Talk:Rick Alan Ross/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Recent changes

On the balance I think the recent changes made improve the article so I reverted the wholesale reversion of them. There may be individual changes that should be discussed or individually reverted. I have also collected the books Ross wrote into one section entitled 'Books'. It is a biographical fact he wrote these books but Wikipedia should not 'recommend' them as 'further reading'. Also, by doing this the reference to 'Ross (2014)' under 'References' can be easily identified.

Thanks to everyone who worked on this! Cheers. Jbh^Talk 14:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Wrong on several levels:

• Wikipedia does not "recommend", but it is further reading on the topic, in books that pass vetting for inclusion.
• As such these are not "books" by Ross, just contributions to books by others

etc... --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah. I see. If they are just contributions then I would suggest that either they be collected with his one book under a heading of 'Publications' or the books his writings are in be listed in the 'Further reading' section without pointing to his specific article in that book unless his writings in them have been subject to outside note. Jbh^Talk 15:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Nah, as I already said multiple times, the book didn't attract sufficient ouside views in reliable sources to be mentioned above the references section. I think the same goes for the contributions to books by others, so the "further reading" setup works fine. Although it should be explicited that it's only a chapter (or an introduction for one of the two instances) and not a book as such. That's just formatting, but it should be done too. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Ross' book

Please stop removing Ross' book: it is used as a reference, so it should be named. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

If it is a reference, then keep it in the cite. There is no need to include it twice. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, in the sources section where it belongs. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, now it isn't even included once: two references refer to it but currently shox only "Ross 2014" with a page number, what "Ross 2014" refers to should be explicited in the sources section. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Easily fixed: Instead of "Ross 2014" with a page number, use the full book cite in the ref. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The way it is referenced in 'References' - as Ross (2014) - allows it to be in whatever section we use to list what he has written. The reader will not be confused there is no need for a break out section 'Sources' for one ref. Jbh^Talk 15:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

The "Sources" section is a better approach as to not repeat the book reference twice in a numbered ref. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Make them a single ref. It is just for this sentence Ross said in his book, that after the Scott case he stopped involuntary cult-intervention work with adults,[27] and advised against such involuntary interventions with adults due to the possible legal consequences of such interventions.[28] - Cwobeel (talk) 15:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

The "Sources" section approach works too. That's the solution I'd apply. If you want to do it differently, go ahead. I just object to references that work being mutilated into something that doesn't work. The book shouldn't be removed from the sources section unless it is properly included in the references themselves. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Please keep the page numbers. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:07, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Done. Added page numbers to the book cite template.- Cwobeel (talk) 16:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

My book "Cults Inside Out" and consistent editing rules and guidelines

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The fact that I am published author with a book widely reported about by the media has been established repeatedly in links that I have shared at Wikipedia. The book "Cults Inside Out" is published in Chinese and the English version is available through Amazon and Kindle. This has been reported by such reliable sources as CNN, Sirius Radio, the Hong Kong press and Phoenix television in Hong Kong, radio interviews, Podcasts and LipTV interview online and in recently released documentaries. Popular blogger Tony Ortega, formerly managing editor of the Village Voice and featured in "Going Clear" documentary, also announced the release of the book and there were press releases done as well picked up by Reuters and other news outlets. I am concerned about the inconsistent standards in editing at Wikipedia. I was told, "Just because it is done one way in one article does not mean it will or should be done in another. Every article is set up under the same rules and guidelines [sic] and individual editors choose how to implement them." This seems arbitrary and that there is no editing standard used consistently at Wikipedia. I offered a link to the bio of Steve Hassan to demonstrate this point. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Hassan#Books Hassan's books are all self-published, including the recently revised version of "Combatting Cult Mind Control." Hassan is quoted extensively from his books in the bio. I am asking editors here to please be consistent and apply the same rules and guidelines equally to this bio as done at the Hassan bio and others.Rick Alan Ross (talk)

"I am asking editors here to please be consistent and apply the same rules and guidelines equally to this bio as done at the Hassan bio and others" Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.

Also, I have to ask you, Rick: Are you interested in improving this project (Wikipedia) or are you only interested in what you see as improving the article on you? Because, to be honest, as another editor already pointed out to you a few days ago, you are taking up a lot of time given freely by other Wikipedia editors with your continual and repeated attempts at persuading us to change the article to your specifications and liking. And, I might add, all of the editors who are taking a great amount of time with you are then giving up time that could be used to improve and help further build Wikipedia. There are 5M+ articles on Wikipedia. Every time you make another request or lodge another complaint about how the article on you reads, you are taking time away from editing the encyclopedia apart from said article. Do you think it's fair and productive that (a) you continue to do that after being asked to stop, and (b) you are only focused on the Rick Alan Ross article, essentially being a single purpose account via your conflict of interest? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:24, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Read it. "'other stuff exists' arguments can be valid or invalid." Ia m saying that it is valid to have consistent editing rules regarding published books, self-published books and quoting self-published material in a BLP. As stated, "Arguing in favor of consistency among Wikipedia articles is not inherently wrong–it is to be preferred."Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I am here interested in helping to improve Wikipedia by encouraging consistency and reliance upon facts rather than POV. IMO my bio is an example of what's wrong with Wikipedia editing. Some editors work on bios to reflect their point of view. I too have much to do and taking time to be here is not something I want to do, but rather have been forced to do by the bio here. It has a long history of distortions, bias deliberately misleading editing and cult members using it to attack me. I never asked for a bio here. I asked that it be deleted, but it was decided that it would not be deleted. So I am doing the best that I can to helpfully work within the Wikipedia guidelines to make this bio NPOV, factual and not misleading. Meanwhile I have a database I have been building since 1996 as an online library, court cases I am retained in, families calling me and many other things to do too. I appreciate your time and concern, but please try to appreciate mine as well.Rick Alan Ross (talk)

"I am here interested in helping to improve Wikipedia by encouraging consistency and reliance upon facts rather than POV." I would believe you if (a) You had actually edited articles other than your own; (b) you really understood POV and its relation to Wikipedia (which, from your comments above, show you do not); and (c) you would do more here than try to make your article look more favorable in regard to your public image. Sorry, but based on all this, I just don't buy what you're saying. And, just so you know, your posts are becoming WP:TLDR, causing me (and probably others) to just skim or ignore altogether. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: After seeing Ross start over with someone else who is interested in helping with this article and trying yet again to POV push and stage manage the material in the article I think this should be brought to either COIN or ANI and a request be made for an indef block for being WP:NOTHERE. I am engaged in a RL matter for the next couple days and will only be able to spend small chunks of time with WP. If you want to write up a block request I will support it and add what I can. Otherwise I will put one together as time allows. It is time for this time sink to end. Jbh^Talk 20:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree, JBH, it is time for a block request or some kind of sanction (possibly topic ban). Since July 2015, as both an IP and with his named account, he has been doing nothing in Wikipedia except directing what should go in and what should come out of the article on him ([1], [2]). This is an obvious case of an WP:SPA/WP:NOTHERE account and he's been given a lot of leeway (too much, in my opinion). It's time to put a stop to it. I will do what I can -- if I can get a report filed in the next couple of hours, that is. After that, I don't know how much time I will have to devote to it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Censorship at this Talk page?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It seems like some editors here are attempting to censor and control this Talk page. They apparently don't want me to be allowed to post comments here. They also appear to be uncomfortable with the questions I have raised about inconsistencies regarding application of the Wikipedia rules concerning the bios of living persons at Wikipedia. Now it seems that I may be blocked and silenced so that I can no longer comment at this Talk page about any of the editing done at my bio. I am asking for fair, fact based, unbiased editing and nothing more than that. Some editors here have done exactly that, while others apparently think insulting me or somehow impugning my integrity is a meaningful response to questions I have raised. It seems that some editors may see my Wikipedia bio as a vehicle to express their POV. They do this by editing according to their bias and selectively recognizing sources accordingly. All I am allowed to do is come here to the Talk page and comment. Now even that may be censored. I have followed the guidelines emailed to me by Wikipedia and read the Wikipedia links offered by editors, even at times quoting Wikipedia links to emphasize a point about fairness. I am under no obligation whatsoever to work for Wikipedia as a volunteer to earn the right to comment on this Talk page as some editors have implied. I have repeatedly requested to have my bio deleted due to the way it has historically been abused for propaganda purposes and personal attacks. I don't think blocking and censoring me now is fair and it doesn't reflect the principles of fairness that Wikipedia says it stands on.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 20:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sources

Francis Schonken: Here are additional sources about Ross that you may have missed and that could be used. I have no further interest in editing this article (I much prefer politicians' bios), so I leave to you and others to incorporate:

• Religious Intolerance in America: A Documentary History [3]
• Agents of Discord: Deprogramming, Pseudo-Science, and the American Anticult Movement [4]
• The Bloomsbury Companion to New Religious Movements [5]
• The Cultic Milieu: Oppositional Subcultures in an Age of Globalization [6]
• Terror and Taboo: The Follies, Fables, and Faces of Terrorism [7]
• Apocalypse Observed: Religious Movements and Violence in North America [8]

- Cwobeel (talk) 15:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Cwobee has listed his selected sources, which represent his bias. There is nothing wrong with having a biased POV, but using Wikipedia as a propaganda platform to express it is not in accordance with the rules and guidelines I have read regarding Wikipedia. There are many more reliable and objective sources than those listed above by Cwobeel and I hope to share them with neutral editors not invested in a POV, but rather interested in facts and objective editing. Rick Alan Ross (talk) 20:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Ummm... you know Francis Schonken did not provide those sources. They were provided by Cwobeel, an experienced editor who never edited the article prior to Nov 6 2015 [9]. This is precisely the type of problem that caused me to propose a ban for you. Jbh^Talk 21:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me for that mistake. I have apologized to Francis Schonken and am sorry about that. You are a bit naive. The list above is narrowly confined and skewed including the most negative and biased information the editor could gather, rather than an earnest effort to bring together balanced reliable sources. It's not right to try and ban me from my own bio Talk page. It's censorship and wrong. I am trying to work with you and other editors. Realize that not everyone knows all the rules and culture of Wikipedia. Know that Wikipedia forces people like me to come here in an effort to defend their reputation from anonymous editors. Also, you might consider that you don't know that much about cults, cult apologists and the way they spin and post propaganda on the Web through sites like Wikipedia. This has been reported about. The cult business is a big business--e.g. Scientology has $3 billion and counting. They promote books, pay academics, etc.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 22:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Ross you have been involved with Wikipedia for at least 6 years. You are, based on my interactions with you, neither stupid not lazy. If you do not understand Wikipedia rules and processes it is because it is advantageous not to. I have shown you the respect of being forthright in what I see as proper and improper both in the article and your behavior, please do me the courtesy of not making assumptions about my understanding - we all have real life professions.

What I, personally, find sad here is I end up spending all of my time on this article trying to keep you from slanting it based on your personal WP:COI that there is no time to learn the specifics needed to do source analysis. It would have been great to have you on hand to clear up misunderstandings and help with specialized interpretation. That would have been both fun and interesting and I might have even have learned something about an interesting subject area. That is not how things turned out. Jbh^Talk 23:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you now saying you proposed a ban for Rick Alan Ross for something Cwobeel did? Or because he confused me with Cwobeel? I won't take offense there, although, of course, I'm a quite different editor from Cwobeel.

I was planning on taking a look at the sources listed above, but thus far only checked the first, which imho is just an example more of Ross' expert opinion being quoted, don't know whether many more examples in this sense are needed in the article.

But indeed @Rick Alan Ross: please take care what you're replying to whom. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry and apologize for missing who posted the list, which included a book by Anson Shupe. Shupe has extensively worked for Scientology. Another effort by a supposedly neutral editor to get in the most damaging, biased and negative information possible.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 22:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Francis Schonken: No, I proposed a ban because he feels everything is something that needs to be addressed, in this case trying to poison the sources by saying they are from a "biased" editor rather than addressing the sources, it seems everything that criticizes him is biased or opinion while facts show him only in good light. That he was accusing the wrong editor just added to it. I am all but sure that this is in set up for a run at 're-casting' the Waco material as he has been hinting at for a bit. There may be a problem or there may not but the editors on this page need to be able to figure it out for themselves. He has created an environment where the subject of the article leaves his stamp on everything, not just an opinion or a comment but walls of text. There is no way an NPOV article can be created in such an environment and he will not respect the process enough to stop badgering the other editors here.

If this is not handled this time I am sure we will be back in the same position in a month or so. I wish it were not the case but as it stands we might as well allow him to write his own biography. If he is going to continue to engage here he needs to get a solid grip on the concept of reliable sources and why we use them. Brief insight into the sources is helpful but look at just the last couple of days on that.

PS - If you must know it was the 'Further reading' issue that pushed me over the edge to considering his participation on this page to be a net negative. When the difference was only a header and two lines of space on the page I knew he did not understand compromise or his WP:COI was way too strong. Jbh^Talk 22:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

It is like he is making my point for me -"Another effort by a supposedly neutral editor to get in the most damaging, biased and negative information possible." [[10]] - do you really think this kind of attitude is helpful here? Really? Jbh^Talk 22:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

OK. So you think that the editor in question gathered the list in good faith in an earnest attempt to help improve Wikipedia? I have been working in the field of cultic studies for more than 30 years and the list was glaringly biased. OK. Maybe that's just a coincidence. I am here in good faith posting under my own name. I am transparent. But it seems that the Wikipedia process is to go through such a list one by one, step by step. OK. But IMO at times it may be that certain editors do this just to slow everything down and subvert the editing process.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 22:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Alternately it could simply be a list of sources that discuss you that were not already in the article. My strong opinion is that is what it is. That you jump to another conclusion is indicative of the problem I have previously discussed. Jbh^Talk 23:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

COI tag

I have removed the COI tag. The documentation for the tag is very specific when it should be used. The tag is not supposed to be a badge of shame it is supposed to be used to notify readers that there is a potential neutrality issue because someone with a coi has edited the article and only while cleanup is going on. The editor with the COI has not edited the article just the talk page. If the article is not neutral it is not the fault of Rick Ross it is the fault of the editors that have edited the article. -- GB fan 16:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I replaced it. No one is using it as a so-called "badge-of-shame", and your attempts to accuse editors in good standing of doing so is unwarranted. The editor with the COI (the article subject) has been editing by proxy, essentially employing WP:MEAT, and has been dictating what needs to stay, what needs to be reworded, what needs to go. Even though he has yet to edit anything unrelated to himself, RAR is an editor (he has an editing account), and he has edited the article in the past as an IP and under another account name. Therefore, COI does apply. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

So what is not neutral about the article right now? -- GB fan 17:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

use of COI template on any article - read the template instructions

if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article

As Mr. Ross is not a "major contributor" to the article, and the article appears fairly neutral with peacock claims absent, adding that template to the article is improper. It is not intended to be used in the manner in which it has been used. Collect (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I do believe that the his intense involvement can be a major issue with the neutrality of the article. He has managed to keep a lot of extremely critical material out of the article. Some of is likely properly but I strongly suspect that not everyone who criticizes him is some sort of 'cult apologist' or 'Scientologist'. Many likely are but I do not think the matter has been adequately addressed. In particular, even if the sources are biased if there is a body of reliable sources that have bad things to say they do need to be included per WEIGHT. Jbh^Talk 17:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Um -- why the hell at 18:29 did you imply I had not posted on this talk page in your interesting post at WP:BLP/N? [11] is a quite remarkable post on your part - the one where you tell me to post on the talk page of the article. LOL? Collect (talk) 18:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

If the words "...where you opened a thread about an hour ago" somehow imply you did not post here I suggest that possibly we are not speaking the same language. The point was stop fricking forum shopping. You have a bad habit of opening up multiple, near simultaneous, threads when you disagree with something. I am a bit surprised you did not open up one on Jimbo talk as well. Jbh^Talk 19:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• Subject is playing by the rules, there's no apparent COI involvement for the article content, so the template should go. That something "can be" a major issue, that someone "strongly suspects" whatever, "if there is a body of reliable sources" (without naming a single one) and the like, without even a demonstrated link to subject involvement, are all aspersions which are not covered by a proper use of the COI template. Vaguishness is not an excuse to use the template. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

How is he playing by the rules? He has been disruptive, claims over and over he doesn't know Wikipedia "rules" to begin with after it being pointed out that he's not playing by the rules, has been told to stay away for three or more days to learn "the rules", and keeps coming back still claiming to not know the rules whilst claiming he's learning the rules. He is a disruptive SPA and has violated COI by meat-puppeting and having others proxy-edit for him. He contributes nothing to Wikipedia as a whole let alone the BLP on him. Truthfully, if he were an editor without a BLP his account would have been blocked for disruption long ago. Why do (some) editors insist on molly-coddling him? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

What editors have been his meet-puppets or have proxy-edited for him? -- GB fan 17:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Thinking more about this proxy-editing is exactly what WP:COI talks about should be happening (unless you mean something different). He comes here and discusses what he thinks the article should say and then if other editors agree they make the proxy-edit for him. Now if he is going outside Wikipedia and getting friends, coworkers or others to come in and make edits that would be meat puppetry. Is that what you are saying he is doing? If so I would like to see some evidence of that or you need to retract it. -- GB fan 20:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• The "connected contributor" template on the talk page above is appropriate under the circumstances; a COI tag on the article itself is not. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Waco section

Nancy Ammerman offered claims or opinions characterizing my advice to the FBI. Note there are no direct quotations from the FBI notes only Ammerman's interpretation and/or characterization of the notes based upon her POV. These claims or opinions are not statements based upon established facts, but rather claims. Likewise other scholars offer similar claims about my work during the Waco Davidian standoff. It is not established that they ever read the FBI notes nor do they cite them. The only significant fact offered is that Ammerman did review FBI and BATF notes and she rejected the FBI statement that they "politely declined [my] unsolicited offers of assistance throughout the standoff." Notably Ammerman directly contradicts that statement based upon reading of the FBI notes and concludes that the FBI did rely upon me to some extent and she criticizes them for doing so. I don't think that claims and POV are edited with a NPOV based upon facts in the Waco section. Also, the claim that I have "a personal hatred for all religious cults" is a claim and characterization and not a fact.I never stated that during the acknowledged interview, which the FBI requested, nor do I think or feel that way. Destructive groups called "cults" vary greatly in the harm the do by degree and each group must be evaluated based upon its behavior accordingly. David Koresh was a particularly destructive cult leader and murderer who brutally beat and raped children. But all purported cult leaders are not the same. Many groups called "cults" are not even based on religion. I have stated this in many interviews this year and every year going back to the 1980s through the 1990s etc. And this year as recently as last month through various media outlets such as CNN, Sirius, the Hong Kong press and recently released documentaries. My book also explains this in great detail.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 16:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Your book is a primary source, and as such, is not really considered a reliable source. The content on Ammerman is presented as her assessment based on FBI documents and is well referenced by reliable sources. There is no way that you (or your book) will be used as a reliable source above that of actual, verifiable, non-primary sources. The only thing that could be done is to quote you - from a source that quotes you - as refuting her statements. Please understand that the threshold for inclusion in a Wikipedia article - especially a WP:BLP - is verifiability over truth. Please read WP:VERIFY for more. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I did not ask for my book to be used as a source regarding Waco. I suggest that Ammerman's claims, allegations and interpretations of FBI be identified as that rather than simply statements as if they are statements of fact. Ammerman expressed her POV, which reflects her bias. The same is true of other scholars (many closely associated with groups called "cults") referred to that offer their biased POV. The title of the section "Waco Siege" also reflects a POV and bias and is not NPOV. It would be NPOV to title the section Waco Davidians, David Koresh and the Waco Davidians, or simply the Waco Davidian standoff.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

You used your book as an example of why her statements are not factual, therefore, you are essentially saying we should use your book as proof that what she said is not true. Is there anything, anywhere, that proves what she said is not true (other than your book)? Further, it's pretty plain in the article that her comments are her own POV. There is nothing that prohibits Wikipedia and its associated editors from including content that is someone's POV. The only thing that would prohibit such is including content in Wiki-voice that is POV or commentary. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I did not cite my book as a source. I cited what is on my Wikipedia bio page and placed in context. My point is that Ammerman is offering an opinion and characterization rather than facts. The editors that chose to include here statements without qualification are expressing their POV by selectively quoting Ammerman and others. There are other sources regarding the Waca Davidian standoff such as the Danforth Report, Treasury Report and Congressional hearings. The only significant thing about Ammerman is that she rebutted the FBI's claim that they did not rely upon me. Other than that she makes false characterizations of my advice and does not quote me per any report. Now someone has added " "Some even blame him for the disaster at Waco, Texas." This is a ridiculous claim. And the reporter that wrote the article knew that. Again, selective editing to slant the Waco section as much as possible.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 20:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Subjective statements are allowable on Wikipedia, provided they are presented without endorsement through POV voicing. Further, we cannot "qualify" statements by inserting our own interpretation of such quotes, as this would be blatant violation of some of our most important editorial policies (WP:Neutrality, WP:OR). The only method we can employ to contextualize the content is to utilize additional independent and secondary sources that meet our WP:RS standards. If you know of any such sources which meet these criteria and tend to balance what you see as an inaccurate characterization of the topic (that is, yourself), I encourage you to provide them and we can consider if they are appropriate. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Deprogramming cases

Trying to get a handle on this subject, in the lead I read Ross has intervened in more than 350 deprogramming cases in various countries. This seems to be saying the deprogramming cases were underway and Ross somehow got involved. Is that the intention? Rumiton (talk) 02:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Should correctly read -- Ross has done more than 350 deprogramming intervention cases in various countries, and has served as an expert witness in a number of court cases. This is a bit old of a source though. I have done more than 500 to date. See http://articles.philly.com/2011-03-12/news/28683932_1_group-demands-cults-nursing-home Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

BLPN discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Collect has opened a discussion [12] at the BLP Noticeboard for some reason of his own. Check it out. Jbh^Talk 22:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Alternatively you could leave off the editorialising of your own here ... the question is your seeming position that we can not trust readers with the facts - that they might reach the wrong conclusions. Amazingly enough, I did not find that inWP:BLP anywhere at all as part of the policy, so I asked at the noticeboard which is specifically designed for addressing such concerns. I apologize if you feel using the proper noticeboard is wrong because you might get the wrong answer there or the like. Collect (talk) 22:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Facts? That the moon reflects the light of the sun is a fact. As for BLPs, we report the significant viewpoints as described in reliable sources. WP:NPOV is non-negotiable. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@Collect: My statement was in response to the proposed edits in the section above. There exists significant WP:RS commentary which analyses and discusses the results/outcome of the Waco siege and Rick Ross's participation. Simply stating 'fact' without analysis is not what we do when there is RS analysis to discuss. Whether the analysis is flattering to the subject or not is irrelevant only whether it is a significant viewpoint offered by mainstream authors. To quote from WP:BLP "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." This is not talking about the 'mere recitation of facts' it is talking about proportionate reporting of significant opinions represented in reliable sources. Do you claim we should forgo the reporting of relevant analysis and significant opinion and merely report 'facts'? If so, please support your position with policy. Cheers. Jbh^Talk 23:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I think we should obey the non-negotiable WP:BLP policy and stop the damned personal attacks. Opinions may be generally citable as opinions, but not averred as fact in Wikipedia's voice in any event. Is the policy sufficiently clear? Collect (talk) 01:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Did I say anywhere that the sources under discussion should be cited as fact in Wikipedia's voice?? Well? (Was that even an issue you brought up at BLPN? Sure did not sound like it.) Do you have an actual point to make about something I actually said that has some bearing on improving this article? If not then there really is no reason to continue here. If you have more general questions about my editing or application of policy please bring it up with me on my talk page. Jbh^Talk 02:05, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Your post above has naught to do with the issue raised, and appears entirely about me, personally. As I do not have an article on me here, your post might be considered tangential. Nor have my posts concerned you personally at all, nor criticized you as a person. The basic issue remains - as a matter of policy, should we decide that facts should not be left to readers to weigh for themselves, and that we must present opinions in order for readers to determine the "truth"? Collect (talk) 12:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

This is the statement of "fact" my comment relates to "But other sources critical of Ross, disputed this and stated that the FBI did interview and receive input from him." and the related material in that thread. Is that really a fair presentation of all of the other opinions presented?

Wikipedia presents all significant opinions by due weight. We do not do the Fox News "We present, you decide" game. Framing is very important, and if the framing cf 'But others say...' trivializes a significant viewpoint then we have violated NPOV, another of the "non-negotiable" policies. The "We present, you decide" framing technique - reducing material to a recitation of 'mere facts' presented without context or analysis - is a way to minimize or trivialize a viewpoint one does not want to draw attention to. Such recitations present all 'facts' as equally important and give equal or worse, greater weight to the opinions of amateurs (the reader) vs the experts/professionals whose analysis and opinions have been omitted or trivialized.

It is impossible to present all of the material and provide all of the information to allow our readers to make informed judgement on a given topic even if they have the background and knowledge to make those judgments which most, not being professionals in the field, do not have. What we do, and have always done, is present the opinions and judgement of the professionals who do have the information and who do have the education, background and professional credentials to make their opinion significant. That is why we have the WP:RS policy, to help identify competent analysis/opinions and WP:WEIGHT, to help decide how prominently we should feature those opinions/analysis in an article.

Does this clear things up for you? The BLPN discussion went pretty solidly against whatever it was you were trying to assert and I believe, firmly, that the position I have expressed is fully in line with Wikipedia's core policies both as written and as implemented. If you think otherwise I welcome your comments.

(As to the rest of your comment - you do not quote me out of context and without linking a diff and stop bringing issues up in other forums without providing proper notice, like posting {{BLP noticeboard}} on talk pages when you open a thread at BLPN, I will not call bullshit on you or point out your propensity for doing such things. Fair enough?) Jbh^Talk 14:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

TL,DR. What we know is some people said the FBI asked Ross, some say Ross offered opinions without being asked. That is what is all comes down to. And yes - Wikipedia readers are "amateurs." As for your desire to use ad homs in every single post you make, I fear that is not a great course of action. By the way, I am not a "Fox News" person in any way - and note that when they give straight news without commentary it is better for all. Was there a reason you wished to impute anything to me here? By the way, as I specifically pinged you at BLP/N what the f*** do you mean by "without giving proper notice"? Collect (talk) 14:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Waco Siege quote

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

At subsection "Waco Siege" the following quote seems both out of context and/or minority/fringe view. "According to a 1995 article on Ross in the Phoenix, Arizona weekly newspaper, New Times, 'Some even blame him for the disaster at Waco, Texas.'[23]" In context the quote reads, "Ross has been reviled in print as a kidnaper and a vicious religion-hater. Some even blame him for the disaster at Waco, Texas. He's been hounded by private investigators and threatened with violence. Some of his friends fear for his life." The blame for Waco is used as an example of negative personal attacks, not as a reliable source based upon facts in evidence. I think that this quote should be deleted.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

As such, nothing seems to be wrong with the source (that is the Phoenix New Times article where the information is extracted from). There seems to be something wrong with what was extracted from the article, and how it was summarized. So I'd rather suggest a new summary. Maybe: "By the mid 1990s Ross was a national figure in the United States as an expert on Bible-based cults, New Age groups and the militia movement. Being a regular guest on talk-shows this also made him many enemies." (or something in that vein). I could live with "A magazine published by the Church of Scientology suggested that Ross was responsible for the deaths at Waco." (more "spectacular", but I think the first suggestion works better while not restricting to Waco, which the article in Phoenix New Times doesn't either). --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean expand the section by adding more material? Would this be considered Peacock statements?Rick Alan Ross (talk) 21:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Re. "expand the section" – no.

Re. "Peacock statements" - the current content extracted from the Phoenix New Times article is rather Peacock (for the critics that is), nice catch BTW. My first suggestion above isn't, it better summarizes the thrust of the author of that article afaics. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

OK. I don't want anyone to think that I am here to promote myself through Peacock statements, which is absolutely not my intent. My point is that the quote as it is now does not genuinely represent the reporter's original intent and is therefore misleading. It also represents the opinion of an extremely small minority and not the historical majority view.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 15:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it is best to include the quote in its full context as is. No one can spin that. I will do that. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 17:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. If you think that's the best way to handle it. But it seems meaningful to point out that "reviled in print" would be a very small minority.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

It's important to you, it's not important to Wikipedia. We don't make judgements we just include what reliable sources say. If there is negative press on an article subject we don't whitewash it or spin it or even try to create a false balance to make it look more favorable. It is what it is. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia: No Original research says, "But when incorporating research into an article, it is important that editors provide context for this point of view, by indicating how prevalent the position is, and whether it is held by a majority or minority."Rick Alan Ross (talk) 19:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

None of this falls under original research. It's well sourced. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The problem lies not so much with WP:OR (nor with WP:PEACOCK for that matter), but with WP:CHERRY. Out of a long third party source, not hostile against the subject of this Wikipedia article, some negativity was "cherry-picked" to beef up the criticism regarding Waco (which wasn't even present in the article where half a sentence was cherry-picked from). The current expansion of the quote only partially mitigates that: the quote picked from the Phoenix article still doesn't summarize the thrust of that article very well. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification. Since the use of this quote does reflect cherry picking what about deleting it?Rick Alan Ross (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

It's reliably sourced, cherry picking or not. The only reason I can see why it should be completely removed is if it were something unreliably sourced, and that's not the case. As has already been stated, we don't whitewash articles. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:NPOV? --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

He is trying to sanitize the article on him. This has been pointed out numerous times by several editors. Why it isn't obvious to some is a puzzle, indeed. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Winkelvi—"Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page." Bus stop (talk) 06:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Ross isn't a contributor. He's the subject of an article he's trying to control. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• Seems like it is also a WP;WEIGHT issue. I would suggest examining other critical sources to see what they have to say and t- get a fair idea of the balance of coverage. I am going to avoid content edits here for a bit to regain perspective but I do believe critical material is not being properly represented here. That said the quote as it initially was was just the king of thing Rick Alan Ross orany editor for that matter should bring up. I have no opinion on the full quote without looking at WEIGHT.

  I would also like to thank RR for engaging here based on policies and guidelines. Cheers. Jbh^Talk 10:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The only part of the quote that may be relevant to Rick Alan Ross#Waco siege is: "Some even blame him for the disaster at Waco, Texas." Bus stop (talk) 14:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

And yet, taken from its context (which basically found such a criticism to be a tad ludicrous), some readers might actually take it to mean "reasonable folks blame him" which would be mis-using the quote. The one thing we ought not do is present a sentence out of context where a reader might miss what was meant in the first place. Collect (talk) 15:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

It seems like the Waco Siege section has become a Coatrack to hang Fringe theories. The section now goes out of its way to find support for a particular bias. For example, some selected scholars that don't represent a majority consensus. Seems like soapboxing. The quote in question is an example of cherrypicking and changes the meaning of what the source is saying.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 16:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

There are no theories - fringe or otherwise - being included or alluded to here. WP:COATRACK doesn't apply, either. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Question

Ref 21 (2nd Ammerman ref) ends with "Ms. Ammerman was a member of panel of experts convened after the Branch Davidian crisis. Each member of the panel wrote a separate assessment of the events that transpired in Waco. They were published in a volume entitled Recommendations of Experts for Improvement in Federal Law Enforcement after Waco (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1993)" – did any other members of the panel of experts find fault with Mr. Ross in their "separate assessment"? --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

It appears Ammerman was the only one that mentioned me. See https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/145688NCJRS.pdfRick Alan Ross (talk) 18:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Also see https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Report_of_the_Department_of_the_Treasury_on_the_Bureau_of_Alcohol,_Tobacco,_and_Firearms_Investigation_of_Vernon_Wayne_Howell_Also_Known_as_David_Koresh_September_1993/Part_1_(%22The_Facts%22) The young man I deprogrammed (David Block) is cited in the US Treasurey Report.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

If they did, it should be included. If no one else made the same observation, that does not disqualify Ms. Ammerman's comments from being included in the article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

WP: Coatrack "But it's True!" Ammerman is "merely selected opinions" That "gives the reader a false impression about reality, even though the details may be true." She also presents a conspiracy WP: Fringe in her report. "A Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is." Ammerman is soapboxing and not a reliable source. Much of what she states in her report is based upon WP: No original research her own research without WP: Citing sources proper citations to support her claims.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 15:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Before this discussion gets too heated I just want to say that my first impression is that Mr. Ross gives a correct interpretation here, but I can't give my final appreciation before having worked through a lot of reading, including the full report Mr. Ross linked to above (afaics now is that in that 178-page report he's mentioned in two paragraphs). So I'd welcome any concrete proposal to update the article to make it more conformant to WP:NPOV (especially in view of WP:BALASPS), but also to take this a small step at a time (as, as I said, this involves quite some reading of those trying to get this article in line with Wikipedia's content policies in a general approach), and step away from general philosophical discussions in favour of concrete proposals in the sense of "I propose to change '(current article text)' to '(proposed article text)' + proposed ref for the new text" – also getting a bit tired of proposals that only involve removing something without proposing a more valid replacement. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

"getting a bit tired of proposals that only involve removing something without proposing a more valid replacement." Such proposals are being made because the one making the proposal is obviously trying very hard to sanitize his online image. Again, we have a focus on self-promotion (which has been brought up by other editors numerous times in the past). Such activity on Wikipedia is WP:COI behavior and against policy. The account holder in question has no interest in Wikipedia but only in the Wikipedia article on him; wanting content removed without any suggestions for what would be a valid NPOV replacement only further proves his intent and mission. My suggestion: anything proposed by the article subject that is not accompanied by a valid NPOV replacement that would benefit the article (rather than the article subject) should be met with silence. Because, WP:OBLIGATION. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

You certainly do not know that anyone is here to sanitize their image online. An accurate article is in everyone's interest. I don't think I am "getting a bit tired of proposals that only involve removing something without proposing a more valid replacement". I think policy tells us the opposite: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." There is reason to feel that a section of the article may be problematic. It does not matter that the subject of the article is bringing this to our attention. We have a section of the article called Waco siege. It includes the quote from an Arizona newspaper: "Ross has been reviled in print as a kidnaper and a vicious religion-hater. Some even blame him for the disaster at Waco, Texas. He's been hounded by private investigators and threatened with violence. Some of his friends fear for his life." Does this represent a common perception of the subject of the biography as presented in the majority of reliable sources? Is this quote even entirely on-topic? Why, at the point in the article on "Waco siege", are we even invoking imagery of "kidnaper and a vicious religion-hater"? It may be a part of an intact quote from a reliable source but it is certainly off-topic at this point in our article. Do many good quality sources depict the subject this way? Until we decide how prevalent this view is, it might be proper to simply remove this quote. The topic can still be discussed on our Talk page. But the possibly harmful material can in the interim be removed from article-space. "It is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives". Bus stop (talk) 21:16, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

My considerations are entirely practical. E.g., seems like we're going to reduce some of the Ammerman content (for WP:PRIMARY/WP:SPS/WP:BALASPS/...reasons); On the other hand Dany Ortega's Phoenix New Times article which has been mentioned above contains a large chunk of unexploited material regarding Mr. Ross' involvement with Waco. Deleting stuff is one aspect – adding viable material in order to get a balanced article is another. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

The only thing Ammerman says in the two paragraphs that can be confirmed by reliable sources and is not soapboxing or original research without citations is that I deprogrammed David Block who was interviewed by the BATF and that I was interviewed for the series "Sinful Messiah" by the Waco Tribune Herald. The Block intervention is further confirmed in the Department of Treasury Report. The Block intervention is also recounted in the book "See No Evil" by Tim Madigan pp. 77-92. See http://www.amazon.com/See-No-Evil-Devotion-Bloodshed/dp/1565300637 And it is further confirmed in the article "Hush, Hush, Sweet Charlatons" by Tony Ortega See http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/hush-hush-sweet-charlatans-6426159 So Ammerman IMO warrants a footnote denoting that she too confirmed that the David Block intervention took place, which was significant. Block disclosed important information, which is recounted in the Department of Treasure Report and helped to support the warrant for the arrest of David Koresh. All the other scholars like Ammerman, offer unproven allegations and opinions based upon WP: No Original research original research without meaningful citations. Like Ammerman they are evidence of WP: Coatrack and specifically "applying biased negative opinions...a coatrack goes out of its way to find facts that support a particular bias." In this case it's not facts, but rather opinions based upon original research. "Wikipedia policy specifically prohibits articles whose primary purpose is to disparage a particular person or topic." The Waco Siege section seems to fit this description. Using scholars to express opinions is an argument based upon authority, but without meaningful facts. Also the scholars chosen is evidence of WP: Cherrypicking with the possible exception of one scholar who apparently offered research that the FBI did interview and receive input from me. Ammerman seems to confirm the same. Rick Alan Ross (talk) 15:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that the Waco siege section might be better edited down to a core of relevant historical facts with citations, which might read something like as follows:

In 1992 and 1993, Ross was frequently interviewed by the media regarding the Branch Davidian group led by David Koresh in Waco, Texas[15] He had previously deprogrammed one Davidian.[16] The Davidian Ross deprogrammed provided information to the BATF. Ross was the only deprogrammer to work with Branch Davidian members prior to a raid and siege that resulted in the deaths of many Davidians and four federal agents at Waco.[18] Television network CBS hired Ross as an on-scene analyst for their coverage of the Waco siege.[1] The FBI said Ross offered unsolicited advice to the agency during the standoff[17]. A later-published Department of Justice report on the matter stated, "the FBI did not 'rely' on Ross for advice whatsoever during the standoff[17]. But according to other sources it did interview and receive input from him. [See Wright, S.A. 1995. Armageddon in Waco: Critical Perspectives on the Branch Davidian Conflict: University of Chicago Press.]

The Ammmerman footnote [19] could be used after [16] confirming the deprogramming of a member of the group. This would make that footnote 17 and affect other footnote numbering. Everything in the second paragraph IMO is Wp: Coatrack and WP: Cherrypicking and contains soapboxing based upon original research other than the confirmation that the FBI did interview and receive input from me. WP: No Original ResearchRick Alan Ross (talk) 15:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@Rick Alan Ross: Just a quick note. The things you mention; original research, cherry picking, coat racking, soapboxing, etc. are all things Wikipedia editors are supposed to avoid not sources. All of the content guidelines exist to prevent editors from including their own viewpoint or distorting what the sources have to say. The primary argument which needs to be examined, in my opinion, is WP:WEIGHT. That is do other reliable sources say the same or similar things. If so then the quote, or something similar, would be included as representative.

There are basically four ways information can be presented in Wikipedia. In descending order of required support they are; in Wikipedia's voice, as a qualified statement, as an attributed opinion and as a quote. Qualified statements and attributed opinions ie minor yet significant views, and direct quotes must meet standards set out in WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE (Note fringe is a jargon term here with a specific definition not entirely congruent with its plain language meaning). Wikipedia is supposed to address all major viewpoints as well as 'significant major viewpoints'. If an opinion made it into a major report on a subject it is, in general, worth mentioning but how the information is addressed is an editorial matter subject to balancing tests based on various policies and guidelines. Jbh^Talk 16:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

(e.c.) @Rick Alan Ross: seems you still have some of the basics regarding Wikipedia's WP:NOR policy mixed up. Wikipedia can quote original research by academics (subject to WP:PRIMARY and some other rules such as WP:SPS and WP:BLPSELFPUB). There's no problem Ammerman publishing original research, and, apart from the caveats, no problem for Wikipedia to use such material when published in what for Wikipedia's purposes passes the WP:RS principles. This has nothing to do with whether or not the subject of the Rick Alan Ross article, or any Wikipedia editor for that matter, would "rely" on Ammerman to solve a crisis like the one that produced itself at Waco, or would "rely" on Ammerman's account being a truthful rendering of the facts.

Deciding from a Wikipedia author's perspecive whether Ammerman is truthful or not is *exactly* what Wikipedia authors shouldn't do according to the WP:NOR policy: because that is *exactly* the kind of original research (from the Wikipedia editor's perspective) the WP:NOR policy forbids.

We're going to have a hard time discussing this until you get these basics of the Wikipedia WP:NOR policy straight. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

There's also the issue of what seems to be an attempt to create a WP:FALSEBALANCE. Content comes from sources, reliable sources. If the reliable sources do not support a balance - especially in the area of analysis and opinion regarding an article subject - we don't try to create one just make the article look better. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

No clue what you mean by "If the reliable sources do not support a balance" – every reliable source has its own balance. When different sources have different balances (which seems to be the case here), Wikipedia article text creates its balance by applying WP:BALASPS, thus avoiding WP:FALSEBALANCE.

Currently, what seems to be WP:UNDUE weight given to Ammerman's findings, and using only the "negativity" from what Ortega has to say on Mr. Ross' Waco involvement unbalances the second paragraph of the Waco siege section. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

What I'm saying is: If reliable sources available on the article subject - or an aspect of the article subject - are all or mostly negative, we don't add an equal amount of positive content to make commentary on the article subject seem balanced. And we certainly don't remove the negative content to balance the article out, either. Which, with Ross' own "suggestions" and pleadings to remove negative commentary on him, seems to be what he wants. You were right to point out that he's coming here wanting things removed but offers no suggestions for what can replace it. That is a perfect example of the article subject trying to not only scrub the article of all negative commentary/content on him, but it's also a perfect example of someone trying to create a false balance. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Re. "...are all or mostly negative..." – well, apparently they aren't on the topic we're discussing here. That's the WP:FALSEBALANCE that has crept in afaics. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I looked at one of the sources in the article: Armageddon at Waco: Critical Perspectives on the Brand Davidian Conflict 1995, University of Chicago Press. It is a collection of writings from a wide range of scholars who studied the AFT and FBI approach to the Waco Siege and the tragedy that followed. RAR's relationship to the those agencies is discussed by at least 3 of the scholars. I including relevant portions of chapters written by Lewis and Wright. (Ammerman is also in the volume, but is already being discussed here.)

James. R. Lewis Page 98

“While there were comparatively few direct connections between the BATF and the anti-cult movement that contributed to the Waco fiasco, they were significant. In particular, the testimony of deprogrammed former Davidian David Block, was adduced to support the contention that Koresh possessed massive firepower and illegal weapons, which appears to have been instrumental in the BATF’s ability to obtain a search warrant (U.S. Department of Treasury 1993, 143). Indeed, evidence for the warrants appears to rest largely on the accounts of apostates. The Treasury Department record shows that the investigative agent for the BATF sought to secure a warrant on November 2nd, 1992, which was denied by the magistrate for insufficient evidence (pD-5). However, on November 20, less than three weeks later, the agent returned and was able to secure warrants. The only additional evidence apparently acquired during this time, according to the Treasury Department record, was “soft” data—information obtained from interviews with apostates and family members of Davidians (pp.46-47, d-5).

Equally important was the advisory role that Rick Ross played with the BATF prior to the attack. Before the blood had dried in the fields surrounding Mt. Carmel, Ross was busy promoting himself to the media on the basis of his role as advisor to the BATF. What were the qualifications that allowed this person to allow this person to have the ear of the BATF? Ross, it turns out, had deprogrammed several Branch Davidians. What was his background and training? It was certainly not counseling. Ross is an ex-convict with a psychiatric record. After completing an apprenticeship in petty crime, he graduated to the more lucrative career of deprogrammer, and as someone who makes his living deprogramming “cult members” for money, Ross clearly had a vested interest in portraying non-traditional religions in the worst possible light.”

Stuart Wright Page 89

“According to the Treasury report, much of the information about the weapons “was based almost exclusively on the statement of one former cult member, David Block” [1993, 314]. Breault initially learned of deprogrammer Ross from the Tribune-Herald reporter Mark England. Cult-buster Breault subsequently recounted his efforts to contact Ross and referred to an intermediary who “has detailed information on cult awareness groups and cultbusters” [1993, 317}. Ross’s apparent knowledge of the BATF raid twelve days before the event suggest in more than a peripheral role as government adviser.

In the first segment of “The Sinful Messiah” series published by the Waco Tribune-Herald on February 27, the day before the raid, reporters Mark England and Darlene McCormick acknowledged that they had information from interviews with more than twenty “former members” and quoted a man “deprogrammed” by Ross. Herein, the transmission of constructed meanings as ‘news’ was accomplished. The language and rhetoric of apostate claimes clearly regurgitated anticult framing and signification: “Former cult members also said Howell uses traditional mind-control techniques to entrap listeners” (England and McCormick 1993, 12A). Mind control and brainwashing attributions were pervasive throughout the series, reflecting the core concepts and ideology of the anticult movement.

An addendum to Nancy Ammermans’s report to the justice Department made evident the significance of deprogrammer Ross as an FBI adviser describing him as “closely involved with both the BATF and the FBI’ and as having “the most extensive access to both agencies as any person on the ‘cult expert’ list 9Ammermand 1993). Ammerman’s direct access (as a behavioral science expert (to government officials and nonpublic documents critical to the Waco catastrophe lends particular credence to the claim of the deprogrammer’s influence. (see also Ammerman, this volume)."

While I don't doubt RAR's sincere memory of events, there are two government reports and the work of multiple scholars in relevant fields that are reliable sources for Wikipedia. It is my opinion after reading further that the Waco section doesn't adequately cover the scholarly criticism of RAR's involvement at Waco. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 19:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The sources cited are not reliable, very biased and IMO represent "fact picking" WP: Coatracking "A common fact picking device is lisiting great numbers of individual people's quotes criticizing the nominal subject, while expending little or no effort mentioning that the criticism comes from a small fraction of people. That small fraction thus gets a soapbox that is far larger than reality warrants." For example James R. Lewis' remarks about David Block, whose statements to the BATF were later proven to be correct by the physical evidence according to criminal and civil court proceedings, news reports, congressional reports and the Danforth Report. That is, the Davidian weapons stockpile was "massive" and there was evidence of "illegal" activity regarding weapons. Other than confirming David Block's interview with the BATF and my contact with the BATF and FBI, Stuart, Lewis and Ammerman offer nothing more than negative attacks and criticism based upon conjecture, opinion and they represent a small fraction of people concerning what happened at Waco. Lewis once defended Aum (see http://www.culteducation.com/group/1984-alleged-persecution-of-cult-investigateds.html ) and he and Stuart have a history defending groups called "cults." Lewis has been recommended as a "religious resource" by Scientology ( see http://www.culteducation.com/group/1963-resources-recommended-by-the-church-of-scientology-published-list-from-freedom-magazines.html ). Other than using the Waco Siege section for soapboxing the only salient point these academics make is that contrary to what the FBI stated, I was consulted by the FBI. WP: Neutral Point of View IMO these academics have been given undue weight. "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view." Much of what these scholars offer can be seen as "false balance" based upon "conspiracy theories" and "speculative history." Lewis and Stuart use "weasel words" like "clearly," "appears," "suggest," "claim" and"apparently." Stuart states, "Ross, it turns out, had deprogrammed several Branch Davidians." News reports and government reports reflect that at the time of the raid I had only deprogrammed one Davidian. This is also stated in the book "See No Evil" by Tim Madigan chapter 6 "Rick Ross Takes One Back," which confirms this historical fact (pp.77-92). Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Your comments are borderline WP:TLDR. The sources cited are reliable according to Wikipedia guidelines. The sources state the FBI denies any in-depth consultation with you. You can say they are wrong all you want, but doing so only strengthens the argument that you are here to improve your article in order to improve your online image. I have a question for you, Rick: have you been working with/paying online reputation companies to rid the internet of as much negative press and other unflattering comments and content on you? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

WP: Civility Please "avoid condescension." There is no need for rudeness, belittling, taunting or baiting.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:COI. Will you answer the question? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

No. I have never worked with such a company at any time under any circumstances. WP: Civility Why do you repeatedly make personal attacks and ill-considered accusations of impropriety?Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Let me rephrase: have you employed the services of such a company to scrub the internet of as much negative press and content on you as possible? In answer to your question: I'm not making any personal attacks on you. I'm stating my observations in relation to your dealings in Wikipedia - having looked at all of your editing and commenting history going back to the first time you tried editing "your" article. I think your COI and agenda is obvious. Others do as well, others do not. Surely you've noticed that I'm not the only Wikipedia editor who is suspicious of your motives and believe they not only constitute a conflict of interest but also self-promotion and ridding the article of anything negative? You are, by the very definition, a WP:SPA who is not here to improve Wikipedia as a whole. If you were, you would be contributing to other articles. Pointing out such is not uncivil nor is it a personal attack. It's recognizing and calling out policy violations. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

No. I have never employed the services of any such company. Why do you persist in name-calling and accusations?Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Name-calling? When have I engaged in such? Accusations...? Kind of. But only based on policy and what I believe is a violation of same. My continuation in believing you are here for self-focused reasons will continue until you convince me otherwise. So far - from the beginning of your history in Wikipedia until this moment - you have not. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Winkelvi—there is a potentially productive discussion underway which you are interrupting. If the subject is being portrayed unfairly it is justifiable and understandable that the subject would use the Talk page to try to engage with editors to present factors that may not be readily apparent. Please see WP:BIOSELF. Bus stop (talk) 19:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Section break

Proposing to replace:

Criticism of government agencies' involvement with Ross has come from Nancy Ammerman, a professor of sociology of religion, who cited FBI interview notes which stated Ross "has a personal hatred for all religious cults." She further stated the BATF and the FBI did rely on Ross when he recommended that agents "attempt to publicly humiliate Koresh, hoping to drive a wedge between him and his followers." Other scholars also criticized Ross' involvement. According to a 1995 article on Ross in the Phoenix, Arizona weekly newspaper, New Times, ""Ross has been reviled in print as a kidnaper and a vicious religion-hater. Some even blame him for the disaster at Waco, Texas. He's been hounded by private investigators and threatened with violence. Some of his friends fear for his life."

by:

Scholars Nancy Ammerman, James. R. Lewis and Stuart Wright criticised Ross for not being an academic and for arousing suspicion and antagonism against Koresh, based on his own deprogramming experiences, prior to the siege. Such criticisms, repeated by others, put Ross in peril.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 22:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Expanded to include the whole paragraph. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Or this variant:

After the facts scholars argued that FBI, BATF and local press had relied too heavily on Ross' statements, picturing Ross as untrustworthy as part of their criticism against official instances. For Ross, being thus caught in the criticism, the effect was devastating.

References

--Francis Schonken (talk) 08:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

My initial thought is that neither of these are really acceptable. There seems to be a consensus in the scholarly community that there were problems with Ross' participation. To weaken this view as a 'some scholars' statement or with implications of second guessing with 'after the fact' is not appropriate. As far as I have seen here there is no real significant counter-opinion in the scholarly opinion so we should not be soft selling it Jbh^Talk 09:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

There is no dissent among the scholars over the fact that no scholar was consulted until after the siege, for some (like Ammerman) that is central in their criticism towards FBI/BATF, e.g. in Ammerman's "recommendations" more than half of the text is devoted exclusively to this. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

IMO the previous edit that I proposed was solid and fact based with reliable sources cited. The selected scholars quoted (e.g. Lewis, Stuart, Ammerman) have been given undue weight and represent a minority opinion not supported by a wider consensus of experts, nor supported by the facts established repeatedly through court proceedings, congressional reports and the many other experts consulted. Including such biased and self-serving opinions doesn't reflect reality and doesn't belong in the Waco Siege section other than as footnotes as previously suggested.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Then we need to report what the sources have to say about his involvement not find ways to minimize or invalidate their commentary. The idea that everyone with something critical to say about Ross is somehow biased or not germane is a massive NPOV issue here. Jbh^Talk 18:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The scholars selected are not representing facts, but rather offering personal attacks and personal opinions. They don't represent a consensus regarding my work before, during or after the Waco Siege. This can be confirmed by the sources I have offered.Rick Alan Ross (talk)

Please show what independent third party reliable sources have to say. The gold standard for sources on Wikipedia are scholarly articles, it takes a pretty big weight of similarly academic/scholarly material to discredit them. They may have bad things to say about you but their opinions and views matter when writing an NPOV article. In fact they carry considerably more weight and significance then your own views on the matter even if your views were published in similar works. We do not write articles from the point of view of the subject.

If you say their views 'do not reflect reality' give some solid WP:RS material not WP:PRIMARY material that says so. On Wikipedia reality is what reliable sources say it is so please back up your claims with sources otherwise noting you have to say about these other authors is anything but you complaining about people who have a bad opinion of you and that is useless here. Jbh^Talk 19:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Suggesting the following;

In 1992 and 1993, Ross was frequently interviewed by the media regarding the Branch Davidian group led by David Koresh in Waco, Texas[15] He had previously deprogrammed one Davidian.[16] The Davidian Ross deprogrammed provided information to the BATF. Ross was the only deprogrammer to work with Branch Davidian members prior to a raid and siege that resulted in the deaths of many Davidians and four federal agents at Waco.[18] Television network CBS hired Ross as an on-scene analyst for their coverage of the Waco siege.[1] The FBI said Ross offered unsolicited advice to the agency during the standoff[17]. A later-published Department of Justice report on the matter stated, "the FBI did not 'rely' on Ross for advice whatsoever during the standoff[17]. But other sources critical of Ross, disputed this and stated that the FBI did interview and receive input from him. [See Wright, S.A. 1995. Armageddon in Waco: Critical Perspectives on the Branch Davidian Conflict: University of Chicago Press.]

This is plain, solid and based upon well-established facts not personal attacks, fringe theories and speculation.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 19:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

How are the opinions of other professionals and academics - as near as I see the only other professional commentary on your activities - a WP:FRINGE theory?? History is the analysis of facts and learned commentary is how Wikipedia adduces what is important and what should be included. Mere recitation of 'facts' in not a service to our readers. We do not play the game of 'present the facts and let people figure it out themselves'. Wikipedia presents what competent and appropriate commentators have to say about a matter because they are the ones best qualified to draw conclusions or comment on an issue. Avoiding, suppressing or minimizing the views of a significant yet unflattering viewpoint is whitewashing and why we have a WP:COI policy. Jbh^Talk 20:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Spot on, Jbhunley. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Immediate removal of misleading quote taken out of context

The following quote is out of context and does not reflect the actual historical content or intention of the Phoenix New Times article about me by reporter Tony Ortega. "Ross has been reviled in print as a kidnaper and a vicious religion-hater. Some even blame him for the disaster at Waco, Texas. He's been hounded by private investigators and threatened with violence. Some of his friends fear for his life." [23] Ortega reported about Scientologists, cultists and various associated critics negatively labeling me, harassing me, hiring private investigators, threatening me, etc. The name calling, threats and harassment was largely attributed to Scientology and various other groups called "cults." This relatively recently added quote should be removed immediately according to Wikipedia policy.WP:Biographies of Living Persons "Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care" Also "Caution should be used with content categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation (see false light)." And "Experience has shown that misusing Wikipedia to perpetuate legal, social, literary, scholarly, or other disputes is harmful to the subjects of biographical articles, to other parties in the dispute, and to Wikipedia itself." Please remove this quote from the Waco Siege section.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't look out of context to me. It's a quote that explains itself. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:27, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

No it's not self-explanatory and taken out of context. ( see http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/hush-hush-sweet-charlatans-6426159 ) From the same article explaining "reviled in print" and "blame...for the disaster at Waco," Tony Ortega reported, "In January, Freedom magazine, which is published by the Church of Scientology, carried an article suggesting that Ross was responsible for the deaths at Waco." Regarding "private investigators," Ortega reported, "Steve Kamp of the Church of Immortal Consciousness admits that the dossier of Ross documents that he gives to the press was put together by Kendrick Moxon, the Scientologist attorney representing Jason Scott." Ortega further explained in the article, "Rick Ross had labeled Kamp's Tonto Village commune, the Church of Immortal Consciousness, a destructive cult. Enraged, Kamp has followed Ross to ASU looking for satisfaction. And he's brought along his son, his attorney, the undercover investigator, the process server, the incriminating dossiers." Further reported by Ortega, "Ross is known for his facility with the Bible. His talent for untwisting the Scripture that cult leaders employ to justify exploitative or even criminal behavior has put him in great demand. And, after 13 years and some of the most notable cases in American cult history, when Rick Ross calls a group a cult, people listen." Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

It appears that no one editing here is willing to take action and remove the misleading out of context quote in question. WP: Biographies of Living Persons It seems appropriate to post my concern at the biographies of living persons noticeboard per suggestion at "Dealing with articles about yourself." I would like to "request that uninvolved editors evaluate the article to make it is fairly written" regarding the quote in question.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:32, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

It's not being removed likely because (1) No one else thinks it's misleading, (2) No one else thinks it's out of context. You can take it to BLPN, but doing so will likely be seen (once again) as forum shopping and will be (once again) frowned upon. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually BLPN is the place to go since there has not been any real discussion here on the topic - only one editor has given an opinion. If a solid consensus had been arrived at here rather than a consensus of silence, which could simply be burn out rather than an opinion on the text, that would be another matter. Jbh^Talk 12:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Taking a concern about a BLP to BLPN should never be considered forum shopping. It is the proper escalation when talk page discussion is not productive. If the same answer comes out of BLPN and the matter is then raised at another noticeboard that would be forum shopping. -- GB fan

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article is being treated too much like a resume and extension of Ross' marketing

I've trimmed the lede accordingly [13]. This isn't his resume, nor an extension of his marketing, as much as he'd like it to be otherwise. Resumes list accomplishments. Encyclopedia articles present accomplishments in a historical context that demonstrates how they are encyclopedic and noteworthy. More reliance on secondary sources would likely solve most of these problems. See WP:BLPSOURCES. --Ronz (talk) 18:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more, Ronz. I've been saying the same thing re: the article looking like his resume for a few months now. Secondary sources on Ross, however, are few and far between. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

User Ronz. I am primarily known as a cult expert and as the founder of the Cult Education Institute (CEI) database. This has been reported by the press across the US and internationally. People Magazine reports, "Rick Ross, who has been cited internationally for his work on destructive cults" See http://www.people.com/article/former-members-call-south-korean-church-a-cult The Guardian (UK) reports, "Claims abound that Kabbalah is a cult that exploits people financially and psychologically, with many of the allegations documented by the Cult Education Institute." See http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/26/kabbalah-religion-marcus-weston-madonna note that the Guardian provides a link to the CEI database. I have been qualified and accepted as an expert witness within 10 states, including United States Federal Court. This has included high profile cases such as James Arthur Ray. Associated Press reports, "Group expert can testify in Ariz. sweat lodge case" see http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2011/feb/28/group-expert-can-testify-in-ariz-sweat-lodge-case/ Maxim reports, "Rick Ross (no, not that one) is a consultant, author, and founder of the Cult Education Institute. He’s been a opponent of cults for several decades." See http://www.maxim.com/entertainment/anti-cult-activists-surprising-reaction-tina-feys-new-cult-comedy The Philadelphia Daily News reported (2011) "Ross, 58, runs the Rick A. Ross Institute, a nonprofit Internet archive on "destructive cults" and "controversial groups and movements. Attorneys, universities and the media often go to Ross for explanations when seemingly benign groups go off the rails, and parents turn to him when their children fall under a cult's spell...Ross, who launched his Web archive in 1996 and makes a living as a consultant, expert witness and speaker." See http://articles.philly.com/2011-03-12/news/28683932_1_group-demands-cults-nursing-home Ronz please restore the lead historical information you deleted, which is well established through secondary sources.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 21:41, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm still getting up to speed on the topic. Thanks for the links.

It's unclear if you are aware of WP:NOT.

I have printed out WP: NOT and will review it. Thank you for the reference.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 00:18, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

You claim to be an expert. It doesn't appear to be the kind of expertise that most matters within Wikipedia, academic expertise. Ever publish in a peer-reviewed, science journal? --Ronz (talk) 22:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes I have had peer-reviewed papers published. See http://www.culteducation.com/cv.html I have also been qualified, accepted and testified in US Federal Court after a Daubert Standard hearding to confirm my expertise.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 00:12, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Your online curriculum vitae is not a reliable source for purposes of vetting whether or not you have had peer-reviewed papers published. Much of what's published these days and for the last 20+ years is accessible online. Do you have links that can support your claim you've been published in peer reviewed works? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:17, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything that establishes him as an expert in an academic sense.

So he's had some cases that have made him well-known in as a deprogrammer. His website was referenced by The Guardian for a rather poor article the growth of Kabbalah. I expect his website has similar references, but any that are better? --Ronz (talk) 01:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I continue to do local, national and international media programs, newspaper interviews, etc. Many of the legal cases I have consulted on and/or testified at trial have been notable. I am one of most quoted and well-known recognized experts in the field of cultic studies. The Cult Education Institute (CEI), formerly known as the Ross Institute of NJ, is one of the oldest, largest and most prominent databases concerning cults on the Web. I will continue gathering links. Please understand that some newspapers and media don't keep links up after a certain period of time, which is one of the reasons the CEI online library is os useful for historical information through its extensive archives.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 15:43, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/16/tulsi-gabbard-krishna-cult-rumors_n_6879588.html Story and http://www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-herald/news/68483000/Disciples-deities-and-development also recent radio interview about cult murder in NY http://wutqfm.com/interviews/archives/2015-10/ interview October 19, 2015 Rick Alan Ross (talk) 15:28, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

From what I can tell, his renown as a deprogrammer was years ago and he's no longer well-known except in his own city/state. Note on his CV that there are no dates associated with when he was an expert witness. And, as far as I can tell, being cleared to testify in a state as an expert witness doesn't mean you have testified as one in that state. The website and CV are, of course, subjective and primary sources, therefore, unreliable. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:03, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

See http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2011/feb/28/group-expert-can-testify-in-ariz-sweat-lodge-case/ "Yavapai County Superior Court Judge Warren Darrow made the ruling" The judge ruled, " Prosecutors will be allowed to call an expert to testify about why dozens of people felt that they couldn't leave a sweat lodge ceremony that turned deadly." The fact is that I was qualified and accepted as an expert. Very few people in the field of cultic studies have been qualified and accepted by a judge in a court of law as an expert. This is official recognition by an objective judge. See http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1083083.html In Noyes v. Kelly Services I was retained as an expert witness. See https://casetext.com/case/noyes-v-kelly-services "On March 17, 2008 at 10:00 a.m., a Daubert hearing ( see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daubert_standard ) on the motion will be held, at which Plaintiff's expert, Rick Ross" Subsequently I was qualified, accepted and testified at trial in United States Federal Court after a Daubert Standard hearing, See http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/sz9jg1py/california-eastern-district-court/noyes-v-kelly-services/ Also see http://culteducation.com/group/1253-expert-witness/26572-united-states-federal-court.html I believe the transcript is also avaialable through the previous link. Only a handful of cult studies professionals have been accepted through a Daubert hearing in Federal Court. The Noyes v Kelly Services $6.5 million dollar judgement against the defendant was notable. See http://hrdailyadvisor.blr.com/2008/06/01/religious-discrimination-employee-wins-6-5-million-jury-verdict-because-of-manager-s-favoritism-lessons-for-employers/ I have testified in about 20 court proceedings in ten states. I have testified in court this year 2015 as an expert and am retained on other cases as an expert currently.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 16:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

The CV lists the academic peer-reviewed articles that were published in academic journals. "Cults: Assessment", Presented at the International Symposium on Cultic Studies held at Assumption University, Thailand. Published by the Institute of Religious Studies Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences, China 2011. Is Falun Gong a Cult? International Forum on Cultic Studies sponsored by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Shenzhen, China 2009 I also was published in Cults: Opposing Viewpoints Chapter 4: "How Can Cult Members Be Helped," by Rick Alan Ross, Greenhaven Press 2012. My book "Cults Inside Out: How People Get In and Can Get Out" was published by Peace Books Hong Kong in Chinese, which has been reported by the Hong Kong press publications Ta Kung Pao, Wen Wei Po Daily News and Phoenix Television in Hong Kong (2015). I also have done interviews with Jenny McCarthy about the book on Sirius Radio and also with LipTV Media Mayhem see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJOd034pxUk Lions of Liberty Podcast see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjlT3-cSGac prominent blogger Tony Ortega also reported about my book http://tonyortega.org/2014/12/18/rick-ross-has-a-new-book-that-will-help-you-get-someone-out-of-scientology/ Tony Ortega also did a retrospective of my work http://tonyortega.org/2015/11/30/where-it-all-began-for-us-rick-ross-david-koresh-and-the-church-of-scientology/ I have lectured at more than 30 colleges and universities. My work is longstanding and broad including expert witness testimony in court cases, interventions, analysis for the media, consulting on film projects, documentaries and work with law enforcement. See http://gothamist.com/2005/07/18/rick_ross_cult_expert.phpRick Alan Ross (talk) 15:05, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

We're way off topic here.

I'm not seeing any secondary sources to substantiate that the expert witness work is due anything more than what's already in the "Other activities" section, and I think that is undue as sourced with a byline from an interview. --Ronz (talk) 17:03, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ronz, even with all he's posted above directly from his resume, I still don't see anything that establishes him as an academic expert. Online blogs, speaking at a symposium in China, one chapter in book that's listed in libraries as being juvenile non-fiction, and being interviewed by an "American model, television host, comedienne, actress, author, screenwriter and anti-vaccine activist" (Jenny McCarthy) is neither peer reviewed nor academic in nature. Some of these things wouldn't pass muster as being reliable sources for Wikipedia purposes. Further, being a court-declared expert witness doesn't necessarily make one an expert in a field in the academic sense. Expert witnesses are well-paid to give their opinion complimenting either the defense or prosecution's case. It's a distinction, for certain, but not an academic distinction. If included in the article, I think the difference between the two should be made for the benefit of readers in better understanding the article subject. Your observation regarding WP:NOT is spot on. I don't think he's getting that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a free resume-hosting service. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:07, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Winkelvi WP: What Wikipedia is not This is not a "battleground" or a place "to attack the reputation of another person." Some of your comments border on insults. Please make points in a civil and polite manner. It is very difficult to be qualified and accepted in a court of law by a judge as an expert. It is is even more difficult to go through a Daubert Standard hearing in United States Federal Court and be ruled as an expert. I have very specifically cited high profile court cases in which judges determined that I am a recognized expert in my field. I am also a published author and am frequently interviewed as an expert. The Cult Education Institute is a well-known educational database on the Web established in 1996. Making insulting remarks doesn't change these facts.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

He's not saying he is an academic expert, at least in the way we mean it. He's still a widely noted expert though. --Ronz (talk) 17:16, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

No, he didn't say he is an academic expert, however, in response to your query as to whether or not he had any peer-reviewed articles in academic/scientific journals, his only response was to point you to his CV and then to a list of things that are not academic/scientific in nature. This, to me, said he felt his CV and everything else he posted were "credentials" establishing him as an academic expert. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

No. What I did was specifically list papers I had presented at international academic conferences that were published in peer-reviewed academic journals. I also cited an educational publisher, quite highly respected, that included a chapter written by me specifically in an educational book about cults (2013). I have frequently lectured at the college and university level (e.g. University of Chicago, Baylor, University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, Baylor, Arizona State University. Historically my work is respected and my expertise recognized by many academics.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:37, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

• The standards to be qualified as an 'expert witness' are discussed here [14], for reference. Jbh^Talk 18:01, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Very helpful, Jbhunley, thanks for posting the link here. What I gleaned is that anyone from a layperson to a scientist can be declared an expert witness and, according to the article, in the end it's up to the judge to make the declaration. I found the following quite interesting: "...most lawyers and judges lack the adequate scientific background to argue or decide the admissibility of expert testimony." -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:52, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

The publisher you refer to specializes in books for children - the book in which the chapter was written is listed by libraries as "Juvenile, non-fiction". Published, but not peer-reviewed published. As far as the claim of your presentations being published in peer-reviewed academic journals, what do you have to support this claim? I can't find anything online that supports it. For Wikipedia purposes, non-tangible evidence is not considered a reliable source. Lecturing at colleges is done frequently by many (the credentialed and non-credentialed, alike). If you were faculty or a professor at a college or university and actually teaching classes on cults, that would be a different story. Saying your work is "respected and recognized by many academics" is all fine and well, however, if we were ever to include content in the article stating as much we would need actual evidence from a reliable source to do so. "Many academics" is vague and non-specific. I am not saying I doubt what you are saying. But please understand that you are a primary source and your word is not enough to establish notability or reliability per Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Little is out there on you that is recent. This is one of the reasons why content has been called into question from a sourcing standpoint in the article. You tell us you are such-and-so, your website and CV tells us you are such-and-so, but that's not enough from an encyclopedic and inclusion standpoint. See WP:VERIFY. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:22, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

The publisher Greenhaven Press is a part of Gale, Cengage Learning and highly respected. The book "Cults" is part of the "Opposing Viewpoints Series" and includes chapters by Jayanti Tamm Ph.D. and published author, David Bromley Ph.D., Douglas E. Cowan Canadian academic in religious studies, author Christopher Hitchens, Rolling Stone reporter and author Janet Reitman and many other notable contributors. My paper "Cult Deprogramming An Examination of the Intervention Process" is duly noted int he book chapter as the source which notes (p.165) that it was first presented at the "Schenzhen International Symposium on Cultic Studies, 2010 and reproduced by permission of the author." The book introduces me (p.165) "Ross is a renowned cult deprogrammer and founder of the Rick A. Ross Institute, which offers a database of articles, court cases and other materials on cults." Though my papers presented at international conferences in China and Thailand are not readily available online I have the copies of the peer-reviewed journals in my office. They are two online at the following links http://www.cultnews.com/2010/12/cult-deprogramming-an-examination-of-the-intervention-process/ http://www.cultnews.com/2009/01/is-falun-gong-a-cult/ Regarding my lectures. At Penn in Philadelphia see http://www.library.upenn.edu/docs/kislak/dp/1995/1995_04_13.pdf scroll down PDF for article "Expert: Cults target Ivy freshman" See http://www.culteducation.com/group/12623-cult-influence-expands-says-koresh-mediator.html This article is not online at the Chicago Maroon (University of Chicago) but is probably available through the university archive. See http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/hush-hush-sweet-charlatans-6426159 This article reports, "Rick Ross is describing how Arizona's cults use mind control to exploit their members. He warns about 70 people gathered at Arizona State University's Memorial Union that they are prime targets for groups that tend to prey on university students."Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:33, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

If this tangent is in any way related to improving the article, I can no longer see it. Editors may want to review WP:TALK, WP:COOL, WP:BAIT, and WP:BECONCISE. --Ronz (talk) 17:50, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I am attempting to provide secondary sources and establish the actual significance of the book cited and also academic peer-reviewed articles published.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:29, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

@Rick Alan Ross: Mr. Ross, I am new to this article but saw it referred to on a user talk page. It might be helpful if you could start a section indicating any errors or omissions or other article issues that you feel need to be dealt with. It is hard to ascertain from this and other discursive discussions. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 18:21, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that suggestion. I have offered suggestions regarding certain sections above regarding the Waco Siege subsection see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rick_Alan_Ross#Incorrect_reference_regarding_Waco and also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rick_Alan_Ross#Quotes_are_not_properly_sourced_and_attributed I will try to be more focused and specificRick Alan Ross (talk) 18:34, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. These long discussions can be hard to follow sometimes. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 18:48, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Re the Ortega article, I believe it's now consistent with the source, but if I fouled up please indicate. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:45, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

As for the Ammerman material, it is substantiated by this source, which has been accurately quoted. However, given the negative tinge of the Waco section, I agree that this section deserves additional scrutiny. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:02, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Quotes are not properly sourced and attributed

At the Waco Siege subsection there are some questionable quotes that lack proper source attribution. One quote states, "Ross 'has a personal hatred for all religious cults.'" Another quote states, "Ross...recommended that agents 'attempt to publicly humiliate Koresh, hoping to drive a wedge between him and his followers.'" The footnotes don't specifically confirm and directly attribute the quotes to exact sources. Did the authors of the books footnoted say that Nancy Ammerman made these comments, when she characterized government notes? What is the exact quote an specific source of that quote? I know that these are false statements. I don't have a personal hatred for any religious cults. I never suggested to the FBI attempt that they attempt to humiliate Koresh. These are characterizations or false statements.WP: Coatrack This "leaves the reader with a thoroughly incorrect understanding of the nominal subject." Also, the use of "biased negative opinions" is not helpful and is an "appeal to authority>" I suggest editing this as follows: Nancy Ammerman, a professor of sociology of religion, who reviewed FBI interview notes said that the BATF and FBI did rely upon Ross. Ammerman and other academics were critical of Ross' involvement with authorities concerning the Waco Davidians.[16][19][20][21]Rick Alan Ross (talk) 21:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

See response in section below. As I said, the Ammerman material is apparently from this source, and is accurately quoted. However, given the negativity of the material and the sensitivity of this entire subject matter, I agree that it should be given close scrutiny. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:03, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect reference regarding Waco

The Waco Siege subsection states, "In 1992 and 1993, Ross opposed actions of the Branch Davidian group led by David Koresh in Waco, Texas[15] and had previously deprogrammed a member of the group.[16][17]." This incorrectly states the history and nature of my involvement. Footnote [15] refers the reader to an article ( see http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/hush-hush-sweet-charlatans-6426159 ) by Tony Ortega. But nowhere in the article does Ortega report that "In 1992 and 1993, Ross opposed actions of the Branch Davidian group led by David Koresh." Ortega states, "Rick Ross first encountered Davidians, an offshoot of Seventh-Day Adventism, in 1987, when he deprogrammed a couple in upstate New York. But after 1988, he says, the calls he received about Davidians all dealt with Koresh's Mount Carmel group." He then discusses the deprogramming of Waco Davidian David Block. I suggest editing this to reflect the facts as follows: Ross first began to receive complaints about Davidian groups in 1987. He deprogrammed three members of these offshoot sects composed largely of former Seventh Day Adventists, including one member of the group led by David Koresh in Texas.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 21:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Your point is well-taken and I have fixed. See my reply below. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Exit counselor

The lede describes the subject as an "exit counselor", but there are no sources provided to substantiate that description, and there is no text in the article to warrant such inclusion in the lede. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:42, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

It should probably be removed. I'm also not quite sure about referring to him as a deprogrammer, since even according to his website, neither exit counseling nor deprogramming are listed as his current occupations. We know he was a deprogrammer at one time. Perhaps keep deprogrammer but qualify it with "former"? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:16, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I refer to myself and am often described as a "cult intervention specialist." See http://www.cultnews.com/2010/12/cult-deprogramming-an-examination-of-the-intervention-process/ (Cults: Opposing Viewpoints Series, Greenhaven Press,,2013 p. 167) "Over the years, that basic process of sharing information and demonstrating to cult members how the power of persuasion may have compromised their critical and independent thinking has been refined continuously and improved. In fact, the name 'cult deprogramming' itself has become something of a politically incorrect term. Today most professionals engaged in cult intervention work prefer other labels to describe their work, for example, 'exit counseling,' 'thought reform consultation,' or 'strategic intervention therapy." In my book "Cults Inside Out (Peace Books Publishing, Chinese version, CreateSpace English version p. 202) the job description is stated as "cult deprogrammers and intervention specialists." I prefer cult intervention specialist. See http://www.cifs.org.au/RickRoss.php also see http://www.reuters.com/article/ny-cult-ed-institute- see also idUSnBw165187a+100+BSW20141216 http://jewcy.com/post/brainwashings_nemesis See http://www.religioustolerance.org/falungong3.htm see http://articles.philly.com/2011-03-12/news/28683932_1_group-demands-cults-nursing-home reported as, "Ross began appearing on panels and committees, mostly in the Jewish community in Arizona, but his involvement expanded in the late 1980s, when he became a private consultant and intervention specialist/deprogrammer."Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:13, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

The second edition of Snapping: America's Epidemic of Sudden Personality Change describes Ross as an exit counselor on page 65-66. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Have a link for where you found the reference? Google Books or something else along those lines? I find it dubious that a 1978 book refers to Ross at all since it seems he didn't come into the public spotlight until the 1980s. But, if you're certain about this, I'm happy to be proven wrong. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:13, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Sans a response, I did some checking and see the book actually has two editions: the first in 1978 and the second in 1995. Pages 65-66 do refer to Ross as an exit counselor, but I have to wonder if this wasn't used as a euphemism for "deprogrammer". Minus anything else reliable that refers to him as such (even his online CV doesn't mention it), I'm still not sure it should be included in the article body or the lede. I'd be interested in hearing anyone else's thoughts on this. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:26, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

a single mention on a book by two pretty much unknown authors, may not be sufficient for inclusion in the lede, although I woud not oppose a short mention in the article's body, if fully attributed rather than rendered as fact and in WP's voice. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:46, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

"Snapping" is a very important book in the area of cultic studies See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snapping:_America%27s_Epidemic_of_Sudden_Personality_Change and see http://www.amazon.com/Snapping-Americas-Epidemic-Personality-Edition/dp/0964765004 Conway and Siegelman later wrote "Holy Terror" published by Doubleday & Company, 1982. Both books were widely received and reported about.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:24, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I continue to do intervention work and have never stopped. I have now done over 500 interventions, which has been reported and noted in interviews. My work is now more varied as a consultant, expert witness in court cases, media/entertainment technical advisor, executive director of CEI and also an author. But I never stopped doing cult intervention work.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:40, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything to substantiate a "widely received" statement. Seems to be circumscribed to a very narrow audience. - Cwobeel (talk)

I find very little on Conway and Siegelman, besides a 1979 participation in a congressional hearing. I have removed the "exit counselor" from the lede. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:43, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Conway and Siegleman are very well-known within the cultic studies community. Their ground-breaking research in "Snapping" (1978, 1995) about "information disease" and a later book "Holy Terror" (1982) published by Doubleday were widely received and reported about by the media. WP: Coatrack Please don't engage in "fact picking." This "creates an article that, as a whole is less than truthful."Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:48, 26 December 2015 (UTC) Please restore the lead.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:02, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Let's keep focussed on the article.--John (talk) 09:18, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Didn't I say "The second edition . . . " and provide a page number? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:42, 25 December 2015 (UTC) Indeed, you did. We are all human, are we not? Mistakes get made. Merry Christmas! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC) Happy Hanukkah! Except that Hanukkah ended ten days ago. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:49, 25 December 2015 (UTC) Then why say it? Although, I suppose I could keep it under my hat until Chanukah 2016. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC) Because I am a Jew and you just wished me "Merry Christmas", a holiday I do not observe. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:17, 25 December 2015 (UTC) Ah, I see. Even so, since the holiday is past, it still doesn't make sense to say it. It's Christmas time now, Christmas is a national holiday, and I say Merry Christmas to everyone. If it's not a holiday that person observes, they are welcome to say so. As you just did. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 07:35, 25 December 2015 (UTC) Thank you for telling me what makes sense to say. Do you teach a class that I can sign up for? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:36, 25 December 2015 (UTC) Only if you were to be accepted into the post-bacc program that offers the classes I teach. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 09:11, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I had the same concerns. I'm not sure at this point. First, we're talking about rather fringe work in a fringe area. I think we should expect approaches, roles, and labels to change.

I think it's fairly clear from the article that Ross' work changed in response to the situations leading to his bankruptcy. Whether or not the new label belongs in the lede, I'm unsure. --Ronz (talk) 17:13, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Website rename

Don't get this removal, so propose to undo:

The website was re-launched in 2013 as the Cult Education Institute (CEI). CEI is a non-profit institution and member of the American Library Association and the New Jersey Library Association.

References

--Francis Schonken (talk) 15:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the institute rename / personal website, these aspects are supported by self-published sources and not notable, and unless we can find secondary sources that attest to their notability, they should be excluded from the article. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Again, the notability of this person is related to his activities as a deprogrammer in the 80s and 90s. If later activities are notable, we should find substantial coverage in secondary sources. Wikipedia is not a resume. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Rick Ross website is named in the article (and refs), so when the entity renames, that name change can be recorded in the article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

The rename should be documented in the article so readers can identify the site in both a current and historical context. Jbh^Talk 15:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Done. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I removed the mention of the personal website from the lede, has this is unrelated to the subject's notability and as such has just a passing mention in the article's body. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

It neith a nominal or personal website. The Cult Education Institute is a tax-exempted charity recognized the by the IRS. The database was first launched in 1996 and is notable as demonstrated by secondary sources previously linked. Also, CEI is an online library and member of the American and New Jersey Library Associations. CEI is directly related to my notability and I am introduced in many media interviews as the executive director of CEI. Please restore the deleted text. Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

external links

Imho:

• Cult News: www.cultnews.com

qualifies better in the EL section than:

• The Cult Education Institute: www.culteducation.com

The first being rather the subject's personal website than the second (which should be mentioned in the article itself with a ref). --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Right now CEI is in the infobox. Maybe replace it with Cult News and place CEI in external links? Jbh^Talk 15:21, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

That could work. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't work, as, currently, cultnews rather qualifies as personal website than CEI website. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Ummm... shouldn't the 'personal' website be the one in the infobox? This is a personal biography not an article on his organization. Jbh^Talk 15:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, and the organization should be properly mentioned in the body, with a ref. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a need to list both. The WP:ELMINOFFICIAL exception doesn't really apply, as cultnews.com is prominently linked from culteducation.com, and is just a news site and blog. Neither is mainly about Ross. I changed the link in the External links section to link directly to his profile rather than the main site to focus on him. --Ronz (talk) 18:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality

I am new to this article, and originally saw it referred to on a user talk page. Reading this article now bothers me. It strikes me as a generally rather negative article. Now, negativity does not necessarily mean that it is not neutral. However, I wonder - is it? Overall, looking at the article as a totality, is this article a fair representation of the subject? I was wondering if people, including Mr. Ross, could weigh in and briefly say how they feel and why? My position is undecided. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:37, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Without examining all the references closely and looking for further references, I don't know how any response is helpful to improving this article. However, given the subject matter of deprogramming, I'd expect that many people will find this article "negative". I think that's another topic, and I'll bring it up separately once I have time to review the references carefully. --Ronz (talk) 16:11, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes. I think the article is often negative. {{WP: Wikipedia Coatrack]] "Glosses over normal biographical details." For example the lead doesn't reflect my actual work and focuses on what I did 20 years ago from a negative perspective. WP: What Wikipedia is not "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda..." Moreover "Articles must be balanced to entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view." Also "Articles must not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person." I have not done involuntary deprogramming with adults for more than twenty years. but I have done more than 500 cult interventions, most of those after the Scott case. Links to a paper published in a peer-reviewed academic journal "Cult Deprogramming: An Examination of the Intervention Process," which later was publsihed as a chapter within the book "Cults: Opposing Viewpoints Series" 92013) reflect this fact. I am not primarily known for the Jason Scott case, which ended in a judgement in 1995. The lead has been cult to focus only on involuntary deprogramming and the Jason Scott case specifically, as if that is all I am known for, which is false. WP: What Wikipedia is not "Undue attention to one particular topic within the scope of the article creates and article that, as a whole, is less than truthful." I realize that people may have strong feelings about the involuntary deprogramming work I did decades ago, but WP: Wikipedia is not a battleground Wikipedia is not the place to "carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear." The Waco Siege section suffers from "coat racking," soap boxing," "applying biased negative opinions" and "fact picking." TWP: Coatrack "Thus the article although superficially true., leaves the reader with a thoroughly incorrect understanding of the nominal subject. WP: Biographies of living persons "Do not give disportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." "Biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times." The opinions expressed by certain academics represent a minority view about Waco and are based upon "conjectural interpretation of a source." The opinions expressed by Nancy Ammerman ultimately offer "false light." "Experience has show that misuing Wikipedia to perpetuate legal, political, social literary, scholarly, or other disputes is harmul to the subject of biographical articles, to other parties in the dispute, and to Wikipedia itself."Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:41, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Here's a very specific example: In the first paragraph of the "Waco siege" section, the word "unsolicited" is used three times in two sentences. As well as being very bad writing, this is hammering home the negative connotations of the word through repetition. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:50, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

This section also states, "Ross "has a personal hatred for all religious cults." The footnote is "Report to the Justice and Treasury Departments, Nancy Ammerman, September 3, 1993, with an Addendum dated September 10, 1993" The note cited is not sourced other than through the Ammerman report. Then Ammerman characterizes or conjectures about my advice. My bio reads, Ammerman "further stated the BATF and the FBI did rely on Ross when he recommended that agents 'attempt to publicly humiliate Koresh, hoping to drive a wedge between him and his followers.'" However, this is a characterization based upon conjecture. In her report in context Ammerman says the following, "The FBI interview report includes the note that Ross 'has a personal hatred for all religious cults' and would willingly aid law enforcement in an attempt to 'destroy a cult.' The FBI report does not include any mention of the numerous legal challenges to the tactics employed by Mr. Ross in extricating members from the groups he hates." WP: Coatrack "A common fact picking device is great numbers of individual quotes criticizing the nominal subject, while expending little or no effort mentionieng that the criticism comes from a small fraction of people. That small fraction thus gets a soapbox that is far larger than reality warrants." The historical relevance of Ammerman is that she read the notes and disputed the Justice Department and FBI statements, "the FBI did not 'rely' on Ross for advice whatsoever during the standoff."[17] According to the report, the FBI "politely declined his unsolicited offers of assistance throughout the standoff" and treated the information Ross supplied as it would any other information received from the public.[17] Instead Ammerman reported "The interview transcripts document that Mr. Rick Ross was, in fact, closely involved with both the ATF and the FBI. He supplied ATF with "all information he had regarding the Branch Davidian cult," including the name of an ex-member he believed would have important strategic information. He also supplied information to the Waco newspaper and talked with the FBI both in early March and in late March. He clearly had the most extensive access to both agencies of any person on the "cult expert" list, and he was apparently listened to more attentively. The ATF interviewed the persons he directed them to and evidently used information from those interviews in planning their February 28 raid. In late March, Ross recommended that agents attempt to publicly humiliate Koresh, hoping to drive a wedge between him and his followers. While Ross's suggestions may not have been followed to the letter, such embarrassment tactics were indeed tried." WP: Weasel word Ammerman uses the weasel word "evidently," which she uses "to avoid making and outright assertion."Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:46, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

• I believe that part of the issue is that most of the secondary RS material about him is actually negative, or at the very least unflattering while much of the positive material comes from interviews and primary/self published material. For comaprason here is a diff of the article a bit before Rick Ross verified his account to Arbcom and today [15]. After several months, a couple hundred edits and over a dozen editors the general content is pretty similar but generally tending towards greater NPOV . Jbh^Talk 18:25, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

No. The overwhelming majority of secondary sources such as news reports and descriptions of my work in the media have been positive and repeatedly refer to me as a well-known, notable, credible cult expert. Only a very small fraction of secondary mainstream sources has been negative. And repeatedly at this bio negative remarks may either be cherry picked out of a broader positive article or taken out of context as was recently done. Even the news coverage of the Jason Scott case essentially reported that it was a Scientology scheme. I am endeavoring to link to news reports, interviews, books and other secondary sources at the Talk page to demonstrate this fact as time allows.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:53, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

• Another example of the lack of NPOV was the summary of the Scott lawsuit in the lead. Completely missing from the lead until the edit I just made was the fact that the multi-million dollar judgment was settled for $5000 and 200 hours of Ross's professional services. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:39, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

That has been in and out of the lede several times in the last few months. Ross has wanted everything from a full description of the Scott case in the lede to having most of the lede cut and we have gone through most of the permutations in between. One thing that is missing from the Scott section - or more properly from my understanding of it - how that settlement came about. Based on my reading it seems to be a settlement after he declared bankruptcy and has no bearing on and represents no change in what was awarded by the courts ie it is no different than paying $500 when you have defaulted on your $50,000 credit card. If that is the case it does not belong in the lede because it implies the award was reduced for judicial reasons such as being unjust. - Framing has been an issue throughout this article both from a negative and positive POV. Jbh^Talk 01:00, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Please read current references #25 and #26, Jbhunley. This was not a "pennies on the dollar" settlement. Jason Scott ended up breaking with that group that Ross called a cult, reconciled with his mother, fired his Scientology staff attorney, hired an attorney critical of cults, and settled for substantive reasons. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:49, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

While Moxon and Scientology unquestionably were acting with ulterior motives we also need to capture the essence of a case which the judge felt compelled to comment in ref #24 "The court notes each of the defendants seeming incapability of appreciating the maliciousness of their conduct towards Mr Scott... Thus the large amount....". The new attorney seems to have no cleaner hands than Moxon did, just from the other side of the table since it is noted that he 'often assisted clients of CAN'. The narrative we have now is Scientology exploits poor Scott to crush CAN, Scott sees the light and settles for a pittance because mom and Ross really were actually right. A very different narrative from the only truly impartial person to comment on the case - the judge. Again, a framing issue - the article is using the change in money as a proxy for right/wrong when we have references which impartially consider the matter a heinous act. Add - This is also noted directly in ref 26 "But, the lawyer said, it would be a mistake to assume that Scott's decision to make use of Ross' time was a vindication of Ross or his deprogramming methods." Jbh^Talk 03:18, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Of course, this is a complex situation and with hindsight, clearly Ross was wrong to use coercive methods with an adult. I understand that money ought not be a proxy for morality. But if our article records a multi-million dollar judgment against him, then it must also record that the final settlement was very different. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I do not disagree that we must mention the settlement but I feel it should be in the Scott section. Maybe the mention of the award should be avoided in the lead altogether. Maybe use something like In 1995, a civil lawsuit over the forcible deprogramming of Jason Scott resulted in personal bankruptcy for Ross and the Cult Awareness Network. That simply acknowledges the case and its end result while allowing the details to be addressed in proper context elsewhere. Jbh^Talk 15:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• These are all very good points. Let's fix 'em, keeping in mind that if the sourcing is primarily negative than that's the way it has to be. What bothered me at the outset was the negativity in the lead. Reading this article, coming in fresh, it indicates a lack of balance. But that was just a superficial reading. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:33, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
• @Cullen328: - An example of a POSPOV framing/wording issue: In this edit [16] 'criticized by some scholars' implies that there are scholars who commented on his involvement and did not criticize him. It can even be read as 'some scholars criticized him but most did not'. To my knowledge that is not the case. Based on the sources most or all scholars which commented were critical. Jbh^Talk 01:13, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Jbhunley, my main motivation for that edit was to remove the unsupported statement that Ross was criticized by law enforcement agencies. Reading the source for that claim revealed a lack of praise but no overt criticism whatsoever. As for the scholars, the references make it clear that one particular scholar criticized his role at Waco. Then, there are references to two other books, with text unavailable unline, with no hint to what their criticism of Ross was. I felt that qualifying language was in order, at least until the substance of the criticism in those two other books could be determined. Especially since there was other false information in the sentence before my edit. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:38, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I do see where you are coming from however I think it would be better to remove Waco from the lead entirely until there is a clearer view of his role. As it stands we have the Feds saying he was irrelevant and another scholar saying he was the most used consultant on the cult experts list. The only definitive information we have is he was a talking head for one of the news programs - (I guess we could use that). With the amount of contextualizing/attribution it would take to make a fair statement of his involvement any summary we put in the lead is likely to be POV either positive or negative. Jbh^Talk 02:55, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Using Google Books, I tried to see what Tabor and Gallagher's Why Waco? says about Ross. I could view nine snippets. None of them were overtly critical of Ross. I am not saying that the book doesn't criticize him, but it would be helpful to know what the substance is. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:41, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Similarly, I tried to see what Wright's Armageddon in Waco: Critical Perspectives on the Branch Davidian Conflict has to say about Ross.I could view 13 snippets. None of them were overtly critical of Ross, though they were not praising him either. I am not saying that the book doesn't criticize him, but it would be helpful to know what the substance of the criticism is. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:54, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I just bought both books to check the full text. They should be here in a couple of days. I do want to be fair to Ross however I also want to avoid the inevitable bias that seems to happen by filtering the article through the continual crafting of content by the subject of the article. Jbh^Talk 15:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The abduction and forcible deprogramming and Ross' role in both, was a key aspect of the case, and information about it was missing from the section. I copied a passage from the main article, but it may need some tweaking.- Cwobeel (talk) 15:57, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Lead paragraph problems

WP:Manual of Style/Biographies "MOS guidelines for lead paragraphs should generally be followed; the opening paragraph should establish notability, neutrally describe the person, and provide context. The opening paragraph should usually have: Name(s) and title(s), if any The notable positions the person held, activities they took part in or roles they played; Why the person is notable." WP:Neutral Point of View ""Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to dephth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." Right now undue weight is being given in the lead to deprogramming and the Jason Scott case. The Scott case in more than 20 years old and is not what I am notable for today as evidenced by numerous secondary sources previously linked on this Talk page. My notability is tied to the Cult Education database, my position as founder and Executive Director of that nonprofit online public library and my work as an internationally known cult expert, both in the media and in court. http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2011/feb/28/group-expert-can-testify-in-ariz-sweat-lodge-case/ I continue to be notable for my cult intervention work, but also as an author of peer-reviewed papers published in academic journals, through my published writings about the history and evolution of cult intervention work. I suggest the following lead that accurately represents the facts and why I am notable. -- Rick Alan Ross (born 1952) is an American cult expert http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Secrets-of-NXIVM-2880885.php and founder (1996) of the Cult Education Institute, a large nonprofit online library database. http://www.guidestar.org/organizations/45-0484329/cult-education-institute-study-destructive-cults.aspx http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/26/kabbalah-religion-marcus-weston-madonna Ross began his work in the 1980s as an anti-cult activist and community organizer, later he became widely known as a "cult deprogrammer," facilitating interventions at the request of parents whose children had joined controversial groups and movements. Ross has done more than 500 interventions. http://articles.philly.com/2011-03-12/news/28683932_1_group-demands-cults-nursing-home https://www.inverse.com/article/7085-the-word-of-life-church-is-an-old-school-cult-in-the-age-of-facebook A civil lawsuit over the 1991 forcible deprogramming of Jason Scott resulted in a multi-million civil judgement against Ross and his co-defendants. He was also involved in the coverage of the Waco siege. Ross is a published author, http://www.amazon.com/Cults-Opposing-Viewpoints-Roman-Espejo/dp/0737739959 lecturer and is frequently called upon by the media for his analysis. He has served as expert witness in a number of court cases.http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2011/feb/28/group-expert-can-testify-in-ariz-sweat-lodge-case/ Rick Alan Ross (talk) 16:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

References

Some comments:

• Notability is not time bound. The Scott case was highly notable and you were a main actor. Any other notability aspect mentioned in the lede, should be at least equal in significance or at least highly significant for inclusion
• A self-published book, does not make one a "published author".
• You mention peer reviewed articles, please provide sources so that we can include them.

- Cwobeel (talk) 16:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Cwobeel: My notability is not for the Scott case, which took place more than 20 years ago. My notability today is tied to CEI, my work as an expert in the media and in court. I have been a consultant on high profile court cases, a regular on national, international media outlets. I am a published author. The book "Cults Inside Out: How People Get In and CAn Get Out" is published by Peace Book Co., Ltd. (est. 1958) in Chinese. This has been reported in the Hong Kong Press (Ta Kung Pao, Hong Kong, Wen Wei Po Daily News, Hong Kong) when I attended and lectured at the annual Hong Kong Book Fair. I was also interviewed about my book by Phoenix Television of Hong Kong. I have the actual academic peer-reviewed journals my papers were published ("Cults: Assessment", Presented at the International Symposium on Cultic Studies held at Assumption University, Thailand. Published by the Institute of Religious Studies Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences, China 2011, Is Falun Gong a Cult? International Forum on Cultic Studies sponsored by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Shenzhen, China 2009) in my office. I also have PDF of Chinese newspaper interviews about my published book. In the interest of including facts in the bio I would be happy to share this documentation with Wikipedia. I am not asked about the Jason Scott case in interviews with the press, television networks, or at lectures. I think the Scott case should be put in its proper context in the lead and not be given undue weight. The Scott case is most notable through news coverage as a Scientology scheme to destroy the Cult Awareness Network and me.http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/hush-hush-sweet-charlatans-6426159 http://www.cnn.com/US/9612/19/scientology/index.html?eref=sitesearch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCE-ICnqtVk http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1997-02-02/news/9702020115_1_cult-awareness-network-scientology-controversial-church Rick Alan Ross (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Re @Rick Alan Ross: : Please see the other parts of WP:LEAD: "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies."(emp. mine) and "When writing about controversies in the lead of the biography of a living person, notable material should neither be suppressed nor allowed to overwhelm:... What is most recent is not necessarily what is most notable.(emp. mine) Nearly half of the article text is about the Scott Case or Waco so both should be prominent in the lead. The lead summarizes the article since there is really nothing about what you have been doing recently it does not weigh into the content of the lead. There should however, be a bit about the Cult Education Institute though. Jbh^Talk 17:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• @Rick Alan Ross: Please watch for edit conflicts. Also never, ever edit another editors comment as you did here [17]. Jbh^Talk 17:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that edit conflict. I will watch closely for this. I did not intentionally edit an editor's comment. Must have been a glitch during the conflict. Involuntary deprogramming and the Scott case is not a "most important point." A 20-year-old court case needs to be put in historical context relevant to my work (1982-2015). It's notable, but not the most important point in my 34 years of work. Right now in the lead the Scott case and involuntary deprogramming, which I stopped doing more than 20 years ago in favor of voluntary interventions, is being allowed to overwhelm the lead.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:12, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Please provide sources for the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and the Institute of Religious Studies Shanghai's papers, so that these can be Verified. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Also note that the lead summarizes the article. If we can build additional section based on verifiable sources, the lead can be adjusted accordingly. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:06, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, but he is raising a good point. Does the lead overemphasize his role in deprogramming? That being said, I would suggest that Mr. Ross not engage in extensive argumentation on this talk page. He has made his point. Editors are sometimes uncomfortable when article subjects become dominant participants in talk page discussions. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 18:11, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Who gives a shit if "editors are sometimes uncomfortable"? This is a man's life here; he has every goddamned right to be a "dominant participant". Joefromrandb (talk) 06:01, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Deprogramming seems to be the basis for his notability (from WP's perspective, that is). If his recent work in China is related to the persecution of Falun Gong, we may be able to find sources about it? - Cwobeel (talk) 18:14, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

WP: What Wikipedia is not "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground ; or a vehicle for propaganda." I have attended international conferences in China and Thailand. That is not about "persecution." I have the peer-reviewed journals on the shelf in my office. I can take photos and email these for verification. They are not available online. Reports by the Hong Kong press and television about my book lecture and the release of the Chinese version of my book by Peace Book is not online in English, but I have PDF of newspaper articles for verification. International Chinese language sources may not have links in English. But these are reliable published sources. WP: Verifiability published sources, journals, mainstream newspapers. There are photos of the Chinese version of my book.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 16:04, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Based on the sources we have here pretty much all of his notability is based on deprogramming. When and if we get independent third party RS discussing his other work we can include it per WP:WEIGHT. The nature of Wikipedia is that we document what others say about a person or subject and that tends to miss the mundane things that do not draw the attention of the press or scholars. Jbh^Talk 19:56, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree. He's notable for his involvement and the results of the Jason Scott case. Everything else is small in comparison. --Ronz (talk) 01:02, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

A Wikipedia biography should cover the person's entire life and career, and the lead section of the article should summarize the body of the article. There is no policy or guideline that I am aware of that says the lead section should emphasize recent events and de-emphasize events of decades ago. We should give due weight to all life events and strive to avoid recentism. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Has anyone done a google book search lately? when I type

Rick Ross Cult

in google books I see a lot of reliable sources linking to the subject's website, and pretty little about Scott. Taking into account that reality takes a bit longer to trickle down to google books, and remains there permanently as opposed to internet at large, I don't think this approach can be accused of recentism. The google book query

Rick Ross deprogramming

results in 90% less return (but agreed, in the remaining 10% there's a lot more Scientology and Scott). So I'd invite my fellow editors to take a step back and look at the broader picture: Mr. Ross' reputation over the decades he has been active does not "peak" around topics such as deprogramming, Scientology and Scott. The

Rick Ross Waco

query gives about as many results as the first query above, but then there I see more reliable sources referring to the Ross website for Waco "documentation" (without negative connotation) than our current Wikipedia article lets reasonably assume. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

ummm Google does not represent relative coverage in RS. Using his website for footnotes has nothing to do with his notability at all... We base the lead on what we have and even the articles Rick Ross linked at the begininning of this section center on deprogramming. I have no issue with including RS material that documents his other notability nor does anyone here, as has been said for months. He made his name publicly with the Scott case and Waco, without those incidents I doubt we would have an article on him. Jbh^Talk 11:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Re. "Google does not represent relative coverage in RS":

1. Please pay attention, I said "google books" not "google"
2. Google books can be used as a first indicator of relative importance of topics (not necessarily as the end and sum of it, but as a first indicator), see Wikipedia policies that mention google books in this context.

Taking the sources used in this and whatever other Wikipedia article as the "end, sum, and balance" of all that can be said about a topic is however WP:CIRCULAR, which is not acceptable. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The sources we have is what we can say about a the topic now. Additional sources would provide additional information which we can put in the article. Until we have those sources in the article we write with what there is. I disagree with most, if not all of the edits you just made and I believe the current consensus of this thread does not support them. Right now I am typing on a tablet so I will comment more later. Jbh^Talk 12:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC) -- Ooppss, Sorry I did not mean to bold looks like I used a bunch of ';' instead of ':' ... editing on an iPad sucks. Jbh^Talk 17:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Adding references

The "exit counselor" characterisation was lacking a reference. Here's what I did:

1. Go to google books
2. type Rick ross exit counselor and click the search button
3. click the first non-advertising link offered by Google books and evaluate the source. In this case: bingo, it seemed appropriate as a source to be used in Wikipedia from the first click.
4. add a ref tag with this content: Flo Conway and Jim Siegelman [https://books.google.be/books?id=jrkq7s2i12EC ''Snapping: America's Epidemic of Sudden Personality Change''.] Stillpoint Press, 1995. ISBN 9780964765009, [https://books.google.be/books?id=jrkq7s2i12EC&pg=PA65 pp.65–66]

The most complicated part of this operation is formatting the ref so that it is complete and that a working page link appears. Apart from that little bit of technicality I can't conceive what would be difficult about this.

Why am I telling this? For Mr. Ross: offering such directly useable references to third party sources helps your fellow-editors. Just a suggestion to make the communication environment as easy going as possible. To others watching this page: if you have any experience with Wikipedia: it's as easy as that. Works better than concentrating on what others didn't do. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:19, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank your for doing this research. Involuntary deprogramming I did more than twenty years ago and the Jason scott case have been given much undue weight in my bio. Your research demonstrates this point objectively. WP: Cherrypicking "selecting informatin without including contradictory or significant qualifying information from the same source and consequently misrepresenting what the source says."Also, the focus of news reporting about the Scott case was not about me, but rather about Scientology's involvement, which has been obscured in my bio. There has also been cherrypicking regarding the Waco Seige section "to misrepresent a conssensus or misrepresent what has been published." I am notable primarily because of the Cult Education Institute (CEI), which is an online library that has been under continuing construction since 1996. This fact is often cited in the media. I am the founder and executive director of CEI, which is a tax-exempted educational nonprofit and institutional member of both the American and New Jersey Library Associations. My work is notable because I am frequently sought as an expert on cults by the media, universities, law enforcement and governments, such as the Israeli government (e.g. Israel) see http://www.culteducation.com/reference/general/AnExaminationOfThePhenomenonOfCultsInIsrael.pdf I have been linked to high profile court cases and an expert consultant and witness. What can be seen from the research is that I am one of the most notable experts concerning cults, sought by the media, active in the judicial system and academia over the past two decades. I have provided secondary sources that meet the verifiability standards of Wikipedia to demonstrate this fact.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 16:26, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Have you read the thread above? It does not seem to be the case. A single mention of the Conway and Siegelman book is not significant enough for inclusion in the lead. In any case, I had enough of this article, so you will need to deal with other editors here and arrive at consensus. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:21, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Searching google books to find a reference on exit counceling is not how we determine weight, rather it appears that NPOV is being ignored completely. --Ronz (talk) 16:27, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I will leave you with this from the Scott case article:

According to religion scholar J. Gordon Melton, head of the Institute for the Study of American Religion at UC Santa Barbara, "The Scott case virtually brought deprogramming to a halt in this country" "What this judgment does . . . is cut the communication lines that allow deprogramming to go forward"

References

Gordon Melton works for cults as an expert witness and groups called cults have funded his research. See http://articles.latimes.com/1995-05-06/news/mn-62967_1_supreme-truth He is a contentious biased source. He is recommended as a resource by Scientology. Rick Alan Ross (talk) 19:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

One can argue that given that Ross was a deprogrammer, and that such line of business was virtually terminated by the Scott case, this may be one of the most significant aspect of the bio. Happy editing! - Cwobeel (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Cwobeel here, the recent edits are extremely POV. We are here to write what the majority of RS say about the subject, not count Google hits (whether Books or web sites, neither goes into a reference and until they can they count for nothing). I am not going to get into an edit war but I feel strongly that the article need to be returned to the state from this [18] edit and discussing can go from there. I see no consensus for the edits which that edit reverted. Jbh^Talk 17:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

And I demur - this BLP is intrinsically a problem - and the current status is about as NPOV as we are likely to get reasonably. "Exit counselor" is the current term supplanting "deprogrammer" and is related to the mode of operation ("exit counseling" is voluntary) - in the case at hand, it appears to be a valid term in fairly common usage. Parsing it otherwise is simply nugatory here. Collect (talk) 18:08, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

It is fine to refer to him as an 'exit councilor' in the present tense however he is significantly known as a 'deprogrammer'. As mentioned above, due in no small part to his actions 'deprogramming' all but ceased and 'exit counseling' became the term. We also must consider that he has said he has quit doing involuntary deprogramming only for adults and by implication has not quit, or there is no RS statement he has quit, forcible deprogramming of minors. Therefore the term 'deprogrammer' seems to be appropriate both in past and present tense and we must be careful not to have 'exit councilor' used euphemistically. Jbh^Talk 18:20, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The title I use is actually "cult intervention specialist." I don't use the title counselor as I am not a counselor. The title "exit counselor" has largely been abandoned. From the beginning of deprogramming historically there has been both voluntary and involuntary deprogramming. Psychologist Margaret Singer explains, "Deprogramming is providing members with information about the cult and showing them how their own decision-making power had been taken awary from them." (Margeret Singer, Cults in Our Midst Sand Francisco, CA; Josseey-Bass, 1996 p. 285). So deprogramming is not intrinsically nor historically only involuntary. This is explained in the new documentary "Deprogrammed" about the life of the first deprogrammer Ted Patrick. See http://www.eyesteelfilm.com/deprogrammed I was interviewed and included in this documentary and wrote a chapter in my book about the "History of Cult Intervention Work." ("Cults Inside Out; How People Get In and Can Get Out" CreateSpace Publishing 2014 pp. 189-201). Involuntary deprogramming with minor children under the direct supervision of a legal guardian is perfectly legally. And many of the involuntary interventions done by Patrick in the 1970s were done by order of the court and therefore legal.~

I've reverted the edits. The sources appear either unreliable or to lack weight, and I agree with what others have said here - to go looking Google books for citations to support what you've already decided the article should say is very far from the correct way to approach this. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

OTHERSTUFF

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Done. This issue was never discussed in any meaningful depth. That is, concerning how consistently Wikipedia policy is being applied by editors. When I pointed this out before and it was explained and excused as "other stuff" I didn't fully understand the complete policy and its correct application. I do now and have noted it. There is glaring inconsistency regarding the editing and application of Wikipedia policies at the two bios, which is interesting. Please consider this issue.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:41, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia BLP and othee policy guidelines should be applied consistently

WP: Other stuff exists "'Other stuff exists' arguments can be valid or invalid." "The encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." For example, "Non-fiction literature, such as encyclopedias, is expected to be internally consistent. As such, arguing in favor of consistency among Wikipedia articles is not inherently wrong--it is to be preferred. Only when the precedent is itself in conflict with policy, guidelines or common sense is it wrong to argue that it should be followed elsewhere."

The bio of Steve Alan Hassan, a professional, spcicializing in cults, is not consistent with Wikipedia guidelines. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Hassan Hassan's Wikipedia bio states that he is "the author of three books on the subject of destructive cults." WP:Biographies of living personsd "never use self-published sources -- including but not limited to books, zines websites, blogs, and tweets -- as sources of material about a living person." All three of Hassan's books are self-published, including the new edition of his book "Combating Cult Mind Control." All of these books are published by "Freedom of Mind Press," owned and operated by Steve Hassan. Hassan is listed as an "author," but his books are self-published.

Under "Background" Wikipedia includes that Hassan "ultimately rose to the rank of Assistant Director of the Unification Church at its National Headquarters. In that capacity he met personally with Sun Myung Moon." This statement is supported by " Biography of Steven Hassan, Freedom of Mind Center" see https://freedomofmind.com//Media/biography.php There is nothing else to support this claim. This is not a reliable source. WP: Verifiability "Please remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced immediately." Questionable sources are defined as those that have "an apparent conflict of interest...as in artilces about themselves." Specifically, such sources are not to be used when the material 'unduly self-serving," "promotional" and there is "doubt as to its authenticity."The Hassan Wikipedia bio also states, "according to his biography, "During the 1977-78 Congressional Subcommittee Investigation into South Korean CIEA activities in the United States, he consulted as an expert on the Moon organization." The only source cited is again unreliable and represents a conflict of interest. Hassan may have testified as a former member of the Unification Church, but there is no record that he did so "as an expert." WP: Identifying reliable sources "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field."

Under the heading "Career" Wikipedia allows Hassan's unverifiable and self-promotional peacock claims about his intervention methodology such as "a much more refined method" and "far better than deprogramming and even exit-counseling." But these peacock claims can only be substantiated by Hassan's self-published books. The Wikipedia bio goes on to posit other claims by Hassan, which are sourced to his writings and website such as that he is "'an activist who fights to protect people's right to believe what they want to believe.'" And yet another peacock claim "that 'man unorthodox religions have expressed their gratitude to me for my books because it clearly shows them NOT to be a destructive cult." There is no secondary or reliable source to confirm these promotional claims. Hassan claims "that he spent one year assisting with deprogrammings before tuning to less controversial methods." This implies that Hassan only did involuntary interventions with adults for one year. The footnote indicates that the source for this statement is Hassan's personal website. It's unclear why there is a section on

Steve Hassan's "Personal life" as he is not a celebrity and little known to the general public. This seems like puffery and unnecessary though. In this subsection Wikipedia states, "Hassan married psychologist and conselor Aureet Bar-Yam in 1981. Bar-Yam died at age of 33 after falling through ice while trying to save the family dog. This statement is misleading and incomplete. It would have Wikipedia readers beleive that Hassan was widower who remarried. In fact. He and his first wife divorced. See http://bar-yam.org/aureet/AboutAureet/timeline.html Hassan divorced Bar-Yam in 1989. T

here has been very significant and serious criticism of the methodology of Steve Hassan by other professionals involved in cultic studies, intervention and recovery work regarding cult members and this is well-documented by a very reliable source. Hassan claims that because he is a professional counselor and former cult member he has melded a methodology that includes elements of counseling and aspects of the educational approach called "exit-counseling." However, no less than one of the most prominent cultic studies professionals, psychologist and International Cultic Studies Association Executive Director Michael Langone has questioned Hassan's approach. Langone says, "that although [Hassan] tries to communicate a body of information to cultists and to help them think independently, he also does formatl counseling. As with many humanistic approached Hassan's runs the risk of imposing clarity, however subtly, on the framework's foundational ambiguity and thereby manipulating the subject>' (M. D. Langone, ed., "Recovery from Cults, 2nd ed. New York: W.W. Norton, 1996, p. 174-175). It is my understanding that this criticism has been proposed, but repeatedly blocked from Steve Hassan's Wikipedia bio, despite that fact that is very reliably sourced and relevant. WP:Biogaphies of living persons "Crticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." The Langone analysis of Steve Hassan's methodology fits well within these parameters and the source is certainly reliable. Nevertheless it has been excluded despite Wikipedia policy.

My question is this, why does Wikipedia have such different editing standards in practice despite policy at the Steve Hassan bio while editors have exacted the most stringent standards at my bio. According to Wikipedia policy shouldn't both bios be consistent in the content the provide and exclude? And isn't it inherently wrong to allow so many infractions of policy at one bio that would never be allowed at another? For some reason there is glaring inconsistency between the editing practices and Wikipedia policy applications at my bio and the bio of Steve Hassan, which is not reasonable and defied common sense. Sorry for the "wall of text," but it is important to cite Wikipedia policy and how it specifically applies in this situation.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Errors concerning website/database Cult Education Institute

Website section has factual errors. Wikipedia says, "Ross' website, launched under the name Rick A. Ross Institute." See [19] The website began as a personal website rickross.com. See [20] In 2003 it became the Ross Institute for the Study of Destructive Cults, Controversial Groups and Movments. See [21] Note that the ruling year is 2002, though this is retroactive. The name change and transformation from website to database occurred in 2014 See [22] also see [23] and [24] I suggest something along the lines of the following;

Ross launched a personal website rickross.com in 1996. The site became an archive for articles, news reports, court records and research papers. In 2003 it was granted tax-exempt status as an educational nonprofit by the IRS, and was officially known as the Rick A. Ross Institute for the Study of Destructive Cults, Controversial Groups and Movements. Due to confusion with the rapper Rick Ross the domain name rickross.com was sold in 2013 and the name changed to the Cult Education Institute (CEI). The website was then transformed into a database during 2014. Ross' archive and his opinions regarding the collected material at CEI has been cited in books such as Andrew Breitbart's Hollywood, Interrupted,[30] James J.F. Forest's Homeland Security: Protecting America's Targets,[31] and Stuart A. Kallen's Prophecies and Soothsayers.[32] According to Ann E. Robertson the Institute "is an unusual source of considerable information about rather obscure groups".Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

What of that, if any, is supported by secondary sources? --Ronz (talk) 17:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• Note I have collapsed the bare urls. As I noted below including bare urls only makes it harder to read the text so please enclose them in in '[]' like [http://www.example.com] or [http://www.example.com Article title] as I have done for you above. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Jbh^Talk 18:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. Will do.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:51, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment

@Rick Alan Ross: You are starting to see the editors on your bio loose patience because you are flooding the talk page with requests and not letting consensus form. It is more a discussion between 'us' and 'you' when it should be a discussion between 'us' with minimal input from 'you' - make comments but be brief and do not dominate the conversation, that is simply not your place. It is the role of the editors without a WP:COI to come to a consensus about what to do about your suggestion. You must remember that your interpretations of policies and guidelines may not be consistent with the community's view.

It would help your understanding to work on some other articles to get a feel for things. (You did a decent job on the copy of the Steven Hassan article. I have not gone over it yet but you have definitely made improvements to it) Repeatedly bringing up matters where consensus has formed to get things the way you want is getting disruptive. Walls of text (You expect us to read it so please take the time to format it so it is easy to read), multiple bare urls (put the bloody things in [] like [http://www.example.com] or [http://www.example.com Article title] as I have done above.) is not the way to propose edits. I told you so at the very beginning how to propose changes:

• Request/suggestion.

• List of RS which support it. If a book give page numbers. (Best to use {{cite}} and {{ref talk}} so they can be easily discussed and referred to.)

• Short explanation if needed.

Then leave the editors on the page come to a consensus on what to do. Let one issue be handled and the article become stable for a few days or even weeks then propose another change. What you are doing now is frustrating and exhausting editors here. You need to stop. At least three editors here have asked you to slow down. Please read about civil POV pushing then do not do those things.

I know it is hard having so public a biography and I can understand that you want it to show things in the best light but that is not what Wikipedia is about. Constantly trying to tweak things will, sooner or later, turn this into a toxic environment because editors will start pushing back on what they see as whitewashing and try to bring in material simply for "balance". It will become harder and harder to see your perspective because rather than seeing through the lens of NPOV it will become a question of "protecting" the article from what is seen as your positive POV pushing. We have already seen that happen with one editor and others have left or stepped back because they see this problem coming. The only way to get a good article without drama is to let the editors here do what they are good at. Give concise suggestions and then step back as much as you can. You must also accept that the article will never be perfect in your eyes - if it is we have failed out readers because perfect in your eyes means it is written from your POV and that is not NPOV.

No one can make you do these things, at least not until matters become worse. I hope that you trust there are experienced editors here (Collect is zealous about BLP and NPOV; Fyddlestix is one of the most level headed editors I know; Cwobeel, Cullen328, Francis Schonken and Ronz together have a couple decades and hundreds or articles to their credit.) who know how to handle sensitive BLP articles and that there is no one here out to get you. There are 133 people watching this page so BLP violating material will be seen and handled quickly. Please, please slow down and step back a bit. This will be a good NPOV article, it pretty much has to be with the group you have here - unless you drive them off in frustration then it will likely degenerate to the poor condition it was before because no one wants to bother anymore. Please forgive my bluntness but I think matters on this article are close to souring, I am sure if the others disagree with what I have said here they will make it known Jbh^Talk 18:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 18:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I endorse Jbhunley's remarks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your perspective and will do my best to comply within the guidelines you have provided. But please understand that I am not trying to promote my POV or engage in any kind of self-promotion. My intent is to help make this bio an NPOV realistically weighted bio that is based upon established facts. Sadly, that's not what the bio is now. And historically it's been pretty horrible. So be fair with me too and understand why I have concerns. Happy New Year!Rick Alan Ross (talk) 19:09, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I have worked on hundreds of BLPs in the past 6-1/2 years and have yet to run across a BLP subject who was capable of complete neutrality about themself. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I do understand your position. Please remember that however bad it was in the past it is not so now largely through the efforts of editors here and those who have already given up. Whether you feel you are involved in POV pushing and self promotion or not is of little consequence if others feel you are. People do not see themselves and events they have been closely involved in from NPOV. That is just the nature of how people perceive their personal narrative. Very few people in this world can look at themselves and matters close to them in a truly dispassionate light. Even trained analysts who are taught to identify and correct for bias including their own internal and cognitive biases generally fail to see themselves dispassionately.

Remember, you see events in the light of having lived through them. We, on the other hand, must only use what reliable sources have to say about things. If it is not documented in a reliable source it did not happen as far as Wikipedia is concerned and only the opinions reported in reliable sources matter. For most things Wikipedia does not consider you or material you have worked on a reliable source for matters relating to your biography.

Have a very happy New Year! Jbh^Talk 19:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

My sentiments too. I just wanted to add that the editors here are not his enemy, not interested in making life hard for him, and sympathetic to his concerns. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Notice of discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A simple procedural inquiry about notice of Scientology related DS has, for reasons unclear to me, ballooned into a full on controversy. For those of you who may be interested the discussion is here. Jbh^Talk 00:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Mainly because the Scientology case result provided for a different sanction type (far more encompassing) than the limited BLP discretionary sanctions which may be applied if an administrator does so here. Collect (talk) 02:35, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I do believe that assertion was shown to you to be false just a bare few hours ago - I direct you to [25] to refresh your recollection. If you had read my initial request you would see that I already assumed the article was subject to the sanctions and was asking a procedural question about placing a bloody template. If that was not clear you could have asked me what I intended, I would have given much the same explanation I posted on RR's talk page [26].

I note you still have not addressed the question of whether you believe RR is subject to a topic ban on Scientology related articles since if you did not believe that to be the case then you were, indeed, simply stirring shit at the expense of the subject of a BLP. My guess is that could be sanctioned under... wait for it... WP:ACDS if anyone were to press the issue. (I believe the decisions makes it very clear he is not and since you quoted the decision one must assume you read how it applied to the person at issue. No?) Please, in the future read what I write and respond to it rather than your assumptions and presumptions about what I intend. It will make things easier all around and lead to considerably less drama when we interact. Cheers and good night. Jbh^Talk 02:57, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

You had evinced strong desires to bar an editor from anything related to cults or Scientology, broadly construed, in the past (8 Nov 2015 etc.). A BLP sanction is not as broad as what you sought then would be, and I suggest that it is improper to seek such a broad area for any person sans strong rationales. This is not "stirring up shit" - it is paying precise attention to what you had actually and explicitly asked for in the past. You were clearly well aware of the Scientology case decision, and thus I fear I think you have learned chess in the past. At this point, I see no rationale for placing Mr. Ross into the Scientology category, but clearly your mileage has differed in the past. When you use the Scientology decision in your posts, I trust that you knew precisely what you wished. Collect (talk) 14:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Jbhunley please clarify the purpose of bringing up the Scientology related DS and initiating a discussion about it regarding this bio? What action did you specifically want or hope would be taken here regarding the Scientology related DS? How did you think the Scientology related DS might impact this Talk page and bio and specifically the people commenting on this Talk page?Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

@RR I explained this to you yesterday on your talk page in this edit [27]. I have expanded on this at the other discussion in this edit [28]. I believe the confusion comes from Collect not being able to understand that it is possible for me to hold two opinions which conflict in part at the same time. One opinion is that you are disruptively dominating this talk page and need to stop - I believe I have made that very clear and that your BLP needs to be protected from manipulation by your critics and opponents, particularly Scientologists witch you have expressed concern about. I in fact can separate these things in both my mind and my actions.

If I thought there was something in the Scientology ruling that applied to you I would have gone to WP:AE or WP:ARCA and simply asked the sanction be addressed, there is no need to put a template on a page to make a request in those venues. Since I read the remedy when we were going through the earlier problem with verifying your identity I knew you were not banned from the topic. Collect is typically a very careful editor with BLP's and I simply do not understand how he could have possibly misread the Scientology decision. As several editors pointed out in the other discussion his reading is in complete error. I hope he will realize that soon, before things get really out of hand. Jbh^Talk 18:37, 1 January 2016 (UTC) correction Jbh^Talk 20:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Jbhunley. OK I think that I get it. You posted about the Scientology related DS because you are concerned that people with ties to Scientology may come to edit here in violation of that specific DS. Your post and concern had nothing to do with me commenting and/or making suggestions at the Talk page concerning the editing of this bio. Do I have that right now?Rick Alan Ross (talk) 21:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

@RR, as I have said several times now my intention in tagging that this article is related to the Scientology Case is to let people know that there may be issues relating to Scientology that are not obvious at first blush and new editors or uninvolved admins doing enforcement will know to look a bit deeper. (If, for some reason, I feel you should be taken to WP:AE there would be no need for this article to be tagged or even for you to be notified of the sanctions with {{Ds/alert}} because, per WP:ACDS, you are considered "aware" by virtue of being named in a finding/remedy in the case. If I were the kind of shit to do such things and had some underhanded scheme, as I was accused of, I could have gone to WP:AE without all of these preliminaries but I say again I am aware of no way DS would apply to you any differently than any other editor here. You are not banned from Scientology articles. -- Sorry, I am a bit annoyed, I hate shit-stirring and I am not all that keen on shit-stirrers either not the least for lacking the imagination to see how their supposed plots could be realized without the plotting and this would have been a non-issue without stirring.) I do not see why a request about placing a standard notice was made controversial. There is no doubt this article was part of the Scientology case, there is no question you were the subject of a finding of fact and remedy in the case (The reason you had to identify to ArbCom earlier, not because you were banned as was falsely asserted earlier by another editor.) and there is no question you are a critic of Scientology. All and any of these things make the article Scientology related. I will not speculate why this was made an issue or why you were told this would somehow result in your immediate ban from this article but it was so egregious I am surprised that it did not result in sanctions.

For the record I edit Wikipedia for fun. The day I start participating in nefarious plots to manipulate someone into a 'gottcha' ban is the day I need to 1) grow up and 2) quit editing Wikipedia.

When I disagree with how you are participating on this talk page I tell you so directly - not so?. When I thought you should be topic banned from this page I told you so well before I did anything about it and when the community disagreed with me I dropped it. If, in the future, I think you need an enforced break from this article I will tell you so directly and if you disagree and I feel strongly about it I will then directly open a complaint and abide by the outcome. If I am so annoyed I can not agree with the outcome I will take all of these pages off of my watch list and not look at them until/unless I become not annoyed. Nefarious plots, vendettas etc, are a waste of energy. If you think I am doing something underhanded ask me. That is how one avoids misunderstandings and drama, particularly when others, less forthright in their interactions, are involved. Jbh^Talk 15:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• Will some kind person please close this now, unless RR objects. I believe it is time for this particular horse to die a natural death. Thanks. Jbh^Talk 15:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Scott case

I have attempted to summarize the main article in this diff [29]. I self-reverted to give other editors the opportunity to comment, given the difficulties in past days. My point is that we have a main article at Jason Scott case, and the article needs to be summarized here per WP:SUMMARY. Compare my edit with the lead of main article. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

We should summarize the other article and emphasize how it relates directly to RAR. --Ronz (talk) 18:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

That is what I think I did. I will restore the edit, please help improve. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Why is the outcome of the criminal case not mentioned in the lead? And if the bio is about me why is it important to include information about how others decided to plead? Isn't the focus supposed to be on what happened to me? Other details can be found by clicking through to the Scott case.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Good points. We can always improve. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:31, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

OK.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 20:39, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Think of the reader: There was an abduction involved by your associates (your two-man "security team", as per the sources) was it not? If so, how your associates decided to plea is directly related. Let's wait and see what others have to say before removing that material. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Any reader interested can click through to the JasonScott case. There were actually three men in the security team hired by Jason's mother and they were assisted by Jason Scott's mother, two of his brothers and a family friend. But this bio is not about my codefendants, it's about me. The details about who cut a deal with the prosecutor and why isn't about me. Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

"Abduction"

The recent edit in the lead is incorrect. There was no "abduction" and no "kidnapping" charge. This is completely false. The charge was "unlawful imprisonment" and I was found not guilty and acquitted of all charges. This was not a child abduction as Jason Scott's mother hired security and was physically present throughout the intervention. Please remove immediately.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 06:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

You didn't provide any sources, nor comment upon any specific sources currently used. Please do so with this and all further requests. --Ronz (talk) 16:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Ronz, I don't see a source that supports "Ross faced criminal charges over a 1991 abduction and forcible deprogramming of United Pentecostal Church International member Jason Scott". The source on the statement in the article only says he was charged with "unlawful imprisonment". I have changed it to agree with the source. -- GB fan 18:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I know that this has been talked to nearly to death by User:Jbhunley and User: Cwobeel myself and others but I still think there is a serious attempt to whitewash factually correct and relevant details by the subject of this article. I just did a simple found four reliable sources that clearly support the use of the words criminal charges and kidnapping. I placing links below so that people can see for themselves.

1) A book by James R Lewis https://books.google.com/books?id=WEy-BgAAQBAJ&pg=PT313&lpg=PT313&dq=Rick+Ross+criminal+charges+jason+scott&source=bl&ots=NDfy3kDuCr&sig=Ucc_enIooWRQc5WdsIxR8mpXCJw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjUrv_33pjKAhWFOxoKHSYCAncQ6AEIODAE#v=onepage&q=Rick%20Ross%20criminal%20charges%20jason%20scott&f=false

2) An Phoenix Times Article by Tony Ortega which Ross actually also keeps on his own website. http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/whats-2995-million-between-former-enemies-6423217

3) A book chapter by J. Gordon Melton https://books.google.com/books?id=bvem38QO9y0C&pg=PA229&lpg=PA229&dq=rick+ross+kidnapping+jason+scott&source=bl&ots=_fviTn29nK&sig=cNxn35WcH-1WYVNKXYrxA7XZw5Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiFuqqT6JXKAhVD8CYKHRLrAp04ChDoAQghMAE#v=onepage&q=rick%20ross%20kidnapping%20jason%20scott&f=false

4) A book by Paula Nesbit https://books.google.com/books?id=M0g5uI1DiAMC&pg=PA26&lpg=PA26&dq=rick+ross+kidnapping+jason+scott&source=bl&ots=v7ClwK4Amr&sig=qfg69EKr4vLBji7slksdEsYDQbc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjg89y84JjKAhWFrRoKHUqLAXQ4ChDoAQgjMAI#v=onepage&q=rick%20ross%20kidnapping%20jason%20scott&f=false

Read: WP:IDONTLIKEIT In my opinion it is accurate and fair to reference these things. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:52, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

The simple truth is that I was never charged for abduction, kidnapping or anything other than "unlawful imprisonment." That was only charge filed and that was the charge that I was found not guilty of by the jury.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 02:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The Lewis source above, speaks of the trial ending in hang jury. Do we have a source for being found not guilty? - Cwobeel (talk) 02:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, page 97 of this book [30] reads: "when the criminal case failed to convict Ross". Failure to convict because of a hang jury, is not the same as being found not guilty. We need a good source for the mentioning of a non-guilty verdict. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

As I understand it, a not guilty verdict could come only from a second trial. After a hung jury, the prosecutor may choose not to try the case again. In such case, I believe the charges are "dismissed," but the actual history is what we need. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 04:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The trial did not end with a hung jury. It ended with a jury verdict. And the jury was out for only two hours. They deliberated briefly. Lewis is in unreliable source and made a false statement.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 11:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

This source says he was charged and acquitted of unlawful imprisonment. It is from the day after the trial so it is probably the best source for this information. -- GB fan 12:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Landmark Education v. Ross Institute/CEI suggested footnote addition

Please add the following footnote. Ethics in Psychology and the Mental Health Professions: Standards and Cases By Gerald P. Koocher, Patricia Keith-Spiegel. [31] Within this new book there is a discussion of the practices of Erhard Seminar Training/Landmark/the Forum [32] Landmark's lawsuit against me and the Ross Institute, which it lost, is referenced in its bibliography. [33] This footnote should be added under Website after mention of the lawsuit.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 01:50, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Restore work history

I worked as paid professional staff for both the Jewish Family & Children's Service of Phoenix, Arizona (1983-1986) and also as an instructor for the Bureau of Jewish Education in Phoenix (1984-1986). This work is an important part of my history as a professional and is notable. [34] [35] It informs the fact that I was a leader in the American Jewish community during the 1980s in the fight against destructive cults and fight for Jewish prisoner rights. [36] [37] [38] The sentences that were cut about this should be restored.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 02:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy to defer to others, but personally I think those removals improved the article. Wikipedia isn't a résumé and biographies generally don't list every job/posotion/role that someone held. The info has to be of some encyclopedic value to be included, and I'm not convinced that's the case here. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. The professional staff positions reflect my work in the 1980s, which was notable as reflected by many news articles. This fact was a sentence or two before being cut out. It is important information for any meaningful bio about me explaining who I am and why I am notable. A bio should include such information and the bio was not improved by deleting it. Rick Alan Ross (talk) 01:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

False statement

Under the Jason Scott case the following false statement is made. "The case...marked a watershed for non-traditional religions and the Christian countercult movement in North America." I am not a Christian and the Cult Awareness Network was a secular organization with no religious affiliation. [39] This false statement should be deleted immediately.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 02:05, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

In Wikipedia we follow the sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I attributed the viewpoint for NPOV. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

We have a problem. You did this previously. That is, you used an unreliable source that was proven to be wrong. As you know I am Jewish and the Cult Awareness Network was not a "Christian countercult" organization. The inclusion of a false statement in the bio is not helpful. Please remove the false statement. THis BLP is not a soapbox and facts matter.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 05:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Your suggestion is noted, but in Wikipedia we follow the sources and we attribute viewpoints. In the case about trial we had conflicting viewpoints. In these cases, we present both viewpoints without bias. I don't see here any conflicting viewpoint to the one presented by the quoted scholar. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually we are not required to use clearly erroneous sources - The labeling of Ross as Christian is clearly so erroneous as to beggar belief here. This is not a matter of "bias" but one of blatant idiocy to use that as an implicit claim in Wikipedia's voice. Collect (talk) 16:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense. The source does not make any claims about Ross being Christian. Read the source before make such assumptions. Pages 138-139 [40]- Cwobeel (talk) 19:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

This is a BLP about Ross. Saying the topic in any way is "Christian counter-cult" is a clear implication in Wikipedia's voice that Ross's group is Christian in nature. There is no loss in losing the word, so I suggest we do so. Is there any actual need to use "Christian" in the claim? Collect (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Are you reading the source? It says that the Scott case marked a watershed for non-traditional religions and the Christian countercult movement in North America. It is about the Scott case in which Ross placed a central role. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Simply because the quote includes the words "the Scott case" doesn't make the opinion relevant. I am not Christian and I have never been part of the "Christian countercult movement." Moreover, the Cult Awareness Network was not part of the "Christian countercult movement," as it was a secular organization with no religious purpose or mission. This recently added quote should be removed.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 00:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Again, your opinion notwithstanding, in Wikipedia we follow the sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I have removed the mention of the Christian countercult so that we can move on to more productive work. This is not such an important issue. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Cwobeel You state, "a coalition of groups that were attacked by the CAN bought its assets, and ran a new version of the CAN which become active in religious freedom causes." That is a false statement. CAN was bought by a Scientology lawyer Stephen Hayes and then run by Scientology. [41] [42] [43] [44] [45]Rick Alan Ross (talk) 05:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Cwobeel you quote the opinion of Eugene Gallagher that the "Scott case marked a watershed for non-traditional religions in North America." As the Scott case came to an end Aum gassed the Tokyo subway system, in 1997 came the mass suicide of Heaven's Gate, in 2000 came the mass murder/suicide of 1,000 people in Uganda involved in the Movement for the Restoration of Ten Commandments, within recent years the fundamentalist Mormon group known as the FLDS has had its leaders prosecuted and imprisoned. There is also the ISCKON bankruptcy due to lawsuit filed against the group over child abuse and most recently the widely read book "Going Clear" and subsequent widely seen documentary about Scientology. All of these groups have been called "cults." US President Obama and UK Prime Minister David Cameron say we are now at war with a "cult" called ISIS. There have been terrorist attacks in California and Paris carried out by ISIS devotees. [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [[57] [58] "Marked a watershed"? This opinion represents a tiny minority view and is not based upon a factual reading of history.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 06:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTFORUM - Cwobeel (talk) 18:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Off-topic to the current discussion (for clarity of discussions here, if ad hominem warnings need to be given please do so in user talk space on the appropriate page)
The following discussion has been closed by Francis Schonken. Please do not modify it.
Mr. Ross, you must follow the rules of Wikipedia or you will be asked to leave. This is not a place to argue the topic. Please find other forums to advance your anti-cult agenda. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 07:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC) Mr.(Ms.?) Farney, Mr. Ross may annoy the hell out of you, but he is following the rules set by Wikipedia. I suggest you seek to ensure the BLP complies with all Wikipedia policies as the primary purpose of this talk page. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC) I also note you appear to specialize in Scientology-related articles on Wikipedia, and suggest you apprise yourself of the discretionary sanctions applicable to many of the articles which you have edited thereon. Warm regards, Collect (talk) 17:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Wikipedia is not a forum, soapbox or place for propaganda e.g. including the minority opinions of some academics that do not represent historical facts. Cullen suggested that I provide additional sources. The secondary sources provided above demonstrate that the opinion and statement included are false and should not be included in this BLP. Making this point is in no way off topic and consistent with Wikipedia policy.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Categories

I pulled some categories from Steven Hassan that look appropriate for this article. I am listing them here first to avoid further misunderstandings.

• Category:Critics of Scientology (Right at the top and in the open)
• Category:Critics of the Unification Church ?
• Category:Anti-cult organizations and individuals
• Category:American male writers
• Category:Deprogrammers
• Category:Researchers of new religious movements and cults

Discussion/Objections? Are there other [Cat:Critics of XXXX] that would be appropriate based on sources? Jbh^Talk 15:56, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Not sure the Category:American male writers applies here. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Secondary sources have been provided regarding my published works in books. The book "Cults Inside Out" is published by Peace Book Publishing of Hong Kong in Chinese, but was self-published through CreateSpace in English. I do have photos of the book in Chinese, photos of newspapers reporting about the book in China and it is cited on Chinese websites. [59] [60] [61]Rick Alan Ross (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

We know that, but I don't think a single book, which has not received any significant attention by literary or other type of sources, warrants including this bio in the Category:American male writers. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I think in 'best world' the category would be reserved for people who are primarily or significantly know as writers. I included it in the list because I thought it worth the discussion since it was included on a BLP RR has noted he sees as similar. I would say a decent rule of thumb might be someone who has written a book which passes WP:NBOOK (a pretty low bar - two significant independent reviews of a book will usually pass). would be able to be categorized as an author. Another possibility would be reliable sources referring to them as an author in their own voice. Categorization is an 'in Wikipedia's voice' assertion so it needs to pass WP:V. I will defer to editors who are more familiar with BLP categorization than I if these are too low a bar. Jbh^Talk 01:06, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

The book does not seem to meet WP:NBOOK, does it? - Cwobeel (talk) 05:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

A person can be a writer without having a specific book be singularly notable under Wikipedia rules - which only apply to having an article about the specific book. And "writer" encompasses anyone who writes articles as well (which no one has disputed as far as I can tell) -- removal of the category is not really wise. Collect (talk) 15:05, 3 January 2016 (UTC) Added category for "American religious writers" as being simple and non-contentious. Listings as "critic of (specific group)" stuff is iffy at best, and do not appear to be individual defining characteristics of the living person. Collect (talk) 15:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that someone need not write a notable book to be a 'writer' it is however a sufficient condition. Another sufficient condition it to be referred to in independent sources as a writer. Do you suggest other sufficient conditions? Which do you think apply in this case? We are not talking about removal, we are considering categories for addition.

As to the 'Critic' categories, consensus is that they are indeed defining characteristics else we would not have these categories for BLP's. If you dispute their applicability to BLP's in general you should take that up at WP:CFD. Do you dispute their applicability in this case in particular? If you why?

@Rick Alan Ross: would you consider any of the proposed categorizations to not be reasonably applicable to you? (They are navigation aids analogous to the template you asked about below. The pages I linked in answer to that question as well as WP:BLPCAT describe them and the related guidelines). Jbh^Talk 15:47, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes. The heading "Opposition to new religious movements" is not reasonably applicable to me. I have been critical of some groups called "cults" that are also called "NRMs." But I have not been critical of the overwhelmingly majority of NRMs. Moreover, Many groups called "cults" that I have been critical of are not religious at all in nature. Therefore they would not be categorized as NRMs. Criticism of a group's behavior is not "persecution." I have never been critical of the Baha'i faith. The navigation bar is also wrong to include me with Christian counter-cult organizations, as I am Jewish. I also am not affiliated with the government agencies listed or Catherine Picard. I am not concerned with "heresy" or religious beliefs generally, but rather the behavior of certain groups. Is there something that I am missing about this navigation bar? It associates me incorrectly with a number of concepts, issues, groups and people.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

The category I added is pretty surely proper - "religious writers" include bloggers, book writers, writers of articles etc. Ross definitely is not a "major novelist" <g> but the category he is in is primarily populated with folks who wrote about religion and religious groups, and frequently no really major works, so he fits. He is not specifically noted as anti-any specific group, moreover. Collect (talk) 23:06, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Opposition to new religious movements

Question. Is the large box at the bottom with various links that has been added to my bio titled "Opposition to new religious movements" standard for Wikipedia bios? I don't see similar boxes at Eileen Barker, J. Gordon Melton or Steve Hassan, but did see this additional information box at the bio of Margaret Singer. Isn't this soapboxing and coatracking?Rick Alan Ross (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

It is neither. It is a navigational template for articles within a subject area. See Wikipedia:Navigation templates for technical information on them and Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates for the guidelines for their use. Jbh^Talk 19:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Why is not at the other sites cited?Rick Alan Ross (talk) 06:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I am not opposed to new religious movements. [62] [63] I have been critical of some controversial groups, leaders and organizations regarding their treatment of members. Some of the groups I have criticized are old religious movements, some are not religious at all. [64] I don't know and have no connection to many of the organizations and people listed in this box. It is misleading to place this box at my bio. I suggest that it be removed.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 05:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

This is not your bio, and the sooner you understand that the better. This is an article in Wikipedia, and as such we provide easy navigational access to related subjects. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:50, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

No need to be rude. The BLP is about me, but I cannot edit it, which I fully understand. I can point out false statements and misleading information and suggest that it be changed to make the BLP accurate. The navigation provided is largely not reasonably applicable to me and therefore false and/or misleading, which I have detailed above.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Request for input at AfD on related subject

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Releasing the Bonds has languished without !vote for two weeks. The subject is a book on deprogramming/exit counseling/whatever. Input would be welcome. Jbh^Talk 21:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Is this appropriate to post here? The only link to my bio is the issue I raised previously and was admonished for, which is that no Wikipedia editors are interested in applying the rules of Wikipedia regarding reliable sources, original research, self-promotion, peacock statements and COI for footnotes regarding the Hassan bio or concerning his self-published books.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 13:05, 14 January 2016 (UTC)