Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Raëlian Church membership estimates
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 20 days, 1 support, 2 oppose. After 20(!) days, no consensus is reached. Fail. Crzycheetah 04:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You should leave some sort of statement about the article when you start an FLC... -- Scorpion0422 21:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I hereby nominate Raëlian Church membership estimates for featured list status.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 00:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose
Lead significantly too short.Too many links to the same article.No complete ref for Palmer.
- Circeus 19:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The last two concerns have been fixed. Now I will try to expand the lead.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 20:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead has been extended.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 20:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I made conditional edit to the placement of the ref tags. This can be undone.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 20:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The assumption that the Palmer and U of Virginia numbers are taken from the raëlians, although pertinent, is entirely speculative in the absence of sources. Circeus 00:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears that from your crossing out the three rather short objections you had, that you don't object to the nomination, but do not necessarily support it either. I'm sorry that this is your last comment.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 01:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My new concerns regarding original research have not been addressed. Circeus 02:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok. I changed the lead. Do I have to change the last column as well or is that fine?◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 03:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For that matter, would you suggest removing the phrases in the last column that says "citing the Raelians" or "citing a Raelian"?◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 03:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose that from the placement of your comment, you also mean that the other stuff has to go away. Done.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 03:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My new concerns regarding original research have not been addressed. Circeus 02:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears that from your crossing out the three rather short objections you had, that you don't object to the nomination, but do not necessarily support it either. I'm sorry that this is your last comment.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 01:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The assumption that the Palmer and U of Virginia numbers are taken from the raëlians, although pertinent, is entirely speculative in the absence of sources. Circeus 00:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as self-nom. Issues expressed so far have been addressed.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 00:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead is not to short. One article that Circeus supports is Lester B. Pearson Award which has a shorter lead.
- The links that were many, were removed.
- Palmer is cited.
- The assumption that concerned Circeus has been removed.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 00:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Some one apparently added this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ra%C3%ABlian_Church_membership_estimates&curid=11741974&diff=154764409&oldid=154713916
Most, if not all of these estimates originate from numbers given to journalists by representatives of the Raelian Movement during media interviews etc. Occasionally journalists will quote outdated information which would account for what appears to be a decline of thousands of members in a short period of time.
- Oppose Fails 1a. Just a collection of estimates from around the world. Nor are these distinct estimates. Most are just newspaper articles repeating info they got from a press release or the church's website. So I guess it fails 1c as well. Colin°Talk 16:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To quote others I give you this from Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Law_enforcement_in_British_Columbia,_2005:
| “ |
|
” |
How are these estimates not distinct? On the contrary, they are all distinct and mutually exclusive, as no two have the same combination of estimate, date, scope, and source. Also, there is no evidence that most of the media used the internet or a press release in order to get the numbers, that is pure speculation and WP:OR that was added by an IP. The claims relevant to the articles is that the estimates exist and who last gave the estimates, not that the estimates in of themselves are true or undeniable. That they exist is verifiable. There is no need whatsoever to prove which sources are "true" (WP:TRUTH). The article Raëlian Church membership estimates, contains the words estimates, hence estimates - no less.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 20:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The list of estimates does not fail 1a. The following are examples provided by Wikipedia:Featured list criteria, and the last one is the one this article matches:
- brings together a group of existing articles related by well-defined entry criteria; (OK, NOT THIS ONE)
- is a timeline of important events on a notable topic, the inclusion of which can be objectively sourced; (OK, NOT THIS ONE) and
- contains a finite (YES::not infinite), complete and well-defined (YES::date, size, scope, source) set of items (YES::membership estimates) that naturally fit together (YES::date, size, scope, source) to form a significant topic of study (YES::membership estimates), and where the members of the set are not sufficiently notable to have individual articles (YES::they are just estimates)
1c claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately present the related body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations (see verifiability and reliable sources); this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out and, where appropriate, complemented by inline citations.
- FIRST CLAIM Various news media have Raëlian Church membership estimates, and the statistics agree with a long-term term trend of past growth.
| “ | ^ a b c Ortega, Cristina M., GROUP SAYS ALIENS FROM OUR GALAXY CREATED MANKIND 25,000 YEARS AGO, The Miami Herald. 14 January 1996. Retrieved 13 March 2007. (highlight)
^ Davis, James D. UFO-based sect backs human cloning., South Florida Sun-Sentinel. 8 August 2001. Retrieved 4 June 2007. (highlight) ^ a b Report: Prosecutors probe claims that a Korean woman pregnant with cloned baby, AP Worldstream. 31 December 2002. Retrieved 31 August 2007. (highlight) ^ a b Japan's Raelians hold parade to celebrate human clone births, Worldwide Religious News, Japan Today. 10 February 2003. Retrieved 10 November 2007. ^ They Believe in Mom, Apple Pie and Alien Creators. KSL-TV. 12 February 2003. Retrieved 4 June 2007. ^ Pratt, Timothy, National Raelian meeting in Las Vegas draws about 50, Las Vegas Sun. 4 April 2003. Retrieved 3 June 2007. ^ Williams, Eoghan Green men may land on the Emerald Isle, Irish Independent. 20 April 2003. Retrieved 4 June 2007. ^ a b Ji-young, So, Raelian Cult Leader Threatens to Sue Korea Over Denied Entry, Korea Times. 3 August 2003. Retrieved 12 March 2007 ^ a b Cult Lures Gay Bishop into Fold, New Truth & TV Extra. 23 April 2004. Retrieved 23 March 2007. ^ a b 'Clone Baby' & Raelians, NBC 4 Los Angeles. 5 May 2005. Retrieved 12 March 2007. ^ a b Clones from outer space, The Daily Telegraph. 25 June 2006. Retrieved 4 June 2007. (highlight) ^ Gorov, Lynda, Rael is here with message from folks in space, Chicago Sun-Times. 16 April 1987. Retrieved 9 April 2007. (highlight) ^ RAELIANS ARE WAITING FOR THE SPACESHIPS, The Wichita Eagle. 9 January 1990 Retrieved 23 March 2007. (highlight) ^ Levine, Art, They Walk Among Us, The Miami Herald. 4 May 1995. Retrieved 13 March 2007. ^ SWISS GROUP LAUNCHES FIRM TO MARKET HUMAN CLONING, San Jose Mercury News. 19 June 1997. Retrieved 5 June 2007. (highlight) ^ Switzerland, a Cult Magnet, Attracts Aliens and Cloning Offers, New York Times. 12 August 1997. Retrieved 5 June 2007. (highlight) ^ FLORIDA CHURCH SEEKS EMBASSY FOR SPACE ALIENS, St. Paul Pioneer Press. Retrieved 19 August 2007. (highlight) ^ Human Cloning's 'Numbers Game'; Technology Puts Breakthrough Within the Reach of Sheer Persistence, Washington Post. 10 October 2000. Retrieved 5 June 2007. (highlight) ^ Human Cloning - CBS News, 60 Minutes. 13 March 2001. Retrieved 13 April 2007. ^ 'Raelian' biochemist insists she will clone human, CNN. 30 June 2001. Retrieved 5 June 2007 ^ An Activist's Vision of Cloning, Wired News. 14 August 2002. Retrieved 5 June 2007. ^ Kevles, Daniel J. RAELIAN IDEAS ARE RELATIVELY OLD HAT, Lexington Herald Leader. 29 December 2002. Retrieved 4 June 2007. (highlight) ^ Marquez, Myriam, This earthling prefers to be grounded _ Amen!, The Orlando Sentinel. 31 December 2002. Retrieved 5 May 2007. (highlight) ^ a b Palmer, p. 120. ^ Fed: Human clone claim sparks international interest in Raelians, AAP General News. 3 January 2003. Retrieved 5 June 2007. (highlight) ^ EDITORIAL: The key to eternal life?, University Wire. 29 January 2003. Retrieved 13 April 2007 (highlight) ^ Reading from the left, Financial Times. 16 March 2004. Retrieved 19 August 2007. (highlight) ^ Hornyak, Tim, 10 years after Aum sarin attacks, pseudo-religions thriving in Japan, Japan Today. 13 March 2005. Retrieved 28 December 2006. ^ Thomas, Amelia, Raelians want to establish ET embassy in Jerusalem, Middle East Times. 18 November 2005. Retrieved 13 March 2007. |
” |
- SECOND CLAIM However, despite the media's efforts to provide coverage on the Raëlians, the estimates taken within a given year can vary by tens of thousands. Outliers appear when charting the dates of membership estimates.
| “ | ^ Fed: Human clone claim sparks international interest in Raelians, AAP General News. 3 January 2003. Retrieved 5 June 2007. (highlight)
^ EDITORIAL: The key to eternal life?, University Wire. 29 January 2003. Retrieved 13 April 2007 (highlight) |
” |
- THIRD CLAIM In addition to the media, Susan J. Palmer, a Canadian sociologist who has studied fringe religious movements has given several estimates of the size of the movement in different years, and a member of the University of Virginia has given estimates as well.
| “ | ^ a b Palmer, p. 9.
^ a b Palmer, p. 120. |
” |
- FOURTH CLAIM Claude Vorilhon the founder of the Raëlian Church gave the earliest estimates of the movement's size in his 1970's Raëlian books.
| “ | ^ Raël, p. 122.
^ Raël, p. 323. |
” |
Most, if not all of these estimates originate from numbers given to journalists by representatives of the Raelian Movement during media interviews etc. Occasionally journalists will quote outdated information which would account for what appears to be a decline of thousands of members in a short period of time.Struck out WP:OR.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 20:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. To address your points. You accept it fails 1a1 and 1a2, but challenge 1a3. Perhaps we are interpreting "finite" differently, but I can assure you it was intended to mean a list that had a limit or bound. There is no fixed limit to the number of estimates. Tomorrow, you may find another you hadn't spotted before. This is a dynamic list. You avoid asserting it is complete, since that would be hard to prove. In contrast, for example, a list of locks on a canal is finite and easy to determine completeness. The various estimates of Raëlian Church membership is arguably not a "significant topic of study" but I suspect you will disagree on that point.
- My second argument is that they are (mostly) neither estimates nor distinct. An estimate involves someone conducting research into the numbers and publishing a figure. If several sources republish that estimate, that doesn't increase the number of estimates. Looking at a handful of the sources I can access:
- "the Raelian Movement, a group that claims 35,000 members worldwide"[1]
- "A Japan-based press official for the cult said that the group has 55,000 followers in 84 countries and that Japan has the largest number of followers at about 6,000."[2]
- "Roehr [a national priest for the U.S. chapter] said the coverage of the cloning announcements raised interest in the movement, and worldwide membership went from 55,000 to 60,000."[3]
- "the Raelian Movement said it will mobilize its more than 60,000 global followers"[4]
- I could go on... Although these news sources may be RS, they are generally careful to attribute these statistics to a third party. That party, the Raelian church or its members, cannot be considered a reliable source since they are not independent. The newspapers do not give the figures authority by stating them as simple facts. Therefore we must not give them authority by stating them as simple facts. Any such "estimate" must be presented as coming from the Raelian church, not from an independent, distinct, source. I know you have a few independent estimates, but together they wouldn't make enough data to form an decent article.
- I've also found at least one place where the source doesn't back up the table: The table says the estimate for Utah is 20. The source merely says "the Brunson's gather with about 20 other members in the region". The size of this region is unknown and there may be other members who choose not to meet up with "the Brunson's".
- Some of the news sources don't cite the source of their information. However, I can smell regurgitated press-release data when I see it. You don't seriously suggest ReligionNewsBlog conducted its own research to estimate the "80 Raelian members in New Zealand and 60,000 worldwide".
Colin°Talk 22:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html#Size
| “ | How are adherents counted?
There are five main methods for determining the number of adherents in a faith group: 1. Organizational reporting: Religious bodies (such as churches or denominations) are asked how many adherents or members they have. This is the simplest and least expensive method, but it can be highly unreliable. Different faith groups measure membership differently. Some count as members only those who are actively attending services or who have passed through a lengthy initiation process. Others groups count all who have been baptized as infants and are thus on the church records, even though some of those people may have joined other faith groups as adults. Some groups over-report membership and others under-report membership. When asked what religion they consider themselves to be a part of, many may name a religion that does not have them on their rolls. In the United States, for instance, three times as many people claim to be Unitarian Universalists than are actually on church records. 2. Census records: Many countries periodically conduct a comprehensive household-by-household census. Religious preference is often a question included in these census counts. This is a highly reliable method for determining the religious self-identification of a given population. But censuses are usually conducted infrequently. The latest census may be too old to indicate recent trends in religious membership. Also, many countries either have no accurate census data, or do not include questions regarding religious affiliation. It has been over fifty years since the United States included such a question in its national census, but Canada, India, New Zealand, Australia and other countries have very thorough, recent census data on the topic. 3. Polls and Surveys: Statistical sampling using surveys and polls are used to determine affiliation based on religious self-identification. The accuracy of these surveys depends largely on the quality of the study and especially the size of the sample population. Rarely are statistical surveys of religious affiliation done with large enough sample sizes to accurately count the adherents of small minority religious groups. 4. Estimates based on indirect data: Many adherent counts are only obtained by estimates based on indirect data rather than direct questioning or directly from membership roles. Wiccan groups have traditionally been secretive and often their numbers can only be estimated based on magazine circulations, attendance at conferences, etc. The counts of many ethnic-based faith groups such as tribal religions are generally based on the size of associated ethnic groups. Adherents of some tribal religions (such as Yoruba) are sometimes counted simply by counting the members of the tribe and assuming everybody in it is an adherent of the religion. Counts of Eastern Orthodox religious bodies are often done the same way. Such estimates may be highly unreliable. 5. Field work: To count some small groups, or to count the number of adherents a larger group has within a specific geographical area, researchers sometimes do "field work" to count adherents. This is often the only way to count members of small tribal groups or semi-secretive, publicity-shy sects. Field work may involve contacting leaders of individual congregations, temples, etc., conducting interviews with adherents, counting living within enclaves of the group, or counting those participating in key activities. There is substantial overlap between "estimates" and "field work." |
” |
It would take some mega hardcore field work to count Raëlian membership in 80+ countries. One would have to attend at least 80 Raelian national seminars around the world, and not every Raelian even attends those. Census records are unacceptable methodology for a group that is worldwide in many different countries, and is quite small. Not every country that Raelians are in have a sophisticated infrastructure conducive to polling and sampling large numbers of people. Estimates based on brochures, online downloads of books would be insanely unreliable. When it comes to small, worldwide groups like the Raelians, it appears to me that the most reliable source would be the Raelians themselves, however unreliable they may be. This remains so as long as their criteria for membership stays the same (i.e. Raelian baptism).◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 05:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's look at the criteria again:
1. It is useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, uncontroversial and well-constructed. * (a) "Useful" means that the list covers a topic that lends itself to list format (see Wikipedia:List). For example, the list:
1. brings together a group of existing articles related by well-defined entry criteria;
2. is a timeline of important events on a notable topic, the inclusion of which can be objectively sourced; and
3. contains a finite, complete and well-defined set of items that naturally fit together to form a significant topic of study, and where the members of the set are not sufficiently notable to have individual articles;
Those are just examples, but the key is that it "covers a topic that lends itself to list format". That is just absolutely true, since membership estimates fit the list format perfectly. Don't tell me that it would be better off written as prose, that what it used to look like: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ra%C3%ABlian_Church_membership_estimates&oldid=146575676
* (b) "Comprehensive" means that the list covers the defined scope by including every member of a set, or, in the case of dynamic lists, by not omitting any major component of the subject.
It is a dynamic list. That does not disqualify it. With vast inclusion of the majority of sources found on Google News, it'd be safe to say that no major decade of the moment's history has been omitted, and that for which more estimates are available have been used as sources.
* (c) "Factually accurate" means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately present the related body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations (see verifiability and reliable sources); this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out and, where appropriate, complemented by inline citations. See citing sources for information on when and how extensively references are provided and for suggestions on formatting references; for lists with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended.
As demonstrated above, the claims made in the articles lead prose are verifiable by looking at the sources themselves. That is indisputable.
* (d) "Uncontroversial" means that the content of the list is not disputed (see Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles).
As of now, there is no actual disagreement regarding the content. They are membership estimates. The sources "references" reflect the content in the list. There are no more disputes regarding the numbers matching what the list says (the "Utah" thing has been fixed).
* (e) "Stable" means that the list is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and that its content does not change significantly from day to day; vandalism reverts and improvements based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply.
I'm the only one who does significant changes to the article. It is clearly stable.
* (f) "Well-constructed" means that the list is easy to navigate, and is annotated with information as appropriate.
Yes, I believe it is well constructed and helps compare membership estimates according to different criteria.
2. It complies with the standards set out in the manual of style and relevant WikiProjects, including:
* (a) a concise lead section that summarizes the scope of the list and prepares the reader for the higher level of detail in the subsequent sections;
Yes, it has a good lead.
* (b) where appropriate, a proper system of hierarchical headings; and
It's not appropriate for this article to have hierarchical headings.
* (c) a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents (see section help).
It has a substantial TOC that is not overwhelming.
3. It has images if they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions or "alt" text and acceptable copyright status. Non-free content (fair use) images must pass the non-free content criteria.
The image is made entirely by me. There are no image difficulties here.
◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 06:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]