Talk:Cult

From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Modern definition of a cult.[edit]

cult. : This definition of a cult is wrong and ridiculous. Just because people use the word incorrectly does not mean the definition should be changed. I’m referring to this definition as considered to be “modern”: “In modern English, cult is usually a pejorative term for a social group that is defined by its unusual religious, spiritual, or philosophical beliefs and rituals, or its common interest in a particular personality, object, or goal.” So an unusual religious belief or common interest in a particular person or goal is a cult!? A social group with Philosophical beliefs towards a goal or a person is a cult !? You could technical say anyone that believes in anything or as a goal in anything is in a cult. It makes no since. This definition of a cult is incorrect and invalid. 136.53.7.190 (talk) 20:00, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if all you read is the first sentence of a Wikipedia article, of course it's going to sound a bit stupid. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:53, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of any complete definition of a "cult", mainly it seems in the political sense, one quality seems to always apply universally yet simplistically: "Any person or group member who is unwilling or unable to hold their leader accountable" 2601:6C3:100:4CC0:DDE7:5074:1E92:BCB1 (talk) 03:38, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, "brainwashing" is often the basis for the use of "unable" above. JC 2601:6C3:100:4CC0:DDE7:5074:1E92:BCB1 (talk) 03:43, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Cult of Kohmeni"[edit]

The definition of "cult" being used there is far too loose for an article explicitly about cults - especially when the authors in question are an American culture journalist and Amir Taheri who is well known for writing fabrications. Simonm223 (talk) 17:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are not exactly scholarly. Seems like a reasonable removal of poorly-sourced content. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An article about cults as a broad concept is not a current events article. We should be striving for high-quality sources. Not people with a history of making things up. Simonm223 (talk) 17:46, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of sources. What is "The definition of "cult" being used there is far too loose for an article explicitly about cults" supposed to mean? It seems a circular, or knot-like argument. The article could certainly do with more untangling of the various meanings of the word. At the moment the article unquestioningly accepts the modern Anglophone one used by "culture journalists" and the general public, and no-one else much. Johnbod (talk) 03:14, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey can you teach me about this cult 103.14.89.239 (talk) 09:05, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spurious definitions[edit]

Defining a cult as "relatively small" is an opinion. It would appear this article is not the place to come for a definition. I do not believe that statement needs clarification. Traumatic (talk) 01:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Italics or not italics for title[edit]

@Loytra: Responding to your insistence on italicizing the title, and your latest edit summary:

MOS:WAW does apply to titles, as per the first line of WP:ITALICTITLE: "Use italics when italics would be necessary in running text". WAW specifies that, as this article discusses 'cult' specifically in the lense of it being a pejorative term, it should be italicised. This usage is displayed in other articles such as Woke and Colored.

The articles Woke and Colored are articles focusing on one "special meaning" of what are otherwise general words in English with many other meanings, which gives them a potential reason to be italicized. However, "they did it over there" is not the same as properly interpreting policy/guidelines, and such examples don't give much weight to your argument. For a sampling, I spot checked two dozen articles from Category:Pejorative terms (specifically, the first article listed for each letter of the alphabetic), and I found only 2 with italics: Sadaejuui which is a Korean word and Jodeldiplom which is a German word, both of which would ordinarily be italicized. I also found Dick (slang) and Prick (slang), both categorized as pejorative but only one in italics.

The word "cult" is a concept with a long history, it has broad meaning, and is not—in this article—being used in any "special meaning", nor does the article focus on one meaning of the word, nor only pejorative meanings of the word. The topic isn't a cushy-friendly topic—nor are Nazism, Homicide, Armageddon, or any number of unpleasant topics found in Wikipedia without italics.

The word "cult", however, fits none of the categories suggested in WP:ITALICTITLE: Use italics when italics would be necessary in running text; for example, taxonomic names, the names of ships, the titles of books, films, and other creative works, and foreign phrases.

  ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 06:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I truly do not understand your argument here. You criticise me for using "they did it over there" as an argument, even when I only cited two articles as an example of proper usage of policy. Then, you turn around and write a paragraph insisting I'm wrong because "two dozen" other articles aren't italicised, and also argue that cult isn't "being used in any "special meaning"" nor on "one meaning of the word".
This article introduces and talks about "Cult" as a term. Plain and simple. Per MOS:WAW, Use italics when writing about words as words. Per WP:ITALICTITLE, Use italics when italics would be necessary in running text. Not sure how it can get much clearer than that. You cite the examples listed at ITALICTITLE as evidence against this but, they are just that, examples of cases in which an italised title would be necessary. The first line of ITALICTITLE even then links to MOS:ITALIC, of which WAW is a subtopic.
There's no need to point to any other articles or to make any other arguments about cult's 'special meaning'. As far as I understand, it's really as simple as that. Loytra (talk) 09:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Until 3 November 2022 this article was defined as being about the topic of cults, not about the word cult. Much of the article is still about cults, not the word. It should probably revert to being defined as about the general topic. Nurg (talk) 01:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, the article is about cults, but in only one sense of the term (the most common one in today's usage). It is necessary to explain both the development of this sense of the word, and the growing hostility to it over the last century. But the article is about the topic, not the word, and italics are not needed. Johnbod (talk) 02:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done... for various reason including yours, Nurg and Johnbod. I was involved in a lengthy discussion and research of the guidelines that have been mentioned above. Discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Italic title or not?. The result was that the idea of italicizing a title because an article is about a "word" was never the intent of the policy WP:ITALICTITLE. The concept was inferred from an insertion by an editor that was indef-blocked for using a bot and doing over 300 edits per day, every day. The two other editors who joined in the discussion were in agreement that these "word" articles shouldn't have italics titles — one agreeing with you two that the articles such as Cult should be reworded to remove "is a term" type language in the lead sentence. As such, I have removed the italics title from this article, and reworded the first sentence similar to how it was before the IP editor introduced it in their 3 November 2022 edit (incidentally, providing no source for the change).   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 02:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cult&oldid=1214297214"