Jump to content

Talk:Anti-cult movement/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
‹ The template below (Archive) is being considered for merging with Annual archive. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

This Hamletian screaming!

"To be or not to be"

Why don't you just add a posterior "s" to the article name? ... said: Rursus (bork²) 18:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are always singular, except where plurals are unavoidable (e.g. "scissors").   Will Beback  talk  19:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Democracy

Does anyone mention that the difference between cult and religion might just be a matter of dictatorship vs. democracy? Would be nice if it was not just me. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 18:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

We're not here to discuss cults, only how to improve this article. There are many discussion forums where that question would be appropriate.   Will Beback  talk  19:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge and Split

I proposed a merge with Opposition to cults and new religious movements and split to create a new Cult watching groups. it would talk a little work to do but the labeling of many of the "cult watch", i.e. more academic institutes, as "Anti-cult" is quite wrong. Ditto lumping many of the academics, e.g. Eileen Barker, in with openly anti-religious activists, e.g. the Rick Rosses of the world.

To label many cult watching groups as "anti-cult" is obviously a NPOV issue, there having been general shifts and changes on both the cultic and suppprt or awareness groups sides from the early days. --Soulslearn (talk) 09:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Given the duplication of material some form of merge is probably necessary, but I'm not sure what direction is preferable. You seem to be suggesting that if we move "cult watching groups" out of the umbrella of the "anti-cult movement", then the rest of the "opposition" can accurately be labeled as part of the ACM. This would make the awkwardly titled "opposition" entry redundant and all content could be merged into one of the two other locations. Of course, keep in mind that some "cult watching groups" are/were part of the anti-cult movement and some obviously not. In the end we should take the lead of reliable sources here, but I think this is a positive suggestion which is more readily supported by reliable sourcing than the current state of affairs. A request for comment might be a good idea at this point.PelleSmith (talk) 12:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Let me throw out an example to make sure that my response is clear. If we rely on WP:RS, groups like The Family Survival Trust (formerly FAIR), and people like Rick Ross clearly fall within the "anti-cult movement". I do not support an attempt to POV push certain groups and individuals out of the ACM entry (and against reliable sourcing) for political motivations.PelleSmith (talk) 12:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your support and reasonable tone in a topic area which is fraught with tensions.
From where I see, both the major "cultic" religions and the more mature elements of what is called here the "anti-cult" movement have moved in on life, developing from the 70s when they came to public prominence, e.g. mass suicides versus forced deprogramming. I think we all have to accept that. Society had broadened.
On reflection, I'd rather use the word "cult awareness" than "cult watch" as the latter gives to me the NPOV impression of "crime watch" (NPOV towards cultic religions).
If we were to agree on a scale, I would suggest it could be;
  • anti-cult ... victim support/cult awareness ... pro-cult
accepting that, in approximate order and scale, I think I would do something like;
Rick Ross ... Anonyous ... ... ... Family Survival Trust .. ICSA .... INFORM.
I question what one has to do to be "anti-cult". I suggest it has to be some kind of direct, prejudicial and overtly damaging action. I cant see how academic groups would fit into that, nor family support orientated, e.g. the emphasis on supporting victims rather than "persecuting" cultic religions. In the same breath, I cant see society reacting against excesses with it, e.g. criminal actions, sexual abuse, frauds etc as being "anti" per se.
It strikes me those sort of grounds are more a reaction against the crimes and abuses rather than the beliefs. So I think we have to be very clear about this and anyone to be bundled into the "anti-cult" group would have to have demonstrated or advertized just that, e.g. religious hate crimes. In this case, I have moved TFST to the right because whatever FAIR was in the 70s, they membership etc has changed.
Technically, how can we best combine discussion on both topics rather than repeat it at both topics?
Thank you. --Soulslearn (talk) 04:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


The bottom line here is that we need reliable sources for any claims we make in an entry. If reliable sources place such and such group within the ACM, then that is what we state. Your own categorization cannot be used here because it is original research. No amount of arguments about where you think the FST sits, for instance, matters according to our policies unless reliable sources agree with you. As you can see in the discussion at the FST entry the academic sources place FAIR, their old acronym, squarely within the ACM. So the thing to do here is to find reliable sources for your claims.PelleSmith (talk) 15:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


As I say on the topic discussion page, TFST is not FAIR. We can report the facts but are forced to remain neutral.
My comments are based on fairly broad reading around the subject. Discussion requires some framework to work with, or against, in order to progress.
Where do you consider is the best definition of what constitutes as "anti-cult"? What actions are required to have been carried out in order to earn such a title?
Obviously, there is point scoring and name calling going on from extremes which we would have to filter out. The dialogue has developed since the 1970s.
--Soulslearn (talk) 09:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


Arweck clearly and distinctly places FAIR in the "cult monitoring" or observation category rather than the anti-cult category and notes many distinct disapprovals of extreme measures such as kidnapping and deprogramming that would place it in anti-cult category. Discussion is around page 128 to 131. So I guess that is your "reliable source". --Soulslearn (talk) 09:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Arweck clearly places them in the ACM ... whether or not she also places them in a "cult monitoring" category. Please bring quotes to this discussion. Please also read WP:NOR. I do not consider what constitutes "anti-cult" nor do you. Reliable sources use this term for groups like FAIR, and you haven't proven otherwise. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 16:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello Soulslearn, as you've already pointed out above, this a 'touchy' subject matter and because of that I'd like to ask you to please do not begin to make what some people might consider potentially highly controversial changes in articles, or the categorization of articles, without entering into a discussion regarding them first. For instance, I noticed that you've already attempted to remove the article International Cultic Studies Association from an existing referenced category‎ and insert it into a categorization schema that you personally appear to be trying to develop. As was mentioned above, without proper referencing to support what you're contending I agree that your actions appear to constitute "original research" according to the encyclopedia's policy. My reading of the literature in this area of study indicates to me that terms like "anti-cult" and "counter cult" have specific definitions, that are often quite useful in attempting to understand the contextual approach of the organization under discussion. In my opinion, your approach is a notable departure from an accepted standard utilized within mainstream social science and without proper support from reliable references, should not appear in Wikipedia. As has already been suggested WP:OR should be closely examined in this instance. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 01:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Deconstructhis. Anti-cult and counter cult are not just any opposition, they're actively working to inform about cults and save people from those cults that use to have a very destructive impact on those people's life and their families. Any opposition to "new religions" and to "cults" might just be malinformed (or well informed) critics of just about any religion to which they oppose. ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 18:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Further Reading

You will want to add to your references "Comprehending Cults: the Sociology of New Religous Movements" by Lorne L Dawson (Oxford University Press) and now in its second edition. And a link to this review of Dawson: http://www.cjsonline.ca/reviews/cults.html Thanks for a fine article. Rumjal rumjal 15:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumjal (talk • contribs)

Kropveld

>Publications of the International Cultic Studies Association have disputed the appropriateness of the term "Anti-cult movement"

Kropveld is the founder of cult-info, so it is he who is disputing the appropriateness, and not the 'publisher' (Here the ICSA) - this should be attributed to him directly and a working reference found (the current one is broken)

Zambelo; talk 01:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Would it help to have a history section?

It seems that a timeline or history section would help to create an easier to understand history of this movement. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anti-cult movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Anti-cult movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:40, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Anti-cult movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anti-cult movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Merge?

Would it be a good idea to merge this article to Cult. Much of the material is duplicated in both articles; and cults are almost never talked about except in context of anti-cultists -- and, of course, the anti-cult movement is never talked about without also talking about cults. BayShrimp (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I think there is too much content here to merge - cult also talks about the origin of the term etc. I agree that there is a lot of duplicate content - perhaps the content relating to the ACMs in the cult article could be condensed under one heading and linked to this article? This would remove a lot of the duplicate content while maintaining the history of the term. It is also more complex than making it about 'cult vs anti-cult' since many religious scholars reject being categorised as such. A greater distinction between what is defined as a cult by the Christian Countercult Movement, Secular groups, and Religious Scholars should be made; while they all fall under the ACM, they all have different definitions of what defines a cult and what role they play in relation to these groups. I think merging will confuse the issue, since there is no one definition of the word. Zambelo; talk 04:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Let us not merge it. Zezen (talk) 08:06, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Bubkes in definition!

The anti-cult movement (abbreviated ACM; sometimes called the countercult movement)[1] is a social group which opposes any new religious movement (NRM) that they characterize as a cult.[citation needed][circular definition]

Observations:

  1. opposes any new religious movement (NRM) that they characterize as a cult – mentioning new religious movement here is factually incorrect, they oppose any movement that ..., not any new religious movement that ... ; new religious and (NRM) should be removed
  2. [citation needed] is justified, keep it
  3. [circular definition] is not justified, but the article on cult shouldn't be refered to, either that article describes something else, or the opinion of the anti-cult movement differs from the opinions expressed in the article cult, the (perhaps) idiosyncratic definition of the anti-cult movement's 'cult' should be defined in this article, especially in the lede. Then the definition is not circular.

The anti-cult movement describes cults as devastating for the individuals and their biological families, I believe they maintain that the members of the cults are kept in the cult by manipulation, thought reform, dictatorship performed of malicious narcissists, physical violence and other prohibitions and person control. In short: coersive dictatures in our midst. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 10:09, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anti-cult_movement/Archive_4&oldid=1279946355"