Talk:Cult/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Category:Cults has been deleted?

@PARAKANYAA: That was a sneaky move: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 17 § Category:Cults. You didn't even announce the discussion here on Talk:Cult or at any of the 5 Wikiprojects mentioned here and on Category talk:Cults: Psychology, Sociology, Religion: New religious movements, Horror, Scientology. But I suppose that's to be expected since a few months ago you steamrolled over and removed half the content of this article despite protestations. I am beyond myself that you didn't even have the courtesy to notify other editors about the discussion and so the only few who participated were those who regularly engage in CFDs and not a single person who edits at all the cult articles, which have now been dispersed.

It looks like somewhere between 93 and 168 articles were affected or removed from Category:Cults. The two counts were obtained using this contributions history and doing a 'find' on "Category:Cults" and "Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 17#Category:Cults". I am not aware of any method of finding out which articles have been removed from a category.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 17:54, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Is notifying for CfDs an obligation? I didn’t do it to be “sneaky”, I just don’t do it with CfDs I file regardless of topic. I didn’t even want to delete the category per se, I wanted to find a proper definition, because was actually in that category was not what was said to be in it, and what was said to be in it was based on “unusualness”, which is inherently OR for us to proscribe. For that reason, even if we recreate it and start over with a proper definition I consider that to be a net benefit because what was in there was literally completely random with no rhyme or reason. Do you have a better proposed definition for inclusion as to what is supposed to be in the category? Because if you do, then we can recreate it with consensus, but was was in there already was worthless. Some were BLPs, some didn’t even say the word cult in the article, others had accusations that were rebutted and some weren’t even groups. It is the same reason the cult leaders category was deleted a few months ago (which, for the record, I had no part in)

And again, any content I removed was done to address WP:OR concerns cherry-picking from random articles on specific groups instead of broad concept ones, and to address the out of date maintenance tag because no one besides me has tried to address this. Quite frankly the latter half of this article needs to be nuked more because it is even more out of date - why do we have so much on NRMs here?? Who knows. We need to decide on how to write this article and go from there PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:12, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

The problem is we are dealing with a concept that has, as far as I can see, four prominent definitions:

1 ) vernacular definiton which is basically “bunch of weirdos who are harmful”

2 ) sociological definition equivalent to NRM, which is about a specific type of formation and place in society, not strictly harmful

3 ) more recent conception of a harmful group regardless of religion that has certain power dynamics involving high control and abusiveness

4 ) type of religious practice / devotion ritual (we have a separate article for this one

Any category we make will be throwing all these together and any based on the harmful judgment will be OR on when to prescribe it. I personally think the institution of the Catholic Church is damn culty (in the first and third sense). I can go dig for sources that accuse them of being a cult, surely. What stops me from putting them there? How do we decide? Is it just any organization that has been called a cult in the harmful sense by any person ever? How are we going to separate that from the older senses? Because that is what the category was partially using! I believe the *article* can address this if we make a plan, but a category is not like that. A category cannot be a fuzzy thing with such borders, it is or it isn’t. Some things do not lend themselves to categorization for our purposes. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:18, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

What stops me from putting them there?, you ask? The policy you cited in your CFD nomination, MOS:CULT, which says contentious opinion[s] and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject. That is one guideline you should have followed instead of allowing an entire category to be nuked without a peep. I didn't see you object to the deletion (merge) suggestion in the discussion. If you had reservations about individual articles listed in a category, you could have checked to see if "cult" was widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject and remove only individual articles from the category. I spot-checked a few random ones and saw "cult" mentioned and cited in the articles (including those on my own watchlist which is how I found out about the CFD). And quit re-editing your comments above; it's disorienting (see WP:TALK#REVISE).   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 18:31, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

@Grorp Not enough for a category - see the long extended discussions as to why we do not have a Category:Terrorists, another term in the same section. That’s fine for attributed voice in article text, but categorization it has to be more as the terrorist discussion shows - contentious terms don’t lend themselves to categorization, because while in wikivoice we can attribute it, we cannot do so in categories. And per REVISE “ So long as no one has yet responded to your comment, it's accepted and common practice that you may continue to edit your remarks for a short while to correct mistakes” - no one had responded yet PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:41, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Trying to relitigate your viewpoint with me is irrelevant. My point was that you didn't notify anyone else, and so there was no real community consensus to delete the category. It would be naïve to think that no-one but categoryists would be interested in the discussion when you knew full well that "cult" was a hot topic and would be of wider interest.

As to your re-editing, you misinterpret the policy. It is disorienting to be in the middle of drafting a response just to find out that before I click 'publish' you have added large swaths to what I'm trying to respond to, making my response either insufficient or off-the-mark. Making corrections, adding links, etc. (which are acceptable actions) is not the same thing as what you have been doing.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 19:08, 25 January 2025 (UTC) And of course I hadn't yet responded, because you kept moving the goal post.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 19:09, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

If there was a category deletion sorting like there is for AfD that would be another thing, but there is not, but as is I do not believe there to be any obligation to notify any projects about a CfD (and also I actually don’t know how to. Is there a template for CfD notifications?). PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:13, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion § Notifying interested projects and editors, which is under the section "How to use CfD".   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 23:54, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

TIL {{cfd notice}} is a template that exists and it isn't just a default Twinkle set up, I will use it on broad ones going forward. The only remotely active project out of the ones this article is tagged with is the Scientology project so perhaps I should have notified that but it seemed specific especially given that it is mentioned a whole of once here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:59, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

It says “before anyone has responded”. You hadn’t responded. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:13, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

And OK, I will make an effort to respond separately. Usually people do not respond this quickly so I am not used to it and want to clarify my thoughts. Apologies. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree that the lack of notification to relevant pages, and the negligible participation (especially compared to the previous discussion of the same proposal), is not satisfactory. A deletion review is inevitable. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:59, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Any DRV should also include Category:Cult leaders, which was CfDed by someone else several months ago, for consistency's sake since the same applies to both. I don't believe anyone was notified of the 2006 discussion, it was just more active back then. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:02, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

And I dispute the idea that this makes the nom somehow defective - I gave it just as much due diligence as any other CfD, unless there is some notification process or obligation I am missing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:03, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Described at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion § Notifying interested projects and editors.

Putting any sort of notice at Talk:Cult would have been in order, especially since you should have known the nomination might be controversial/disputed. Also, I imagine most people interested in the subject would have that primary/top-level article watchlisted, though few editors watchlist categories.

DRV on this recent CFD does not need to be conflated with the CFD on Category:Cult leaders. I can imagine "cult leaders" falls afoul of BLP which is more stringent than for other article types. I wasn't involved and don't care about that topic, though I notice you formatted your recent nomination with arguments/phrasing used on that other CFD, which was also poorly attended.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 00:23, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

@Grorp It was deleted for being a WP:SUBJECTIVECAT ("a magnet for POV pushing"), which I think took precedent over the mentioned BLP violations. How is this category different when it comes to that issue? It also has most of the same BLP issues, as many cults are small organizations with identifiable people involved. With ones say, Mormon sized, that would be less of an issue, but BLP applies to any BLP material anywhere, which also applies to small groups. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:53, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

I apologize for not making a greater effort when it comes to notifying, however the policy clearly indicates any notification is optional ("you may"). PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:54, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

You presume more than is evident in those two CFD discussions. Non-existent notification of other editors and wikiprojects, plus meager participation in the CFD, makes the closure decision an inadequate reflection of community consensus (for both CFDs).   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 02:25, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

If not notifying (a completely optional aspect of the process) is enough to make a proposal an “inadequate reflection of community consensus” than almost every CfD is which is clearly not the case. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:51, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment Imho many categories are deleted way too liberally with very little input from editors, a lot of the time only like one or two "votes" are needed to delete something that's been around and accepted for years. Many times the editors that the category is actually relevant for have zero idea that the category is even up for discussion.★Trekker (talk) 04:00, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Do people not check article alerts? This isn't about this category really I'm just genuinely curious. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:18, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

You're clutching at straws. If you're referring to article alerts for a wikiproject, few people have those on their watchlist or even know they're available. I'm quite sure I didn't find out about them until I'd been editing for almost two years. In this case, a notice would only have shown up for the 3 wikiprojects on Category talk:Cults (topics I don't care about), and not the two extra listed at Talk:Cult (one of which would have alerted me). My point has been that you knew this subject would be contentious, and you knew the category was closely tied to article Cult, and so you should have at least made a notation there for those who had watchlisted Cult. Notifying others is not "optional", and whataboutism ("almost every CfD is") is not a valid argument and is not constructive. FFS, I feel like I've wasted my time to even engage with you on this subject.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 06:17, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

There is no requirement that you notify any article when you do a CfD. I didn't know it would be contentious, because no one complained when the Cult leaders category was deleted - if anything I thought that one would be far more contentious. The categories for this topic were so poorly maintained that clearly no one was actually checking what was or wasn't in the category - another reason to doubt it would be contentious. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:43, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Additionally the way it was the majority of what was in that category should not have ever been in it. It was a non-diffusing category, and since the NRM cat was set up as a subcategory of that category most of the stuff should have been removed as already in a subcat. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:45, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

For an illustration, here are some things that were in this category

• Doc Antle - BLP that says that some people accused him of running one (in any case that would be cult leaders, not that he is a cult) and thus categorizing it is a BLP vio
• Zebra murders - article does not mention cults whatsoever
• Joy of Satan Ministries article does not mention cults whatsoever
• Élan School - doesn't mention cults whatsoever
• Erhard Seminars Training - "some labeled it" vs our category system which is saying that it factually, without any grey area, is one
• Cult of the Supreme Being cult in the antiquated, non pejorative sense sense which is not what the category is for

This is just a selection of some of the ones that bothered me. I can get more! It was a disaster! PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:55, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Miscategorisation of some articles is not a reason to delete a category. The proper response is to remove them from the category. Other article subjects are described by numerous scholarly sources as cults. Cambial — foliar❧ 08:20, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

What definition are we using? The category criteria before I CfDed it was "social groups that are defined by their unusual religious, spiritual, or philosophical beliefs". Virtually every article in that category was not strongly established to fit that definition. It is a WP:SUBJECTIVECAT - defining things based on "unusualness" is obviously a subjectivecat. Hitler being evil is a well established detail in scholarly sources but are we going to make a category of Category:Evil people and put him in it? Same reason we do not have a category for Category:Terrorist organizations, instead we have ones designated as such by specific authorities. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:49, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

And, as with the "terrorist" category problem, being described as such is not enough when the definition we are using is a value/moral judgement. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:56, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

You keep asking this question “what definition?” like it’s a “gotcha”. It’s not. Reliable sources determine content, not a definition made up by Wikipedia editors. If an article subject is characterised by multiple scholarly or in-depth mainstream journalism sources as a cult, for our purposes it is a cult, it can be categorised as such, and we need not concern ourselves with your ad nauseam question. Cambial — foliar❧ 09:14, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

No it cannot, for the same reason we do not have Category:Terrorists or Category:Terrorist organizations, despite the fact that RS uses this term abundantly. It is a subjective judgement whether it is us making the judgement or not. If a person or group is categorized by multiple scholarly sources as evil or abusive can we categorize on that basis? PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:17, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Evil and abusive are adjectives. Thus we do not use them as a category. Cult is a noun. Your claim that it is a "subjective" noun is merely your own invention. Cambial — foliar❧ 09:22, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Terrorist is also a noun. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:27, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

We can't have a category called "Racist people" or "Racist groups", as explicitly stated in WP:OVERCATEGORIZATION even if that term is abundantly used in RS to refer to them. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:22, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

See Category:White supremacist groups etc. Cambial — foliar❧ 09:26, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

That is obviously a completely different situation. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:29, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

It’s not completely different. You suggested an equivalency to racist groups; now you are back-pedalling. Cambial — foliar❧ 09:48, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

The situation with the much more specific term white supremacist is obviously not the same as "racist" broadly. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:53, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Under your illogical schema (in which you perceive such a specious or illusory distinction to be “obvious”) you’ll have no objection to categories for “child abuse cults” “women abuse cults” and of course “white supremacist cults”. Cambial — foliar❧ 10:32, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I do, because the issue is with the words "racist" and "cults" (or as your linked article calls them, high demand groups). There is no one arbiter of what that is. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:37, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

If you wish to file a DRV that is your prerogative - I don't think it will get us anywhere as that is how it tends to go when it comes to CfDs. Us talking in circles at each other about what words mean with no outside input will convince neither of us, and it is 5am and I've been up for entirely too long so I will head off now. Have a nice night/day. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:39, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

References

Category for discussion

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 25 § Cults.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 00:58, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Cults and safe spaces

Leijurv reverted my edit to Cult and my edit to Safe space where I included added links to the See also sections of the two articles.

@Leijurv: Could you please elaborate why you believe that the connection between cults and safe spaces is unsupported? Zero Contradictions (talk) 05:26, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I believe the connection is unsupported because I do not see any support for the connection. WP:V? Also don't think it passes the common sense test of WP:SEEALSO Leijurv (talk) 05:36, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

There are multiple obvious similarities between cults and safe spaces, so the connection between cults and safe spaces passes the common sense test of WP:SEEALSO. Zero Contradictions (talk) 05:47, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I think it's clear from common sense, but maybe it's not, so I'll explain it anyway.

Cults are defined as follows:

Cults are social groups which have unusual, and often extreme, religious, spiritual, or philosophical beliefs and rituals. Extreme devotion to a particular person, object, or goal is another characteristic often ascribed to cults. The term has different, and sometimes divergent or pejorative, definitions both in popular culture and academia and has been an ongoing source of contention among scholars across several fields of study.

Safe spaces are defined as follows:

The term safe space refers to places "intended to be free of bias, conflict, criticism, or potentially threatening actions, ideas, or conversations", according to Merriam-Webster.[2] It is a place where marginalized groups can discuss issues pertinent to them without having to address questions or remarks that might be directed at them from majority groups in society who are not familiar with certain issues.

Safe space#Criticism also says:

Opponents of safe spaces argue that the idea stifles freedom of speech,[32][33] or blurs the line between security against physical harm and giving offense.[34] In response, advocates for safe spaces assert that people subject to hate speech are directly affected by it.[35]

Cults and safe spaces both:

• Have shared philosophical beliefs (and rituals) among their members.
• Oppose (free) speech from outside groups.
• Have been used as pejorative terms.

The differences are:

• Cults often have cult leaders, but not always. See: wikt:cult.
• Safe spaces tend to be associated with marginalized groups, like LGBTQ culture. However, cults also tend to characterize themselves as "marginalized".
• Cults have negative connotations. Safe spaces usually have more positive connotations, but they can also have negative connotations among right-wingers and centrists.

I believe that safe spaces and cults have enough similarities to each other to warrant linking the other article in their See also sections. Zero Contradictions (talk) 13:56, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I think the similarities you list are a bit weak. There is significant disparity in how intense those qualities are on the two subjects (e.g. "safe space" is occasionally used as a pejorative by some individuals, but "cult" almost always is). The qualities listed are vague enough that you could probably apply them to most groups of individuals to some degree (why do you consider these two "similar" and not, say, "political party", or "book club"). WelpThatWorked (talk) 14:49, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

The similarities are not weak. The reason why most of these qualities can be applied to most groups of individuals to some degree is because almost any group of people could be described as a cult or safe space. It all depends on what perspective you're viewing them from.

On Wikipedia, there is a general consensus on which groups are cults and which are not, but that perspective is not universal. Most people who are inside cults don't realize or believe that they're part of a cult, so they would label more dominant cultures as being "cults", according to their perspective.

Every cult or social group seeks to propagate its values however it can. That usually entails having a shared set of beliefs (and rituals) and opposing speech from outsiders.

I agree that there is a disparity in how laudative or pejorative the two concepts each are, but I don't believe that this disqualifies linking between the two pages. That is the most important difference, but I pointed out how Safe space#Criticism shows that safe spaces aren't always viewed positively.

I also wrote that the other two properties aren't always associated with cults or safe spaces. There is a family resemblance for examples of cults and a family resemblance for examples of safe spaces. Once again, I think that the two concepts have enough similarities between each other to justify linking between the two articles. Zero Contradictions (talk) 15:37, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

My two cents on this matter is that while there may be some inkling of a link (although I really don't agree), the average reader wouldn't benefit from the linking anyway. MallardTV ^{Talk to me!} 16:13, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Eh, I guess you're right. There's more important things to do, so this discussion is not worth continuing. I'm going to move on. Zero Contradictions (talk) 17:08, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

"Oppose (free) speech from outside groups." Not much different than other cases of an in-group and out-group mentality in practice. As pointed by the main article: "people tend to evaluate actions of their own group or team members much more favorably than those of outgroup members." People tend to justify and defend the ideas and actions of their in-group and specific members of it, while viewing out-groups with distrust or hostility. The so-called free speech from out-groups will probably be perceived as a verbal attack on the in-group and its ideas, and the most likely result is the group's equivalent of the rally 'round the flag effect. The perceived attack will only boost the loyalty of members to their cause and its leaders. Dimadick (talk) 18:05, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Religion 100 Introduction to Religion

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation–supported course assignment, between 16 March 2026 and 6 May 2026. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Wht1229 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Aebalbu, OsmanthusTea07, Aayanatandon.

— Assignment last updated by Astra801 (talk) 23:44, 20 April 2026 (UTC)