Talk:Cult

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cult article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7: 90 days

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Psychology Mid‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

Horror Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sociology Mid‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

Religion: New religious movements High‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

Scientology Low‑importance

	This article is supported by WikiProject Scientology, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scientology. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on Scientology-related topics. See WikiProject Scientology and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.ScientologyWikipedia:WikiProject ScientologyTemplate:WikiProject ScientologyScientology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Irrelevant references to Donald Trump in the section on Unification Church

Unless the article intends to imply a shadowy, sinister conspiracy between Donald Trump and the Unification Church, I fail to see the relevance of the following lines at the end of the section. Irrelevant material is in bold:

"The Unification Church also owns several news outlets including The Washington Times, Insight on the News, United Press International, and the News World Communications network. The Washington Times opinion editor Charles Hurt was one of Donald Trump's earliest supporters in Washington, D.C. In 2018, he included Trump with Ronald Reagan, Martin Luther King Jr., Margaret Thatcher, and Pope John Paul II as "great champions of freedom." In 2016 The Washington Times did not endorse a candidate for United States president, but endorsed Trump for reelection in 2020."

I suggest deleting this, as it seems to be a rather transparent politically-inspired move to link Donald Trump to a questionable religious movement. I did not notice any references in the article to Rosalynn Carter or Willie Brown's ties to The Peoples Temple, and those connections were far more direct and established. LibrarianBarbaran (talk) 04:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The material on Hurt was WP:SYNTH and has been removed. Thanks for alerting us.Feoffer (talk) 06:19, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the ontire of Trump taken out. BookeWorme (talk) 22:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't seem much related from Trump and "cults". The Washington Times don't even it's people working there for Unification Church. 73.189.88.167 (talk) 16:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cult leaders

I see someone added a section on "Cult leaders", and then it was removed by another. I think the topic is appropriate and think it should be reinstated and expanded. There is much about "cult leaders" available through google scholar. Cult leaders are mentioned in the article, scattered here and there, but I think a summary of characteristics of cult leaders, or methods they use, would be a good addition to this article. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 01:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is sense to me. BookeWorme (talk) 17:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Updating

This article is in need of updating, especially the sources. Thinking has changed among academics in the nearly-quarter century since this article was created. Some of the sources are over 50 years old. Valereee (talk) 11:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee In what way are you noting changes in how this topic is approached, specifically? I'm curious. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, @PARAKANYAA, some of the sources are over 50 years old, and academic thought has changed a lot in that time. Whether we call something a "cult" has profoundly changed, in particular. Valereee (talk) 21:58, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee I agree with that but the answer is probably not much better than it was in the 90s, i.e. cultic studies are pro "cult" label, NRM academics are against it (mostly), and the press don't care and call whatever a cult.

I do agree that the general article needs to be updated but with that specific question I don't think it will be able to be much changed. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:11, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent academic publishing doesn't seem to use "cult" very often, except in discussions of whether the term should be used? Valereee (talk) 22:21, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee The academic discussion was usually (less now) split between two groups, and (there are several articles/books on the academic debate on this topic itself)

"Cultic studies", examples being Janja Lalich, Stephen A. Kent, the publication Cultic Studies Review, academics who are usually explicitly "anti-cult", criticized by NRM academics, almost always use the word cult, the smaller movement
NRM/mainline, almost everyone else. Generally only rarely uses cult. Has been criticized by the Cult Studies academics of being "cult apologists" and the anti-cult movement, by far the larger movement of the two

Cultic Studies academics almost always use cult, NRM scholars rarely do except when discussing public perception. That is the crux of the issue and hasn't changed much. This is less of a thing then it was in the past, as they kind of reconciled, but it is An Issue when you have to deal with sources like pre-2015. The whole debacle is probably notable in and of itself given there is an entire book on it (the "Cult Wars") but the answers are more or less "always" from Cultic Studies academics and "almost never" from NRM scholars (though starting in the 2000s academics did use it in a different way sometimes). This is all off the top of my head so some of the details may be fuzzy. I once wrote a wiki article on a book that covers the whole debate which I feel gives context to the thing: Misunderstanding Cults PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:32, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the best sources are currently saying, we should be able to find recent sources instead of using ones that are 50 years old. Valereee (talk) 22:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disputing that but the answer is split between two polarized groups of academics, so fixing it will be a pain. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:40, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha...yep. Sometimes fixing this kind of thing is a pain. When it's a subject I've got expertise and interest in, I often do fix it myself, but in this case I have neither. I placed the tag hoping that someone who does have at minimum interest will want to do the work. Valereee (talk) 22:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee Really, the bigger problem with this article is that half of it is just piecemail details about specific movements that doesn't have anything to do with the topic as a whole. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, see topic below 'Reversion'. I trimmed it back hard, and Grorp disagreed that it needed to be trimmed back that hard. Valereee (talk) 22:56, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee I think we can probably have an article on "political cults". The merge was over a decade ago, and provided it fulfills GNG would be better off there than here.

In the mean time, I will be attempting to standardize the reference formatting because I have OCD and I find it helps me get a good look at the literature. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You go! Glad it helps in any way. :D Valereee (talk) 23:11, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion

Hey, Grorp. What do you see as particularly valuable about all the historical information about the organizations covered in this section to understanding the article subject? Each of those has its own article. Why do we need all this info here? Valereee (talk) 17:26, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently working on the section. Wait until I am finished. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 17:33, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: I'm finished. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 02:30, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]