[WikiEN-l] Are lists subject to WP:NOR?

[Ray Saintonge]

Peter Jacobi wrote:

>Hi JzG, All,
>  
>
>>Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at 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