This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
This article is within the scope of the Women in Religion WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Women in religion. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Women in ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject Women in ReligionTemplate:WikiProject Women in ReligionWomen in Religion articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Latest comment: 4 months ago8 comments3 people in discussion
calling a cult leader a "religious leader" and the cult a "new religious movement" is exceptionally silly and violates the npv rules, this page reads a lot more like a press release than a factual wikipedia page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.143.201.182 (talk) 23:27, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Per MOS:CULT, cult is a pejorative term that is generally avoided in academic discussions of new religious movements. Wikipedia should aspire to have an academic, rather than a populist perspective. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
seems curious that this "pejorative" is in the title of a vast majority of the cited articles but only used once on the wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.143.201.182 (talk) 23:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
that might be the most silly thing anyone has ever written about wikipedia considering it is built on the back of citing valid sources. but in any case, i can see why you'd argue that considering your use of MOS:CULT is invalidated by its own rules - each of the citations used for this cult's description both in title and text as per the rule call it a cult, not just as a pejorative, but as a description of what it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.143.201.182 (talk) 23:41, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
A "cult" is not necessarily a religious movement, see NXIVM for an example of that. Carlson's followers had/have genuine religious beliefs that should be treated in the same way we treat all other religions beliefs. The current lead is in line with the guidelines at MOS:CULT. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
