Hi JzG, All,
Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
And if so, in which sense?
Yes, and in the usual sense: if you cannot provide a reliable source for each individual case (and here that would mean referencing each one explicitly as it is likely to be contentious) then the entry must be removed. If none of them are sourced the list is empty - delete. If none of them *can* be sourced, the list is unverifiable - delete.
Mmmh. That's (IMHO) the entire problem: The single entries are -- in a sense -- all sourced. Minus some drive-by-additions to the list, it is usually indeed verifiable, that * X said 19YY the group Z is a cult [of]
But the question is, does it matter?
Is X an expert on Z? Is his opinion isolated? Which of the several meanings of "cult" is implied?
So, if you put together all these atoms of sourced statements, is the entitity you created still in line with WP:NOR, WP:V and friends? IMHO its (a) just this compiling step which is problematic and (b), in this special case of [[List of groups referred to as cults]], the one-drop-rule employed: Find one author which says "is a cult" and the it's on the list.
Regards, Peter Jacobi
[[User:Pjacobi]]