Talk:Heaven's Gate (religious group)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Saturday Night Live episode

A 1997 episode of Saturday Night Live opened with a sketch in which the dead members of the cult were still alive, had been successful in boarding an alien spacecraft in the comet, and were doing a live interview from the spacecraft with Ted Koppel on Nightline. This same episode featured a commercial parody that utilized footage of the cult members' Nike sneakers, followed by the Keds logo, accompanied by the phrase "Keds: Worn by Level-Headed Christians."[:--66.63.207.86 (talk) 20:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Comet naming

Just a quick note: "Hale-Bopp" is a proper name describing a particular object of the cometary type. In conventional usage regarding comets, asteroids, constellations, and some other celestial bodies and phenomena, the type preceeds the name, just as it does for many (though not all) proper names in the English language.

The former usage here, "the Hale-Bopp comet," makes about as much sense as the term "the George Bush President," or "the Nicole Kidman actress." There's a reason the wikipedia article on Comet Hale-Bopp is named the way it is, so it is kind of pointless to undo the naming convention with a more complex than necessary piped link. Thanks. Jeff Medkeff 04:23, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

So it's wrong to say Halley's Comet? It should be Comet Haley's instead?--T. Anthony 08:45, 18 September 2005 (UTC) I guess it is I got redirected to Comet Halley. Still I've never known anyone who called it that.--T. Anthony 08:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Halley's is an expection. It's kind of grandfathered in. Wahkeenah 04:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that over time, "Halley's Comet" came to be a proper name itself through repeated usage. A comet might be named "Dan's Comet" in the same fashion; the entire genitive phrase is the proper name, not just "Dan." On the other hand, "Hale-Bopp" is the whole proper name of our other example; not "Hale-Bopp's Comet, or "Hale's and Bopp's Comet." Most comets are referred to in this fashion, just like hurricanes. You wouldn't say "the Katrina hurricane," but rather "Hurricane Katrina." Why we are having this discussion here-- I have no idea! And since I can't resist-- does anyone else remember that before Halley's Comet returned in '86, everyone always pronounced it with a long A, as in HALE-ees? And seemingly overnight, that long A became a short a? That blew my mind. Richard Lewis had a great bit about that on Letterman.

Interesting. Here in the U.S. Midwest, we all pronounce it HALE-eez. -Hypertext 05:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
The short "a" is correct. The long "a" probably comes from the influence of Bill Haley and the Comets. --Trovatore 23:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
In fact the historically correct pronunciation (see Edmond Halley) of the "a" is similar to the vowel in "law". In my extensive, professional historians usually pronounce Halley with an ordinary short a ("a" in IPA, I think). 130.225.25.169 (talk) 07:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Gnosticism

Can somebody expand on this? I know that it is not directly related to Gnosticism, but that it is quite similar. Please discuss this? 69.248.43.27 03:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Beats me. Were the Gnostics suicidal? Wahkeenah 04:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Not explicitly, though their lifestyle could be considered such, since their is a dissregard for life in general, and the majority of the sects' emphesis on abstenant self-denial in particular (though there were other sects who where just the opposite, since matter was inherently evil in this philosophy, it would not make much difference what one did).

69.248.43.27 21:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree - though Gnosticism tended, in the main, towards ascetism, recent scholarly work seems to indicate that their world view was more abiguous and ambivalent towards materiality than was previously held. Also, the trait of self-denial is not exclusively Gnostic. As such, while an emphasis on asceticism might be a preliminary parallel with Gnosticism, it is not sufficient for a cult to practise suicide to be Gnostic. In any case, the correct usage of the term 'Gnosticism' is to denote a set of religions of the third century CE; since Heaven's Gate was a twentieth century movement, it could not be 'Gnostic' in the proper sense. Visual Error 00:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

see Gnosticism

Suicide technique

Is ingestion of phenobarbital-laced applesauce and vodka lethal? --Abdull 14:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Alcohol tends to amplify effects of depressant drugs, and alcohol and barbiturates are a particularly dangerous combination since the depressant effects of barbiturates are more broad-based than those of benzodiazepines, which is why benzos are more popular as sedatives these days. You can survive a massive OD of, say, Valium (though I would assume there would be some brain damage), but barbiturates will kill you until you are dead. Alcohol intoxication makes it much easier for them to do so. Haikupoet 19:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Even a barbituric coma is more survivable (with early medical intervention - in a few recorded cases of hypothermia and other conditions, carefully administered barbiturates have been used (and I can't emphasize this qualifier enough) under competent medical supervision to induce coma to prevent further damage to the patient until the immediate threat to the patient's life has been corrected) than the lethal combination of barbiturates and alcohol.

Unfortunately, you can also kill yourself quite efficiently with benzodiazepines (such as Valium or Xanax) and alcohol, or with combinations of many other classes of drugs and alcohol - or by ingesting large enough quantities of alcohol while diabetic, or with impaired liver function, or with ulcers in your digestive tract... when the Heaven's Gate guys prescribed barbiturates (especially taken intimately mixed with food, not in capsular form) and alcohol as a suicide cocktail, they hit on a good combination.

I was wondering about the "arsenic and cyanide" supposedly found in the bodies of the California Heaven's Gate suicide pact members when the recorded suicide technique was barbiturates in applesauce chased with vodka. Cyanide is usually a quick killer, although exquisitely painful - it's doubtful that so many cyanide victims would be found in positions of repose after their deaths - if I had my druthers, it would be the "barbs and vodka" route, not cyanide and arsenic (which is a slow poison and also a painful one).

Was there a mistake at the medical examiner's office when cyanide and arsenic were mentioned, or were all four poisons (cyanide, arsenic, barbiturates and alcohol) administered to the Heaven's Gate people?loupgarous (talk) 18:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Mark King

I'm curious as to why this article has no mention of former cult member Mark King, who retianed a large amount ot cult property after a court battle with LA County? There's quite a bit out on the net about him and his relationship to Heavensgate. In fact he owns the cult's domain name... Jake b 21:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

A list of members would also be a nice thing here, Mark King would be added. Ninja neko 09:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

In Louis Theroux's book 'The Call of the Wierd' he talks to former Heaven's Gate members Mark and Sarah and seems to find them both rather pleasent. He asks them why they did not "leave" with the other cult members and sarah answers: "Still wrestle with that today."
Louis then comments in his book, "The answer, I suspected, was because they loved each other. Their love trumped the love of the group." (p.220, 'The Call of the Wierd')
I find this strangely touching, even if it is just the musings of a journalist, would it be appropriate to have something like this on the wiki page? Mythiran 18:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Usage of 'Cult'

I find it unprofessional that the word 'cult' appears in the very title of this page. 'Cult' is a term loaded with moral judgement, which is often used to inhumanize an 'other.' No religion should be so reprimanded. The reference to Heaven's Gate as a cult implies that the members involved were acting under the influence of a force, rather than as believers of an ideology which, however misguided, they judged to be accurate. I submit that this page should be called "Heaven's Gate (religion)"

So, you are saying that there is no such thing as a cult? Really?
A cult has specific qualities that are pretty well defined. Cults and the word "cult" carry a bad connotation because the things that define a cult as a "cult" are pretty bad. Perhaps calling it a “religious cult” rather than just “cult” would be more appropriate, but by all commonly accepted definitions, Heavens Gate was a cult.
From Wikipedia:
In religion and sociology, a cult is a cohesive group of people (often a relatively small and recently founded religious movement) devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture or society considers to be far outside the mainstream. Its separate status may come about either due to its novel belief system, because of its idiosyncratic practices or because it opposes the interests of the mainstream culture.
Sounds like Heavens Gate to me...
Christianity "was" a cult. There are still followers of Heaven's Gate. Just becuase they don't have the political power of the Church does not mean we should stigmatize them with such a loaded word. I agree with the first person in this section but would submit to call the page simply "Heaven's Gate" or "Heaven's Gate (spiritual movement)"

Andy D —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.89.85.239 (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

By the way, you should not be afraid to sign your comments. Jake b 05:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
The title is extremely POV... I will change it to "Heaven's Gate (NRM)" which has less negative connotations - unless there are other proposals. Sfacets 00:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Although I agree with the above statements, and recognize that there may be no correct middle ground with these sort of things, I'd just like to state a question, which is: when exactly does a "cult"(as defined by the above Wikipedia entry) become a "religion"? A cult, heretofore defined, mentions that "it's separate status may come about either due to it's novel belief system, because of it's idiosyncratic practices or because it opposes the interests of the mainstream culture" would the tranformation to a religion occur when their beliefs become more "mainstream" or when mainstream becomes more like it. I think it may be appropriate to make a new word or change the definitions of one or two words so we may be able to avoid any sort of dispute/disagreement in the future by encompassing both or more words so that there could be one word that could be used to decribe all. That's all I have to say.

Doritofreak93 10:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Heaven's Gate in popular culture

Mike and Gary the television show had an episode making fun of this...

The list of popular culture references is longer than the article itself...
Maybe a seperate page should be created for the references, and just a few striking ones should remain in this article.
Ninja neko 09:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
It's completely unbalanced as it stands - we actually have very little info on the cult, and lots of random tv references. Secretlondon 07:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Erroneous Mention of Scientology?

The third paragraph of "Origins and History" seems entirely out of place. It describes a posting to usenet about Scientology and the Cult Awareness Network, which seem unconnected to the rest of this article. --Joe Fusion 18:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

'Alleged' cult?

Based on the current structure of category:Cults, which is now a metacategory, this is listed under alleged cults. This was done to clean up the category, which contained cult researchers, anti-cult activists, cults, concepts about cults, etc. and the category is fairly new. Another category name that has been considered is category:Groups that have been referred to as cults to echo the List of groups referred to as cults and this is probably a better option so that clearcut cases don't get slapped with an 'alleged' label. Antonrojo 13:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

See Category_talk:Alleged_cults regarding this possible alternate name for the category. Antonrojo 15:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Purple cloths?

I have recently read that these purple cloths were in fact purple armbands which read "Heaven's gate away team" Has anyone else heard about this?

Cross-article problems:

In the Cult Suicide article, on the subject of the Heaven's Gate Cult, it says:

"Some male members of the cult underwent voluntary castration in preparation for the genderless life they believed awaited them after the suicide."

However, in the main Heaven's Gate Article, it says:

"Many male members of the cult voluntarily underwent castration as an extreme means of maintaining the ascetic lifestyle."

So what's the real answer? 

Inspector Baynes 17:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Martin Gardner reports that there were seven castrati in the cult, which is a bit more precise than "some" or "many". See http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_n4_v21/ai_19727569/pg_4

eerie synchronicity

Robert Silverberg's 1985 novel "Tom O'Bedlam" prefigures Heaven's gate almost exactly--even down to the San Diego location. ---miguelj

This wouldn't be the first time Science Fiction has led to a Religion. You've got me planning to look for that novel next time I hit the library.

Wikipedia doesn't have any information on the novel by Robert Silverberg. It does list the novel in the author's article, but it is mis-linked to an old poem by the same name, which he did not write.74.67.17.22 (talk) 03:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

New Followers

Hi I was browsing the internet and found that "God's Gates" had been erased but I found another "Revolution" of followers you'll can change it back if you want to

There was a version of this article that had a section on the alleged new followers but it was deleted by an ediot who deemed it a hoax. While the section was poorly written and very hard to comphrehend, the current followers are not a hoax. they appear to be a remnant of the original group that, for whatever reason, did not graduate with the others in 1997. They claim to keep sacred the original teachings including celibacy and to warn against former members who continue to speak for the group but who have forsaken their celibacy by marying and having children. The celibacy issue was central to the teachings of the group so I'm not suprised that the current followers make such a big deal of it on their site. Their site also tries to explain that the rumor that a new class was going to graduate to the next level with the appearance of a new comet is false. (Graduate to the next level = suicide). I believe a brief and more coherent paragraph on the current group shoulkd be included. i will try and come up with something in the next few days. The 10th anniversary of the suicides is fast upon us and people will undoubtedly be clicking on this article a lot. I am not a member of the group ort affiliated with it in any way, I'm an Anthropologist and folklorist with an interest in new religious movements. -- LiPollis 06:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Purge list of popular culture references

This really needs reducing. Particularly those portions which merely resemble the cult, rather than being directly influenced by it, need to go. --Saforrest 05:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. For now, I've fixed "Heaven's Smile" (of Killer7) as it is actually spelt - "Heaven Smile." Whether this is actually relevant is up for discussion. --Edwin Herdman 06:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I've just read through the list and it looks like a good list at the current time. All of the references are pretty direct references; none of them are really obscure or questionable. Sources need to be cited, however. Johntex\talk 00:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the list is ridiculous. It is longer than the rest of the article and includes many oblique references to the cult. Anything that is not cited should be removed. --Chuck Sirloin 16:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I purged the list of anything not directly related to HG and marked the rest as needing citations. In a month or so, any without citations will be cut too (none in the list have cites). --Chuck Sirloin 23:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

What is carrying Jesus?

The spaceship or the comet? The current sentence is not very clear. 203.170.226.253 15:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Heaven's Gate (cult) > Heaven's Gate (NRM) Sfacets 00:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this group better known as a "NRM" or as a "cult"? Google says "Heaven's Gate (NRM)"=526 while "Heaven's Gate (cult)"=195,000. That's a decisive difference. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
From our own article on Cult:

<quotation>In religion and sociology, a cult is a term designating a cohesive group of people (generally, but not exclusively a relatively small and recently founded religious movement) devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture or society considers to be outside the mainstream. Its status may come about either due to its novel belief system, its idiosyncratic practices, its perceived harmful effects on members, or because its perceived opposition to the interests of the mainstream culture. Non-religious groups may also display cult-like characteristics.</quoatation> (Emphasis mine)

I'd say this is an accurate use of the term. I don't think any of their members are going to complain about it -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION! 06:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The word 'cult' is a pejorative: from our own article:

"In common usage "cult" has a negative connotation and is generally applied to a group by opponents for a variety of reasons. "This popular use of the term has gained such credence and momentum that it has virtually swallowed up the more neutral historical meaning of the term from the sociology of religion" James T. Richardson wrote in 1993. "

Also the decision cannot be based on something like google hits. Sfacets 08:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Not true. See WP:UCN and WP:GOOGLE. The main debate here is if it's offensive or not, and there really isn't anyone here to offend, so we should go with the more commonly accepted title. -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION! 09:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
It's not about what is offensive or not, it's about what is neutral or not - 'cult' is a prejudicial and non-neutral term, and should not be used, least of all in a title. Sfacets 10:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
If it isn't offensive, and it isn't praise, it's neutral. Cult is neither. Still, it would make more sense to move this page to "Heaven's Gate", and move the page that's currently there to "Heaven's Gate (disambiguation)" -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION! 10:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Neutrality isn't about offensiveness - it is about supporting a point of view... but yes that sounds like a good idea. Sfacets 10:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • What the noun is an NRM? Disambiguators should be something editors and readers will actually expect. I am not sure this should be just Heaven's Gate; are they overwhelmingly more notable than (say) the movie? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose the move. NRM stands for new religious movement. It's not accurate in this case, and in any case is more POV than cult, as there's a subtle but often deliberate implication in calling a cult an NRM that other, established religions are just as bad. Andrewa 09:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

In a perfect world (or encyclopedia in this case) a title should not carry any description of the subject it discusses - thereby eliminating any chance of bias. Sfacets 11:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

We could also just call it "Heaven's Gate (Group)" -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION! 11:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose the move. I think we can find plenty of sources to describe this group as a cult, and most people looking for this article won't identify this group as a NRM. Aliasd 08:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, it's not about describing it, it's about finding a NPOV way of naming it. Sfacets 08:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Simple solution: recognize this as the primary topic for the term Heaven's Gate, move this page there, move the dab to Heaven's Gate (disambiguation), and put an otheruses tag at the top of this page. It's true, it's easy, and there's no parenthetical to worry about. Dekimasuよ! 04:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This article has been renamed from Heaven's Gate (cult) to Heaven's Gate as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 09:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Words to avoid

WP:Words to avoid#Cult, sect If the author wants to indicate that there is something wrong with a group by applying the cult label then the article in Wikipedia should focus on the question of what is wrong with the group.

Other than them mostly all being dead of suicide? AndroidCat 00:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The key point here is "author wants to indicate that there is something wrong with a group by applying the cult label." Cult, when properly used (AND defined) is not derogatory. You simply have to ensure that the article is using the term properly from a NPOV sociologically correct position.Balloonman 14:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistent references to Heaven's Gate in article

For what it's worth, I don't agree at all with the above sentiment regarding the change of HG from "cult" status. In fact, the Cult WP cited above indicates very clearly that the one occasion in which one should attribute cult status is for religious movements outside the mainstream that attain mainstream notoriety (deserved or not.)

Regardless, something that needs to be changed in the article is the fact that the initial paragraph refers to HG as a "new religious movement," while the remainder of the article refers to it as a cult. JasonPresyl 21:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that cult is correct here. the_undertow talk 01:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Cult is most certainly correct. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and commits mass suicide in a way that almost the entire rest of the population finds certifiably insane like a duck, it's probably a duck. Really, calling it an NRM is an insult to NRMs. --|Lie!
The word 'cult' is a pejorative. Making the assumption that the group is a cult is your own Original Research based on a supposition which in turn is loosely based on only vaguely reliable sources. 'New Religious Movement' on the other hand is more neutral, less biased, and doesn't carry the undertones of an accusation. Sfacets 03:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Loosely based on what, just about every media outlet that has ever referred to them? Looking at our own references and external links, it's a cult. Calling it an NRM would be giving it WP:UNDUE weight to a very minority opinion, and potentially a WP:NPOV violation as well --|Lie! 03:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
How is 'NRM' less neutral than 'cult'? Sfacets 03:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Because it rejects the massive, massive majority referring to it as a cult. See Virginia Tech massacre, just because you think a word is NPOV doesn't mean it isn't the more popular, or even correct, term --|Lie! 03:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

(undent) To address 'vaguely RS,' CNN implicitly refers to it as a cult. They are a reliable source. NPOV argument doesn't sit well with me. Hitler used propaganda as an effective tool, and yet, 'propaganda' does indeed have a negative connotation. There is no way to define the Holocaust as strictly actions taken without the implication that it was not a good thing. Without implication we are left with simple timelines. However, consensus decides which actions are deplorable and unjust, and I feel that it is impossible to accurately describe the subject of this article as religious movement. Those who commit suicide in order to attain some enlightenment must surely qualify as a cult. If not, how does one attain cult status? the_undertow talk 08:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

In that case something like "the group has been referred to as a cult by several news outlets..." in a criticism section is appropriate. There is a reason cult/sect are words to avoid. Sfacets 12:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

And please note that words to avoid (key section quoted above this) isn't an absolute ban. It certainly isn't pejorative (against whom?) but an accurate technical description of a group that committed group suicide. AndroidCat 12:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Cult is a word to avoid. I agree. But not here. Avoidance is a guideline. the_undertow talk 12:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the word cult should be avoided in this case either. --Chuck Sirloin 14:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It appears that a few editors have taken it into their own hands to decide that concensus has been reached on this matter and are patrolling the article reverting any changes. No arguments are provided, just reversals... Perhaps it is time for an RFC? Sfacets 17:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Apparently you're not reading this page before trying to insert your own POV. AndroidCat 19:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I see 4 editors for 'cult' and 1 against. It may not be a big concensus, but its there. But yeah, do an RFC. --Chuck Sirloin 19:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Ordinarily I would say the consensus is here, but yeah...since this article has already been through an RfC, it's time to send it back and let's see where we get. Obviously the views here are polarized. the_undertow talk 03:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to throw in my two cents to this discussion; when properly referenced, cult is an appropriate term. Although Heaven's Gate may be considered by some to be a NRM, that term also must be properly referenced. It should be understoodthat Wikipedia does not label anything, we reference facts as identified by reputable references.

As strictly opinion, it is absurd not to identify the group as a cult when it is notorious for being a prime example of such; to not do so would be like white washing a rather sordid history. --Storm Rider (talk) 05:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I just read some of the additional reverted edits; using the term cult is something that only needs to be mentioned a few times; to refer to the group constantly as a cult begins to sound like a epithet and that we have moved from an encyclopedia to an accusatory tract. Let' stay away from the sensational and just take the position of a neutral party. --Storm Rider (talk) 05:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment

The dispute revolves over whether or not it is neutral to categorize the group as a 'cult' Sfacets 04:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

  • My response to the RfC: To me it seems that the word cult is appropriate for use in this article, if not in its title. While I agree with other editors that it's a word that should be used with care in general, I do not think that it's an NPOV usage issue in this case. If we cannot use the word with groups such as this, isn't that tantamount to saying that it simply cannot be used at all on Wikipedia? If Heavens Gate was not a cult [1], [2], [3],[4], etc, what was/is? It seems to be settled fact that if ever there were a cult, then this was an example of it. Calling it a pejorative in this sense, to me, is tantamount to calling the word murderer a pejorative when applied to John Wayne Gacy. Following that logic, we should refer to Gacy as a deliberate-and-unlawful-life-remover. I don't mean to sound flippant and I believe staunchly in NPOV, but simply don't see where the problem is here. Douglasmtaylor T/C 10:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Personal background: I spent four years at Seminary studying for the ministry. I completed the course work for an Master of Religion in Church History. I say that, as background for what I am about to say. But from my graduate level courses on Sociology, Cult is not (sociologically speaking) a derogatory term. From a sociologically speaking frame of reference, cult is used to describe any religious movement that is not widely accepted in the local community and derives its origins from sources that are not part of the local community. Based on that definition, Christianity is a cult in certain parts of the middle-east/Asia. (A sect, based on the training I received, is not part of the local accepted norms, but does use the same religious sources for inspiration. Thus, based upon this definition, the Branch Davidians would have been a sect, not a cult.) But based on my understanding, this would be a cult.Balloonman 15:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Being a member of a religion that has the term "cult" applied to it pejoratively, I understand the problematic nature of using the word correctly. However, if my memory serves me right, this group's activities would lead them to be considered a "cult" as per dictionary definition.HubcapD 18:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with Douglasmtaylor. It would be wrong to call Heaven's Gate a New Religious Movement. If the word cult can't be used, then I vote to classify the catch a ride on a comet by suicide group as the C.U.L.T. (Comet Ultra Laying Transportees). e.Shubee 21:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  • It is one's own POV to label a religious group as a cult - if the label were to be applied here, what's to stop it being used by any editor with an agenda on other articles on religious groups? The word cult is a pejorative - it may not have started out that way, but that is the way it is perceived today - this is a fact. While it is prejudician and POV to label the group it is more neutral to find references from those who call it a cult and add them to a section, perhaps a criticism section as found on other small religious group's articles, such as ISKCON or Transcendental Meditation for example. There are two points of view on the matter, why should only one be expressed in the article? Sfacets 01:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I mostly agree. Cult is a word that cannot be used neutrally, nobody ever says "I joined a great cult today." The word should not appear in Wikipedia, though I also sympathise with people who want weirdness to stand up and be identified. If we say "If the group is alien and weird, let's call it a cult" there are just too many other groups around that will provide grey areas, and the arguments would be never-ending. For Wikipedia, the word group does the job, then let's say what sources say about it. Neutrally. As a principle, I don't like criticism sections. They attract POV. Weave the opposition into the article every time. Rumiton 14:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
No, the key is that the term has to be defined. Properly speaking from a Sociology of Religion perspective, cult is an objective term without negative connotations. Yes, the general lay person doesn't know what it means, but it does have a distinct meaning. Likewise, New Religious Movement has a meaning, which implies a group that has been around longer than the founding generation. Thus, this group would not qualify as a NRMBalloonman 14:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Balloonman, it is a little awkward discussing an issue with someone who starts out with the word "no."  :-) I certainly respect your scholarship, it is most interesting and your perspective is of great value, but I feel that whether it is "proper" or not, the common person is the authority on word usage. Academe has never prevailed against that, try as it might, and Wikipedia has to reflect that reality. The word cult is a pejorative in the English speaking world, has been for at least 30 years and isn't likely to change. Rumiton 15:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • At first I thought, "well of course they're a cult", but having read the other comments and the Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Cult.2C_sect guidelines I reached the conclusion that the word should be avoided as an unattributed description under all circumstances unless we have a clearly defined threshold to prevent benign NRMs being labeled in the same way. Perhaps a list of attributes that need to be met such as "has committed mass murders or suicides? yes/no". I've never seen such checklists to define such thresholds on Wikipedia though and I'm not sure if that's because no one thought of it before or there's a good reason not to I'm not aware of. I suspect the latter. Regards Bksimonb 17:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Hi, I saw the RFC up on the noticeboard so I decided to come take a look. The case of the word "cult" as a pejorative or not is a difficult issue. The term certainly is used in a pejorative manner, even though it wasn't intended to be such. It would be nice to have an alternate word for this. The problem is, there is a definite difference between "cult" and "new religious movement." There's overlap as well, and neither is terribly well defined. My advice is to use what the sources say. If there is an academic consensus that a particular group is a cult, then call it a cult. In this case, the vast majority of academics believe Heaven's Gate to be a cult. As a result, I believe it should be reported as a cult. If there are a great number of sources (as in, if it's not a fringe view) that Heaven's Gate was not a cult, then perhaps a section could be devoted to that. .V. [Talk|Email] 23:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The article used to be named "Heaven's Gate (cult)" - but was changed for the same reasons of neutrality. It only follows that the rest of the article follows suite and uses a neutral word to describe the group. Balloonman, the term is defined in it's article cult. It even says that the term is a pejorative, and it is classified as such. For More conversations on whether or not the term is neutral also have a loook at the discussion @ Talk:cult. Sfacets 08:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • To honor NPOV, the only way the word cult can be used is by attributing to a source, each time. It is totally not up to us as wiki editors to say whether or not a group is a cult or not, and it is totaly our job to report what other people said on this issue. Sethie 23:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • (The RFC request here makes it unclear if the issue is with use in the article, use in the title, or use in categorization, so I'll try to address all three.) To honor NPOV, the word must be used in this article - it looks like the majority of independent sources on the group uses it, so complete avoidance of the word clearly violates NPOV. Sourcing and attribution is preferable if the word is not being used in its technical sociological sense, and if it is being used in that sense it needs to be with the author "explaining exactly what he/she is doing, since that meaning is unfamiliar to most people" (per the Manual of Style). "Cult" does not necessarily have to be in the title, but cult is clearly more appropriate than NRM for that location. I think the solution of having this at the main page for Heaven's Gate might be (while imperfect from the perspective of film fans) a reasonable solution for article titling. For categorization, there is no special reason to avoid the word cult. I am no expert on the category scheme, and it should be fitted as best possible into the scheme; Category:Cult suicides seems useful. I would suggest the more specific Category:UFO religions over its parent Category:New religious movements, and it certainly should not be in both. GRBerry 02:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

As I mentionned below, concensus has not been reached, especially not concerning moving the article to 'Heaven's Gate (cult)' - I have moved it back untill this has been discussed and a course of action has been decided. Sfacets 02:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Why was the article moved to Heavens Gate (cult)?

I see no concensus for this move. Sfacets 23:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

See the discussion below. I see consensus. the_undertow talk 00:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Where do you see that? It is an ongoing discussion - I am moving it back until it is discussed specifically and concensus is (really) reached. Sfacets 02:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The term cult in and of itself is NOT pejorative if one follows Becker's definition, despite Wikipedia's own article on the subject defining it as pejorative. The Wiki article takes into account several decades' worth of accretions to the technical definition of the word "cult" that should not be considered authoritative, and behaves as though these accretions should have more power than the formal rigor of science. Are we going to redefine terms as "not NPOV" because 100 million people out of a nation of 330 million abuse them so that they are pejorative? That's giving far too much power to the hard-of-thinking.

Simply defining "Heaven's Gate" as a "religious group" is a compromise not only of the right to call things what they are, but of NPOV itself. The people who object to the disambiguation of the religious group known as "Heaven's Gate" as a cult are seeking to control not just what we mean by "Heaven's Gate," but what we mean by "NPOV." It's giving a cheap victory to the small minority of Wikipedia members who want to use Wikipedia as a megaphone for their own sociopolitical agenda without any sort of consensus on the part of the whole community.

And that is why we should revert the title to "Heaven's Gate (cult)."loupgarous (talk) 20:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

This does not belong as the main Heaven's Gate page

It's not POV to call a spade a spade, regardless of whether or not a spade is a nice thing to have around the house. That said, this needs to be moved back to Heaven's Gate (cult) or Heaven's Gate (oppressed misunderstood underground minority religion) or Heaven's Gate (got no respect) or Heaven's Gate (really awesome bunch of people), because Heaven's Gate (film) is plenty notable. The film, a noted bomb, is seen as an unfortunate landmark, a turning point between the days of director-controlled films and producer-controlled films. Being that the film has absolutely nothing to do with the cult, having the main page be devoted to the cult is disingenuous. --Action Jackson IV 05:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Heaven's Gate (cult). That's my opinion. Let's make this a disambiguation page. Can we get a consensus to move? the_undertow talk 06:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Move --Chuck Sirloin 16:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Move Douglasmtaylor T/C 10:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Don't Move. Important historical/news event obviously trumps flop film. Besides, ask anyone on the street what "Heaven's Gate" means and most will say the UFO cult, not the obscure movie. wikipediatrix 02:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Move The film is more notable. I'm not so sure more people would refer to the cult over the film. The movie keeps being talked about. The cult was a one-time flare and certainly had less sociological impact. I agree with Action Jackson. The film article seems a bit longer also. --Leocomix 15:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I think we are moving in two different directions here. Are we moving in order to have a cult page, or to protect the integrity of the film? Either way, turning this into a disambiguation page would satisfy both. I don't think either are more or less important, so using this space as a portal would be good. the_undertow talk 05:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
There's a film called Heaven's Gate? Never heard of it.Balloonman 14:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I certainly wouldn't say the film is more notable; I've never heard of it, and have immediate recognition of the religious fools by this name. I even used them as part of a metaphorical image in one of my two published poems. However, the right answer for Heaven's Gate is probably a disambiguation page. I see no reason to suspect that the film belongs on the main page. GRBerry 01:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Move, possibly with a Disambiguation page. I'm not prepared to say whether the film or the cult was more notable and therefore belongs in this slot, so I would be fine with making Heaven's Gate a disambiguation page to keep it neutral. As long as the word "cult" is not in the title of the article I'm probably fine with the title. :-) Tim Pierce 23:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Move to Disambiguation page. Both movie and (non?)cult are of secondary cultural/historic importance and equally notable. Fp cassini (talk) 04:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Pejorative

as a rule, pejorative is something to avoid in order to have an article as NPOV. however, we create article entries according to reliable sources, as well as verifiable sources. the dominant and descriptive term is 'cult.' there is no denying this fact as CNN, which is a reliable source, reports it as such. consensus in this article is that regardless of the denotation of the word, the subject of the article is clearly suited as a cult. it is in this spirit that the article has been moved, and a disambiguation page has been created. with that said, any and all editors are encouraged to look through the talk page and make their own revisions.

my POV is quite clear. 'Cult' as a word exists, and therefore has a usage in a certain context. we cannot rid our vocabulary of such a word because it has become muddled. along with those lines, the term has a negative implication. with that i agree. but i assert that any reasonable outsider, regardless of affiliation, will see the actions of such a subject as less than those that are agreeable with the social norm. with that, if any negative connotation comes with the word 'cult' or related term it should be taken seriously. in light of the facts that many people committed suicide in order to ride on a comet (this is not my speculation but taken directly from their manual) it is well within boundaries to view this as a negative. i will not adhere to the doctrine that jim jones was simply a dispenser of Kood-aid. If we are to set societal norms, and we do, then certain actions, whether in an encyclopedia or not, cannot be accurately be described without a moral consensus. To speak of any action, in which humans lose their lives, in a timeline fashion may in fact be NPOV, but it in no way accurately depicts the actual events. this article does not disparage those who are dead. however, it is very safe to say that there were many people who took committed suicide, in order to join a ride on a comet. it is also safe to say that given the very nature of this cult, as with most cults, there was a genuine amount of manipulation, blind faith, and coalescence. it may not be the norm, and it may not be socially acceptable, but it was most certainly the actions of a cult. if not, the term must be deprecated, as if this is not an instance in which the consensus, and the majority view an entity as a cult, the we most certainly have no use for the word itself. it that case, this would be a simple religious action. the_undertow talk 10:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I think your comments are fairly self-evident. We could all say "Yes, of course this is a cult. None of us like it, we all think the teachings were bizarre and abhorrent. It deserves the stigma that goes with the appellation cult." But what about a country that has 15% Roman Catholics? The other 85% clearly find Catholic dogma spurious and abhorrent or they would have joined up. Does that make the minority RC Church a cult? Or a group like Alcoholics Anonymous, do they fit the bill? I don't think the majority should be able to denigrate the beliefs and practices of a minority through Wikipedia, so our NPOV has to be meticulous in all such cases. The word cult is never NPOV. Rumiton 13:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Again, I approach this from a sociology of religion perspective and based upon that understanding CULT is very NPOV. I am Roman Catholic, and I have lived in a countries where Roman Catholicism is a cult (Taiwan.) I'm also a convert fom Methodism, and have lived in a country where Methodism is a Sect (Italy). The fact that I've belonged to a cult/sect as defined by sociology, doesn't bother me. I think the key is that we can't simply drop the term into an article and expect people to understand what it means. It is a term where the proper usage has to be established.Balloonman 14:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate that the word cult does not bother you, but it would bother about 99% of your fellow church members, who have not had your specific religious education, and they are the kind of people who read Wiki articles. I don't believe it is feasible or desirable to try to change peoples' vocabulary, it will only create negative side-effects. For example, I was a ship's officer with a degree in Nautical Science at sea for 29 years. I have recently been working on the Titanic article. Some of the terminology there grates on me, but I know I have to let it pass because my "correct" nautical terms will only cause confusion. The laymens' terminology used will correctly convey the meaning. Rumiton 14:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it would bother them, once they understood that the term is being used from a sociological/academic perspective. Again, the key is to define the term to alert people that it is being used in a specific context. ONce done, then it becomes acceptable. I'm a brat. Most people would find that offensive---but once you understand the context that I'm a Military brat it changes the understanding of the word. Cult does have specific meaning and that includes in sociology of religion. I would oppose "It is a cult", but fully support, "As defined by sociologist, it is a cult because of XYZ."Balloonman 14:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I can wear that. As long as it doesn't just spring out at the reader, nor become a standard part of the group's name. Rumiton 14:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed... I think the use of CULT in the page name is inappropriate---I'd go with (religious group) or something there. But in the article itself, once you establish the context of the term and that it isn't being used perjoratively, then I have no problem with using it.Balloonman 17:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd actually be satisfied with the opposite. The mainstream and reliable sources refer to this as a cult. That is where the article would and should be found. However, repeated mention of the word is not necessary. This whole thing does not sit well with me because it means that the word 'cult' can and will never be used on this wiki. And the commentary here is correct - I have made my point quite clear. However, looking back, I'm going to admit that even though I found this article in a roundabout way, I have become involved. It may very well become a conflict of interest. So with that, I say that consensus can be found without me, and as I previously mentioned, if an editor finds my move to be controversial, just be bold. Again, all talk here has been great, but I really want to step aside because I do admit I probably should recuse myself at this point. I don't want anyone to view my actions as skewed, as they were part of what I deemed to be consensus. :) the_undertow talk 08:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Dictionary.com has this as the #6 definition of cult: "A religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader." The Heaven's Gate religion perfectly fits this definition. I don't have insight into what happens with souls, but I can say I've not noticed, nor seen reputable third party sources, of the "recycling" of the Earth as prophecied by the group's leaders. How are their views, that they needed by faith to commit suicide to avoid an imminent catastrophe, not unorthodox or extremist? How were they not living outside of conventional society? How were they not under the direction of a charismatic leader? I'm at a loss as to see any reason at all why "cult" is not the perfectly appropriate word. Dictionary.com defines pejorative as "disparaging, derogatory, or belittling," all terms which in term have a meaning that includes making something seem worse than it is by speaking of it in smaller terms than would be fair. How does the religious group deserve to be spoken of in bigger terms than as a cult?

The movie is fairly well known (for example, it's on the first page of Google results for "heaven's gate"), and its cost overruns led to major changes in the operations of the movie industry. A disambiguation page is appropriate, or, at least, a reference at the top of the article: "This article is about the religious group that committed group suicide in 1997. For the Western-themed motion picture, see..." VisitorTalk 08:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we are getting repetitive. This is an extreme example. Everyone agrees Heaven's Gate was "false, unorthodox, extremist, outside of conventional society" etc. But this is not the only article on Wikipedia about groups of people who collectively hold beliefs. How false, unorthodox, extremist, and outside of conventional society do they have to be before we curse them with the name cult? It is a treacherous step into judgementalism. Let's just say what they believed and what they did and let the reader draw the conclusions. Rumiton 15:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Not to use a fair and accurate word and label it as a "curse" is also judgmental. Eventually harmless groups will be looking for a new category because terms like New Religious Movement have been misused on the Euphemism Treadmill. AndroidCat 14:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Rumiton, if the term is correct to use in this particular article, then let's use it here. If the term is used incorrectly in other articles, that would be a matter for editorial review with those other articles. I don't see the value in not using the perfectly appropriate word here, based solely on fear that the word might be used inappropriately somewhere else. VisitorTalk 05:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Language changes constantly, and NRM could well end up stigmatic, but at the moment it is neutral, while cult is repugnant. I can only repeat that the documented beliefs and recorded actions of a group define it, and there is no need for Wikipedians to use shorthand to preempt readers' conclusions. Is that not what tabloids do? Rumiton 14:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Again, I will repeat that the term cult, when properly used and defined, is not repugnant, but rather a neutral objective term used by sociology of religion experts to describe an organization. The key, however, is that one must define that usage. Once it is so defined, it is acceptable.Balloonman 14:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Balloonman, I have come around to agreeing with you, but others are raising the point that the strongly negative connotations are going to be very hard, or impossible, to dispell. I wonder if an inserted definition is going to do the job? Perhaps you might give us an example of what you are proposing. Rumiton 15:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't have my books here at work, so the reference might not be the most desirable one:
  • Heaven's Gate is a cult --- very bad and full of POV because it doesn't explain the term.
  • Sociologist use the term cult in a non-judgmental manner to describe any group with "novel beliefs and a high degree of tension with the surrounding society."[5] Based upon this academic definition, Heaven's Gate a cult. Here the term is defined and referenced. It indicates that future usage of the term is based upon this objective definition---not a subjective perjative. The wikilink will take people to a short discussion on the term from sociological point of view. I particularly like including this definition in the article because it educates people who might be reading the article that there are academic meaningful neutral definitions for the term. It also deflects some of the pejorative meaning of a term that you know people will continually insert into this and other articles.--Balloonman 16:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree the term is desirable and professional, I just doubt whether you can supplant the common meaning with an academic one so readily. It also seems to me that "novel" could be taken euphemisticly, and "tension" is a bit of a question mark, too. Anyway, let's see how it looks on the page. Rumiton 14:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Original Heaven's Gate (cult) to Heaven's Gate

Why was this article moved in the first place? From that discussion, Talk:Heaven's Gate#Requested_move, there doesn't seem to be any deciding consensus. AndroidCat 03:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

"cult" still not appropriate

This discussion is very interesting and many of you have made good points, but I think that the inclusion of "cult" on Wikipedia:Words to avoid should still guide the language in this article. In particular, the "Cult, Sect" and "Terms that are technically accurate but carry an implied viewpoint" sections are very clear on the matter.

Editors who feel strongly in favor of "cult" should first make their case over there; if the Manual of Style editors can be persuaded to change the guidelines around this word, then it will be suitable here. Until then, it should not be used.

But before you do, consider two points:

  • The words "cult" and "sect" were added to Wikipedia:Words to avoid precisely because of articles like this one and the arguments they raise. Heaven's Gate is not an exception to this rule; it is the rule.
  • To say "Heaven's Gate is a cult" does nothing but confirm the speaker's personal opinion of the group. To say "Heaven's Gate was a religious group that ended when its members took cyanide pills in a group suicide compact, believing that after death they would be allowed to ride on Jesus Christ's spaceship" is far, far more persuasive. If your motivation for using the word "cult" is to emphasize the lunatic, far-out nature of the group's views (and it is clear that a few editors feel exactly that way), I submit that the group's own actions do that much more effectively than a four-letter word ever could.

Tim Pierce 13:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Tim and Balloonman, I am sorry to waver and dither like this, but I think Tim's argument is irrefutable. A lot of editorial experience speaks out in the Words to Avoid list. Let's respect it. Rumiton 14:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it is a good argument. I like the wording used and I am ok with avoiding the word cult in most circumstances as long as its ok in the article to say that "many media sources describe the group as a cult (refs follow, etc)". --Chuck Sirloin 19:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
And... re-reading the section I see that is ok. Its settled for me. --Chuck Sirloin 19:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
If citing words to avoid makes an irrefutable argument in this case, then let's quote what the words to avoid list says: An exception to this rule of thumb is the technical use of this term in sociology, which is quite neutral (i.e. small religious group with novel religious beliefs and a high degree of tension with the surrounding society). However, the author shouldn't use the term in that sense without explaining exactly what he/she is doing, since that meaning is unfamiliar to most people. This is EXACTLY what I've been advocating---I'm glad to see that what I've been advocating is perfectly aligned with the guideline. Use the term, but only after properly defining it. A lot of editorial experience speaks out in the Words to Avoid list. Let's respect it. (Although, I will note that the definition used here isn't 100% accurate---it says a "small religious group" but that isn't how sociologist define it. It is defined relative to the surrounding community. A Catholic Church in China might be considered a cult by sociologist studying China.)Balloonman 20:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe that the "technical use of this term" applies here. This is not an article about the psychology of group behavior or the sociology of cults, which might reasonably refer in a technical sense to "cult behavior" without necessarily applying a value judgment to an individual group. This is an article about a specific group for which the word "cult" carries a great deal of baggage. I repeat: this is exactly the sort of article for which it was suggested that "cult" and "sect" be considered "words to avoid." Tim Pierce 20:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The arguments being made against "cult", here, are fundamentally misunderstanding the "Words to avoid" guideline. The guideline is a "use only with care", not an "avoid absolutely" -- and I mean that leaving aside sociological usage (e.g. "Cult of Isis"), which the guideline explicitly exempts. The point of the guideline is that "cult" should not be used to disparage what might or might not be one. The point of the guideline is not that what is indubitably a cult oughtn't be called a cult. If "Heavens Gate" is indubitably a cult (and I submit that it is indubitably a cult) then it is fine to call it a cult. -- Lonewolf BC 21:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think the history of Wikipedia:Words to avoid confirms the idea that "cult" should not be used in this context. For more discussion see the "conspiracy theory" archive from the "Words to avoid" talk page. Fascinating stuff in its own right, but also backs up the suggestion that "cult" is an inappropriate word to use to describe a contemporary religious group. Interestingly, the editors arguing in favor of "conspiracy theory" took exactly the argument you have with respect to their term (that the word has a clear definition and can be unambiguously applied to some concepts), but argued that the reason "cult" should not be used is that it is too subjective and leaves too much room for argument. They were wrong: the reason for omitting both terms is that they invite only value judgments and add little in the way of meaning. Tim Pierce 21:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tim, if editors wish to make an issue in favor of employing the term then they should take it up with the Words to Avoid discussion - we cannot arbitrarily use if for some groups and not for others. This is the very definition of bias. Untill then we should simply avoid a non-neutral term. Sfacets 00:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

"the author shouldn't use the term (cult) in that (sociological) sense without explaining exactly what he/she is doing, since that meaning is unfamiliar to most people." I take this as a perfect opportunity to apply that policy: use the term correctly, in its sociological sense, and explain exactly why Heaven's Gate was a cult. In this way, readers of the article get to learn about the cult, and about the correct use of the word, and about the sociological meaning that the word correctly denotes. I believe that this approach would actually fulfill both letter and spirit of "words to avoid" better than shying away from the word entirely. VisitorTalk 05:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

To bring this back to its original context, the primary question at hand is whether the title of the article should be "Heaven's Gate", "Heaven's Gate (cult)", "Heaven's Gate (new religious movement)", or something else. As far as the article title is concerned, I think we can all agree that there's no way to establish a value-neutral context for the word "cult" and that it's inappropriate there. In the article body, I would be fine with saying that Heaven's Gate is a group "widely described as a cult." That, at least, is irrefutable and does not put Wikipedia in the unenviable position of deciding which groups are cults and which are not. Tim Pierce 12:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

In the title the term cult is definitely not appropriate. In the article it is inappropriate, UNLESS you explicitly define the term. IF you define the term based upon a specific sociological notion---then it can be used. I agree with Tim, this is explicitly the type of article for which Words to Avoid was written. And using "Cult" because the group is called a cult by the popular media is wrong. But I disagree with Tim in that if you properly define the term, then heavens gate does fit the definition of the sociological definition of the term cult. IF the term is defined then it is appropriate to use because Heaven's Gate sociologically is a cult.Balloonman 16:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I have changed my mind again.  :-) Helping out at the Brahma Kumaris article, the problem has arisen that once the word cult creeps in, however properly, a whole bunch of hostile links and edits appear using the term less objectively. But the sociological definition also lets us down. I would say the Brahma Kumaris are a somewhat novel newish religious group, at odds, to some extent, with the surrounding society. Does that accumulate enough points for the "c" word? They sure don't think so. I am inclined to agree with them. Rumiton 10:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
If the discussion is only about the title, I don't have a problem with "Heaven's Gate (religious group)" as the title. I do believe it's not only appropriate, but important, to properly define the term "cult" in the article, and explain why Heaven's Gate was a cult. VisitorTalk 08:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Can you explain why you feel it's important for Wikipedia to use that word in the narrative voice? What does it communicate about the group that isn't already made extremely clear by the description of the group's own actions? Tim Pierce 11:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, precisely. To me, it smacks of telling people what to think. Rumiton 16:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

May I ask a question? What should we call a religious group whose leadership exhibit a pathological level of control over its members (whether this control be by force of personality, brainwashing, isolation, fear of 'shunning', etc), if we cannot call it a "cult"? Such religious groups clearly exist (as both Heaven's Gate and Jonestown prove), and they have sufficient common elements that a common label is warranted. So what do we call them? Hrafn42 11:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we call it "a religious group whose leadership exhibit a pathological level of control over its members." I am not being facetious. The extreme examples are clear-cut, but when you look at the less out-there groups it gets harder. Members are getting some benefit from their involvement and understandably don't want to be stigmatised, even if there are some slightly wacko areas. It's a can of worms that it isn't necessary to open. Rumiton 12:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
You may not be being facetious, but I don't think you're being practical either. A 14-word description is completely impractical as a label. And I must admit I find such shades-of-grey/slippery-slope arguments uncompelling. The same argument could be applied to any of a wide range of negative terms: genocide, murder & murderer, nazi & neo-nazi, fascist, dictator, etc. All have their legitimate uses, their abuses, and their grey areas. To abstain from using them in their legitimate sense, based on strong evidence, out of fear that they might later be abused, strikes me as a politically correct cop-out, which can only result in a pallid, white-washed encyclopedia. Hrafn42 15:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your views, but I still disagree. Far from being PC, (almost the opposite) I think it will result in a body of work which will encourage (force) people to think about complex issues and form their own conclusions, and stop looking for pre-cooked opinions. Rumiton 15:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I think this is very well said. A conclusion that people reach on their own after considering all of the available evidence is more genuine by far than a conclusion that they reach after reading a biased account. That said, I don't think it's necessary to go as far as you have suggested; noting that the Heaven's Gate group is usually referred to as a "cult", and wikilinking that word, will make it easy enough for readers to look up the definition of a cult there. Tim Pierce 15:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
And I must in turn disagree with you on both your points. Political correctness frequently involves abstaining from using accurate terminology out of fear that it might offend and/or have ill effects. Also, especially in thinking about and discussing complex issues, people tend to need the shorthand of labels in order to analyse them. Imagine trying to discuss interior decorating with just "lighter", "darker" and the three primary colours, instead of the full range of colour-descriptions in the English language. Likewise people are far more likely to discuss the causes, characteristics and effects of a "cult" than of a "religious group whose leadership exhibit a pathological level of control over its members". Hrafn42 15:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, this is quite interesting, but I feel your interior decorating analogy is working against you. Using a highly judgemental word like cult seems precisely to be opting for the black-white label, rather than the spectrum of other descriptive colours that could be chosen. Rumiton 15:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't actually. I never suggested a cult versus orthodox=legitimate religion dichotomy. I am not "opting for the black-white label", merely for not being afraid to call a colour "black" if it is black, out of fear that the word might be eventually be applied to successively lighter shades of grey. I will call it "black" and lighter shades "charcoal", "lead-grey", etc. Likewise I would not flinch from calling (typically pro-NW-European) racist fascism "nazism" (or neo-nazism), but would strongly disagree with calling Mussolini a "nazi" rather than a "fascist". This is one of the advantages of the English language, it has (due to its wide range of source languages) a wide range of shades of meaning. To restrict oneself from using the full range of shades out of fear, is almost as bad as to willfully use the wrong word. Hrafn42 15:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid that your other examples are not entirely convincing. :-) With the word "Nazi" you have the advantage of a very clear objective definition: a "Nazi" is a member of the National Socialist party of Germany, or one of the National Socialist parties that it inspired. Mussolini was unambiguously not a member of Hitler's National Socialist party and therefore not a Nazi. He was also most certainly a Fascist, by virtue of having coined the word and applied it to his own government. While these words are used rhetorically in a much broader context, it would be absolutely inappropriate for Wikipedia to use them in the casual sense to identify modern political figures who are not in fact members of those parties. Tim Pierce 16:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, substitute Mussolini's daughter Alessandra Mussolini for her father in the argument, and neo-nazism and neo-fascism for nazism and fascism. The argument still holds, even lacking a "very clear objective definition" of "neo-nazi". Hrafn42 16:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
But it is also significant (and please correct me if I am wrong) that these politicians and groups tend to self-identify as Fascists and neo-Nazis. For Wikipedia to say that Alessandra Mussolini a Fascist or a neo-Fascist is much less contentious than to say that, say, George W. Bush is a neo-Fascist, since Mussolini has openly embraced those labels and Bush has not. This is, by the way, consistent with the "Words to avoid" guideline that controversial words like "Fundamentalist" can be used acceptably when it is how the subject of the article describes themselves. The same is not generally true of "cult." Tim Pierce 17:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Not always, and certainly not essentially. And I wouldn't not characterise Bush as a neo-fascist, but rather as a Right-wing Authoritarian, as I would argue that he favours the reduction or erosion of democratic checks and balances on executive authority rather than their elimination. I would disagree with an "only use the term if they call themselves by it" rule, i.e. allowing self-identification (or lack thereof) to overrule external consensus definitions. One obvious example is that many Intelligent design Proponents deny that ID is Creationism (and so reject the label "Creationist"), yet we have considerable legal, theological and philosophy of science evidence proving that ID is a form of Creationism. Likewise, Fundamentalism has an external definition, deriving originally from the Christian Fundamentalist movement's self-identification with 'The Fundamentals'. Hrafn42 17:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
And yet Wikipedia uses the term intelligent design for this philosophy and distinguishes it from Creationism. :-) Fundamentalism, intelligent design, Nazism -- Wikipedia's use of all of these terms is consistent with not applying a label to a person or group that they would not adopt for themselves. You are right that this rule should not be "use only the terms that the subject would use for itself," and I would not want Wikipedia to restrict itself to calling the Peoples Temple a "church". But I also don't want Wikipedia to call Queer Nation a "militant homosexual rights group" and I don't want it to call the Ku Klux Klan a "racist paramilitary organization." I want it to tell me what these groups have said and done, and allow me to draw those conclusions. Tim Pierce 18:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, as it likewise also distinguishes other forms of creationism, e.g. young earth creationism, old earth creationism and progressive creationism, from creationism generally. ID is in fact a form of creationism known as neo-creationism. Your argument falls completely flat. Can you present a hard and fast articulation of wikipedia policy supporting your position on this? Hrafn42 18:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Of course not! Wikipedia policy does not address this situation precisely and unequivocally. The argument against using "cult" in this article does, however, have the weight of the WTA guideline behind it. Can you point to a policy or guideline that explicitly recommends the use of the word in this context? Tim Pierce 01:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
No I can't, which is actually precisely the reason I'm engaging in this debate: to try and gauge wikipedia's appetite is for using 'strong' terms, in instances where the evidence clearly merits their strength of language. I must admit that the use itself of "cult" specifically is only of marginal interest to me, my main interest is the wider debate. I do have some qualms about the word, due to its potential to be used in "my religion's a real religion, yours isn't" partisanship. On the other hand, it provides, I suspect the only, succinct way of describing those religious groups that meet the psychological definition (linked to below), for whom the full negative connotations of the word would seem to be merited. Hrafn42 02:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
As to your earlier question -- What should we call a religious group whose leadership exhibit a pathological level of control over its members ... if we cannot call it a "cult" -- the answer is that it is not for us to conclude that the relationship between the group's leaders and its members was "pathological," in the same way that Wikipedia should not say that a serial killer was a "pathological murderer," but it could refer to them as a serial killer who had been diagnosed with a pathological disorder, or of whom observers had noted pathological behavior. It does not matter how widely agreed it is that the group's or leader's behavior was pathological; what matters is that to use that term is a judgement call, one that Wikipedia should not properly make. Tim Pierce 16:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't remember suggesting that we make such a conclusion. But that is very different from allowing the term to be used in wikipedia, where a WP:RS has called a group a "cult", and where the usage can be considered legitimate as experts have drawn the above (or an equivalent) conclusion. This is exactly what is done with the term "serial killer" after all. Hrafn42 16:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
But that's precisely what it means for Wikipedia to use the term in the narrative voice! It is an implicit endorsement of all the connotations and implications that the word "cult" bears, including the presumption that the group's behavior was pathological. It is very, very different for Wikipedia to say "Heaven's Gate was a group often referred to as a cult" than it is to use the word in the narrative voice and say "Heaven's Gate was a cult." If what makes the difference is that experts or authorities have drawn the same conclusion, then we can cite them, but their authority does not make the term any more for us to use in Wikipedia's voice. Tim Pierce 17:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Are you claiming that all wikipedia references to "serial killers" are (or should be) in the narrative voice? What I am arguing is that the psychological definition of "cult" is a legitimate/non-pejorative use of the term (based in research on coercive persuasion), and should not be strictly restricted to only the narrative voice, but should be usable where WP:RS. Hrafn42 18:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm saying that Wikipedia should not use the word "pathological" in the narrative voice to refer to a serial killer. I'm sorry that example was not more clear. As for the technical definition of "cult" mentioned to in WP:WTA, I think that usage is only practical when discussing "cult behavior" in the abstract, without reference to a particular group or individual. I have asked on Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid for clarification on that meaning, but have not received much feedback. Tim Pierce 18:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I misspoke. What I should have said was "Are you claiming that all wikipedia references to "serial killers" are (or should be) not in the narrative voice?" (i.e. "serial killer" should only be used as quotations from others). (I was not asking about "pathological murderers", as I was not proposing "religious group whose leadership exhibit a pathological level of control over its members".) Hrafn42 18:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm unindenting this thread to draw attention to the wider debate that you mentioned, because I think it deserves more exposure. It sounds like you and I are coming at this argument from a similar place: not because we have a vested interest in the Heaven's Gate phenomenon or with cult movements in particular, but because we're drawn to some of the fundamental principles that are at stake. For you, it's the point at which strong or evocative terms become acceptable on Wikipedia; for me, it's the concept of bias and what really constitutes a neutral point of view.

I have to admit that this is not the ditch I would have thought I'd die in. If I were choosing an issue on which to make my last stand, this wouldn't have been the one. Despite everything I've said here, I don't personally think it's unreasonable at all to characterize the Heaven's Gate group as a cult. Indeed, if I were to discuss the group at all I would be hard-pressed to think of a more appropriate term. But that's not just because it's a word I think accurately describes the group; it's also because I'm comfortable expressing that value judgement in conversation.

And that, paradoxically, is exactly why I don't think it's best for Wikipedia to do the same thing. I don't want the encyclopedia to confirm my biases and assumptions. I want it to stick to the facts and to keep them as neutral as possible, even on an issue that the whole world agrees about. Especially on an issue the whole world agrees about. If Wikipedia already agrees with me when I go to read it, the chance that I'll read something that will change my mind is already diminished, and that means something has been lost. That would be a terrible shame. Tim Pierce 03:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I think my problem with a lot of what is in WP:WTA is that it contains a lot of arguments of the type "don't use term X because it has the implication Y". This may be a valid argument most of the time, but (as a matter of logic) it is clearly not a valid argument against using term X in contexts where Y has already been clearly established. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that you could document every negative connotation of "cult", and document that it was a matter of record that a hypothetical specific religious group met all of these implications, independently of the label. Would, in this limiting case, there still be a problem with using "cult" to describe this group in the narrative voice? I suppose what I'm in fact asking is whether the difference between "words to avoid" and the rest of the English language is a matter of degree (and thus level burden of proof in order to use them narratively), or a matter of fundamental difference in kind (in which case a per se difference in policy might be justified). I must admit that I would consider the evidential hurdle for upholding the latter view to be fairly high.
Part of the problem is, I suspect, that WP:WTA deals almost entirely in specifics, with little in the way of general principles. Hrafn42 05:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Only slightly tongue in cheek, I would like to suggest a general principle for Wikipedia: "If the tabloids adopt a certain communication style, then Wikipedia should adopt the opposite." Do the tabloids carefully avoid pejorative labels? No? Then we should. Rumiton 07:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Many labels are considered pejorative by some people or in some contexts. That does not mean that we should "carefully avoid" all of them (or any of them). It merely means we should only make careful and advised use of them. Tabloids write in Latin script, does that mean we should write Wikipedia only in Cyrillic? Blanket rules tend to create silliness in the specific. Hrafn42 08:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, of course they do: "Broad, sweeping statements are never true." But I think the point is valid. Wikipedia should become a thinking person's alternative to the popular press, not an adjunct. Rumiton 09:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
My point is that tabloids don't use strong language carefully and advisedly, which means that we should use it carefully and advisedly, rather than simply throwing a large chunk of the English language into the dustbin. Hrafn42 05:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that what you're suggesting would be fine -- if the negative connotations of the word could be defined in strictly factual, unambiguous terms, so that a neutral observer could agree that the word fits on its own merits. But I think that's an unattainable goal; connotational ideas by their very nature have slippery and ambiguous meanings. They provoke images and emotions in the listener's mind, and not always ideas that can be easily articulated.
Reading some of the arguments that have been posted here in favor of naming the page "Heaven's Gate (cult)", I see phrases like: "just as bad", "certifiably insane", "insult to NRMs", "sordid". That is why people tend to find the word appropriate -- because those are the connotations that it delivers. Those concepts can't be neatly enumerated and dissected. They're value judgements. People will apply those value judgements anyway when they're reading the article -- but the difference is that they'll reach that conclusion on their own. Tim Pierce 04:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
"Certifiably insane", used advisedly, is objective rather than a "value judgement". Do you have a problem with the field of abnormal psychology being applied to any group (religious or otherwise) that commits mass suicide? Hrafn42 05:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Not at all, but I also recognize that a clinical diagnosis represents a psychiatrist's judgement, and that any such human judgement is not going to be entirely objective. If it were, it would be a good deal easier for criminal cases to resolve questions of "not guilty by reason of insanity." An article should not say "Charles Manson was an insane serial murderer," but e.g. "Manson was diagnosed with persecutory schizophrenia by Dr. Whozit in March 1970." It doesn't matter how undisputed the claim of insanity is -- it still needs to be recognized as a label that is applied by a human being, and one that is subject to interpretation. Tim Pierce 07:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I think "certifiably insane," however "advisedly" (what does that mean?) used will always be subjective. "Diagnosed (or certified) as insane" is the objective parallel. Anyway, Wikipedia quotes from reputable sources, not the opinions of editors, and reputable sources are not reputable if they use vague and emotional descriptors. Rumiton 09:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I just found a source that quotes Applewhite[6]:

"The result was, as Applewhite himself once wrote, that, "We take the prize, I guess, of being the cult of cults.""Ticklemygrits 06:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Louis Theroux cite

If the needed citation for Louis Theroux is anywhere, it would be in his book: Call of the Weird: Travels in American Subcultures. AndroidCat 13:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality Disputed

Has this been sorted out yet? I assume it was added due to the use of the word cult, now that 'cult' doesn't appear in the article is it still NPOV? I thought this part was a bit strange:

"The group's end coincided with the appearance of Comet Hale-Bopp in 1997. Applewhite convinced thirty-eight followers to commit suicide so that their souls could take a ride on a spaceship that they believed was hiding behind the comet carrying Jesus; such beliefs have led some observers to characterize the group as a type of "UFO religion."[1]"

Surely those beliefs have led people to characterize Heavens Gate as a cult?Ticklemygrits 01:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The tag is months old, and from what I can see the person who placed it made no effort to justify it, so I'm removing it. - BalthCat 06:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Dubious tag

An editor added a "discuss" tag, but there's no discussion here. The tagged text is:

  • The mass death of the Heaven's Gate group is said to be one of the most widely-known examples of what became publicized as "cult suicide"[dubious – discuss]. [7]

What exactly is the problem? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd say it would be related to the word 'cult'. User:Sfacets seems to have a problem with the word cult being used, but you'd have to ask him/her if that's the case.Ticklemygrits 07:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I do, but not in this context. My problem here is with the "widely-known examples of what became publicized as "cult suicide" " - when no source is provided to back this claim. Sfacets 08:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi SF, I changed the sentence a little. Is that ok? The link supports it, and putting more sourcess in it is a bit pointless. I don't think many people would have known about them before they commited suicide, hence that's what the vast majority of people now them as.User:ticklemygrits 14:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, nicely done, looks good. Sfacets 14:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

New Nikes?

I have no proof regarding this one way or the other, but I find to hard to believe this "fact"

"Nike SB shoe company will release a shoe design in 2008, that is to resemble the Heavens Gate logo."

Might want to look into that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.178.73 (talk) 18:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Dead Space

From the cultural references section, "EA's Video game Dead Space is Also based on a cult which worships an alien artifact and the members of the cult also committed suicide believing it would be the "next level" for humanity." It seems that there is no indication that this is a reference to this cult. Cult suicide and alien artifacts are not uncommon in science fiction, and it seems like there is not a definitive link between the game and the Haven's Gate cult. Maybe it should be removed, but if anyone believes it really should be in, keep it. Tithonfury (talk) 19:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

External links

Trimmed down EL sect, added {{No more links}}. Cirt (talk) 14:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Manor damage

"In reality, after the house was cleared of the bodies and their belongings, significant physical damage remained, which amounted to well over $200,000." How did the manor get damaged? The article is terribly unclear on that score. 72.192.55.156 (talk) 05:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Structure

A colleague suggested that Doe wanted to create an environment where all the thinking was already done. Who or what is Doe? Tenorcnj (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


Probably mean "Do" which is the nickname of the cult leader.

Official website

Can any information on the website be added? It is interesting that it has not been altered in any way since the suicide, so there must be some information out there about who is running it and why (a surviving member?) Laval (talk) 10:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

A good question as to who is running it! 169.226.85.157 (talk) 16:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

"..former cult member Mark King who left the group over twenty years ago is holding materials and running the website of the Heaven's Gate group. His TELAH Foundation also owns the copyrights to the Heaven's Gate materials".--81.152.166.228 (talk) 22:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

"Suicide and aftermath" section

The "Heaven's Gate mass suicide" section of Wikipedia's Marshall_Applewhite article has much more detail regarding the mass suicide than this main Heaven's Gate article. That seems backwards- the Applewhite article should focus more on the man, whereas the group suicide is more relevant to this article. I can't imagine anyone would disagree, and so I will boldly merge the 2 sections for the "Suicide and aftermath" section of the Heaven's Gate article, resulting in maximal detail for the HG article. I will leave the Q of whether the Marshall_Applewhite article's "Heaven's Gate mass suicide" section should be pruned to someone else. The problem is this: the Marshall_Applewhite article's "Heaven's Gate mass suicide" section, while being more informative than this article, has no footnotes. I leave this aspect of things to those more experienced w/ Wikipedia's formatting standards etc than I. Thank you all for yr sincere dedication! Fp cassini (talk) 18:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you please give other editors an idea of what you mean by "much more detail regarding the mass suicide" when comparing the two articles? As you've pointed out, the material in the Marshall Applewhite article doesn't have any referencing attached to it at all, while the Heaven's Gate article itself does. In your opinion what are the specific details you think are missing from Heaven's Gate (religious group) that you believe warrants being added to the article even though it's through the use of unreferenced material? cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 19:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I foolishly assumed that the additional (unreferenced) details were known to be true by "HG scholars" and had merely not yet been referenced. Looking at the Applewhite article's history, I see there's 3 authors at most of the section in question. Is it appropiate, in Wkpdia culture, to ask them to ref their material? Fp cassini (talk) 00:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The website domain was only registered in December of 1997, nine months after the cult suicide. I find it unlikely it is run by any member, nor does it seem to be the original site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironfroggy (talk • contribs) 23:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Religious Group V. New Religious Movement

Ok religious group not really a good Term, in my own opinion and accordance with WP:BB, using a correct sociological term rather than a vague term than "religious group" thus i fixed the problem as i saw fixed. I see no reason to simply call them a "Religious Group" when new Religious movement is the Proper Sociological term. Weaponbb7 (talk) 01:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

"New religious movement" is not used except by sociologists. Wikipedia has made the decision generally to use terms in common use rather than more precise terms which are not actually used except by experts. I lean toward "cult" in both cases, but pejoratives are considered an exception to that decision except where it really is the primary term used. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
As indicated in the task group talk page, "(religious movement)" may be the best choice. In any case, stop moving the article until we can establish the correct form. "(New Religious Group)", "(New religious group)", etc., violate Wikipedia convention on capitalization, even if it really used that way in the literature, which I seriously doubt. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Should this be added to the Biblio..."UFO Missionaries Extraordinary" by Hewes and Steiger?

It says: "for the first time, Bo and Peep speak freely about their work on Earth... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.45.172.13 (talk) 04:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


published by pocket books, division of Simon and Shuster, inc. June, 1976...Steiger copyright...just thought an experienced editor here might want to know. I found it in my library...I don't know how to edit here and don't plan to so...someone else maybe can add this if they want? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.45.172.13 (talk) 04:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Suicide

Could someone provide a proper reference stating that all of these were suicides? Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

possible suicide reasons

shouldn't the reasons for suicide at the time it was committed be on the page --10sean18 (talk) 06:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Text removal and Lead

Economist and Crisis Consultant to the scene, Randall Bell writes in his book, Strategy 360,[1] "The mansion in Rancho Santa Fe, California, sat on three acres, and the 9,000 square-foot home had every amenity. The cult members rented the house; the lease specifically limited occupancy to just seven people. Everything in the house was labeled. Every light switch, electrical outlet, shelf, cupboard, jar and container had a small label stating exactly what it turned on or contained inside. A colleague suggested that Do wanted to create an environment where all the thinking was already done. At the same time, no cult member was allowed to be alone. Monitoring devices were everywhere. There was a bizarre amount of wiring throughout the house and even down the chimney. Even when cult members spoke on the phone, someone was there to monitor the conversation."

Economist and Crisis Consultant Randall Bell was hired to consult on the economic impact to the property and surrounding homes. He notes in his book, Strategy 360:[1] While the press never knew it, the cult had sent a suicide letter to the home's owner. The tone of the letter suggested that they were actually doing the owner a favor by creating a famous event that would make the house an invaluable shrine. In reality, after the house was cleared of the bodies and their belongings, significant physical damage remained, which amounted to well over $200,000. Looking for some kind of break, the home owner tried to appeal his property taxes, only to receive a letter in return from the San Diego Assessor's Office that rejected his appeal on the grounds that a mass suicide in his property did not qualify as a disaster. Eventually, he was forced to give the property back to the bank. The bank sold it at a deep discount to a nearby neighbor who promptly had the house bulldozed.The address at the time was 18241 Colina Norte in Rancho Santa Fe CA but since changed to 18239 Paseo Victoria.

The Cite Links to spam and his wikipedia page looks like spam thats been wikified i doubt this guy is an expert on this. I originally saw this as NPOV issue but looking closer it not enycylpeida text its one long quote! the whole paragraph is a quote. A quote should be a sentence or two not a paragraph. The Cite does even give a page number as a lengthy quote would require its just it his website saying buy his book. Also Arthur Rubin the quote in the first paragraph is from Karla Poewe says UFO Religion not cult Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Single Purpose account added it here Weaponbb7 (talk) 01:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

"Suicide and aftermath" section

The "Heaven's Gate mass suicide" section of Wikipedia's Marshall_Applewhite article has much more detail regarding the mass suicide than this main Heaven's Gate article. That seems backwards- the Applewhite article should focus more on the man, whereas the group suicide is more relevant to this article. I can't imagine anyone would disagree, and so I will boldly merge the 2 sections for the "Suicide and aftermath" section of the Heaven's Gate article, resulting in maximal detail for the HG article. I will leave the Q of whether the Marshall_Applewhite article's "Heaven's Gate mass suicide" section should be pruned to someone else. The problem is this: the Marshall_Applewhite article's "Heaven's Gate mass suicide" section, while being more informative than this article, has no footnotes. I leave this aspect of things to those more experienced w/ Wikipedia's formatting standards etc than I. Thank you all for yr sincere dedication! Fp cassini (talk) 18:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you please give other editors an idea of what you mean by "much more detail regarding the mass suicide" when comparing the two articles? As you've pointed out, the material in the Marshall Applewhite article doesn't have any referencing attached to it at all, while the Heaven's Gate article itself does. In your opinion what are the specific details you think are missing from Heaven's Gate (religious group) that you believe warrants being added to the article even though it's through the use of unreferenced material? cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 19:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I foolishly assumed that the additional (unreferenced) details were known to be true by "HG scholars" and had merely not yet been referenced. Looking at the Applewhite article's history, I see there's 3 authors at most of the section in question. Is it appropiate, in Wkpdia culture, to ask them to ref their material? Fp cassini (talk) 00:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The website domain was only registered in December of 1997, nine months after the cult suicide. I find it unlikely it is run by any member, nor does it seem to be the original site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironfroggy (talk • contribs) 23:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Religious Group V. New Religious Movement

Ok religious group not really a good Term, in my own opinion and accordance with WP:BB, using a correct sociological term rather than a vague term than "religious group" thus i fixed the problem as i saw fixed. I see no reason to simply call them a "Religious Group" when new Religious movement is the Proper Sociological term. Weaponbb7 (talk) 01:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

"New religious movement" is not used except by sociologists. Wikipedia has made the decision generally to use terms in common use rather than more precise terms which are not actually used except by experts. I lean toward "cult" in both cases, but pejoratives are considered an exception to that decision except where it really is the primary term used. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
As indicated in the task group talk page, "(religious movement)" may be the best choice. In any case, stop moving the article until we can establish the correct form. "(New Religious Group)", "(New religious group)", etc., violate Wikipedia convention on capitalization, even if it really used that way in the literature, which I seriously doubt. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Should this be added to the Biblio..."UFO Missionaries Extraordinary" by Hewes and Steiger?

It says: "for the first time, Bo and Peep speak freely about their work on Earth... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.45.172.13 (talk) 04:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


published by pocket books, division of Simon and Shuster, inc. June, 1976...Steiger copyright...just thought an experienced editor here might want to know. I found it in my library...I don't know how to edit here and don't plan to so...someone else maybe can add this if they want? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.45.172.13 (talk) 04:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Suicide

Could someone provide a proper reference stating that all of these were suicides? Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

possible suicide reasons

shouldn't the reasons for suicide at the time it was committed be on the page --10sean18 (talk) 06:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Text removal and Lead

Economist and Crisis Consultant to the scene, Randall Bell writes in his book, Strategy 360,[1] "The mansion in Rancho Santa Fe, California, sat on three acres, and the 9,000 square-foot home had every amenity. The cult members rented the house; the lease specifically limited occupancy to just seven people. Everything in the house was labeled. Every light switch, electrical outlet, shelf, cupboard, jar and container had a small label stating exactly what it turned on or contained inside. A colleague suggested that Do wanted to create an environment where all the thinking was already done. At the same time, no cult member was allowed to be alone. Monitoring devices were everywhere. There was a bizarre amount of wiring throughout the house and even down the chimney. Even when cult members spoke on the phone, someone was there to monitor the conversation."

Economist and Crisis Consultant Randall Bell was hired to consult on the economic impact to the property and surrounding homes. He notes in his book, Strategy 360:[1] While the press never knew it, the cult had sent a suicide letter to the home's owner. The tone of the letter suggested that they were actually doing the owner a favor by creating a famous event that would make the house an invaluable shrine. In reality, after the house was cleared of the bodies and their belongings, significant physical damage remained, which amounted to well over $200,000. Looking for some kind of break, the home owner tried to appeal his property taxes, only to receive a letter in return from the San Diego Assessor's Office that rejected his appeal on the grounds that a mass suicide in his property did not qualify as a disaster. Eventually, he was forced to give the property back to the bank. The bank sold it at a deep discount to a nearby neighbor who promptly had the house bulldozed.The address at the time was 18241 Colina Norte in Rancho Santa Fe CA but since changed to 18239 Paseo Victoria.

The Cite Links to spam and his wikipedia page looks like spam thats been wikified i doubt this guy is an expert on this. I originally saw this as NPOV issue but looking closer it not enycylpeida text its one long quote! the whole paragraph is a quote. A quote should be a sentence or two not a paragraph. The Cite does even give a page number as a lengthy quote would require its just it his website saying buy his book. Also Arthur Rubin the quote in the first paragraph is from Karla Poewe says UFO Religion not cult Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Single Purpose account added it here Weaponbb7 (talk) 01:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Use of word "cult"

I reverted the change that removed the word "cult" on the grounds that it's NPOV. The dictionary definition of the word (according to Wiktionary) is:

cult: A group or doctrine with religious, philosophical or cultural identity sometimes viewed as a sect, often existent on the margins of society and/or exploitative towards its members.

This was undoubtedly a "group" (and also a "doctrine") - they certainly had both "religious" and "philosophical" identity - they are described as a "cyber-sect" in at least one acceptable reference. They existed on the margins of society. By any reasonable definition of the term, they were undoubtedly a "cult". Using the correct word is not a non-neutral point of view. Choosing an incorrect word might be.

Also, if you read the conclusion of the long debate on the subject (above) you'll see that the final proof is that the leader of the group (Applewight) himself called the group "a cult". You don't get much more neutral than by using the term the group chose for themselves.

SteveBaker (talk) 02:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

  • eyeroll calling any group a Cult is violation of NPOV. But I really dont have the time or the patience to argue right now. The IP made a good faith edit and its been reverted. Is it really necessary to drudge this up again?BB7 (talk) 03:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
"And we've acknowledged that if there ever was a cult or a culture that was different, and unique, and unlike the world, and doesn't have a place in the world, then we take the prize, I guess, of being the cult of cults. And, I'm afraid, so did Jesus and His disciples. There's no denying that." Speaking Ironically doesn't count either on a side note. BB7 (talk) 03:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b c d Bell, Randall. Strategy 360.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Heaven%27s_Gate_(religious_group)/Archive_1&oldid=1136273400"