Talk:Governmental lists of cults and sects/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cults identified in government sources

The current and proposed titles are too long and should be streamlined. Logic suggests that a cult is a group, unless we're including a "cult of personality" which we aren't. The inclusion of the word group is meant to project the impression that the cults may not be cults by the definition of others. This does need to be said IN THE ARTICLE, not the title.

Issues dealing with the weight of words like report in the US government are ignoring what other countries might call them. To correct this I propose we use the word sources to include reports, documents, memos, e-mails, pictures, etc. in one sentiment.

To clarify, I am not saying all government reports are equal
A Congressional report should carry more weight than the disputed CRS report, which I assumed everybody understood. The fact that both are government reports should be undisputed though, especially since CRS is part of the government and the word report appears in the title of the item in question.

It does need to be mentioned that the report is from 1979 though to ensure that the reader does not get the impression that the list is still current. Anynobody 23:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

  • This sounds like a very good idea. Let us hear what others feel about this. Smee 00:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC).
  • Nothing is "identified". Also "cult" is a loaded English term and so we cannot say that about non-English reports. So what can we say? We can say that some religious groups have been the subject of concern by governments and that this concern has been expressed by means of some report or other. How can we streamline that? That is the question. --Justanother 01:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Anynobody, there is no fact that both are government reports. You have one opinion and other editors have another opinion. Your sentence should be My claim that both are government reports should not be disputed. And that, in all honesty, would be a silly claim to make considering that the CRS says they don't write government reports without specific legislative direction. If the CRS itself disputes your claim, it makes no sense for you to assert that it is fact and should be undisputed. Its time to drop that argument and move on. Lsi john 15:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
identify verb, meanings 1 or 3
These governments have either identfied groups as cults or discussed doing so (Belgium).

Justanother if they weren't identifying cults, what were they doing? Anynobody 01:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Anynobody, I would take issue with several of your assumptions.
  1. The words “groups referred to as…” is found in the title is because without those words, it amounts to an endorsement of the view that the groups are in fact cults. That would by contrary to Wikipedia standards, amounting to both original research and use of controversial language.
  2. Your assertion that the CRS is part of the government is incorrect. It is part of the civil service, which assists one of the branches of US government so it can exercise its functions. However, just because some person or organisation works for, is owned by or is created by the government does not mean that person or organisation is part of the government (i.e. the administrative authorities that govern the country) or is entitled to act in the name of the government.
As mentioned above, the report/document/source debate is largely irrelevant. Yes, these words intuitively create different shades of meaning, but the key dispute here is the operative word ‘government’, which, when used as an adjective, implies that the document in question originates from that country's administrative authorities. -- Really Spooky 12:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
In line with my previous post, I wonder if what we are really talking here is Religious groups that have been investigated by governments? Probably not. The CRS report is a good bellwether (might not be the best word) by which I mean an article that includes, say, the report of the Parliamentary Commission on Cults in France but excludes the work of the Congressional Research Service would be a step in the right direction. The former represents the view of a duly convened commission while the latter is simply a research piece into existing literature for internal purposes and guidance and carries no official weight. --Justanother 15:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Really Spooky to address your second point first, I disagree with your assessment of CRS NOT being part of the government. The response Justanother got stated:

CRS, like the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Government Accountability Office (GAO), as parts of the Legislative Branch, serve the Congress but do not “speak for it.”

To prove it is a "civil service" you'll need some kind of documentation saying so.

As to the assumption that the wording endorses ...the groups are in fact cults..., that is true since it's is what the sources are asserting.

By second guessing the correct "term" for the groups we are engaging in WP:OR, if the source calls them cults so should the article. If you have a government source stating that they are not perhaps the term “groups referred to as…” would be appropriate. Anynobody 20:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Lsi john these are not my opinions:

The GAO investigators found a 1989 case in Montana in which members of a "doomsday religious cult"

The use of the word cult is what this source calls this group, calling it anything else would be WP:OR without a source to back it.

Also, please stop posting out of chronological order. I understand you are trying to be clear about who you are responding to, but as new conversations are generated in the middle of old ones it tends to make the whole page unreadable. Anynobody 20:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

AN, it seems you may be confused as to whom you are responding to. Your answer doesn't address any of my comments. Lsi john 21:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Anynobody, it appears that you do not understand the meaning of the term civil service, although I provided a link to avoid ambiguity. The quote you posted confirms precisely the point I was making, namely that the CRS ‘serves the Congress but does not speak for it’.
It also appears you failed to understand the original research point, although I provided a link to avoid ambiguity. If one removes the words “groups referred to as…”, the title effectively amounts to an endorsement of the view that the groups referred by said governments are cults. However, just because a government has labelled a group a cult doesn’t make it true. To assume otherwise is original research, as it amounts to saying that ‘government A calls group X a cult, therefore it is a cult’. -- Really Spooky 23:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I apologize that I missed the wikilink you provided, however it actually goes to prove my point. I hadn't wanted to appear condescending but the US government defines civil service as (emphasis mine):

In the United States, term "civil service" was coined in 1872. The Federal Civil Service is defined as "all appointive positions in the executive, judicial, and legislative branches of the Government of the United States, except positions in the uniformed services." (U.S. Code Title 5 § 2101

Mike Brown was the appointed head of FEMA, by saying civil service isn't part of the government but helps it function you're saying he worked for whom? (In other words, if FEMA is not part of the governemnt then what is it?).

WP:OR begins when the article starts to make assertions not included in the cited sources. This is how the flow of information is supposed to go:

Not WP:OR Source says X then Wikipedia says X. Source and Wikipedia say cult.

This is what we have:

WP:OR Source says X then Wikipedia says X+Y. Source says cult, Wikipedia says groups referred to as

(X being an assertion)(Y being an alternative perspective) I assure you I understand both the relevant policies and guidelines as well as government sourcing. Anynobody 23:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Lsi john I get the impression you think I'm saying that they are actually cults, I was making it clear to you that the word "cult" isn't mine. Anynobody 23:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of what you thought. you were clear. thank you. Lsi john 01:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll add my own spin to Anynobody's correct[?] analysis. Whether it's the high official or policy-declaration part of government, or the lowly research part of the government that's "is"ing a cult — either way it's a fact-checked reliable source "is"ing a cult. Wikipedia can neither harden or soften a fact-checked government utterance. If a particular fact-checked government utterance says Montana Doomsday is a cult — then they is a cult — and Wikipedia salutes and also says they is a cult. Milo 06:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Anynobody/Milo, you are conflating the concepts ‘work for the government’ and ‘part of the government’. It appears this is due to your misunderstanding of the word ‘government’. A government is that which governs. In this context of a state, it is those administrative authorities that are entitled to make, enforce and adjudicate the rules that govern those living there. The CRS does none of those things, it only conducts research, and its research is neither binding on the government nor is it, without more, representative of the government’s position or policies in any way.
To illustrate, are secretaries or assistants employed by the board of directors of a company ‘part of the board’? No, they are not; and even if an individual member of the board asked a research assistant to prepare a executive report for him or her, such a report could not be truthfully described as a ‘board report’ unless it was adopted by the board or at the very least requested by the board itself.
So in response to your question I of course have no problem saying the head of FEMA works for the government. But that is irrelevant to the point I am making. Indeed the head of FEMA is part of the government, because he exercises executive authority delegated to him by the President. That is in stark contrast to the CRS, to whom Congress has delegated no legislative authority whatsoever.
I should also clear up a 'straw man' objection raised by Smee above. No one is saying that everyone in the government must unanimously endorse a report for it to be described as a 'government report'; I agree that would be a ridiculously high standard. All that is required is that the report be adopted by some body that is entitled to act in the name of the government and which in fact has acted within that authority. That would include the US Congress on legislative matters, the courts on judicial matters and the President (along with the various departments to which he delegates executive authority) on executive matters.
As for your comments on the WP:OR point, these are so breathtakingly wrong that they can only be due to honest confusion on your part. What you have effectively said is that if source X says Y, then Wikipedia must accept and report Y as fact. In reality, Wikipedia is supposed to report that source X said Y. Thus, if source X says group Y is a cult, Wikipedia does not report that group Y is a cult, but rather that source X has referred to group Y as a cult. In doing so, Wikipedia neither endorses nor questions the truth of the statement, it merely reports it. -- Really Spooky 12:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Really Spooky, you clearly misunderstood the WP:OR example I provided:(Cult=X) (groups referred to as=Y) This is an example of correct sourcing:

Source says cult, Wikipedia says cult
It is not our job to interpret or change what the source says. (Source says X Wikipedia says X)

This is WP:OR:

Source says cult, Wikipedia says groups referred to as cult. (Source says X Wikipedia says Y+X)
The point is you're adding research by second guessing a source this way, this new research is ORIGINAL without a source backing it.

I'll post more about your inaccurate view of what constitutes part of the government a bit later. Anynobody 21:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I understood your comment correctly. Feel free to re-read my last post. -- Really Spooky 21:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
No you didn't, this comment is simply wrong: What you have effectively said is that if source X says Y, then Wikipedia must accept and report Y as fact. I said if a Source says X (X=cult) then Wikipedia should say X also. You are saying we need to add Y (groups referred to as) to what the source said X.
Situation Information What we said Final WP:OR?
1.WP:ATT source says X X X No
2. WP:ATT source says X X + Y X + Y Yes
Anynobody 22:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Situation Information What we said Final WP:OR?
1. WP:ATT sources says X X X No Yes
2. WP:ATT sources says X X + Y WP:ATT sources say X X + Y WP:ATT sources say X Yes No
Thank you for the helpful chart. I have adjusted it to reflect the correct position in respect of your proposed title. -- Really Spooky 23:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


The table is interesting. Note that Miss Mondegreen claims that WP:ATT isn't (yet) policy, so probably WP:RS should be referenced if it doesn't otherwise matter.
After thinking about this some more, it could be that none of the three of us have it quite right. I see that this is no longer a list article, and that may affect the judgment I made above where I've added a question mark. I sense that maybe neither of you understands primary sources, versus secondary reliable sources, versus a third concept (which AFAIK I named) of "primary reliable sources".
I think there's some confusion caused by what is meant by "says Y" and "said" generally. I prefer the terminology of "says/said" descriptions versus "is/is'ed" judgments. I wrote a hypothetical example at Talk:List of groups referred to as cults#Some checking of the sources given would help which I will abbreviate here:

• The concepts of reliable source (fact checked) and types of source (primary, secondary and tertiary) are different. ... A reliable or unreliable source can contain any type of source in any combination. Containing a particular type of source (i.e., secondary) does not make a source reliable. ... [Here's my example]:

I write: A hypothetical article that only prints a speech by Joe where this politican denounces Jimmy as a cult leader, is a primary source for Joe's statement (attributing that Joe really did say Jimbo is cult leader). Only when ... analysis kicks in (several primary sources are integrated and opinions are weighted), then a secondary source may surface -- suitable to properly attribute an assertion in a tertiary source (encyclopedia), that Jimbo really is a cult leader.

If you could both state your positions (and table?) using the primary source really did say and secondary reliable source really is terminologies, it might be helpful.
"Primary reliable sources" — that's my term for the way ordinary reliable sources are utilized by "referred to as", as implemented at LOGRTAC. The referenced sources are valid secondary reliable sources, but by consensus of "referred to as", they are being used only as descriptive sources, as if they were primary.
A reference is descriptive. A reference says, 'Here is a place where c-u-l-t appears.' The Wikiguide authority to do this is stated in both Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Attribution:

"Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge."

So, Anynobody, maybe editors have constructively agreed to not "is" cults while writing as Wikipedia in a referred-to-as article. But since this is now a text article, it seems ok to describe fact-checked government sources that declare certain groups to be cults, like "X says Y". Milo 00:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The issue of primary, secondary, tertiary sources wasn't what I was talking about and could confuse the issue of WP:OR which I was discussing. Regardless of whether it is primary/secondary the point is we should say what that source says. Anynobody 00:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
"wasn't what I was talking about" Yes. I doubt there is any OR to be confused. My impression is both of you think what the other wants to do is OR, because neither of you understands primary and secondary sources, including the so far undocumented use of "primary reliable sources" as conferred by "referred to as".
"we should say what that source says" There are two ways of saying what the source says: description and assertion, classically associated with primary sources and secondary reliable sources respectively. But "referred to as" is a new paradigm which resists being classically analyzed, because it is associated with some characteristics of both primary sources and secondary reliable sources. Milo 18:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I assure you I understand the difference between primary and secondary sources, and they are not part of this discussion YET. WP:OR happens when the sources are used to make an argument not in the sources themselves (be they primary or secondary), correct me if I'm wrong. Anynobody 22:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Anynobody writes:"WP:OR happens when the sources are used to make an argument not in the sources themselves (be they primary or secondary)" Yes. (Note that one can only describe, not assert, an argument made in a primary source — which is a different issue than OR).
Anynobody writes:"This is WP:OR: 'Source says cult, Wikipedia says groups referred to as cult. (Source says X Wikipedia says Y+X)'". No. There is no argument Y, therefore no OR. An example of argument Y would be additional content not found in the source, such as 'Wikipedia says groups referred to as cults are caused by them eating green cheese' .
I think what you are doing is mistaking a structure of language for being a content of language. "Referred-to" is a pointer, which is a structural feature. And the structural target of that pointer is perfectly implied by the source language; within the source, someone really did refer to a group as a cult. Milo 02:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand how your definition of additional content doesn't include the artificial perspective added with the statement "groups referred to as".
Source
Montana Doomsday Religious Cult - "Church Universal and Triumphant". The source calls them a cult.
Wikipedia
Montana Doomsday Religious (group referred to as a) Cult - "Church Universal and Triumphant".
Saying that the group is referred to something implies more than one view. I understand that there ARE many views but unless there is a source to express them it's an unreferenced assertion.(AKA WP:OR) Anynobody 04:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
"additional content doesn't include ... perspective" Perspective isn't content, so the structure of language can't include or contain perspective where other content is stored. Content and perspective are a separate class of factors, like apples in a TV studio (the content), apples as seen on TV (a structure holding the content), and an audience watching the apples on TV (the perspective observers of the content held within a structure).
"artificial perspective added with the statement "groups referred to as"." It isn't artificial. References, including the "referred to" form, are a perfectly-implied natural pointing feature of language, of which reference encyclopedias are a written extension.
"unless there is a source to express them it's an unreferenced assertion" "Perfectly-implied" means that there exists a built-in language right-of-use (it's there but hidden), or right-of-transformation (convert one matrix-identical form to another), without authority from an external rule. An example of language right-of-transformation is the use of perfect synonyms in paraphrasing. Milo 04:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Would it be fair to say that based on your answer you'd approve changing the article called cults and governments to groups referred to as cults and governments? (I'm not setting up a straw man, just curious about your view.) Anynobody 05:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:V verifiable, WP:RS reliable sources

It should also be noted that verifiable, reliable sources are not a guarantee of 100% accuracy. Their fundamental quality does vary, and no type is necessarily more accurate than another so common sense must be used. If a us citizen writes to their federal representatives asking for information said rep doesn't know but wants to, the CRS is who will provide an answer. Take this example from the United States Senate, Senator Joe Lieberman describes them at his official website:

CRS Documents

To better inform and serve my constituents, I am providing below several well-researched and informative documents from the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS is part of the Library of Congress, and is a non-partisan group devoted to supporting Congress with research, analysis and reference.

— Senator Joe Lieberman's office

The fact that a source is the government does not make it the opinion of the government, only very special reports/papers like a Congressional report can come close to that. There are a few general distinctions when talking about the source of information, this list is by no means comprehensive.

  1. Private sources, such as self employed authors or researchers working for a privately owned/publicly traded company.
  2. Educational sources, such as a textbook or academic research paper.
  3. Religious/non-profit sources, such as a report by MADD or a religious publication.
  4. Government and public domain (capitalized for consistency not proper nature)
* Federal government
  • Military
* State or regional government (Not all countries have "states")
  • Municipal government (city)

If CRS is not a part of the government please tell me where on this list it belongs, or if I have left out a source in the list please add that too. Anynobody 00:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The CRS is part of the civil service. -- Really Spooky 12:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Which is part of the government (like FEMA). Anynobody 04:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Which is not like FEMA, for the reasons I already made clear in my post at 12:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC) above, which of course you could not have failed to have read, since you replied to that post. -- Really Spooky 08:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm assuming you are referring to this analogy:

To illustrate, are secretaries or assistants employed by the board of directors of a company ‘part of the board’? No, they are not; and even if an individual member of the board asked a research assistant to prepare a executive report for him or her, such a report could not be truthfully described as a ‘board report’ unless it was adopted by the board or at the very least requested by the board itself.

The secretaries and the board are both part of the company though aren't they? If the board asks for a report you're right it isn't necessarily called a "board report" but it's definitely called a "company report" in the sense that it was written by and for the hypothetical company in question.
I honestly have been trying to avoid treating you in a condescending manner but you are suggesting that agencies created, staffed, and run by the government AREN'T part of it:
  1. Job opportunities at the Library of Congress from the OPM usajobs.opm.gov website.
  2. specific ad for a Specialist in Military Operations and Policy SERIES & GRADE: GS-0101-15/15
  3. FEMA gets their applicants through the OPM too, what a coincidence.
  4. so does the DIA and
  5. NASA [1].
These civil service positions look like government jobs to me. Anynobody 09:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Anynobody, I must once again ask you to read the entirety of my post at 12:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC) with an open mind, because I made my position very clear. Yes, I am quite clearly saying that “agencies created, staffed, and run by the government AREN’T part of it”, provided those agencies are neither vested with nor exercise any governmental authority (i.e. the authority to govern, such as is vested in the legislature, the executive and the judiciary).
Thus the Library of Congress is not part of the government, whereas FEMA is. The status of NASA and the DIA are less certain to me, since in the first case it is difficult to see how the space program is a function of public administration, whereas in the second case the military is traditionally considered to be strictly separate from the government (although the position might be different with an intelligence service if it determines government policy). In short, one would have to look more closely at the scope of the functions and authority of these bodies, but they aren’t in issue here anyway.
The distinction that is failing to click in your head (no offence intended, I am AGF that you are not engaging in deliberate obfuscation) is the distinction between working for the government, being “created, staffed or run by the government”, and actually being or representing the government. The civil service is by definition a body of government employees, so I don't see what point you are trying to make with all those USAJobs links, unless you have failed to understand mine.
You come close to grasping this by accepting that a secretary to the board is part of the ‘company’ but not part of the ‘board’ (the governing body of a company). Here, ‘board’ is to ‘company’ as ‘government’ is to ‘the State’. But even a report prepared by a PA for a member of the board could hardly be described as a ‘company’ report, because, contrary to what you suggest, it is neither prepared ‘by’ the company (a individual secretary does not act in the name of the company) nor ‘for’ the company (an individual board member does not act in the name of the company either, unless perhaps he is the CEO and is acting in that capacity).
Thus, for example, if Congress (or perhaps even a congressional committee, if it is acting on the basis of powers delegated to it by Congress as a whole) were to commission and adopt a report, that would accurately be described as a ‘government’ report because the report has been procured and adopted by a body entitled to act as the ‘government’. What we have in the Whittier report is a document prepared by an individual for an unknown purpose. Even if it was prepared at the request of an individual member of Congress, however, that would be insufficient to truthfully call it a ‘government report’. I (speaking for myself only) would agree that the Whittier report could accurately be described as a 'government report' if it was procured and adopted by the US Congress. But I have no knowledge of that.
I do hope my position is finally clear to you now. -- Really Spooky 14:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Really Spooky to be clear, I understand everything you are saying but to have an "open mind" I'd have to disregard about a dozen class hours of university level courses and create a new definition of what a government agency is.
Authority to act or represent the government is not a prerequisite to be called an agency of the us federal government. If it's created , staffed, run, and funded by the government it is part of the government. (If the military isn't part of the government, what are they? They are run by the Executive branch of the government (President being commander in chief), and they are allotted funds and must be authorized to be deployed overseas for extended periods of time by Congress.) Frankly I don't expect you'll agree with me, but I have at least provided evidence backing my point from outside sources in the government (you do realize that .gov is the federal government's main domain, that and .mil).
To change my mind you're gonna need some proof explaining why these aren't all government agencies (civil service is the civilian arm of the government):
It should be pretty easy for you to gather some info from outside Wikipedia, from what you think the government is, to prove your point and explain why the federal civil service isn't part of the government. Anynobody 21:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
If you really and truly do understand everything I have said above, then all you have just done is deliberately string together a succession of straw man arguments misrepresenting my position rather than addressing its merits. That is obviously not directed at constructive discussion with me but posturing for the benefit of other readers of this page. That being the case, we'll just have to agree to disagree and disengage. Best wishes, Really Spooky 00:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
If you are correct you should be able to prove some/all of the groups listed are not part of the government. I've given you their websites, all you have to do is find where it says any of them are NOT part of the US government.
I expected an answer like this, the reason you say the list is a straw man argument is because you can't prove any of them ARE NOT part of the government. Therefore you label my list as a straw man argument to remove yourself from having to either prove your point or admit that you can't. Anynobody 01:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Except that is not what I seek to prove, nor does my point rest on whether FEMA, CIA, FBI, Homeland Security, EPA etc. are part of the government, as you are perfectly well aware. Best wishes, Really Spooky 03:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually it does Really Spooky since you fancy yourself to be knowledgeable about the us federal government, because you see a person unable to support their position is merely giving an opinion. Your opinion is that the CRS is not part of the government but instead part of the "civil service"(which is another name for government service as it says in the wikilink you've cited a few times.)
If you can't prove the divide between your concepts of government and "civil service" then you are asking me to accept your opinion. Anynobody 03:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Seriously, if you don't believe me browse through http://www.usa.gov for a while, here's a screenshot and an edited version to highlight some words and phrases associated with the government you can read about there: (These are previews, to actually read them please select the image you want to view) Anynobody 05:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
That is your opinion. In my opinion, your repeated demands that I disprove certain things that I neither disagree with nor rely on in support of my position are at best straw man and burden of proof fallacies, and at worst intellectually dishonest. For the record, I don’t seek to prove anything to you or to get you to accept my opinion at all. You are entitled to whatever opinion you like. I have only sought to explain my position to you, which you initially appeared to genuinely misunderstand. Since then, however, I have concluded that you are instead interested in sophistic debate; I am not. So as I said earlier, we’ll just have to agree to disagree and disengage. Best wishes, Really Spooky 09:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
As I have repeatedly said, it is not a straw man argument and I'll explain why it isn't.
How to create a straw man:
1. Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.
When have I misrepresented your position? You have said several times that civil services aren't part of the government, I haven't acted like your position has been refuted yet. I've been asking you to prove your position
2. Quote an opponent's words out of context -- i.e., choose quotations that are not representative of the opponent's actual intentions (see contextomy).
When have I quoted you out of context? I've merely asked you to prove your assertions that civil service isn't government service.
3. Present someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute that person's arguments, and pretend that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated.
I definitely haven't done this because I've discussed this with several editors not assuming any one to be the "defender" of your position.
4. Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, and pretend that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
I haven't done this either.
5. Oversimplify a person's argument into a simple analogy, which can then be attacked.
You have been making pretty simple arguments (gov't is not civil service for example), where have I oversimplified it?
Really Spooky by oversimplifying my argument and calling it a "straw man", it's actually you that are creating a straw man argument.
If you are correct one of the sites I listed should say the agency it represents is part of non-government civil service. Surely if the CRS isn't a government agency neither is the USGS, NOAA, or LOC all you need is to prove it. If you can't, it would be best to simply acknowledge you don't have any way to back your opinion rather than act like your views are indisputable fact. Anynobody 20:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Bromley and Melton's book has a List of groups referred to as cults in government documents

Citation
  • Bromley, David G. (2002). Cults, Religion, and Violence. Cambridge University Press. pp. 113–116. ISBN 0521668980. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  • To browse the book, one can utilize Google Books, and search for the title of the book. Then browse to the cited pages, 113-116. Smee 04:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC).
Comment by Smee (talk · contribs)

Cults and governments

Does anyone else think this article should be merged into Cults and governments? This article deals with an aspect regarding the subject of cults and governments and seems to overlap a bit. (Government reports about what they call cults.) Anynobody 05:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Then my question becomes why is that article succinctly titled cults and governments instead of groups referred to as cults and governments? Anynobody 06:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Well, that one is more of a paragraph style, this one is intended to be more of a listed style. Smee 06:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC).

I dunno, the whole "groups referred to as" sounds like artificial NPOV WP:OR. For clarification I made a section on the talk page of said policy. If a merge is not in order we really need to make these pages consistent, I of course think a shorter title like I proposed above would be better. (Otherwise we should get on the cults and governments talk page and lobby for the groups referred to as cults and governments title there). Anynobody 09:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Another 3O

I've read through all the opinions here (and boy, did it take a long time). Rather than rehash the entire argument again, I will merely provide my initial impression from the title and answer the question that was placed on the 3O page: Does the title of the article Groups referred to as cults in government reports suggest an official report written and released on behalf a particular branch of a government, or does it imply any report published by a federal government agency?

If I were a reader coming to this page for information, my assumption would be that the "government reports" described in the title would be the official opinions (or, if you prefer, public policy) of the government listed. This would further imply that the government had some course of action in mind with these descriptions, and that they carried the weight of the entire bureaucracy behind them. I would not expect to discover opinions written by one or two individuals (or even a team) with no policy-making or -executing ability. Frankly, I would be annoyed to discover that such minor opinions had been included in a list that at least implies official government policy.

Thus, it is my opinion that only reports that carry the weight of the entire government - or at least one of its branches, as defined in the government's laws - be included in the listing. Snuppy 15:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Snuppy, I would like to thank you. Just the fact that you were willing to undertake all the reading says much for your value to wikipedia. As you found out, this has been a highly contentious issue and your opinion is greatly appreciated. Lsi john 15:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Now we are back where we started. Yes, of course some editors legitimately get Snuppy's impression. Others legitimately don't. Since there's no way to decide, that's why the majority polled for changing the title to Groups referred to as cults in government documents, and it's still the proper solution to stop this silly wrangling about what a "report" is. I was there when this article was created. No one had any idea of excluding any government reliable source based on semantics. Milo 18:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
As another 3O let me make a few observations. The first problem seems to be the scope of the article itself. It is very broad and is forcing some editors to make a real stretch in defining or undefining what government is. From the perspective of most people, at least in my judgment, government refers to the whole of legislative judicial and executive. Together, they all serve to govern in one sense or another. Of course CRS is part of the government but it is true that its output does not dictate policy. Therein is the problem. If your article was something like Organizations identified as cults by the Government then you would be sourcing official documents where some agency actually studied and ID'd the groups as cults. But as it is, you article seems designed to simply mention those referenced somewhere, anywhere as a cult. My suggestion is to narrow the scope of the article and filter out those groups just mentioned in passing. Good luck! JodyB talk 15:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
"scope of the article itself. It is very broad" I'd say it's not broad enough since we can't agree on which narrow category of reports to include. Broaden the scope to "documents" and the problem goes away.
"Organizations identified as cults by the Government" I can already imagine how popular that title suggestion will be.
"filter out those groups just mentioned in passing." I hope JodyB will provide us with an air-tight reliable-source definition of "just mentioned in passing". Gee, is it really that easy to edit other articles? Milo 18:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

What is the government?

Traditionally people have been given the impression that the government is a single entity with one (or a few) voice(s), for instance would anyone disagree with the assertion that the following links lead to government information?

Government reports/information on

The audience of these reports is or includes the general public and the speaker could generically be called "the government". This information was created by different parts of the government so it would be more accurate/specific to say the info comes from SAMHSA for the substance abuse reports, DOI for the rec info, NHTSA for the highway tips, and the GAO for Iraq misappropriation documents. They don't represent the views of the entire us government, for example NHTSA doesn't and isn't expected to have a view on scenic National Parks so www.recreation.gov doesn't speak for them.

The fact that a report or document has one author and/or isn't mean for the general public, does not mean it isn't a "government" report/document.

As an example look at this report
THE HUKBALAHAP INSURRECTION A Case Study of a Successful Anti-Insurgency Operation in the Philippines, 1946-1955 by Major Lawrence M. Greenberg

Not unlike a Congressional Research Service researcher, Major Greenberg used materials made available by the government to generate a report about the tactics of a successful anti-insurgency campaign in the Philippines. Even though he wrote it, the report/study is property of the US federal government. Does it represent the entire government's view of the insurrection in question? No it does not since other officers may feel differently, but that fact doesn't make it any less of a WP:V, WP:RS source.

To be a government report/document/study/whatever, the source in question does not have to come from a particular agency, represent authority, or speak for the government. It must simply originate from a part of it. This does not mean a government source is the final or only source. I noticed that CRS wrote a summary of the space shuttle Columbia disaster report written by NASA in 2003. If there was a dispute between that report and the NASA Columbia Accident Investigation Board report the obviously more reliable source is the of course the NASA report. Similar logic should be applied accordingly. Anynobody 07:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has suggested that the Whittier report is not WP:V or WP:RS compliant, it has only been said that it does not belong in a list of government reports because it was prepared by an individual researcher and not by or on behalf of the government.
Many documents of the nature described above could undoubtedly be described as government reports because they were produced by departments exercising governmental authority delegated to them by the President (who speaks for the government in executive matters). The Congressional Research Service, however, comes under the legislative branch. In order for a report published by it to be truthfully described as a government report, the author would have to have produced it in the course of exercising some legislative authority, or at least in conjunction with the exercise of some legislative authority by Congress. An example of the latter would be if the Congress procured such a report and adopted it as its own. Otherwise it is no more than the work of an individual researcher. -- Really Spooky 20:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
To illustrate:
US Congress = the government in legislative matters
US judiciary = the government in judicial matters
US President = the government in executive matters
‘created, staffed & run by the government’ ≠ ‘the government’ (AMTRAK is not the government)
‘government employee’ ≠ ‘the government’ (a CIA janitor is not the government)
‘government agency’ (unless it exercises actual governmental authority) ≠ ‘the government’ (the Smithsonian Institution is not the government)
And so on. -- Really Spooky 21:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

A CIA janitor is not the government, but because he/she works for the government a report written by said janitor about expenditures of cleaning supplies is a government report because it's written for the government by a government employee on a government computer. (What would you have us believe the hypothetical janitor's report is? His report? A private report? The work of a non-profit organization?) Is it usable here on Wikipedia? Of course not since there is no article which concerns itself with the usage of cleaning supplies at the CIA.

Congress is not the government, The President is not the government, and the Supreme Court is not the government. They are each part of it of course but any one branch does not "represent" the entire government. Since no one branch does speak for the whole of the government you would have to label any reports from them or their agencies as not "government" reports since they don't speak for the other two branches. In fact because of checks and balances no one branch speaks for the government which means the only government document we can use here is the Constitution of the United States since it set up the three branches, it's the only document that speaks for all three. (The Smithsonian is not a government agency, it's a government trust- there is a difference you can read about on their site. Here's a quote to summarize:

As a trust establishment of the United States, the Smithsonian Institution has a unique relationship to the United States Government, and works closely with the Executive Branch and Congress, as well as with various levels of state and local governments in carrying out its mission to increase and diffuse knowledge.

— the Smithsonian Institution

Anynobody 05:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I am happy to see that you accept that a CIA janitor is not the government, because earlier you were saying that working for the government means you are part of the government. So now you are beginning to understand the distinction I making.
In answer to your question, I would call a CIA janitor’s report on cleaning supplies a janitor’s report. I certainly wouldn’t call it a government report or even a CIA report.
Now I have some questions for you:
You say that if something is written ‘for the government by a government employee on a government computer’ that is sufficient to call it a ‘government report’.
  • If the hypothetical CIA janitor wrote his report on cults instead of cleaning supplies and placed it on the director’s desk whilst cleaning his office would you still say that was a ‘government report’ belonging on this page, even if he wrote it on a government computer during the night?
  • By the way, what difference does it make if something is written on a government computer or not? If it does, do you know whether the Whittier report was written on a government computer (or typewriter, since computers were apparently not yet in use then)?
It is not true that executive, legislative and judicial branches must speak with one united voice to be said to represent the government. Each branch acts in the name of the government in those areas where they are vested with governmental authority under the Constitution. Thus, when the Supreme Court hands down a judgment, even if it rules against another government body, it acts as and in the name of the US government. When Congress passes a law or a resolution, or holds investigatory hearings, even if it overrides a Presidential veto or impeaches the President, it acts as and in the name of the US government. When the President of the United States takes executive action, or represents the United States abroad, even if Congress may make disapproving noises about his foreign policy, he acts as and in the name of the US government. When Charles Whittier, Congressional Research Service employee, writes a paper about cults, he does not act as and in the name of the US government.
Finally, the Smithsonian Institution is most certainly a government agency, as the websites of the President [2] and the Smithsonian [3] itself make very clear, as well as numerous other websites; here are just a few [4] [5][6][7][8].
By the way, AMTRAK and the postal service are government agencies too. -- Really Spooky 08:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question, saying what you wouldn't call it is not saying what you would which of course is what I wanted an answer to. I also have to say, for someone so apt to cry "straw man" or allege other rhetorical fallacies you use them quite often. You also apparently didn't read, or understand the concept of common sense when government sources disagree that I mentioned in my argument.

I noticed that CRS wrote a summary of the space shuttle Columbia disaster report written by NASA in 2003. If there was a dispute between that report and the NASA Columbia Accident Investigation Board report the obviously more reliable source is the of course the NASA report. Similar logic should be applied accordingly.

— Anynobody 07:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

If one applies common sense to your question, Roger Wilco's report on cults would be a government report of little to no reliability but also without copyright concerns.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic about AMTRAK and the USPS, but I'd agree with your assertion that they are government agencies. AMTRAK and the USPS unlike private companies must respond to FOIA requests making them indeed part of the government. Try submitting a FOIA request to Microsoft, General Motors, or Martha Stewart Living and see how far you get. Anynobody 09:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

  1. The ‘unanswered’ question. Post of Anynobody at 09:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC): “You didn’t answer my question, saying what you wouldn’t call it is not saying what you would which of course is what I wanted an answer to.”
Post of Really Spooky immediately prior at 08:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC): “In answer to your question, I would call a CIA janitor’s report on cleaning supplies a janitor’s report.” (one might alternatively call it a CIA janitor's report).
  1. Comment about weight of CRS reports. I did read your comment. I just don’t see its relevance to what we are talking about. How does your admission that a hypothetical NASA report would carry more weight than a CRS summary about the same event go establish that the Whittier paper or any other paper published by the CRS is a ‘government report’?
  2. Roger Wilco. Huh? What is that all about?
  3. Smithsonian, AMTRAK, postal service et al. No, I’m not being sarcastic. I’m simply pointing these out as examples of the proposition that ‘government agency’ (unless it exercises actual governmental authority) ≠ ‘the government’.
  4. FOIA requests. There you go again. What point are you trying to make by asserting that the FOIA applies to AMTRAK or the postal service (if that is indeed true)? Since we both agree that those are government agencies (surprisingly), I don’t see how that establishes anything given that my point is ‘government agency’ (unless it exercises actual governmental authority) ≠ ‘the government’. Do you now acknowledge that the Smithsonian Institution is also a government agency, after I have provided you with White House and Smithosonian links clearly demonstrating this is so?
The fundamental flaw that continues to permeate all your comments is that you perceive virtually any manner of association with the government (whether it be employed by, created by, staffed by, owned by, operated by, obligated to release information under the FOIA by etc.) as equal to the government itself. My point is that the government is those persons and/or bodies of persons which have the administrative authority to govern. In a company it is called the board of directors, in a church it is usually called a council or synod, when we speak of a State we call it the government. Employees or bodies within or operated by the government are not, and do not speak in the name of, the government. They act in their own individual capacity as employee, private individual or organisation (depending on what they are doing and on what authority), unless of course they are carrying out some task in the course of public administration of the country, in which case they can truthfully be said to be acting as the government.
Imagine Mr. Charles Whittier visiting, say, the United Nations or the European Commission in Brussels and saying he comes on behalf of the US government. Unless he had had been authorised to do so by some governmental authority, nobody would give him the time of day, and any protest asserting that as a researcher in the CRS he is ‘part of the government’ would get him absolutely nowhere. -- Really Spooky 10:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

To tackle your analogy first, representing the US government in negotiations or as an ambassador is not even close to a valid comparison between ACTING on behalf of and being the PROPERTY of the government. As I have said repeatedly, it's an ownership/copyright issue and accuracy/reliability is determined on a case by case basis depending on where in the government it originated. The CIA janitor's report would not be a solid foundation to base a claim on but it won't get you sued for copyright infringement. Citing the CRS report on the Columbia Accident Investigation Board would not be the best approach when the NASA report is available just as readily.

If Congress held hearings and determined that a suborbital gremlin monster chewed a hole in Columbia's port wing are you saying that said report would have a place with the NASA report just because Congress is a body of authority?

My point is that the government is those persons and/or bodies of persons which have the administrative authority to govern.

— Really Spooky 10:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Anynobody 08:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

There you go again with your 'any association with government' = 'government' arguments. Just because a report is property of the government doesn't mean it is a government report. Is Mein Kampf a government source just because the Library of Congress owns it? [9]
What is your basis for saying that the Congressional Research Service owns the copyright to the Whittier report? If anyone owns the copyright it is Charles Whittier.
I am glad to see you are finally grasping my point, however. In response to your question, if Congress held hearings and determined that a suborbital gremlin monster chewed a hole in Columbia's port wing that would be a government report. An absolutely ridiculous government report, and certainly less believable than the NASA report, but a government report nonetheless. -- Really Spooky 09:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The majority were FOR the name change to "documents"

You are right about the numbers, Smee, but as near as I can tell it was a 'bare' poll with no arguments or reasons given for the proposed name change at all (although opponents of the proposal did give their reasons). Until we hear some discussion of the purpose of the proposal and why it is a good idea, I think changing the name would be premature and contrary to WP:POLL, particularly since some editors (including myself) view it as a trojan horse to later justify putting the Whittier report on the list (although personally I don't think the proposed name change makes any difference to that issue).
If what you really want to propose is something that will include the Whittier report and others like it, IMHO it would be best to state that up front and perhaps we can find some alternative consensus (I certainly don't think anyone argues that the Whittier report does not meet WP:RS or that it doesn't belong anywhere on Wikipedia). For example perhaps the word 'government' could be simply removed from the title (not one I would favour, but it's an option). Or a separate article entitled "List of research papers on cults" could be created, I'm sure there are plenty of possibilities for consensus.
As to your second proposal (name change and page structure are different things), my comments are here so I won't repeat them. I would simply add that just because someone has done something in a book doesn't mean it is appropriate in an encyclopedia, regardless of whether the authors are anti-cult, cult apologist or neutral. I presume those indices are presented in the context of an entire chapter or chapters on the subject, whereas you propose to remove all context explaining the reports from the page. -- Really Spooky 12:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Noted, and thank you for your polite comments. Comments from anyone else on my above statements? Smee 07:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC).

Criteria for inclusion

Inclusion is based on a single reference:

  1. as a "cult" directly in North American English, a "sect" in British English or any equivalent foreign-language word;
  2. as a group in that organizations and sets of individual practitioners, including those named by their technical practice of cults, qualify as groups;
  3. as such within the last 50 years;
  4. as named by reliable sources to have not existed independently prior to 1920 in its substantially present form of beliefs and earthly practices;
  5. as not qualifying as a personality cult (heads of state), fan-cult of popular culture, or group that doesn't have an actual following (fictional or self-nominated groups).

This looks ok to me. A quick question on number 2 though; a hypothetical (and rather unlikely) "cult" made up of mostly individual practitioners who do not meet often but adhere to the teachings of a cult are a group? Anynobody 07:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

My primary objection to this criteria box (which comes from List of groups referred to as cults) is that it is (a) unnecessary and (b) undesirable in the context of this article.
It is unnecessary because its function at LOGRTAC is not applicable here. Given the way the word 'cult' is indiscriminately bandied about in the media, were there no inclusion criteria LOGRTAC would include things like cheddar cheese (as one editor recently pointed out). There is no risk of that here, however.
It is undesirable here because the government lists should not be dissected and presented selectively. It is one thing to delimit the scope of an article's subject-matter, it is quite another thing to censor the sources. -- Really Spooky 07:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Rename

This list's name used to mirror the recently deleted List of Groups referred to as Cults (LOGRTAC) because it's historically descended from that list. It doesn't need to follow that pattern anymore. When you look at what this list is it is actually a List of Government Documents on Cults. Then for extra information the groups treated as cults in the goverment documents are listed.

This name change has several advantanges.

  1. Removes the list from the taint of the LOGRTAC.
  2. Clearly removes any hint of POV assertions because the list is not about cults but about Government Documents.
  3. Clearly follows the structure of the list as it has evolved.
  4. Such a list would be a very attractive link from other wikipedia articles dealing with the subject of cults.
  5. Simplifies the convoluted grammar of the current name

Who likes that idea? What other improvments do you have? Chee Chahko (talk) 04:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose change. Current model is fine. This is, strictly speaking, a list of groups referred to as cults in government documents. The fact that it also gives brief background on those lists themselves is simply informative in nature. However it may be a good idea to simplify this list's structure into a purely alphabetized format, with the specific reports noted at the bottom in footnotes. Cirt (talk) 04:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support change - Good idea, Chee. It does away with a lot of the issues that deep-sixed LOGRTAC. --Justallofthem (talk) 05:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I've boldly moved it to "List of Groups ..." rather then just "Groups" for the time being. Celarnor Talk to me 05:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with move by Celarnor (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 05:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
It originally was a "List of...". The name change to drop that was a minor part of a long arcane debate, but the "List of..." issue is covered five screens down from here (Archive_1#First second opinions):

jossi (17:30, 7 May 2007): "The proposal still on the table is to move this article to List of groups referred to as cults in government documents, or better still Groups referred to as cults in government documents as some of the documents in this article doe not contain "lists"."

The major part of the proposed name change is a crypto-AfD. Once the name is changed to "{List of} Government Documents on the subject of Cults", then it will be a different article, and the actual listed groups can, and will eventually be deleted as "cruft". Milo 08:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
You'd still be on the same steep ground LOGRTRAC was on. You could get on level ground with List of Government Documents on Cults (LOGDOC) - Even the acronymn is pleasing. And the names are not cruft. Chee Chahko (talk) 14:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Chahko (14:02): "the names are not cruft"
Of course they aren't. So what? You only been editing the cult topics for 21 days, and you're too newbie to get it. If you make it possible to remove the names by citing a lame excuse, they will be eventually be removed, because some/many WP:COI group members aren't here to build an encyclopedia project, they are here to promote myths and suppress verification of facts about themselves.
One example was a bogosity life-threatening to gullible cancer patients: "cancer can only be cured through [group x]"). I exposed this by reference verification to conventionally-cured President Grover Cleveland, but due to group x being mind-controlled, true believers, fanatics, or whatever, they never give up. Their article is currently protected from editing.
This was the group that the now-banned member belonged to. He first committed source-removal vandalism by removing his group x from LOGRTAC, then he led other group members in removing the 1920+ rule criterion, so that the list would anger members of major religions who would then help them blow it up at AfD. His article deconstruction worked perfectly, and you were duped.
Chahko (14:02): "steep ground"
Steep ground has been part of the cult topics territory since 2001 at Cult because it involves referencing crime, abuse, and exploitation facts that some to many groups are trying to hide, while simultaneously trying to tame the homonymic conflict that caught up authoritarian but now repentant groups like GCI, as well as cultus of old religions, and cults of purely theological dispute.
The public has high tension with groups that make antiscientific statements of nontraditional belief, and Stark and Bainbridge, 1985, identified such groups as "cults". Unless it's a destructive cult, Wikipedia is not in a position to make threshold judgments about how much Stark and Bainbridge tension is enough to call a group a cult. Wikipedia has already leveled the ground by consensing that "referred to as cults" avoids having Wikipedia take a position on whether mild groups like GCI are really cults or just called such.
When I first arrived at LOGRTAC, it's all-time high edit-count editor, cairoi, warned me that it was a tough crowd. I'll pass on that warning. If steep ground is not suited to your tastes, abilities, and life experience, you should not be editing here. Milo 17:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm an old soul Milo, I'll be fine. It's been very easy for me to review the history on both these articles through the wiki-search. I'm not editing without background. I know your role and I like your style and I haven't been duped.
Though I have formed an opinion on the problems of these two lists, I'm willing to be persuaded.
The history I've reviewed though leads me to the conclusion that directly labelling groups as cults is a mistake. The information can be delivered to the reader through a different vehicle. That of the government report. Even if the cult names were to be removed, as you have suggested, links to the reports would be the vehicle for the information. It would make the vehicle bullet proof, a bit like the pope-mobile. Chee Chahko (talk) 19:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. The current content of the article better fits the current name but some interest was expressed in changing the content. One might choose to create an article at List of Government Documents on Cults and if consensus favors a merger of the two at at latter date, sobeit. JPG-GR (talk) 03:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: Rename to List of Government Documents on Cults.

I am broadly in favour of the rename. If we could come up with a better alternative title that somehow retains the "cult list" aspect, then one of the arguments against could be invalidated. Something like "Government documents listing purported cults". Jayen466 19:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm willing to think about that. With only a short think, I can't come up with something that doesn't muddy the clarity of the title and not label the groups as cults. The closest I could get to is Comparative list of government documents on cults. Chee Chahko (talk) 20:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Whatever the name of the article, I'd object to removing the groups from the list. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm with you on that. Not having tha names would devalue the list. Do you think that including the word Comparative would be enough to enshrine the inclusion of names?" Chee Chahko (talk) 20:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. The group lists are an essential part of the page. Jayen466 20:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't see a problem, off hand. Note that only the first word, and subequent proper nouns, should be capitalized in article titles. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
"Comparative" is dross as there will be no comparing - that would be WP:OR. The originally proposed name is fine IMO. And of course the groups discussed in the reports should remain. --Justallofthem (talk) 21:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean? Are you happy with List of government documents on cults? I only meant that the readers could compare not that we could compare. Chee Chahko (talk) 21:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I would prefer it without the "comparative" if we stick with this version of the title. Jayen466 22:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't see what "comparative" adds. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose change. Keep as List of groups referred to as cults in government documents. Any name change in-line with above suggestions will change the entire nature of this list - from a list of groups referred to as cults in government documents, to a list of government documents on cults - which would be wholly unwieldy and full of cruft and entirely not useful whatsoever. Cirt (talk) 05:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Can you provide some examples of unwieldiness, cruft and uselessness that could spring up. Chee Chahko (talk) 05:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes. First of all - once the name of this list is changed to something other than List of groups referred to as cults in government documents - there will be a motivation to simply remove the names of all of the groups referred to as cults in government documents - thus the name change would change the very nature of the list itself. As far as cruft/unwieldiness - there are simply many documents that could be termed government documents on "cults", but not that many that list out groups of cults in government documents. Thus the usefulness of the list in its current format. Cirt (talk) 05:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree that simply speaking of "government documents on cults" expands the inclusion criteria too much. We should strive to keep the fact that the documents list cults in the title somehow.
  • Government-generated lists of cults
  • Government documents listing cults
  • Government documents that list cults
  • Lists of cults generated by government sources
  • Lists of cults compiled by government authorities
I am in favour of retaining the current format – subsections by country, with each country's list appearing in toto under that country's subheading. --Jayen466 12:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
A potential downside of my above suggestions is that not all of the documents referenced list groups; some merely mention them. Perhaps the present title isn't so bad after all. :-) --Jayen466 13:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I hope other editors will take this in the spirit of a brainstorming ... so here another title suggestion: "Government documents identifying specific groups as cults" --Jayen466 14:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Jayen has a great idea. Could we break for a brief brainstorm? (no criticism, just throwing out ideas): Chee Chahko (talk) 16:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

BEGIN BRAINSTORM
* List of government documents on cults mentioning names.
* Government documents identifying specific groups as cults
* Government-generated lists of cults
* Government documents listing cults
* Government documents that list cults
* Lists of cults generated by government sources
* Lists of cults compiled by government authorities
* List of groups referred to as cults in government documents
(put next one here)

Analogy arguments

  • Oppose All the consensus sentiment that the listed groups should stay under the replacement name is worth nothing after those editors move on. High school students have been contentiously literal minded here. The change in title sides them with group members, who will take any opportunity to whitewash the cult topics of actual group names. They will say the listing of groups is a different article (the one as presently titled), and IIRC, one of the dispute tags demands that content in the article be made to match the title.
Actual group names are what most readers want to see, and see most, due to the current global protest of Scientology that stirs up reader interest in who else might be like them. (One can tell this by the frequent anti-Scientology vandalisms and external link additions at Cult.)
Now that the LOGRTAC talk page is gone, some of the four years of debates may have to be re-argued. One of the biggest was, "purported", vs. "alleged", vs. "reported", etc., cults. Neither "purported" (an early LOGRTAC title) or "alleged" worked: "Unfortunately, either word will rile some people by conveying a connotation that the statement isn't true." --JamesMLane 17:22, 13 May 2005
Circa 2005 someone wrote "referred to as" in a header statement, and gradually editors began to use that phrase, until it moved into the title (IIRC, Feb 2006). It works because it's consensed that Wikipedia doesn't take a position on what references say, and if one doesn't like references, one doesn't like encyclopedias. Milo 09:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
In response to Cirt and Milo:
  1. I understand a list to be different from a category in that it includes richer information than a bare names list. I believe this wiki-principle will keep the names on the list.
  2. I remember reading the information on purported/alleged/referred. I believe this is the "LOGRTAC taint", the rot at it's core, that should be removed from this list. In many editors' minds those phrases are just smoke screens for POV editing.
  3. Another problem with LOGRTAC was that it started out with something like a horribly racist one drop rule (eventually the two drop rule) which didn't allow for opposing views. Making this a list of documents may allow for opposing viewpoint to come to light within the scope of Government documents, of course.
I'm not feeling your arguments are strong enough to persuade me differently yet. I also notice that Jayen talked himself out and back into the simple grammar. I'm starting to see LOGDOC as a strong title. Chee Chahko (talk) 14:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Chahko (14:35): "horribly racist" This is a red herring fallacy known as playing the race card. Although some cults are racist, there is no significant issue of race among all cults. All races join cults and oppose cults. Milo 20:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't talking about the cults or the cult members being racist. I was talking about the criteria for inclusion. It was an illustration. The one drop rule, as it applies to race, means that one drop of blood from some race and you're completely that race. LOGRTAC had a one source inclusion rule (later two sources) which said one reference in the media and you officially make the Wikipedia List of Cults. That seems like OR to strengthen a POV to me. Chee Chahko (talk) 23:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Chahko (23:35): "I wasn't talking about..."
You've been duped again. You stepped on a debating land mine placed by the all-time #2 LOGRTAC opponent. An illustration can't be used in debate merely because it appears analogous. Analogies that are emotionally loaded distract from the debate topic.
Opposition nicknaming of a single-source inclusion criteria as a "one drop rule" is fallacious propaganda, yet it can't be exposed to its roots without someone else playing the race card. You were that someone else, since more experienced editors knew to step around the issue.
The fallacy is a false odious comparison. It causes the reader to believe that any threshold binary decision method is necessarily invalid, because racist laws like "one drop", were based on a method with superficial similarity.
As apparently being near in education to a college sophmore, your position is similar to those held by other sophmores – it does not anticipate the destabilizing consequences of a title change for trivial reasons. Milo 08:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I think you could use a Wiki-vacation, You're reasonning and presuppositions are getting wierd. You even appear to be at war or under siege. Why not, after this little debate is over, close the laptop lid for a month or so. Get out in the real world and enjoy the summer. You'll feel better when you come back. It's just and encyclopedia article! (^_^) Chee Chahko (talk) 14:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Chahko (14:26): "You're reasoning and presuppositions are getting weird."
Let me see if I understand this.
Being a very raw newb starting about 28 days ago (June 3), who has trouble even formatting posts (I've repeatedly fixed them for you, here most recently) – you get tricked into distracting this debate with inappropriate usage of the r-word, have to be educated that "one drop" is false propaganda cleverly masked by that r-word – and all you can do is vaguely claim the weirdness of my reasoning and presuppositions?
That's more distraction. The correct debate response is to strike the off-topic "racism" and the "one drop" debate trojan, say 'I take your point' or similar remark, and move on. I assume that you saw me do this in the LOGRTAC Deletion Review, and it's evidence that I'm a centrist scholar of the cult topics.
If you still don't quite understand why your comments are a debating tactics issue, read Association fallacy and the related issue in Godwin's Law.
See my responses to other topics below. Milo 05:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
How are you fitting my analogy into Association fallacy or Godwin's Law? Chee Chahko (talk) 13:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I suggest that you ask someone else to explain it to you. Milo 23:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
This comment is directed to anyone who has been listening in on this painful conversation:
Using a simile to connect the One drop rule with the One reference criterion neither fits into Association fallacy or Godwin's Law:
  1. What I did say was that One drop and One reference are two very similar mind sets and neither belong on Wikipedia: no association fallacy there.
  2. Was it over the top as Goodwin's Law would require to draw such a comparison. No, religious persecution and racial persecution have co-existed side by side for thousands of years and have very similar, even entwined, histories.
It is a dangerous thing to stereotype faiths and their practitioners just as it is to label races and individuals. This is one of the core problems with the former LOGRTAC and this list as well. My simile stands. I believe it is a valid point but I will listen to anyone who would like to respectfully refute it. Chahko Mika 00:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
←Chahko (00:14): "stereotype faiths .... This is one of the core problems with the former LOGRTAC..."
Either retract this statement, or name the faiths stereotyped by LOGRTAC, so everyone else can verify what you seem to be claiming as a fact. (And if you don't, then your debating credibility takes a hit.)
From Association fallacy: "An association fallacy ... asserts that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another, merely by an irrelevant association."
Here's an association fallacy:
Patients make mistakes and are found in hospitals.
Sophomores make mistakes, so they too should be placed in hospitals.
The root of this "hospital" fallacy is that mistakes are associated with everyone and everywhere, not just the irrelevant association among patients, sophomores, and hospitals.
Chahko (00:14): "One drop and One reference are two very similar mind sets"
Sure – they are both "mind sets" of a selection-method-for-one...
Chahko (00:14): "neither belong on Wikipedia"
...but that's a logically-invalid conclusion based on an association fallacy. Just because most people agree that one of them is bad, doesn't prove the other is bad. The fact that you personally don't like both of them is a convincing but irrelevant association.
Here's another "one thing" association fallacy:
It takes one and only one title for a new article to be included in the encyclopedia.
Yet the rename process proves that articles can have many possible titles.
Because a "one drop" law is racist, a "one title" rule is also racist.
Likewise, any rule or law that selects only one thing of many possible things is racist.
The root of the "one thing" fallacy is that many applications use a method to select for one thing. It's such a general method that racists have used it along with everyone else.
Chahko (00:14): "this painful conversation"
If you are in pain, you should stop conversing and see a doctor. Milo 08:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
What was your 1920's rule about then? Chahko Mika 19:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chee Chahko (talk • contribs)
?? Milo 23:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
You're 1920's rule was an attempt to avoid stereotyping older faiths, wasn't it? Chahko Mika 04:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chee Chahko (talk • contribs)
That was not a debated issue. 1920+ holistically solves many problems at once, so it can be described in a number of ways. The best description seems to be as a Wikipedia disambiguation to reduce homonymic conflict, the root cause of the cult-conflict word issues (as opposed to the issues inherent to groups no matter what they are called).
The 1920+ rule criterion was specifically a disambiguation of two historic eras, the prior era when the single North American word "cult" meant only "cultus" (a positive connotation cult of veneration), and the latter era following the 1920s-1930s watershed (per cult encyclopedist authority Dr. J. Gordon Melton, UCSB) when the spelling c-u-l-t gained at least seven new homonyms, including from sociological science, fundamentalist Christian theology (Walter Martin, The Rise of the Cults (1955), p. 11–12), psychology, and 1970s populist perception of reported high-tension, nontraditional groups (see Stark and Bainbridge, 1985, ISBN-13: 9780520048546).
1920+ was poll-consensed by 7 of 9 (77%) editors at Talk:LOGRTAC from 27 July 2006 to 28 January 2007 and reconsensed as part of a rhetoric redraft package by 5 of 6 (83%) editors from 6 September 2006 to 15 October 2006. Milo 00:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Purpose arguments

  1. The purpose of this list is to list groups that have been referred to as "cults" in government documents, not to list any and all government documents that have dealt with cults (that would literally be thousands of documents. Cirt (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. A name change of this nature would change the entire purpose and nature of this list itself, and as stated previously would make it way too unwieldy. Cirt (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  3. This list is very different from LOGRTAC - any group specifically referred to as a "cult" in documents produced by the federal government of a country may be included. Cirt (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't see the purpose of this name change, and I don't see it as an improvement. Cirt has laid out some reasonable objections. Please remove me from the "not averse" column. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Note that the Berlin Senate document was generated by that city's senate (city government); it is not a product of Germany's Federal Government. There is no problem with that, it is still a document created by a (local) government authority, but I thought I'd mention it. --Jayen466 23:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
The government of the Land of Berlin represents somewhat more than local government or even city government: the Land of Berlin functions as a state within the federal system of Germany. -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Can someone explain to me why Cirt's objections couldn't just be handled in the introduction? S/he is making some good points but I'm not sure they couldn't be taken care of another way. Chee Chahko (talk) 23:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Chahko (23:35): "objections couldn't just be handled in the introduction?"
Because the title is the hierarchical high ground of the article. The factions that control the title, control the article. "Objections handled in the introduction" will be first whitewashed and trivialized by group members, and eventually get deleted by other editors to whom it 'doesn't make sense'. Milo 08:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


Chahko (14:26): "this little debate"
As I said above (Milo 08:18), the major part of the proposed name change is a crypto-AfD. The very fact that you think this is a "little debate" shows that you don't understand the consequences of your own renaming proposal.
Chahko (14:26): "you could use a Wiki-vacation"
I don't imply that you are wrong about everything. I'll think about your suggestion.
Chahko (14:26): "under siege"
I think it's fair to say the cult topics have been under gradually increasing siege by group members for years. The problem of conflict-of-interest whitewashing in the cult topics has given the whole of Wikipedia bad coverage in external press this year.
Chahko (14:26): "It's just an encyclopedia article"
"Just"? While that's literally true, and has some metaphorical merit, it's questionable in your own editing context. In 28 days, I count that you've made over a hundred edits in the cult topics (including ~39 deleted at Talk:LOGRTAC and more at LOGRTAC), and you are a borderline WP:SPA. I wonder why you seem to be taking cult-listing so seriously, if it's "just an encyclopedia article"?
Hmm... since you raised the issue, how about taking the pledge?

Milo 05:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a tough crowd Milo, and you've become the toughest one of them all. Angrily brow-beating new editors. Ad hominim arguements. But you do have a soft side. Thank you for fixing some of my bungled edits. I'm getting the hang of it slowly.
I've told you I'm willing to be convinced against the proposal. You haven't quite done it yet. Just stay away from the ad hominum stuff and we can have a civil discussion about all this. The point that noone has addressed is that even if the group names are removed, the links won't ever be. I see that as a great "bullet proofing" feature.
I see the reader's journey as follows:
  1. Reads the article on cults
  2. Attracted to the link List of governement documents on cults
  3. Either sees a list of group names or a link to the report and saying that there is a list of names.
I don't see how that could be undone. It seems like a lot less work than doing battle all the time to keep reporting features of the list.
One other thing that I am interested in is who Cate Metz is. Is s/he editing on this site or have a relationship with an editor on this site? It's interesting the politics that have become enmeshed with the real world here. Chee Chahko (talk) 14:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Chahko (14:17): "Ad hominem arguments"
WP:COI editing and debating opens the door to valid ad hominem arguments. After the WP:COI article deconstruction of LOGRTAC, forcing it into a terminal AfD over problems already fixed, ad hominem arguments have become a permanent part of the cult topics debate – similar to the way ad hominem sockpuppet arguments became permanent at Wikipedia.
I didn't like it the first time I encountered outrageous WP:COI, but then I accepted that it was one more problem to be surmounted in Wikipedia article writing.
Chahko (14:17): "the toughest one of them all"
That would be jossi, the overall #1, all-time LOGRTAC opponent ...and long before I was editing the cult topics.
I'm a cult-topics centrist, and I'm also a serious right-to-know pro-reporting editor. I'm not sure Cairoi was a "pro-reporter" but I recall him as being no-nonsense tough. If one lets group member anti-reporters whitewash the facts, dispense pull-wool propaganda, tendentiously debate, or game the system – without challenge – then one is not tough enough to be editing here.
Chahko (14:17): "Angrily brow-beating new editors."
Diffs for both adjectives please. Prove it, or strike it as a WP:CIV.
Chahko (14:17): "I see the reader's journey as follows: 1. Reads the article on cults
For the average reader, there's probably not a chance of reading to the end of Cult. Most readers aren't interested in cult academics. Having edited it during a couple of years, I think few besides group members actually read it all the way through.
Chahko (14:17): "even if the group names are removed, the links won't ever be"
Cirt (05:55) partly addressed this. The links get obscured with the second anti-LOGRTAC method group members devised to stop index news reporting – article jamming. After the title change LOGRTACIGR will eventually be link-farmed to every government document ever written that mentions "cults". Then when the actual lists eventually get removed, no casual reader will know which link to select to find the interesting lists.
I see that you ignored the pledge that you were not a group member... which means that you may be one.
And if you are yet another group member here, you have an undisclosed COI.
You went from an astounding ambition for a day-3 total Wikipedia newb, using a massively displayed proposal, followed up with dozens of posts doggedly pursuing an effort to improve LOGRTAC over an 18-day period.
And then... you instantly wanted LOGRTAC deleted outright when the 6th AfD unexpectedly appeared. Your being a listed group member would satisfyingly explain the otherwise jaw-dropping spectacle of your U-turn.
If you are a group member, it's a plausible explanation motivating your proffered one, as to why you seem so set on making fundamental and destabilizing changes to this LOGRTACIGD article title. Milo 08:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Or I may just be concentrating on one interesting issue at a time. Some people think that way. Chahko Mika 19:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chee Chahko (talk • contribs)
Save that alibi for editors who haven't noticed you outing yourself. Milo 23:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Summary of Proposal: Rename to List of Government Documents on Cults

Arguments for: (3 editors currently not averse)

  1. Removes the taint of the LOGRTAC
  2. Clearly NPOV because the list is not about cults but about Government Documents
  3. Clearly follows the current list structure
  4. Attractive link for other wikipedia articles on cults.
  5. Simplifies grammar
  6. Bullet proof vehicle to report on groups. (Even if the group names are removed, the links won't be)

Arguments against: (3 editors currently averse)

  1. Current list is fairly stable
  2. Group names could be removed as not relevant to the name
  3. Changes the nature of the list (cults to documents)
  4. May allow documents which do not include goup names making the list unwhieldy

Discussed Conditions:

  1. Keep the group names
  2. Keep the simple grammar: "List of government documents on cults"

Please add your arguments in short, plain english to the two lists above. I will edit any entries down to their essence for clarity. Your discussion can continue above the summary.

I'm hoping for a complete understanding of the issues as the editors see it. We certainly do have some more arguments against now. Chee Chahko (talk) 23:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Framing arguments

  • Oppose re-naming. -- The article deals with "groups" which "government documents" have "referred to as cults". Parallels with the late lamented List of groups referred to as cults do not in themselves justify any change in title. Spurious framing of the discussion in terms of any alleged "taint" attaching to List of groups referred to as cults expresses an opinion without providing any foundation for that opinion. Backing up the smear with weasel words like "in many editors' minds" weakens the argument even further. -- As both governments and "cults" generate heated viewpoints, re-arranging the wording profits us nothing in respect of the preservation of neutrality. The existing syntax clearly expresses the basis of the article: the groups (cultic or non-cultic) and the referring, which lies at the heart of encyclopedic information-gathering. If referring to things (as opposed to directly labelling them) constitutes some sort of "steep ground" or slippery slope, than writing an encyclopedia loses its point. "Referring" implies concrete references without any necessary judgments or accusatory labellings. "Referring" allows us to generate neutral articles and lists in accordance with the philosophy of Wikipedia. "Referring" has nothing to do with endorsement or approval of a labelling: references simply record the act of a linkage. Any opposing viewpoint to a reference can readily question whether or not a given government document did in fact refer to a group as a "cult" -- and the (quotable) text of the document in question will prove or disprove the reference -- end of story. -- Discussion of a "one drop rule" muddies the waters with irrelevancies. "One drop" scenarios imply an alleged purity and an alleged pollution. We could regard an empty article as pure, and argue that adding any content would pollute that purity. But that approach would not help build an encyclopedia; and Wikipedia thrives on the addition of (referenced) content. -- One alternative title: "Government documents on cults", has potential as a separate article, if desired; and other suggestions have similar potential. Let proponents boldly set up and populate such articles as a separate exercise. -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Nicely put. I'm wavering. Chahko Mika 02:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chee Chahko (talk • contribs)
Well, not just yet. Cult is a powerful word. So, powerful that it overrides referred. Referred is a Wikipedia legalistic term that allows this articl to make a POV assertion without actually making it. But the reader sees it as such because of the weight attached to Cult. You need to understand. I'm not trying to destroy this article. I'm trying to make it bullet proof...
You can't say in Wikipedia that the groups in this list are cults and you can't say that the governments are persecuting the groups. What you can say is that the governments wrote these reports and this is what was in them. The two titles are very similar. List of groups referred to as cults in government documents and List of government documents on cults. The only advantage that the second one has is to remove the reader just a smidge further from the conclusion that the groups are cults. That is the taint of List of groups referred to as cults. You can wax on about how the word referred saves the day but really it is just the vehicle for the more powerful word cult to point it's finger at the groups listed. This list will always have problems. You and Milo will have to guard it day and night until you die if it stays as LOGRTACIGD. Where as I think you'll get a bit of peace with LOGDOC. And the reader will get the same information. Chahko Mika 03:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I would like to see what Milo has to say regarding the above. Chahko Mika 14:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chee Chahko (talk • contribs)
←Chahko (14:24): "not trying to destroy this article. I'm trying to make it bullet proof..."
So you claim. To some other editors your overall position looks more like Ben Tre logic.
Chahko (14:24): "Referred is a Wikipedia legalistic term that allows this article to make a POV assertion without actually making it. ... "
No. Your presumption is a shooting the messenger fallacy. The article (i.e., Wikipedia) does not make a POV assertion either overtly or covertly. (And Wikipedia can't even verify your claim that the referred source makes a POV assertion without another reliable source that says that.)
Using a variation on your fallacy, I could fallaciously blame you for getting dozens of journalists killed last year by being a messenger of this dangerous myth. Of course, you're not personally blamable for journalists being killed, and Wikipedia isn't blamable for the statements of reliable sources with which your minority personal opinion doesn't agree.
Chahko (14:24): "You can wax on about how the word referred saves the day but really it is just the vehicle..."
Minus the messenger blame fallacy, I don't disagree that "referred" is a vehicle. That's what encyclopedia references do. If you don't like references, you don't like encyclopedias, are not a member of the project, and have no business editing here.
Chahko (14:24): "...for the more powerful word cult to point it's finger at the groups listed"
I see you didn't learn the most important concept at Cult: "cult" isn't a powerful word, it's a powerful spelling, c-u-l-t, containing at least eight homonym words. The power comes partly from ambiguous misunderstanding, for example, when a criminally abusive cult is placed on the same list with an anti-Trinitarian theological cult, and/or an ancient cult(us) of veneration.
Disambiguating individual cult listings was difficult at LOGRTAC, but not impossible, had there been a group of editors in 2008 as cooperative as those in 2006. Had LOGRTAC survived, it could have been used to help disambiguate LOGRTACIGR, but without it, disambiguating individual cult listings at LOGRTACIGR appears unlikely.
Chahko (14:24): "What you can say is that the governments wrote these reports and this is what was in them."
Wikipedia is about verification, not reality. The governments verifiably called the specifically-listed groups as cults. The article title reflects that verification.
Chahko (14:24): "You and Milo will have to guard it day and night until you die if it stays as LOGRTACIGD."
Now you've got me worried that I might drink the Kool-Aid and become a ' Wikiped ' – my term for a devotee of the Wikipedia cult (find "fervour"). See "Drinking the Kool-Aid". (Note: All cult topics editors should be aware that the original Peoples Temple cult beverage was Flavor Aid.)
Milo 23:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Aren't you supposed to be looking at the experience of the reader? I'm wondering if you love of debate has caused you to loose sight of that. What experience do you want them to have? Chahko Mika 04:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chee Chahko (talk • contribs)
Chahko (04:28): "you love of debate"
I reject any attempt to paint me as some sort of intellectual mammonist.
Anyway, debate is a tool. If one likes to build cabinets, one does not necessarily fetish the tools necessary to construct them.
Chahko (04:28): "What experience do you want them to have"
I want readers to be able to find what they are looking for, with disambiguation if possible, but certainly without whitewashing and censorship. Milo 00:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion untrammelled by artificially-imposed categories

The suggestion thast we regard "cult" as a "powerful" word overstates the importance of a mere word. Wikipedians do not fear or shun unpopular or allegedly biased words: they take them and de-mystify them by discussing the concepts behind the words in a balanced and neutral manner. That happens in articles rather than in article titles. A personal perception that people may react more strongly to one word rather than another need not influence our quest for accuracy and comprehensiveness. -- Pedant17 (talk) 03:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The claim that "referred" classes as a legalistic word in Wkipedia circles appears does not invalidate the use of that word. Wikipedia uses "referred" in normal English semantic senses as far as I can detect. -- Pedant17 (talk) 03:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with the contention that Wikipedia should not state that group X and group Y ... "are" cults. That sort of identity-labelling has inherent problems under the WP:NPOV policy. But I see no reason why Wikipedia cannot state that government A persecutes group X and/or that government B suppresses group Y and/or that government C regards group Z as a "cult" -- provided we have reliable sources to back each contention. -- Pedant17 (talk) 03:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I wish to thank User: Chee Chahko for elaborating on the concept of the alleged "taint" of the word "referred". I see the word "referred" as actually weakening any implication of imposing or accepting a "cult"-label. Take the suggested title: "List of government documents on cults". That title implies that things called "cults" exist and that governments have put out documents on them as "calts". Compare our existing title: "List of groups referred to as cults in government documents". It gives no indication that cults actually exist: just that groups exist. It gives no necessary indication that those who wrote or approved the government documents have labelled the said groups as "cults" -- only that someone mentioned/quoted within the documents have made some sort of group/cult link. (In the case of the Belgian and French lists, information from third parties often made the connection without the final document reflecting an in-depth study of the potential cultishness of every mentioned group.) -- In the cause of "bullet-proofing" the information in our current article, the current title seems likely to attract less of the unwarranted flak. -- Pedant17 (talk) 03:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Pedant17 (03:26): "implies that things called "cults" exist"
This included issue was covered by one of the inconveniently-deleted discussions at TalkLOGRTAC, the key part of which reads:

"During the second Category:Cult suicides CfD (here, September 2007), there were ringing endorsements for Wikipedia to consense that the word "cult" is contextually acceptable to use at Wikipedia, and that certain specific groups are in fact, cults ("...cases where the group has earned and largely caused the negative connotations of the word, and is uncontroversially regarded as a cult among reliable sources." --Lonewolf BC (16:20, 21 Sep 2007)).... Milo 09:19, 5 May 2008"

In general, Wikipedia consenses that the less than 20 Destructive cults are groups describable by name as being cults without using "referred-to-as"; for example, 'the Peoples Temple cult'. Milo 08:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The suggestion that changing the title will lead to a more stable article has no relevance. We expect all Wikipedia artcles to grow, change and evolve. Wikipedians do not "guard" articles (see WP:OWN) -- they merely nudge them in the direction of increased encyclopedic excellence. -- Pedant17 (talk) 03:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The claim that "even if the group names are removed, the links won't ever be" appears alarming. Apart from entertaining the purging of valid content from our article, this scenario would disadvantage many of the readers of the English Wikipedia who may lack fluency in other languages. Even readers of French/German/Flemish may face problems as material moves or gets archived on sites over which Wikipedians have no control. To maximize the availability of quality information we need material (translated if necessary) summarized within our own encyclopedia and impeccably linked to (date-stamped) external documentation. -- Pedant17 (talk) 03:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Have we resolved the suggestion of WP:COI in this discussion at all? -- Pedant17 (talk) 03:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Not as far as I'm concerned.
If there had been three sockpuppets here at Talk:LOGRTACIGD, this page would be crawling with checkuser, pattern analysis, and/or admin action links.
Losing LOGRTAC to a WP:COI setup for AfD has affected this article in several ways, possibly the most important of which is the resulting inability to use LOGRTAC to disambiguate LOGRTACIGD.
The Cult article has experienced several WP:COI whitewashing attacks.
The AfD of LOGRTAC gives a WP:COI green light to, among others, nationalists, big businesses, and governments. (Previously, I've discovered the phone company censoring Wikipedia.)
Many organizations noticing an unwanted article content and having enough stealth-WP:COI editors, can find ways to whitewash, jam, pseudo-controversy to AfD, or otherwise make verifiable negative facts inaccessible. Among other tools, sophist propaganda that fewer college graduates would buy into, plays well with naive high school students who've never studied fallacies.
The June 2008 LOGRTAC article deconstruction by WP:COI hijackers – gaming a false-issue AfD of a massively-referenced, relatively successful, and further improvable article – should have set off alarms all the way up to Jimbo.
The silence is deafening. Milo 08:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Pendant: What COI discussion were you referring to? Was it what Milo was talking about?
Milo: I think I saw somewhere that you can request talk pages be restored. I had found them very useful to review the history of LOGRTAC. I'm sure others will too. I just can't remember where that was. Also, Maybe the LOGRTAC deletion happened because the article:
(1) had a weak and POV title. Pendant had a nice technical explanation of how referred to works but for eons people in the history have complained that referred to as is technically correct but contrary to the spirit of NPOV.
(2) was unable to avoid the ire of groups referred to as cults but not in the negative way because the 1920's rule was too artificial. The Kingdom of the Cults book talked about groups functioning in 1920 and so 1920 was a wierd date to make a cut off
(3) thus swung from POV to gibberish forever and would never be stableized?
It's those three arguments that led me to make my proposal of a title change to a subject that is less controversial but delivers the same information for the reader, with the same attraction. I know some editors will die on the groups referred to as cult hill because it was consensed but maybe it was a consensed mistake. I don't think it occurs anywhere else in Wikipedia.
BTW, I seem to be the only Title Changer participating in this discussion. If noone else cares about this I'm happy for the discussion to conclude. Chahko Mika 13:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion moved from Wikipedia:Requested moves

Just in case you did not notice, there is discussion of the rename at Wikipedia:Requested moves#30 June 2008. --Justallofthem (talk) 12:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

That discussion doesn't seem to match the convention on that page. Shouldn't it be conducted here? Chee Chahko (talk) 15:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
This is a different issue. I posted to the "Incomplete and contested proposals" area, but they seem too seriously understaffed to work on contested proposals (rename listings), so they just dumped it here. Milo 08:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I came here from WP:RM. I am opposed to any rename starting with "List of Government Documents". This is a list of Groups, not a list of Documents. DigitalC (talk) 07:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

--Begin section copied from WP:RM by User:JPG-GR--

  • Oppose premature, undiscussed listing biasing the outcome to this particular title, since that's what editors here will see first. At least seven titles are listed on the page, plus the existing title. The lister took unilateral action before even participating in the debate. The lister, jossi, has a WP:COI personal and financial conflict-of-interest, as a member and employee of Prem Rawat organizations related to Foundation Elan vital and Divine Light Mission, which are unfavorably listed by a government or referenced on the page in contention. Milo 04:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose agree with Milomedes (talk · contribs) that this is premature, as there is not "clear consensus" on the article's talk page for this - in fact, there is not consensus at all but strong opposition of this potential change voiced by multiple contributors. Cirt (talk) 21:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - as more NPOV and accurate title. There is considerable support for this move on the talk page; support and oppose are fairly equally divided. Milo's arguments against bringing this here are specious and border on violation of WP:AGF. His characterization of jossi is definitely a violation of WP:AGF as will be his no doubt upcoming characterization of me personally. I notice that neither Milo nor "agree-er" Cirt offer any reason to oppose the move, they simply object to jossi's entirely appropriate listing here.

    "This page may be seen as a place to advertise move debates that would benefit from wider community input"

    --Justallofthem (talk) 14:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

--End section copied from WP:RM by User:JPG-GR-->

Justallofthem (14:08): "definitely a violation of WP:AGF"
I'm sure you'll enlighten us as to which of my statements isn't exactly as I have represented it above?
And if you can't... ah... that puts you in violation of WP:AGF.
Milo 08:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - I'm still in favor. I haven't seen a good argument against it yet. Chee Chahko (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Sigh, you don't seem to be aware of what you're voting for. This was a vote to support or oppose the listing at WP:RM. Milo 08:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Milo, you constantly push the boundaries of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. I advise all who are the subject of your crap to ignore it and carry on regardless - the obvious point of it being to divert attention from the discussions at hand and indeed to discourage discussion altogether and drive off editors that oppose Milo (bullying). Obvious crap is obvious. Just knock it off please, Milo. It serves no useful purpose. --Justallofthem (talk) 16:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for backing off of the "definitely" claim. I assure you of my firm intention to not step over the boundaries, and I ask the same of others.
Characterizing my positions as "crap" is WP:Pot-kettle-pushing the WP:CIV boundaries yourself.
Your post didn't go off the deep end until an unlucky 13 minutes later when you couldn't resist adding another ill-considered accusation. If you can't prove it, I expect you to strike it.
Justallofthem (16:43): "obvious point of it being to divert attention from the discussions at hand"
They weren't at hand. I posted on a different topic, and I posted on a different page. You drew attention to it here, by starting this section that you now claim is a diversion of attention from the discussions at hand. Unaccountably, you seem to be trying to blame me for what you did. Milo 23:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Look buddy! Your harrassment is getting on my nerves. I'm not talking to you any more, so save your keystrokes. Chee Chahko (talk) 13:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
So you're unhappy because I gently pointed out that you didn't understand what you were voting for? 'Thank you' would put you in a better light than "Look buddy!".
I'm personally sympathetic to your plight of delicate nerves, but alas, league debate is not for the delicate.
More newb: WP:Harassment is a serious charge. Wolf-crying that word over trivial complaints about your nerves will toast your credibility. Be wise and strike it while you still can. Milo 23:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
(9_9) Chahko Mika 03:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Summary of arguments against change

Since we have a new visitor, I will summarize the arguments against to save any new visitors the trouble of wading through previous talk. Anyone else that argues against may edit or add to my remarks but will those that argue for the change please not start threaded discussion here.

  1. The change dilutes the value of the page. The value of the page is that the "reports" listed carry some official weight. Since some would like to include "documents" that carry no official weight, the value of the article is diluted.
  2. The change is redundant since we already have an article, List of groups referred to as cults, to cover general RS references. If the "documents" do not carry the weight of the issuing government then the discussion simply becomes "Are they RS?" If they are then they can go in the more general article.

This is all for now, especially as I am allegedly on wikibreak, this being one of two issues I have pending. --Justanother 12:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Summary of arguments for change

Discuss of above "against" and "for" arguments

I'm trying to follow Justanother's instructions ("argue against"):
1. "The value of the page is that the "reports" listed carry some official weight. Since some would like to include "documents" that carry no official weight, the value of the article is diluted.".
Essentially this is an argument that artificially dicotomizes (divides into two parts) what is a natural continuum of minimal to much official weight, partly based on differing political perceptions (for example, the U.S. lower bicameral House gets fairly vocal at periodic suggestions that they are less important than the Senate). There is a range of government "official weights" that Wikipedia can't exactly rank without legitimate dispute. I think the better answer is to describe the sources, explain how the fact-checked words get made public, describe rankings generally, and explain that there are some inexact government "official weights" for which the reader will need to decide a ranked importance (e.g., it passed only one house, part of it passed, part of it was vetoed, part of it was later deprecated but not retracted by the executive, etc).
2. "The change is redundant" I wish this were true, but currently, it isn't for two reasons:
Reason A: As I recall it, there is currently no consensus to put any government report or document references in List of groups referred to as cults (LOGRTAC). (Justanother is invited to join me (Milo), Will Beback and maybe Antonrojo(?) in consensing the return of fact-checked government references to LOGRTAC.)
Reason B: LOGRTAC is currently a list article with sidebar criteria and disclosures, while LOGRTACIGR has heavy item-specific text sections, which is why there is considerable support for textifying LOGRTACIGR by dropping "List of".
Milo 22:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

OR

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

All of the lists refer to "cults", in the cult sense of the term. There is no ambiguity here, and certainly no synthesis or OR, as the material is simply presented at face value, with no original analysis or assumptions drawn. Cirt (talk) 21:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean by "face value"? If it is presented at face value please remove all references to something other than "cult". Many/most of the European documents refer to "sect" and not cult. If the actual term is not used some criteria for inclusion has to be made to justify conclusion.PelleSmith (talk) 21:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
You are talking about semantics of language. The term "cult" is not used in certain other European countries, they use "sect" or "secte" to refer to the exact same thing, thus in an English-language encyclopedia wiki inclusion of both in this article is quite appropriate. Cirt (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I am not talking about "semantics of language" at all, I'm talking about an incoherent subject matter that currently lacks definition. "Exact same thing" being what? Sociologists and psychologists do not use the term "cult" the way anti-cult activists do. Religious studies scholars often use it to refer to cultus and not new religious movements. On who's athority are we to take that the European "sect" is equivalent to the North American "cult"? In what social contexts is it closest to equivalent? I can answer that last one for you if you want, but it is not a social context that should be defining a subject matter for an encyclopedia.PelleSmith (talk) 21:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
You may be familiar with this concept already: in many countries, the term "sect" takes on the negative meanings associated with the word "cult." The two terms are considered synonyms in some cases. With respect to this usage used by these government documents as listed on this page, the usage of these words is synonymous. Cirt (talk) 21:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
"In many countries?" Which countries? The statement you link says -- "The two terms are considered synonyms in some cases." This is not verification for the specific cases presented in the entry being synonymous. So I ask again by whose authority do we have it that they are synonymous? Yours? That's what it sounds like as of now. How is that not original research?PelleSmith (talk) 21:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
You seem to be raising a larger issue of the usage of these words in the naming of articles and usage in article text across many pages, not simply this one. So far it is common practice and knowledge that the usage referring to "cult" in the English language is synonymous with "sect" in other languages. I am not sure how you would see fit to remedy this situation apart from going to France, Germany, etc., and asking all the speakers of those languages to shift from using the word "sect", to all start using the word "cult", to refer to the exact same thing... Cirt (talk) 21:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I suggest doing what we do at every entry. Using reliable sources to verify entry content. How is that such a novel idea?PelleSmith (talk) 22:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
That is exactly what is already being done here. Please remove the tag. Cirt (talk) 22:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the tag should remain until reliable sources verify the claims you are making for inclusion of content that does not use the term "cult" or until the article title reflects the current content. All you have responded with is "this is common knowledge" so far. If it is common then you can source it no problem. This entry is subject to our policies regarding verification just as much as any other entry is. The OR tag is better than the current one but you seemed particularly allergic to it so I used the SYNTH tag.PelleSmith (talk) 22:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Again, each entry is directly sourced to the accompanying government document. There is no "synthesis", or "original research" going on here - simply recounting of the facts from the documents themselves. Thus, this tag is inappropriate and its continued placement disruptive. Cirt (talk) 22:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Then I ask again to delete all references other than to "cult". The government documents do not all refer to the groups as "cults". If they did we would not be having this discussion and you would not have linked religioustolerance.org. If there is a criteria for including groups that are called something other than "cult" this should be spelled out an sourced. Otherwise it is your original research that the groups not called "cult" explicitly should be included. I suggest posting to the original research noticeboard if you do not see it that way. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 22:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Please be more specific about which specific report and/or group you object to being included in this list. Cirt (talk) 22:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

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

You seem to be mistaken. The Canadian report is clearly about cults, the word cult is itself used in the report several times. There are multiple WP:RS sources that show that in this specific usage "sect" in other languages is synonymous with "cult", I can provide these here on the talk page. Cirt (talk) 04:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Great lets see them.PelleSmith (talk) 11:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
By the way what is the objection to changing the title to something that actually describes the content without these terminological or translational issues? What is wrong with something like Religious movements identified as dangerous or possibly dangerous in government documents? A title like that doesn't simply solve translational problems but also semantic problems regarding "cult" within the English language, of which there are several.PelleSmith (talk) 11:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Another suggestion might be List of religious movements classified as "cults" or "sects" in government documents. The lede would explain the inclusion criteria ...in what sense the two terms can be seen as interchangeable between cultural and linguistic contexts. As it is this entry simply assumes one English use of "cult" and equates it without explanation or verification with one European use of "sect".PelleSmith (talk) 13:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

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

A partial fix of the OR issue?

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

These changes look alright. Hopefully we can also get some commentary from individuals that have not been directly associated with/influenced by these groups themselves, for some NPOV balance. Cirt (talk) 14:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Further input is needed for sure. However I'm not sure I understand your implication. Do you mean commentary from sources by scholars who have not been associated with these groups (implying that Richardson and Robbins have)? Or do you mean commentary from editors who have been so influenced? I hope you don't mean the latter since I in no way belong to such a category and other than yourself am the only other commentator here presently. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 15:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I was referring to the authors. Cirt (talk) 15:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 15:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


Points in lede

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

Empty space in templates

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

Agree that the edit was not constructive and also agree that formatting references in that manner may be one of the more annoying things I've encountered editing Wikipedia. I come across this all the time in NRM/cult related entries and it makes editing very cumbersome indeed.PelleSmith (talk) 03:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Cirt (talk) 03:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Non-constructive edits by Pedant17

[11] = edits violate WP:OR and added awkwardness to the article. Cirt (talk) 03:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed.PelleSmith (talk) 05:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
If someone can point out in what manner each of the edits may violate WP:OR (as alleged), then we can discuss and improve each of those individual edits before returning to editing the article. Moreover, if someone can point out in what manner each of the edits "add awkwardness" (as alleged), then we can discuss and improve each of those individual edits before returning to editing the article, trading off any alleged "awkwardness" for better sourcing and a more precise encyclopedic style that Wikipedia can aspire to. Furthermore, if someone can point out in what manner each of the edits appears "non-constructive" (as alleged), then we can discuss and improve each of those individual edits before returning to editing the article. -- Pedant17 (talk) 22:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
  1. Adds awkward large amounts of extra spacing to the article, breaking up lines for every single field in the citations, which is unnecessary and makes the article bulkier to edit.
  2. Adds passive awkward wording to the lede which degrades the writing quality of the lede.
  3. Adds WP:OR to subsection Austria.

Multiple other reasons, and per consensus above that edits are inappropriate and reduce quality of the article. Cirt (talk) 07:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I refute each of these allegations, as follows:
Allegation of awkward large amounts of spacing

The allegation that my edit added "awkward large amounts of extra spacing" does not hold water. I inserted a few (very few) carriage-returns to break up and clarify the boundaries of some existing citations. I also added some new citations (using standard templates which happened to include a certain amount of white-space) and ensured that redundant empty fields do not appear. In each case I made the article easier to edit and more visibly appealing in edit-mode. Anyone objecting to the use of citation-templates in standard format can can edit them to their taste. provided we do not lose material. But such editing would appear unnecessary and would make the article more difficult to review and to edit. -- Pedant17 (talk) 00:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Allegation of adding passive awkward wording to the lede

Since my edit added no passive wording to the lede, I therefore reject the suggestion that such putative editing has degraded "the writing quality of the lede". On the contrary, I refrained from cleaning up the passive awkwardness of "have been referred to as"... -- Pedant17 (talk) 00:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Allegation of adding "Original Research" to the section on Austria

In editing the section on Austria:

  • I changed the phrase "the Federal Ministry of the Environment, Youth and the Family, in Austria" to read "Austria's Federal Ministry of the Environment, Youth and the Family". I do not regard this as adding WP:OR.
  • I helpfully added a "Failed verification" tag to a citation that failed verification. I do not regard this as adding WP:OR.
  • I added a real live citation to supplement the failed one. My new citation related more directly to the text about the Austrian Ministry's publication, linking directly to a PDF copy of an edition of that publication (which included lists of cultic groups). I also linked to a site explaining the provenance of that text. I do not regard any of this WP:V activity as adding WP:OR.
  • I inserted a couple of carriage-returns to mark the end of another citation clearly. I do not regard this as adding WP:OR.

Overall, I reject the suggestion that I have added any WP:OR to the section on Austria. -- Pedant17 (talk) 00:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Allegation of "multiple other reasons"

I cannot comment on vague aspersions in reply to my appeal for detailed demonstration of the alleged deleterious effects of each of my edits. I await further details. -- Pedant17 (talk) 00:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Allegation of "inappropriate" edits "per consensus"

The only instance in the existing talk-page which I can identify as possibly implying some sort of consensus occurs when User:PelleSmith appears to agree (without giving any reasons) with the unfounded, devoid-of-detail allegation that my edits "violate[d] WP:OR and added awkwardness to the article". If we do regard such casual agreement as "consensus", I hereby dispute that "consensus". I note that that pseudo-consensus made no reference to "inappropriate[ness]" or to "reduc[ing]" the "quality of the article" (whatever "quality of the article" means...) It seems to me that the goal-posts keep shifting. -- If I have made some obvious blunder(s) that merit{s) the wholesale reversion of my edit then let's hear about it in plain language. -- Pedant17 (talk) 00:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

How about if you propose one change you would like to see introduced, instead of these mass edits that degrade the writing quality of the article? Thank you, Cirt (talk) 01:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I've made no "mass edits" - merely a series of comparatively minor enhancements, many of them discussed and justified above. Please prove the contrary if possible. I've done nothing deliberately to "degrade the writing quality of the article" (whatever that may mean) - though I remain willing to discuss any details (as opposed to vagaries) that anyone may care to put forward. Nevertheless, I welcome the suggestion of proposing one change: I propose, barring substantive and reasoned and detailed objections, to restore the reverted sections of this edit - an edit which no-one has succeeded in explaining or justifying in any respect. -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Please propose a single change. Then, we can discuss that proposed change, here on the talk page. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 03:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I have proposed a single change. Let the discussion (if any) resume. -- Pedant17 (talk) 00:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
What single change? Please specify. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 00:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
You'll have noted in my edit of 2010-03-15 (which had the edit-summary "proposed single change") that I wrote: "I welcome the suggestion of proposing one change: I propose, barring substantive and reasoned and detailed objections, to restore the reverted sections of this edit - an edit which no-one has succeeded in explaining or justifying in any respect." I continue to await any counter-arguments to the points I have already raised. -- Pedant17 (talk) 00:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
That edit includes multiple different disruptive non-consensus changes. Please perhaps could you propose one thing to change? Then, we can discuss it, here on the talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 03:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
That edit, made as a single undo, does make undesirable changes, as already thoroughly discussed. Barring some objection, I propose reverting it accordingly. -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
There is significant objection. This has already been discussed. I strongly oppose reverting it, it would not be "accordingly", rather, it would be inappropriate and a violation of site policies. Please, do not do so. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 23:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
If significant objection really does exist, let's hear the reasons (apart from the reasons already discussed and rejected). -- If we've already discussed all matters of import, why did you call for further detailed discussion (as on 2010-03-15 and on 2010-04-25) ? If we need further discussion, why has nobody responded to my repeated calls for discussion (2010-01-29, 2010-03-15, 2010-04-22, 2010-04-25) ? -- If you "strongly oppose reverting", why did you characterize the edit which I propose to revert "accordingly" as including "multiple different disruptive non-consensus changes" ? -- In what way do you regard it as "inappropriate" to improve and expand and correct articles? -- What specific Wikipedia policies would a reversion violate, and in what specific ways? -- I do get the impression that you do not wish to tolerate or even discuss my proposed edits in this article, but procedures call for discussion in such cases. Absent discussion, I'll revert http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_groups_referred_to_as_cults_or_sects_in_government_documents&diff=321317575&oldid=321310675 . -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
There is not consensus for your disruptive changes. Your repeated statements claiming an absence of response somehow equals wholehearted support for your disruptive changes, is completely inappropriate and patently ridiculous. -- Cirt (talk) 01:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Since my proposed change would disrupt nothing and since no fact-based consensus exists, I invite (again) discussion of my proposed enhancements. Discussion (rather than hectoring assertion) may result in consensus (or even "wholehearted support"!). Absence of discussion may result in an edit. OK? -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
No, "absence of discussion" does not equal support for changes by Pedant17 (talk · contribs). The user Pedant17 repeatedly attempts to push this inappropriate assertion across multiple different talk pages. -- Cirt (talk) 02:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
The only surviving opposition to my proposed changes consists of repeated talk-page disruptions of the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT type coupled with an apparent general reluctance to discuss improvement proposals, so I propose to go back (after about 7 months of fruitless attempts at discussion) to editing the article boldly. -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Odd, your comments actually are a good description of your own behavior and obfuscation. Please, suggest an individual change, so we can discuss it, here on the talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 02:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Table?

Content and pov issues aside, this article could really use some tables for ease of readability. Has that come up for discussion? 71.224.206.164 (talk) 09:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It is an interesting idea, but it might be harder to maintain. If you could register an account on Wikipedia, perhaps then you could give an example in your userspace. Cirt (talk) 10:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Disruption by Pedant17

[12] -- The disruption yet again continues by Pedant17 (talk · contribs), making non-constructive disruptive changes to the page without consensus. A similar pattern of inappropriate behavior, across multiple articles on Wikipedia. -- Cirt (talk) 04:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

They criminalized religions?

Tell me that's not true. 184.96.217.200 (talk) 22:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

yes in certain contries they have out lawed a number of minority religions The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Selective choice of countries

The only lists of cults come from Western European countries. The entries for Australia and the US seem to just be incidental mentions. Also how about China or Russia, or even the old USSR? Didn't they also have lists of religions they didn't like? BigJim707 (talk) 17:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The real topic of the article seems to be the lists, not the groups. Some groups are mentioned more than once. A better title would be "Governmental lists of cults and sects." IMO that is. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Agree. That would be a more sensible title. BigJim707 (talk) 05:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

United States?

Do the examples from the United States really fit in? They seem to just be incidental mentions of some "cults," but not any kind of "governmental list." BayShrimp (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

No objections in a month. I will change. Already done by someone else. BayShrimp (talk) 19:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Belgium - Parliamentary Inquiry Commission (1997)

Does the list of organisations in the Belgian Parliamentary Inquiry Commission (1997) report belong here? The report was issued, containing a list of movements and stated that being on the list "does not signify that the commission regards it as a cult". Then parliament did not adopt the report (or the list), instead opting to accept the conclusions of the report. So, being on the list in this unadopted report does not mean that the government of Belgium maintains this list at all (and event explicitly denies it). At best, we are left with a primary source (the unadopted report) and the very best secondary source possible elected not to endorse or adopt it. It occurs to me that we should not have the list here. Tgeairn (talk) 22:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

"Despite the lack of adoption of the list, the commission published the whole report, including the list." - so it's a list published by the government - criteria for inclusion is: "lists maintained by governments in which groups are referred to as "cults" or similar." Zambelo; talk 14:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
The sources say: Dr. Jan Van Erps, a CVP member of the House of Representatives, said "The Commission has indeed been very negligent and biased in its work. That is why I and a substantial majority of my colleagues at the CVP have refused to adopt the report of activities, have rejected the famous list and have only adopted the general lines of the recommendations. (…) As you certainly know, the report was not even proposed to the vote. (…)".
Additionally, the report itself says inclusion on the list "does not signify that the commission regards it as a cult". This is not a list endorsed by or in any way maintained by the government of Belgium.
As an aside, you may find it interesting that "sociologists of religions were not consulted" in the creation of this list. There is nothing here to support inclusion of this list. Tgeairn (talk) 15:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Whether or not some disagreed with elements of the report, as Zambelo pointed out, it was partially acted upon and published by Belgium and this alone supports inclusion on this list. Moreover, this report is cited in scholarship and either reason alone would be grounds enough to retain it here. Almost every report of any kind from any government will have supporters and detractors, which is no reason to blank. • Astynax talk 18:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't think the issue is whether or not some agreed/disagreed with it (as you say, that will almost always happen). The issue is that the government refused to adopt the report. The quote above is from a prominent MP (and from our own source) explicitly stating that the reason parliament did not adopt it ("rejected it") is because the commission was negligent and biased in their work. It is clear that the government of Belgium did not and does not maintain this list nor does Belgium call the listed parties cults or sects. This article is supposed to be a list of governmental lists of cults and sects ("lists maintained by governments in which groups are referred to as "cults" or similar"), and the government of Belgium explicitly said that this is not a list they (the government) are adopting/maintaining/endorsing. We cannot call it such (and cannot list it here) when they so clearly say that it is not that thing. Tgeairn (talk) 18:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Again, the government did publish it along with the rest of the commission's report, although it only adopted the conclusions portion of the report, and again, the report (including referencing the list) is cited in reliable scholarly works. • Astynax talk 19:35, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

falun gong?

i came here from a link on the falun gong talk page. the article now says:

The General Office of Ministry of Public Security of the People's Republic of China maintains a list of what it considers "evil cults," (邪教) entitled "Information Regarding the Organizations Already Identified as Cults."

the paragraph concludes

In 2001 Falun Gong was added to the list.[11]

here's the reference: US Commission on International Religious Freedom, 2001, US GPO, page 28

link: http://www.uscirf.gov/sites/default/files/resources/stories/pdf/Annual_Report/2001annRpt.pdf

there's nothing about this on page 28. elsewhere in the report, i could not find this claim.

the precise process of the labeling of this group is no doubt complicated. i don't know the full story. but it doesn't seem that flg is on that psb list. Happy monsoon day 03:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The claim is simply a misunderstanding. It is not existed in the report or in any Chinese law or formal government document. In China only the media controlled by Jiang Zemin gang put such 'evil cult' label on Falun Gong. Marvin 2009 (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
user:STSC added the so-called evi cult label to Falun Gong again. In fact, the laws passed so far in China have not mentioned Falug Gong at all. I tried to stop his disruptive edit one time. He added a warning on my talk page after that. STSC launched an edit war again. Marvin 2009 (talk) 12:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Though STSC has changed the groundless evil cult label to outlaw, this is still simply not true. STSC put a such a line "Standing Committee of the National People's Congress issued an anti-cult law outlawing Falun Gong". But in fact, the law passed by Standing Committee of the National People's Congress never mentioned Falun Gong at all.China government listed overall 14 cults in China - http://dailynews.sina.com/gb/chn/chnnews/ausdaily/20140602/20545775573.html There is no Falun Gong at all. Marvin 2009 (talk) 13:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
stsc can you weigh in on this? indeed falun gong doesn't appear in the link that marvin provided. in the source you provided, it says " The Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPC) issued an anti-cult law on October 30, 1999 to prevent and combat cults such as the now banned Falun Gong sect" but it doesn't seem to indicate that it added flg to a list of cults. thoughts?Happy monsoon day 16:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
China has identified FG as a cult and banned it, whether it's on the list or not. What are you people disputing? Have I touched a nerve? STSC (talk) 18:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
i'm asking for a source which shows that flg has been officially identified as a cult, among the list of officially identified cults, by the chinese state. you've not provided a source for that. (the chinese embassy website is too vague. btw, i believe it to be true, i'm just requesting the actual official chinese source for this legislation.) please refrain from making personal comments. Happy monsoon day 19:03, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
The source from the Chinese embassy is good enough. Please try Google if you wanna find out more? STSC (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
The CCP source is unreliable on this topic. Plus， as i mentioned above, even this unreliable source did not say 'evil cult'. The 'outlaw label' is not true, either. If you can dig in this topic on google a bit, you will find the proof for the statement i made above "the law passed by Standing Committee of the National People's Congress never mentioned Falun Gong at all". In actuality, the China government organizations, like State Council, Public Security Department, listed the overall 14 evil cults inside mainland China a few times. There is no Falun Gong in the lists. Only Jiang Zemin and his illegal 610 Office put 'evil cult' label on Falun Gong. Some CCP websites follow Jiang's illegal cult 610, instead of following the laws passed by National People's Congress and regulations from State Council, Public Security Department. Marvin 2009 (talk) 20:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
STSC made a common mistake. Please check The illegality of China's Falun Gong crackdown—and today's rule of law repercussions. It says: "National People’s Congress Decision from October 30, 1999: In addition to the above documents issued in the early days of the persecution, several months later, another set of decisions was published, which have often been seen to form a legal foundation for persecuting Falun Gong. However, when examined closely, it becomes evident that, they too, do not legally ban Falun Gong. On October 30, 1999, China’s National People's Congress Standing Committee ratified a “Decision to Ban, Safeguard Against, and Punish Cult Activities.” In analysis by human rights groups and legal scholars, this is often cited as the basis for the campaign. However, it contradicted Article 36 of the Constitution, rendering it invalid. In addition, the document did not specifically mention Falun Gong." In fact, any Chinese law or Chinese government's formal notice never put Falun Gong in an evil cult list. Since 1999, China State Council and China Public Security Department have published evil cult lists for a few times. All organizations are considered as evil cults by Chinese government are listed. But Falun Gong has never been put in those lists. Please check: 2014: 14 Evil Cults in China 2000/5/10 Chinese Public Security Dept: Notice on Identified and Banned cults and Related Issues] Only Jiang Zemin's gang has been using such an 'evil cult' label on Falun Gong through Jiang controlled medias and websites. Media or website reports are neither Chinese law nor Chinese government regulations.Marvin 2009 (talk) 21:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
FG was no longer active in China therefore it's not included in the list of 14 active cults. The anti-cult law has effectively outlawed FG as a cult; to say because FG is not mentioned then it's not illegal is just silly because no law in the world would mention who the offenders would be. And Article 36 does not apply to FG as FG is not a legitimate religion like Christianity in China. STSC (talk) 03:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
STSC's view regarding "no longer active" is not correct. The fact that tens of millions people are practising FG in today China is what STSC is aware of. (Note:Those info were provided by western scholars in Falun Gong page.) Nulla poena sine lege (Latin: no penalty without a law) is a legal principle, requiring that one cannot be punished for doing something that is not prohibited by law. In 1999, because all other 6 top CCP officials opposed Jiang Zemin's proposal for cracking down FG. Jiang created an extra-judicial, Gestapo-like agency, called 610 Office and launched the inhuman persecution via 610. The USA Congressional Executive Commission on China says 610 office is the extralegal, Party-run security apparatus created in June 1999 to implement the Party's ban against Falun Gong. 610's organ harvesting crime, etc. show 610 is an actual evil gang or cult, though 610 often put such labels on FG. Today, many of 610 top officials in China, like Zhou Yongkang, Li Dongsheng, have been put into prison. STSC seems to be in favor of various 610 propaganda, but those 610 demonized evil cult label has no Chinese legal base at all and should not be used to disturb Wikipedia. Marvin 2009 (talk) 11:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Whatever, everyone in China is aware of FG being banned as a cult by the government so there's no need to include FG in the list. I want to be fair on this because the topic is about the governmental lists so I don't insist on putting Falun Gong in the article. STSC (talk) 16:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

ok, so in the end we remove the content for precisely the reasons that were raised in the first place: lack of sourcing. so be it. Happy monsoon day 18:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

No, because FG is not in the governmental list. STSC (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
STSC: FG was banned in China on July 22 1999. 3pm of that day, CCTV announced it. At that time, there was no mentioning of evil cult or cult, or anything like that at all. Jiang expected to remove FG in 3 months. But Chinese officials and people everywhere had a good knowledge of FG, and believed Jiang made an unnecessary fuss. Jiang's crackdown movement was not strictly followed. By October 19999, Jiang was obviously failed. So Jiang upgraded the banning label to so-called evil cult through People's Daily and ordered the People's Congress pass a law for defaming FG in the end of October 1999. After that, the congress had to pass one law, but the new law does not mention FG at all. The government's evil cult lists that was made by following the new law never mentioned FG. So your assumption ' banned as a cult' is totally wrong. In China and in the world, many people know theses facts, except for those who were misguided by Jiang's evil cult - 610 office. After Jiang put the cult label on media, Chinese government, congress and people still did not follow Jiang. Jiang was still not able to remove FG. So by January 2001, Jiang ordered to stage the self immolation event for defaming FG as a cult. After that, many people in China fell into 610 office's trap. Chinese FG practitioners have been trying to clarify the fake self immolation event. Marvin 2009 (talk) 19:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Responding to this edit[13], be advised that the NPC law does not actually mention Falun Gong. This is why reliable, secondary source material is preferable. Anyway, there are bigger problems with the China section than just whether or not it lists this group, but I'll save that for another time. TheBlueCanoe 15:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Governmental lists of cults and sects. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 17:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

What's up with the intro?

So the beginning portion of this article has a few problems. It starts with this really vague numbered list of nine random groups that seem to be related to Australian definitions of cults? But it's not a subheading and none of them are linked or cited well? I'd fix it myself but I'm pretty new and not super comfy with formatting yet. Thrashunreality (talk) 04:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

MEK already listed in cult of personalities

The People's Mujahedin of Iran are already listed in Lists of Cult Personalities, which is also supported by the majority scholarship (see also here). Removing on that basis. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

American Cults

Why are there no American cults listed? 209.252.175.208 (talk) 00:35, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Governmental_lists_of_cults_and_sects/Archive_2&oldid=1108211092"