Talk:Amy Carlson (religious leader)
Latest comment: 2 months ago by Khajidha in topic Untitled
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Amy Carlson (religious leader) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Untitled edit
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)
- Wikipedia aspires to be better than newspapers. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:36, 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)
- As a cult is a religious movement, I don't see the problem.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 02:54, 2 March 2024 (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)
- I don't know, NXIVM seems like religion cloaked in a thin veneer of pseudoscience to me.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 02:09, 3 March 2024 (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)
- As a cult is a religious movement, I don't see the problem.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 02:54, 2 March 2024 (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)
- Wikipedia aspires to be better than newspapers. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:36, 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)