Talk:Cult Awareness Network/Archive 1

mainly about Scientology, not CAN
This article seems to be mainly about Scientology, not CAN. There should be more on the "old", pre-Scientology CAN, which was certainly not a bunch of choirboys, any more than the new "Scientology" CAN is. 172.198.175.160 07:31, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm sure this comment was accurate at the time it was written, but now the pendulum seems to have swung to the other extreme, with no mention of Scientology in the article. --Marnen Laibow-Koser (talk) 22:43, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ridiculously POV and biased article
And good old Uncle Ed has contributed most of it. Maybe we should just re-write the article so that it says, in capital letters: CAN WAS AN EVIL TERRORIST ORGANIZATION RUN BY EVIL DEPROGRAMMERS WHO WORKED CEASELESSLY TO PERSECUTE INNOCENT RELIGIOUS GROUPS!!! THEY WERE EVIL!!!!! BUT NOW THEY ARE GONE, HOORAY.

I'm reverting it. Discuss here. --Modemac 02:37, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi. I agree with all of your remark, except the hooray part. I would have said, "What a waste." -- Uncle Ed (talk) 22:11, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * Does that mean that the NPOV dispute has been resolved?
 * MSTCrow 07:38, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * I guess the dispute is resolved but the article still needs attention. -- FP 07:53, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Galen Kelly was not convicted of kidnapping
Galen Kelly was not convicted of kidnapping: http://www.rickross.com/reference/deprogramming/deprogramming4.html I'll correct the text accordingly. He later pleaded guilty to a lesser charge and got "time served".

Additionally, there's no real evidence that he (or that Donald Moore) are "CAN Operatives". (What is the definition for this? Anyone who attended a CAN convention? Anyone who cleaned a CAN ashtray?) Tilman 17:54, 29 August 2005 (UTC)Tilman

Ted Patrick, Rick Ross, etc
1) There is no evidence that CAN "referred hundreds of cases to Rick Ross". The link mentions only that Rick Ross had hundreds of cases, not who refererred them.

2) Ted Patrick did not "help create" CFF. This is a somewhat fuzzy concept anyway. Ted Patrick is not in the incorporation papers. The only thing that can be found is that one Henrietta Crampton mentioned that Ted Patrick was "the prime force in organizing the group". (New York Times, September 2, 1974)

Tilman 06:05, 7 September 2005 (UTC)Tilman

What is "PTSness"?
Hi folks. I propose adding this sentence after the sentence that refers to "PTSness":
 * (See "PTS" in Scientology beliefs and practices.) Tanaats 20:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Done (in a footnote). Thanks for the hint. --Tilman 20:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the article's introductory paragraph
In the introductory paragraph the phrase "cult-related organization" is too obscure, and the nature of the old CAN is adequately explained in the paragraph's last sentence anyway. I propose taking "is a cult-related organization that" out. I also suggest that "previously" is redundant to "prior to the takeover". Also, the phrase "considered to be cults" should be qualified. My final version would be:

"The Cult Awareness Network (or CAN) was founded in 1978 in the wake of the Jonestown mass suicides. CAN is now owned and operated by associates of the Church of Scientology, an organization that the original founders strongly opposed. Prior to the takeover, CAN provided information on groups that it considered to be cults, as well as support and referrals to so-called deprogrammers." Tanaats 00:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the change. The old paragraph is below in case someone wants to protest.

"The Cult Awareness Network (or CAN) is a cult-related organization that was founded in 1978 in the wake of the Jonestown mass suicides. CAN is now owned and operated by associates of the Church of Scientology, an organization that the original founders strongly opposed. Prior to the takeover, CAN previously provided information on groups considered to be cults, as well as support and referrals to so-called deprogrammers."

Tag POV
Clearly anti New CAN --Justanother 19:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * How, exactly? --Tilman 19:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

"unlike most other general cult information websites"
IMO, the version by Vectro is an improvement. First, it is shorter, second, it does not have the word "claim" (see WP:WTA). But when I think about it, the second part is original research, unless a source (journalist, academic, cult expert) is mentioned who has evaluated the website of the "new CAN" and compared it to real cult information sites. I think it would be perfect to just mention "The site does not contain any criticism of Scientology" which is just a statement of fact. --Tilman 17:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

60 Minutes - "The Cult Awareness Network"



 * The entire transcript is available online. As this is a very reputable and very comprehensive source, more should be added to expand the article.  I will do this when I get a chance...  Smee 06:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Done. Also expanded the article a bit with lots of citations from reputable sourced material.  Last count is (45) citations, and 3 fair-use low resolution images...  Smee 09:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

"Sued by Landmark Education" section is NPOV
Please clarify this pov tag, and why it has been placed in this highly-sourced subsection, or it will be removed. Thank you. Smee 04:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC).

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)