete straw man, but one doesn't expect much accuracy from Zappaz in describing the anti-cult movement).  Then, after having screamed up and down how the only reason anyone could possibly object to perfectly legitimate "new religious movements" and tar them with the awful epithet of "cults" is the Big Lie of "mind control" -- he thinks he should be fighting to keep it out of the template?  and then he thinks that because he didn't get his way in taking out "mind control" (which all POVs agree is closely related to the concept of cults) he's entitled to put in "witch hunt" and "bigotry"?  
::::As Will points out, if "bigotry" is so gosh-darn closely related to the whole concept of cults then one would think the article linked to would have had some mention of it.  (One that wasn't, by the way, hastily edited in so that someone could say 'There, now bigotry mentions how everyone who remembers what happened at Jonestown and thinks the same could happen again is just a big ol' bigot; now you have to put "bigotry" in the template and if you don't like that, I'll award myself some other POV addition as a consolation prize.') -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:27, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Witch hunt | Bigotry 

message: *What do people think about changing the format/layout shape of the template?  Have a look at the Template:ScientologySeries.  This template is vertical, and is made to run down the right-hand side of the article, below the subject's picture and/or infobox.  This seems to be a more logical arrangement of ease of use and ease of navigation to the reader.  Let me know what you think here or on my talk page.  I would be bold and do it myself, but I'm not that great at tabulation programming.  Thanks for your time.  Yours, Smeelgova 22:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the purpose of this change? To my view, it makes the template too prominent, especially in short articles. -Will Beback 19:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the comment.  I would also like to see what others think as well.  In those shorter articles you mention, we would hope that they would be expanded upon in the future.  As for other articles, this forms part of a series, so that the reader can navigate much easier, and so that editors can more easily see where Wikipedia has and/or lacks information on certain specific topics within this subject.  Yours, Smeelgova 19:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Will Beback on the prominence issue, also, the template formated vertically vs horizontally will often not fit correctly in a page, as other elements such as images etc. occupy the place where the template would fit, such as in the case of Les Sectes where the template is crowded at the bottom of the article. Sfacets 03:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your candor.  Please see more on this discussion at the bottom of the talk page.  Smeelgova 03:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting the template 

message: *After formatting, it seems that if I place this template while coding below a different one in an article, instead of appearing below, it appears to the left of the other template.  How do I fix this?  Smeelgova 23:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  small formatting technical problem 

message: To label aion a "cult" shows bias. To have a category named "cult"  in which articles are placed is derogatory to the organisations of whom the article is about. Wouldn't it be more sensible to relable the category something like "Purported Cults" or similar? Many organisations currently in this category are either recognised only in the US or only in Europe as having "cult-like" properties. What are the criteria of inclusion? Sfacets 06:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are in the wrong discussion board and article, you may want to go to :Category:Cults.
No, adding this template to an article connotes that the subject is undeniably a cult. The same goes with :Category:Cults. Sfacets 11:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which particular articles do you have an issue with it being added to and we can discuss them?  Yours, Smeelgova 19:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: The articles listed under each heading need to be sorted alphabetically. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I noticed you were doing that, thank you.  Yours, Smeelgova 20:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alpha sort 

message: *Per User:Jossi : please note that only highly relevant articles should be placed there.  Only articles which are highly relevant to this series should be placed here.  Articles which are not relevant directly to cults, and do not mention cults even once in the body text of the article (before this current edit), should not be placed within this series.  Yours, Smeelgova 05:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevancy 

message: Why was List of groups referred to as cults removed from this template? It's been on here for a very long time without any complaints. -Will Beback 01:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think it appropriate as per the disclaimer in that article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Clearly, these are groups referred to as and not cults. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then let's put it back with its full title. I think it was only truncated to reduce the width of the template. With the full title it's clear that these are groups that have only been referred to as cults. -Will Beback 02:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not so sure, Will. We spent an extraordinary amount of time NPOVng that page, to now go back to asserting de facto that these groups belong to :Category:Cults by adding these to the category, as well as adding the infobox. We just completed two CfDs that responded to these attempts. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jossi, the list has been in this template for two and a half years, ever since it was created in 2004.. You yourself have edited the template, with the list included in  August 6, 2005, December 30, 2005, February 21, 2006, June 30, 2006, and even October 24, 2006. If it was suitable then, why not now? Furthermore, we include articles which make only brief mention of cults, such as Witch_hunt. The List article is far more inovled in this template's topic than some of the other articles in it. -Will Beback 02:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of groups referred to as cults 

message: *I have read the points made by Jossi, Will Beback, Milo, and Sfacets, and they have all made convincing points.  The consensus seems to be to move back to the original style of a Horizontal Footer at the bottom of the article.  After careful consideration I have come to actually agree with these individuals' statements above, and I have done so, in keeping with the general formatting of the current version.  Yours, Smee 16:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Per consensus, changed back to footer template 

message: I changed "organizations" and "individuals" to "Anti-cult organizations" and "Anti-cult individuals" respectively - this was to describe the occupation of said organizations and individuals - since these could be confused as the organizations ("cults") themselves and the individuals as members of said organizations. It was not POV-pushing by any means. Sfacets 15:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-cult organizations, Anti-cult individuals 

message: *Atrocity story and Deviancy amplification spiral  -- These are not "theories" that are applied directly to the "cults" phenomenon, but rather "related" issues that were cited as an aside by some researchers in the matter.  Thus, they are more appropriate for the "related" section of the template.  Smee 04:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mind control and Brainwashing are neither applied directly to purported "cults". Read the articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps in that case, they should also be removed from the list.  But in any case, they are.  "Deviancy amplification spiral", was only cited by (1) researcher as being related to the topic.  We should tighten the inclusionary criteria for "theories" and for "related".  Smee 05:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. You can move Deviancy amplification spiral to related. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A valiant try...  Smee 05:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no mention of cults in Deviancy amplification spiral, and this template isn't in that article either. Topics we include on this template should have an apparent connection. -Will Beback · † · 06:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there is... But I agree that the material there may not warrant inclusion in this template. Let's remove it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving of 2 entries 

message: Operation Clambake is not an organization, but a website. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hrm, interesting point.  One could make the point that it is both.  However, it is certainly relevant, where would you suggest moving it to in the template?  Perhaps Opposition?  Or Related?  Smee 05:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or it might just be easier to rename the "Organizations" section to "Resources" or "Organizations and Resources".  Smee 05:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That website is better placed on a CoS related template, rather than in a generic template such as this that is so widely used. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Check out the Web site itself.  It clearly believes that the group it is criticizing is a "cult".  I am sure that the Church of Scientology calls them an "anti-cult organization", or "anti-cultists"...  Smee 22:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Listed under the section on Barker:  Anti-cult#Five_types_of_cult-watching_groups_by_Eileen_Barker.  Smee 11:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  ... which I removed, alongside all other examples, as WP:OR violation. The source does not describe any these examples. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clambake 

message: My concerns above were not addressed.  Clambake is most certainly related.  They classify the group they oppose as a "cult", and I am sure that the group they oppose has characterized them in the past as an "anti-cult group", or "anti-cult organization", or "anti-cultist".  If Jossi does not feel it should belong in the "Organizations" part of the template, please suggest another section to move it to instead.  Please do not unilaterally remove this entry from the template entirely, without further polite discussion.  Smee 21:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All links are generic, and that one is specific to the CoS. I do not think it belongs in a generic template as no other link is specific, but you can ask other editors for their opinion. It surely belongs in the CoS template, though. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any organization that in and of itself specifically believes that it is criticizing a "cult", and has plainly stated as such, should be listed in the template, as highly relevant.  Smee 01:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Third opinion - Operation Clambake is wholly devoted to opposing the Church of Scientology.  Regardless of whether or not the folks behind OC view Scientology as a cult, it is difficult to classify them as an anti-cult organization.  Doing so does, indeed, imply that the view of Wikipedia is that Scientology is a cult as well.  This does appear to be too POV for inclusion and I would recomment against listing them in the template.  Regards, Arkyan • (talk) 21:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The opinions were unrelated to the classification, but to the inclusion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, both refer to the nature of the question of "organization".  I shall post this question again to 3O, with regard to inclusion at all.  Smee 20:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Next time, if you do not mind, please inform in talk about asking a 3O. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  If you read the editors above, both addressed the inclusion of that link already in the teamplate. Another 3) is unnecessary. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought I had mentioned about asking for 3O, but if I did not, my apologies.  However, I have asked again, as the first question and comments here both address inclusion in the context of "organization", as opposed to inclusion at all in the "related" section.  Smee 21:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please re-read the comments. Both argued against its inclusion in a generic template. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  Both also did so within the context of the question "organization", and not solely as a related topic.  However, I also think the related section should go.  See below.  Smee 21:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clambake certainly related 

message: I think the "related" section is tangential at best, and is getting too big.  To keep the template as tight as possible, I think the "Related" section should be removed entirely.  Smee 21:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been there for many months, Smee. I would argue that it is very pertinent. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pertinent?  Perhaps, yes, but necessary and relevant in a template that is supposed to be on cults, and not random things "related" to cults?  No.  Similar templates do not have this, and it is a sticky bottom place for people to push pov, from many different angles.  Smee 21:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Related" section 

message: Why is this taskforce, based on an author who lostt her credentials being mentionned here? Singer is no longer considered a "cult expert" so her opinions don't count here. Sfacets 09:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  APA Task Force on Deceptive and Indirect Techniques of Persuasion and Control 

message: *FECRIS : Fédération Européenne des Centres de Recherche et d‘Information sur le Sectarisme, European Federation of Centres Research and Information on Sectarianism
Seems appropriate to remove this entry if it is a redlink, but if and when the article gets legitimately created with good sourcing, it should be added back in at that point in time.  Cirt (talk) 04:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FECRIS removal 

message: The template should be placed within :Category:Cults. It is highly relevant to the category, and this is a convention done on lots of other types of templates. Cirt (talk) 20:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes and that is exactly why these sorts of things are sorted with a * symbol, to denote they are integral to the category as an index and not inherently characterized as part of it itself. Cirt (talk) 21:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The ones that I have see are have the tau symbol and so they end up at the end rather than the start of the cat listing. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Either way is fine, but the start is generally what I have seen with the majority usage. Cirt (talk) 21:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, I disagree. Templates are rarely see in are namespace categories and when they are they are sorted by the tau symbol. Also, in your previous comment you said "denote they are integral to the category as an index and not inherently characterized as part of it itself." On the contrary, the use of * seems to have lost favour and was used for the eponymous article and for lists directly applicable to the category. Can you give examples of where * is used as template sorting? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: At the moment I can't recall specifically, but it does seem like you are pulling "conventions" from your personal opinion. Cirt (talk) 21:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Lets stick to facts shall we rather than putting forward opinions on what my personal opinion is perceived to be. If you visit all of the categories where you would expect to find a template (because there is one that is directly applicable) you will very rarely, if ever, find a template. That is what I mean by convention and I edit by convention where it exists.-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yah, whatever, I removed it. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Update: Added back the category, per :Category:Academy Awards. :) Cheers, Cirt (talk) 08:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Placement of template in Category:Cults 

message: *Project Megiddo
Included as highly relevant to the subject matter. Cirt (talk) 14:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project Megiddo 

message: A possible addition to the "concepts" section could be "Sex cult" although still a red link, I believe this to be a viable topic for an article maybe sometime in the future. -- œ™ 00:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: So create it first. :P -- Cirt (talk) 00:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm thinking about it ;) œ™ 00:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sweeeeeeeeeeeeeet. -- Cirt (talk) 00:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sex cult? 

message: This template is far too big.  All the organisations and individuals should be culled from it. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree. see the following, compare, are they also too big? --Semitransgenic (talk) 11:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

text: I'd favour dropping the individuals and restricting the groups to those that have had at least one book-length scholarly study written about them (see above); essentially a revert to this version (with Aum Shinrikyo added). --JN466 04:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: again, i see no valid reason to remove individuals. in many cases the personalties that initiated/lead such movements are notable in their own right, hence the fact that there are articles for each: the movement, the leader (often a charismatic personality). Additionally, coverage across a range of scholarly sources, where at least one book chapter is devoted to the subject, should be good enough for inclusion. --Semitransgenic (talk) 11:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toooo BIG 

message: I note that User:Semitransgenic made several additions to the template in October 2011.  Specifically, I am interested in the addition of Landmark Education to the list.  As has been thoroughly discussed on other articles, there are not WP:Reliable sources that indicate that Landmark is a New Religious Movement, a Cult, or a Sect.  It should not be included in this template without first providing a source.  I have not invetigated the other additions, although I see that there are also some living persons added - which should be removed as unsourced per WP:BLP.  I intend to remove Landmark and the living persons following this discussion. --69.128.237.22 (talk) 17:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced Additions 

message: Currently the template does not link to the Nation of Islam article, due to malformed coding ? Please sort. Thanks.
Twyndylyng (talk) 15:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's true. Currently the link is piping to Nation of Islam, Cults, and Sects which doesn't exist. It would be nice if an admin could fix this. The code Nation of Islam should simply be changed to Nation of Islam. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 17 March 2012 

message: add to Major Groups the following: Followers of Christ, The Brethren (Jim Roberts group), Two by Twos, Umbanda and Urantia Foundation
 • Astynax talk 21:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any opposition to adding these links to the template? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

text: Agreed.  Can an admin fix this wikilink?  Thanks, Madman (talk) 04:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have objection about adding Followers of Christ, The Brethren, Two by Twos and Urantia Foundation to the Major Group section, since all of the mentioned is not, or at least not proven, to be a major group.  Grrahnbahr (talk) 00:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

text: Is there any opposition to removing this link from the template? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: International Society for Krishna Consciousness has been studied widely as a new religious movement and should remain listed, discussion regarding the template's future and what items it will include continues above.-- Semitransgenic talk. 23:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

text: Note the Nation of Islam link was fixed by another admin on 18 March. tedder (talk) 19:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 11 March 2012 

message: This is a request for adding the TfD-box above the template. Grrahnbahr (talk) 08:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: editing of this template has been locked since 7th March. Discussion regrading its future is ongoing. Best raise your objections above rather than start a new discussion here. Semitransgenic talk. 12:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

text: Where is David Koresh? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, I just added it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD 

message: A number of cult-specific issues have been removed from the template, as indicated above. Perhaps there should be a separate Cults template that only lists concepts. The template would not list groups or individuals. Such a template would be used on articles about cult related topics, and not on pages about specific groups or people. It would be appropriate for certain topics (e.g. Cult, Anti-cult movement) to be listed on both templates.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems like a reasonable suggestion. If such a template were created, what would you think about a title like Anti-cult movement? I think that would tie together the various concepts just as well as the title Cults, and might also serve to discourage editors down the road from adding groups they view as cults to the template. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Calling the template anti-cult movement may be biased. It may wrongly suggest that all cults are merely the poor misunderstood victims of the mean old 'anti-cult movement', whereas some are extremely dangerous. However, the proposed template probably be called something more than just cults for the reason you've given.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:09, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion

message: By putting the template at the bottom of pages like Destructive Cult http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destructive_cult and Cult, it implies that the NRMs listed are destructive cults and cults. The template includes Unitarian Unilateralism and Shambala. I don't think anyone familiar with these movements would consider them cults, certainly not destructive cults.
GatesofDawn67 (talk) 18:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Context in which the template is presented 

message: Please complete the following table, indicating your agreement or disagreement with the following statements. Feel free to use the  and  templates. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: nice idea, and no offence, but you clearly have too much free time on your hands. Unfortunately, this matter does not concern me enough to enter into a protracted debate so it's best for all concerned that I withdraw from this discussion. Good luck sorting it out.  Semitransgenic talk. 09:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No offense taken. I actually don't have a lot of free time, but tables are pretty easy to make with the WikiEd toolbar. I'm sorry we couldn't reach a consensus... I'm a little unsure which direction to go from here. Perhaps I can get some guidance, or at least a third opinion, if I leave a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion/New religious movements work group. I'll also see if I can find a scholarly definition of "cult" that BigJim707 and I can agree upon. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: i suggest you try and get Jayen466 to chip in, this is one of his areas of interest, you may also find there is more common ground regarding the direction the template should take.  Semitransgenic talk. 21:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Establishing common ground

message: Inform is not scholarship. It is information dissemination. Andries (talk) 08:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Inform is not scholarship