Jump to content

Talk:Anson D. Shupe

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

Imgard edits:

  • What is the importance of a letter to Introvigne from Shupe? Care to explain? Thanks.
  • If you mention Shupe deposition and blanket criticize it, you ought to add context and present a summary of that deposition.

--ZappaZ 20:51, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shupe testimony at Jason's case

[edit]

Please stick to facts and check your sources:

[12] The issue of the admissibility of Shupe's testimony was not properly preserved for review because the district court's ruling lacked definitiveness. Although Scott was not precluded from calling Shupe as an expert, the court would have considered objections to specific testimony. CAN failed to object or move to strike Shupe's testimony. That the court might have sustained objections did not mean that the court wrongly admitted Shupe's testimony.
[14] The district court properly admitted Shupe's testimony. Shupe was qualified. CAN's argument that Shupe did not study CAN or its practices did not undermine Shupe's credibility.
[15] Shupe's testimony was proper because he testified regarding matters beyond the general knowledge of jurors. That CAN denied endorsing or performing violent deprogrammings did not make Shupe's testimony excludable. This was taken up on cross-examination.
[16] Shupe's testimony conformed to a generally accepted explanatory theory. Because Shupe provided the jury with useful information about the anti-cult movement and was available for cross-examination, the probative value of his testimony outweighed any prejudicial effect
[17] Rule 703 allows an expert witness to form an opinion based on facts or data, either before or at the hearing. The facts or data relied upon need not be otherwise admissible if they are of a type reasonably relied on by experts in a particular field. Shupe's citations to his studies and collaboration with other academics as the basis for his opinions sufficed to merit admission of his testimony.

Now we need to summarize the above and add to the criticism section. --ZappaZ 21:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Either we summarize Shupe testimony fairly or we do not include anything about it. Removed for now. I also removed the thing about Introvigne being a friend. What is encyclopedic about that? --ZappaZ 16:58, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Attention - if it was about Introvigne being a friend and colleague of Shupe, it would not be remarkable at all, but it is Scientology lawyer Kendrick Moxon, whom Shupe calls his friend (in a letter to Introvigne which Introvigne published on the Internet). Moxon is anything but a neutral person in the question of New Religions Movements. He is among the leading and most aggressive lawyers in almost all important Scientology processes, and he was (like L. Ron Hubbard and others) convicted in 1982 as an "Unindicted Co-Conspirator" in the case "US vs Mary Sue Hubbard et al.". And such a friendship does definitely throw some doubts on the neutrality of a scientist studying new religions, so it should be mentioned in the encyclopedia. --Irmgard 17:43, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I restored the Moxon reference but omitted the Introvigne detail. I think that it was a bit confusing in this context. -Willmcw 22:48, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
Yes. Thanks. --ZappaZ 23:51, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Skeptic Magazine

[edit]

I removed the reference citing Tilman and one of the references to an article in Skeptic Magazine. Neither are reliable sources. Neither are academics or authorities. Even though Professor Kent's paper also appears in Skeptic Magazine, Kent is an accademic (a reliable source)John196920022001 21:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read The Skeptics Society and WP:RS. --Tilman 23:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see Fossa is on his usual vandalism tour again, claiming that whatever he doesn't like is from a "not reputable source". More on the skeptic society: [1] --Tilman 23:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see, you use the Skeptic website to "show" their reputability. Impressive evidence. Fossa?! 03:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First I showed you The Skeptics Society, which has The Skeptics Society is a nonprofit, member-supported organization devoted to promoting scientific skepticism and resisting the spread of pseudoscience, superstition, and irrational beliefs. Then I showed you the link about themselves, about the publisher: Dr. Shermer is a contributing editor and monthly columnist for Scientific American, and is the host of the Skeptics Distinguished Lecture Series at Caltech. How more scientific can one be? You did not explain why "The Skeptic" magazine is not a reliable source, you "just allege it". --Tilman 07:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, now you are citing a Wikipedia article as proof for reputability. Interesting. How much more reputable can you get than "Dr. Shermer is a contributing editor and monthly columnist for Scientific American"? Hm, to start with, where are his academic credentials? But that's besides the Point. Stephen Kent has academic credentials, but The Skeptic magazine hasn't. It's just an activist organzation, no more. If some academic writes for the KKK, doesn't mean that the KKK becomes reputable. Fossa?! 16:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
His academic credentials were mentioned in the link that you didn't read: Dr. Shermer received his B.A. in psychology from Pepperdine University, M.A. in experimental psychology from California State University, Fullerton, and his Ph.D. in the history of science from Claremont Graduate School. He worked as a college professor for 20 years (1979–1998), teaching psychology, evolution, and the history of science at Occidental College, California State University Los Angeles, and Glendale College.. If the Skeptic is an "activist organisation", it is activist for science and against pseudoscience.
I have taken this on [2], and they have told me that it is ok. So you will be reverted later anyway. Your comparison of the Skeptics organisation with the KKK is scurrilous. --Tilman 17:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what exactly did the publish in scientific publications? Fossa?! 18:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your text above does not make any sense. --Tilman 18:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See at Wikipedia talk:Attribution a discussion of this magazine as a reliable source. It is a print journal for science education and science advocacy, with a stated editorial board and with identified authors, which is subscribed to my most university libraries. It publishes articles in which claims of psychic power and fringe scientific theories are examing by qualified researchers using the scientific method. It is not considered a tabloid or fringe publication. It appears to be an appropriate journal to quote, and it is unreasonable to arbitrarily deleted material cited from it because an editor disagrees with it. Edison 23:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removed a chunk based only on this source as it is not suitable for a BLP. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Why not? AndroidCat (talk) 03:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Academic criticism of his work is highly relevant and I would support its inclusion, but it should be published in academic sources, not in a magazine. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Anson D. Shupe. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 04:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anson D. Shupe. 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:

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) 05:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anson_D._Shupe&oldid=1205950051"