Wikipedia:Peer review/Jason Scott case/archive1

Jason Scott case edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because even though I believe it is well-sourced, it has been criticised for over-reliance on one source (Anson Shupe and Darnell), and because it has BLP implications and is unflattering to the main protagonists, Rick Ross (consultant) and the now-defunct Cult Awareness Network. The article has been discussed in the current Scientology arbcom case; I stand to receive a topic ban for articles about Rick Ross, as a result of some edit-warring I engaged in last year (mostly to do with including more of this article's content than was warranted in the Rick Ross (consultant) BLP). At the same time, our coverage has to take note of the fact that the Jason Scott case is considered a landmark civil rights decision that changed the legal landscape in the United States, and put an end to coercive deprogramming.

I most likely won't be able to look after the article any further, so I'll put it in the hands of the community. Judging by the criticism it and I have received, it can probably do with having more eyes going over it. Thanks, Jayen 466 20:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incredibly biased article using conflict of interest sources:

This article is incredibly biased towards the point of view of the Church of Scientology's top attorney Kendrick Moxon, who himself collaborated later with conflict of interest scholars to put out propaganda about the events that Moxon and his associates themselves participated in as litigants and attorneys in the case.

A thread at the Reliable sources noticeboard, determined that the Anson Shupe source should not be used (see Archive 27). Quoting former Arbitrator YellowMonkey (talk · contribs), in answer to the question if the source Anson Shupe should be used or if there are conflict of interest issues with the source: "If he participated in that trial/case, then no, unless it is attributed as his opinion/involved party."

Here is some more info on the lack of reliability and lack of impartiality and neutrality in the Shupe source as applied to this case:

"When asked about how he gathered his evidence against CAN, Shupe admitted that he had never attended a CAN meeting, did not know the names of its officers, had not conducted formal research on the organization since 1987, and had not formally interviewed anyone on the "countercult" movement since 1979." Kent, Stephen A. (1998). "When Scholars Know Sin: Alternative Religions and Their Academic Supporters". Skeptic Magazine. Vol. 6, no. 3. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

"Shupe did not read the full statements of the plaintiffs and defendants when formulating his opinions for deposition about the events in the case. Instead, he read excerpts from them supplied by the prosecuting lawyer, Kendrick Moxon. When asked if he had considered whether the depositions "may have been taken out of context" Shupe answered that he "trusted Mr. Moxon" to provide a "pretty good sample of the depositions" (Scott v. Ross, et.al., 1995a, 109). ... Shupe's trust in Moxon's judgement, however, about providing a "pretty good sample" of depositions about CAN may have been misplaced. Years earlier, while acting in a legal capacity for Scientology, Moxon was a member of Scientology's Guardian Office, "working in the very office where massive covert operations against the government were being run at the time" (Horne, 1992, 79). In 1992, Moxon misrepresented his actions on behalf of his organization during the U.S. government's criminal investigation of the Scientologists' burglaries into U.S. government offices, denying (to The American Lawyer "knowledge of the criminal operations being run out of the office" (Horne, 1992, 80). ... the grand jury for the case "had" named him an "unindicted co-conspirator" ([ USA ] v. Mary Sue Hubbard, et. al., 1979a, 7)." (Kent and Krebs)

The Anson Shupe source Agents of Discord is used no less than thirty times. It is briefly attributed, three paragraphs down, in the subsection "The deprogramming", but even so is used in a highly inappropriate manner. It is cited throughout the entire article as if it were a reliable, independent source. It is not. It is cited as if it backs up actual events, it does not. Rather, Shupe constructed his own version of a narrative, based on court documents provided to him by top Scientology lawyer Kendrick Moxon.

The only appropriate way to use this Shupe conflict of interest source, would be at the end of the article, in some sort of Commentary or Analysis subsection, attributing it to Shupe, and noting Shupe was used as a witness in the trial by Kendrick Moxon.

Cirt (talk) 20:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth noting that Shupe is considered one of the leading academic experts on the anti-cult movement. [1][2] His CV is here. A previous noticeboard discussion at which Cirt (talk · contribs) argued that Shupe was an unsuitable source is here. I think the majority view was that Shupe was a suitable scholarly source. Shupe was an expert witness at the trial and gives the most thorough account of the case. Jayen 466 21:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shupe was also commissioned by Oxford University Press to give an account of the case in a book published earlier this year: [3] (while the book was edited by James R. Lewis, the section in question is authored by Shupe). This is a top-notch, widely respected academic author, and I am extremely puzzled at Cirt's insistence that he is not. Jayen 466 21:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best way to deal with Kent's suppositions on Shupe' testimony above is to add them in a commentary section. Note that CAN tried several times to have Shupe's expert testimony excluded; they failed, [4] with their final appeal rejected by the United States Supreme Court. Jayen 466 21:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Interesting that above due to obvious conflict of interest issues I recommended the Shupe source should be moved into a Commentary section, and subsequently Jayen466 (talk · contribs) responded by suggesting the Kent source be added into a Commentary section. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to move both sources into a Commentary section, and rely on independent sources for the main body text itself and account of events of the trial. Cirt (talk) 21:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shupe describes testimony, citing court records, and much of it is in any event backed up by other sources. Kent is speculating. Jayen 466 22:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kent cites and describes court records. Shupe infers from those court records to create his own POV dramatized account of what he thinks happened. Cirt (talk) 22:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[5], the endnote no. 42 on p. 194 reads, "Besides a lively media coverage of this lawsuit, there are voluminous courtroom transcripts and verdicts to document Scott's experiences. Here we cite probably the most comprehensive document that describes the scenario depicted (including attempts to have the controversial expert testimony of one of this book's authors (Shupe) serve as grounds for appeal): see JASON SCOTT, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. RICK ROSS; AKA RICKEY ALLEN ROSS; MARK WORKMAN; CHARLES SIMPSON, DEFENDANTS AND CULT AWARENESS NETWORK, A CALIFORNIA NON-PROFIT CORP, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NORTH CIRCUIT. Before Mary M. Schroeder and Robert B. Beezer, Circuit Judges, and William W. Schwarzer, Senior District Judge. Case No 96-35050. Seattle, WA. September 11, 1997.

Kent does cite testimony (he goes into somewhat more detail than you have reproduced above), but he is speculating when he casts aspersions against Moxon (who is in good standing with his bar association, by the way) and speculates that Moxon would have given Shupe incomplete information. His position is also undermined by the fact that several appeal courts, up to the United States Supreme Court, looked at CAN's appeals and rejected them. Jayen 466 22:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above quoted portions from Kent explaining how Shupe gathered his information from excerpts provided by Scientology attorney Kendrick Moxon, speak for themselves. Cirt (talk) 22:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kent is talking about Shupe's "formulating his opinions for deposition" in the court case. He is not talking about the court records Shupe consulted when he wrote his book 10 years later. Jayen 466 22:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- This peer review is entirely pointless if it becomes an argument between old foes with obvious POVs. I'd suggest you both consider striking your comments (or at least disengaging) and letting some uninvolved peers actually review the article. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 22:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, thanks. Cirt (talk) 22:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) For once, we are in agreement. Jayen 466 22:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]