Talk:Jason Scott case: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 17:24, 17 May 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jason Scott case article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 90 days

Jason Scott case received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Scientology Low‑importance

	This article is supported by WikiProject Scientology, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scientology. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on Scientology-related topics. See WikiProject Scientology and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.ScientologyWikipedia:WikiProject ScientologyTemplate:WikiProject ScientologyScientology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

The unanimous verdict

The unanimous verdict of the jury in the criminal trial for Ross was "not guilty."

The court record and numerous news reports such as the Phoenix New Times demonstrates this.

Anson Shupe and Kendrick Moxon are not reliable sources and should not be used per the policies of Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.10.31 (talk • contribs)

"Nontraditional religions" vs "cults"

Replaced the word "cults" in the second paragraph with "nontraditional religions" because that phrasing is a more neutral point of view Ema Zee (talk) 19:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CAN bankruptcy

I put the Lewis info on the CAN bankruptcy in the article, but on reflection, it doesn't make sense. The plaintiffs could and should and would have required CAN to post a supersedeas bond in the amount of the judgment before being allowed into the appeals court. Hence, when the appeal failed, the bond would have satisfied the judgment -- that is the standard in US law. What really happened? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 06:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jason Scott case. 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/20070927183625/http://www.xenutv.com/us/60min-can.htm to http://www.xenutv.com/us/60min-can.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:13, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{Talk header}}
-{{oldpeerreview|archive=1}}
+{{Old peer review|archive=1}}
 {{User:MiszaBot/config
 |maxarchivesize = 250K
 |counter = 1
-|minthreadsleft = 5
+|minthreadsleft = 4
+|minthreadstoarchive = 1
 |algo = old(90d)
 |archive = Talk:Jason Scott case/Archive %(counter)d
 }}
-{{WikiProject Biography|living=yes|class=|priority=|listas=}}
+{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|blp=yes|living=yes|listas=Case, Jason Scott|1=
-{{WikiProject United States |class= |importance=low}}
+{{WikiProject Biography}}
+{{WikiProject Law|importance=Low}}
+{{WikiProject Scientology|importance=Low}}
+{{WikiProject United States|importance=low}}
+}}
 {{controversial}}
-__TOC__
-==The unanimous verdict==
+== The unanimous verdict ==
 The unanimous verdict of the jury in the criminal trial for Ross was "not guilty."
@@ Line 19: / Line 23: @@
 The court record and numerous news reports such as the Phoenix New Times demonstrates this.
 Anson Shupe and Kendrick Moxon are not reliable sources and should not be used per the policies of Wikipedia <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:76.124.10.31|76.124.10.31]] ([[User talk:76.124.10.31|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/76.124.10.31|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
-==Anson Shupe, expert witness==
-Since the focus of this article is the Jason Scott case(s), not Rick Ross, there is certainly reason to cover Anson Shupe's role as an expert witness for the prosecution. (Although, not as a coat-rack to hang criticism unrelated to the cases.) [[User:AndroidCat|AndroidCat]] ([[User talk:AndroidCat|talk]]) 19:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
-:As well, in the civil court case, he was an expert witness as a sociologist, specializing in New Religious Movements. In reporting on the trials, he is not (as far as I know) an expert in legal matters, and shouldn't have any preferential treatment as a reference. [[User:AndroidCat|AndroidCat]] ([[User talk:AndroidCat|talk]]) 06:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
-Shupe is a very influential scholar in this field. According to the [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6TMFoMFe-D8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22Encyclopedia+of+Religion+and+Society%22&client=firefox-a&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0#PPA63,M1 Encyclopedia of Religion and Society], for example, {{quotation|Bromley and Anson Shupe have become the primary social science interpreters of [the anti-cult movement] in a series of books and articles.}}
-Having said that, there are [http://books.google.co.uk/books?q=Scott%20OR%20pentecostal%20OR%20pentecontalist%20OR%20Tabernacle%20deprogramming&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=N&tab=wp dozens, if not hundreds of books covering this case]. While Shupe and Darnell show up top of the list, I agree that the other ones should be evaluated as well. There is also lots in [http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=Scott%20OR%20pentecostal%20OR%20pentecontalist%20OR%20Tabernacle%20deprogramming&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=N&tab=ps google scholar]. <font color="#0000FF">[[User:Jayen466|Jayen]]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|466]]</font>'' 12:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
-::Hmm. An entry by Thomas Robbins on David Bromley and Anson Shupe, referencing books by David Bromley, Anson Shupe and Thomas Robbins. Obviously the Encyclopedia of Religion and Society has slacker rules than Wikipedia about horn-tooting. Regardless, he's not a ''legal expert'', and we should be careful not to assign too much weight to experts when they're outside of their field. [[User:AndroidCat|AndroidCat]] ([[User talk:AndroidCat|talk]]) 14:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
-:::Come on AndroidCat, [[Stephen A. Kent]] says the same about Shupe's standing, and you know it. And Shupe was an ''expert'' witness at that trial. <font color="#0000FF">[[User:Jayen466|Jayen]]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|466]]</font>'' 15:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
-::::Anson Shupe is an expert on New Religious Movements. Anson Shupe is '''not''' an expert on the law and legal cases. Do you acknowledge the difference? [[User:AndroidCat|AndroidCat]] ([[User talk:AndroidCat|talk]]) 19:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
-:::::Shupe is an acknowledged expert on the anti-cult movement, and as such is well qualified to comment on key legal cases in this field. If you want a legal expert, [[Kendrick Moxon]] is your man -- he is a Dr. jur. We can use one of the papers where he was a co-author, if you like. <font color="#0000FF">[[User:Jayen466|Jayen]]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|466]]</font>'' 20:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
-::::::No, Moxon immediately fails [[WP:RS]] by not being a third party—which is also a concern about Shupe. [[User:AndroidCat|AndroidCat]] ([[User talk:AndroidCat|talk]]) 03:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
-:::::If you have sources authored by other legal experts commenting on the nicer points of the case, by all means let's use them. I'm not aware of any right now. <font color="#0000FF">[[User:Jayen466|Jayen]]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|466]]</font>'' 20:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
-:::::There is [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=75JSQtZLCq0C&pg=PA177&dq=Scott+OR+pentecostal+OR+pentecontalist+OR+Tabernacle+deprogramming&client=firefox-a "Deadly Cults"] by Snow, an anti-cult writer with law enforcement experience. Snow refers to Scott allegedly being held "handcuffed and gagged for five days". Is that correct? I always thought the cuffs were used for transport only. <font color="#0000FF">[[User:Jayen466|Jayen]]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|466]]</font>'' 20:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
-:::::This dude, [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=LeTfyZ0QSooC&pg=PA155&dq=Scott+OR+pentecostal+OR+pentecontalist+OR+Tabernacle+deprogramming&client=firefox-a#PPA155,M1 Bullis], has all the right qualifications -- degrees in sociology, law, and theology. But he does get a basic fact wrong, asserting that the sons joined the church against the will of their mother. <font color="#0000FF">[[User:Jayen466|Jayen]]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|466]]</font>'' 20:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
-==Dialogue==
-AndroidCat, how do you propose we give this dialogue then? I thought we can only give it either verbatim, as quoted personal speech, or summarised, as indirect speech. Do you have any other ideas? <font color="#0000FF">[[User:Jayen466|Jayen]]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|466]]</font>'' 12:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
+== "Nontraditional religions" vs "cults" ==
-==Meta-issue: Court documents and reliable sourcing==
-Please see the topic for discussion at [[Talk:Scientology#Meta-issue: Court documents and reliable sourcing]]. Thank you. [[User:AndroidCat|AndroidCat]] ([[User talk:AndroidCat|talk]]) 23:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
+Replaced the word "cults" in the second paragraph with "nontraditional religions" because that phrasing is a more neutral point of view [[User:Ema Zee|Ema Zee]] ([[User talk:Ema Zee|talk]]) 19:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
+== CAN bankruptcy ==
-==Verbatium quote==
+I put the Lewis info on the CAN bankruptcy in the article, but on reflection, it doesn't make sense.  The plaintiffs could and should and would have required CAN to post a [[supersedeas bond]] in the amount of the judgment before being allowed into the appeals court. Hence, when the appeal failed, the bond would have satisfied the judgment -- that is the standard in US law.  What really happened? [[User:Sfarney|Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper]] ([[User talk:Sfarney|talk]]) 06:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
-[http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&id=M0g5uI1DiAMC&dq=%22Religion+and+Social+Policy%22+Nesbitt&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=v5AkxK5ukk&sig=yi1ELZo5HsbAdeHGTBsBYqP1kwg&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA26,M1 page 26.] So. Is it a quote, is it a copyvio, or can it be dissected as loaded language? [[User:AndroidCat|AndroidCat]] ([[User talk:AndroidCat|talk]]) 05:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
+== External links modified ==
-It wasn't a [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/verbatim verbatim] quote. These are the differences between the wordings:
-*The jury, apparently '''moved by''' the details of what '''had been''' a very physical kidnapping and deprogramming '''attempt''', awarded ... (what we had)
-*"The jury, apparently horrified '''by''' the details of what '''had been''' a very physical kidnapping and deprogramming '''attempt'''", awarded ... (what you [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jason_Scott_case&diff=262468701&oldid=262423597 changed] it to)
-*The jury, apparently '''quite''' horrified '''at''' the details of what '''was''' a very physical kidnapping and deprogramming, awarded ... (source wording)
-I suggest if we need quotation marks, we should put them around "a very physical kidnapping and deprogramming". Instead of "horrified by" or "moved by", perhaps "having learnt" or "apparently struck by" would do? Or how about "The jury, apparently struck by the very physical nature of the abduction and deprogramming attempt, awarded ..." I am open to other suggestions. As for "loaded language", note that this is not a tabloid source; both the book's editor and the author of the quoted section in it are top scholars, writing for a respected academic publisher. I am sure they would argue that they were merely describing the jury's apparent state of mind, and the details of the abduction as given in court testimony. <font color="#0000FF">[[User:Jayen466|Jayen]]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|466]]</font>'' 13:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
+Hello fellow Wikipedians,
-As for [[WP:C]], this says, "Note that copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves. Therefore, it is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia. However, it would still be unethical (but not illegal) to do so without citing the original as a reference. See [[plagiarism]] and [[fair use]] for discussions of how much reformulation is necessary in a general context." I could not find anything definite under [[plagiarism]] and [[fair use]] to indicate how much reformulation is necessary; I thought as long as there weren't more than four or five words in succession taken verbatim from a source, i.e. as long as it was clear that there had been no copy-and-pasting of whole intact sentences, we were okay. If you are aware of a policy page that gives more detailed guidance in this regard, please let me know, so I can read up on it. Cheers, <font color="#0000FF">[[User:Jayen466|Jayen]]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|466]]</font>'' 13:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
+I have just modified one external link on [[Jason Scott case]]. Please take a moment to review [[special:diff/811615884|my edit]]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
-* I've started a [[Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights#How_much_reformulation_is_necessary.3F|thread]] at the WP:C talk page to get some more input. <font color="#0000FF">[[User:Jayen466|Jayen]]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|466]]</font>'' 13:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
+*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927183625/http://www.xenutv.com/us/60min-can.htm to http://www.xenutv.com/us/60min-can.htm
-* Reworded based on input received there. <font color="#0000FF">[[User:Jayen466|Jayen]]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|466]]</font>'' 15:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
+When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
-==Gallgaher et al.==
+{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
-Here some further publications describing the demise of CAN as marking the end of an era in North America:
+Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 20:13, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
-* [http://books.google.com/books?id=CjIYNrOO24IC&pg=PA284&dq=%22Scott%22+%22cult+wars%22&client=firefox-a Jeffrey Kaplan, Heléne Lööw, The Cultic Milieu]
-* [http://books.google.com/books?id=WW-XcDe-IMEC&pg=PA23&dq=%22Scott%22+%22cult+wars%22&client=firefox-a#PPA235,M1 Phillip Charles Lucas, Thomas Robbins, New Religious Movements in the Twenty-first Century]
-* [http://caliber.ucpress.net/doi/abs/10.1525/nr.1997.1.1.139?journalCode=nr Jeffrey Kaplan, "The Fall of the Wall" (Nova Religio)]
-* Shupe speaks of [http://books.google.com/books?id=Z16H14GXUY8C&pg=PA184&dq=%22countermovement+collapse%22&num=100&client=firefox-a#PPA184,M1 "countermovement collapse"]
-* [http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=M0g5uI1DiAMC&oi=fnd&pg=PA15&dq=%22Scott%22+%22cult+awareness+network%22+%22cult+wars%22&ots=v5AluO4zfl&sig=eLyT79GziMAl28nMx6QwSphWMCY#PPA26,M1 Paula Nesbitt, Religion and Social Policy]
-* Lewis has it as the [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=aqmbnfXCzn0C&pg=PR10&dq=%22Scott+case%22+%22cult+awareness%22&client=firefox-a Defeat of Anticultism in the Courts]. Along with the U.S. courts' decision to no longer accept testimony based on the 1970s brainwashing hypothesis, it's widely seen as a watershed. <font color="#0000FF">[[User:Jayen466|Jayen]]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|466]]</font>'' 18:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)