Talk:Cult/Archive 5

message: The contradiction can be deduced by using the Raelian Movement as an example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sect gives several definitions of what a sect is:
1) "sects claim to be authentic purged, refurbished version of the faith from which they split" and "sects have, in contrast to churches, a high degree of tension with the surrounding society", in this case, the Raelian Movement is not a sect, because only one, not both, of the criteria is met.
:Result-
:Sect (ex. Early Protestantism): No
2) sectarianism "a worldview that emphasizes the unique legitimacy of believers' creed and practices and that heightens tension with the larger society by engaging in boundary-maintaining practices.", so the Raelian Movement is sectarian in the sense that it possesses a trait shared by revolutionary movements such as the Civil Rights Movements of 19th and 20th century America.
:Result-
:Sectarian (ex. Martin Luther King, KKK, Skull and Bones, George Washington etc.): Yes
3) "A religious or political cult, by contrast, also has a high degree of tension with the surrounding society, but its beliefs are, within the context of that society, new and innovative." The Raelian Movement fits this. "Whereas the cult is able to enforce its norms and ideas against members" The Raelian Movement does not fit this since it lacks a true dictatorial leadership.  As you can see, this definition is able to contradict itself in the case the Raelian Movement - making it an invalid definition.  "a sect normally doesn't strictly have "members" with definite obligations, only followers, sympathisers, supporters or believers." This fits the Raelian Movement, as well as a plethora of apparently normal organizations which do not push their members to do exact things.
:Result-
:Cult (ex. Antique Mormon Polygamous sect, KKK, Nazism etc.): No
:Sect (ex. Martin Luther King etc., Gandhi's Movement): Yes
4) "The English sociologist Roy Wallis[6] argues that a sect is characterized by “epistemological authoritarianism”: sects possess some authoritative locus for the legitimate attribution of heresy." This applies for the Raelian Movement, however, the Raelian Movement has no problem with any heresy as long as it does not violate the fundamentals, such as peace, love, and non-violence. "According to Wallis, “sects lay a claim to possess unique and privileged access to the truth or salvation" The Raelian Movement fits this, but salvation only in the case that the world "fails", though such a failure is something Raelians actively want to prevent - hence their disapproval of nuclear weapons and of war in general. "and “their committed adherents typically regard all those outside the confines of the collectivity as 'in error'”." The Raelian Movement does not fit this as they acknolwedge the greater actions of those who do not adhere to them to be nevertheless deserving of eternal life, perhaps more than they are individually (those people are given the title of Honorary Guide of the Raelian Movement, even if they have no idea of Raelians at all).  Again we see the problem with using only one criteria to establish whether the Raelian Movement is a sect when more than one must be met.  "He contrasts this with a cult that he described as characterized by “epistemological individualism” by which he means that “the cult has no clear locus of final authority beyond the individual member.”" In this case, Raelism fits, because the final authority is not Rael, but the individual, because Rael is not a dictator.  Megachurches fit this as well, since Christian priests of this day and age are by no means dictators, and neither are guardians at Christian Retreats or teachers who "assign" activities to pupils.  But the fact that one fits the criteria does not make one a cult.  That is: If Z does A, and B does A, does that mean that Z is B?  Not necessarily.  It couldn't be objectively determined unless if it was assumed that only one (category of) thing did A.  If this were the definition of cult, you would have the final say (only if you belonged to a cult); now isn't that preferrable than having someone else control you as in a sect per Roy Wallis definition?  What a joke. ;)
:Result-
:Cult (ex. Libertarian): Yes
:Sect (ex. Populist): No
Definitions 3 and 4 are in direct contradiction with each other.  By accepting both definitions, it is harder to distinguish a cult from a sect.  Do members of a cult need authority for a final word? #3 says yes, #4 says no. Does a sect have individuals with their own choice? #3 says yes, #4 says no.  Most people would think that #3 is a better definition than #4.  In both definitions, cults and sects are exculsive from each other (i.e. a cult cannot be a sect and a sect cannot be cult (an analogue to this is: red cannot be orange and orange cannot be red, but both are colors).  There be some who would disagree with this and say that a cult is a type of sect (analogue: turquiose is a type of blue).  As you can see, provided that there be a definition, or a set of non-contradicting definitions, of sect which can be agreed upon (which may not be the case), one must define the Raelian Movement before calling it a sect.  Why not call it a sect?  Sure, as long as it is stated what that label indicates exactly.Kmarinas86 05:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I ask that this discussion be moved from my user talk page to somewhere else? -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead - I don't know where to put it.Kmarinas86 07:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Contradicting'' definitions of ''"sect"'' and ''"cult"''

message: Scientology was recently added to the list of doomsday cults. I removed it, because there is no evidence that Scientology, an organization that has been around for over 50 years, has ever contemplated, planned or carried out mass suicides, terrorist acts, or anything remotely similar. When Scientology gets angry, it files a lawsuit. Perhaps the person who added this group to the list was confused by a poorly worded definition in which doomsday cults were vaguely described as groups that are a threat to the well being of their followers (a characterization that could be applied to just about any organization, whether cultic or mainstream, under certain circumstances). I changed "threat" to "extreme threat" and added "to the lives" (not just the wellbeing) of followers in hopes this will prevent further inappropriate additions to the list.--Dking (Dennis King), 26 Aug 2006.
I've been following Scientology as an outsider for several years, after a friend of mine interviewed for a job at a drug rehab which turned out to be run by Scientology. I'd agree that doomsday cult doesn't sound apropriate  to me. There has definatly been accusations of Scientology harming specific individuals that caused Scientology some grief, but definatly nothing on a scale that I'd think would warrent the term Doomsday. Alienburrito 20:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Scientology not a "doomsday cult"

message: I restored the statement that one faction of the Hare Krishna movement (which opposes the claims to guru status made by leaders of various temples) has written with critical insight on the movement's history. To say that the entire movement manifests this type of critical thinking is not true, nor is it true that the Hare Krishna movement as a whole is "completely mainstream," which the previous editor maintained in explaining the edit.--28 Aug 2006
:On what basis? Maybe it sounds better to you to say "faction of", but what is more mainstream than the ISKCON Communications Journal posted on ISKCON.Com?? We are talking ISKCON (International Society for Krsna Consciousness) here. It's ISKCON's own academic journal on ISKCON's own website! The ICJ was received and was openly available in every temple in North America and Europe. Give some credible reference for your artificial “faction of” spin. Plausible sounding to your ear doesn't cut it.
:There are several links to register yourself on WikiPedia. I can point them out if you are having trouble figuring it out. Jiva Goswami 05:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hare Krishnas

message: What's with the in-text references in this article? You click them, and they don't take you to the reference list. The numbering is also messed-up. BenC7 04:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Should someone add Lovecraftian cults to this? I've also heard of a real cult based of his writings.
BanditmanEXE
::Great idea. Gothicus cultus. Go for it.--Dking 23:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cult's in Literature 

message: DoctorW was right that this section was a bit of a mess, and did a good job of cleaning out some sloppy formulations. In doing so, he/she tended to overuse the term "anti-cult" (it should be obvious from the Journal of Cultic Studies name which side of the debate it's on) and I tried to use some more varied phrasing where necessary to make the same point. DoctorW's cleanup also revealed that the nonacademic literature on cults had not been accurately described and I took a stab at fixing this. Obviously footnotes are needed. However, I invite DoctorW to first go back over it once again. Sometimes it takes several runs of the steamroller to get a road or a tennis court into proper shape.--Dking 00:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who studies cults 

message: Jossi, merge unreferenced contents from the article cult debate into this article. I see no merit in adding more unreferenced biased contents to this article and I will delete all of this. References had already been requested long ago at cult debate and talk:cult debate to no avail. Andries 19:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The version befor the merge can be seen here  In many cases the article makes conclusions and voices opinions not supported by the mentioned sources. Andries 19:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I basically support Jossi's request for more references, though it can be argued whether cults in literature and popular culture need rigorous referencing. Rigorous referencing for such sections or articles is not common in Wikipedia and only rarely demanded. Andries 20:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the text you deleted fro the "Cult debate" section is sourced. If there is material that is not sourced, please add  to these, rather than massively delete the whole thing. Please respect the work of others. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: untrue, hardly anything is sourced, and you had weeks to give references after I and others had requested you this. Andries 04:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The citations for some of the text that you re-inserted are flawed because out-of-context i.e. they do not make a connection with the subject at hand i.e. the cult debate/cult wars. E.g. the citation for the Red Menace makes no connection with the cult wars. Andries 09:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge from [[cult debate]]

message: Why is the section sociological defintion so verbose? It explains everything two three times as if the readers are stupid. This is an encyclopedia so information should be concise. Andries 09:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Concise please, not verbose

message: It has been proposed that the section "Cults and NRMs in literature" be moved to a new article, possibly named "Cults and new religious movements in literature, art, and popular culture". The Cult article is 3 times as long as Wikipedia recommends. This large section very naturally stands on its own as a separate article. I support the split, and apparently two others have expressed support above, with no dissenting reasons given yet. -DoctorW 21:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest "Cults in Literature and Popular Culture". First, because most of the article is about literature. Second, because "popular and creative culture" poses a confusing dichotomy. As to the term "references," this is misleading because much of the article deals with the writings of purported cult leaders and NRM founders, their followers and ex-followers--surely the term "references" is not appropriate to describe such writings which do not simply "refer" to purported specific cults but are focussed on describing them or explicating their beliefs. As to dropping the reference to NRMs in the title, I support this for the sake of brevity.--Dking 18:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are using "refer/references" in a slightly different sense than that of the major debate at List of groups referred to as cults. But for now, I don't think it matters enough to parse out. As a practical matter, there's only one paragraph in the section Cults in literature and popular culture (now article) mentioning a couple of groups over which an AfD might be launched. Milo 02:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I went ahead because there was consensus to split this article and because I think the split was quite urgent because the article was now quite unbalanced. Cults in literature and popular culture. Name change can be discused there too and should be done with the move button, not with just copying and pasting.  Andries 18:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the move to split the article but would like to keep the title "Cults and NRMs in literature".  Once the split is done perhaps we can open discussions further. Regards,TalkAbout01:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed split "Cults and NRMs in literature" - poll vote

message: 24.164.10.245 has added The Family to #Docmented crimes. The Family doesn't seem to belong listed among the destructive cults. The Family article mentions old physical and sex abuse accusations, and reforms, but no convictions or recent accusations against current members. The recent murder mentioned is alleged committed by a significant ex-member, and at worst seems a case of 'was driven nuts by abuse long ago'.  Note that 24.164.10.245 has a history of vandalism, though maybe this is just a poorly researched edit.  More to the point, aren't any well-informed Cult regulars keeping an eye on the quality of IP and other drive-by edits? 
OTOH, maybe the regulars are busy in the real world. Yesterday was a very big USA election, and possibly as a result at least one regional email network is down due the volume. Milo 04:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not monitor the edits of anons anymore. Andries 17:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drive by edit watch 

message: I reworded the sentence about Conway and Siegelman, authors of "Snapping." As previously worded it was too much a POV attack. The fact that they are listed as journalists rather than psychologists, and that their work is described in the reworded sentence as speculative, gets across what is important in the previous editor's formulation. There is no need to state that they are not scientists when they made no claim to be scientists. What they did do was to pull together and systematize a lot of observations by exit counsellors, deprogammers, former cult members, and others with practical (for better or worse) knowledge or experience, and framed these observations in a way that has some heuristic value and could possibly lead to some useful scientific studies (especially now, with the new means for directly observing the brain while it performs various activities). From my own interactions with ex-cult members over a 30 year period, I believe that terms like "snapping" and "floating" refer to real behavior patterns that I have seen over and over again. Whether such terms reflect something going on in the brain or are simply reflections of group dynamics (or a bit of both) is perhaps something DoctorW could explore in his research one of these days.--Dking 04:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Snapping"

message: This article is mostly OR anyway, but the proposition that the HK's are "harmless" is disputed. Tanaats 17:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're blaming an entire movement for the actions of a few members?  If we're going by that then we should be talking about how dangerous Christians are since they've done many more horrible things. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.22.53.86 (talk) 23:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hare Krishnas harmless? 

message: Inserted change of topic by Tanaats 23:57, 23 Dec 2006 refactored here from above "Article does not cite its references?"
Milo, initially all I knew was that there was no apparent correlation between the main text and the footnotes.  I didn't realize that one could read the page "source", scan for "fn" tags, and then refer to the matching "fnb" tags.  So yes, now I do understand how one could "source vet" this article and others.  Re-edited to make sense after having been moved to this new subheading and having lost prior context. Tanaats 03:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Usage assistance: Since you changed your own post's content, I think you mean "Re-edited to make sense". Milo 09:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Tanaats 20:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Every old system (Wikipedia:Footnote2) "fn" footnote tag is associated with a visible number in my older browser (IE 5.5). For example, the first one is "body of adherents to same32." But when I click on it, it doesn't jump to Note 32. The newer (Cite.php) system of combined reference notes or external links has numbers in square brackets, and they jump ok for me. For example, "what "cult" now means [1]" is the first ref that jumps to "1. ^" at the bottom. I'll have to look at WP:Footnotes to refresh my memory on any limits to combining the two systems. Milo 00:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the explanation.  This explanation could have been given without moving my comments out from under the comment of yours to which they were addressed.  Tanaats 01:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See a topic below to discuss the refactor move issue. [Apparently resolved.] Milo 05:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference jumps ok but footnote jumps don't work?

message: I think there's something wrong with this article's Footnote2-type footnotes (the refs are ok). I can't find any mention of the problem. Footnote jumps work ok at the Wikipedia:Footnote2 page. Milo 05:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC - footnote jumps don't work at Cult?

message: The section on Heidi Fittkau-Garthe mass suicide plot only references a news article saying that she had been "charged". Since the alleged crime was very serious I thought it should be possible to find out what the outcome of any trial and subsequent conviction was however I did not find anything.
What I did find were various reports that she was release without charge shortly after the incident  . There is also a reference in www.time.com saying that she was release on bail . I would think it highly unlikely that anyone charged with such a serious crime, especially alleged to have involved children, would ever be granted bail.
In view of this I suggest that we remove the paragraph or put it under a section of "hoax" or "bogus" mass suicides, if it is still notable given the lack any report that she was actually found guilty as charged.
I propose to delete this paragraph in one week (29th Jan) if that is OK.
Regards Bksimonb 19:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Heidi Fittkau-Garthe

message: Sister project links made to a specific article in the sister project are not good practice. There are many other articles that are relevant to readers, best is to link to a category. If there is no such category at the sister project suitable for this article, one can be created. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good, however this is exactly the opposite of what is currently done at the Prem Rawat article....  Smee 03:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: No, you are mistaken. It is not the opposite, on the contrary: That article includes links to the direct pages at sister projects related to the article's title. That is why we have , for example. Also, the links to commons is a link to a category, so that all media can be easily found. As there is not pages called "Cult" in the sister projects, then  a category can be created at the sister projects and link from here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, well that sounds fine.  Smee 04:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sister project links 

message: Jossi, I don't understand this edit.  If I understand you correctly, we would have to make a number of corrections in a number of articles.  For example, we would have to edit mentions of the conclusions of NRM scholars. Am I missing something? Tanaats 17:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe. This is my rationale: A scholar that invents/designs a framework or theory cannot "assert" that theory/framework. He can describe it, explain it, etc. But not assert it. Assert means "state categorically", and it would be too self-serving to state categorically one's theory. I would argue that neither "asserts", "claims", or "believes" are good choices. Maybe better would be saying something along the lines "he describes this as" or "the theory provides information on" or "the framework explain a specific set of phenomena related to", etc. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that people assert categorically what their theory is all the time.  The NRM scholars certainly do, and with force.  I think that changing every mention of a theory in every article along the lines that you describe would create tortuous constructions. Tanaats 19:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: NPOV is necessary. What about saying: "The BITE model (standing for Behavior, Information, Thought, and Emotion control), is Steve Hassan's model on the patterns that he says are used by harmful cults." ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent, thanks, I'll make the edit. Tanaats 21:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  One cannot assert his own theory 

message: I have nominated the 'Cult leader' category for deletion - your input is requested. Sfacets 01:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Related: CFD 'Cult leaders'

message: Sfacets, sorry about the accidental deletion.  I use an external editor with cut/paste to make my edits.  My practice is to copy the entire section that I am editing, paste it in the external editor, append and/or intersperse my responses, and then copy the whole thing back.  Then I do a "Show Changes" to make sure that I haven't screwed anything up.
This time, obviously, I forgot to do the Show Changes. Tanaats 05:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accidential deletion 

message: After going through everything here and listed in the links, I must say that I am not anymore concerned with whether the website is commercial or not. (FWIW, TM.org is quite commercial, and I'd have no problem with you going over and saying so, even if it were merely to prove a point.) The main problem with the RRI website is that it is horribly POV. It has absolutely nothing good to say about any of the religions or organizations it talks about. Jehovah's Witnesses, for crying out loud, are pejoratively labeled as a "cult," and the website proceeds to throw as much dirt at them as possible. I half expected to find Catholics, Baptists, and Mormons on that site as well. One could say all sorts of negative things about any religion, but to persist in doing so is a bad show of humanity. I expect people to show more respect for fellow humans than to trash-talk others' beliefs. (edit conflict) V-Man737 23:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Round 2

message: I rewrote the disputed external link.  If I hear people correctly, they want the link text to reflect that Rick Ross isn't just some neutral independent "institute".  Rather that being an unbiased, objective source,  he is a partisan in an on-going debate, and one who does work as a private consultant on the subject.  Alternatively, listing the site as commercial is controversial, because the site claims to be non-profit, and supports of RRI would presumably say any income Ross makes is not his PRIMARY motivation.  
So, I rewrote in a way that sidesteps the controversial aspects, presents what his mutually agreed upon, but still hopefully accomplishes what we want.  I cut some of the "praising" text  for how extensive the site is.  I also cut the characterization of the site as commerical.  I added language reminding the reader that Ross is a private consultant, and used is self-applied title to remind people he is an advocate in the debate, not a neutral independent party.  Hope people like it! --Alecmconroy 04:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Alecmconroy  Yes, it's much better without the gushing over how "extensive" the site is.  And it's most definitely approprite to identify Ross as a partisan. Tanaats 05:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found it illuminating to read the bio of Rick Ross that his website provides. His main academic credential appears to be that he graduated from High School. --Tsunami Butler 07:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewording

message: The user BabyDweezil has already been banned by an administrator from removing material from pages without first getting consensus on talk pages.  The inappropriate activity in edit summaries was also brought into question.  See that user's talk page for more information.   Smee 19:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Smee, the Talk Page is for discussion about improving the article, not for incessant denigrations and snide comments about users you disagree with. Also, please refer to WP:NPA for further guidance on relating to fellow editors. BabyDweezil 19:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is in no way a personal attack.  I am merely informing others of the situation at hand, in very plain and factual language.  Smee 20:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Not necessarily, by bringing up the user's past transgressions, you are demeaning his/her edits to the article - in effect implying that some of his edits may be no more than vandalism - you are commenting on the editor an not the edits. Sfacets 13:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not about the editor.  It is indeed about his edits.  Other editors here are entitled to know that they have recourse to an actively interested admin if there are future deletions of well-sourced material without consensus.  Tanaats 15:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ban

message: I made the wrong edit comment on this revert.  What I should have said is "rv deletion of pertinent ELs." Tanaats 18:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorry, wrong edit comment on rv 

message: Sfacets, you are quite right.  "Cult" and "NRM" are different concepts. Tanaats 21:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Cult" does not equal "NRM" 

message: Is it a dead link in the ELs? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BabyDweezil (talk • contribs) 03:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It plays for me (which is surprising since I can't play a lot of different video types on my laptop). V-Man737 03:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you say what it is? Does it meet WP:EL as an external link? And most importantly, am I missing anything good?BabyDweezil 04:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It froze 1/2 through on the big mov. But it looks funny! "My mind was already altered . . . I was in lust". I'll try again. Seems like a spoof on gnostic stuff? but it froze just as they got into it. --Justanother 04:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it's a bit of a comical thing; the video's objective is not very clear, but looks like the Sims and sounds like one person did the voices (altering the pitch to sound like a man and a woman). From WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided, "Direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content..." is a good first bit; Probably the big clincher is "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: it should be a simple exercise to show how the link is directly and symmetrically related to the article's subject." I didn't personally see how the video directly relates to cults information-wise; it doesn't seem to have the purpose of informing viewers as much as entertaining them. V-Man737 04:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I hate to go down in history as maligning and obstructing great art, so I'll add something like "Spoofs" over the link. BabyDweezil 04:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just d/l the mov. I saw the rest. It went downhill. Can't think of any reason it would be referenced anywhere here on wikipedia?? --Justanother 04:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Can anyone ger [http://www.cultgrimm.com/ Cult Grimm] to play?

message: Fossa's edit (diff) removed a  template which displays: 
"Cult;  2007-03-02T12:19:01 Fossa (→References - Why on earth should that belong here?)" 
Um, isn't it obvious that groups reviled as religious cults will feel an impending loss of religious freedom before mainstream religions do? Or that they believe that they ordinarily don't have enough in most countries? Milo 07:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, because is so mind-boggling straightforward, but I guess this is Wikiphantia, so you have to explain 1+1=2. The term "cult" is contested, and yes, being labeled a "cult" might be an aspect of some deprivation of your rights for freedom of religion. However, the mere fact that this relation can be thought of does not warrant the inclusion of this template here, as the linked articles are neither a subset of "cult", nor do they contribute further to the understanding of what a cult is. Fossa?! 13:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I notice that cults aren't really mentioned much in relation to that template; the links are about any and every kind of religion, with a focus on the region's attitude about it. As a general rule, a template like that helps to describe a larger set of what the article belongs to. If there was a "cults around the world" template, by all means put it up. V-Man737 00:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I see what you mean. Then, as for the template, find a "religions of the world" template that would better fit the bill, as "cult" is not under the subject of "religious freedom around the world." You could put that template in "freedom of cults around the world" or "cult oppression in Australia" or other such related things. V-Man737 02:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: In what way, specifically? V-Man737 02:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious Freedom template at [[Cult]]

message: Should this perhaps be merged with New religious movements? --Remi 00:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NRM 

message: Putting a note to draw attention to this deletion to article text about the Smith case. It is somewhat misleading to call this a minor change. If reverted, the new text should qualify (e.g., "alleged cult") and source the characterization of the church. Further, since police did not blame the church for the deaths (as the deleter noted), I agree that the article should avoid implying that the church was involved in the crime. Still, if it is shown that the church has been adequately described as an "alleged cult" (rightly or wrongly) with an emphasis on child physical discipline, perhaps this crime is relevant for inclusion because of its members action. HG | Talk 16:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smiths and Remnant Fellowship church 

message: I had a brief look over the list of interwiki links, it seems to me that most European languages use "sect" to specify what is "cult" in English. Is this just a word usage difference or a word pollution caused by the established churches? In English, sect and cult mean different things, "sect" is almost synonymous to "denomination" and cult is a "evil" religion. I just corrected the Chinese interwiki link. --Voidvector 00:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interestingly this is explained in the article. --Voidvector 00:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lost in Translation? 

message: *It is quite interesting to note how "Cult" is covered in other Wiki projects:
*Cult search
Smee 03:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Cult" in Wikia ... 

message: I have noticed that subjects (like "cult wars" and "cult debate") link back to this article.  They should be split into articles of their own, as this article is already far too long and these subjects are significant enough in and of themselves to have their own articles.  (RookZERO 18:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: De-linking