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

Tue Jun 6 15:55:23 UTC 2006

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)
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG