Talk:Cult Awareness Network

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Cult Awareness Network was a nominee for Social sciences and society good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
December 12, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cult Awareness Network article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality, if possible.
Wikipedians in Los Angeles County, California may be able to help!
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] User:Sfacets Heaven's Gate removal bit

  • DIFF -- I agree with Sfacets (talk · contribs) 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).

[edit] 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 Sfacets (talk · contribs) 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).

[edit] 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,[1] which were later largely [or: completely?] reverted.

References:

  1. ^ three changes and a fourth change to the present article through IP addresses of Church Of Scientology International (Los Angeles, California). According to Wikiscanner: Found 15 edits for page 'Cult Awareness Network'. (retrieved 9 December 2007)

--Ibn Battuta (talk) 07:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Y Done - 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).

[edit] Good Article review

  • The info box clearly covers only the "New CAN" (formation 1996?), while the article covers both that and the "Old CAN". I advise either expanding it to cover both, or adding a second info box for the "Old CAN" - information and the logo image is already here, it shouldn't be so hard to put together.
  • The "New CAN" was congratulated on its assumption of the "Old CAN" organization by a member of the Heaven's Gate group. - is that really important enough to be in the lead? Surely there were lots of people who didn't like the Old CAN. Heaven's Gate isn't important enough that a casual email from them deserves to be in the lead of a mostly unrelated article.
  • Galen Kelly and Donald Moore... are linked to the "old CAN" by its detractors - linked how? And be specific about who the detractors are; name them or their organization(s). Few people go around wearing "I'm an old CAN detractor" membership badges on their chests.
  • "Kisser who stated that their organization received the most telephone calls for assistance and advice regarding Scientology." Er - not sure what this sentence is trying to say. Either combine with previous, or remove "who", or ...?
  • According to the (old) Cult Awareness Network's executive director, Landmark Education and Scientology were the two groups for which CAN received the highest number of inquiries from concerned relatives - rather in contradiction with the sentence fragment just above isn't it? Either it was just Sci or both Sci and LE. If I find yet a third sentence saying it was Sci, LE, and anything else, I'm failing this GA right now.
  • Landmark Education and Scientology were the two groups - that link describes Sci as a body of beliefs, not a group. Do you want to say Church of Scientology or something?
  • In an interview, CAN's executive director - that's another consecutive sentence about the same interview and director. Can't we live without repeating the lead-in given that?
  • In fact, "CAN's executive director" is repeated all the time. Can we say "Kisser" after it's established who she is? Or did the exec dir position change during the events covered in our article? I keep wanting to check.
  • The case itself involved - remove "itself" adds nothing to sentence
  • CAN later settled and made a statement that it did not consider Landmark Education a cult, as part of the settlement agreement. - slightly awkward phrasing, but more importantly, did LE get $40 mil or any significant part of it? Since another case bankrupted the organization, whether or not money was awarded seems important.
  • Also when is "later"? Specifically, before, after, or at the same time as the Sci case? The lead implies the Sci case closed first, the main body here addresses the LE case first, order would seem to be a big deal.
  • Landmark Education spent months attempting to compel legal journalist Steven Pressman to respond ... about Werner Erhard.[17] Add a sentence somewhere before or near this about the relationship between WE and LE. I know it's in their article, but it seems to be so important to this article, that it is worth explaining at least a little here.
  • a woman named Laura Terepin aka Jolie Steckart - I can see the mother now. "Aw, she's so beautiful, one name isn't enough. I'll name her 'Laura Terepin aka Jolie Steckart'." Rephrase. If the alternate name isn't important, pick one, or explain that she was named Terepin but using the name Steckart or whatever.
  • Bob Minton later hired a private investigator to look into this - He looked into all volunteers? Or was there something specific about T aka S? Explain.
  • Steckart and Terepin had also attempted - Whoah! They are two different people after all? Make up your mind.
  • In fact, what was important about the infiltration? What did T or S or T aka S do that made them interesting, besides just join the group? Did they testify at trial? Hold people at gunpoint and stick bamboo slivers under their fingernails? Climb the Reichstag dressed as Spiderman?
  • the same carbon copy claims through influence from the Los Angeles, California law firm - what's a "claim through influence"? I think I know what you're trying to say, but needs rephrasing.
  • complaints against CAN, with state human rights commissions - no comma
  • over fifty Scientologists These fifty individuals - so which is it, 50 or over 50? Or are the latter a different 50 from the former?
  • In 1995, CAN, Rick Ross and two others were found guilty of conspiracy to violate the civil right to freedom of religion of Jason Scott, then a member of the Life Tabernacle Church. - wait a moment, why is this in the section on the Scientology lawsuit? Is the LTC related to Sci? If so, say so. If not, say that this is yet a third lawsuit, separate from Sci and LE, and reorganize.
    • Later it seems Scott's lawyer was also Moxon, so is this Sci connected? Say so earlier or more prominently in this paragraph.
  • USD$$1 million. - extra $. Move the link to USD$ to the first $ in the article, or at least the first in the section, rather than here in the middle.
  • "Moxon, who had argued in the case that Ross and associates had hindered a competent adult's freedom to make his own religious decisions, immediately filed court papers seeking to rescind the settlement and appoint a guardian for Scott, whom he called "incapacitated."" Need a source for that quoted word (Washington Post article, I guess? I can't find it in either Phoenix New Times article), and, frankly for that whole ironical sentence -- without a source, that's Wikipedia:original research, synthesis.
  • "What is the Cult Awareness Network and What Role Did it Play in Waco?" - so what role did it play in Waco? Just writing that a report was circulated, but not saying what the report said is not good.
  • Church of Scientology and the Unification Church.." - either ... or . Two periods is neither.
    • For that matter, here is the Unification Church which hadn't come up before. Please connect it. Earlier the article implies that the CoS is the main CAN enemy, maybe with help from LE, now we have the UC, yet another non-negligible group. Please explain the UC's connection, if it is important, or just strike this whole mess if it's not important. Don't name drop unless part of the thesis is that a large number of diverse groups opposed the CAN.
  • After the litigation had driven the Cult Awareness Network to bankruptcy, - when? A date would be good.
  • managed to win the bidding - what's wrong with "won"? Or just "bought at auction"?
  • for an amount of - delete last 3 words
  • $20,000: The name, logo - lower case T. And for that matter, don't use a colon, as it implies the $20K is somehow equivalent to name, etc.
  • $1.875 million judgment to Scientologist Gary Beeny for $25.000, - either use commas before every 3 digits, or periods. Since this is the US, US style, commas, seems to be better.
  • The CAN board then settled with Beeny by turning over the files to him instead of the possibility of being individually liable for the judgement. - Not sure what this means, rephrase. If you mean that Beeny offered to take the files in lieu of the cash, say so. And my spell checker says it should be spelled judgment.
  • "courageous action against the Cult Awareness Network," this quote is repeated twice in the same paragraph.
  • Why is the lah post in the bankruptcy court section, and not in the public perception section? Surely this is public reaction, you aren't saying lah has anything to do with the actual bankruptcy court proceedings?
  • in an article entitled: "The business of cults", in 2000 - article from whom, printed where? Is it that important what every article said, can't we just use it as a reference?
  • In her book Researching New Religious Movements, Arweck - first mention of Arweck, use full name and maybe even a few words about who she is.
  • "..use CAN's name to cause confusion.." Again with the .. - ellipsis is ...
  • For example, a section of its website - a section of the new CAN website, clearer
  • The site does not contain any criticism of Scientology, unlike most other sites which claim to provide anti-cult information - need a reliable source cite that says that most other sites criticize Sci, that's a rather strong statement
  • In the Scientology publication IMPACT, Nr. 72 - italicize title of magazine. Do we have an article on it we can wikilink to?
  • CAN VP - we use Executive Director, spelled out, for the old CAN officer, let's be consistent
  • using standard LRH technology on handling PTSness - I know that's a quote, but explain that jargon somehow
  • shortly after the formation of the New CAN, - decide on one capitalization, New CAN or new CAN, and stick to it.
    • Similarly the (New) Cult Awareness Network ; the (old) Cult Awareness Network; later. Decide either to use parens or not, and whether to capitalize within them, and stick to one form, except when you're specifically quoting people who use an alternate term.
  • Penn writes in False Dawn - as for Arweck, above, full name and possibly a few words of identification. "journalist and world champion snail racer Esmeralda Penn writes in her 2004 book False Dawn" (or whatever she really is)
  • Penn writes in False Dawn that the New Cult Awareness Network is "dominated by Scientologists" - do we really need to harp on this? We've stated the church bought the group, that's established. Repeating it more than three times seems to be an annoying refrain.
  • "..for 20 years - ..a..a..r..g..g..h..
  • The Xenu story - does CAN have anything to do with the Xenu story? If not, remove. This is an article about CAN, not everything Stahl said in her piece on CAN. There is a difference. I expect the Fair Game bit is more relevant.
  • The Time Magazine article "The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power" was also cited as a reference in the report - again, do we really need to cite every reference the Stahl report used? We refer to the article directly above, that should be enough. We're getting into trivia now. I'm half expecting "when giving the report, Lesley Stahl was dressed in a tasteful green suit, the report lasted exactly 27 minutes and 13 seconds, and was rerun 3 times, the 3rd time with four commercial interruptions..."
  • In August 2007, a FOXNews article on the new Wikipedia Scanner - legit for article, but not related to 60 minutes paragraph, start a new para
  • See also section: Wikipedia Scanner, Peoples Temple, Heavens Gate seem only marginally related at best. I'd dump 'em. United States bankruptcy court is important, but doesn't demand a separate link, the concept is pretty clear to people who aren't experts on the court.
  • In short, this is a good article, but not yet a Good Article in my opinion. It's confused and contradictory in places. But it's not far away. See if you can get it cleaned up to answer these issues. Referencing is good, broadness is ... eh... fair (can you write more about what the old CAN actually did before the lawsuits? can you write more about what the new CAN is actually doing, not just that people are oohing and aahing about it being bought by Sci?), neutrality is understandably difficult since this is clearly a strongly charged issue, it's hard to imagine how to make it more neutral. But we can insist on broadness. Use more real dates, less "later". Pictures are OK, though besides the logos they do seem a bit stuck in. Can you get a photo of Kisser or Moxon or Ryan or Leipold or Ross or Scott? There are so many issues, and though some are trivial, some aren't. The broadness bit could be a real effort. I think it's going to take more than seven days, so I'm just going to fail it rather than hold it. Drop me a note when you think you've answered these gripes, or just renominate if you'd prefer someone than me look at it next time. :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Addressing points from GA Review

Thanks so much for the detailed list of above points, which will be helpful in improving this article further. I will address them as best as I can, and note the changes/implementations, here below. Cirt (talk) 17:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC).

  • Y Done -- Removed Heaven's Gate mention from the Lead/Intro, as suggested in GA Review above. Cirt (talk) 17:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC).
  • Y Done -- "Kisser who stated.." -- The GA Reviewer is correct, this was awkwardly worded, and also not directly attributed to a specific source and not really needed in light of the very next sentence, so I removed it. Cirt (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC).
  • Y Done -- "Landmark Education and Scientology were the two groups.." -- Corrected this, changed "Scientology" to "Church of Scientology" in this instance. Cirt (talk) 18:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC).
  • Y Done -- Changed instances of "old" to "Old" and "new" to "New", with reference to CAN. Cirt (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC).
  • Y Done -- Removed mention of the Xenu story from the 60 Minutes section. Cirt (talk) 18:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC).
  • Y Done -- Changed "$25.000" to comma, per suggestion from the GA Review above. Cirt (talk) 17:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC).
  • Y Done -- Pruned the See also section, per a suggestion from the GA Review. Cirt (talk) 17:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC).

[edit] 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)