Talk:Political cult/Archive 1

A source

I read about this concept in a book by Janja Lalich. Andries 10:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Today terms.

This perception of political cult will change in the future as understanding of politics matures and reaches wider society.What you think of fascism and communism could be described as ideology today,defended in terms of politics,but its really a cult.Democratic Republic of North Korea comes to mind as example of living political cult.--Unsigned

===A few small communist and fascist groups are definitely cults. Some larger ideological groups may contain a cultic core or special formations organized in a cult-like fashion (according to some accounts, the Third International operatives from various countries in the 1930s were treated virtually as cult zombies by Stalin's cynical bureaucrats). Arguably, Himmler's SS included cultic formations trained at that castle (Wewelsburg?) where they supposedly performed something called the ceremony of the stifling air (possibly this is a street legend). As to North Korea it is definitely a totalitarian state with an intense leader-cult religion (probably the most intense such formation that has ever existed--one hesitates to describe it as a Stalin-style personality cult since even Stalin never strove for such a level of quasi-religious worship and regimentation). But I'm not sure the term "political cult" is appropriate in reference to North Korea, since the term has been used up until now exclusively to refer to relatively small groups that don't wield state power and that employ elaborate psychological manipulation of their followers as a substitute for the patronage and secret-police power of a post-revolutionary state.--Dking (Dennis King), 2 Sept 2006

To elaborate on the above: Patronage of a sort is a factor in holding together members of a political cult (for instance, the granting of a job with a party-run bookstore or a job within the party's propaganda arm that involves less drudgery and stress than street organizing). Likewise, a quasi-state terror can exist in the milieu of cult-like guerrilla movements (such as the Shining Path in the mountains of Peru) or even in the milieu of thuggish urban groups like the Oakland Black Panthers. So things are murkier than in my above formulation. Still, I would say that in a political cult psychological manipulation is primary and the threat or use of violence is secondary, while in a post-revolutionary state, political repression (including violent repression to varying degrees) is primary and psychological manipulation is secondary. Patronage is a buttressing factor in both instances, and the difference between cult patronage and post-revolutionary patronage is chiefly one of scale. As to ideology, in earlier generations it may have played a powerful independent role in this process but today it survives mostly as a useful framing for psychological manipulation (and I would include most radical forms of nationalism as psychological manipulation) or through the enforcement mechanism of a state apparatus.--Dking (Dennis King), 11 Sept 2006

Ayn Rand

I question if Objectivism is really a political cult. Rand's world-view and the Objectivist movement are more oriented to values, philosophy and self-help than to politics. Obviously Rand's thinking has had an impact on the libertarian Right but I don't see evidence that this impact has come through any kind of high commitment Objectivist political organization. I left the reference to Objectivism for now, but I believe it should be removed unless there is clear evidence to the contrary.--5 Aug. 2006

Original research in this article

The whole numbered list at the start strikes me as original research, particularly this line:

There are likely other characteristics that could be added to the above list. Persons who are members of a political cult might not be aware of this, and would tend to vigorously defend and justify their political beliefs.

This seems like another way of saying "this is what I think a political cult is." I think this article needs to be cleaned up in general. --Wafulz 03:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this sentence is not useful and have deleted it. --Dking 01:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Unwarranted deletion

BabyDweezil, you deleted the Newman organization as an example once before, saying that no citations had been given. I added the citations--from the Anti-Defamation League, from Political Research Associates (a group that has tracked political cults for 30 years), and from the scholarly book on political cults by Professor Tourish and Tim Wohlforth. I could add more but these should be sufficient. There is absolutely no foundation for removing this material that has been properly cited. Nor was there any foundation for removing legitimate links as you did in one of your most recent edits. As to your stylistic changes, I find most of them legitimate and will let them stand. However, I am restoring the adjective "bizarre" in the description of the Rand Collective's wedding of rightwing libertarian ideology and communist organizational style, since this accurately reflects what Murray Rothbard and Michael Shermer have written about this now defunct group.-- Dking 19:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed reference to Newman because it is in a section headed "examples of political cults" which makes it entirely POV. The notion that there is even such a thing as a political cult is POV, which is not discussed anywhere in the article, making it an OR essay. I will edit the article and the reference to Newman to conform to NPOV as best as possible, even though this article is entirely speculative. And the description of the Rand Collective as "bizarre" will be removed, its entirely POV. You should find a reference and phrase it properly. And Tourish and Wohlforth is a trade book, not a scholarly one. BabyDweezil 22:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The leftwing review you cited didn't oppose the idea of political cults. The reviewer said he was open to considering it, and said he definitely considered LaRouche a cult. He criticized Tourish and Wohlforth because he thinks they have become anti-Trotskyist and anti-revolutionary from his own political perspective. It should be pointed out that the reviewer is the author of an online book about Healy, and his detailed description of Healy's sexual abuses and authoritarianism, although framed within the Trotskyist philosophical outlook rather than that of anti-cult sociologists and psychologists, is quite similar to the criticisms that have been leveled against some U.S. cults.--Dking 02:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Newman follower BabyDweezil's rant in defense of so-called Marxist-Leninist groups (added to the article after my last posting above) just confirms what Newman's critics have long said--that he never disbanded his pseudo-Leninist "International Workers Party," which continues to exist as an underground formation bankrolled by billionaire Republican Mike Bloomberg (and a network of sexually and financially exploitative psychotherapy clinics). Thanks for providing such telling new evidence, BabyD. Give us more!--Dking 18:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

What in God's name are you ranting about? A few minor factual edits to a ridiculously speculative and POV article confirms that a billionaire mayor is bankrolling an underground Marxist Leninist organization? mmmmmm.....okay!! BabyDweezil 20:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmmmm...You mention the billionaire mayor but are silent about the sex with psychotherapy patients. Keep the posts coming--like your recent scurrilous comments on the psychiatric condition of one of your group's former therapy patients (posted in the Fred Newman wiki article), and now your suddenly resurrected concern for defending Marxism-Leninism even though Fred told the NY Times in 2005 that your party had disbanded and that you had now entered the "mainstream." The more you post, the more you expose the true nature of your "cult." (See, I put it in quotation marks, just as you like.)--Dking 21:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Although, guided as ever by Corinthians, I always gladly hear your views, i must refer you to WP:TALK wherein it states right up top: The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views. BabyDweezil 01:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Guided as ever by the Book of Job, I must remind you that the purpose of Wikipedia articles is to provide accurate information on the subject of the article, not to use the article to wage ideological warfare on behalf of the International Workers Party against scholars and journalists who are believed by you to be revisionists or counterrevolutionaries.--Dking 02:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Consistent POVing by Dennis King

First DKing adds a book review by Lalich claiming she "had also praised the Tourish and Wohlforth book," then when I add balance by citing her criticisms, King deletes the section, declaring "this is not a book review" (as if it wasnt he who added the distorted quotaation from the book review in the first place.) When the Marxist Leninist backgrounds of all the authors he cites are noted by me in the article (which seems emininently relevant background on authors who are charging various Marxist groups—in some cases their own former groups--with being "cults"), King deletes the properly referenced section, claiming in the edit summary "Deleted ad hominen attack by follower of Fred Newman." It's annoying enough that Dennis King continued to use Wikipedia to attempt to publish personal essays, such as this entry and International Workers Party that he cannot find a legitimate publisher for. Yet in addition, he is using personal attacks, cult baiting, charges of sock puppetry, against anyone who challenges this. Very silly. BabyDweezil 16:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The issue of Marxist "grudges" is a red herring (no pun intended)

I wish to correct the idea that opposition to political cults is a manifestation of a grudge against former M-L groups that some cult experts were once involved in. First, I was never in a political cult. The PLP, which I left over 30 years ago, has never been accused of cultism by any ex-member to my knowledge nor will one find complaints about it that are much more than criticism of what ex-members or opponents regard as extremely dogmatic politics or the typical Marxist top-down leadership. This is a group that banned Maoist style criticism/self-criticism in the late 1960s and encouraged its members to spend their time with friends, family and co-workers OUTSIDE the party rather than hanging around with each other (that's still its "line" today). As to Janja Lalich, she and most of the leadership and membership of the DWP rose up and expelled their leader (an unstable alcoholic) and voluntarily disbanded the party--who is she supposed to have a grudge against, her fellow rebels? As to Alex Stein, I believe from reading her book that her experiences inside the "O" gave her valuable insights into the nature of cults that she could not have attained in any other way; her former membership in the O speaks to her credibility, not to any prejudice. The same could be said of Tim Wohlforth. I am not aware that the group Prof. Tourish was in was a cult (most Marxist groups are not cults although they tend to elicit high commitment from their members). As to the dean of political cult watchers, Chip Berlet, he was never a member of any communist party or pre-party formation to my knowledge. I am reverting BabyDweezil's nonsense again.--Dking 19:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It's you who is throwing in the red herring. Nowhere in my edits did I say they were grudges--thats your invention. I am simply including the documented fact that they are all former communists. stop censoring the article, and stop justifying it with pink herrings.BabyDweezil 20:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Discuss changes, then edit

To everyone involved here: Discuss the changes, and then come to a conclusion. If you continue reverting, there will be blocks placed by the Three revert rule. Also, keep in mind civility, no personal attacks, and no original research (ie conclusions must have been reached elsewhere). --Wafulz 21:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Marxism charges

BabyDweezil has failed to establish any causal connection between people being ex-Marxists and their opposition to political cults. People who have been in a cult, and left it, tend often to criticize the cult afterwards. Is there some special connection with once being in a Marxist group and today being against cults, when some of the ex-Marxists cited were never in groups that were cult-like? And what about the many scholars and journalists who have written about or defended the idea that not all cults are religious--that many are secular, including political cults? Most of these people were never in Marxist groups. All BabyD can say for sure is that two former members of Marxist political cults have written accounts of life in their former organizations, and one former member of a Marxist political cult is the co-author of a book in which one out of about 12 cults described is a British group whose U.S. affiliate he was once involved with. It is not surprisingly that these three people are ex-Marxists since at least half of all political cults have their origins in Marxism (although most Marxist groups in the U.S. and Britain are NOT cults). BabyD's examples do not add up to a meaningful causal connection, and he/she is unable to cite any reputable authority who has made such a connection. I am deleting this nonsense yet again.--Dking 04:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph you keep deleting is reporting the facts, with sources. There is no suggestion of a causal connection. You are creating a red herring simply to censor relevant, sourced information. BabyDweezil 15:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

BabyDweezil, you just confirmed my point. If there is no causal connection, as you now admit, then there is no possible justification for including this ad hominen material. As to the other person who reverted this material, if you are going to do so again please cite the precise reasons why you disagree with what I wrote above.--Dking 16:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

DKing, give up on it, what BabyDweezil wrote is relevant, sourced info. Stop deleting it. JFBurton 16:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

They're not "charges", they are facts

The fact that authors of attacks on political organizations were once long time members of those organizations or adherents to the same doctrines is not relevant and is "ad hominen?" Removing that information is pure censorship and completely at odds with even the most basic notions of disclosure and an attempt at pure POV mongering. BabyDweezil 16:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Essentially, the material by BabyDweezil that I deleted points out that two ex-members of Marxist political cults wrote about their experiences and a third was co-author of a book that described his own former organization among about ten others. (My own past is not relevant because although I was in a Marxist group I was never in a political cult; this puts me in a category of only one or two persons out of the entire statistical universe of scholars and writers who accept the concept of a political cult.) The information cited by BabyDweezil about three ex-members of Marxist cults doesn't rise to the level of evidentiary significance, since there is a much, much larger number of cult experts, scholars and journalists who accept and use the concept of political cults but were never members of Marxist parties, cultlike or otherwise (Robert Jay Lifton, Margaret Singer, Michael Langone, Chip Berlet, Paul L. Montgomery, Patricia Lynch and Jolyon West to name just a few). But even if BabyD could provide a larger list of individuals the "facts" he/she cites would still be unworthy of inclusion here because he/she fails to cite any published expert statement asserting that the facts presented have any evidentiary significance. And don't say facts are just facts: This material was clearly inserted to make a political point by indirect means. As it stands, BabyD's material is (a) an inference from insufficient data; (b) original research; and (c) argumentum ad hominem.--Dking 19:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

If you believe what is in the article is unbalanced, feel free to add sourced statements from reliable sources indicating their acceptance and usage of the term "Political Cult", which is the subject of this entry. As it stands, the most prominent purveyors of the term "Political Cult" are Wohlforth, Lalich, Stein, Tourish and King , all five former members of revolutionary Marxist Lenist organizations; in the case of the first four, they now attack their former organizations as "cults," and in the latter case, the writer was in an ill-fated romance with a member of an organization he has incessantly attacked as a cult for 30 years and slandered in these talk pages incessantly as well. BabyDweezil 20:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

This is becoming vandalism

Dking has yet again deleted factual, sourced information justified by an edit summary claiming BabyDweezil has provided no legitimate published source for his/her conclusions; original research and POV attack deleted again. A look at the deleted section syhows this to be demonstrably false. It clearly contains only sourced facts, not conclusions, is far less "original research" than the bulk of this rambling, POV article, and is not a POV attack but relevant information. Reverted. BabyDweezil 19:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, BabyDweezil has now identified me in a still narrower way (see previous section). I am now (a) a former member of a Marxist organization; (b) a person who has never been a member of a Marxist organization or any other organization widely believed to be a political cult; (c) a person who was in a personal relationship 30 years ago with a member of a Marxist organization widely believed to be a political cult. I suspect that, out of the hundreds of scholars, journalists and exit-counseling-oriented psychotherapists, psychiatrists and social workers who affirm the reality of political cults, I am in a statistical universe of one. Although that makes my personal bio utterly insignificant in determining whether or not those who affirm the existence of political cults are biased, I am not demanding that my name alone be removed from BabyD's list--I demand that all five names be deleted and that the entire paragraph be deleted. BabyD says he/she is reporting a "fact." But a fact, to be included in an article, must be demonstrated to have relevance in the eyes of a cited authority. I could add to this article the "fact" that the Moon is not made out of green cheese, but that is not relevant to political cults in the eyes of any reputable published source and therefore any editor would be justified in removing it. If I continued to restore it, Wiki administrators would be justified in blocking me from editing on this article, and that is what they should do to BabyD, who has reverted his/her ad hominem attack/original research over a dozen times without providing any citation from a reputable published source demonstrating the relevance of his/her alleged "facts."--Dking 00:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The material I added is probably the most factual bit in this whole article. One could argue what the relevance of this whole article is, and where are the reliable sources that lend credibility to the neologistic pseudo-concept "Political Cult." It seems the primary reason this article was initiated was an attempt to use Wikipedia to lend credence to a questionable concept largely associated with the authors I've given background on, and as such, the sourced background material on those autheros that I added is eminently relevant. I suggest you seek an admin's opinion, and rather than attempt to control the content of a pet project of yours, yuo might want to focus on the glaring inadequacies in the rest of the article.BabyDweezil 01:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I have asked again and again on this discussion page for BabyD to provide a reputable published source for the significance of five individuals (out of the hundreds of experts who recognize the existence of political cults) being former members of Marxist organizations. He/she has provided no citation, because there is none. His/her incessant reinsertion of this ad hominen attack is pure and simple vandalism and warrants him/her being blocked from editing on this article.--02:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The five main authors who are labeling Marxist Leninist organizations, among others as "political cults" were themselves all long time members of Marxist Leninist revolutionary organizations, four of the five were members of the very same groups they now label as "cults." To continually try to excise this information is pure censorship and sanitization of this article. By the logic of asking for a "reputable published source" to verify the "significance" of prima facie obvious relevant factual information, one would have to remove 99% of the facts on Wikipedia. BabyDweezil 02:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "prima facie obvious relevant factual information" on Wikipedia. It is either properly sourced or else it is original research and hence does not belong in a serious article. The reason for the sourcing rule is to prevent flat earthers, hollow earthers and pseudo-Marxist therapy cultists from inserting isolated "facts" and weaving around such facts all kinds of ideas that are relevant or truthful only in the mind of the "poorly informed person with fantastic conceptions" (as Edward Teller termed Lyndon LaRouche) who come up with this kind of original "research."--Dking 03:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

"pejorative"

This is a POV term in the context and manner in which you use it. I have no objection to your quoting a scholar as using the term, but you are NOT quoting anyone--you are citing it as one of your "prima facie obvious relevant" factoids in order to demean critics of cults. I'd say it was okay to cite, say, Melton as believing the term cult is pejorative, if in fact he said that--but his opinion and that of your other source would ONLY apply to religious cults since the books you cite are only about religious cults, not political ones. (It should be noted that some scholars who defend religious cults on grounds of religious freedom do not extend this tolerance to anti-Semitic and totalitarian political cults, but are well aware of the noxiouos nature of such groups.)--Dking 00:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Republican Party and Christian Right paragraph

Someone inserted a brief section in this article many months ago about cultism and the Christian Right in the Republican Party. I just got around to checking out the citation and agree that it doesn't provide the required specific information. The only reference to cults I could find was a sarcastic remark by a local political figure in Texas who was clearly using "cult" as a metaphor for something else. The website provides examples of activities by the Christian Right as a mass movement and as involving coalitions of hundreds or even thousands of churches. I believe that there are certain "shepherding" movements in and around the Christian Right coalition that probably classify as cults, and possibly this could be said about elements of the Dominion movement and the extremist wing of the right to life movement (although extremist beliefs are not always signs of cultism). Elements of the Christian Right actively oppose cults through the Christian "countercult" movement which over the years has tended to converge with the secular anti-cult movement in expressing a concern for psychological manipulation and exploitation, rather than focussing primarily on doctrinal issues. If a sentence is going to be added by someone later that provides a Christian Right example of politically oriented religious cults it should refer to a specific group or groups about which there is clear documentation, and should not unintentionally lump together 20 million conservative evangelicals as a conglomeration of cultists.--Dking 03:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

review material on Tourish/Wolhforth book

This article is not a book review. I moved the material to the footnote since it is clearly footnote citation material. I also shortened it. It was not proper to take a basically favorable review and present the favorable material in one sentence and then add an entire paragraph of what is clearly a secondary criticism WITHIN the favorable review. Both positive and negative remarks from the review are still here but in an abbreviated form appropriate to footnote material.--Dking 04:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

falun gong

Falun Gong's fight against the communist government in China certainly deserves to be mentioned in the section on Religious Cults and Politics, since Falun Gong's commitment to a longrange political struggle and explicit strategic political goals is so unusual for a religious group, cultic or otherwise. (I renamed the section "Religious Cults and New Religious Movements in Politics" in deference to the fact that there is no clear consensus among cult critics or anywhere else except within the Chinese govt that Falun Gong is a destructive cult.) However, the section on AFF and Falun Gong it seems to me is way outside the parameters of an article on political cults, since Falun Gong is not a political cult. I really think this material belongs in either (a) the Falun Gong article; (b) the Cults and Governments article; or (c) the AFF/ICSA article. I also suggest that at some point someone create a separate article on Religious Cults and New Religious Movements in Politics, and move everything on the topic there except a single sentence distinguishing such groups from secular political cults.--Dking 19:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The Chinese government's cult-baiting and murderous persecution of the FG is admitted by the CCP itself as suppression of a political threat and likewise, the FG characterizes the CCP as a "political cult. To the extent that the CCP has made use of the ideology of the so-called anti-cult movement and the AFF, and to the extent that the AFF has embroiled itself in a deadly political battle between two groups labeling each other political cults, the section on the AFF and Falun Gong is entirely within the parameters of an article on political cults. In fact, its probably the most salient information in what is otherwise a speculative article about a fringe sociological concept propagated largely by minor figures. BabyDweezil 20:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The Effects of Partisan Politics

This section was added long ago and is entirely original research, and likewise is based on a study which never mentions "cults." It's being deleted since no one has addressed the OR tags in quite awhile. BabyDweezil 21:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, the section in question is NOT "original research." I have always been dubious that it belonged in this article (on grounds of relevance), but I did a few weeks ago read over the original scientific study, put a footnote directly citing it, and rephrased the summary to reflect what the study actually said. Nevertheless, this article is probably better off without it, since it focuses rather narrowly on behavior in Presidential campaigns. If the person who originally inserted it can figure out a direct relevance to political cults they should by all means reinsert it.--Dking 00:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion once again

If a person has written about a group that he or she was previously a member of, that is useful information, since it speaks to their credibility. The fact that Stein, Tourish, and Lalich are former members of the leftist groups they have written about (and that those who have written about purported Trotskyist cults are former Trotskyists, which implicitly includes Wohlforth) is all in the section on examples of political cults. BabyD's rant earlier in the article simply duplicates that information in the context of implications of an anti-communist conspiracy against her International Workers Party and also presents the unsubstantiated (and indeed false) statement that usage of the concept of political cults has been "largely by" ex-members of M/L organizations. The only other info in the paragraph is that Wohlforth writes mysteries (irrelevant) and that I was once a member of a non-cultic M/L organization (also irrelevant). I am deleting again.

I am also deleting the paragraph about Fulan Gong and the AFF which has nothing to do with this article and is a cynical attempt by BabyD, on behalf of the IWP, to latch onto the plight of victims of communism (Falun Gong) and use their plight to deflect well-documented criticism of her IWP, a totalitarian organization that yearns for the same type of society (complete with its own cult of personality around Fred Newman) as the Chinese communists who persecute Falun Gong.--Dking 23:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The above arguments strike me as pure censorship, and the exceedingly relevant, factual and sourced information is being restored. Dking should enlist an admin to present his arguments to; in the meantime, these attempts to censor and sanitize this article to represent his POV with no balance need to be reverted per basic Wiki standards. A simple review of the literature ::::--on usage of the term "political cults" clearly demonstrates that the use of the term is predominantly the work of ex-members of Marxist Leninist organizations. If this is in dispute, present references to articles on the subject (NOT random phrases tossed about in the press) to balance it. BabyDweezil 00:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Your attempt to parasite off the plight of Falun Gong--victims of horrific persecution by a communist regime--in order to protect your own underground pseudo-communist cult from legitimate criticism is not only cynical, it is also morally repulsive. (Like your IWP staging a fundraiser the week after 9/11 and asking people to shell out for a Fred Newman "anti-violence" youth program as the best answer to the terror attacks--and not telling the audience that your group had taken money from Col. Gadhafi of Libya and had called for "unconditional defense" of him after he blew up over 200 Americans over Lockerbie, Scotland.) As to the other paragraph, ample arguments have been given over and over for its deletion, including that it duplicates material elsewhere in this article, draws a conclusion not supported by any citation, constitutes an ad hominen attack, and has been justified by you only on the absurd grounds of "prima facie obvious relevance." You are in total violation of Wiki policy and it is time you were blocked permanently from editing on this article and the various articles dealing with Fred Newman and the IWP.--Dking 01:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me draw your attention to WP:CIVIL, WP:TALK, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF and request that you address my legitimate points rather than engage in personal attacks and POV ranting on the discussion page. Note in particular:

• No personal attacks A personal attack is saying something negative about another person. This mainly means:
• No insults: Don't make ad hominem attacks, such as calling someone an idiot or a fascist. Instead, explain what is wrong with an edit and how to fix it.
• Don't threaten people: For example, threatening people with "admins you know" or having them banned for disagreeing with you.--BabyDweezil 01:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Removing "Ayn Rand"

Nowhere in the references are they termed a "political cult." They arent/werent even politically active to any practical extent, and were largely a philosophical debating society with a devoted following. The Rothbard ref is basically an incoherent rant, and the Schermer ref is not much better. Neither are serious studies. If anyone wants to put it back, please supply some serious documentation. BabyDweezil 21:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The distinction between a "cult" and a "political cult" seems to me to be vague and subjective. If all that is necessary for inclusion in the "cult" category is a published allegation, then the Ayn Rand people qualify. Also, the Ayn Rand Institute, which presents itself as the legitimate heir to Ayn Rand, is highly active politically. Therefore, if this article is to be neutral, it should include the Rand followers. Incidentally, it should also include Falun Gong. It seems to me that Dking uses a flexible definition of "political cult" that includes groups that he dislikes, while excluding groups that he likes. Dking should also refrain from referring to editors who disagree with him as "cultists" or "followers of [fill in the blank]." --Tsunami Butler 23:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you at least try to find a reference attesting to this group being politically active to even a modest extent, and having been cult-baited based on their political activity? I understand the already low threshold established thus far for this article, but the Rand group doesnt even seem to have made that cut. BabyDweezil 00:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

An examination of the Schermer and Rothbard articles reveal that they are making their allegations not specifically against the Ayn Rand Collective, but against Rand followers more generally. I have changed the section to reflect that, and included the Ayn Rand Institute, which is extremely active on college campuses, promoting the idea that the Bush administration is too soft and "altruistic" in the way they conduct the Iraq war and war against Islam generally. That would seem to qualify as "political." --Tsunami Butler 00:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see how the references in any way support terming them a "political cult" but I left it and adjusted the claims to correspond to Rothbard's rant. One wonders if this supposed "scholar"--who is quoted bizarrely saying "Rand-Branden split in late 1968, a split which was the moral equivalent in miniature of, say, a split between Marx and Lenin, or between Jesus and St. Paul" has ever read a book about the history of Christianity or Marxism, much less Ayn Rand.BabyDweezil 17:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that these problems go with the territory -- this article is essentially a POV essay, masquerading as an article about a poorly-defined neologism.--Tsunami Butler 07:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Formatting this article

I think the people editing this article may have lost a bit of focus. I read through the first "introduction" section and came away confused. After reading it, I have no idea what a political cult is. I see examples being given, but at no point does the article say "A political cult is defined as ...." The essay tag has been up there for a while, so I thought I'd chime in with why I put it up there in the first place. --Wafulz 04:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I proposed the article for deletion, but it survived. I can only continue to attempt to balance the POV speculations in the article. I think its incumbent upon editors who think it is a notable subject to come up with an acceptable, reliably sourced definition.BabyDweezil 05:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Revolutionary Communist Party

I deleted this paragraph after searching the web, including the three sites that maintain comprehensive records of press clippings and scholarly articles on cults, although I did not search commercial data bases. There are a lot of accusations about the RCP being a cult, but they all come from far-left or far-right blog sites and/or from the web sites of the RCP's rival parties on the far-left. These are not sources recognized by Wikipedia. I see no articles from the mainstream media or from scholarly journals, and no evidence of any kind of "survivor's" group with a presence on the web. If someone can cite a source that meets Wikipedia standards, be my guest.--Dking 03:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC) P.S. In searching RCP leader Bob Avakian's latest book on Amazon, I find that he has said that the "cult of personality" in the RCP is a good thing. However, he seems to be using "cult of personality" in a very narrow sense, as a political leadership practice not as a systematic mode of organizing and controlling his followers' lives on all levels. The quote might be usable in the context of documentation from recognized publications regarding the RCP-is-a-cult charge, but such published sources are still lacking.--Dking 04:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Tourish and Militant

Some care should be taken before Wikipedia labels groups as "political cults". There are numerous sources that use this label to describe LaRouche and his groups, Fred Newman and the New Alliance Party/IWP and Gerry Healy and the WRP but Tourish is alone in describing Militant/RSL as such. Others, such as Bob Pitt who was never a member or supporter of Militant and is actually a political critic of it, reject this out of hand and even describes Tourish's allegation as "laughable"[1]. Tourish is a former member of Militant and is perhaps grinding his own axe here (indeed, how better to eschew responsibility for your former political positions and activity than to claim you were a member of a cult and therefore shouldn't be held accountable for your actions?) Without any corroborating statements by sociologists, psychologists or even political scientists to support Tourish's claims re Militant (Tourish is none of these things, he's a professor of management) I think they should be removed as per WP:Undue weight ("If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.") I submit that in the case of Tourish and Militant, Tourish seems to be in a minority of one in contrast to allegations against Larouche, Newman, Healy etc. In the interim I have included quotations from Pitt's review of Tourish & Wohlforth from What Next?. As that journal is cited elsewhere in the article there should be no question of it being acceptable under "reliable sources" but unless Tourish's label can be backed up with other sources I will remove the reference to Militant Tendency/RSL in a day or two as per Dking's deletion of the paragraph on the RCP. General Idea 15:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Tourish, along with Tim Wohlforth, Dennis King, and Chip Berlet, form a very tightly-knit little group that fits the discription in WP:Undue weight of "an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority." Of the four, Tourish stands out by virtue of the fact that he actually has a college degree. Wohlforth, for example, is presently employed as a "writer of crime fiction." --Tsunami Butler 22:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Since I have received a message from Dking on my talk page in which he challenges this, allow me to clarify. I don't mean that the four of them get together regularly to play badminton. I mean that they all have "new left" backgrounds, they all have negligible academic qualifications, they all write in a highly propagandistic style, and they are all featured on the Chip Berlet/PRA website, which seems to be a clearing house for this sort of thing.[2] --Tsunami Butler 15:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

In other words, Tsunami, you have no evidence whatsoever that Tourish, Wolhforth and I are part of a "very tightly knit little group." As to your criticism of Wohlforth on grounds that he is a mystery writer, allow me to quote from my message to your user page: "LaRouche himself has written about the profound effect that Poe's 'Purloined Letter' had on his thinking. Also, LaRouche once wrote a mystery/espionage short story; it was quite entertaining and led me to think that perhaps in another of his 'universes of discourse' he ended up as the successor to Eric Ambler."--Dking 21:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

General Idea, I agree, but in fact, your argument applies across the board with respect to all the groups cited here, love them or hate them or indifferent. Fact is, there is a glaring dearth of "corroborating statements by sociologists, psychologists or even political scientists" across the board here, and what should be clear from this article and the genesis of the notion of "political cult" is that the labeling of groups as such is by and large politically motivated and conducted by declared and committed opponents of these groups, rather than objective social science/scientists. BabyDweezil 22:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Dweezil and TB, Tourish and Wohlforth are not the only sources for the cult allegation being directed at LaRouche, Newman, Healy et al. (I haven't looked closely enough to see if other sources are listed in the article - if they aren't they should be but I know other sources exist). There may be an argument for downgrading the prominence Tourish & Wholforth have in this article and for including independent criticisms such as Pitt's but I don't think the problems with Tourish & Wohlforth are sufficient to justify the action you're suggesting. General Idea 21:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

General Idea, you made a proposal to remove altogether the political cult allegation about the Militant Tendency in Britain as per my removal of that about the RCP. I am not going to get involved in editing on this point, but I wanted to give you my opinion. First, there is a crucial difference in our decisions about the MT and the RCP. I removed the stuff about the RCP because it was not properly sourced and because I could not find any proper sources. In the case of the Militant Tendency stuff, there is a proper source, a book by Tourish and Wohlforth that is well regarded by academics and professionals who study cults from a critical point of view. And it is not just one person making the charge, it is two--Wohlforth as well as Tourish. And Wohlforth was previously the author of a memoir/history of postwar U.S. Trotskism that was of sufficient interest that it triggered a conference at NYU's Tamiment Institute. Although I have done no research on the MT and have no opinion on whether it was really a political cult as opposed to a typical high-commitment "vanguard" group, I think the mention of the MT is properly sourced as the opinion of reputable authors of a reputable book and thus, according to Wiki policy, should not be excluded. However, I would suggest that Bob Pitt's criticism be mentioned since although Pitt's history of the MT was self-published on the Internet it is clearly a work of substance. Furthermore, Pitt's book on the MT should be cited in the bibliography or footnotes just as David North's book on Healy is cited. I do not think that more than a sentence or two should be devoted to this--anything more should be transferred to the Wiki article on the MT.--Dking 22:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's safe to assume that Tourish is the primary author of the sections of the book that address MT and Wohlforth is the primary author of the sections addressing WRP - in any case there's little if any difference between articles on MT authored by Tourish alone and the MT section of the co-authored book (at least not what I've seen of it). The undue weight concern remains, even if both W and T co-wrote the MT section they are the only source for this claim. If other writers (even other former MT members) echoed the MT as cult claim then I think it would merit inclusion but standing on its own it does not, particularly as Tourish (and/or Wohlforth) do not have the professional or academic standing that would give them the credibility to independently make such judgements. The difference in regards to Healy is that North partly corroborates the cult accusation against WRP (as indeed does Pitt - more explicitly so), while Pitt refutes the allegation against MT (also there are additional sources that can be found for the Healy accusations if one looks). General Idea 00:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

One gets suspicious when the author says "Some people have objected to the term "cult", even if they agreed with the substantive points that the paper makes about the CWI's internal regime" when Pitt is clearly challenging the substantive points in the CWI's case - this is, in my opinion, either a lazy or a dishonest approach to the presentation of issues, of which there are many practitioners. As it stands the article appears balanced and the reader can be the judge, and, in my opinion, so long as there are sufficient references, context, and cross references, this entry will not be seen by the reader as merely a piece of scurrilous reporting. Andysoh 09:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

New changes

I moved the stuff about the Pitt-Tourish controversy to its own section at the end of the article, but did not change the wording. It seemed inappropriate to have this material at the beginning before any presentation of basic information about political cults. Also I removed the absurd rant by BabyDweezil about a plot by anti-communists ex-communists Hannah Arendt supporters etc. This stuff was all original research justified as "prima facie" facts by BabyD and was in total violation of Wiki policy. BabyD has now been banned from Wikipedia on grounds of his/her extremely disruptive and bullying behavior on a variety or articles. I hope we will not see his/her return via a sock puppet to start yet another edit war on this article. --Dking 22:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The BabyDweezil case is now being considered by the ArbCom. And you are hardly one to talk of "extremely disruptive and bullying behavior." Excessive self-citing is a violation of WP:COI, and attempting to dominate the article content is a violation of WP:OWN. --Tsunami Butler 11:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Re your allegation of excessive self-citing, I checked the footnotes to this article. Out of 39 citations, only one was to myself. I know that LaRouche is teaching his followers what he claims is Reimannian-Gaussian mathematics. Maybe he should teach you how to count first.--Dking 21:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Moved content

I move this here. It is irrelevant, based on fringe sources, and the first which describes Hannah Arendt's "followers" as a "cult" is obviously intended as a metaphor, and not seriously, while using a former Moon follower for source concerning the Soviet Union, a whole country, accused of being a "cult", is not only misunderstanding the definition of a cult, but obviously mistaking this page with anti-Communism. Here is the irrelevant content, moved here for the sake of it:

The historian Walter Laqueur has described the followers of Arendt as themselves comprising a cult who have latched 
on to her as a politically correct icon.<ref>The Arendt Cult: Hannah Arendt as Political Commentator Laqueur Journal
 of Contemporary History.1998; 33: 483-496.</ref>

Former Unification Church member Steven Hassan, author of Combatting Cult Mind Control, has described inhabitants
of the former Soviet Union as having been in "the political cult of communism." Hassan claims that concept of 
"destructive cult" he and others in the "anti-cult" movement use "fits the Communist model precisely."<ref>Ric. Kahn, 
   "Ex-Moonie Says Cult Groups Are Preying on Russians; Analyst Sees Ex-communists as Easy Targets," ''Boston Globe'', November 22,
   1992</ref>

The author of that last cherry piece would never have dreamed that people might amusively describe Joseph McCarthy as a cult leader who managed to convince a lot of US citizens that "Communists" were "Jews" [sic] and others hate speech which I will refrain here from repeating. Tazmaniacs 06:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

People's Mujahedins

I moved this here for consideration. While it is not like the above (completely irrelevant non-sense), it is questionable both for its accuracy, and relevancy. The People's Mujahedin of Iran is a controversed group, which has a long history both before and after the Iranian revolution, and has gone through many changes, not least in alliances and ideology. It is true that they're has been some criticisms of it as a political cult, and some well-known events do indeed tend to accredit this thesis. On the other hand, they have received support from many politicians & others members of the elites class in the Western world, often strongly varying in ideological points of views. One thing is sure: they are the target of constant attacks by the Iranian intelligence agencies, and of bargain between Tehran and Paris, Washington, Bruxelles, etc., which make these accusations rather suspicious. For these reasons, I think accusations are best kept to the relevant entry, as the matter is too complex to be easily proved (which is not the same for others movements which are listed here). In all fairness, if this content was to be included, so would the many parliamentary support it has received, both in Europe and in the States, etc., which would greatly increase the size of this article, IMO not to its advantage. Due to the current international context, I am not sure Wikipedia's role is to participate in this propaganda campaign.

The People's Mujahedin of Iran, a leftist guerrilla movement based in Iraq, has been described as a political cult
 by Middle Eastern history professor Ervand Abrahamian and Council of Foreign Relations Senior Fellow Max Boot, 
 <ref>Elizabeth Rubin, "The Cult of Rajavi," ''The New York Times Magazine'', July 13, 2003</ref> <ref>Karl
  Vick,  "Iran Dissident Group Labeled a Terrorist Cult," ''The Washington Post'', June 21, 2003</ref> 
 <ref>Max Boot, "How to Handle Iran," ''Los Angeles Times'', October 25, 2006</ref> in a Human Rights Watch 
report,[3] and on "Iran Interlink", a website which claims
 to be devoted to helping members of the group leave its military encampment in Iraq and reunite with their 
families,[4] but which has elsewhere been described as run by the Iranian Ministry of 
Intelligence and Security (MOIS).<ref>[http://www.iranterror.com/content/view/97/47/ Who is behind Iran-Interlink?
 Iran: Terror Database, online report.]</ref>

Tazmaniacs 06:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The material on the People's Mujahedin is properly sourced to the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times and thus should not be removed. The solution is to add citations to Wikipedia-recognized sources that present a different view of the group in question (from Tazmaniacs remarks above, which appear to reflect a good grasp of the topic, I am sure he/she can easily provide such examples). However, I removed all the stuff from web sites both pro and con the People's Mujahedin since they may not constitute proper sources. I left the new sentence about the Tamil Tigers which is probably a good example of a political cult but someone should add citations for this.--Dking 16:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Controversial article

I have added the "Controversial article" template to this page, and I request that Dking not make massive revisions of the article without giving other editors the opportunity to discuss proposed changes. It is an attempt to dominate the article in violation of WP:OWN, and fatigue other editors. --Tsunami Butler 22:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted material

I will not revert all the material deleted by Dking, but rather address the issues one at a time. I think that the deletion of the Falun Gong material is biased; there seems to be a sense that it is proper for the political Right to use the term "political cult," but that we mustn't let the Commies get away with it. I also changed the POV formulation that the Falun Gong is active "to expose" the Chinese government, to the Falun Gong is active "in opposition" to the Chinese goverment. The connection to the AFF is also highly relevant to the article. It appears that some editors are uncomfortable trying to denounce the Chinese government while embracing the AFF, since there seems to be an irony there. --Tsunami Butler 23:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Tsunami, this is an article about political cults. It was appropriate to include a brief mention of Falun Gong in drawing a boundary between political cults, on the one hand, and religious cults and New Religious Movements that are active in politics, on the other hand. It was also appropriate to mention that Falun Gong regards the Chinese Communist Party as a giant cult (and for the Maoist period at least, makes a compelling argument). But Falun Gong is not itself a political cult, therefore the insertion of an entire section about its relations with two individuals (both deceased) who were active in the AFF is not relevant to this article. I have said before, take it to the Falun Gong article or the AFF article, it doesn't belong here. Furthermore, Tsunami it is clear that you are only playing games with this article. You and your fellow LaRouchians were bragging on the Lyndon LaRouche article about how close Lyn is to the Chinese government, now you reverse yourselves and cry crocodile tears for Falun Gong and try to present AFF/ICSA as agents of the Chinese government. And how much does the Chinese government pay Lyn and Helga for those phony Schiller Institute conferences anyway?--Dking 00:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Your comment that I am "crying crocodile tears for Falun Gong" is both a violation of WP:NPA and an absurd misreading of my statement. I think that if there is such a thing as a "political cult," Falun Gong must certainly qualify. As for the rest of your comments, I think you ought to be blocked under WP:NPA. --Tsunami Butler 14:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

What you "think" is irrelevant. You cannot cite any legitimate sources for defining Falun Gong as a "political cult" since there are none. The material about the late Margaret Singer's opinion of Falun Gong is irrelevant to this article although it might be relevant to several other articles. You are simply being disruptive here. Reverted again.--Dking 16:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted you again, Tsunami. You have failed to establish any logical connection between the AFF/Falun Gong section and the topic of this article. You cannot just run around inserting material on a whim. Material about fruitcakes belongs in articles on cooking, not in the article on political cults. The material you keep inserting might be pertinent to articles on AFF, Falun Gong or Margaret Singer; it is not pertinent here because Falun Gong is not a political cult. Let me add that your antics as a LaRouche propagandist on a number of articles already has you perilously close to being banned permanently from Wikipedia. I urge you to stop your disruptive behavior on this article.--Dking 22:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Falun Gong

I have done an NPOV re-write of the Falun Gong section, which was overly partisan, portraying the Falun Gong as innocent victim and the Chinese Government as the evil oppressor. I think that it is more appropriate to note that both sides are pointing the finger at one another, without taking an editorial stand as to who is in the right. --Tsunami Butler 06:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Readers should note, Tsunami, that your boss Lyndon LaRouche has a close relationship to the Chinese government (which facilitates his staging of Schiller Institute conferences and gives him generous media coverage). I guess there's no way Wikipedia can stop spin doctors for human rights-abusing regimes from editing on articles. But you should have made full disclosure of your organization's financial and political interest in this matter.--Dking 17:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not a member of the LaRouche organization. LaRouche is not my "boss." I have nothing to disclose. You, on the other hand, have subsisted on foundation grants from vicious neo-con operations like the Smith-Richardson Foundation, as you admit in your book, and you could very well be on assignment to push the POV they desire at Wikipedia, because the number of people who visit your personal website is probably negligible, as is the coverage you receive in the legitimate press. Wikipedia is probably the only way you have of reaching an audience beyond your immediate family, and for you to get on that foundation gravy train, you have to find some way of getting your name out before the public. --Tsunami Butler 02:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Once again I removed your irrelevant material for the reasons explained above. As to your new interpolation about the followers of Arendt supposedly being a cult, this would only be relevant if you could establish that Chip Berlet is a "follower" of Arendt, which you have not done. To study a major work of scholarship and to cite it appropriately in one's work does not make one a "follower" of the book's author. And why don't you read Arendt's Origins of Totalitarianism yourself; you might learn something.--Dking 13:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I am reviewing the massive POV deletions that you have made in this article, and replacing the sourced material that I think is useful. The business about Arendt was added by another editor, although I edited for grammar; the original editor improperly used the word "comprised." Whether Berlet is a "follower" of Arendt is immaterial; it is useful to know that Arendt has been called a cult figure, and it demonstrates that the use of the term is highly subjective. Your deletions appear to reflect an agenda; you have a target list, or "enemies list" a la Nixon, of persons or organizations that you desire to be associated with Political Cultism, and you wish to exempt parties that are not on that list, regardless of how well documented these cases may be. This is unacceptable POV pushing. --Tsunami Butler 06:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Dking, in your edit summaries you have repeatedly referred to my edits as "LaRouche propaganda" and most recently you state that "the material is irrelevant to this article and is being inserted by LaRouche follower for harassment reasons." First of all, this is false, and a cheap tactic (Poisoning the well.) Secondly, I find myself having to once again remind you of Wikipedia:tendentious editing, where it asks that you "remember that attributing motives to fellow editors is dickish." Finally, I would like to point out that Walter Laqueur is no minor figure in his field, although he may lack the sort of direct, personal insight that Hannah Arendt got from having a long term sexual relationship with a leading Nazi. --Tsunami Butler 14:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The so-called Arendt cult

I read over "The Arendt Cult: Hannah Arendt as Political Commentator" carefully. It is crystal clear that Walter Laqueur is referring only to what he regards as an excessive intellectual enthusiasm for Arendt's work in the 1990s. He compares this strong and widespread enthusiasm to that expressed towards Herman Hesse, Herbert Marcuse, Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir in earlier years (pp. 484, 495). There is not the slightest hint that he is referring to a cult in the sense of an organization or organized movement with a charismatic leadership and a disciplined structure, much less the attributes of a so-called destructive cult. Indeed, there is not the slightest hint that he is referring to any organization at all--except for various German government entities which he notes with amusement love to name streets after Arendt. And even if one were to argue that Tsunami Butler's interpolation regarding the Arendt "cult" should be retained on the basis that two concepts spelled with the same sequence of letters have some kind of mystical connection, one would still have to document that Chip Berlet (the target of the interpolation) somehow shared in the alleged excessive enthusiasm for Arendt's writings in the 1990s. This Tsunami has not done. Indeed, Berlet would not need to be part of any "cult" of Arendt to have a strong reason for citing her monumental The Origins of Totalitarianism in his writings on political cults, since such organizations share many of the attributes of totalitarian parties and states.--Dking 17:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

This is another example of the subjective nature of the use of the term. You wish to apply it to your enemies, while exempting your friends. Incidentally, it is not "my interpolation" -- I looked over the volumes of material that you deleted from this article, and that was one of the things that I thought should stay. --Tsunami Butler 20:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

No, this is not a matter of "subjective" use of a term. The term as Laqueur used it has an entirely different meaning and has nothing to do with the topic of this article. When I use the word "fruitcake" to refer to cooking, that belongs in a cooking article; when I quote someone's use of it to refer to LaRouche and his followers, that belongs in the LaRouche article. One does not pickle LaRouchians in wine and sugar.--Dking 21:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it hard core dickish to erect an argument that it is significant to this entry that Hannah Arendt had "a long term sexual relationship with a leading Nazi;" as so priapically stated by Tsunami Butler above? As for me, I never had sex with that philosopher!--Cberlet 22:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I made no claim that it was "significant to this entry," so that's your erection, not mine. --Tsunami Butler 15:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I notice Tsunami Butler's re-insertion of Walter Laqueur's point has been deleted.

It seems to me that if you set out to do an article on "political cults", which, whatever the academic value of it, is bound to be seen by many as attaching negative associations on the groups it mentions, (e.g. its a controversial topic) then the editors will have be more cautious about deleting material. You will have to give quite a bit of leeway to referenced material to retain the credibility of the article. Otherwise you going to start to look a little like the authoritarian or arbitrary figures you have (or have not, as you wish) set out to decry, and ultimately, I would guess you will attract the attention of people who thought this article is ripe for deletion again.

Why not edit the insertion to simply state:

The historian Walter Laqueur has described the followers of Arendt as themselves forming a cult.

Andysoh 18:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Read the article. Laqueur is not talking about an organization or movement. He is simply talking about a popular intellectual enthusiasm for Arendt's work, like that for Herman Hesse in the 1960s. There is nothing in Laqueur's article about an organization or movement, much less a political organization or movement. If Tsunami Butler wants to cite Laqueur in an article on Arendt, or in one on contemporary intellectual trends, while making clear the sense in which Laqueur is using a word that has multiple distinct meanings, fine. It doesn't belong here, in an article about the types of political organizations and organized political movements that are often referred to as political cults. The statement was only placed in this article as a device to raise questions about Chip Berlet, an author who has often quoted Arendt's book on totalitarianism--and who is a staunch critic of the two political cults (the LaRouchians and the Newmanites) whose supporters have defended this absurd interpolation.--Dking 20:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dking

I can only offer my opinion.

I read your initial reason for deleting the entry at the top of this talk section, which you repeat above. But these are contentions of your own, as they stand.

It's your opinion, its how you perceive things. You may be correct - that's another matter. It may be frustrating – that’s another matter. You are the one doing the deleting, in this case – and that’s the problem. Chip Berlet and Arendt are thrown together in the article due to one reference he made (is it taken out of context a little perhaps?), so someone has made a point about Arendt. Let it ride.

The reader begins to suspect that you’ve something to hide, or an axe to grind, (and this is how it appears from your submissions in this talk section also) and that this article is up to something, and doesn’t belong on wikipedia.

I would suggest do the edit I suggested above and if you have context which is missing, try to summarise that too, in the same length of words. “others have suggested that Laqueur ...”

But my opinion is that the term “political cult” has highly pejorative content, which begins which cannot be waved away, and if you think it’s worth an article, you have to ease up and be above it, and stop deleting referenced stuff.

Andysoh 00:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I can only say again: Read Laqueur's article. He is not speaking about a "cult" as an organization but merely as an intellectual enthusiasm. To cite to an article based simply on its title, without checking to see if a word in the title with multiple meanings is in fact being used in a relevant fashion, is not proper referencing.--Dking 14:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

What it boils down to is that one man's cult is another man's "enthusiasm." Although the followers of Arendt may have no official fansite that I am aware of, they do exhibit organized, cult-like behavior in the form of, for example, Political correctness, which has been widely criticized. --Tsunami Butler 15:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I refer both Tsunami Butler and Andysoh to the Wikipedia article entitled "Cult following," which is clearly the phenomenon that Laqueur was writing about. The Wikia article, after describing certain examples in pop culture, added:

While cult followings are unquestionably more prevalent among the uncritical, examples of this phenomenon exist in serious culture as well, especially among certain sub-segments of the public, such as gay men and other cultural minorities. Thus we find cults of certain writers, such as Yukio Mishima, Colette, or Simone de Beauvoir; composers like Erik Satie or Edgar Varèse; or performers, like Maria Callas, Magda Olivero, Clara Haskil and many, many ballet dancers."

Note that this list includes one of Laqueur's own examples, Simone de Beauvoir, whom he noted had, like Arendt, been the object of a cult following. I suggest that Laqueur's comments about Arendt (and Marcuse too) be moved here, since it would expand the examples beyond those of so-called cultural minorities to embrace philosophy and other intellectual fields and thus would be a real contribution to the article in question.--Dking 16:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dking, You re-assert your point of view, I re-assert mine. But you are editing from a point of view. You are not recognising that it is a point of view.

Incidentally, the article is not as specific about as you think. One reference admits that "David North, Gerry Healy and His Place in the History of the Fourth International, Mehring Books, 1991. ISBN 0-929087-58-5. Does not define the group as a cult but draws parallels to Scientology and provides a detailed account of Healy's descent into personal authoritarianism.

Now, what ever the rights and wrongs of the Healyites, this might lead one to suppose that the edit is being done from the point of view of allowing attacks on the left (the link to Tourish's attack on Ted Grant), even if they are not even described as a cult, but not on those who satisfy the right insofar as they equate the left with totalitarianism (Arendt). I think, however important it is to expose those who take advantage of people the way cults do, your edits appear to be biased.

I noticed that, after the article passed from being deleted, you took out an entire section which exposed the weaknesses of material in the Tourish book which now heads the article with a link to it most highly selective and questionable material. Perhaps the tourish 'On the edge' book should be given much less prominence. Andysoh 22:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Laqueur criticizes Arendt because he thinks her Origins of Totalitarianism was almost entirely about fascism and Nazism and gave too little attention to communism. Its been a number of years since I read her book but I recall that indeed it was mostly about the Nazi regime. I am not trying to defend Arendt against criticism--I personally don't think much of her "banality of evil" and I'm sure her magnum opus has a lot of flaws. Its just that no one has provided any citation to indicate that her "cult following" in the 1990s was a cult in the sense of being organized, having a leader (Laqueur says Arendt would have been horrified by the enthusiasm about her work and personality), etc. The North citation, by contrast, refers to a political organization that had a leader, a system of discipline and a system of tight control of members. I see nothing wrong with citing in this article, along with Wolhforth's chapter based on firsthand knowledge that calls Healy a cult leader, the book by North, also firsthand info, that does not use the paradigm of the "anticult movement" but nevertheless provides information about behavior that many would interpret as cult like. If there is a book that defends Healy against both Tourish and North, hey, that belongs in the bibliography too. Furthermore, I am not trying to make this an article that one-sidedly attacks the left and protects the right. I removed the reference to the RCP because there is no proper citation to be found. I fought to keep the reference to Ayn Rand (once I had examined the literature) because the citations are abundant. Furthermore, I was not the one who removed the stuff about the Pitt-Tourish controversy (which I had worked along with others to integrate into the article in a reasonably even-handed way), although I think whoever created a new article around it did the right thing. Peace.--Dking 00:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Falun Gong

I removed the phrasing that suggested a moral equivalence between Falun Gong and their persecutors. It is the Chinese government with its army, police and prison labor camps that is clearly the aggressor against a movement that has not used violence and whose only power is that of ideas. Also I removed the lengthy and dubious critique of two deceased leaders of the American Family Foundation for allegedly promoting ideas that helped motivate the Chinese govt crackdown. This material has no relevance to this article. If anyone thinks the information is important I urge them to place it in the Falun Gong article or the AFF article and then debate an accurate and proper wording with other editors on those articles.--Dking 13:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

There must be some way to report on this without either "suggesting moral equivalence," or simply taking the side of Falun Gong, as your edit clearly does. Of the two bad options, I think that yours is worse from the standpoint of NPOV. Also, the AFF is relevant to this article because they are presented as an authoritative source as to what is a cult. The fact that the two leaders are deceased is irrelevant; their views on the Chinese matter is relevant. I will try to re-write this material with your concerns in mind, but it shouldn't be deleted. --Don't lose that number 14:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

To me, it seems like the section on Falun Gong is too lengthy relative to the rest of the article, or perhaps the article is still in the process of being revised. The sections on other groups that are labeled as "political cults" are short, sometimes no more than a sentence. However, Falun Gong's section is much longer. It seems to only present the AFF's argument about Falun Gong. Some of the guidelines to determine what falls under the "political cult" category probably do not apply to Falun Gong. I will try to find some sources. Sequiturnon 19:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe part of that section should be moved to a section on the AFF. The AFF is a controversial organization which makes a lot of contentious pronouncements about cults. --Don't lose that number 14:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have any sources or articles on this that I can view? Sorry, I haven't been able to find anything on this.Sequiturnon 18:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I felt it was time to remove the excessive and irrelevant material about Falun Gong and the AFF. This material properly belongs in either the Falun Gong article or the AFF article or both, although a citation to it certainly would be appropriate in this article. Falun Gong is not a political cult and the religious cultism charges against it are controversial even within the anti-cult movement. The only reason any mention of Falun Gong belongs in this article at all is (a) it is a good example of an outsider religious group that participates in politics (and also articulates a clear political philosophy) and thus needs to be distinguished--as does the Unification Church--from secular political cults; and (b) Falun Gong, in its criticism of the alleged cultism of the CCP and Maoism, articulates ideas that are directly relevant to this article and that have had a significant influence. These points, retained in a much shorter form and without making Falun Gong a separate section, restores the proper focus of this article--on political cults.--Dking 17:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC) P.S. There was a lengthy debate over the attack on AFF inserted in this article earlier this year. The people who argued for keeping it were an International Workers Party supporter subsequently banned from Wiki for disruptive and abusive behavior, and several pro-LaRouche editors (subsequently banned for being sock puppets of a previously banned LaRouche editor).--Dking 17:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Nine Commentaries and Falun Gong

I have removed this paragraph, which implies that the Nine Commentaries was created by FLG. The Nine Commentaries was in fact created by several anonymous Chinese dissidents, and was largly publicised by the Epoch Times and its related media. While FLG practitioners have involvement in the group, they are not an official arm of FLG, and Nine Commentaries are not part of FLG doctrines.--PCPP 06:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Repaired to make clear the associations--Asdfg12345 08:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:Reliable sources, "Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist, whether of a political, religious or anti-religious, racist, or other nature, should be used only as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then with caution."--PCPP (talk) 07:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind giving me some third-party sources classifying the Epoch Times as "extremist"? ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 15:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

They're not "extremist" in that sense, but their association with Falun Gong and frequent anti-CCP rhetorics alone put them in doubt as a source relating to Falun Gong and China. And plus WP:Notability, which the Nine Commentaries fails to adhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PCPP (talk • contribs) 05:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you be please more specific where you think Epoch Times fails WP:Notability. Thank You --HappyInGeneral (talk) 11:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The Epoch Times doesn't have to be an 'objective' source to be included on this page. And it certainly doesn't fail notability, there's been heaps of media coverage on it, in particular, a page one WSJ feature recently. --Asdfg12345 06:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Participation of non-mainstream religious movements in politics: Falun Gong

The instances of self-immolation are definitely notable, and the Chinese government has found them to be attempts at mass suicide. Just because you don't agree with that doesn't give you the right to act like it doesn't exist. Either provide sources that suggest something else or leave it be. This pro-Falun Gong editing has to stop, and I will complain at the appropriate places if people aren't going to compromise. ʄ!•¿talk? 01:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a lot more then that and you know it. See Persecution of Falun Gong and Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident. You are basically passing almost as a fact that "Falun Gong devotees to commit mass suicide" with a big wikilink on mass suicide while your source does not even say that and + Falun Gong teaching always say that Suicide is very bad, and there is no exception to that. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 01:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

¨Mass suicide occurs when a number of people kill themselves together and/or for the same reason.¨, thats how the article defines it. And that is exactly what the article says. No it doesn't use the exact term ¨mass suicide¨ but you are really just being pedantic. ʄ!•¿talk? 02:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The point is that it's hotly disputed whether that was a hoax or not. You can't enter it in the article as though Falun Gong practitioners burnt themselves when there's another article devoted to exploring that very point. Don't you think this is fair? Especially when it's referenced to the known and documented propaganda machine. --Asdfg12345 06:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact that its disputed by some people(even though the particular event you are referring to clearly happened, so I don't really know how you are suggesting that it could have been staged) doesn't mean people should give pro-Falun Gong individuals the benefit of the doubt. Both views are valid—the official version being more valid than a conspiracy theory to be perfectly honest— and have every right to be in the article. ʄ!•¿talk? 22:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, let me put it this way. In Falun Gong the teachings prohibit killing and suicide. There is no membership. The 7 persons who did that (out of another 100 million self proclaimed practitioners), went against the Falun Gong teachings, either from share desperation either it was organized by the CCP to eradicate the practice. In either case, I ask you what qualifies them as practitioners? How can you link Falun Gong to a few mad man who called themselves Falun Gong practitioners? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Also don't forget that there where some independent investigation, which showed that those people where not known as Falun Gong practitioners to begin with. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Fennessy, it's completely beyond the pale that you would suggest the formulation you inserted in the article. It's hate speech. Please don't put it back.--Asdfg12345 13:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

No in fact your behavior is "beyond the pale". Stating what the government of a country believes to have happened is hate speech? This is not only erroneous but also see WP:NPA. The fact that you and the rest of your small cabal of pro-falun gong editors are making blanket reverts & refusing to even work with other editors as per WP:DR is very telling, see also WP:OWNERSHIP. I would remind you at this point that the main falun gong article is under probation. I see this as an extension of that. ʄ!•¿talk? 01:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Fennessy, it is hate speech. The precise argument you inserted in the article has been used, repeatedly, to incite public hatred toward Falun Gong practitioners. Do you know about the holocaust, or the Rwandan genocide? In both of these cases, an "enemy" was created out of thin air. Propaganda filled the media, demonising an innocent group, concocting lies and spreading hatred. People are paid to rat on Falun Gong practitioners in China, who are then dragged to jail and tortured until they sign a piece of paper saying they won't practice anymore. I am not just saying this, it's a documented fact. There are Amnesty reports, Human Rights Watch reports, UN reports, articles in the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, etc., all demonstrating clearly that the persecution is a reality, and that propaganda is one of the primary drivers. It wouldn't work without inciting public hatred, and you may be surprised to know that this immolation incident was a turning point in the campaign to have the public turn on Falun Gong. I would urge you to look a bit beyond what the CCP says at face value.

In a CS monitor article, we have Zhang Qingli saying the Dalai Lama is "a wolf wrapped in monk's robes, a devil with a human face and a beast's heart." and "We are in the midst of a fierce struggle involving blood and fire, a life-and-death struggle with the Dalai clique," — do you think this is normal? They say all kinds of ridiculous and blatantly false and hateful things to further political ambitions. It's called propaganda. The Chinese Communist Party is not a government, either, they are basically a pack of rotten criminals at this point. There is no ideology behind what they are doing, it's simply about power. There is no regulation to stop the CCP doing whatever they want. The whole system is corrupt and unstable. The persecution of Falun Gong is a clear example of what they are capable of, what's going on in Tibet now another. It's not okay to sprinkle wikipedia with hate speech from a violent, autocratic communist regime and pass it off as legitimate. If you have competing ideas, I think we should discuss and share them. I don't wish to make personal attacks or edit irresponsibly. I can dig up a sources from the Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident page which show that what you inserted is propaganda and hate speech. That's all I'm objecting to. I wouldn't have thought it was much to ask.--Asdfg12345 05:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

OK really this is way beyond any kind of objectivity. Its not your job, my job, or anyone else's job on wikipedia to judge China, the government of China, or Chinese politicians. It's to present referenced material regarding the subject encompassing all existing opinions. You editing out one of the largest countries in the worlds' official positions is tantamount to denying the existence of said position. See Wikipedia:The Truth for where you are going wrong with this. ʄ!•¿talk? 08:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I understand. Much of what I am saying is for your personal benefit, and it is not all too ostensibly, directly related with the article. I hope you acknowledge what I am saying generally. While I think it's important, I should not have used this page for that, and I apologise. I'll be more to the point now. If you want to put something about the immolation in this article, that's fine. A few thoughts:

• That it's clear that the claim that they are Falun Gong practitioners comes from the CCP.
• That the immolations were a turning point in the CCP's campaign to persecute the practice (and, by corrolary, that the CCP is currently, and was then, engaged in a campaign of persecution and vilification of Falun Gong).
• That X and Y groups and reporters (third parties) consider it a propaganda stunt (can find references).
• That Falun Gong avowedly rejects suicide, and maintains that it was a government hoax.

This can be done in a few sentences, probably one sentence for each view. My main concerns are 1) that in the article the immolation case is presented not just from the perspective of the CCP, but from all available majority opinion perspectives, including those that say the CCP's perspective is mere propaganda and incitement to hatred, 2) to the extent that I am able to do anything or provide information, that you, yourself, are personally aware of the nature of the CCP's rule and its persecution of Falun Gong.--Asdfg12345 10:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thats really funny because all those things you are asking for in the bullet points I either did anyway from my first edit here, or invited user:HappyInGeneral to do, apart from the suicide part. While it's undeniable that China has suppressed falun gong, to say that "the CCP's perspective is mere propaganda and incitement to hatred" is POV, plain & simple. I don't think any objective person would say otherwise. Other than that do you want write a draft version here, or I can just revert back to what I added & you can add to it. It's up to you. ʄ!•¿talk? 04:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

When you say it's "POV, plain & simple", do you mean, "it's a Point Of View, plain & simple"? That's what I read when I see the acronym. If that's what you mean, then of course it is, any representation is. Anyway, I don't even know if it's appropriate to nut out this particular immolation controversy on this page in the first place?! Here are the two passages. I actually think we should directly edit them below. You first, just change what you think should be changed and we can discuss it. My thoughts are that after all this discussion, I had not even considered how appropriate it is to delve into these disputes in this article. I think we should actually just try to come up with a general thing here, or, actually, take the whole paragraph out altogether. Thinking about it more carefully, it seems out of place. Is the accusation from the CCP that FLG is a political cult? If that were the case it might be relevant. I have never heard this phrasing though, from the CCP or anyone else about FLG. I know their propaganda in some cases, they say it's an evil cult and teaches people to kill and dismember themselves. It's almost self-parodying rhetoric, really, but I never heard them say "political cult." Anyway, whatever happens I'm not keen to spend much more time on this, I'm sure you're the same. To that end I would opt for lopping the whole paragraph or just making it as simple as possible. If you have other thoughts, that's fine. We could just use the final few sentences from the self-immolation article to talk about the immolation controversy, if there is some justification for including it at all. What do you reckon?

A

Falun Gong, a spiritual or quasi-religious movement in China, was highly politicized both before and after repression from the Chinese government, which officially described it as a cult starting in the 1990s. Falun Gong protested this through peaceful methods, such as protest actions overseas and playing on anti-communist elements abroad, the circulation of political tracts critical of the communist regime, but also with displays of self-burning(such as the Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident) which the Chinese government has found to be a coordinated attempt to encourage Falun Gong devotees to commit mass suicide.[5]

B

Falun Gong, a spiritual or quasi-religious movement in China, became highly politicized as a result of harsh repression from the Chinese government, which branded it as a "cult" in the 1990s. Falun Gong fought back through peaceful methods, such as protest actions overseas and the circulation of political tracts critical of the communist regime (see "Background" above).

I think the issue worked itself out on the article anyway. ʄ!•¿talk? 14:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The China-Anti Cult Association (CACA) borrowed many of the concepts of the western Anti-Cult Movement in its polemic against Falun Gong, according to one scholarly article. Another report claims that the "brainwashing ideology" of the Western anti-cult movement has been a contibuting factor in the repression of the Falun Going by the chinese government. In an interview published by the Chinese embassy, American Family Foundation Board member Margaret T. Singer labeled the Falun Gong as a cult, and said she did not feel that the government crackdown on the group was “a religious freedom issue at all.” Singer told the Embassy reporter that the American public’s perception of the Falun Gong as a suppressed religious organization was a result of misunderstandings by the American public and a bias against the Chinese government. The American Family Foundation's then president, Herbert Rosedale, presented a paper at a CACA meeting in China in 2001 and the following year hosted a meeting of the China Anti-Cult Association and "cult experts" associated with the AFF. Rosedale was criticized at the time for lending support to the Chinese government's suppression of the Falun Gong.

moved here from article to be used in some other context. It's good, but off-topic.--Asdfg12345 09:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Ron Paul

Ron Paul should def. be added to the list. I'm too lazy to do it myself, so someone plz do it. --Topk (talk) 05:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

That is ridiculous. Grassroots support doesn't equal a cult. ʄ!•¿talk? 08:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Dennis King site link

I have removed the link to http://lyndonlarouchewatch.org/ under the provisions of WP:ELNO, where "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research" is listed as a link to be avoided. As an example of "unverifiable research," there is the claim at http://lyndonlarouchewatch.org/suicide.htm, that LaRouche persuades his followers to commit suicide by using some form of mind control. The site is also a personal website, discouraged under ELNO, and it is generally an embarrassment -- the home page looks like a parody of the National Enquirer. --Marvin Diode (talk) 06:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the link again. Marvin Diode, a Lyndon LaRouche follower, long crusaded to remove links to this website from Wiki articles about LaRouche. Failing in this enterprise, he is now trying to accomplish his aim by way of an article that is not as carefully monitored. The website lyndonlarouchewatch.org may be distasteful to him, but it includes a large collection of primary source documents, scores of detailed statements by ex-members of the LaRouche group giving their memories of life inside, and the full text of the critically acclaimed Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism as well as articles from The Wall Street Journal, The New Republic, etc. It is an important source of information on LaRouche, and Wikipedians should not tolerate the attempt of LaRouche's followers to exercise totalitarian censorship by deleting the link.--Dking (talk) 01:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't see how the Dennis King article on LaRouche attempting to induce suicide on his enemies is 'an embarrassment' and discusses 'some form of mind control'. It merely discusses LaRouche harassing his enemies, and succeeding in killing a mentally vulnerable follower who had been in his thrall for the past twenty years and more. Allegedly. John Nevard (talk) 04:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Allegedly. See WP:SPS, where it says that Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources. I see no ambiguity or wiggle-room here. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Two points: this is not a biography, and the link is not being used as a source. External links have a lower threshold than sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not exactly a ringing endorsement, although Mr. Nevard seems to have taken it as such. But let me add two additional points of my own. First of all, King doesn't advertise his website as some sort of resource on cults -- it's "Dennis King's website that tracks the Lyndon LaRouche organization," and at WP:ELNO it says the link should be directly related to the subject of the article ...a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. And then, in a another case of what Dking is wont to call "totalitarian censorship," Dking's use of Wikipedia to promote his website has been the subject of an action one year ago by the LINKSPAM team [6], and he should be discouraged from doing it again. --Marvin Diode (talk) 11:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Different website, different context, different pattern of linking. As it is, the LLW website mainly focuses on the foremost political cult in the USA. While other authorities like the ADL have more specific information on political cults, King's site seems to reflect one of the deepest, yet widest focuses of scholars on political cults. John Nevard (talk) 13:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It's the same website, re-named to get more traffic. Otherwise, nothing has changed. Linking to it violates enough policies that I am removing it again, and if you continue to dispute it, perhaps an article RfC is in order. Your POV, that the LaRouche group is "the foremost political cult in the USA," is just that, your POV, as well as King's. But in the article Political cult, there is only a one-sentence mention of LaRouche. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

POV essay promoting ACM ideology

Most people are not aware that this article closely follows the ideology of the Anti-cult movement (ACM) and its strategic decision to expand the definition of "cult" (and subsequent traveling lecture series). Expanding on the historical meaning of cult and the sociological definition, the ACM found it useful to broaden the definition to include a variety of groups that are not religious in the traditional sense, and then further to groups that are not religious at all. Further clouding the picture by conflating the term with "cult of personality" (as in Kim Jong-il or the philosopher Ayn Rand) leaves us with an extremely diffuse definition of cult that is not accepted generally by academics. I haven't followed this area closely in recent years, but I haven't seen this term "political cult" used in mainstream academic publications, but only by the ACM fringe. So what place would this construct have in an encyclopedia? I noticed a comment above that bears repeating:

...this article is essentially a POV essay, masquerading as an article about a poorly-defined neologism.--Tsunami Butler 07:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The article should either be deleted, or rewritten in such a way that makes clear the fringe nature of a phrase invented by a particular group (in the unlikely event that there is consensus that such an invented phrase - which has not entered the mainstream - is worthy of an encyclopedia article). -DoctorW 22:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

First, it should be noted that Tsunami Butler, Don't lose that number, and user:Marvin Diode (all of whom have posted here), are socks of banned user user:Herschelkrustofsky, who in real life is a longtime follower of Lyndon LaRouche, one of the people who is connected to this term. Another person named in the article may have edited extensively here himself. So the editors here are not necessarily objective, univolved observers. Second, the term is used by people unconnected to the ACM. For example, Tim Wohlforth, who co-wrote On the Edge: Political Cults Right and Left. If there are sources that say it's a fringe neologism invented by the ACM then we should certainly include those viewpoints as well. But I think the term is sufficiently well-established and the article is well-enough sourced that it should not be deleted.   Will Beback  talk  23:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the editors you mentioned; it's unfortunate that bad behavior would undermine arguments, but it seems to me that what counts is the content of what is said. The assertion that "political cult" is a "poorly-defined neologism" is correct.

This is the first time I've looked at this page. I read the article and most of the discussion above, and it struck me that the article suffers from the same bias I've seen on some other pages related to "cults" (itself a controversial term in academia). I did a lot of reading a few years ago for a paper on "brainwashing" and cults (which I didn't finish writing as it turned out), and I was struck by the lack of support in the academic literature for the strong assertions in presentations by the ACM people I've heard on (I think) 3 occasions in the last 20-25 years. I have never run across the phrase "political cult" in a mainstream academic journal that I can remember, in spite of the fact that I heard it in ACM presentations before I did my reading. None of the ACM presenters I heard had even an undergraduate degree in psychology or sociology (or anything related), and yet they gave the impression that they had advanced degrees in relevant areas and were passing themselves off as experts on cults. If the term has only been used by the ACM (and the concept not generally accepted by sociology of religion scholars), and by an occasional ex-marxist writer, is it really an encyclopedic construct? I did not notice in the references provided in the article evidence that this concept ("political cult") is "well-established" or in widespread use beyond these two small groups. -DoctorW 00:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The article has 38 citations. Due to some research I'm doing now on the LaRouche movement, I've seen the term used in additional, uncited sources as well. As for it being a "neologism", one of those sources, Architects Of Fear, was published in 1983, 26 years ago. For the purposes of Wikipedia, that doesn't appear to be a neologism anymore. At the top you say that we should just people by what they say, rather than their bona fides, yet your argument against this articles seems to be based in part on the lack of credentials by proponents of the ACM. Are any of those people cited here?   Will Beback  talk  01:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)