Talk:Jason Scott case

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)

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. AndroidCat (talk) 23:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Verbatium quote

page 26. So. Is it a quote, is it a copyvio, or can it be dissected as loaded language? AndroidCat (talk) 05:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't a 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 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. Jayen466 13:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

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, Jayen466 13:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• I've started a thread at the WP:C talk page to get some more input. Jayen466 13:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
• Reworded based on input received there. Jayen466 15:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Gallgaher et al.

Here some further publications describing the demise of CAN as marking the end of an era in North America:

• Jeffrey Kaplan, Heléne Lööw, The Cultic Milieu
• Phillip Charles Lucas, Thomas Robbins, New Religious Movements in the Twenty-first Century
• Jeffrey Kaplan, "The Fall of the Wall" (Nova Religio)
• Shupe speaks of "countermovement collapse"
• Paula Nesbitt, Religion and Social Policy
• Lewis has it as the 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. Jayen466 18:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

"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)

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)

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)