[WikiEN-l] Tabloid sources (was Wikipedia leadership})

[Fred Bauder]

>> On 4 February 2011 01:32, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at fairpoint.net> wrote:
>>> One is expected to use sound editorial judgment. Using British
>>> tabloids
>>> for a biography of a living person falls outside that remit. One is
>>> expected to have some familiarity with what is an appropriate source
>>> for
>>> the subject.
>>
>
> OK, let's take a case in point: Prem Rawat
>
> Jimbo recently added into the lead "Rawat has often been termed a cult
> leader in popular press report, as well as [[anti-cult]] writings" -
> stating
> "This is, without a doubt, the most important thing readers need to
> know".
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=411493466&oldid=40
> 5705319
>
> The citations he provided for the "popular press" were from "Brisbane
> Courier-Mail" and "The London Courier-Standard". Now, neither could be
> deemed "expert sources". If we want to label the chap a cultist, we'd
> want a
> neutral academic or some authority. Not the writings of journalists who
> tend
> to recycle, sensationalise, and do little research. Anyone who's been
> involved in a newstory that's been reported even in quality papers, knows
> that daily newscycle journalists do piss-poor research, dreadful
> fact-checking, and drastic oversimplifications. Having said that, Jimbo's
> addition is perfectly true, he's often been termed a "cult leader" in the
> popular press. The question is, is Wikipedia in the business of reporting
> what is "often said" or what is "reliably, authoritively, or neutrally
> said"? I guess I'm unsure.
>
> The other half of Jimbo's insertion concerns "[[anti-cult]] writings".
> Again, these sources are perfectly reliable as to what "anti-cult" people
> are saying. But they are also highly partisan sources. The sources in
> this
> case are "Bob Larson" and "Ron Rhodes" both evangelical Christians. (NB,
> the
> editor who pointed this out, has since been banned for his troubles:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php
> title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=411950776#Momento)
>
> Again, "what the critics say" isn't a bad thing to include. But perhaps
> the
> labels applied by Larson and Rhodes are given undue weight, when included
> so
> prominently in the lead.
>
> The effect of this inclusion in the first paragraph, is to invite the
> reader
> to conclude "everyone says he's a cultist". That may be true, and "the
> most
> important thing readers need to know" - but is this really neutrality?
> Are
> we using sources appropriately? Again, I'm unsure.
>
> Scott

Clearly there are issues. I'm on Jimbo's side with this though. Some of
my earliest edit wars were over whether The People's Republic of China
could be described in the introduction as a totalitarian dictatorship.
What has currently been hit on is "single-party state governed by the
Communist Party of China (CPC)." with a link to "single-party state" an
artificial construct for which there is little published authority.

We can't get so picky and bound up in rules that stating the obvious is
forbidden.

By the way, I know of what I speak. I lived in Denver and was well
acquainted with the Divine Light Mission, friends even with several of
them their leaders. A cult.

Fred