`opponents, for a variety of possible reasons. ...In English-speaking countries since about the 1960s, especially in`` North America, the term cult has taken on a pejorative and sometimes offensive connotation.`` etc. Second point: Citing a French reference is fine and good under most circumstances, but given all the conflicting views about the term, and the fact that this is an English encyclopedia, not a French one, and that we are discussing an international organization, not just a French one, it is  not really helpful, especialy since (Third point) the use of the term is inconsistantly applied throughout Wikipedia. The French report includes several religions and organizations that are also English (American) organizations  yet in the Wiki articles about them, they are not referred to as ``cults,`` nor is the French report cited in relation to them.    For example, the following organizations and religions are included in the French report: Mormons, Jehovah's Witness (reference to the term in the title of a source cited here, but it is not stated in the text of the article as it has been in this one) Seventh Day Adventists (``cultic`` as defined by the author of a cited book on the subject, and it has its own specific meaning - see article on Cults), the Church of God, Transcendental Meditation, the Humanist Party movement, the Church of Christ, Scientist, Pentacostals, and Raja Yoga.  If we are striving for NPOV, then the term ought to be applied equally and objectively to all entries that are also cited in this same report, OR, the report and reference outght NOT to be cited or used in this particular article, OR a different citation ought to be used in which the definition of the term is stated clearly, and/or make it clear that the French article is speaking of the SGI France specifically, (in which case, it would probably only be fair to also find similar reports about each and every SGI organization and see how each country views the organization in its country. And that would be ridiculous.   Otherwise, the only remaining reason for its inclusion in this article and not in others, is because some editors hold a POV about SGI, (as noted in Wiki's article on the subject). That is not appropriate, and NPOV. - Ruby     :Hi Ruby. I thought we'd lost you there!  :I think the cult reference is touchy. And for the record: personally, I think it should be noted in articles on other religious groups when they have been plausibly accused of cult-like activities. Also, everyone might want to note that the French government's usage of ``cult`` is clearly and finely defined: a group has to meet certain objective criteria to be listed.  :As for our article here, please remember that it is not saying that SGI is a cult, it's saying that SGI has been accused of being a cult. That the French government listed it as such is an undeniable fact, and it's something that people looking up SGI should know. I believe that the French government has rescinded this listing, which is something you might want to look into; but nonetheless, credible media in several countries and localities—in the US, particularly southern California—have also described SGI as a cult or being ``cult-like`` (e.g., Die Zeit'', one of Germany's leading newspapers). Almost every website on cults  (even when it's not run by some disgruntled SGI member) also has a section on Soka Gakkai or SGI, so denying or trying to avoid mention of the cult accusations is, I would think, likely to work against SGI: it looks like cover-up, and perfectly reasonable people are likely to interpret that as evidence that the cult characterizations are accurate.  :Besides, if we remove all reference to the cult accusations, Carl7 will just come back and re-insert them again!    ::No way! I am still here. Just trying to reclaim my nights for sleeping!! I haven't really seen anything warranting comment, either, so, I'm pretty well rested, lately! -)   ::I hear you, though, and I also tend towards using a common standard for all articles. And, I agree that it is something that will keep coming back, realistically speaking. But, I feel it is necessary to put the feet to the fire - if it is going to be stated, it shouldn't go unchallenged. And if Carl7 wants to keep putting it in there, that's fine  but let him find real authoritative sources to support his claim, and cite  them.  We are all about sharing all views - but we can't just allow a bully to run rampant. He's got to prove his case. As do we all, no? You gave a head start - but what are these sources you mentioned? Do they pass muster? If they are ou