On 4 February 2011 01:32, Fred Bauder fredbaud@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&... 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