Talk:Rick Alan Ross/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Rick Alan Ross. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Personal attacks

Bringing up the well-established historical destructive cult status of Osho/Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh and the fact that Jayen466 is a devotee of the dead guru, is not a "personal attack." Instead, it is the most salient point to explain his activities generally on Wikipedia and narrow focus of subjects. For example, this bio. This is directly related to Jayen466 POV and bias in editing.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 13:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, read WP:PA: Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views – regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream – is a personal attack. In addition, what you say is factually wrong, and impertinent. My religious views, and specifically what I think of Osho or any other religious figure, is of no concern to you, and it is of no relevance to this article. Jayen 466 13:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is of concern to me as you are editing my bio and it is most certainly relevant in explaining your behavior here at Wikipedia. Anyone interested need only review your choices regarding editing at Wikipedia. For example, the Osho/Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh entry, which you have weighted so heavily to support your POV that it reads more like promotional literature, than a factual historical and objective account about the dead guru, whose only genuine historical significance is as a notorious cult leader deported from the US concerning criminal cult activities. And the amount of time you spend editing at Wikipedia, it seems to be a part-time if not almost full-time job for you. And what above is "factually wrong"? Are you attempting to posit the theory that you have no connection, historically or currently, with the Osho organization? Is that your claim?76.124.10.31 (talk) 18:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

False Statement at Jason Scott section

The following statement is false and/or grossly misleading. "Ross and his assistants had handcuffed Scott, placed duct tape over his mouth, held him in a seaside cottage under restraint for five days and told him he would only be released after the completion of the deprogramming."

1. Jason Scott was specifically secured by the three security people hired by his mother Kathy Tonkin. Ms. Tonkin was present at all times. I did not handcuff Jason, nor did I place duct tape over his mouth.

2. Jason was handcuffed and had duct tape over his mouth for a very brief period during the first day. Jason was not free to leave the cottage until his mother gave permission, but his mother and two younger brothers were present at all times. Jason ate and slept with his family.Rick A. Ross (talk) 17:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The jury in the criminal case agreed with you: ""Cult Buster" Acquitted In Abduction". Seattle Times. 1994-01-19. Retrieved 2008-11-01. AndroidCat (talk) 02:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of Rick Ross

A quick search on Google showed a lot of articles disputing Rick Ross's self-proclaimed expertise on cults.. Maybe someone want to start a section on this..?

http://www.google.com/search?q=rick+ross+cult —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.185.207.244 (talk) 14:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Newspaper articles, or dubious websites? Xanthius (talk) 16:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Expertise a matter of court record

My expertise regarding cults has been accepted in court within 10 states, including US Federal Court through what is called a "Daubert Hearing."

See http://www.rickross.com/witness.html

Note the court record at http://www.rickross.com/reference/expert_witness/expert_witness7.html

Most recently I was an official guest of the Chinese government and attended the International Forum on Cultic Studies sponsored by the the Centre for the Study of Destructive Cults in China. The paper I presented was published by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.

See http://www.cultnews.com/?p=2346

I was retained by Miramax/Disney to be the technical consultant to actor Harvey Keitel, in the movie "Holy Smoke."

"Self-proclaimed" is a very misleading way to describe an expertise, which has been widely and officially recognized.

Needless to say I have my critics, but they have never succeeded in having any court refuse to qualify me as an expert, though they certainly have made every effort.96.248.94.7 (talk) 16:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This was my logic for wikifying expert witness long ago, which seemed to me a clear solution in keeping with WP:AWW. Rorybowman (talk) 18:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Rick, can you point out any problems with these edits of 2 February 2009? --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It appears that recent edits are being done to minimize as much as possible my CV, court experience, etc.96.248.94.7 (talk) 12:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

COI tag

COI tag was not backed up by anything. Therefore, removed it from this WP:BLP page. Cirt (talk) 11:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Criminal record lacks detail and should not include his excuse

Criminal record lacks detail and should not include his excuse.

1. Specifically: 'Ross has admitted making mistakes: "I had been in trouble as a young man, and I turned my life around ... I never again in my life made another mistake like that."'

This is history. Not PR. We should not be allowing the individual documented to make excuses for their history within these pages. That quote should not be there. Instead these facts should be presented without bias. Let both this individuals history as a criminal and not stand on its own. Find me the Britannica entry where the history of a criminal includes the quotation of his or her "excuse" - I cannot. Simply put, let history show Rick Ross the Burglar and Embezzler as clearly and concisely as it shows Rick Ross the Cult Expert.

2. Specifically: "In 1974 a court convicted Ross for the attempted burglary of a vacant model home and sentenced him to probation.[3] The following year he received a sentence of five years' probation for his involvement in a jewelry embezzlement scheme at a retail store in Arizona."

The word present in the first sentence that is key but lacks follow-up is "convicted". The word missing from the second sentence is the same as one does not receive sentencing in court without conviction. The missing follow-up is nature of those convictions. What were the charges exactly? Were they misdemeanors or felonies? Is Rick Ross a convicted felon? That seems a key piece of information this article has omitted.

3. Specifically: "In 1983, the Maricopa County Superior Court vacated both judgments of guilt in the absence of any opposition, dismissed the charges and restored Ross's civil rights."

Restoration of Ross's civil rights implies he was indeed a convicted felon and remained such for eight or nine years (i.e. fro either 1974 with the burglary conviction or 1975 with the embezzlement conviction). The vacating of judgement in the "absence of any opposition" doesn't prove innocence. It merely implies Ross was savvy enough to wait until there wasn't anyone around to oppose him before seeking to evade his own history. Wikipedia should not be facilitating him in that effort. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fbonds (talk • contribs) 03:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Sources to back up above claims? Cirt (talk) 08:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Primary source usage

[1] = regarding this, primary sources should not be advanced on BLP pages for purposes of denigrating the subject of the BLP page. -- Cirt (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree Primary sources were a mistake but its in good faith edit that did not "denigrate" the subject merely tried to provide back ground. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree as to the nature of the edit. However, due to the contentious nature of this article in the past, primary sources not from the subject himself, should be strenuously avoided. -- Cirt (talk) 16:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree Should not be used as sources. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 16:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

NXIVM

I'd added a couple of points which have been reverted. My version before reversion is at 14:46, 28 September 2010; the differences are at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rick_Ross_%28consultant%29&diff=387550262&oldid=387539388

I'll explain my thinking here, but won't take any further action - if others agree with me I'd ask them to reinstate my edit, or add similar information to tie up loose ends.

The article before my edit mentioned the NXIVM Corporation, but didn't say what it was or did. I copied the sentence from the NXIVM website that started " "NXIVM is...". Either that, or some other brief description of what NXIVM 'is, is in my opinion needed; use of their own words is best.

The article before I changed it say that NXIVM was suing Ross for breach of copyright. I think it's highly relevant that the contract signed by the person who gave Ross the information had a "non-return of materials is fraud" clause.

This is factual information which makes the NXIVM issue more comprehensible (when I read the article I had never heard of NXIVM and had no idea what it was). If my suggestions are considered not to be neutral, don't include them, but it does leave a bit of vagueness. Pol098 (talk) 18:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Like I said above you are doing this in good faith, I agree that some background on NXIVM would be relevant if this was a "normal paper encyclopedia article" however we have the advantage of simply using a "wikilink" thus all the back ground can be simply explained there. Secondly using a Primary sources to put the sentence about the clause constitutes WP:OR.Thus It would be better to find a secondary or Tertiary source to say the same thing. Right now your caught in the crossfire of a five year old dispute on this article. So lets continue to discuss it here. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I've said what I have to say, have no strong opinion, nothing to discuss - I think what I said clarified the article a bit and I haven't changed that opinion, but if it's going to be considered POV or start an edit war, by all means let's keep quiet. Pol098 (talk) 19:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

This is beginning to become WP:UNDUE WEIGHT in an article on a WP:BLP. Perhaps a separate article would be appropriate, about the individual lawsuit. -- Cirt (talk) 19:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Cirt that is an absurd suggestion on my last revision I counted 8 sentences in total for a Ten million dollar lawsuit. You know as well as I do it would never go beyond a stub then probably get deleted as a content fork and merged back here or lost in the deletion process entirely. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

You added duplicate info that repeated the exact same information which was presented in the subsequent paragraph. As for the article recommendation, disagree, it is a notable topic in and of itself, and a WP:BLP page should not be used as fodder for violation of WP:UNDUE WEIGHT for purpose to denigrate a living person. -- Cirt (talk) 19:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

On review it does appear I added duplicate information, but I would be shocked if you could spin it out to its own article but you have surprised me before.;-) The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

That would be a discussion for another page. This discussion is about WP:UNDUE WEIGHT violations on a WP:BLP article, this page. -- Cirt (talk) 19:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

User ban on this article

Upon expiry of this ban, any editor may remove this notice. Please refer to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology, the relevant Arbitration case in which the editor was banned, for further details. |- ! colspan="2" |

This notice was posted by {{{4|Mailer Diablo 02:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC) on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Rick Alan Ross |}

This ban was lifted by this motion at at 22:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC). I have therefore removed the category. I also moved the {{Old AfD full}} bck to the talk page. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC).

Subsection headings

I agree with the potter's house portion being removed as that was absurdly Undue but both the Jason Scott and Waco siege are both entirely appropriate for their own subsection The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

They are not large enough for their own independent subsections. This is a WP:BLP article. Just because someone is a critic of destructive cults, does not mean that WP:BLP, which is policy, gets to go out the window, thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 19:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I resent that what you seem to be implying there, as I do not think he is undeserving of a NPOV BLP. I am merely making the observations that both of those were highly important incidents for by eveyone's standards. The Cult Awareness/anticult movement, Scholarly Community, Ross himself, not even mentioning the Cults/NRMs views all view it as pivotal moment in the status quo. Last time i checked Ross is still trumpeting his assistance at Mount Carmel and his settlement with Scott there thus I do not think it is undue to have it it be a subsections of the "Consultant, lecturer, and deprogrammer" period. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It is just not big enough to necessitate its own independent subsection header. Those are for ease of navigation, both in structure and prominent placement of such a header in the table of contents. -- Cirt (talk) 20:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thats a rather circular argument, If we made them the subsections any larger it'd be undue we leave them the way they are now its "not big enough". Generally if it has its own article its worth a subsection heading The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it is just not large enough amount of text to warrant its own subsection heading. -- Cirt (talk) 20:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I am going to ask for a Third opinion opinion as we both disagree and I dont see either of us giving ground. Jayen466 usually creates the compromises between but with his history here he is hardly a good mediator here. Would you find Will Beback knowledgeable and neutral enough to offer a third opinion? Or prefer I place one through WP:3O. I personally would prefer some one who is knoledgable in the topic area. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree that due to WP:ARBSCI sanctions the first option is inappropriate. The second suggestion would be acceptable. -- Cirt (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I received a request for an opinion and will respond later this evening after I've had a chance to review the situation. Will Beback talk 22:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, the "Further information" links should probably be merged into the text instead of standing alone. With one exception, they're already in the text, so they're mostly redundant anyway. I don't see the need for individual subheads for those paragraphs. The Jason Scott Case is a spinoff of this article and so I think a short section summarizing it is appropriate. Will Beback talk 21:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Done, good recommendations. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 21:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I am going to abide by 3rd Opinion The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 22:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS

Should CESNUR pages be automatically assumed as WP:RS sources in a BLP article? Frankly, I think that they're pretty biased and rather dubious. (They have extensive pages on Buffy the Vampire Slayer too.) AndroidCat (talk) 06:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

CESNUR has distinguished associates or advisors, but i get the feeling that the institute itself is close to being a one-man operation. That man, Massimo Introvigne, is known as an expert on vampires, but that's neither here nor there. The journal is probably fully reliable, but the website might be considered a self-published source. There may be some other editors here who know more. Will Beback talk 07:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Controversies

There are a number of controversies about Rick Ross which are detailed elsewhere and have verifiable sources. Should there be a section in this article dedicated to these issues or is their coverage in the Rick A. Ross Institute section enough? Wcwarren (talk) 03:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Are these issues that are not already covered in the article? You might want to check the three archived talk pages to see if the issues have been discussed already. Will Beback talk 03:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, good idea. I'll have a look through them.Wcwarren (talk) 21:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually where is the archive? I can only see old information by looking at the history.Wcwarren (talk) 21:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Look for the text in the header that says: "Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4". Will Beback talk 07:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I can see it now.124.149.118.106 (talk) 11:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Violations of Undue Weight in BLP

Diff = Removed, as violations of WP:UNDUE WEIGHT in a WP:BLP article. -- Cirt (talk) 15:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Concur, Judy Hammond dropped the lawsuit for one reason or another. The quote from Minister of Life Tabernacle is more appropriately for addition into Jason Scott case The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 15:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Clarification of Information

I was wondering if we could it would be possible to expand upon the following sentences: "As a result of the legal risks involved, Ross stopped advocating coercive deprogramming or involuntary interventions for adults, preferring instead voluntary exit counseling without the use of force or restraint.[47] He states that despite refinement of processes over the years, exit counseling and deprogramming continue to depend on the same principles.[47]" I haven't checked the reference yet, but it seems as if we should outline these principles for clarification. What do you guys think? FWest2 (talk) 00:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Also right after that line, is the sentence "Stuart A. Wright has referred to Ross as one of the most important 'hardline anticultists'.[48]" - Shouldn't this information be placed within the introduction?FWest2 (talk) 00:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

"It was also reported ..."

[2] = contentious controversial info about a BLP. It this noteworthy for inclusion? Can this please be verified with quote from source? Is The Nation an appropriate source for this info? -- Cirt (talk) 00:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Well the Nation has been cited elsewhere in the article, so I am not sure why it wouldn't be an appropriate source. Why is this not a noteworthy inclusion? It does serve to give the reader more information about deprogramming issues prior to Jason Scott. FWest2 (talk) 00:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Reported it to WP:BLPN, and will defer to judgment of community from respondents at BLPN. -- Cirt (talk) 00:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting it, hopefully we will get a response soon. I was planning on adding in more specific information about the particulars of the 1993 charge though. Would it be preferable for me to list the entire inclusion prior to being judged? FWest2 (talk) 00:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

My mistake, the edit was pertaining to Scott after all. Sorry about the confusion!FWest2 (talk) 00:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and corrected the edit, ideally we would be able to either insert the information into the following paragraph as an introduction or to go ahead and keep it separate. The Jason Scott case is pretty well known and it should at least be acknowledged that Ross was pending charges as early as 1993. Is there any disagreement about this?FWest2 (talk) 00:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The specific edit could be stated as:

In 1993, it was reported that Ross was facing charges of unlawful imprisonment in the State of Washington due to a forceable detention of a intended deprogramming victim. This victim was identified as Jason Scott, an 18-year-old member of a United Pentecostal Church in Bellevue, Washington. In 1995 Ross filed for personal bankruptcy following a substantial damages award against him in a civil trial for actions associated with an attempt to deprogram Scott.FWest2 (talk) 00:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Any thoughts?FWest2 (talk) 00:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

So, what is the verdict? Is "The Nation" a legit source? Porfiry Petrovich deux (talk) 00:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure, I was wondering that myself FWest2 (talk) 00:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

You can ask about reliability of sources at the WP:RSN but if you are talking about this http://www.thenation.com/ publication it is WP:RS and used at over two thousand five hundred articles here. Off2riorob (talk) 00:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Balance

I noticed that the Jason Scott case has an entire page with over 40 citations. Why doesn't the Rick Ross page have a section dedicated to the case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porfiry Petrovich deux (talk • contribs) 23:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't thought about this before, but I suspect under the circumstances, creating a section specifically for the case could make sense. FWest2 (talk) 23:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah . . . it does. I was thinking something for this case and other charges. Not big, but at least something that mentions them. Porfiry Petrovich deux (talk) 23:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

For background see Talk:Rick Ross (consultant)/Archive 4#Subsection headings The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 19:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link Resident Anthropologist, I just finished reading the archived post but am still unsure of how it is that the Jason Scott case in the least does not necessitate the need for its own subsection. With that said, would it be amenable to place the Scott case under a "Controversy" section? FWest2 (talk) 00:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Along those lines, I don't see any harm for the proposed sections to be posted here for possible discussion. So PPD, if you have something in mind for a possible controversy/criminal history case, why not post it here on the discussion page for us to review? FWest2 (talk) 00:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Organizational Issue

The following paragraph seems to have a bit of an organizational problem:

In 1995 Ross filed for personal bankruptcy following a substantial damages award against him in a civil trial for actions associated with an attempt to deprogram Jason Scott, an 18-year-old member of a United Pentecostal Church in Bellevue, Washington.[34][35][36] Two men seized Scott;[37] he then experienced handcuffing, duct tape placed over his mouth, and confinement in a seaside cottage for five days. The deprogramming personnel restrained him and told him his release depended on the completion of the deprogramming.[35][38][39][40][41][42] A January 1994 jury trial for unlawful imprisonment resulted in acquittal for Ross.[40][43][44][45] A subsequent civil suit resulted in a judgment awarding Scott US$5 million in compensatory and punitive damages from a number of defendants, of which $3 million were from Ross.[20][46] In 1996 plaintiff Scott became reconciled with his mother and dismissed his Scientologist lawyer, Kendrick Moxon;[42] he then settled with Ross, accepting $5,000 plus 200 hours of Ross's professional services "as an expert consultant and intervention specialist".[34][42] [edit]

We go from 1995, discussing the implications of the civil suit, then talk about the Jason Scott case, then about the 1994 criminal trial, then the civil trial. How about starting in order with the Scott Case, then talking about the criminal case, then the civil suit and its implications. I also wonder, why mention the religious orientation of Scott's lawyer? It doesn't seem that important to be honest. Let me know what you think about the suggestions! FWest2 (talk) 23:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It's usually best to describe events in chronological order. Will Beback talk 23:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, hopefully everyone else also feels the same FWest2 (talk) 23:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the page should read chronologically if possible. Based on everything I've read on Wiki so far, criminal history should have its own section. See my above comments.Porfiry Petrovich deux (talk) 23:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Integration of material should be what we shoot for. This article has a long history of Edit wars and Editors doing drive by insertions of material. We should shoot for Chronoloigcal order here The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 19:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey Resident Anthropologist, thanks for the input. Edit Warring is definitely something we should avoid as it seems pretty unnecessary as long as we are all willing to discuss issues or improvements to the article. Is there anyone who would like to take this task on? FWest2 (talk) 00:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Deprogramming Clarification

Also through reading parts of the article I am confused. The page states that: "As of 2004, Ross had handled more than 350 deprogramming cases in various countries including the United States, the United Kingdom, Israel and Italy, with a typical cost of around $5,000 per case (in 2008 dollars).[3][15]"

However, later in the page it states "As a result of the legal risks involved, Ross stopped advocating coercive deprogramming or involuntary interventions for adults, preferring instead voluntary exit counseling without the use of force or restraint.[47] He states that despite refinement of processes over the years, exit counseling and deprogramming continue to depend on the same principles.[47]" So did he continue deprogramming until 2004, before the transition to exit counseling or is the information conflicting? FWest2 (talk) 23:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

That's what it sounds like. How do we verify this?Porfiry Petrovich deux (talk) 23:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure, I was looking this information using the citation listed but it doesn't list specifics, only this: "I am no longer involved in involuntary deprogramming of adults," which was apparently taken from Willamette Week/November 1, 1995. If true, then why is the information listed "As of 2004"? Can anyone verify when Ross stopped deprogramming? FWest2 (talk) 00:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

If this is true, we need to update the page. BTW what is Willamette Week?Porfiry Petrovich deux (talk) 00:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Willamette Week is "An alternative weekly serving Portland and the Willamette valley," The specific URL is taken from Ross's site and seems to be impossible to discredit or verify without looking at a hard copy .FWest2 (talk) 00:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

criminal history section

We need to add a criminal history section to the Rick Ross page. We need to address the attempted burglary and embezzlement convictions in his past. This article mentions them in passing but even Ross acknowledges that they played a formative role in his life. Plus any BLP must address these types of controversies. Porfiry Petrovich deux (talk) 01:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

He was convicted ~~as a juvenile (or at least when he was a juvenile)~~ when he was in his early 20s. The conviction was later vacated. I've removed it from the lead, and I don't think it deserves its own section.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Until he became a deprogrammer, he was a petty criminal. Embezzlement and attempted burglary convictions (vacated or not) deserve more than a blurb buried in his early life section. Nothing major, just a brief section explaining his criminal past is what I believe we need.Porfiry Petrovich deux (talk) 21:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

This issue is much easier for me than whether the Scott case should go in the lead (I note that another editor removed it). His problems in his youth are barely relevant to anything and don't deserve the prominence of a separate section. And the fact that the convictions were vacated cannot be glossed over - it's a rather important fact. I would strongly oppose a separate section.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Well I have had the chance to review a little bit of what has been occurring here, but it seems as if Ross himself acknowledges that his background is relevant in someway, at least from the material I have seen on Ross himself. Does it warrant its own section though? I'm not sure. Though I find it a bit ridiculous to include any of the criminal history in the lead, which had apparently occurred in an earlier edit. Jefferson76 (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Jason Scott cases in lead

Do we want to note what happened in the Scott cases in the lead? It seems jarring to me, but I've left it in (reworded) for the moment. I'm on the fence about it.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The Scott case was a major event in the life of Ross. Deciding what information to including in the intro can be challenging. I agree that his earlier criminal history probably shouldn't be included but certainly a kidnapping that he was held liable should be included. Porfiry Petrovich deux (talk) 21:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikisource material

Is there a reason that the material on Wikisource about this individual is not linked-to in this article? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 20:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

See s:Category:Rick Ross (Consultant) -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 20:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Why did someone upload briefs from a lawsuit? Those are just the views of lawyers in a legal fight, not objective views of the court. They were just created a few days ago. They should probably be deleted. Will Beback talk 21:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

- is this a wikisource link a beneficial addition? Off2riorob (talk) 19:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Reversion

I've reverted an edit by User:LogicalFinance33. The edit separated out controversial information from the body of the article into its own section titled "controversy". That is not a good way to structure an article and infact the guidelines specifically discourage dedicating sections to criticism or controversy which should preferably be integrated into the overall flow of the article - as it was the case here prior to LogicalFinance33's edit. I have no problems with the additional sourcing of course.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, except that I have since added some clarification for the "personal attack" statement and done some copy editing to the "Other controversies" section. As a WP:BLP it's a bit tricky, as the abduction situation and court decision seem to need their own section, and the previous conviction for criminal behavior and the disparagement by qualified counsellors in the field are difficult to weave into the main text. But feel free to try, as long as the main information is not lost. Rumiton (talk) 10:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Now that I think about it more, I don't think anything in WP:BLP suggests that criminal records should not have their own section. It is negative criticism that is considered unworthy of being highlighted in that way. See John Hinckley, Jr. for a heavily discussed example. Rumiton (talk) 11:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not talking about BLP but about the essay WP:CRITICISM, and Wikipedia:NPOV#Article_structure that clearly discourages segregating negative or critical material into particular sections and recommends integrating it into the flow of the article.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, but I can't find "Criticism section", and indeed these paragraphs are not about criticism so much as personal history. "Article structure" mainly addresses the problem of making sure only due weight is applied to differing points of view. I cannot see that guideline applying here either. This is the reporting of facts from court records and secondary documents, not opinions, unless we claim that the disparaging remarks from the more qualified counsellor are a minority view, which I think would be difficult to sustain. Rumiton (talk) 15:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I've amended the link. I agree the material are about personal history which is exactly why it should be included in the paragraphs treating the relevant periods of his life. Court documents etc. should be included in the paragraphs that treat the topics in relaitn to which he went to court. If they are not opinions but facts about his life then why segregate them into a controversy section? What is controversial about a court case? Also note that actual court documents are primary sources and not viable for exclusion unless mentioned in secondary sources.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

What about "Abduction of Jason Scott"? Does that deserve its own section? I'm not sure what you meant by "...primary sources and not viable for exclusion." Rumiton (talk) 15:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Heh, I meant "not viable for inclusion" of course. :). If the Abduction of Jason Scott is a significant event in Ross' life and has significant coverage as a topic in secondary sources then yes.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

It satisfies both criteria. Perhaps you might suggest some Section headers? We don't want to end up with a "wall of words;" they are too hard to read and don't guide the reader to the aspects of the subject they are most interested in. Rumiton (talk) 15:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I've moved the burglary material back into chronological order and removed it from the lead. He is not known in any way for the crimes he committed in his youth. While they may belong in the bio, they are not important enough to draw so much attention to them. Will Beback talk 00:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Youth? He was first found guilty of a robbery committed when he was 22, and then another (which was far from simple "burglary") at 23, while on parole from the first one. This robbery was accompanied by threats of violence (detonating a bomb). An apparently court appointed psychiatrist described him as “an individual who has sociopathic inclinations”, who “cannot realize that what he does is socially unacceptable and dangerous." I disagree that they are "not important enough" for inclusion. These early crimes established a pattern of (sociopathic) disregard for the rights and feelings of others. His later kidnappings were a continuation of his criminal behavior. Rumiton (talk) 09:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The events did not happen recently. It's best to arrange articles into chronological order. Will Beback talk 10:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Religious Freedom Watch

The article relies extensively on Religious Freedom Watch. Apparently, it is run by the Church of Scientology with the purpose of attacking its critics. Scientology controversies#"Dead agenting". On what basis are we considering it a reliable source for a BLP? Will Beback talk 10:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I've removed these citations and links. The website is anonymous and I see no evidence that it has a reputation for accuracy. Will Beback talk 10:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

While the organization, Religious Freedom Watch, may not be thought of as reliable, the resource [www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/false_exp/RICK_ROSS_AND_THE_ROSS_INSTITUTE.PDF] from them is a report that holds all of the court documents, police reports, doctor records, etc. Surely, those are reliable sources. Is that enough to merit inclusion of the report as a reference/source? LogicalFinance33 (talk) 18:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Those documents are primary sources, the use of which is severely limited on Wikipedia. Unlike secondary sources, primary sources often require interpretation, and it is entirely possible to misinterpret them. For example, do we know if these are a complete set of court documents? There might be an affidavit from a psychiatrist, but not the judge's decision to throw out the testimony because the doctor had lost his license. Do we know if these are accurate copies of the documents? And so on. Instead, Wikipedia articles should be based on secondary and tertiary sources. That requirement works in partnership with another core content policy, WP:NPOV. One clause of that policy says that we should devote space to an issue in proportion to its prominence in secondary sources. Just because there are a thousand documents in a case does not mean that its significance is 1000x. The main secondary source we have for the thefts is The Observer profile. That 5000 word article devotes two sentences totaling 58 words to them. This article is about 2000 words long and devotes 200 words to the issue. So it's receiving undue weight. For that reason I am going to pare back the material to what is in The Observer piece. Will Beback talk 19:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Apologetics Index

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 61#Several issues within the New Religous Movement section of Wikipedia

the most recent discussion at WP:RSN of the Apologetics Index website seems to have concluded that it is not a reliable source. It is apparently a self-published source. The Ross page is specifically written by Anton Hein, the founder and owner of the site.[3] While it might argued that it's suitable for articles on religious groups, the standards are stricter for biographies of living people. Any other thoughts? Will Beback talk 21:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

- I don't see where Apologetics Index is described as self published. The main problem seemed to be (18 months ago) that its extensive quoting of other sources may constitute copyright violation. Most of the links AI gives are available to us anyway, my understanding is we just need to paraphrase to avoid copyright issues. Here are some further sources I found today.

From the States News service, a quote from the Civil Court decision in the Scott case: Ross and his associates "intentionally or recklessly acted in a way so outrageous in character and so extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community."

The Nation: Professor Nancy Ammerman of the Candler School of Theology at Emory University. Ross and CAN “have a direct ideological (and financial) interest in arousing suspicion and antagonism against what they call "cults." "Ross has a history of emotional disturbance and is also a convicted jewel thief." "[The government agents] should have understood the pervasiveness of religious experimentation in American history and the fundamental right of groups like the Davidians to practice their religion .... They should have understood that many new religious movements do indeed ask for commitments that seem abnormal to most of us, and these commitments do mean the disruption of "normal" family and work lives .... They should also understand that the vast majority of those who make such commitments do so voluntarily. The notion of "cult brainwashing" has been thoroughly discredited in the academic community."

From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, an interesting further insight into the Scott case: April 9, 1998

"Tonkin had joined the Life Tabernacle Church, a branch of the United Pentecostal Church, in 1991. She left less than two years later, but her three oldest sons wanted to stay. Two, age 16 and 13, were involuntarily deprogrammed by Ross, but Jason Scott, 18, resisted after being abducted and held captive for five days, the court said."

The Humanist July 1, 1993, speaks of Ross's involvement in the Northeast Kingdom Community fiasco: "Likewise, some years back police descended upon the Northeast Kingdom Community, a Christian commune in Island Pond, Vermont, with a long history of cordial relations with the town. There the authorities alleged that children were being systematically abused by "cult members," and some 350 kids were swept up in a raid that was as dramatic as it was expensive. An investigation followed, and shamefaced state officials were forced to concede that child abuse had indeed taken place --when the terrified kids were rounded up during the sweep itself. One of the experts relied upon in the Island Pond case was Rick Ross, professional deprogrammer and self-proclaimed anti-cultist. Ironically, Ross was one of several cult experts consulted by ATF in the Branch Davidian stand-off which began, in part, due to child-abuse allegations."

From The Philadelphia Tribune May 17, 1994 by Lenora Fulani, chairperson of the New Alliance Party and a practicing social therapist in Harlem:

"They insist that those in Congress responsible for overseeing federal law enforcement look into the clear abuse of government agencies. In particular, the Cult Awareness Network (CAN) and the American Family Foundation (AFF) demonized the Branch Davidians.

These two organizations label as "cults" religious and political groups which they don't like, and claim that membership in these "cults" destroys an individual's free will and rationality, inevitably leading to crime. As Deborah Green, a partner in Ross & Green, points out, "The Cult Awareness Network has played a major role in propagating an atmosphere of intolerance, fear and violence against new, smaller, non-mainstream religions."

Both before, during and after the 51-day siege and subsequent massacre at Waco, CAN and AFF spokespersons had easy access to the media. By their own count they gave hundreds of interviews to the radio and print media during this period in which they warned the American people about the supposed evil characteristics of "cults" and advocated the use of lethal force against them.

Even more insidiously, a CAN associate appears to have had the ear of the ATF and the FBI throughout this period. A report researched and written for the Justice Department by Dr. Nancy Amerman of Emory University, documents the active role played by Rick Ross, a CAN-associated "deprogrammer" with a criminal record stretching back to 1975."

The Nation May 9, 1994 by Alexander Cockburn

The weekend before the anniversary I got a call from Balenda Ganem, mother of a man who'd been in the compound that day. "My son David Thibodeau was one survivor of the fire. He was married to David Koresh's sister-in-law, Michelle. "My son was 24 at the time of the fire. "Already in Bangor I'd been in touch with Rick Ross, who was acting as an independent cult deprogrammer' and informant to the A.T.F. and F.B.I. When I got to know him in Waco, I understood that he was instigating the most negative aspect of the situation because he wished violence toward David Koresh. He never said he wanted him to be helped out. He wanted him to be wiped out. This is what he told me. He looked forward to David Koresh being in jail, where he would be tortured and raped, like he had done to the others in Mount Carmel. That's when I understood that this man was not working for the greater good. He had a personal vendetta. He wanted a cult leader; God, it was his passion. Reached for a comment by my colleague Steven Dudley, Rick Ross called Ganem a "pathological liar" and said, "I was constantly trying to get the F.B.I. to change; I tried to encourage them to work with families ... to avoid a violent end."

All interesting and perhaps useful for the article. Rumiton (talk) 14:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

That has to be enough sourcing to not violate WP:UNDUE. I'm for adding more content to the article using the given sources. LogicalFinance33 (talk) 19:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

As for Apologetics Index, I don't think any source is ever self-described as "self-published". but Hein is clearly the owner and editor of the project, and the author of that specific webpage. There it is is self-published and may not be used in a BLP, per WP:BLP. I'll remove that SPS-sourced material.

If we have other sources for disputes with other experts then we can use those.

The Jason Scott issues is handled in greater depth in a separate article. All this articles needs is a short summary, per WP:SUMMARY, focused on Ross's participation. Those additional sources should be added to the other article.

Cockburn and Fulani are interesting characters in their own rights. Their attributed views could be worth including. Could Rumiton please add the full citations so these excerpts can be verified and used?

Overall, we need to make sure that we aren't focusig on just the negative or positive aspects of the subject's career, but rather present material in keeping with WP:WEIGHT and the rest of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Will Beback talk 23:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I was looking for BLP balance too, but most of the sources speak of allegations against Ross and criminal convictions against him. The fears that Americans had 40 years ago of being brainwashed by small renegade groups have given way to a perhaps more rational fear of being attacked by religious mainstream fundamentalists, so Ross's acts of kidnapping and "forcible deconversion" are looking way less heroic these days. It is hard to find unequivocally positive things to say about him. Rumiton (talk) 06:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would say that this article is "unequivocably positive". Will Beback talk 07:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure what other cites are needed. Logging on to High Beam Research and searching for ("Rick Ross" deprogammer) gives the results I found above. You get a week's free trial, then you have to discontinue your membership or pay fees. Rumiton (talk) 06:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. That'll help me find them. Article title is a customary and useful part of a citation, but it's often possible to find the source other ways. Will Beback talk 07:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Improvements

Over the past few days I’ve been looking through the archives here and WOW, there is an unbelievable amount of controversy that exists over this page. Keeping that in mind I will be careful in edits I make and will try to bring up anything that may be deemed controversial (which is probably most things with this topic) here on the talk page.

That being said I would like to help in improving the article. I think the first paragraph in the Rick A. Ross Institute section should be moved to instead be the last paragraph in the preceding Consultant, lecturer, and deprogrammer section. It seems much more suited to be in the preceding section based on its content (dealing with his work as a deprogrammer). If it is moved then the first paragraph in the Ross Institute section would instead be the one starting with “In 1996 Ross started a website titled "The Ross Institute Internet Archives…”, which makes more sense to me.

Since I don't think this is controversial I'm going to go ahead with the edit. LogicalFinance33 (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

In looking for ways to improve the article I also noticed an inaccuracy in the use of a source. In that same paragraph that I moved, this statement is made: Stuart A. Wright has referred to Ross as one of the most important "hardline anticultists". Here is the excerpt mentioning Ross from the actual source: The "experts" on cults appearing on major network TV featured an all-star line-up of hardline anticultists, including deprogrammer Rick Ross... Wright goes on to list several others after Ross. A few sentences earlier, Wright, talking about News coverage of a recent mass suicide, says "The event produced an endless stream of speculation, hearsay, unscientific claims by so-called "cult experts"..." (Source: Wright, Stuart A. 1997. Media Coverage of Unconventional Religion: Any "Good News" for Minority Faiths? Review of Religious Research 39, no. 2:101-115, p. 102.) Someone had to be reading this article with a bit of bias if what they got out of it was that Wright referred to Ross as one of the most important hardline anticultists. I'm going to just remove the statement unless someone can think of a more accurate way to portray it. LogicalFinance33 (talk) 00:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Because I didn't see why it had to be completely removed, I changed it to merely say, "Wright referred to Ross as a hardline anticultist". (talk→ LesHB ←track) 01:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't disagree that the statement is correctly sourced, but is it really necessary to include? It has nothing to do with the other content in that paragraph; it looks like it was just thrown in there at the end. If it is to be included, I think it should be moved somewhere that it fits better and more context or quoted text should be added to show that Wright also referred to him as a "so called cult expert", and used quotations whenever he used the word expert. LogicalFinance33 (talk) 02:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that where it is isn't optimal. I do believe, however, that it needs to stay in the article - probably to be placed in another part of the same section. (talk→ LesHB ←track) 02:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Controversy/criticism of Ross

I noticed that the article for Steven Hassan has a large criticism section with questionable sources. From what I've gathered Hassan has had much less criticism than Ross, so either his criticism section should probably be removed entirely or we can justify having a small one on this page if it is acceptable. I've seen many pages on BLP's on Wikipedia with criticism or controversy sections. I don't believe it is necessary or good practice to list out all of the criticism. However, it seems like Ross has had enough people criticize his background and credentials that it would be notable to at least mention that the criticism exists. It is apparent by looking at the talk page that there is controversy surrounding Ross based on the multiple archives of arguing and the note at the top of the talk page that explicitly states, "The subject of this article is controversial." Something similar should be added into the article. LogicalFinance33 (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

you need a spacific criticism citing a WP:RS otherwise it is a WP:BLP violation.Coffeepusher (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The source and material from Stuart Wright has been on this page for a long time. I believe you should have a good explanation of your reasoning for removing it and consensus before you do so? It is relevant to the page and the section it is in. LogicalFinance33 (talk) 01:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

that isn't a problem, the actual text from the article is this:

"News coverage of the recent mass suicide by members of Heaven's Gate in Rancho Santa Fe, Califormia is a case in point. The event produced an endless stream of speculation, hearsay, unscientific claims by so-called "cult experts," and calls for tighter government regulation of marginal religious groups, as well as their use of the internet to disseminate information and recruit new members. Charges of "cult brainwashing" were dutifully rehearsed and recycled, imaginative explanations of members' psychological deficiencies were discussed and cloaked in anticultists psycho-babble, rigid steriotypes reduced the complexity and diverse range of marginal religions to witless simplicity, false claims about the leader's firing from St. Thomas University in Houston for having an affair with a male student appeared in the usually reliable washington post, amids various other stories, making it difficult for the average person to sort throught the cacophony of information. The "experts" on cluts appearing on major network TV featured an all-star line-up of hardline anticultists, including..."

now wait for it, because this is the only time in the entire article that this man's name is mentioned

"the deprogrammer Rick Ross on ABC's Good Morning America, moral entrepreneurs Margaret Singer and Louis Jolyon West..." and about 4 other names.

Now your text stated

'has also criticized Ross and others whom he refers to as "hardline anticultists". Wright has stated that, regarding a cult-related event, these "so-called experts" "produced an endless stream of speculation, hearsay, [and] unscientific claims".

but the article does not say that at all. It is talking about the "news coverage of the recent mass suicide" (subject of the paragraph) "The event produced [in the news coverage] an endless stream of speculation, hearsay, [and this is when you need to apply coma rules and realize that we have a separate complete thought] unscientific claims by so-called 'cult experts,' [comma denotes new topic independent of cult experts but tied to news event]and calls for tighter government regulation."

now I get how this got misread, it is an academic paper and Wright tried to cram a lot more in one paragraph than I would ever attempt, and I am assuming good faith but your summary of the paragraph is simply that, a misreading of the article. On top of that Ross isn't even a minor character in this article the entire article is on how media covers minority faiths, not deprogramming or even cult's, thus my statment that your summary criticism doesn't hold up to WP:WEIGHT. I am going to remove the text.Coffeepusher (talk) 02:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to add a comment to Coffeepusher's cogent analysis. LogicalFinance, you are inserting very negative information into a BLP, which means utmost caution must be exercised. Even if the article supported your claims, the material was problematic as it came only from a journal article written by the critic himself. Also, LF, you should not be warring over this. Unless you can demonstrate that it doesn't violate BLP policy and you obtain a consensus agreeing with you, it can't go back in (in any form that hasn't first been vetted).--Bbb23 (talk) 02:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanations and for AGF. I got a little carried away with the Wright excerpt. If you read the section above, you’ll see that before I edited it, the statement from Wright was also misread by the first person who added it. They wrote that “Wright referred to Ross as one of the most important hardline anticultists.” Initially, I removed it just as you did, but someone argued to keep it in, so in trying to make it more accurate, I ended up going too far in the opposite direction. So I’m okay with that being removed since I already attempted to remove it once.

One reason I got a bit carried away is that in doing some research on the subject, I found that there exists a good amount of criticism and controversy, and I saw none on the page save for a sentence or two on his involvement in Waco. Like I mentioned in the first paragraph of this section, it seems pretty clear that there is controversy around the subject based on the talk pages. Several editors have argued back and forth on whether to add or remove criticism, and in many cases Ross himself, as user:RickAlanRoss, was arguing with editors and adding praise to himself in the article. I think the page is in much better shape NPOV-wise than it has been in the past. But I do still believe that there should be some mention of the controversy/criticism that has been stirred up over the subject.

And you could say that the subject, Ross, agrees as well. On his website he says: “It seems that this often passionate criticism deserves some recognition.” I want to propose adding these two sentences, using Ross’s own website as the source.

As a result of his work over the years, Ross has received criticism over his past and credentials. [4] He maintains a page on his website which chronicles and responds to criticism from more than 80 individuals, organizations, articles, and websites.[5]

Ross’s website has been used several times as a source in the article so I assume it is reliable for information on him. Of course, if we agree it can be added, I will properly format the references. I won’t add it unless we can reach a consensus so I’ll eagerly await responses. LogicalFinance33 (talk) 19:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

This inclusion would not hold up to Wikipedia standards. Criticisms on any Wikipedia page, especially a biography of a living person must closely adhere to Wikipeida's standards of validity and weight. I am just as uncomfortable with Rick Ross choosing his criticisms as I am with him choosing the praise within this article. Both criticism's and praise must be shown to be significant within the reliable literature on the subject before it can be included into the article. and as was pointed out by Bbb23 especially in a biography of a living person we must error to not include rather than include something that is outside of wikipedia's standard. a quick read through the criticisms on the Rick Ross page shows that none of them would really hold up to wikipedia's standards of inclusion, so we should not link or point to them as a source.Coffeepusher (talk) 01:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Intro tag

Hi there, the notice on the article regarding Intro may no longer be needed. The intro now seems to cover the gist of the article,leaving nothing out that I can see. Would anyone be opposed to the removal of the tag? petrarchan47 t c 17:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Well it needs a little more work (I just need to find the time to finish the summary) but, yeh, feel free to remove it :) --Errant ^(chat!) 18:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 August 2013

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hi. The "Rick A. Ross Institute" changed its name to "Cult Education Institute". The website www.rickross.com has been sold; the new website is: http://www.culteducation.com. Please update. 87.183.205.179 (talk) 09:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Already done Thanks, Celestra (talk) 22:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 September 2013