Talk:List of controversial new religious movements

From WP:RfD:

• List of controversial new religious movements → List of groups referred to as cults by some media outlets -- POV - not relevant to article content --ZappaZ 04:55, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Please consider your own call for a cooling-off period and delay deciding which redirects to delete until we decide the title of the article. But gee, there sure are a lot! Cheers, -Willmcw 05:37, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes -- for these editors to unilaterally (after losing a VfD where they tried to get the article deleted) change the article's subject and title, and then immediately a) call for a cooling-off period on the talk page, and b) call for the deletion of these redirects as "not relevant to article content" on a different page, is to say the least a bit disingenuous. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:36, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for now. Could be one title to be considered as an alternative proposal. ≈ jossi ≈ 17:53, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

---

Merging the "controverial NRMs" and "purported cults" lists into a single "NRMs" list.

This list of controversial new religious movements includes every group that has a lot of controversy around it, relative to its size. The list does not include groups that clearly fit the profile of a cult. These are included in the list of purported cults.

Suggest merging the list with list of "purporting cults" into single "new religious movements list". That would be NPOV at its best, IMO and we will avoid endless fight over whom to include where, while debates on who is called cult will go to individual articles on those movements. Let's vote here.

Articles may be removed from Wikipedia only after a specified process that uses the page Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion. A review of the relevant talk pages will disclose that this and similar suggestions have been hotly and thoroughly debated recently. --Gary D 21:58, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

Primerica

Added Primerica. It is different in that it doesnt claim to be religion, rather others accuse it of being religious and namely, a cult. Provided references. Please do not remove.

Duplication

Most of the information on this page is an old copy of some of the information at List of purported cults. However, the information was not removed there. The copies seem to be getting out of sync; I just copied two small fixes from List of purported cults.

Either both articles should be merged, or the duplicated information should be removed from one of them.

cesarb 22:18, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I suggest removing the "purported cults list" and discuss this list after that.

This is a lame attempt by the anticult movement to characterize NRMs in a negatve connotation. I am redirecting this page to the list of purported cults. --jossi 16:58, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Jossi, do not create a redirect. You have to put it on votes for deletion. I will revert the redirect. And Elan Vital clearly belongs on this list. You do not even have to go outside Wikipedia to see that Elan Vital belongs on the list. See talk:Prem Rawat. Andries 17:02, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Jossi, there is a lot of overlap between NRMs and cults. Those links are important. It seems to me that we are just wasting our time by reverting each other's edits. Andries 00:22, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

To tell you the truth, I am tired as well. My greatest concern is that you and others are using the words "cult" and "sect" in a peyorative manner. By some incomprehensible reason, it is not OK to shout "Jew!" but it is OK to say "You are in a cult!". Being both a Jew and a student of Maharaji, y cerntainly abhorr both. For me both fall uner the category of religious intolerance and hate group behavior. -- jossi 01:04, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Jossifresco, I urge you to please go to NRM, cults, anti-cult movements, make corrections and them keep coming to maintain the objectivity. I am trying to do the same, but I need supporters.

The difference is that joining a cult is a choice and I believe that people must make informed choices. That is why I think this list is important. You are free to follow your religion but do not censor information in Wikipedia about it. I personally oppose witch hunts against NRMs and members of NRMs but I do think that the public should be told the whole story and not just the propaganda and contagious illusions disseminated by sincere but misguided people. Andries 19:57, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with your POV about cults. This pages is not about cults, but about NRMs with controversies. The links removed are alread listed on the List of purported cults -- ≈ jossi ≈ 21:08, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

Jossi, as I said before there is a lot of overlap between NRMs and cults whether you like it or not. For example Rick Ross's website that you removed lists Elan Vital too i.e. the story of John MacGregor. So what if the links are mentioned twice on different articles. Why is this a problem? Andries 21:31, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You seem oblivious to the controversy sourrunding the List of purported cults and this page. The separation of these into two was due to that controversy, widely discussed in the WP community. --≈ jossi ≈ 21:46, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

I remember it very well and what are you trying to say?Andries 21:49, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My patience is running thin, I must say. But I will try to explain:

1. There is a List of purported cults that had a long discussion in requests for deletion and request for comments
2. As a result of that conversation, this page the list of controversial NRMs was created
3. The intro to this article says

This list of controversial new religious movements includes every group that has a lot of controversy around it, relative to its size. The list does not include groups that clearly fit the profile of a cult.

1. Hence, the links to anti-cult sites has no place here. Their place is in the list of purported cults.

--≈ jossi ≈ 23:25, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

I still do not understand and hence do not agree with you. What here is called controversial NRMs will be called cults by Rick Ross and Steven Hassan. I do not like the term cult but other such as Rick Ross and Steven Hassan use it extensively where I would use the term controversial NRM. Andries 23:34, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A question

I have yet to see a movement that falls within the category of "New Religious Movement" that is not labelled by one or another as being either a cult or being controversial. I see both these distinctions the result of a failed attempt to cloack a negative POV within a dubious taxonomy. -- ≈ jossi ≈ 23:37, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

Some NRMs are very controversial and some are not so controversial. E.g. ACIM of which Gary_D is an adherent is not very controversial but there is a group within ACIM that is controversial. Some of my friends became a member of that group. I have also written about NRMs without mentioning anything negative e.g. Swami Roberto because I couldn't find any substantial criticism, though I personally believe that he is either self deceived or a fraud. Andries 23:44, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

An irrelevant aside: Someone listed the ACIM article on Wikipedia:Cleanup#August 13 a while back, asking for inclusion of criticism; no action yet. In fact, there's really very little serious, pointed criticism floating around out there of ACIM itself (the Skeptic's Dictionary takes only a half-hearted swing at it, there's the usual Christian or two calling it demon inspired), probably because the book is too arcane and turgid for anyone to really bother with freaking out over it, LOL (in other words, going after this one is not very sexy). The group Andries is referring to, on the other hand, now there's sexy controversy! Andries, you should E-mail me sometime and tell me more of what happened to your friends. I know someone who achieved a sort of ACIM satori (see responsibility assumption) at the moment the leader of that group punched him in the nose! --Gary D 09:10, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)