On Wed, 7 Jun 2006 00:23:36 +0200, you wrote:
On 6/6/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG
<guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:
> Surely that is the standard which should already be applied, per
> [[WP:V]], [[WP:RS]], [[WP:NPOV]] (undue weight) and [[WP:NOR]]? That's
> how I would read it, anyway.
I think none of those help if the criterion is
literally "has ever
been called a cult by anyone" which is one, almost reasonable
interpretation, of "referred to as a cult". It's just the "referred
to" bit - if it was "cults" then I would agree with you.
Sure. An article on "things which have been referred to as foo" has
no place on Wikipedia. For any thing which may potentially be
described as foo, there will be at least one person somewhere who will
have so described it. So this should be the list of groups considered
cults, with selection criteria set appropriately, or it should be
deleted in favour of a category, so that every entry is rigorously
tested by individual article authors (which will end up in the usual
"pseudoscience" arguments, but that's a matter for consensus building
on the articles).
I'd say that lists of arbitrary constructs meeting arbitrary and broad
criteria with no rigorous definition are indiscriminate. But I am one
of those who dislikes lists-for-the-sake-of-lists.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG