Talk:Cult (religious practice)

Cult as typology

@Michael Aureli A cult would be a religious typology because it is a structural type of religious practice and it trancends any one religion. scholars classify religious practices into cults cause its a consistent type of practice. cults exist in many traditions all across the world in the same way other items in the category do. for the record i'm using the ancient definition i don't think the modern one is even a coherent definition lol. i don't see any criterea under which cult wouldn't be included yet all the other items in the category wouldn't. i use a broad rather than narrow definition of typology for utility reasons and to avoid semantic debates. cheers. GastonN'estPasBon (talk) 09:32, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

@GastonN'estPasBon: The main question here is probably whether the idea that the article's subject is a religious typology is verifiable and WP:DUE (as WP:CATV requires the information to be present in the article first). Additionally, is the notion defining to the article's subject, or, in the words of WP:CATDEF, do reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to [it] in describing the topic? I've done some searching for sources along these lines, but haven't come up with much. Do you know of some? – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:44, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I just wanted a make a useful category for people... Why do I even try lol. GastonN'estPasBon (talk) 11:04, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

@Michael Aurel I can't find any sources validating the debate being implied to exist. There is no visible debate over whether cults are a studied type of religious practice (a religious typology) yet there's a ton of literature on cults. However, they are certainly religious, grouped as a type and a practice. This article itself seemingly validates this. The sky is also blue...

"Sometimes a citation request seems motivated more by idiosyncrasy than by material need. For example, an editor may demand a citation to verify that most people have five digits on each hand. Another may insist that the color of the sky is aqua rather than blue, while providing spectroscopic analyses as part of an assortment of verifiable evidence to support their position. Simultaneously, they demand that other editors show equivalent support in reliable sources for the claim that the sky is in fact blue. While there are times when this insistent attention to detail is useful or necessary, it is often simply disruptive and can be dismissed, as there is no need to verify statements that are obvious. Additional claims besides the obvious ones may merit inclusion according to site policies and guidelines, but they should in no way be given greater prominence because they happen to be sourced."

TYPOLOGY

"study of or analysis or classification based on types or categories" https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/typology

"a system of dividing things into types" https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/typology

RELIGIOUS

"relating to religion" https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/religious

TYPE

"a particular kind, class, or group" or "something distinguishable as a variety" or " https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/type

"a particular group of people or things that share similar characteristics and form a smaller division of a larger set" https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/type

"a number of things or persons sharing a particular characteristic, or set of characteristics, that causes them to be regarded as a group, more or less precisely defined or designated; class; category" or "a thing or person regarded as a member of a class or category; kind; sort" https://www.dictionary.com/browse/type

I will readd the category until I am provided citations for an academic consensus that cults aren't a studied type of religious practice in a broad sense. Otherwise, this seems to be pedantry and I want to spend my time on substantive things rather than explaining the obvious. GastonN'estPasBon (talk) 12:36, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

@GastonN'estPasBon: I think we have a few things mixed up here. Here are a few definitions of the word "typology", some of which come from your comment:

• OED, s.v. typology: The study of classes with common characteristics; classification, esp. of human products, behaviour, characteristics, etc., according to type; the comparative analysis of structural or other characteristics; a classification or analysis of this kind.
• Cambridge Dictionary, s.v. typology: the study of types, or a system of dividing things into types.
• Merriam-Webster, s.v. typology: study of or analysis or classification based on types or categories.
• Collins, s.v. typology: A typology is a system for dividing things into different types, especially in science and the social sciences.
• Britannica, s.v. typology: system of groupings (such as “landed gentry” or “rain forests”), usually called types, the members of which are identified by postulating specified attributes that are mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive

These definitions make a few things clear. Firstly, one can refer to either "typology", the study of classifying things into types, or to "a typology", a particular classification of things into types. In this context, the relevant form of the word is the latter. These quotes also make clear that a typology and a type are not the same thing. If you don't understand why a typology and a type are not the same thing, I suggest looking at Table 1.1 in Kenneth D. Bailey's Typologies and Taxonomies: An Introduction to Classification Techniques, p. 5, which supplies a rudimentary example of a typology. The typology contains four types: successful people, underachievers, overachievers, and people who experience failure.

I don't mean to be rude, but you seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding what a typology is. You say that cults are a studied type of religious practice, placing the phrase a religious typology in brackets behind this. However, this contradicts the definitions you've provided (and the ones I've provided), as they indicate that a type and a typology are not the same thing. If you'd like an example of something that is a religious typology, scroll down to Figure 3 in Steve Bruce and David Voas's "Religious Toleration and Organisational Typologies". Their typology of religious organisations contains four types: liberal, devout, activist, and rigourist organisations. I see you're the creator of Category:Religious typologies. Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, most or all of the items in that category are not typologies. The same applies for Category:Irreligious typologies.

I can't see how WP:BLUE is relevant. It's not obvious that a cult is a religious typology, because (at least as far as I can tell) the claim is simply incorrect. Even it were obvious, WP:CAT is a guideline and WP:BLUE an essay; we aren't going to ignore the former's stipulations because of the latter. As to I will readd the category until I am provided citations for an academic consensus that cults aren't a studied type of religious practice in a broad sense, we have an essay on this: see WP:CHEESE. It hopefully illustrates why this sort of request isn't reasonable.

Hopefully this clears things up. – Michael Aurel (talk) 11:40, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

There is a narrow infield definition and a broad/colloquial one. This is why it's written above that the category uses the general/colloquial definition that is broad and inclusive for practical reasons. This category is not based on the narrow infield definition. This has been stated multiple times. If you want a category for the narrow definition, you can make one. Every category on Wikipedia could be torn apart and invalidated using your exact form of argumentation; there's always a narrower academic definition to appeal to, always. A typology is a system of classifying different types of things, such as different types of worship or different types of theology. I want to specify that this is under a colloquial definition. Obviously, scholars and philosophers have no limit to their semantics. Just to be completely clear: the category uses a broad colloquial definition of types and typology. This has been said before. It seems it was missed in the last couple of posts. Luckily, I've given the colloquial definitions as well in one of my posts here. The reason WP:BLUE is relevant is that this discussion is about the colloquial definition, which also seems to have been missed. Cult fits the colloquial definition of a type of thing and is generally considered a type of religious practice in a broader system of classifying religious practices. This is made clear in the lede of this very article. Cults even have their own nested subtypes in a narrower typology. Hopefully this clears things up.GastonN'estPasBon (talk) 16:12, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Update: I figured out what was wrong. Apparently the categories include types, not typologies. Thank you, Michael Aurel, for clarifying. Working on moving the categories to types.

Alright, thanks. Judging by your most recent comment, we are now on the same page. I see that you've moved the category to Category:Religious types, and that it's been taken to CfD. I'll comment there when I have a moment. – Michael Aurel (talk) 07:07, 9 July 2026 (UTC)