Talk:New religious movements and cults in popular culture

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

Sibilla Aleramo?[edit]

??? Anthroposophy, Steiner a cult or religious movement? I do not think we need more violations of WP:NOR in this article. Or should we move this article to Religion, spirituality, esotericism, cults, and new religions in literature and popular culture? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above posting is not an explanation for removing properly cited material. Wicca is almost universally considered a new religious movement and so is Scientology, although some would say the latter is also a religious or human-potential cult. The teachings of Evola's group had elements in common both with Wicca's emphasis on ceremonial magic, and Scientology's emphasis on superman-style transcendance. (Of course neither of these groups ever shared Evola's racialism and pro-Nazi sentiments.) In addition, Evola's group was part of a larger revival of esotericism in the first half of the 20th century that had a strong, if unusual, religious component drawing upon Buddhism and (via Rene Guenon) Islam, as well as Hermeticism and Theosophy/Anthroposophy. These religious influences on the Evola group are discussed in the scholarly preface to the anthology of UR essays that is cited. I'm restoring the paragraph once again.--Dking (talk) 02:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly what WP:NOR wans us against. Hav it your way ... I do not see the dispute tags being removed any time soon. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see any dispute as such... its fairly straight forward article, balanced, no tag is needed, MeThinks --talk-to-me! (talk) 07:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ayn Rand[edit]

"Chinesearab" removed the entire paragraph without discussion first, merely saying "Objectivism is not...a cult. Do your research before writing." Well, the research WAS done and "Chinesearab" simply did not bother to look at the citations in the article or the more extensive ones on the discussion page. I am repeating here (with a little further explanation) the citations from the discussion page. The cites obviously do not refer to all Objectivists at all points in time but to the original Randian group (now defunct) known as the Collective. A number of former members of the Collective--and many current supporters of Objectivism in a non-Collective form--understand full well that an authoritarian and emotionally destructive cult grew up around Rand during her lifetime and developed an unfortunate expression for a time within the Objectivist psychotherapy movement.

Ayn Rand belongs in this article. Citations are as follows:
a. Jeff Walker, The Ayn Rand Cult, Open Court, 1998. Called a "solid contribution to 20th century intellectual history" by Library Journal. This book goes into great detail about the cultism of Rand's Collective.
b. Nathaniel Branden, My Years with Ayn Rand, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, 1999. Branden was the head of the Rand "Collective" until 1968 and also was Rand's lover. "There was terrible violence done to every one's emotional life--the repression or suppression of any feeling that clashed with what an ideal Objectivist was supposed to experience..." p. 223. "To our more fanatical and conformist students, Objectivism did not signify merely the body of abstract philosophical propositions and arguments that we wrote about and taught. Its meaning was expanded to include every personal like and dislike of Ayn's....These students proved that they were good Objectivists through their skill at mimicking Ayn's viewpoints down to the smallest detail--re-creating Ayn, as it were, within themselves. They further proved it by watching one another, suspiciously and critically, for deviations; if they could not match Ayn in intellect, they could at least match her in harshness." p. 307. Also see the list of basic premises of life in the Rand movement ("Ayn Rand is the greatest human being who has ever lived," etc. etc.), p. 226.
c. Ellen Plasil, Therapist, New York: St. Martin's Press, 1985. Harrowing account of sexual abuse of patients in Objectivist therapy. Nathaniel Branden's review ("The Dark Side of Objectivism," Free Inquiry, Summer 1987), is especially pertinent here. "I recommend it [Plasil's book] to anyone interested in the psychology of cultism and how individuals can be led to suspend their moral judgment and common sense in the name of idealism and loyalty--and out of an overzealous desire to belong somewhere." And: "There is an irrational, cultish tendency in many intellectual movements, and Objectivism, alas, is no exception." [1]
d. Michael Shermer, "The Unlikeliest Cult in History," Skeptic, vol. 2, no. 2, 1993.[2] (Shermer is a leading figure in the Skeptics movement and a columnist for Scientific American.)
e. Murray N. Rothbard, "The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult," 1972 (Murray Rothbard Archives)[3]. Rothbard, a major American economic thinker, wrote from personal experience. He was associated briefly with the Rand movement as described in Branden's book.
f. Donna Greiner and Theodore B. Kinni, Ayn Rand and Business, New York: TEXERE, 2001. These authors are fans of Rand's ideas but nevertheless do not try to cover up the cultish history of the Collective: "Unhappily, as Objectivism spread, so did the authoritarianism and intolerance of its inner circle. Members who questioned the philosophy or decisions of Ayn or the Brandens often found themselves excommunicated from the group. The Saturday night sessions in Ayn's apartment would often degenerate into prolonged attacks on flaws in the thinking of specific members....Objectivism was beginning to look more like a cult than a philosophical movement." (pp. 22-23)--Dking (talk) 23:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I note that in restoring this paragraph I went to a version earlier than the one from which Boodlesthecat (Hi, Fred) removed the reference to Anthem being widely read on grounds that the statement was not properly referenced. It would seem to me that having to footnote the fact that this science fiction classic is widely read is like having to footnote the same fact about Bradbury's Martian Chronicles (and other s-f books that remain in print forever and are standard fare in high school English classes). But for the record:
1. The Ayn Rand Institute web page reports that "Anthem has now sold 2.5 million copies and continues to sell more than 60,000 copies every year."
2. Cliff Notes currently offers an Anthem study guide, while Signet offers a Teachers' Guide to the Signet edition.
3. Three paperback editions are in print and offered for sale on amazon.com: the Signet edition (continuously in print since 1961), a Centennial Edition (2005) by Plume (a Penguin imprint), and a Boomer Books edition (2006). The book is also available for free in an online edition from Gutenberg.
I am restoring the statement that this book is widely read.--Dking (talk) 00:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting stuff there. An inline reference in the article for the Collective or another organized group founded on Rand's ideas might be useful. John Nevard (talk) 04:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With all these references this bit should stay. 67.173.248.52 (talk) 01:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Groups Referred To As Cults[edit]

Hey what happened to the truly ridiculous page, something like "Groups referred to as cults by the media"? I want to dance on it's pale, ugly and dead head. It was some of the worst of the Wikipedia mob scene. 98.18.154.73 (talk) 02:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malignant Narcissism[edit]

Edited the section on ancients so that the article links to malignant narcissism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andwats (talk • contribs) 22:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on New religious movements and cults in popular culture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:19, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_religious_movements_and_cults_in_popular_culture&oldid=1207182433"