And if so, in which sense?
I've just put [[List of groups referred to as cults]] on AfD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_groups_...
(For the 3rd time by me alone, so I expect some eye-rolling and name-calling)
My main concern is about NOR, and I suspect some other lists having the same problem. Whereas each individual entry has its source (that's just the idea of the list, that you google for some source calling Wikipedia, Randism, Shia and whatsnot a "cult"), but the list as such, even cum grano salis, has never been published, hopefully because no one has considered it to make much sense, to link such a diverse set of "groups".
As WP:NOR was invented to relieve us from difficult decisions (Is "X theory of hairy strings" a valid Theory of Everything? -- We don't bother to check the formulas, it's not published in peer-reviewed journals), shouldn't this axe also prune more creative lists?
Regards, Peter Jacobi
[[User:Pjacobi]]
I would vote no on your poll. Yes, it is original research, but provides links to many other articles. Sometimes it is better to ignore the strict rule.
Fred On Jun 6, 2006, at 4:00 AM, Peter Jacobi wrote:
And if so, in which sense?
I've just put [[List of groups referred to as cults]] on AfD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ List_of_groups_referred_to_as_cults
(For the 3rd time by me alone, so I expect some eye-rolling and name-calling)
My main concern is about NOR, and I suspect some other lists having the same problem. Whereas each individual entry has its source (that's just the idea of the list, that you google for some source calling Wikipedia, Randism, Shia and whatsnot a "cult"), but the list as such, even cum grano salis, has never been published, hopefully because no one has considered it to make much sense, to link such a diverse set of "groups".
As WP:NOR was invented to relieve us from difficult decisions (Is "X theory of hairy strings" a valid Theory of Everything? -- We don't bother to check the formulas, it's not published in peer- reviewed journals), shouldn't this axe also prune more creative lists?
Regards, Peter Jacobi
[[User:Pjacobi]]
--
Der GMX SmartSurfer hilft bis zu 70% Ihrer Onlinekosten zu sparen! Ideal für Modem und ISDN: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/smartsurfer
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 12:00:00 +0200, you 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.
I much prefer to use categories for contentious terms, because editors on individual articles will see and review the evidence for them. It is much to easy to add things undetected to a list based on POV. But that's just my personal view.
Guy (JzG)
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]]
On 6/6/06, Peter Jacobi peter_jacobi@gmx.net wrote:
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.
The problem is basically that "referred to as cult" sounds like "everyone thinks it's a cult", but the actual criterion for inclusion is apparently "some nut once said it was". Solution: Up the stakes for inclusion to require labelling by some relatively authoritative authorities.
Steve
On Tue, 6 Jun 2006 16:43:02 +0200, you wrote:
The problem is basically that "referred to as cult" sounds like "everyone thinks it's a cult", but the actual criterion for inclusion is apparently "some nut once said it was". Solution: Up the stakes for inclusion to require labelling by some relatively authoritative authorities
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.
Guy (JzG)
On 6/6/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@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.
Steve
On Wed, 7 Jun 2006 00:23:36 +0200, you wrote:
On 6/6/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@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)
On 6/7/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
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).
Making it a category would be an absolutely horrible solution, as it would remove any possibility of having any footnotes or annotations.
On 6/7/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Making it a category would be an absolutely horrible solution, as it would remove any possibility of having any footnotes or annotations.
You could put a <!-- comment --> next to the [[Category:Cults]] wikitext.
Steve
On 6/6/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/6/06, Peter Jacobi peter_jacobi@gmx.net wrote:
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.
The problem is basically that "referred to as cult" sounds like "everyone thinks it's a cult", but the actual criterion for inclusion is apparently "some nut once said it was". Solution: Up the stakes for inclusion to require labelling by some relatively authoritative authorities.
I'd say if the reference as a cult is NPOV and V (and NOR) enough to be in the article about the group, then the group makes it into the list. Otherwise, it doesn't.
The only bad thing I can see about this is it automatically excludes all groups which don't yet have an article.
Anthony
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)
On Jun 6, 2006, at 6:12 AM, Peter Jacobi wrote:
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.
Peter,
There is indeed a problem with lists, that we have tried to address at [[WP:LISTS]]. This proposed guideline has been questioned, probably because it removes ambiguity, and ambiguity is the best friend of POV pushing.
Unless [[WP:LISTS]] is accepted and implemented, I see no way to curtail original research in lists. So, rather than fight yet-another- AfD on [[List of groups referred to as cults]], our efforts should go into making [[WP:LISTS]] an accepted guideline, if not a policy.
Please come and comment at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Lists_in_Wikipedia
-- Jossi
Peter Jacobi wrote:
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.
A distinction needs to be made with lists in general and the particular list you have in mind. In general lists are to be encouraged. The red links that they contain serve as a valuable launching point for further development. There should be little need to generally provide sources for list items in the absence of a specific challenge to an item. When actual articles are written there will be ample opportunity for adding sources.
Your specific example about cults seems more like someone trying to exercise POV about just what groups are cults. I would act more strictly with that.
Ec