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(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> 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.

> 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?

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

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).

Hi JzG, All, 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.