Talk:Anson Shupe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.
This article is part of Latter Day Saint movement WikiProject, an attempt to provide comprehensive and detailed information about the Latter Day Saint movement and Mormonism on Wikipedia. To participate in the project, edit this article, visit the List of articles about the Latter Day Saint movement, the project page, and/or join the discussion. For writing guidelines about contributing to the project, you may want to read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Latter Day Saints) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints)
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
 WikiProject Religion
Religion Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Imgard edits:

  • What is the importance of a letter to Introvigne from Shupe? Care to explain? Thanks.
  • If you mention Shupe deposition and blanket criticize it, you ought to add context and present a summary of that deposition.

--ZappaZ 20:51, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shupe testimony at Jason's case

Please stick to facts and check your sources:

[12] The issue of the admissibility of Shupe's testimony was not properly preserved for review because the district court's ruling lacked definitiveness. Although Scott was not precluded from calling Shupe as an expert, the court would have considered objections to specific testimony. CAN failed to object or move to strike Shupe's testimony. That the court might have sustained objections did not mean that the court wrongly admitted Shupe's testimony.
[14] The district court properly admitted Shupe's testimony. Shupe was qualified. CAN's argument that Shupe did not study CAN or its practices did not undermine Shupe's credibility.
[15] Shupe's testimony was proper because he testified regarding matters beyond the general knowledge of jurors. That CAN denied endorsing or performing violent deprogrammings did not make Shupe's testimony excludable. This was taken up on cross-examination.
[16] Shupe's testimony conformed to a generally accepted explanatory theory. Because Shupe provided the jury with useful information about the anti-cult movement and was available for cross-examination, the probative value of his testimony outweighed any prejudicial effect
[17] Rule 703 allows an expert witness to form an opinion based on facts or data, either before or at the hearing. The facts or data relied upon need not be otherwise admissible if they are of a type reasonably relied on by experts in a particular field. Shupe's citations to his studies and collaboration with other academics as the basis for his opinions sufficed to merit admission of his testimony.

Now we need to summarize the above and add to the criticism section. --ZappaZ 21:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Either we summarize Shupe testimony fairly or we do not include anything about it. Removed for now. I also removed the thing about Introvigne being a friend. What is encyclopedic about that? --ZappaZ 16:58, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Attention - if it was about Introvigne being a friend and colleague of Shupe, it would not be remarkable at all, but it is Scientology lawyer Kendrick Moxon, whom Shupe calls his friend (in a letter to Introvigne which Introvigne published on the Internet). Moxon is anything but a neutral person in the question of New Religions Movements. He is among the leading and most aggressive lawyers in almost all important Scientology processes, and he was (like L. Ron Hubbard and others) convicted in 1982 as an "Unindicted Co-Conspirator" in the case "US vs Mary Sue Hubbard et al.". And such a friendship does definitely throw some doubts on the neutrality of a scientist studying new religions, so it should be mentioned in the encyclopedia. --Irmgard 17:43, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
I restored the Moxon reference but omitted the Introvigne detail. I think that it was a bit confusing in this context. -Willmcw 22:48, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
Yes. Thanks. --ZappaZ 23:51, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Skeptic Magazine

I removed the reference citing Tilman and one of the references to an article in Skeptic Magazine. Neither are reliable sources. Neither are academics or authorities. Even though Professor Kent's paper also appears in Skeptic Magazine, Kent is an accademic (a reliable source)John196920022001 21:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read The Skeptics Society and WP:RS. --Tilman 23:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I see Fossa is on his usual vandalism tour again, claiming that whatever he doesn't like is from a "not reputable source". More on the skeptic society: [1] --Tilman 23:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I see, you use the Skeptic website to "show" their reputability. Impressive evidence. Fossa?! 03:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
First I showed you The Skeptics Society, which has The Skeptics Society is a nonprofit, member-supported organization devoted to promoting scientific skepticism and resisting the spread of pseudoscience, superstition, and irrational beliefs. Then I showed you the link about themselves, about the publisher: Dr. Shermer is a contributing editor and monthly columnist for Scientific American, and is the host of the Skeptics Distinguished Lecture Series at Caltech. How more scientific can one be? You did not explain why "The Skeptic" magazine is not a reliable source, you "just allege it". --Tilman 07:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, now you are citing a Wikipedia article as proof for reputability. Interesting. How much more reputable can you get than "Dr. Shermer is a contributing editor and monthly columnist for Scientific American"? Hm, to start with, where are his academic credentials? But that's besides the Point. Stephen Kent has academic credentials, but The Skeptic magazine hasn't. It's just an activist organzation, no more. If some academic writes for the KKK, doesn't mean that the KKK becomes reputable. Fossa?! 16:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
His academic credentials were mentioned in the link that you didn't read: Dr. Shermer received his B.A. in psychology from Pepperdine University, M.A. in experimental psychology from California State University, Fullerton, and his Ph.D. in the history of science from Claremont Graduate School. He worked as a college professor for 20 years (1979–1998), teaching psychology, evolution, and the history of science at Occidental College, California State University Los Angeles, and Glendale College.. If the Skeptic is an "activist organisation", it is activist for science and against pseudoscience.
I have taken this on [2], and they have told me that it is ok. So you will be reverted later anyway. Your comparison of the Skeptics organisation with the KKK is scurrilous. --Tilman 17:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
So what exactly did the publish in scientific publications? Fossa?! 18:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Your text above does not make any sense. --Tilman 18:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
See at Wikipedia talk:Attribution a discussion of this magazine as a reliable source. It is a print journal for science education and science advocacy, with a stated editorial board and with identified authors, which is subscribed to my most university libraries. It publishes articles in which claims of psychic power and fringe scientific theories are examing by qualified researchers using the scientific method. It is not considered a tabloid or fringe publication. It appears to be an appropriate journal to quote, and it is unreasonable to arbitrarily deleted material cited from it because an editor disagrees with it. Edison 23:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)