Talk:Rick Ross (consultant)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rick Ross (consultant) article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2

Contents


Archive
Archives


[edit] NON - WP:RS

The rick ross website and forum have been determined to not conform to WP:RS.

Per third-party non WP:RS material should neither be included in See Also nor External Links.

Lsi john 16:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

1) By whom?
2) What policy? --Tilman 17:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Smee and I are in mediation and have called for Third-Party Opinions on various issues. In the mediation, the mediator and Smee both agreed that Rick Ross was not WP:RS and did not belong in Cited References, See Also or External Links. Other similar third party opinions have also been given in other related articles. My edit here was based on those findings, as they were worded in such a way as to apply to all articles. Lsi john 17:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
As I understand the policy?, unregulated websites are subject to POV and are not WP:RS. I'm new and do not know all the specifics. In one specific example, copies of articles on the RR website were not permitted. I believe it was related to a lack of editorial control? review? and that the original article must be cited not a captured copy. (Don't hang me for using wrong words. I'm only trying to relate what I read.) Lsi john 17:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Please check with Smee and other editors before you revert this. You will open the door to the website being used in multiple other places. If you allow non WP:RS to be referenced here, then you will also be allowing non WP:RS material to be referenced in other articles. Lsi john 17:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I can understand that, but surely for biographical information about Rick Ross and for his responses to critics we have to cite his own website, yes?LiPollis 17:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I will not revert a 2nd time. However, Non WP:RS is non WP:RS, regardless of the articles subject matter. Allowing it here will allow it in other places as well. That is a slippery slope.

Based on a quick review of your userpage, it seems you are anti-scientology. That is unimportant except for the basis of this explanation... Do you wish to allow an article on Scientology to be able to use non WP:RS simply because it relates to the topic of the article? (no offense or implications intended to anyone for the example) Lsi john 17:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

If you believe Rick Ross needs to defend himself, or be defended, then find a WP:RS and use that. Lsi john 17:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

There are probably more non WP:RS which need removed. You're welcome to do that or I'll get around to it later. Peace. Lsi john 17:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

An external link is not a source.

Show me the link to your mediation that has determined that Rick Ross is not a reliable source. I remember an older, informal mediation where it was agreed that he is a reliable source, due to being an expert in his field, lecturer, expert witness in court etc. --Tilman 17:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Lsi john, I don't know WHERE on my userpage you could find anything to suggest I am Anti-Scientology. in fact, i am quite sympathetic to new religious movements including scientology. I have done a fair amount of field work documenting the beliefs and practices of new religious movements and the re-established religions within native American groups. I find much of Rick Ross's work to be hateful and dangerous. I also personally find the Anti-Cult movement in general to be unamerican. Anti-cultists seek to infantilize anyone who doesn't choose to stay in the religion in which their were raised or anyone who chooses to believe in a faith outside the mainstream. When you consider how non-mainstream the beliefs of Pilgrims, Quakers, Shakers and other groups inmportant to the founding of this country, it makes one wonder, doesn't it? i try to edit as fairly as possible and Rick Ross is no exception. Just because I find him to be intelluctually dishonest doesn't mean I won't try and give his biography a fair pass. If you want to chat about this or email, leave me a note. You might find you and I have more in common than you initially believed.LiPollis 23:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC) (I neglected to sign my post earlier)
As I said, from a brief browsing of your website. Brief is not always good as this case seems to bear out. Regardless, I presume that the example I gave was still clear. My apologies for mis-stating. Lsi john 22:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I found this [1] and Smee agreed only about forum.rickross.com. Not Rick Ross in general. --Tilman 18:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Tilman is exactly on point here. Smee 22:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC).
Smee, why cant he be correct, why does he have to be exactly on point. Do you see how your words are so extra colorful as to be derisive and abrasive? I don't want to fight with you. Please don't pick at me. Lsi john 22:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
You had previously removed my comment. That is a no-no. Do not remove other people's comments from discussion pages. And how is my agreement with Tilman's assessment of what my opinion would be wrong? I am simply agreeing with Tilman's assessment here, saying that yes, he is exactly correct in this. Smee 22:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC).
Please lets not fight and throw accusations. please? I didn't intentionally remove your comment, there was an edit conflict because you were editing. I had edited in two places and Your edit comment did not look like you had edited where I was editing. I pasted in the text and then saw the revision history. I immediately copied your comment and put it back in.. please review the logs and you will see that. And you were putting it in at the same time, so we got two copies.. which is also visible in the logs. You have never seen me remove comments and there is no reason for you to believe I would do it now. Please lets call a truce? or just tell me to leave. I truly do not have the energy to do battle.
Regarding my comment. Please read it again in this light... you could have said "he is correct" and that would have reflected the situation accurately and clearly. Instead you said "He is exactly correct". Please step back and read that.. what would be the difference between correct and exactly correct? This is the issue we've had all along with your writing style. You add extra words that are unnecessary and confrontational. If you don't see it, at least accept that I see it and adjust accordingly so that I'm not offended. In the same way you say that you want me to stop being hurtful when I don't feel I'm being hurtful. Therefore I stopped typing WP:POV type labels at you. Lsi john 22:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Please do not hyper analyze the semantics of my choice of wording. Debating over the placement of my use of the word exactly ? To refer to how correct Tilman's assessment of my opinions were? Please just stop this. This is just so, so silly. Smee 22:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC).
I see that now and stand corrected. Though, I would still argue that RickRoss.com is WP:NRS as there is no editorial control and his views are well documented to be anti-cult. It is unreasonable to expect someone with such an avid mission to be unbiased and reliable on their website. Lsi john 22:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

As to what should and what shouldn't be included in See Also and External Links.. well I try to get clarification on things like that in Admin Help and Third Opinion and Smee popped in and tried to kill my requests. I just want a set of standard.. hard and fast standards.. that can be used to decide what can be done and what can't be done. What is proper and what isn't proper. I make an edit, Smee reverts and says no no thats against the rules... then I see her make, what appears to me, to be an identical edit and I'm lost.

Anyway, its not worth the effort and struggle that its been. Though I'll have to acknowledge that I chose to engage in the struggle and thus the responsibility is mine. From here on, I'll probably limit my input to discussion pages. If she uses the input and the articles seem to balance out more, I'll stick around. If she doesn't, and the articles continue to be biased and slanted against LGAT and the good things that can be accomplished by the companies doing the seminars, then I'll leave. There needs to be a balance. The articles need to be fair and neutral. Both the bad AND the good need to be included, or wiki is what my best friend called it a blogapedia. Lsi john 22:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

  • You must understand the differences between WP:RS and WP:EL, as well as the use of external Web sites which archive reputable news sources and other reputable citations, and the text of those older articles... Smee 22:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC).

On an article about a source, links to that source's website is permissible (under some limitations). See WP:V#SELF. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Smee 23:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Please Explain

Please explain your position on WP:BLP.

  • The citation I added, was from his own website, in his own words and he specifically acknowledges the validity of it.
  • It is in the same paragraph with the other things he has been called.
  • It adds neutrality by showing both perspectives.

Before you revert it, perhaps because you just don't like it, please explain specifically why it is improper to add reliable cited material to an article. Lsi john 14:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you're speaking to, but I'll chime in anyway: the obvious answer is that just because an item is properly sourced still doesn't mean it belongs here. I could easily find reliable sources that say "Woody Allen is a pedophile", but notice the Woody Allen article does not say "Woody Allen has been called a pedophile." I could easily find reliable sources that say "President Bush is a retard" but notice the George W. Bush article does not say "Bush has been called a retard". Why? Because these are articles about living people, and WP:BLP is clearly against loading articles up with gratuitous gossip and insults, even if the insults happen to be true and even if they happen to be impeccably sourced. Derogatory names that people have called the subject of the article is not encyclopedic information. wikipediatrix 16:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Had I gone out and found an article where someone called Rick Ross- Satan, your comparison would be correct. The citation I gave, is a quote from Rick Ross, acknowledging the name calling. I believe there is a subtle difference. He has recognized the name calling, and thus given it importance. Lsi john 20:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
You couldn't be more wrong. It doesn't matter whether the source of the insult was rickross.com or crazedcultloonynews.net. Trivial hearsay and gossip are not proper encyclopedic information and I'd still omit it even if Rick Ross himself came here and begged it to be included. wikipediatrix 21:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


Lsi john, in BLPs we need exercise caution and not use bios as a way to perpetuate what somebody may have said about these BLPs. The article, without your addition, already does a good job of presenting the controversy surrounding this person. There is need need to "pile on". This is an encyclopedia and no a pamphlet. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Jossi, I do agree that neutrality needs to be maintained. That particular paragraph seems to include nothing but accreditations, citations, and accolades. Mr Ross himself used the words that I added, on his own website, in his own words. I feel it gives equal and opposing weight in the same place, at the same time, as the positive remarks and labels. If you consider yourself to be neutral, unbiased and with no opinion on the subject matter, and you believe it is unnecessary or unbalances the article then you are welcome to remove it. I feel it is appropriate to put it in the same location with his praises, and it is reliably cited, since he said it himself. Lsi john 20:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
What you seem to be saying, then, is that in the interest of fairness, we should always balance accolades with negatives. That's totally wrong-headed. There are plenty of articles about living persons that include good things they've done without talking about the negative. Not all negativity is notable, and that someone called Rick Ross a "tool of Satan" ain't notable by any stretch of the imagination. Are you ready to start correcting the lack of negativity on those tens of thousands of other articles, or are you just especially interested in Rick Ross, hmmm? wikipediatrix 21:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I did not say that it needed to balance evenly. I said that the paragraph in question was the appropriate place to insert what I inserted. I felt it was appropriate material and the consensus is that it was not appropriate. I can accept a consensus. I cannot accept one editor reverting and citing a rule, without taking the time to explain it, and then reverting a 2nd time, again without having the common courtesy to explain it. Overlooking the sarcasm, both you and jossi have taken time to explain why it was not appropriate to include which is far more courtesy than Smee offered.
I'm interested in many things. I'm currently taking photos of Rosie Finches and Gold Finches in flight, as they fight for position at a feeder, which I will contribute to the appropritate article. I have one rapid-series of shots where one finch knocked another off his pearch and it is flying upside down. They are actually very amazing shots.
I'm also interested in Scuba Diving (to which I made minor edits). I also have an interest in mathmatics and made a minor update to one of their articles. Like Smee, most of my time has been spent on the LGAT articles, because it is currently of a higher emotional interest to me. Lsi john 21:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Personally I find Smee's reverts to be offensive and against wiki policy for reverting. My addition was reliably cited and before it gets reverted a discussion should be had. She is being heavy handed and dictatorial. It is not conducive to cooperation and respect. She owes me an apology for her rude behavior. Lsi john 20:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
FYI, I am not unbiased (I do not like Mr. Ross one bit...). Nevertheless, a biography should be factual and understated, and compliant with WP:BLP, WP:NOT, and it should not give undue weight to minority positions. Yes, Mr. Ross is controversial and has attracted considerable criticism. But to refer to him as a "tool of Satan" is not only playing to undue weight, but it also plays to a deliberate attempt to diminish the credibility of his critics. Let it go, John. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Already did. thank you for taking the time to explain it. I don't like Rick Ross, but I also DO want neutral and fair articles. Personally, calling him a tool of satan is nutty, he's simply a tool. ;) Lsi john 21:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Surely cultsultant?!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH - get it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.111.131.88 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Some citations to add to the article...

Smee 03:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC).

Nothing new in that source that it is not already covered in the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
This was more a note to myself to add it to the article later than anything else. And yes, there are some interesting quotations, and more recent info. I will add it soon. Smee 05:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC).


[edit] Using Wikipedia to attack someone or something

Perhaps the primary reason Wikipedia has often been crticized as an unreliable research resource is the practice of editors, with an apparent "axe to grind," using it to attack someone or something they don't like. This can be seen within the editing of this entry. Rory Bowman is a supporter of the "Mankind Project." Jossi is a supporter of Prem Rawat, formerly known as the "Guru Maharaji" of "Divine Light Mission." "LSI john" is a supporter of LGATs (large group awareness training) which he prefers to call "personal growth" companies. LGATS, Divine Light Mission and Mankind Project are all included within the archives of the Rick A. Ross Institute. Having pointed this out for a bit of background let's look at a recent bit of edits. Repeatedly edits have been done recently to include the words "he considers" as a preface to "'destructive cults,' controversial groups and movements." This edit is meant to infer that inclusion of the groups is an opinion not a fact. But this is not the case. The news articles archived within the Ross Institute Web site from news reports, court records and/or links to discussion threads reflects the fact that the groups included have garnered some controversy. The label "destructive cults" or "cults" is also a description used within some of the media reports to describe some of the groups included at the Web site archives. The inclusion of the words "he considers" attempts to ignore these facts and mislead the readers of this Wikipedia entry. 24.0.42.27 14:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

See Attribution, and also WP:NPA. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I restored the wording that was stable for many months, before you changed it. It is neutral and accurate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, if you look back at the edit history you will see that Rory Bowman began the changes. 24.0.42.27 15:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
My familiarity with WP:RS and WP:SELFPUB was less then, and a "he considers" line is exactly in keeping with similar sentences such as one of mine which begins "MKP states that it promotes." Another one worth considering here is WP:WEASEL and a review of WP:ATP. A more appropriate place for this discussion might be a user talk page, if 24.0.42.27 would care to register for a standard editor's account. - Rorybowman 16:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup of September 5

I have somewhat cleaned up the article, severely pruned the block quotes which I believe are a serious copyright nightmare. I have attempted to concisely smelt these into the sections. At the same time, I have used some of the [non-Ross] sources in the article to reduce the percieved bias of quoting directly from Ross. In the case of some of the more minor changes, I have removed the named source in the text where these are referenced in footnotes, as it will be clear where the citation came from. Ohconfucius 09:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect removed

Talk:Rick Ross was redirecting here because some time ago, for a good reason at the time, someone "moved" that page here.
Given that Rick Ross is now a disambiguation page currently involving three people, this no longer seems appropriate, and the redirect has been removed. Pdfpdf 06:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] COI (Conflict of Interest)

If any user editing this page, whether an account or IP address really is Rick Ross (consultant), please see WP:COI. Rlevse 01:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not Rick Ross. See my wiki page. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 21:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not Rick Ross. But I am Spartacus. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 06:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC).
Will the real Rick Ross please stand up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.102.7.201 (talk) 06:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I wish I was Nick Ross best TV presenter in England....O. Rick Ross? Sorry, never heard of him. He famous?

[edit] Reverted edits

I have today reverted the edits of User:Sfacets. The Shupe & Darnell sentence referring him as a violent deprogrammer is duplicated - there already is reference to him being a "coercive deprogrammer". Then, the ref to him being a convicted jewel thief with history of psy problems is attributable to Kabbalah, who relentlessly attacks him for his vendetta against it, and is not reliable. The jewellery theft is already well known fact already abundantly detailed in the bio; AFAIK, there is no source which indicates Ross has ever been so diagnosed. Ohconfucius 09:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The reference to him being a "violent deprogrammer" isn't duplicated. Also this is in the introductory part of the section, which aims at introducing each subsection. Scientology is mentioned for example. The source that details his ,"history of psychiatric problems" is the Las Vegas Sun - it is reliable, and it mentions him agreeing to his history of psychiatric problems:

""Rick Ross is a convicted felon with a history of psychiatric problems," Omer said. True enough, says Ross.

Sfacets 10:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Although he may have said "true enough", the context isn't exactly clear: I wouldn't entirely agree that "he has had counseling on several occasions in his life, he has never been hospitalized for psychiatric care" means he had "a history of psychiatric problems". Also, when is a "coercive deprogrammer" not a "violent deprogrammer"? Ohconfucius 02:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Well if he's agreeing with the statement, then it means that it's true. Coercive is when somebody uses force or threats, but isn't necessarily "violent" which is much more in the domain of physical brutality. Sfacets 02:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

This seems like a really grey area. What were the problems, and was his response "true enough" the same as "true."? It sounds like someone conceding or placating. Just curious. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 02:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It may have been said in a placating context, however when it is written down that context vanishes, since it would be Original Research to make that assumption. Sfacets 03:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. I was just curious. I see no reference to it in the article, don't see a problem with the article as it is. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 03:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Introduction section

I had re-worded the intro section according to WP:LEAD and it was reverted, inviting all editor's to express their concern here... so that we can zero down on something better!! --talk-to-me! (talk) 06:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

My concern with the lead was the addition of florid phrasing and weasel words which changed POV without adding anything of substance, such as
  • consultant and lecturer in the area of his expertise, cults (bolded words add nothing)
  • he is commonly referred to as is imprecise, especially given the quotation marks (and avoids "exit counseling"/kidnapping controversies)
  • he maintains an informative database etc inserts unnecessary opinions (see WP:Weasel)
  • he also owns cultnews.com and changing "blog" to "web site" obscures that these are self-published and not WP:RS
  • the fact that he is an expert witness in some courts is inarguable but the added phrase in relation to his expert knowledge etc adds nothing

As an editor I would note that single-article accounts are inherently suspicious and by themselves raise questions of WP:NPOV, so would encourage new editors to be slightly less effusive and more aware of an article's history before leaping into major revisions of a WP:Lead. Does that help explain my action a bit more? An editor may personally think that the subject of an article is the next Jesus Christ, Joseph Smith or L. Ron Hubbard, but this adoration need not enter into clean and precise WP:NPOV edits. - Rorybowman (talk) 15:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This is what the lead say's presently:-

Rick Alan Ross (born 1952 in Cleveland, Ohio, United States named Ricky Alan Ross) is a consultant and lecturer in the area of his expertise, cults. He is commonly referred to as a "cult intervention specialist", term which describes method of exit counseling or de-programming.

He maintains an informative database about controversial groups, most of which are listed as "cults," and related information on the Internet, containing press articles, court documents, and essays.[1] He also own's Cultnews.com, an informative website.[2]

He has been accepted in various courts as an expert witness, interviewed and quoted by the media in the United States and other countries in relation to his expert knowledge in cults/cultic methodologies.


Ross has been criticized by some of the groups he lists on his website, by some of the scholars who study new religious movements (NRMs),[citation needed] and by other individuals in relation to the roles he played in the controversial "deprogramming" case of Jason Scott and the ill-fated FBI standoff with the Branch Davidians.


what/where is the objection ! --talk-to-me! (talk) 07:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no list of "cults" on the site. see the disclaimer. Seems like you have a personal beef due to your interests in a group listed at the site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.4.106 (talk) 15:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind focusing on content's rather then contributer's ? --talk-to-me! (talk) 15:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


  • consultant and lecturer in the area of his expertise, cults (bolded words add nothing)
This seems pretty much ok, this is what he is... correct ?
  • he is commonly referred to as is imprecise, especially given the quotation marks (and avoids "exit counseling"/kidnapping controversies)
This is better version of he claims to be
  • he maintains an informative database etc inserts unnecessary opinions (see WP:Weasel)
Respectfully i disagree... this is what it is, we can exclude the term informative and just database, this is one of his works.
  • he also owns cultnews.com and changing "blog" to "web site" obscures that these are self-published and not WP:RS
This page is about a person who control that site, this link is a must in this page, cannot be avoided.
  • the fact that he is an expert witness in some courts is inarguable but the added phrase in relation to his expert knowledge etc adds nothing
Agree, this line can be removed.

--talk-to-me! (talk) 17:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Theological and Professional Criticisms

An anonymous editor from New Jersey has concerns regarding the following sentence. Could I get some feedback, please?

Evangelical Christian Anton Hein has theological criticisms of Ross on his Apologetics Index [2] and Ross has also had public disagreements with Steven Hassan.[3]

-Rorybowman (talk) 20:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why Anton Hein's opinion on Ross in notable, or the dispute with Steven Hassan. Both those sources are self-published. It seems to me the major criticisms of Ross are already abundantly expressed (criticism by "cults", "cult apologetics", and about deprogramming) in the article. So I agree with the anon. RB972 02:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Each of the criticisms is from an individual with an ax to grind and as pointed out already self published. Hassan was forced to publish his fee schedule after being exposed for charging extraordinary fees at the Ross Institute Web site. Anton Hein was exposed at Cult News.com as a registered sex offender and fugitive with an outstanding felony warrant. Both men are angry, but what does that have to do with an encyclopedia entry? Hein is not a religious studies scholar and has no official or ordained standing to represent evangelicals.

FYI--Rory Bowman is a supporter of a large group awareness training program called the Mankind Project. The Rick A. Ross Institute has a subsection about that group within its archives, which contains critical news articles. The Mankind Project is also critically discussed within the Ross Institute message board. Bowman seems to feel that this Wikipedia entry is a useful means of retaliation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.4.106 (talk) 14:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It would be unchristian of me to suggest that Rick Ross get a regular editor account if he wishes to remove criticisms of his theological and professional competence by his colleagues in the anti-cult industry. The gist of both criticisms is that Ross is in many ways unqualified to offer criticism of (A) Christian groups as to to their theological orthodoxy, given his own lack of training or expertise in matters of Christian theology and apologetics (where terms such as "cult," "sect" and "faction" have subtle technical meanings) or to offer (B) psychological counseling or intervention, given his lack of credentials in those fields. Neither of these is an ad hominem attack. Is the criticism factually inaccurate? -Rorybowman (talk) 14:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"Ad hominem"? That isn't the point. As pointed out previously, the citations offered are from self-published individual sources. Simply because they agree with your opinion and agenda doesn't make them any more credible. Look at the full paragraph, it is balanced with criticism first and then published rebuttal. You are attemtping to weigh in more criticism and unbalance the paragraph with individual opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.4.106 (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


Rorybowman, your statement unqualified to offer criticism needs further elucidation!! You are making a statement that another person/institute is not qualified to offer criticism, when, from your edits in this article, it appear that its you who is doing this job (offering criticism)!! --talk-to-me! (talk) 23:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
What, CFW, would you argue makes someone qualified to offer criticism? Is it professional training, certification, or a long-term familiarity with the subject and an appreciation of its intricacies and nuance? Hassan has all of these things. Hein presumably has less, but Hein is clearly more familiar and versed in Christian theology and apologetics than Ross. Words like "apologetics" and "cult" have long and established meanings among scholars and did before they became pejoratives after Jonestown. Perhaps the reason that more qualified people would have an "axe to grind" with Ross is that he does not have these basic credentials, submits nothing to peer-reviewed journals and presumably makes at least a portion of his living by getting lawyers to have judges declare him an expert witness on a case-by-case basis. Are you asserting that Ross understands Christian theology better than Hein, or that he is more qualified in matters of psychology than Hassan? If Ross is put forward as a an expert on some subject, it seems reasonable to acknowledge the criticism of others with equal or greater expertise, no? Rorybowman (talk) 02:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
BTW, I tried to track down Hassan's Masters qualifications a year or so ago and they appeared to come from what was then an unaccreditated distance school. Hassan does at least do "academic-like" commentary and writings. IMO Ross appears to be primarily an internet librarian and blogger - a collator of links and information. Quite frankly I'm astounded wikipedians consider him WP:RS --Insider201283 (talk) 12:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I doubt that most Wikipedians do consider Ross WP:RS, but there is a strong anti-cult presence which does. Although the term did not exist, I don't think it is too far off to consider him primarily a blogger these days. The argument that Hassan is any better largely focuses on professional credentials and published work, although I have no idea as to the quality of either and to to speculate would for me be WP:OR. All good points, to be sure! Rorybowman (talk) 17:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm dealing with a Wiki admin who insists the fact an organization is mentioned on Ross's website is notable and thus should be included in an article on the organization, with Ross's site as the source. --Insider201283 (talk) 00:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
With all due regards and admiration for Hassan, i would humbly request to remain focused on the contents of the articles rather than discussing the subject itself, as this will only scatter the discussion, coming back to point 1, elaborating on difference between S. Hassan and Rick Ross, may not help the content of the article, given the fact, they work on similar lines.--talk-to-me! (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)