Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opposition to cults and new religious movements

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. ugen64 00:06, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Opposition to cults and new religious movements[edit]

We have already too many articles covering this subject in depth: Cult, Apostasy, Christian countercult movement, Anti-cult movement, and many related articles. These points are all covered there. No new info, does not warrant its own article. Delete --Zappaz 15:30, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • The first one is just a disputed scholar original research verging on rant to try to instill the concept of ACM as organized. It one of the reasons (there is an even more charicatural piece by some picturesque "scholar", massimo) why this ACM virtual article (it even lacks a definition) is ambiguous beyond repairs, and a more inclusive one is needed.
  • It is right that the second one has to do with opposition to cult and that it is reductionist to leave it in the ACM article. So maybe you are just showing your interest in my idea of merging the ACM article in this broader one. Thanks. --Pgreenfinch 08:13, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, the definition of Anti-cult movement (ACM) is normally defined (e.g. in Barrett's New Believers) by their
  1. history: grew out of concerned parents youth in the 1970s in the USA
  2. beliefs: mind control, brainwashing, class of groups that can be distinguised for legitimate groups and called cults
  3. methods: not talking with the cult, deprogramming, exit counseling
There are former members who have NOTHING in common with this but still oppose as certain cult because they have observed abuses or deception. E.g. André van der Braak, ex-Andrew Cohen, several ex-premies, several follower of Sathya Sai Baba, like Robert Priddy, Basava Premanand incl. myself. For example Nori Muster ex-Hare Krishna openly protests against the concept of brainwashing in her book Betrayal of the Spirit. It is highly inaccurate and even offensive to lump them all together as if they have anything in common. We took great pains not to stigmatize cults and NRMs and highlight the diversity and hence the same MUST be expected with regards to people who complain about some of them. The ACM article now makes ridiculous charicatural generalizations about people who have nothing in common. Do we call this NPOV? Andries 16:00, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Diverse POVs are well covered already: see above list.
The definition of ACM is wrong. Barker suggested cult watch groups Andries 16:32, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, this article is more general that the reductionist and ambiguous article about a purported Anti-cult movement, which, btw, until now, did not get a clear definition whatever the attempts. One conciliatory solution might be to merge that other article into this new broader one. --Pgreenfinch 18:32, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • It will be very easy to merge the text into the new religious movement or cult. That is where this belongs. Otherwise it makes an unecessary fork. --Zappaz 01:54, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I do not mind if it is merged if and only if the generalizations are on the place where they belong. For example, the term atrocity story, coined by Bromley is now listed under apostates and apologists which is incorrect. This concept belongs under organizational oppposition to cults. The main problem with the ACM article is that it allows generalizations by scholars about people who have nothing in common. These scholars never meant to make those generalizations about such a diverse group of people. Andries 08:14, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It makes no sense to insist that cults and new religious movements not be subjected to unfair generalizations only to turn around and protest that those who oppose cults and new religious movements are already fairly dealt with by existing pigeonholes. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:25, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
??? --Zappaz 01:50, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for above reasons. --Ryan! | Talk 00:58, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, crummy title, fork fodder. Wyss 00:59, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
??? --Pgreenfinch 07:50, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - subject already covered in a myriad of articles. I would call this spam. ≈ jossi ≈ 04:05, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but with reservations. Cleanup and expand. Megan1967 05:26, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge appropriate details into appropriate existing articles and turn this into a disambiguation page in case someone would search using this term. - Skysmith 08:51, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. While there is an article on the anti-cult movement, there is opposition to cults and sects which is not associated with that movement. I agree with the effort to reduce the number of cult-related articles, and I hope that the articles on that topic will become comprehensive and concise. -Willmcw 09:34, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Opposition_to_cults_and_new_religious_movements&oldid=1089093124"