Talk:Providence (religious movement)

Grammatical correction

Re: the sentence “In the 1970s, Jung was a member of the Unification Church(UC), who’s teaching his resembles.” - this should read “whose” not “who’s”. 2001:8003:953D:E300:7456:3EF5:86E6:5EB1 (talk) 16:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2023

Change "... JMS raped her..." to "...JMS member/s raped her..." or specify the name of the accused. 50.72.176.246 (talk) 02:22, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done casualdejekyll 02:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2023

In the 1970s, Jung was a member of the Unification Church (UC), who's teaching his resembles.[12][13]

Grammar: change ‘who’s’ to ‘whose’ 2603:8080:1400:4AB8:AC2C:DBAF:FB5:BDC3 (talk) 19:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 22:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 11 September 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – MaterialWorks 17:43, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

---

Providence (religious movement) → Providence (cult) – A Google search of "providence" and "religious movement" yields 442,000 results, whereas a Google search of "providence" and "cult" yields 4,910,000 results. Per WP:COMMONNAME we should use commonly recognizable names as article names. TarnishedPath^talk 09:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Fails MOS:LABEL - "cult" is the first word on the list. Tevildo (talk) 14:42, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Tevildo I disagree that it fails MOS:LABEL "Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject". It's obvious when viewing Google results that there are a multitude of reliable sources that describe the subject as a "cult". TarnishedPath^talk 20:25, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. While I think it can be called a cult in the article text in accordance with MOS:LABEL, doing it in the title is a bit much. See WP:NPOVTITLE.

Anecdotal, but I don't think I've ever seen a significant religious movement (even really controversial ones) with that kind of disambig in the title. toobigtokale (talk) 23:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

@Toobigtokale It may or may not make any difference to you policy wise, but can I refer you to Category:Cults. There's a number of pages with cult in the title. TarnishedPath^talk 23:22, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, you're right, but it's still anecdotes against anecdotes I guess.

Precedent is only a supporting argument for page moving; I'd argue there are only a few scenarios where it should go in (non-exhaustive list):

1. If a group is widely commonly referred to as "x cult", like Blackburn Cult (i.e. not just referred to as a cult or described as a cult, but actually used as part of the name)
2. If a group officially uses it in their name

I'd argue some of the uses should themselves be renamed; they're also usually on minor pages. toobigtokale (talk) 23:29, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

LOL, Number 2 would rule out almost any usage. I would think it would be extraordinarily rare, verging on never happening, to get a cult that actually refers to themselves as a cult. The whole point of a cult is that its members are brainwashed into thinking that its in-group routines are the norm. It would drive off new members if they advertised up front that they were a cult. On point number 1 I think that fits Providence perfectly, just refer to the google search result numbers. TarnishedPath^talk 23:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

My choice of 2 was intentional, yes it would be rare, which is why I don't think this page should use "cult" in the disambig. Either way, undeniably 2 would be a more neutral pov usage, right? Because the group uses it itself. It's a fine argument.

Also, while it's rare, it still happens:

• Cult of the Holy Spirit
• Cult of the Lord Holy Christ of the Miracles
• Cult of Reason

Also I'm googling but not seeing that "Providence cult" is the common term. It is widely described as a cult yes, but again, my point is that the common name should be "Providence cult" verbatim for it to merit inclusion.

Reminder to keep this civil; don't laugh at my arguments. I'm making a good faith attempt to work with you on this. I'm fully willing to be convinced and have no personal attachment to this topic. toobigtokale (talk) 00:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my lol came across as laughter at you or your argument. I didn't intend it that way at all. The google search I conducted was "providence" and "cult" to find all articles in which the terms are used together. Reforming a search like "providence cult" you're going to miss anything that goes along the lines of "Providence ... is a cult" or some other sentence structure in which they are ultimately referred to as a cult. TarnishedPath^talk 05:25, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

No worries, thank you for the apology, simple misunderstanding.

I agree that "Providence is a cult" is a common description. However, under WP:POVTITLE: When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name... IMO the key word is "single". While Providence is widely refered to as a cult, it's also very often refered to by "new religious movement" or "sect". Why not those terms, they're arguably just as fair, unless we want to somehow measure what descriptor is more common (multiple descriptors are often used together so it'll be hard to do this).

"Cult" comes with so much baggage that "new religious movement" and "sect" don't have. It's just simpler to have those as disambigs IMO toobigtokale (talk) 06:03, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, I was amazed that there were groups that actually referred to themselves as cults. TarnishedPath^talk 05:27, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I think part of it is that the implications of the word "cult" have changed over time; it developed a strong negative connotation during the 1960s/1970s in reaction to so many of them springing up around then. Also, some groups intentionally embrace negative labels. Satanism I don't think uses the term but they embody the spirit of embracing negative labels I think toobigtokale (talk) 06:07, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.