Talk:Cult

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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

Guys, the age of the citations is irrelevant and is part of the history of the subject. Things may have changed over time, but then you include content about the history and changes of the subject. You don't simply discard it all in favor of only covering the here-and-now.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 00:17, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

It's fine to use old citations about the history, but not about what RS are saying now. Valereee (talk) 00:18, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@Grorp For individual facts yes, but for a high level topic that drastically changed its approach (see the swing after waco and then the swing back after Aum), it is probably worth prioritizing more recent sources. This is the "high level" article, so more recent overview sources should be prioritized. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:40, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

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

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

Unmerging political cult

Per above, the list of political cults is a drag on this article and for the quality of this one to be improved it should be removed. However the concept of "political cult" is probably notable and the merge was 11 years ago. Any consensus to split it back out again? PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:51, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA: Well, you already cut it out of the article without any discussion, so I suggest you either put it back in and discuss it, or make an article out of the content you removed. (removed content & removed citations)   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 00:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@Grorp I'm willing to do that provided there is sufficient consensus to undo the merge. Do you think there's enough for a whole article on the concept of "political cults"? I think probably. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:42, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I put the content and sources in User:Grorp/sandbox5, so you can read it there, or copy it, or rename/move it.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 00:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

...meaning you could create a standalone article. I don't object to splitting it out of Cult. And come to think of it, it would be better for you to use the content by copying it and noting the copy being from Cult, to keep track of the edit history per wiki guidelines. I just slapped it into that sandbox; and I'll delete it afterwards.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 00:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I am irritated but honestly I couldn't find many sources on the topic of "political cults" specifically, other than a single Turkish journal article and the On the Edge book. However the term is used so often it's drowned in a sea of mentions. I feel there should be... something. Can you find anything? PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll look.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 01:34, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll add some potential sources here as I find them.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 01:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I too think all of this trivial discussion of the cults themselves isn't helpful here. I'd just list and link. Valereee (talk) 13:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

References

National values

List five causes of cultism 102.88.68.33 (talk) 11:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)