Talk:Cult Awareness Network

The Arc of Eden cult
I have a nephew that went missing four days ago and was in contact with this cult. Do you know anything about this cult? 2600:8804:8753:A600:DCE9:3CDE:54E3:6984 (talk) 17:23, 26 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello, this talk page is for discussing improvements to the Cult Awareness Network article. If you're seeking information for a specific group, perhaps consult with the International Cultic Studies Association. Their website can be accessed here. If you want to talk more about this subject, you can use my talk page instead of this one. --Jacquesparker0 (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

NPOV issues
The "the Church of Scientology, an American cult" remark seems a little out of place. Wikipedia's article on Scientology notes that it's "variously defined as a cult, a business, or a new religious movement"—yet, here, a definitive stance seems to be taken.

Similarly, out of curiosity, is there in-source support for calling Linda Thompson a conspiracy theorist? The use of brackets has me somewhat concerned that that's original research.--96.94.213.161 (talk) 20:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC)


 * See article Linda Thompson about the added qualifier (conspiracy theorist); I think that label is pretty well-documented. I lengthened the quote to the full sentence from the source. Re Dean Kelley, per this source, "He championed the rights of such controversial groups as the Branch Davidians, the Church of Scientology and the followers of the Rev. Jim Jones, who died in a mass suicide. He maintained that "one man's cult is another man's religion.""


 * As to the "cult" label, keep in mind that the Church of Scientology was the main "cult" according to CAN. I tried to re-word the lead to clarify that. Grorp (talk) 04:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Not sure if "the irony being" is entirely encyclopedic. How about: "Church of Scientology, which CAN had previously labelled a cult"? My larger concern about Thompson isn't so much that the description isn't accurate, but that the source didn't reflect that descriptor. That is, I think the brackets are only appropriate if the source itself calls Thompson a conspiracy theorist, otherwise it gives the impression that it did.--96.94.213.161 (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I added two quotes about the 'irony' matter from two different Lewis publications which were cited with google books URLs (good books is notoriously unpredictable in what they will show). One of the Lewis sources actually uses the concept of irony in "in an ironic twist, some of CAN assets were sold..." Also, the new citation I added yesterday describes the concept without using the word... as in "Group that once criticized Scientologists now owned by one" and "In a bizarre twist of fortune, the organization that was once the most vocal critic of Scientology is now owned by a member of the controversial church," and other content in that source. Grorp (talk) 01:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

CAN and the definite article
Do sources predominantly refer to the topic organization as "CAN" or "the CAN"? The article jumps back and forth. The usage should be consistent within this article. Carguychris (talk) 13:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Since it is pronounced "can" like a "can of beans", and not "see-ay-en", then typically in speech it would be "CAN" or "the Cult Awareness Network". If someone is typing "the CAN" then they are either incorrectly reading it in their head as "the Cult Awareness Network", or they are pronouncing it "see-ay-en".   ▶ I am Grorp ◀  08:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Broadly speaking, you are correct, but common usage also comes into play. For instance, the Women Airforce Service Pilots is commonly referred to as "the WASP". (That said, the Wikipedia article jumps back and forth between "WASP" and "the WASP" to some degree.) Carguychris (talk) 14:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)