Talk:Ecclesia Athletic Association

Note on Sources

I've currently exhausted the sources I've found. I do know that there are a few articles in JSTOR, including a couple about cults that I am unable to access which could have more information or further context about the group. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:14, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Wording of the LEAD sentence

Right now the lead reads The Ecclesia Athletic Association was a cult masquerading as a child athletic training organization, some of whose members were charged with slavery, manslaughter, and other charges in connection with group's operations. During the DYK review Yoninah raised concerns about the fact that this sentence isn't cited. If I understand him correctly it's specifically about the word masquerading. Is that correct Yoninah? My thinking is that this summarizes the available sources, used at length (and which there are many of) without going into SYNTHESIS territory. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

What about "which presented itself as" instead of "masquerading as"? It's a little more neutral. The only other thing I would consider is changing the word "cult"... I don't know what to, but cult is always controversial, and I'm not sure this group really fits the usual definition. Kind of like Synanon - it's definitely fucked up but I'm not sure I'd call it a cult. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

It is indeed a strong and controversial word but it's right there in 3 of the titles of the sources and as a question in a fourth - some (though not all) of the other sources refer to it as such in the body as well. I would suggest reliable sources called it a cult and so should we. I'm fine with presented itself as. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:24, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah fair enough, I'm by no means saying it's unsourced. It just feels weird to me since there's little-to-no evident religious component, which I always think of as essential for cults. But I guess there's not really a better word aside from "abusive closed group environment". ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:48, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Broussard obviously had a religious background but it was indeed difficult to get a sense of how much the church elements played in its later years. By best accounts it appears not to be much. But it seems like they made athletics their religion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying about cults, PMC. My problem with the wording is not the word "masquerading", but the fact that the lead is calling the group a cult, while the article body only has the neighbors making this claim and the founder denying it. If you write that it's a cult, you have to source that claim, and so far the lead is the only place calling it a cult. Moreover, newspaper headlines will write anything to sell newspapers. Therefore, if you need a source to verify that it's a cult, it should be an official source, like the district attorney's office. Yoninah (talk) 22:05, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I have stated the headlines use because some of the sources are behind paywalls and seeing those headlines was a way of confirming what is in the article without having access. Beyond the reporters themselves using the word cult, there is also this chapter on children in cults which includes the EAA. I hadn't previously included because it didn't seem to say anything new but perhaps the new is the confirmation of it as a cult? Additionally, it does seem worth including Broussard's denials that they were a cult as his going on Oprah and saying that did receive national attention. I will wait to make this change until hearing more of your thoughts Yoninah on the new source. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:46, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not able to view the book chapter; perhaps Google blocks it in my country. Could you quote the relevant text here? Yoninah (talk) 18:11, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

It's actually too SYNTHESIS for me in this context to exist as a source so I wouldn't want to use it as a cite. While I am working towards accessing several additional off-line sources that discuss the EAA in relations to cults, let me reiterate that I think current sourcing in the article does back-up the label. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

detailed showing of what the source says

They are in a chapter entitled Children and Cults whose first line is "This chapter will examine the capacity of certain cultic and related authoritarian groups to harm children..." and then the specific reference is "Sometimes children are expolited economically as well as physically abused. For example, Eldridge Broussard, the founder of the dis-banded Ecclesia Atheltic Association, and severn of his followers were indicted in 1991 in Portland, Oregon on charged of enslaving children and denying them their civil rights. The government said that Brous-sard forced the group's children to be part of an exhibition team that participated in running and other athletics, and showcased them to gain corporate sponsorship and money, all the while systematically beating them, depriving them of food and subjecting them to over-crowding and poor schooling"

Barkeep49 and Yoninah, what do you think of my edit to the page just now? I rewrote the lead to incorporate the fact that "cult" was an accusation, and one that the group denied, and changed other instances of "cult" in the text to read "group". ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, PMC, I think that reads a lot better. Yoninah (talk) 00:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

So I've managed to obtain an offline source, Cults in Our Midst: The Hidden Menace in Our Everyday Lives, which appears to be RS. It describes the EAA as a cult (twice p. 15 and 87) and summarizes the group in conjunction with the effects cults have on children. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh yeah, that book is what got me interested in EAA in the first place, actually! We can definitely use that to reinforce that the group has been described as a cult, but I still think it's a contentious term to use completely unqualified in the article. If/when we get more serious academic sources we should do a small section covering that specifically, I think. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ecclesia Athletic Association/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The idiocy (talk · contribs) 00:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Current review of this article is pending by me. Review will finish within the next 7 days. The idiocy (talk) 00:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

1. Is the article Well Written?

the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

The article seems to meet this requirement, as it gives the main facts about the Ecclesia Athletic Association, followed by Important information on its founding and events. Furthermore, it explains in detail important parts. The idiocy (talk) 11:35, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

2. Is the article Verifiable with no original research?

it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; all inline citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; it contains no original research; and it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.

The article meets this requirement, as:

It contains a list of all references, presented in accordance with the layout style guidelines.

All citations are from reliable sources, such as the Los Angeles Times, OregonLive.com, and other trusted news outlets.

The article does not contain any original research.

It does not seem to contain copyright violations nor plagiarism.

Further checking of requirements will be made soon. The idiocy (talk) 20:35, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

3. Is the article Broad in its coverage?

it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.

It addresses the main facts of the topic and the general information of what the article is about.

It follows the summary style by putting the general information first, followed by important sections detailing certain important events such as the move to oregon and the legal investigations and procedures, this complies with the summary style guideline.

4. Is the article neutral?

The article does not seem to have any editorial bias, in cases such as:

It does not count the Ecclesia Athletic Association as a cult, and only specifies that neighbors called it a “cult”.

5. Is the article stable?

The article is stable, as it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

6. Is the article Illustrated, if possible?

The articles are illustrated with pictures, that have fair use rationales and their copyright statuses tagged. Furthermore, the article media is related & has suitable captions.

For these reasons, the article will be subjected to some further verification and promotion once these requirements are met:

Sentences 5-8 should have citations added to confirm its legitimacy. (I personally recommend Los Angeles Times article: (https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1988-10-20-me-5471-story.html) for the flogging part or any other citation already in another part of the article. The idiocy (talk) 21:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

The idiocy do you mean the sentences that begin The October 1988 death of Eldridge's daughter, Dayna Broussard, prompted...? If so I would suggest that nothing in there requires citation per WP:LEADCITE and that all the information found there is, per MOS:INTRO, found in the body where it does have in-line citation. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh. Alright then, sorry, I will pass the article. Thanks for informing me. The idiocy (talk) 01:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

The article has been promoted to GA status, this review has ended. The idiocy (talk) 01:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)