Category talk:Books about cults

Expansion, populate request

• Wikipedia should, in my opinion, contain more articles about books that would fit into this category. And specifically, I am referring to books from both the anti-cult movement and cult apologist camps, as well as books on specific cults and historical books on cult leaders. In this manner, when these books are used as secondary references within other Wikipedia articles on the subject, the reader will not have to go leave Wikipedia to get more information on that particular reference. Yours, Smeelgova 07:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC).

List would be useful as well

• At some point, a related list would be useful as well. In this manner, the list could be much more inclusive than the category, and could elaborate briefly on specific methodologies and leanings of the various books. Yours, Smeelgova 07:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC).

Have been called

This added "groups that have been called" to the definition. I support it because it allows us to avoid using Wikipedia's voice to say that these are cults. Rather, we add books that are reliable sources on groups that reliable sources have identified as cults. MilesMoney (talk) 22:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The suggested change does not comply with WP:CAT. Categories are for "essential—defining—characteristics of a topic." The passive "have been called" opens the category to any and all books in which someone has said "they are a cult" or "they have been called a cult" or "their members are cultish" etc. Wikipedia's voice is not the issue. The question is whether the book itself has essential defining characteristics. – S. Rich (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Right now, we have books categorized which name specific groups as cults. With the language Wolf suggests, Wikipedia's voice is being used, so we are at risk of violating BLP due to lack of a sufficiently RS. On the other hand, "have been called" makes the cult accusation attributed, rather than in our own voice.

For a great example of why this is important, consider Wolf's removal of the category on the basis that he personally feels Ayn Rand's Collective wasn't a cult. He put his opinion above the reliable source. With the category restored to "have been called", such nonsense is no longer tenable. MilesMoney (talk) 00:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

As this particular talk page is not watched by many editors, I suggest you post notices of your suggested change on the WikiProjects WP:RELIGION, WP:CATP, & WT:BOOK. – S. Rich (talk) 00:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I have no suggested changes; I simply want to undo the damage that Wolf caused. MilesMoney (talk) 01:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

MilesMoney is lying here. His comments about my motives are entirely made up. As I stated here [1], a few weeks ago, without notice, discussion, or consensus, a new editor altered the category description, in a way which conflicted with established usage/practice for the category, as well as with WP:LABEL, and is problematic with regard to BLP issues. I never made any statement regarding Ayn Rand's following. Milesmoney has deliberately made false statements about my actions, statements, and motives. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

See, that's what's called a personal attack. You're also completely wrong about the details. If the category is defined as being books about cults and we include The Ayn Rand Cult, then we'd be asserting that Ayn Rand had a cult. But if it's just about groups that "have been called" cults, we're properly attributing the accusation to the author. In the case of Rand, there have been a few notable people who said she had a cult, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia's voice should be used. MilesMoney (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Description of category

Trying for another NPOV change, I've revised away from the "have been called" verbage. Passive voice avoided. Focuses on the book topics, not alleged cults themselves. – S. Rich (talk) 22:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I endorse your change. The previous version opened up the category to abuse, as we saw here recently. Roccodrift (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Calling the groups cults is non-neutral, and non-specific. The term cult is a pejorative and as such should be given some context. Zambelo (talk) 23:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Please note the parameter, as written, avoids the term "group". Perhaps we can add a proviso that says something like "The category does not include books about specific groups, whether or not they are described as cults." – S. Rich (talk) 23:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

One issue I see is that the term cult ha different meanings as employed by various groups - psychologists would define it one way (and disagree on an exact meaning), whereas the non-secular christian countercult would define a cult as any group not strictly adhering to christian scripture. Categorising any book simply mentioning the word in this category is therefore placing all the various definitions under the one umbrella term, "cult". Phrasing it in such a way that refers to the various meanings the word has is a way of describing the varous meanings of the word used in the books and categorized here. Zambelo (talk) 01:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, I think we need to limit the category to books that discuss cults as social/religious/political entities in an overall sense. Not books about particular cults. The danger of an inclusive categorization is opening up the tent for every book that mentions cults to put their nose in. Rather than the two of us discussing, perhaps other editors in the WikiProjects WP:RELIGION, WP:CATP, & WT:BOOK could join in. At the moment I'm happy with the version of the proviso (because I wrote it of course), but I'll post notices and request more input if you like. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 04:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I think this is prudent, and I would also suggest limiting it to secular/Sociology/Psychology publications. I agree that the "have been called" phrasing should be revised, mostly because it is clunky - but we need to maintain neutrality here, and since cult is such a laden term, the language should reflect that this is the opinion of certain writers. I'm happy to wait for others to weigh in though. Zambelo (talk) 06:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure that the books themselves have to express a secular perspective to be included. Wouldn't "cult-related books" also include both publications by the cults themselves, and publications where the POV of the writers is hard to determine? For example, When Prophecy Fails (1956) was a social psychology study on a UFO religion-related cult which was facing a crisis of faith. The religious views of the writers themselves were not recorded. And the Book of the SubGenius (1983) is a publication by the Church of the SubGenius, which has been described as both a cult and a parody of cults. Aren't they both "cult-related"? Dimadick (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I've posted FYIs re this discussion on the various project talk pages mentioned earlier. For my part, though, I'm going to disengage from the discussion. You folks know more about this and will, I'm sure, do quite well in sorting out the parameter & parameter description. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 17:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)