Talk:Cult Awareness Network/Archive 2

Wikipedia's citation templates

 * When adding future citations to the article, please utilize WP:CIT, for uniformity. Thank you.  Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 21:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC).
 * I think the article looks a lot more coherent now: 21:28, 28 October 2007, then previously when it was all fragmented sentences, really short paragraphs and very tiny subsections, here: 01:57, 9 October 2007. Next I will go through myself and standardize all citations with WP:CIT, that are not already properly formatted.  Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 21:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC).

Additional media refs


I think some of them are worth using in the article (rather than just listing at the end) but I don't have time to work them in right now, so here they are. AndroidCat 06:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, are none of those cites currently used in the article? Thank you, thank you, thank you.  I'll expand w/ them.  Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 06:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC).
 * ✅ - Thanks again for these. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 09:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC).
 * Version with expanded info from the newly provided sources, 30 October 2007. I think it looks good.  Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 10:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC).

User:Sfacets Heaven's Gate removal bit

 * DIFF -- I agree with removal of this particular part, it actually is not relevant in this situation, though the comment from the individual herself is.  The reader can find out about Heaven's Gate on their own in another article if they wish to.  This information was in the article before my recent overhaul of it, so thanks for that catch, Sfacets.  Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 02:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC).

Non-controversial 1991 TIME article
The TIME article survived a long legal battle over its facts and allegations. Where's the controversy? (The Church of Scientology might object to it, but that's not the same thing.) AndroidCat 13:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe you are referring to this reversion by of an anon ip edit DIFF.  This is a relatively minor move.  In the interests of keeping things stable for the time being, I don't think this is a big deal.  The fact is, due to the events caused by the article's publication, it did indeed cause a historical "controversy".  Now, whether or not usage of the word "controversy" or "controversial" in this article is being used to many times at present, is something we can decide when copyediting it later on.  Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 19:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC).
 * I removed the 2nd instance of the qualifier "controversial". As it is already used once previously in the Lead/Intro to describe the article, once the reader gets to this subsection, they will have already read, "the controversial article..." - so the 2nd appearance is redundant, simply from a grammatical standpoint.  Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 19:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia editing through scientology
This reference for this is a FOX article that never says which article was changed. All it says is:
 * A computer linked to the Church of Scientology's network was used to delete references to links between it and a group dubbed the "Cult Awareness Network."

So either we change the reference (BTW, why not additionally link to the article's history? That would be a reasonable reference in this exceptional case) or we change the text. How about talking about the FOX article (without referring to this particular article), then adding that ''The changes included four changes at the present Wikipedia article on the Cult Awareness Network on 30 October 2003, which were later largely [or: completely?] reverted.

References: --Ibn Battuta (talk) 07:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ - I adjusted the language referring to the FOX News cite, to be a bit tighter to the source. We should probably avoid citing Wikipedia article history directly, though citing the WikiScanner results itself would seem to be okay and verifiable.  Cirt (talk) 07:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC).


 * It's not about "citing" Wikipedia. If we're reporting that something was changed in Wikipedia, it's just a service to the reader that we are precise about what we are talking about. We would similarly link to the precise changes in any other media if we reported about changes there. Wikipedia is, in this rare case, the primary source. Fox News only report that something was changed, but the article history can clearly and precisely say what. If we take seriously that Wikipedia shall inform the reader and provide the best-quality information and precision, we have to admit that the Fox article is in this case not as good and not as credible (as a source) as the primary sources WikiScanner and Wikipedia. (In other words: For News only reports information from the WikiScanner, which in turn uses information from Wikipedia.) This is why I think we should keep the links in the footnote. --Ibn Battuta (talk) 01:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see what you are getting at, yes. I suppose if all that information that you speak of is mentioned/linked to in the footnote and not in the article text, that would be acceptable per sourcing standards.  Cirt (talk) 12:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC).

Interesting cite

 * Will add this into the article at some point. Discusses the (NEW) Cult Awareness Network's reaction to the Heaven's Gate suicides, with comments from Nancy O'Meara, CAN treasurer, and CAN President Scientologist Isadore Chait.  Cirt (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Will add this into the article at some point. Discusses the (NEW) Cult Awareness Network's reaction to the Heaven's Gate suicides, with comments from Nancy O'Meara, CAN treasurer, and CAN President Scientologist Isadore Chait.  Cirt (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Good Article Review
See review at subpage, Talk:Cult_Awareness_Network/GA1. Cirt (talk) 20:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Cults: A Reference Handbook
This information added from this book by James R. Lewis to this article was basically a copyright violation. Minor words were changed, but whole portions of sentences were quoted, without attribution with quotations, as if it was the words of the editor that put it into the article!! Also, a direct quote from the book was added to the WP:LEAD of this article, and yet that quote was not cited later in the article! That goes against WP:V. I removed the copyvio material, which should not have been added to the article in such a manner unless properly added without using chunks of text directly from the book itself, and without then quoting that text. Cirt (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Reflist2
Two columns reduces space a bit (as far as how long it takes to scroll through the entire article, and IMO is the most preferable setting for the References subsection. Cirt (talk) 20:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If you use, that makes 2 columns on large screens (or large browser windows), but reduces it to one column on small screens (or small browser windows). See Template:Reflist, it's a neat function. On the whole, I think specifying the column width is the most user-friendly option, since 2- or 3-column formats don't work well on small screens.  Jayen 466 21:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I also think in general 2 columns is just better overall, it is nice to have one default format for all viewers. Cirt (talk) 22:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Sentence in lede
This sentence in the lede, is unsourced.

Looking at New CAN's pages on Aum Shinrikyo, starting from AUM: Instruments of Mass Murder, I can't see "support" for AS. They say that AS drugged members with LSD and other illicitly produced drugs (they're not alone in saying that). Their author then seems to go on to develop a massive theory based on this, alleging that many AS members were psychiatrists, etc. However, none of that equates to "support" for AS; plus it would be nice to know who the "some" referred to in that sentence are. If there is a source for this, let's get this right, otherwise, better to lose it. -- Jayen 466 21:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought that there was a secondary source for this already in the article further down but it appears there is not. Please give me a bit of time to look into this further and I will make the necessary adjustments. Cirt (talk) 22:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Sentence in first para of "public perception"
The sentence is followed by three sources, but checking them, none of them mentions either of the terms "subsidiary" or "front group", or asserts that New CAN exclusively promotes Scientology's POV regarding religious groups or deprogrammers. Jayen 466 16:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point, I will look into this further. Cirt (talk) 21:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The correct ref seems to be the American Lawyer article. Thus cited (comments attributed to the old CAN board members). Jayen 466 00:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

References to CAN


Some of the references to CAN are more substantial than others, and I didn't cross-off the others already being used. AndroidCat (talk) 01:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Reception
What exactly is supposed to be in the Cult Awareness Network section of the article? The Old CAN part only has the overworked and problematic Shupe and Darnell paper. AndroidCat (talk) 03:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * See below. The self-admitted "unpublished paper" authored by the attorney for the Church of Scientology, Kendrick Moxon, removed. Cirt (talk) 07:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Re this edit, there is a citation for that: Cult_Awareness_Network, a Baylor University Press publication, the relevant page of which is visible here. Jayen 466 17:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Shupe Darnell source should be removed
CAN, We Hardly Knew Ye - Most interesting that this sourced as hosted at the CESNUR website for some reason neglects to mention that along with Shupe and Darnell, another author of the paper is Kendrick Moxon - attorney for the Church of Scientology. See the exact same paper as cited at this website, where Kendrick Moxon is listed as one of the three authors of the paper. Also, see this cite in the book New Religious Movements and Religious Liberty in America: See Anson Shupe, Kendrick Moxon, and Susan E. Darnell, "CAN, We Hardly Knew Ye: Sex, Drugs, Deprogrammers' Kickbacks, and Corporate Crime in the (old) Cult Awareness Network," paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society of the Scientific Study of Religion, Houston, Texas 21 October 2000.

See the exact same cite listing Kendrick Moxon as one of the authors of the "paper", here:

Why, even their own book authored by Shupe and Darnell, Agents of Discord, lists Kendrick Moxon as one of the authors of what Shupe and Darnell refer to as an "unpublished paper": See Anson Shupe, Kendrick Moxon and Susan E. Darnell, 2000. "CAN, We Hardly Knew Ye: Sex, Drugs, Deprogrammers' Kickbacks, and Corporate Crime in the (old) Cult Awareness Network.: Unpublished paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society of the Scientific Study of Religion. October, Houston, TX

This "unpublished paper" authored by Kendrick Moxon is not a reliable source. Cirt (talk) 07:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ - unreliable source authored by attorney for the Church of Scientology Kendrick Moxon removed. Cirt (talk) 07:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Good catch! I thought the paper was problematic because it was based on a lot of stuff that was to be released later as part of a larger work, and after 8 years, this work hasn't materialized. There was also the use of "CAN was truly an organized hate campaign", which none of the newspaper references of the court verdict agreed with, and seemed right out of Scientology's phrase book. (Which it turned out to be.) Shame on Shupe and Darnell for lending their names to this, and shame on CESNUR for hiding Moxon's. I certainly won't be inclined to accept a CESNUR reference at face value. AndroidCat (talk) 10:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. I found it most interesting that the CESNUR version of the "unpublished paper" for some reason omitted the Church of Scientology attorney, Kendrick Moxon, from the cited authors. Most interesting indeed. Cirt (talk) 10:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The above, by the way, is evidence that the paper has been cited by multiple top-quality sources on this topic. It would not be appropriate to pretend in this article that the paper did not exist. Jayen 466 13:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The book by Shupe and Darnell was published in 2006:. (The paper is cited in the book, Moxon is included as a co-author in the citation.) So we could and probably should source this material to the book instead of the paper. Even so, the CESNUR website, per se, is considered a reliable and objective source by leading academics (this is an Oxford University Press publication on how to teach this stuff to students at universities). I'd be in favour of restoring the deleted material, and will in any event have a look at Shupe's book and add the relevant points from that in due course. Cheers, Jayen 466 12:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I would be highly against restoring that material, or material from Shupe which was influenced by the attorney for the Church of Scientology, Kendrick Moxon. This should be discussed before it is added back into the article, there is not consensus for this unreliable source. Cirt (talk) 12:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * For reference, the question of the extent of Moxon's co-authorship is discussed here. This also states that Moxon is not a co-author of the above book by Shupe & Darnell. However, even if he were, the religious affiliation of a co-author of a source is not a sufficient reason to exclude it from Wikipedia. What we can and should do here in this case is to cite such published criticism as there may have been of Shupe and Darnell's paper, or the resulting book. Cheers, Jayen 466 12:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not simply a matter of "religious affiliation", but rather of an individual that is a prominent attorney for the organization the Church of Scientology, Kendrick Moxon. As I cited above, Shupe and Darnell openly admit in their book that the paper is an "unpublished paper", and Moxon is listed by them as an author in their citation of the paper. This is not disputed. Cirt (talk) 12:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And yeah, as a side note it is curious that CESNUR for some reason neglects to admit that the attorney for the Church of Scientology, Kendrick Moxon, is an acknowledged author of that "unpublished paper", and yet Shupe and Darnell themselves acknowledge this in their book. I wonder why CESNUR chose to omit that key fact. Cirt (talk) 12:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Given that the book is available, I agree it's better to cite the book. If you would like to object to the book as well, then please let's take the reliability of the author, Anson Shupe, and the publisher, Transaction Publishers, to RS/N. Re the acknowledgement of Moxon as a co-author, this is acknowledged on the site, at the link I gave earlier (bottom third of the page, in the letter by Anson Shupe). Cheers, Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 12:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, in the location on the website where the "unpublished paper" is itself located, here, the CESNUR organization chooses to omit the name of the third author, Kendrick Moxon, prominent attorney for the organization the Church of Scientology. If we end up coming to a consensus to not use this "unpublished paper" but instead to use that Shupe/Darnell book, that should be discussed. If the book were to be cited in the article, it should be attributed as such with a statement that the book relies on research and contributions and a citation to work by the attorney for the Church of Scientology. Cirt (talk) 12:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I know Cirt, but there is a link at the bottom of that page to the page with the letters, where this is discussed. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 12:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I know Jayen466, but the CESNUR organization does not cite Church of Scientology attorney Kendrick Moxon as an author at the top of the page, along with Shupe and Darnell. This omission is quite stark and speaks to the nature of the website itself. Cirt (talk) 13:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Like I said, the paper is cited in the book, giving Moxon as one of the co-authors. So we could mention the paper, and mention Kendrick Moxon's co-authorship of it (Moxon is, of course, referred to plenty of times already in this article, so the reader will be clear who we are talking to about). OK? Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 12:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not think the "unpublished paper" should be more than a brief mention, at most. Perhaps a sentence like: "After the bankrupted assets of the Cult Awareness Network were bought by his associate, Church of Scientology attorney Kendrick Moxon authored a paper with Anson Shupe and Susan E. Darnell on his version of the history of the organization." Cirt (talk) 13:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that might do as a stop-gap. Otherwise we don't have to mention the paper at all; but if we cite the book and you want to draw attention to the history of collaboration between Shupe and Moxon, then mentioning their coauthored paper is the easiest way to achieve that. Cheers, Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 14:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Due to the nature of this history of collaboration between Shupe and the attorney for the Church of Scientology Kendrick Moxon, we should discuss what is to be suggested to be added to the article and attempt to come to a consensus on that before adding it. Cirt (talk) 14:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

- Please, discuss these controversial allegations from collaborators with the attorney for the Church of Scientology, Kendrick Moxon, before adding them to the article. These are quite controversial allegations and claims made by associates of Church of Scientology attorney Kendrick Moxon, and we should come to a consensus on the talk page as to what, if any, of this material should be added into the article, before adding it. The version of material you had added gave way too much emphasis to this. Cirt (talk) 22:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have reverted myself. I will try to modify this material to avoid undue weight and POV slanting. Cirt (talk) 22:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * He was Jason Scott's attorney in the case against CAN. AndroidCat (talk) 01:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

AndroidCat, re, the references are there in the main body of the article, and they are University Press publications. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 01:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

used the Anson Shupe source to write that the criminal trial of Rick Ross (consultant) in the Jason Scott case resulted in a "hung jury",. This is a false statement. See this source (cited by Jayen466 himself for other info in the article and yet neglected in this instance) where it states: "On January 18, 1994, after just two hours of deliberations, a Greys Harbor jury acquitted Rick Ross of unlawful detainment." This is corroborated in other secondary sources as well:

Again, Anson Shupe as a source is unreliable, and should not be used. Cirt (talk) 16:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Please take it to RS/N. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 19:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Additional refs
Please note the list here Talk:Cult Awareness Network/Archive 2 for additional cites. Many of them probably also apply to Jason Scott case and Rick Ross (consultant) I'll do an updated list with just the unused refs. AndroidCat (talk) 16:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

George Robertson
While looking for a replacement ref that George Robertson is the chairman of Friends of Religious Freedom, I came across a connection to the Scott case:



I'm not sure if it's relevant to the article, but someone might find it useful. AndroidCat (talk) 03:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Intro too long
The intro should be shrunk to a paragraph or two. The detailed info on the original founding can be moved to the "old CAN" history. But I agree the current COS control needs to be prominent. Also the "[...]" near the tail end of the intro is confusing. --96.233.82.75 (talk) 23:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it possible to write an opening sentence in the form: "The Cult Awareness Network is..."? Or does the fact that there are two CAN's make this impossible? Wolfview (talk) 17:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

New name
Is the Foundation for Religious Freedom the same as (new) CAN? It seems to be based on the information in the article. I gave their web address (http://www.forf.org/) in the info box. The site looks like it is run by Scientology, to me anyway. Wolfview (talk) 17:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. -- Cirt (talk) 23:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Should the new name be mentioned in the article then? Jaque Hammer (talk) 23:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It already is. -- Cirt (talk) 00:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Cirt. It was in 2 places, the info box and the body of the article. I added it to the intro also since it seems like important information. Wolfview (talk) 17:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. Reminds me of a line from a great movie: "Oh, I have so many names..." -- Cirt (talk) 20:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Is that "The Lord of the Rings"? Wolfview (talk) 05:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope. But we are getting off tangent from discussing improving the article. Apologies about that, -- Cirt (talk) 06:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Is the site run by scientology? You bet! There is not even ONE "story" about Scientology on that page! As they say: "It is hard to be humble when you are so great". I hope that you can maintain this great (Wikipedia) page. Cheers.

206.108.168.141 (talk) 23:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Splitting the article in two.
Hey guys,

I split the article in two. The "old" one and the "new" one are pretty much opposite in everything except name, and it was very confusing before. The new article is New Cult Awareness Network. Both articles may still need tidying up, so it'd be great if you could go through them and check for errors.

InternetMeme (talk) 12:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Leo J Ryan Foundation
The Leo J Ryan Foundation Is apparently the Organization that CAN became after its take-over - it used to be known as "Cult-INFO" but now seems to be run by the same people as Old-CAN. Does any one know anything more on this? They don't seem to have a website, but do run conferences etc. Zambelo (talk) 06:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

CAN Bankruptcy
Please see the talk:Jason Scott page for discussion of my edit. Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 06:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Please note that all pages on Wikipedia without exception are covered by WP:BLP. Collect (talk) 20:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Restoring the reverted text per resolution on the WP:BLP/Noticeboard. Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 22:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Nice try - you have no such agreement to add that material which directly refers to living persons and implies specific criminal acts. You seem to be potentially pushing what might be perceived by some as a pro-Scientology viewpoint on a bunch of articles, and I ask you here if you have any desire to give me such a possible perception.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Your reversion was in question, not my edit. There was no support for your reversion argument on the Notice Board from outside editors.  After you abandoned the discussion, it was archived and considered resolved.  Please refrain from personal remarks and WP:FOCUS. Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 00:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Your impression of a closing at BLP/N seems rather errant - the fact is that your edit here refers, inter alia, to DeMedici, and indirectly to Scott and Ross rather strongly, and to Patrick as well as being involved in a criminal misuse of foundation funds, etc., and to them falsely saying that some of the complaints were Scientology related.   We have already dismissed Shupe as a source for making specific factual misstatements - where a source makes misstatements of fact provable as such, the other claims of fact are not a slam-dunk for use in a Wikipedia article.  Cheers - but your claim that the BLP discussion found your proposed edits to be proper does not exist, and you in any event have the burden of obtaining WP:CONSENSUS for inclusion.   By the way, WP:FOCUS has nothing to do with talk page discussions.  It is a single line piece of an essay about arguments made in !votes in deletion discussions (AfD).  Collect (talk) 01:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Persistent removal of this well-sourced information appears to be WP:CENSOR. Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 01:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2017
Remove the "[definition needed]" in the first line, and add a link from "deprogrammer" to "Deprogramming". Then, remove the link from "deprogrammers" to "Deprogramming" (which is present later in the same line). Pptroll (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done  JTP (talk • contribs) 19:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cult Awareness Network. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060616182750/http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/issues/1995-11-30/news/feature2.html to http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/issues/1995-11-30/news/feature2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cult Awareness Network. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110514142243/http://www.mikefarrell.org/activist/humanrights.html to http://www.mikefarrell.org/activist/humanrights.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)