On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 15:12:23 +0200, you wrote:
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?
That's where we need to read and understand the intent of [[WP:RS]]. A reliable source for an allegation of cult status would need to be a recognised authority on cults, or perhaps multiple independent statements by mainstream news media, or cited articles in respected peer-reviewed journals. Certainly a one-man crusade is not a reliable source for the cult status of a group, only for the opinions of that individual (which can therefore only be stated in their own article). Unless, of course, one man in question was a world-renowned expert on cults - but in that case it is usually trivially easy to find others coming to the same conclusion.
Guy (JzG)