Talk:Rick Ross (consultant)/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Contents

Remaining potential edits

Willmcw--There are two aspects of the Ross entry that remain somewhat inaccurate. One, is that the deprogramming of two Waco Davidians was not a "claim," but rather at least one case was widely reported and documented. That is, one of the Davidians deprogrammed (David Block) is cited in the Treasury Report, in a book published, through news coverage and the affidavit filed by the BATF to obtain a warrant against Koresh. Second, the FBI says one thing about Ross, Ross' statement contradicts their version and then there is Ammerman. What is the best way to reflect all this controversy?67.134.82.78 13:52, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Just describe it as is, without editorializing. That simple. Readers can then chose who to believe. They are not stupid, you know? --Zappaz 15:44, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
One Davidian was deprogrammed by Ross as reported by the press, government, book etc. The second claimed was not reported about. Ross, Ammerman and FBI all tell different stories that conflict with each other. Simple enough?67.134.82.78 17:59, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Zappaz is largely correct. The WP:NPOV policy would have us represent each side. However marginal views should not receive the same amount of space as more widely-held views. Is there a particular view of Ross's that is not represented, or are there any views of others which are exaggerated? Cheers, -Willmcw 17:00, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
Looks like both the good and bad is there. Criminal record, Scott case, controversy, criticism, media, work record etc. All the points have been referred to and/or acknowledged with links for those who wish to read a more in-depth analysis.67.134.82.78 17:59, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes. Only thing is missing is to describe the controversy from the POV of his numerous critics. There is a lot of information online that can be used to present their POV. Given the controversy around Ross, this will be a good addition to the article. I also think that we need to replace the "failed deprogramming" in the intro with something better, because it implies that there is such a thing as "successful" deprogramming and that is just not NPOV. --Zappaz 18:30, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
No. The criticism is there along with the links. But something tells me you will never be satisfied. "Failed deprogramming" is an easy thing to understand. "Successful" would mean the person left the group. Jason Scott did not leave the group, and thus the deprogramming effort "failed." "Given the controversy around Ross." Now who is "editorializing"? This is a marginal view not a widely-held view, typically expressed by groups called "cults" and apologists associated with them. You won't find articles in the mainstream media about this imagined "controversy."67.134.82.78 19:05, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
External links are not enough. If there is a controversy, and there is unequivocally one (alleged lack of professional credentials, the demise of CAN and Jason Scott, Waco, FBI, etc., etc. etc.), we need to describe it. It there are detractors and they voice a contrarian opinion, these need to be presented. The current criticism section is way too small given the amount of criticism available on Ross. There are also scholars that are very critical of Ross, such as Douglas Cowen (considered an apologist by Ross an other anti-cultists) that challenge Ross claim to "professionalism". These POVs need to be also added, of course with the specifics of who are these (i.e. groups attacked by Ross, or "apologists") without taking sides on the controversy. It has nothing to do with me being satisfied or not. Thank God, my satisfaction does not depends on Wikipedia. Regarding the "failed" deprogramming wording, I am sure other editors will agree with me that it is a poor choice of words, and one that has implicit connotations of approval of such methods, and thus not NPOV. A better choice of words, that I propose would be: the failed attempt at the forceful abduction and deprogramming of Jason Scott. --Zappaz 20:15, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Also note that the "Current activities' list many activities that are not so current. --Zappaz 20:48, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Zappaz you really are grasping now. Ross' career in the cult field spans more than 20 years. "regarding the failed deprogramming" could be changed to "regarding the failed attempt to 'deprogram' Jason Scott..." elsewhere the words "deprogrammer," "deprogrmming" and "deprogram" could be placed within quotation marks. The details regarding the Scott case are spelled out plainly in that subsequent section, such as the criminal case, civil case etc. All of your other points are also already included. The criticism about Ross is noted repeatedly, footnoted and hyper linked.67.134.82.78 21:15, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
I'll be glad to see that you make that edit (the failed attempt at the forceful abduction and deprogramming of Jason Scott), although I would remove the quotation marks around "deprogram". And I will come back to edit the article on June 1st, to add the POV of the critics of this controversial anti-cultist, as promised. Hopefully by then, other more amicable editors to your POV would have helped as well. I may also ask for a RfC to invite other editors to have a look. --Zappaz 22:09, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Sounds like you are grasping once again. "More amicable editors"? Essentially "amicable" appers to mean doing what Zappaz wants and agreeing with him/her. Again, seems like when you can't have your way it's an "edit war."67.134.82.78 22:39, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

None of us should get our way. This is a project to build an encyclopedia. Regarding the quotation marks I don't see the need for them myself. "Deprogram" is the correct and relevant word to use for the earlier activities of Ross. Quotation marks, or scare quotes, usually denotes that the term is being used dubiously or ironically. I don't see the need for that here. Regarding the Scott case, let's call it "unsuccessful." That's incrementally less POV than "failed". The article goes into detail about the case later. I see that some critics are specifically quoted, and others alluded to throughout the article. As far as improving the article goes, I'd suggest it could use more specific biographical information. Was Ross born in Arizona? Most recent activities? Regarding June 1: as with all dates, it's a great occasion to make NPOV summaries of verifiable information. -Cheers, -Willmcw 11:32, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

OK. Born in Cleveland, Ohio 1952, familiy moved to Arizona in 1956 lived there until 2001 then moved to Jersey City, New Jersey in 2001. Lives there now. Graudated high school in 1971. Launched website in 1996 Ross Insitute established in 2003. [1][[2]][3][[4]]other references to court expert work [5][6]67.134.82.78 14:39, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the research! Cheers, -Willmcw 01:48, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
Research? ;) --Zappaz 07:05, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
 ;)
Yep. Facts were requested as opposed to propaganda.67.134.82.78 13:36, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Edits by Zappaz

I am a bit late with this, but finally managed to get this done. These are my edits. Please note that each and every one of these edits is supported by well researched references.

  • The $2 million judgement against him was not because an "unsusccesful" deprograming, but using Ross own words because of "unlawful imprisonment". This is now reflected in the intro.
  • Ross Institute full name and link to GuideStar (the US registry of non-profit organizations) in which it is reported that the "institute" had income of less than 25K, meaning that it is not required to file tax records. This is important as it presents an the relative importance of the Institute.
  • Added "title" given by some media outlets ("cult buster")
  • Presented criticism by Scientology and some religion scholars and people related to the Waco tragedy
  • Links to references about Ross in extensive documentation and critique regarding his controversial involvement in the Waco tragedy.
  • Expanded on Jason Case, mainly quoting from the transcripts of the judgement against him
  • Criticism against Ross from Christain organizations, Kabbalah center and people
  • Extended additions of external links section

--Zappaz 8 July 2005 04:51 (UTC)

And you thoughtfully waited until you had the entire article revised to your liking and then presented all your changes en masse as a fait accompli. Very smooth. -- Antaeus Feldspar 9 July 2005 01:01 (UTC)
That is called research. I went to the library, checked some websites and consulted some people. When I had all the facts, I made the edit. I think the article reads better and it is more comprehensive. --Zappaz 9 July 2005 04:34 (UTC)
No, research is what you do to make sure your edits are accurate (or in certain people's cases, at least more outwardly plausible.) There is no connection between "doing research for one's edits" and "51 out of 52 consecutive edits to an article." -- Antaeus Feldspar 9 July 2005 17:32 (UTC)
I have no clue on what are you complaining about. I did my edits after seaearching the subject over a period of sevelar weeks. After I did my edits, I contacted Willmcw, whom I respect regardless of our oppossing views on this subject, so that he could take a look and help NPOVing my edits if needed be. --Zappaz 21:44, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
LOL --AI 01:42, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

-I removed the "See also" seciton because all of the links in it were already in the "Cult template". -Willmcw July 8, 2005 22:21 (UTC)

Thanks. I did not see the template. --Zappaz 9 July 2005 04:34 (UTC)
I have returned the entry to its final edited form before Zappaz again attempted to use Wikipedia for his or her personal polemic and rant. If Wikipedia is going to be taken seriously as a resource of information people like Zappaz will probably have to be reigned in. Otherwise, it is likely to be considered a strange collection of rants from the fringe, instead of objective information. Anyone that follows Zappaz's editing objectively can see his or her purpose here is to build a biased attack, not inform the public. He or she apparently has a history of involvement with a purported "cult" and is angry about those who inform the public about cults. In an effort to discredit a major source of such information Zappaz is here slinging mud. Isn't anyone going to be responsible? The sources Zappaz has chosen are cults, cult apologists often paid by cults and wacko conspiracy theroists. Anything or anyone that supports his or her views, no mattter how biased, specious or unreliable. For example, Anson Shupe has been well-paid by Scientology. He testified in the Scott case for Scientology lawyer Kendrick Moxon and made out very well financially. Nancy Ammerman has been featured in a Scientology magazine and lionized there. The Kabbalah Centre spokesperson quoted has a vested interest in protecting his turf, reportedly now under investigation by the IRS for nonprofit status violations. Ross cooperated to expose the group and was quoted in a Radar Magazine series recently run. The Ross Institute has a very large archive of news reports on the Kabbalah Centre and the group clearly doesn't like people reading it. Despite Zappaz's attempt to dismiss Ross and the Ross Institute, anyone that follows cults knows he and the institute database are perhaps the most widely quoted resource about cults and controversial groups cited by the media. A simple look at Web site rankings demonstrates the same. Time Magazine called Ross a "veteran cultwatcher" and the Ross Institute is cited by People Magazine this month in an article. Ross has appeared for years in media reports. Zappaz may not like all this and dislike Ross personally, but this is his or her POV not NPOV.

Occupation

What is Rick Ross' occupation? Deprogrammer ? --AI 01:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

The current article says that he is a former deprogrammer. His current occupation seems to be researcher. -Willmcw 02:12, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
AI, Ross is a former deprogrammer, but today he calls himself an "intervention specialist" or a "exit counselor", although he has no professional credentials in counseling (these terms are mostly Ross' invention). Depending who you ask (read the article), his occupation is:
  • a cult expert
  • a self-professed cult buster
  • a media whore
  • an anti-religious bigot
Clearly, Ross is in the "anti-cult" business: Ross makes his money on "interventions" (non-coercive deprogramming, really), on court appearances (nowadays mostly on divorce cases, when one spouse accuses the other of being in a "cult" or in other 'familiar' disputes), being interviewed by the press, or acting as a cult-expert "consultant".
One thing is remarkable about this person: his resilience. After being busted in the Jason case and his deprograming business and reputation destroyed, and after the ill fated Waco standoff, he bounced back and he is still in business. It seems that in the US, no matter what you do, if you grab some headlines, you can make a living... --Zappaz 03:52, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Well, if you're going to bring up the matter of income, the cult business seems to pay much better than the anti-cult business. Compared to some (so-called) cult leaders, Ross is barely scraping along. Do you think it would be appropriate for the article to compare his lifestyle with theirs? That'd be interesting! Also, I don't see any mention of anyone calling him a "whore" in the article. Please keep a professional tone. Thanks, -Willmcw 04:38, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
Oh, but if you do... *drumroll* RESEARCH!!! that allows you to call people "whore". -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Hey..! both of you relax and read what I wrote, please....
(a) I did not call anyone a "whore", I said that some critics consider Ross a media whore:

From media whore: -those of limited notability who go out of their way to gain the attention of various media outlets, namely reality television personalities. - those who use their access to such outlets to promote a particular commercial or ideological message.

Reading the criticism leveled against Ross, the term media whore fits like a glove in describing these critics' POV.
You may be European, because when you say a person is a media whore in the US, everybody understand what that means.
(b) The matter of income is not a criticism, just information that is relevant to the article. The fees he charges are stated on his website. I found it quite interesting, that an apostate testimony is worth $500 a day.
This article is about Ross, the abundant controversy around him and his resilience as a businessman. Cult leaders have their own article, where their income is explored and criticized. --Zappaz 03:03, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Does the article state that "some critics call him a media whore" ? It should, if Wikicontributors are going to be consistent with other controversial articles... --AI 13:21, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

(Sarcasm) I am a critic of Rick Ross and I think he is a Manchurian Candidate ;D Shouldn't the article reflect my criticism? --AI 13:24, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

external link removed

I was going to check this link to see if the title really was "Cult Awareness brainwashers, Galen Kelly exposed at last" and if so, put that in quotes to make it clear that it's the article's description. Except I found out that a) you can't follow the link directly (making it of dubious usefulness to have on the article page) and b) it's of dubious quality as well. You can read it yourself, you just have to go to the main page first and then scroll down. An excerpt from the first paragraph:

Kelly is not just another thug; he is part of an international apparatus of Israeli, American, and British secret intelligence communities' "wetworks" capability. Kelly is on the board of JINSA, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, a liaison group between Israeli and American military establishments that is suspected of having been at the center of the Jonathan Pollard spy ring. Kelly is also the security henchman and a paid operative of CAN.

And so on. It's not even about Ross; he is mentioned in ten consecutive sentences in the first paragraph, almost all of it background information that anyone would already know from having read the article. This link adds nothing except the not terribly surprising news that the Lyndon LaRouche movement, often accused of being a cult is among Ross's critics; the home of "Executive Intelligence Review" is http://www.larouchepub.com . -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't care where the article comes from. It is an article about the Waco controversy in which Ross and his involvement in the affair are mentioned. That is the reason for inclusion, and it needs to stay. --Zappaz 04:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
On seconds thoughts and after reading the article again, I, for once, agree with Antaeus. Link deleted. --Zappaz 04:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Good call. Also, LaRouche sites have been deemed by the ArbCom to be too unreliable to use as references. Cheers, -Willmcw 04:17, July 15, 2005 (UTC)


Removed some repetitions. Also removed deprogrammer in the first paragraph - it is, later on, correctly mentioned, that he was a deprogrammer, but he is not one now, so this should not be in the first para. --Irmgard 10:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Removed Quote from www.religiousfreedomwatch.org. The link to the page is ok, but the formulations on it are too biased to be cited in an encyclopedia. --Irmgard 10:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I have returned the entry to its final edited form before Zappaz again attempted to use Wikipedia for his or her personal polemic and rant. If Wikipedia is going to be taken seriously as a resource of information people like Zappaz will probably have to be reigned in. Otherwise, it is likely to be considered a strange collection of rants from the fringe, instead of objective information. Anyone that follows Zappaz's editing objectively can see his or her purpose here is to build a biased attack, not inform the public. He or she apparently has a history of involvement with a purported "cult" and is angry about those who inform the public about cults. In an effort to discredit a major source of such information Zappaz is here slinging mud. Isn't anyone going to be responsible? The sources Zappaz has chosen are cults, cult apologists often paid by cults and wacko conspiracy theroists. Anything or anyone that supports his or her views, no mattter how biased, specious or unreliable. For example, Anson Shupe has been well-paid by Scientology. He testified in the Scott case for Scientology lawyer Kendrick Moxon and made out very well financially. Nancy Ammerman has been featured in a Scientology magazine and lionized there. The Kabbalah Centre spokesperson quoted has a vested interest in protecting his turf, reportedly now under investigation by the IRS for nonprofit status violations. Ross cooperated to expose the group and was quoted in a Radar Magazine series recently run. The Ross Institute has a very large archive of news reports on the Kabbalah Centre and the group clearly doesn't like people reading it. Despite Zappaz's attempt to dismiss Ross and the Ross Institute, anyone that follows cults knows he and the institute database are perhaps the most widely quoted resource about cults and controversial groups cited by the media. A simple look at Web site rankings demonstrates the same. Time Magazine called Ross a "veteran cultwatcher" and the Ross Institute is cited by People Magazine this month in an article. Ross has appeared for years in media reports. Zappaz may not like all this and dislike Ross personally, but this is his or her POV not NPOV.

There is nothing in my edits to this article that is not referenced and supported by citations. You are welcome to make corrections, if indeed I made any mistakes. You are also most welcome to add text related to the Time Magazine. People Magazine and Radar Magazine. That would be excellent. Please note that I have nothing personal against Mr. Ross. I would suggest that you read NPOV to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia and with its policies. --Zappaz 23:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
It does not inspire confidence in your devotion to NPOV, Zappaz, that when the intro we had, which very carefully described the fact that many people regard Ross as a cult expert without endorsing the idea that he is one, was edited to directly call him a cult expert, you did not move to restore the true version, but instead inserted the biased qualifier "self-professed", giving the demonstrably false impression that no one but Ross himself considers him a cult expert. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:29, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with being self-professed. On the contrary. It shows entrepreneurship and ingenuity. The "many people regard his as a cult expert" is POV, because there are people that considrer him the total opposite. So we can say that some media refer to him as a cult expert, and that is already there: Britain's FHM magazine named Rick Ross "America's number one cult buster." The New York Daily News referred to Ross as a "Self-styled cult buster."--ZappaZ 20:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
So you're saying it would be okay to acknowledge the fact that some people regard him as a cult expert, only if everyone regarded him as a cult expert? That is essentially how your argument reads: because there are some people who do not regard him as a cult expert, you will insert the "self-professed" qualifier to give the false impression that no one but Ross regards him as a cult expert. To put it mildly, the logic of that does not hold up upon examination. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Again, there is nothing wrong in being "self-professed". We can change it to "self-taught" if you wish. But that is a fact: His "expertise", is self-taught and self-professed. We cannot hide that fact. --ZappaZ 05:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC).
I can think of lots of people to whom we could add "self-styled" to describe their titles. Just because other people also call them by that title doesn't mean that it isn't self-professed. Jesus - self-professed Son of God. Why stop with Ross? ;) -Willmcw 07:55, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Zappaz, your bias is easy to follow. You have selected sources and quotes from people who share your view as previously pointed out. You are here for polemics. The earlier version has been restored again (this version was up for some time), sorry you don't like it. The overwhelming majority of press reports and media broadcasts introduce Ross simply as a "cult expert" without qualification. Anyone following news through Google can see that. The Ross Institute is a heavily used resource and often linked to, you may not like that, but that is a fact. BTW--Waco and David Koresh are most often cited as examples of a crazy cult leader and his followers. And the Scott case has been reported as an example of Scientology using the courts to go after its perceived enemies. Your quotes and editing don't reflect that. Time to do a reality check. Again, let's try to offer a reliable and factual entry as opposed to a collection of POV entries from the fringe.
My bias is stated on my user page. I sincerely encourage you to read Wikipedia Neutral Point of View, as it will help you understand what Wikipedia is, how it works and what is considered a good article. It will also help you understand objectivity and bias as it pertains to NPOV. Please follow these links. Thanks. --ZappaZ 20:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Zappaz, your bias is the modern view of tolerance 21 century - from that point of view almost all attempts to change someones religion by any means are immoral and having deprogrammed people is worse than having a heavy criminal history (religioustolerance.org). Well I am two years older than Rick Ross - that's an earlier generation. And I grew up with the idea that the worst thing on earth is not intolerance of any kind but totalitaranism and indocrination of any kind - especially in the fields of religion or politics. In that generation it was generally seen as legitimate to free people from a totalitarian group and indoctrination in general by informing them about different views, even if they had to be forced to listen - the main point was, that they were free to make their own choice after the procedur (I was never a deprogrammer or something like that, but I can relate to this attitude from having shared the general worldview of the time). Actually, many adherents of NRMs which developed in the sixties and seventies even today think like that: anything goes, if people are as a result more free (with freedom defined in the terms of the respective group) - in Scientology, for example, this is until today official teaching in internal documents I have studied). But most of those people who are not adherents of groups like Scientology have learned in the meantime, that deprogramming using force or threats is not the right way to treat people - also Rick Ross. He hasn't deprogrammed anyone by force or threats for many years. To call him now a former deprogrammer in the first sentence of his article is about as correct as calling the German minister of Foreign Affairs a former enemy of the government in the same place (which you also could find evidence for, looking in the archives of conservative newspapers) - but though factual, in both cases such a description does not give a picture of the person as he is now. Sure, in both cases such information should be mentioned in the article - its part of the history of the person, but its not part of the present character of the person (even though Fischer does not agree with Bush regarding environment and Ross is still no fighter for absolute tolerance). I don't know what experience you personally have regarding NRMs - and regarding which NRMs. Well, I have. Do you know, that high-ranking (not top-level) staff of Scientology are not permitted to make a phone call to their family without some witness from the ethics department listening in to prevent any possible way of counter-Scientology influence? That every single letter they receive from their family is first read by the ethics department? And that they are convinced that this is ok, ok for themselves, ok for their friends who are also on staff? Scientologists are told that they are the freest people on earth - and they believe that even under those circumstances. (been there, done that). Could you imagine that you would assent to such a situation under any circumstances? I would not have done so at twenty and not at forty and not now - and yet I did hold such views at thirty and did not know how and when I changed my mind to do it (and it was outside information offered by people like Rick Ross which made me see my error). And can you understand that some people do regard absolute tolerance in such a case similar to absolute tolerance regarding wife beaters or child molesters or Stalinist officials? Rick Ross does see it like that. He is no saint - never was and in all probability never will be - but it is definitely wrong to describe persons like him as a sort of enemy of freedom or enemy of humanity just because twenty years ago they had different convictions than you think correct today and had a) then the courage to act upon their convictions despite the no-holds-barred hostility of organizations like Scientology and b) had the courage to learn and to improve their methods later on. --Irmgard 23:07, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
I do not know much about Scientology and I am very much against totalitarism, of any kind. The edits I made on this article are neither supportive of the former or aligned with the latter. Your discourse on the nature of freedom and tolerance is interesting, but I respectfully disagree with it. Read the quote from Thomas Jefferson on userspace, and you will get a sense of what my position is in regard of religious freedom. IMO, bigotry takes many shapes and forms, and one of them is impinging in a person's right to follow a certain belief, no matter what that belief is or how alien can be to another person. The paternalistic approach of annti-cultists (i.e. people get brainwashed, and we can protect them or extricate them from it, poor souls) is repugnant in my opinion and against basic principles of respect for people's choices and freedoms.
Back to this article. The reasons that make Ross notable enough to be featured in WP is that:
  • He was a deprogrammer
  • He was sued for deprogramming a person, was bankrupted and triggered the demise of the Cult Awareness Network;
  • He ceased being a deprogrammer after that;
  • He was involved in the Waco standoff in a very controversial manner (if one is to judge by the amount of material on Ross available out there);
  • He has a website that lists hundreds of groups: The Rick A. Ross Institute has assembled one of the largest databases of information about controversial groups, some called "cults," and related information on the Internet, listing anything from Wicca to Mormons to Kabbalah.
  • He does not have any credentials or professional training as a counselor, and still calls himself an "intervention specialist";
  • He gets quoted by the media as a cult expert;
Each one of the facets are covered in the article. If I have done a poor job of presenting Ross in these facets above, please help me make it better. Thanks. --ZappaZ 00:09, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
I left all this information in the article, but I removed a quote from distorted web page and an anonymous biased second source (compare to religioustolerance.org regarding quality - the difference is obvious).
Regarding the CAN story - this was not triggered by Ross but planned and executed by Scientology who have a proven record of similar actions (their main goal in this case was to get CAN removed, though they sure had no scruples involving also Ross, who is also on the list of their enemies). So it is sure ok to mention the Jason suit and CAN involvement - but Ross as trigger is at least very disputed.
And once more back to tolerance - Anti-cultists including Rick Ross (and contrary to the countercult movement) usually don't care about exotic beliefs as such - the advocate informed consumer decisions on the field of religion (ok with them if you to go into the strictist Catholic or Buddhist monastery, if you are informed beforehand fully what to expect and what the rules and drawbacks are and can make a free decision). What they mainly oppose is a) members of exotic belief groups selling their beliefs using wrong or incomplete information of the public (compare e.g. a Scientology.org to the Xenu article), and b) such groups using methods which reduce the freedom of their members to leave like, e.g. restricting their information, slandering opponents. As a practical example: the Freezone movement has the almost the same religious teachings as Scientology but no repressive practices, and it finds not much opposition within the anti-cult movement - the only active enemies they have are Scientologists. --Irmgard 10:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Some cult jerk must have cut the link to "Ross Responds to his Critics." Guess they didn't want anybody to see that. It's back now and these idiots should not be allowed to take it off again. What a farce these people are and how they mock the notion of an encylopedia with facts and supposed balance.208.5.214.2 11:38, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Also added Ross response to critical websites that responds to Hassan and Apologetics statements. At least Ross has a sense of humor, which is more than you can say for the sad homorless cult people that post crap here. Since the links are posted to Hassan and this apologetics guy, Ross deserves a response. After all, there is also a link here to some huge critical file from the weirdos at Scientology and that nutcase Lyndon LaRouche is listed as a reference. Can you believe such junk even gets on a "encylopedia" entry?208.5.214.2 11:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Recent edits by Irmgard

Religiousfreedomwatch.org. I deleted the quote from this website. This website by Scientology is too biased to be a reliable source for an encyclopedia.The information in it is consciously distorted to show Scientology critics as bad as possible. It's quality regarding facts is at best on the level of an election campaign.

It can be referenced to illustrate how Scientology describes someone, but should not be quoted in the encyclopedia text nor should the information in it be taken at face value. --Irmgard 09:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I moved "current activities" to "life" to get some structure into the article. Also I removed double referral to his counseling qualifications and shortened the introduction. All facts mentioned by Zappaz are in the article (and should remain there), but there is no need to repeat them several times (makes the article just longer, not more interesting).

Remainder of your committment to keep all the facts in the article. Your deletions are challeged one by one below. --ZappaZ 15:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I also removed the link to rickrossexposed - a biased anonymous website is not up to an encyclopedial level. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources, especially [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Evaluating secondary sources --Irmgard 09:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your involvement. The introduction needs to reflect the aspects of Ross life that are notable. After all, this man was a deprogrammer, and boasts of having deprogrammed 100's of people. Read Colombrito vs. Kelly, where the Court accepted the definition of deprogramming by J. Le Moult published in 1978 in the Fordham Law Review:

Deprogrammers are people who, at the request of a parent or other close relative, will have a member of a religious sect seized, then hold him against his will and subject him to mental, emotional, and even physical pressures until he renounces his religious beliefs. Deprogrammers usually work for a fee, which my easily run as high as $25,000. The deprogramming process begins with abduction. Often strong me muscle the subject into a car and take him to a place where he is cut from everyone but his captors. he may be held against his will for upward of three weeks. Frequently, however, the initial deprogrammingonly last a few days. The subject's sleep is limited and he is told that he will not be released until his beliefs meet his captors' approval. Members of the deprogramming group, as well as members of the family, come into the room where the victim is held and barrage him with questions and denunciations until he recants his newly found religion :

Why a person that engaged in such denigrating and violent activity, suddenly stopped? Because of the judgements against him and others like him. I don't care if it was Scientology or the devil itself that made him stop, but you must agree that the fact that deprogramming is no longer acceptable in our society is a good thing. Then this man decides to become an "intervention specialist" as an "exit counselor". This, without professional credentials and/or training. What would you say if you see a torturer from the Pinochet era in Chile, becoming an expert in non-coercive interrogation techniques, and then have the chutzpah of publishing a code of ethics for interrogators? You would be shocked and disgusted.
The intro must reflect that he was a former deprogrammer, that he was and still is controversial, and that he does not have any professional accreditation. I have made small edits to the intro, but expect you to add back some material about Ross deprogramming past. --ZappaZ 15:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


Controversial in the intro - yes, that's ok. But the deprogrammer - sorry, that seems to be your favorite bugbear. Your ideas about the motivation of his change might be correct or not, but they are not encyclopedic facts, not even when adversaries of Ross assert it (they don't know much more about his inner motives than you do). And the fact he has worked out ethical standards for intervention work shows that he did have a throough look at the problems: http://www.rickross.com/ethics.html. Regarding professional training for intervention specialists - this is neither prescribed nor available on the market, so it's not necessarily his fault, that he hasn't any - BTW he never said he had. That he has no academic credentials is correct and is in the article.
I removed the Kabbalah Centre section - that's two short remarks, one which is already mentioned in the bio, the other a personal opinion by the leader of a group on which Ross has collected (not written) quite some articles. I did mention the Kabbalah Center under his critics, though.
Sorry, this is also not encyclopedic - no source and just opinion, therefore removed here:
"Critics assert that hubris and personal financial reward are Ross' primary motive for his anti-cult activities. "
I did mention some additional facts regarding criticism - his history with Shupe and Hassan and the reason for his problems with Hein.
I removed the daily news Website - no facts and just some opinions of adversaries of Ross, that's not encyclopedic information ("One apparent supporter of Kabbalah Centre founder Philip Berg E-mailed me yesterday to describe Ross - who runs a New Jersey-based nonprofit that describes its mission as the study of cults - as "disreputable.") Added instead the responses of Hassan and Hein.
I did not find this on his Website. Please give the exact reference for it.
On the FAQ of his website, Ross states that the average intervention costs about $5,000.00, excluding payment for testimonies of former members ($500 per day), travel expenses, or if additional research is needed. --Irmgard 18:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Here it is [7] --ZappaZ 18:34, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Ok. I removed the stuff about former members costs (that's up to them not to Rick Ross - sure he has to mention it for his clients, but it does not belong into an encyclopedia about Ross) and added the hourly rate, so there is a comparative basis. --Irmgard 12:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Rick Ross FAQ does not mention testimonies, unlike what Wikipedia writes

" * What does an intervention cost? My fees are currently $75.00 per hour or $750.00 per day when I work out of town. This does not include expenses such as travel, accommodations or other related expenses. An average intervention costs about $3,750.00 in fees plus expenses, which are usually below $1,000. This means that the total cost of an intervention should run about $5,000.00. The cost of an intervention may be somewhat higher if special research is required, a former member of a destructive group is brought in to assist and/or substantial travel time is required.Former members typically charge a fee of about $350.00 to $500.00 per day depending upon their experience. An intervention professional should have a detailed fee agreement that itemizes and explains his or her fee structure, costs associated with an intervention and outlines the terms of the intervention explicitly (see Ethical Standards)."

Andries 23:33, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
I re-added the distinctions voiced by the press, as these are important. I also add the fact that he was a former deprogrammer. He was. --ZappaZ 18:34, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


To anon 67.134.82.77

I suggest, yet again, you read WP:NPOV, before you edit. I would also suggest you read Wikipedia: What Wikipedia is not.

  • Ross was not "once called a “cult deprogrammer” ". He was a deprogrammer. And proud of it. The judge at Scott case said (my highlights): “A large award of punitive damages is also necessary under the recidivism and mitigation aspects of the factors cited in Haslip. Specifically, the Court notes that Mr. Ross himself testified that he had acted similarly in the past and would continue to conduct 'deprogrammings' in the future.”
  • maintains what is now one of the largest databases accessible through the Internet is spin. He maintains a website like many others do.
  • Time Magazine referred to him as “a veteran cult watcher." I kept that text, but we need a refrence for that article.

--ZappaZ 17:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Zappaz there you go again. Be honest you are on a crusade and not interested in anything but a POV polemic filled with fringe website references that you search out to support your POV. Carol Moore is a widely known a fringe conspiracy theorist. Her views on Waco have been disproven. Ammerman, Shupe, Wessinger have all been part of a cult apologist crowd that has become increasingly controversial within academia. Shupe cashed in on the Scott case and charged big bucks to work for Scientology lawyer Moxon. The Hadden website, CESNUR site etc. are to say the least very biased sources and not at all mainstream. Hadden was exposed before he died as a cult supporter through a document leaked through the Internet. You are attempting to "stack the deck" and create an ad hominem attack not inform the public. Your list of why Ross is noteworthy demonstrates how disconnected you are. No one quotes Ross over the Scott case, which took place some ten years ago. No one is calling him about Waco, which occurred in 1993. He is quoted through TV and in the press again, and again, and again as a cult expert commenting within breaking news stories. Your view of him is certainly skewed and not shared by the media. Just in the last month he has been all over the place quoted everywhere about Scientology, the Kabbalah Centre etc. Is that why you are here? Because you are mad the media doesn't take anything people like you say seriously? But why make Wikipedia look bad through your POV, which is not objective or fact based. You have searched the net for a few fringe sources that share your view, but again this is the behavior of a zealot on a crusade, not an editor working at Wikipedia. Why not admit that your purpose for being here is to go after people. This would be more honest than boring everyone with excuses and denials. The most recent editing I have done is fair and balanced. It allows some of your favorite cranks their space, but with some context and balancing articles. It is fact based and not a rant. This king of entry is more in line with the intention of Wikipedia as an informational resource as opposed as your personal place to go after people.
This article is not about what you think is proper, neither about what I think is proper. It is also not an advertisement for Mr. Ross' business. It is a biographical article on Mr. Ross, and as such any notable biographical element needs to be featured regardless of when it happened. Again, let me made it absolutely clear, that I have nothing personal against Mr. Ross. For the fifth time, I encourage you to read NPOV so that you become familiar with the intention of Wikipedia as an informational resource. --ZappaZ 20:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Exactly. That why you need to actually practice what you preach. Stop the spin. Your intentions are obvious. It's very clear that for you this is apparently personal. Your editing reflects that. I understand. Perhaps you need to read NPOV again to understand that when people are not willing to let you have your way it is not a misunderstanding of either your editing or Wikipedia, but rather quite the opposite. You are the one who inists on posting a very slanted, biased bio that serves your own POV.
It is clear from Zappaz' edits, and Zappaz admits this, that he wants to minimize criticism of cults and new religious movements in Wikipedia, that he considers exaggerated. Part of this are his attempts to undermine the credibility of almost everyone who makes these criticisms. Andries 22:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
That is tantamount to a personal attack. I would suggest that you desist from that path and address the issues at hand: Stopping the ongoing vandalism of this article by anon. Thanks. --ZappaZ 00:29, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
I do not see this as a personal attack: I think I accurately described your edit behavior, your POV (to a great extent self-admitted) without passing a judgement on any of them. Andries 00:55, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Personal comments of any kind are not called for. If there is an issue with a particular editor, discuss it on their talk page, file an RfC, or find someplace else to discuss it. However, editors who make personal assertions regarding their editing should expect to have those assertions open to challenge. -Willmcw 01:17, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Former deprogrammer in the introduction

Zappaz, you seem to be the only one who wants the deprogrammer in the introduction - please accept the "no academic credentials" instead.

That is unacceptable. The fact that he was a deprogrammer is highly relevant in this biography. --ZappaZ 15:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Concur. Rick won his fame and followers through his activities as a "deprogrammer" -- that is to say, using the same techniques of brainwashing which he condemns as a sign of a cult. At best, he is a "recovering" deprogrammer, in the same way a former drunk is a recovering alcoholic. Given the opportunity, he would likely continue those activities. Critic-at-Arms 16:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Accreditation

deleted: (Note: Ross has no professional accreditation in counseling)

No accreditation for "counseling" is nonsense - Rick Ross offers speficially cult intervention (exit counseling) which consists by his definition of sharing cult-specific information - which is not the same as psychological or spiritual counseling. An accredited psychiatrist has by his accreditation no qualification for exit counseling and Ross does not have the qualification for counseling someone regarding psychological problems. The point is, Ross does not offer that, but only exit counseling. In the introduction is stated that he has no academic credentials which is correct and does not suppose or infer anything additional. --Irmgard 12:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

He was a deprogrammer, he calls himself a "professional" and "intervention specialist" and an "exit counselor". I attempted to present his views as per his website on what terms mean (as mostly are his invention) but you deteled them (my objection to that deletion noted). Read his website and see if he does not present himself as an expert. Read the judge in Scott case. Then with a straight face tell me that is not important to state in Ross article that he does not have any professional credentials. Highly relevant. --ZappaZ 15:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

If someone insists about qualifications, we have to do so much editing in wikipedia

Adolf Hitler - no qualifications to be Chancellor or failed world dictator

George Bush - Did not study a BA in "how to be President"

Stalin - unqualified communist leader and mass murderer (I think should he get an honary doctorate in "mass murder" though - posthumously)

Oprah Winfrey - unqualified talk show host (she did study communications though) T om Cruise - unqualified actor

Pablo Picasso - unqualified modern artist (learnt from his Father who was)

L. Ron Hubbard - unqualified author and unqualified theologian

Osama bin laden - I think its important to say that he's not professional terrorist as he doesnt have any professional credentials

Sigmund Freud - unqualified

Carl Jung - unqualified

Marcel Chevalier - unqualified French executioner

Steve Wade - unqualified English executioner

etc. etc. etc.

Now, some might think that in most cases it is extremely difficult to get qualified for these professions... the same is true for someone whos job is building implosion by explosives.... and the same is true for deprogramming

rickross.com

This page is not only referred to by the anti-cult movement and the University of Virginia but also, e.g. by the Press, by concerned parents, etc. etc. (anyway, we have no statistics who is clicking there why). So I shortened the sentence. That it is widely referred to is documented by Google which lists it among the top ten when searching for "cults". --Irmgard 12:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Ross website is widely cited by anti-cult movement only. If you want to say that his website is widely cited by the press, then provide such citation. I have not seen any citation of Ross "database" as a source. The fact thar Ross website is listed in Google when searching for cult, proves nothing. --ZappaZ 15:16, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Deprogramming

Changed: In recent year Ross, like much of the anti-cult community after the controversy and court cases against his deprogramming business, no longer advocates involuntary or coercive interventions for adults, preferring instead what he refers to as voluntary "exit counseling".

The section below is reverted to the former one - it does not correctly reflect what Ross himself writes on his ethical guidelines page http://www.rickross.com/ethics.html --Irmgard 12:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I also removed the section Deprogramming - it is taken out of context and gives a wrong impression, as it presumes a different definition of deprogramming than the one of Ross (see http://www.rickross.com/ethics.html where he also quotes Hassan's and Singer's definitions and http://www.rickross.com/reference/deprogramming/deprogramming7.html). If you want to quote Ross on deprogramming, quote his actual definition of deprogramming : "The first title used was "deprogrammer," which specifically describes the process of unraveling a destructive cult's program of emotional, psychological and informational control." But I think discussion of deprogramming should be left to the article Deprogramming and taken up in detail there. --Irmgard 12:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Unacceptable. That text is very much supported by statements made on Ross website. --ZappaZ 15:13, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Distinction by the press

The distinction by the press does not offer any additional facts to ...he has been interviewed and quoted by the media as a cult expert in the United States and around the world, and has numerous critics'. It's very ok to have this on the discussion site as source, but in the article its just taking space. --Irmgard 12:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Britain's FHM magazine named Rick Ross "America's number one cult buster", the New York Daily News referred to Ross as "Self-styled cult buster" and Time Magazine referred to him as “a veteran cult watcher."

Unacceptable. The way that Ross is refered in the press, attributed to magazines is 100% relevant to Ros biography. --ZappaZ 15:13, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
If anyone was interested enough to take the time the NY Daily News title ""self-styled cult buster" is the exception not the rule. Overwhelmingly Ross is most often referred to as simply a "cult expert" without qualification. He is also more recently referred to as the founder/executive director of the Ross Institute of NJ etc.

See the following recent examples:

http://www.gothamist.com/archives/2005/07/18/rick_ross_cult_expert.php

http://www.sacbee.com/content/lifestyle/story/13276511p-14118809c.html

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/324820p-277473c.html NY Daily News -- "Rick Ross, founder of the New Jersey-based Ross Institute which monitors fringe religious groups."

Which quotes from what press becomes arbritray. But if you wanted to poll a consensus of the press articles over the past year or so to support a conclusive most used reference you could. But this would be time consuming and not really about a encyclopedia entry would it?

38.119.107.70 posted these press quotes again and apparently is in agreement with the Zappaz POV, but has not offered any discussion here concerning edits here.67.134.82.77 15:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

These are good quotes. If Ross see himself as a "cult expert quoted by the media", wouldn't it be appropriate to show how the media characterize him? Not only last year, but over his all career. We could add years to each, if that would help. --38.119.107.70 18:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
No. The previous edit was factual and well documented. If you can demonstrate otherwise do so. The introduction reads "He has been interviewed and quoted by the media as a cult expert in the United States and around the world." Please offer proof that this is not true and that there is consensus by the media that Ross is not a "cult expert." I have demonstrated with recent links that he is quoted as such. Please understand that press links don't stay up long-term. The NY Daily News has described Ross in a recent article as the "founder of institute which monitors fringe religious groups" and in an isolated article about those who attack him he is called a "self-styled cult buster." But an encyclopedia entry is not about press clippings. The quotes are not meaningful for encyclopedia purposes. Again, if the edit up is false please enlighten everyone as to why it is false and document this.67.134.82.77 19:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
I am not arguing about the previous edit being false. I am arguing that these quotes from the media are highly relevant and ought not to be removed. You are welcome to add more quotes if so you wish. --38.119.107.70 01:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
No. See first post in this discussion section. Such quotes are OK for Discussion Board, but just take up space in article and offer no new facts. Quotes like that are for a press release, ad, personal promotion, not an encylopedia entry. Removed.67.134.82.77 12:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

WACO References

I removed these references: the first is a biased third source report, not an encyclopedial reference, the second contains a set of biased questions to congress. The third one moved to Branch Davidians article, says more about them than about Ross --Irmgard 12:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Unacceptable. This is a milestone in Ross life work. You cannot remove text just because you believe is biased. This is contrary to NPOV. --ZappaZ 15:13, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Ross' contribution to the slaughter of the Davidian's is also well documented in a few books on the subject. Mr Christopher 15:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Database

Why are we removing the word "database"? It seem to describe a colleciton of data, usch as what Ross has on his website. -Willmcw 19:03, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

It is not a database, it is a website. The previous text one of the largest databases accessible through the Internet is just spin. --ZappaZ 19:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
What's the difference between a database accessible through a website, and a website? -Willmcw 20:17, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Ross's website is not a database accessible through a website. Just a website. Nothing wrong with that whatsoever. --ZappaZ 23:31, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
This is just another example of Zappaz' attempt to spin. The Ross Institute database contains a huge amount of news articles, court documents, personal testimonies. It has a message board with around 10,000 entries. It's a database obviously, but in the world Zappaz inhabits reality is apparently subjective. He has his own little domed world. How dare the media and everyone in the mainstream news think otherwise. Any cursory objective review of news articles shows how ridiculous he is. Maybe that's why he is spending so much time on Ross. His database is probably filled with information Zappaz doesn't like. Not unlike the "cults" that don't like Ross for the same reason. It's the database, not Ross that really irks them. It's something about having all that information so readily accessible.
(Psst... I do not have a problem with information. That is why I am working on this article.) --ZappaZ 23:18, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
There are many websites with thousands of pages, and these are called websites, not databases. Ross' is a website (I refer to it as well when looking up certain groups.) But it is still a website. --ZappaZ 21:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
It's got collected data, it's searchable, it's a database. Why the opposition to the term "database?" What's so offensive about it? -Willmcw 22:11, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Nothing offensive.... just facts have to be stated as such. Google is a search engine and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (while both are 'actually databases). Ross's on the other hand, has a website. Facts. BTW, most, if not all websites are searchable. Most websites are a collection of data. But these are still called websites and not databases. --ZappaZ 22:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Yes, facts are facts. I am now prepared to go point for point on each and every fact. The way you are straining the world "database" demonstrated how far POV you are.
Actually, Google and Wikipedia are websites too. But what makes them interesting is what's in them, their function. I don't see the reason to get into a revert war over using a more specific term for Ross's site. How about we say it's a "so-called" database?  ;) -Willmcw 23:12, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Yes. This is getting silly. The current text is 100% accurate: . . . who maintains a website with an extensive listing of articles about cults, controversial groups, and new religious movements, and related research about mind control theories, as well as the CultNews.com blog. Ross should be proud, without calling his website something that is not. --ZappaZ 23:17, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Seems like this may indeed become a "revert war" in which you cling to your POV rather than yield to the facts. Be very specific, the current entry I have posted once again is "100% accurate." If there is a factual error please point it out. Again, be very specific and NPOV. We can go point for point. This is not about your "sour grapes" reaction to Ross' mainstrean and widespread media recognition as a cult expert, but rather about the facts for a Wikipedia entry. Perhaps before continuing you should read again very slowly the Wikipedia guidelines.
If you continue reverting you will be breaking the Three Revert Rule and will be banned. --ZappaZ 00:16, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
You have already broken the revert rule yourself. Your whole approach here has been outside the guidelines of Wikipedia. It seems to me that perhaps you should be banned. What are you here for? It looks like your agenda is to promote your POV and go after people based upon your POV. Again, please be very specific and point out, point by point, what is unbalanced and/or not factual about the entry I have posted. It is a blend of both your citations and sources and others that are quite solid. It is NPOV and well within the Wikipedia guidelines. Rather than threatening let's see if we can work this out through a meaningful dialog. Now, please make your points. Take your time and be succint, factual and NPOV.

Reported 3RR on User:67.134.82.77 --ZappaZ 00:24, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Reported 3RR on --ZappaZ Won't anyone reign in this guy??? I have repeatedly offered to discuss this point by point. He seems unwilling to work on edits and support his edits. Is Wikipedia supposed to be like this?

You need to reign on your mouse and stop deleting my work and the work of others on this article. If you see anything on this article that is not factual and that is not supported by citacions, please let us know and we will gladly delete it. I have substantiated each and everyone of my edits. The ones I was wrong about, were deleted as soon as someone pointed it out. Now stop vandalizing this article. Thanks. --ZappaZ 00:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

First, you "vadalized" a long-standing entry here, by changing it with something 50 plus edits. Subsequently, you expect everyone to accept that. You admit at this point that you were "wrong." and submitted false and/or misleading information. Yet you want your entry to stand. No. You have yet to prove that a single point within my post is in error. Given your errors and conduct at this point you should prove what is false and/or misleading within my entry. Please begin to make these points so we can all move on.

I did not vandalized anything. I alerted that I will come back to this article when I had sometime to complete my research. I did. I edited adding substantial new text, and I explain my edits one by one. That is not vandalism, it is call editing. Your deletion of text and unwillingness to cooperate with other editors is unacceptable. --ZappaZ 00:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
I have very carefully researched each and every edit. I invite you right not to discuss this. You have failed to point out a single error or misleading piece of information thus far. On the balance you have admitted repeatedly being "wrong" yourself. Obviously, this reflects quite poorly on your supposed research. I have posted solid factual information, which is historical and NPOV. Now, what is wrong? Stop trying to subvert the rules for your own POV and whatever crusade you are on.

Revert by Andries

I reverted edit by Zappaz about the paid testimonies of former members, which I incorrectly labelled as a minor edit. Sorry. I explained my revert hereabove. Andries 23:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I restored the text as it is supported by text from Ross's own website. See External Links --ZappaZ 00:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Zappaz, it is not supported by his own website. Here I repeat what I had already written about above. It does not talk about testimonies, but about assistance.
"The cost of an intervention may be somewhat higher if special research is required, a former member of a destructive group is brought in to assist and/or substantial travel time is required.Former members typically charge a fee of about $350.00 to $500.00 per day depending upon their experience."
Andries 00:23, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
OK. You'r right. Your text stays, then. --ZappaZ 00:25, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
OK Zappaz, now let's go through the post that I worked very hard to balance point by point. You explain to me calmly, where it is wrong and how it is wrong through a recitation of NPOV facts.
The burden is on you to prove that any of the text that I added is not factual. That is the way that Wikipedia works. I researched the subject, provided references and citations on facts, not opinions. If there is anything on the text of the article that I, Willmcw, Andries and Irmgard edited, you are most welcome to challenge it. I am requesting a ban for your vandalism on this article. --ZappaZ 00:36, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
OK Zappaz. It seems you will attempt to subvert the rules in this petty personal crusade you have decided upon. I would request the same. That is, that you be banned from editing. And that the NPOV entry be allowed to remain up until your claims are reviewed. You have repeatedly been "wrong," which you have admitted, and posted false and/or misleading information at Wikipedia to promote your POV. The weight of disproving points should be on you after such bad conduct.
Please read NPOV to understand how WP works. Getting a user name and signing your comments will not be a bad idea either. --ZappaZ 00:50, 23 July

2005 (UTC)

OK. Editing is frozen now. Let's try to work this out point by point. I will do everything possible to assist and come up with a solid NPOV entry. Please understand that I am not a regular at Wikipedia, but I will do my best. Please help me to understand your POV regarding why the entry is not balanced and factual right now67.134.82.77 01:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Multiple reversions, protection.

I'm going to protect the page for a bit, as we seem to have an edit dispute going. Please note that this isn't an endorsement of the protected version as such. Fire Star 01:03, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, here is what I am going to do. 67.134.82.77 seems to be in violation of 3RR, so I am going to revert the article back to the Andries/ZappaZ/ABCD version and take appropriate measures for the reversion violation. At that point I will unprotect the page. I strongly recommend that 67.134.82.77 register for an account and acquaint him/herself with our consensus policies. Again, this isn't a judgment of the content of the dispute, just an enforcement of Wikipedia policy. Fire Star 01:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
OK. How can this entry be made NPOV. Zappaz has changed it repeatedly to be biased and slanted to his point of view. Apparently anyone that criticizes "cults" offends him and he sees it as his crusade to create ad hominem attacks on Wikipedia. It appears Zappaz is a fan of a controversial guru that has been frequently called a "cult leader" and this motivates him to use Wikipedia like a soapbox for his rants. How can we address all this?
This is not my article. Others have contributed and helped make this article better. Get a user name and help make this article one that we can all be proud of. --ZappaZ 01:24, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
I would also kindly request a page protection so that we can all enjoy a quiet and peaceful weekend.--ZappaZ 01:25, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Of course you want to freeze your edits in place and protect your POV. I would suggest a point by point review. I will proceed with each paragraph in order.67.134.82.77 01:32, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Point by point re: Zappaz constant POV edits.

OK Zappaz. I will be calm and go over the paragraphs with you one at a time in an effort to find a balance that is NPOV. If you are not reasonable I will invite feedback before making another edit. This will be a process and very open for everyone to see.67.134.82.77 01:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

First paragraph as follows:

"Rick Ross (born November 1952) is a controversial protagonist of the anti-cult movement who maintains a website with an extensive listing of articles about cults, controversial groups, and new religious movements, and related research about mind control theories, as well as the CultNews.com blog."

To be NPOV it should read as follows:

Rick Ross (born November 1952) is an internationally known cult expert who maintains an extensive database accessible through the Internet about controversial organizations, groups and movements, some that have been called "cults."

This is a simple opening paragraph that is factual, to the point and NPOV. If you wish to dispute that this is NPOV and factual please demonstrate your points factually.

Overwhelmingly, this is the reported media and general consensus about Ross and his website. Cults and their apologists represent a POV and are not NPOV.67.134.82.77 01:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Generally I oppose the word "expert" stated as fact because it is an assessment of a person's knowledge and skills and as such original research and against NPOV guidelines. Some of the quotes and references have been selected to put Ross in a bad light and other quotes can be added to that put him in a more favorable light. Also I think it is fair to add that almost anyone (cult apologist or anti-cult activist) who writes about cults and NRMs is controversial. Andries 10:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Dispute resolution and consensus

The best way to get a consensus on this article is indeed to discuss the points one at a time:

  1. Explain on the talk page why you think what you wrote is right. Read what they say as well.
  2. Provide references from outside Wikipedia to back up what you think. If they do the same, read them.
  3. Ask for other people to look at the article and provide advice. Even if they know nothing about the subject they may be able to help.
  4. Remember that opinions shouldn't be in an article.
  5. If there is a real disagreement over what the facts are, not just between two editors but between different groups of people, then the best way may be to record both views and allow the reader to make up their mind.
  6. If you believe the other user really isn't listening to reason, then try Wikipedia:Request for comment to get other people's opinions.

Stay calm, stay patient and try to stay pleasant. One good thing about Wikipedia is that we have to work with people who disagree with us. In the end, though, that makes for more complete articles. Fire Star 01:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks I will follow that advice.67.134.82.77 01:36, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


Self-imposed moratorium

As with other controversial articles, when the pan gets too hot, I unilaterally place myself on moratorium so that these disputes do not affect my sweet life too much. Therefore, my last edit of today will be the last one for a while. I wish anon 67.134.82.77 good luck with his first baby steps in WP, and hope Willmcw, Irmgard and Andries can make this article better in my self-imposed absence. That said, please note that I will return in a week or two and continue contributing to this article if I see the need to. Hopefully text that is properly supported by citations will not be deleted, only improved upon. As always, I reserve the right to challenge any deletions or additions that are unattributed opinious, speculation or propaganda. May you all have a pleasant weekend. --ZappaZ 02:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone get in here, that anyone who really cares so about defending Rick Ross, is actually Rick Ross, the self-aggrandaizing, self-promoting spin doctor with all the excuses, stories and justifications. The convictions and criminal records happen to be a clear indication of the lifestyle, learning and apptitude of Rick Ross; something for nothing and making a living at other peoples expense.
Thanks for that revealing statement. It demonstrates why you are here and the purpose of your editing, just to rant and offer polemics.67.134.82.77 13:24, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Zappaz said this last time

We have been here before. The article was revised, edited and completed before and up in that edited version for some time. Then Zappaz came back and edited the article more than fifty times until it fit his POV. This included "deletions, or additions" the "opinions" of those that agree with his POV and both "specution" and "propaganda."67.134.82.77 05:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Proposed edits to return article to NPOV

There are quite a few repeated statements that are redundant. Also, many typos, spelling and gramatical errors. But let's start with the first few paragraphs or the introduction.

First paragraph currently reads as follows:

Rick Ross (born November 1952) is a controversial protagonist of the anti-cult movement who maintains a website with an extensive listing of articles about cults, controversial groups, and new religious movements, and related research about mind control theories, as well as the CultNews.com blog.

Ross, a former deprogrammer, describes himself today as a "cult intervention specialist". He has been interviewed and quoted by the media as a cult expert in the United States and around the world, and he has been called as an expert witness on several occasions.

He has numerous critics, especially from groups listed on his website, and he has played controversial roles in the case of Jason Scott and the ill fated Waco standoff with the Branch Davidians.

Britain's FHM magazine named Rick Ross "America's number one cult buster", the New York Daily News referred to Ross as "Self-styled cult buster" and Time Magazine referred to him as “a veteran cult watcher."

To be NPOV IMO it should read as follows:

Rick Ross (born November 1952) is an internationally known cult expert who maintains an extensive database accessible through the Internet about controversial organizations, groups and movements, some that have been called "cults."

This is a simple opening paragraph that is factual, to the point and NPOV.

Overwhelmingly, this is the reported media and general consensus about Ross and his database. Cults and their apologists that say otherwise represent a POV and are not NPOV.

It could further read:

Often called a "cult deprogrammer" Ross refers to himself as a "cult intervention specialist." He has been interviewed and quoted by the media in the United States and around the world, and testified as an expert witness.

He has been typically and frequently criticized by groups, organizations and movements listed within his database and also by academics and others sympathetic to those groups, organizations and movements.

Ross is also known for his role in the controversial Jason Scott case, which involved an involuntary deprogramming and as an expert used by law enforcement, the media and concerned families regarding the Waco Branch Davidians.

Britain's FHM magazine named Rick Ross "America's number one cult buster", Time Magazine referred to him as “a veteran cult watcher."'

IMO the NY Daily News quote is part of an article that reports about attacks on Ross and it is titled "Busting on the Cult Buster." It is not representitive of the overwhelming way in which Ross is referred to in the press. IMO this is a highly selective reference chosen to represent a POV.

The Scott case was controversial, essentially because Scientology used it as a vehicle to destroy the Cult Awareness Network, which was reflected in the news coverage and public interest.

Ross' role in Waco was not "controversial." He was consulted, lectured, was seen in the news frequently during and after the standoff as an expert and analyst. Cults and their apologists attempted to make Ross an object of controversy, but the reports, investigations and news covereage overwhelmingly did not reflect that and instead focused on the Waco cult, its deranged leader, his crimes and the tragic end he chose for his followers.

I look forward to comments and feedback.67.134.82.77 05:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

The controvesy exists as Ross challenges the FBI' story on his involvement. There are conflicting reports, letters back and forth between Ross and the government, challenges from one to another, etc. If one is to judge by the amount of literature on the subject, as the very different perspectives offered by the protagonists, not calling it controversial would be innacurate. --38.119.107.70 18:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

information about fees should be removed

I think the information about fees must be removed (or at least made less specific) because it violates the wikipedia policy (or guideline?) not to include information that dates quickly. Andries 11:51, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Unacceptable. Add the year and that's it. "As of 2005, Ross fees for intervention...." --ZappaZ 15:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Zappaz, it is highly unusual that Wikipedia articles contain detailed prices of products, because that would break generally accepted guidelines of excluding information that dates quickly. I see no reason here to break this guideline. Andries 17:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
On second thoughts, I think Zappaz, you are right, I included "as of 2005" Andries 17:43, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. I would also appreciate if you stand-up and voice disagrement about the unwarranted deletion of facts and well referenced material.--ZappaZ 21:11, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Note

I placed my seld on a self-imposed moratorium in editing this article, with the belief that editors will responsibly edit and improve upon the article. Unfortunately, the only editing has been a determided effort to delete text that was properly sources and referenced. I will have my weekend in peace, but note my strong objection to these deletions of text. --ZappaZ 15:26, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Let's try to get along and work in an NPOV way. Wikipedia is not really the place to posit your POV. Message boards might work better for this. Try editing with a NPOV, this may take time, little "baby steps," but put one foot in front of another and before you know it you just might get the hang of it.67.134.82.77 15:19, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Really? So now you are a WP expert as well? Fantastic... --ZappaZ 23:47, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
No. Just making a general observation based upon your behavior and a reading of the Wikipedia guidelines.67.134.82.77 15:20, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Anton Hein

Anton Hein and Ross did not disagree over "very critical attitude towards Christian missionary movements." They apparently disputed over poltical issues within the so-called "anti-cult movement."

See http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/browse_frm/thread/f1d97cf6d9e1c87d/0124af3c792d6471?q=rick+ross&_done=%2Fgroups%3Fq%3Drick+ross%26start%3D30%26scoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26&_doneTitle=Back+to+Search&&d#0124af3c792d6471

Also see Ross' response to Hein at his "Flaming Websites" page.

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

Hein says at his section about Ross that he become upset with him through an "email exchange during the Summer of 2003." The Google group exchange details this and the Q and A back and forth between the two. Hein seems to think that Ross being Jewish is problem, though he mentions this after citing the email dispute first. Specifically, "given the specialized knowledge and spiritual discernment necessary to deal with cults of Christianity, the publishers of Apologetics Index - themselves evangelical Christians - recommend contacting Christian cult experts instead."

Looks like politics and charcterizing this as a about Ross' "very critical attitude towards Christian missionary movements" is misleading and does not based upon facts.

The mention of Anson Shupe in this paragraph is redundant, since just below there is a complete statement by Shupe and his writing partner Darnell. I will edit the paragraph and combine the mention of Hassan and Hein together per a long-standing previous version.67.134.82.77 15:21, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Good. What about restoring the deleted text? What about adding the fact that Ross is an ex-deprogrammer? I will get back to work on this article, later in the week and when I am in the mood. --ZappaZ 23:48, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
OK. But the reference to Ross as a deprogrammer should be in the introduction. It is well documented that he has been referred to often as a "cult deprogrammer" in the media. Let's put it there. The second paragraph from the top. He is still referred to in the media as a "cult deprogrammer," though he doesn't use that title, certainly not currently.67.134.82.77 15:59, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
This is Anton Hein. I have neither the time nor the interest to get involved here beyond posting a couple of comments. Our (my wife and I operate Apologetics Index together, currently with the help of some other people as well) initial disagreement with Rick Ross was primarily over his attempts to get us involved - via an email exchange - in his fights with cult experts at AFF (now the ICSA - International Cultic Studies Association) and mental health counselor and cult expert Steve Hassan. Ross insisted we answer his questions, and became abusive when we insisted we would not. I have no problem with Ross' Jewish background. However, it is fair to point out that someone with a Jewish background (and a history of working with Jewish anti-cult and anti-missionary organizations) has a different approach to Christians, Christian movements and cults of Christianity. There are basically three approaches to dealing with cults: sociological, theological and/or theological. At Apologetics Index we use the latter approach, evaluating cults both sociologically and theologically. Theologically we operate from an evangelical Christian perspective. It is my opinion that we are intimately better informed regarding the doctrines and workings of Christianity than someone who is not a Christian. As practising Christians (I have been a Christian for 40 years; Janet for almost 20 years) we have a working knowledge of Christian theology. We are both also intimately familiar with the ways cults (as defined theologically from a Christian perspective) twist the Scriptures. In addition to knowledge, most evangelical Christians have to so-called 'gifts of the Spirit' referred to in 1 Corinthians 12. One of those gifts is discernment (considered by Christians to be supernatural knowledge regarding spiritual matters). Whether or not outsiders accept the existence of such 'gifts' is not of issue here. What is of issue is that these gifts are not available to non-Christians. Knowledge and discernment are two reasons why we encourage those who are dealing with cults of Christianity to seek help from Christian cult experts rather than from secular ones. In addition, in our over 30 years of experience (Janet some 15 years) in dealing with Christian apologetics and counter-cult issues, we have come to trust a number of individuals and organizations who deal with cults. We trust and value their approach, knowledge and where applicable, discernment. We therefore have a list of recommended Christian and secular cult experts and counselors that we refer people to. These issues are explained here: http://www.apologeticsindex.org/132-ross

Anton Hein 13:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This is Anton Hein's version of events and given that Ross has a section about him and his website "Apologetics Index" it's no surprise he is here using Wikipedia much like cult sympathizers to attack Ross. Hein's statements here are very telling. Here Hein holds forth his POV supported by his subjective claim that he has "spiritual gifts" and that Ross doesn't, which somehow qualifies Hein as an "expert." This is a POV and not NPOV. His view of Ross as a Jew is also Hein's POV. He doesn't like Ross or his "anti-missionary" work and sees him as adveresarial. OK. But that's his POV again. It's interesting that Ross has his critics from both sides, those defending cults and those supposedly opposing them. Hein has no degree that he mentions, is not an ordained minister and his theological training consists of street preaching, learning from lay preacher types and being involved in groups some call "cults" or "cult-like." He is a convicted child molester, registered sex offender and parole violator who has an outstanding warrant for his arrest without bail in the US. At no time has Hein admitted this specifically. Only fairly recently did government sponsored websites in California go up that identify the specific details of his sex offense against a 13-year-old child and fugitive status. You won't find specific admissions about this on his website (i.e. that he is a "registered sex offender" wanted through a "warrant issued for his immediate arrest without bail"). Hein has repeatedly parsed his language about this in an apparent attempt to mislead people about all this. He tries to minimize the situation and has never admitted he was guilty of a sex crime, despite the fact that he entered a guilty plea and served jail time. Hein has no credibility, either personlly or professionally. He uses his website to make money from ads, largely from the US, a country he often criticizes, for apparently the same reason he goes on about Ross, which is bitterness and resentment. Thankfully, this Wikipedia entry has been declared a problem and not neutral as it should be. And with people like Hein using it for their own agenda this seems reasonable so as not to mislead visitors here that it is not biased. This has become little more than mud slinging wall where people that don't like someone can vent their anger and contempt. Hardly any kind of encylopedia entry.38.96.137.19 15:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
He does admit it. It is on the website mentioned. This has all the details, including why he pleaded guilty, what he did, and why he didn't return to the US.
Hein's legal problems are irrelevant - what would be relevant, would be an answer of Ross against the allegations of Hein, instead of only pointing at his criminal record. --Tilman 15:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Where does Hein specifically admit he is a "registered sex offender"? I can't find that. Where does he specifically state that he is a "wanted fugitive" and that a "felony warrant is currently issued for his immediate arrest." This goes directly to his credibility and why he is posting information here. And how do his claims make it into a supposed "encyclopedia entry." He isn't an academic, like cult apologists quoted and has no meaningful credentials or standing other than his personal website. Isn't it using stuff from people like Hein a reason why so many people increasingly don't regard Wikipedia entries like this as credible? Will there be any effort to ever get this entry to read like an actual encyclopedia? Doesn't seem so. It's becoming a real joke here.38.96.137.19 19:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Please take the time to read the complete page, instead of using my time to explain it to you step by step, or by arguing the meaning of words or expressions. The site makes clear that it was a sex crime, and what sort of crime, etc.
Now about your last edits: 1) you deleted the reason WHY Hein has criticized Ross 2) you indirectly suggest that Hein is anti-semitic ("Hein doesn't think Jews like Ross should be dealing with "Christian-based cults" and doesn't endorse him.") which is false since Hein hasn't criticized Hassan 3) you didn't provide sources for the Ryan and Singer parts, and several Hein statements. 4) Lots of typos (cleints, Seigelman, peoople, etc). I'll give you a chance to correct all this before reverting, because this version is a bit less of a smear job than you did before.
This sentence: the much lauded authors of the critically acclaimed books "Snapping" and "Holy Terror," seminal books in the field of cultic studies. Conway and Seigelman like Singer, have enjoyed the respect of AFF as valued experts and researchers. is not NPOV: it has three "positives": "much lauded", "seminal", "valued experts and researchers". While I agree that it's a good book, Wikipedia isn't a place for extreme-flatter. Please make it sound more neutral. Just mention that the two are endorsing him, and provide a source. Let the reader decide for himself.
Before you (possibly) get a bad opinion about me, please look at my past edits here. I have removed smear links (e.g. the rrexposed site), and also put Ross' point of view against other criticism.--Tilman 20:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I have read every word of Hein's explanation. He never admits he is a "registered sex offender," which is quite serious. And he doesn't specifically acknowledge that he is a wanted fugitive with a warrant issued for his arrest. Until California websites run by that state regarding sex offenders and San Diego law enforcement were up no one really knew this specifically and Hein parsed his language and tried to obfuscate as much as possible. The scary thing about Hein is he doesn't actually admit that he commited a sex crime. He tries to weave a story that he was really innocent falsely accused despite his guilty plea. This is a typical pattern for many sex offenders that have not faced their crimes. It's classic denial. Also scary is that Hein doesn't talk about any treatment program he attended for sex offenders through psychological counseling and therapy. Perhaps that's one of the reasons he left the US, though he weaves excuses for that too. Ross exposed him for what he is and linked up the government websites. Hein is mad and doesn't seem to like Jews. He has made an issue of Ross' relgion for some time in various posts on his site, which Ross documented through his "Flaming Websites" award. They way he kept editing the Jewish references would be funny, if it wasn't for the anti-Semtic slant to it all. Maybe he has no problem with Hassan because (1) Hassan has never made a point of opposing fundamentalist Christians like Hein that support groups like "Jews for Jesus." (2) Hein seems to be a savvy manipulator that plays political games to stay afloat. It really is outrageous that someone like Hein, with a criminal record like Hein's, which implies very serious psychological problems, is relied upon for anything regarding cults, relgion or anything else. First, he has nothing objective to recommend him regarding theological discernment (degree, ordination, etc.) nor has Hein been accepted as an expert in some objective and credible venue like a court of law. He is entitled to his opinions, but they really are not worth much as an "expert" and he has an axe to grind with Ross.38.96.137.19 16:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
As to the edits. They will be done and sourced today. Let's try to clean this up and not allow this section to become a gripes page for people out to get someone. I have no doubt you are trying to do a good job, but don't be misled by a disturbed guy like Hein.38.96.137.19 16:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Anton Hein's opinions are his POV and not NPOV. He says, that he "doesn't endorse" Ross. Who cares? His POV is that Ross is "abusive" because "he disagrees with" others Hein likes and/or supports. Again who cares? Ross' lack of education has already been discussed and for the purposes of an encylopedia entry it doesn't need to be recited again by Hein. According to Hein's POV Ross has "a lack of the needed theological knowledge and balance for dealing with Christian-based cults." Hein has no degree, no ordination and no "theological knowledge" that has been officially tested and/or acknowledged through an accredited seminary. Who cares what he thinks. Ross' history of appointments by well-recognized bodies Jewish, interreligious, state, etc. and experience as a court expert witness, lecturer at major universities (including Baylor a Christian school) would seem to contradict Hein's POV. Hein says Ross "abusive attacks on Apologetics Index itself" (speaking in the third person?) once again expresses his POV. Reading the exchange between Ross and Hein at Google groups was enlightening. Hein was asked questions by Ross. Apparently Hein doesn't like to be questioned, but that's not "abusive." Not that it matters anyway, because that's Hein's POV being quoted and not NPOV. BTW--where and when did Hein ever "endorse" Ross? Can't find any past endorsement anywhere (see "Way Back"). Hein may not have previously so overtly attacked Ross, but he never really endorsed him. Hein has always made a point of labeling Ross a "Jew" and offered no endorsement of his work. Hein color codes his entries and Ross is color coded "Non Christian" in red. Interestingly Steve Hassan, who Hein seems to like, is not so identified as "Non Christian," but rather as "Secular." Whatever. Hein's POV is neither definitive nor appropriate for an encyclodia entry. Let's stary with NPOV facts.38.96.137.19 14:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

"Who cares what he thinks" isn't an argument. The attacks against Ryan etc aren't NPOV either. The only solution to this is not to delete Hein's criticism, it is to put a rebuttal, e.g. that Ross has many people and organisations who support him, and that Hein doesn't have any academic credentials either. I'm not willing to play the referee in this dispute; I'd like the segment to be neither balanced towards Ross, nor towards Hein. Let the reader decide whom he wants to trust. --Tilman 14:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's avoid POV and state facts. Ross and Hassan had dispute and both posted something about that. Patrick Ryan was sued and that's court record as is AFF having well known cult-apologists speak at its conferences. Hein admits this and it is well documented. Hein's POV about Ross is not a fact, it's a POV. Let him hold forth at his website not Wikipedia, which is supposed to be a public encyclopedia.38.96.137.19 14:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

There is an external link to Hein's attack on Ross. That affords Hein's POV more than enough special consideration.

If a reference and link is provided regarding Anton Hein's POV concerning Ross at Criticism section, so should a citation and link appear regarding the information gathered by Ross' and his POV regarding Hein.

"messianic group"

Under "Life" the following quote appears. "Ross's involvement with cults started in 1982, when a messianic group infiltrated the Jewish nursing home in Arizona where his grandmother was a resident."

This is misleading.

Many groups are "messianic," such as the Unification Church, which believes Rev. Moon is the "messiah" or Jewish groups that are waiting for the fulfillment of messianic prophecies. But the group that raised Ross' concern specifically was a fundamentalist Pentecostal group that targets Jews for conversion. They may call themselves "messianic Jews," but this a controversial claim. If readers of Wikipedia are to understand the specific situation it should read more specifically -- "a controversial religious group that targets Jews for conversion."

See http://www.rickross.com/reference/jews_for_jesus/jews_for_jesus8.html

The above article explains the concern of the Jewish community, Ross' involvement through a committee and the equal concern of Christians that endorsed the educational brochure he and others worked on regarding the situation.67.134.82.77 15:22, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Ross Jewish

His Jewish identity is best noted as an introduction to concerns abount his grandmother in the third paragraph under "Life" rather than the first paragraph.67.134.82.77 15:23, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

dates in bio

Amended move to Arizona to include date and also dates of crimes committed in second paragrah.67.134.82.77 15:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

mistakes and omissions within "Life" bio

Ross was appointed to two different committees through the UAHC one about cults and another devoted to interreligious affairs.

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

And also http://www.rickross.com/cv.html

It is confusing and/or misleading to say he "left the Jewish Prisoners Program" in 1986. This was a professional position as opposed to volunteer work, which might be implied through the previously cited affiliations and committee work.

Specifically, Ross worked for Jewish Family and Children's Service and the Bureau of Jewish Education in Phoenix, Arizona. He was a member of the paid professional staff of both organizations. If there is space to repeat that Ross has "no academic credentials" and only a "high school" education,it is also meaningful to state his employment history/experience.

You use the term "paid professional staff". Could you find any information about this? We ought just to use just "paid staff", unless we can find information that can be quoted to add the "professional" as an adjective. Definiton of the term professional: Of, relating to, engaged in, or suitable for a profession: lawyers, doctors, and other professional people. --38.119.107.70 18:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Under "Life" a publication is cited in a misleading manner. It says, "Ross wrote an 11-page paper "The missionary threat" in which he describes present-day Christian missionary activities "the greatest missionary threat in history" with which Jews are faced."

The site that listed this publication is no longer up on the Internet, though through the "Way Back Machine" it still can be seen.

See http://web.archive.org/web/19970712070258/www.berkshire.net/~ifas/bookstore.html

Note that it specifically cites "'Born again' crusades." Given Ross' historical concerns as expressed in numerous articles and the endorsements of Christian leaders of the brochure he worked on with the Jewish Federation titled "What in God's Name is Going on in Arizona" (previously cited), it not just any "Christian missionary activities" he is referring to in this document. Instead, Ross is specifically referring to fundamentalist Christian missionaries that target Jews for conversion. The paragraph should state that. And on balance the other brochure should be noted and that it received endorsements from Christian leaders so as not to mislead Wikipedia readers that Ross is somehow out to get the Christians.

See http://www.rickross.com/reference/jews_for_jesus/jews_for_jesus8.html

Also see http://www.rickross.com/reference/about/about4.html

The fact that Ross is not out to single out Christians for special consideration can be seen through the database he has gathered too.

There are actually very few Christian missionary organizations, given the number that exist. And many Christian anti-cult are linked through the site Links page.

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

Also see http://www.rickross.com/links.html

Note the section "Christian Cult Watchers."

Ross also has a section about Jewish groups.

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

On balance this should also be noted.67.134.82.77 15:25, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

"force and threats"

Ross and other deprogrammers did use "force and restraint" through involuntary deprogramming efforts, which Ross acknowledges, but "threats" is over the top and not documented. What "threats"? In deprogrammings like Scott case, people were eventually free to go. It is reported that Scott "escaped" while eating dinner at a public place after his deprogramming days with Ross ended. Was the "threat" to take him out for dinner? Let's just stick to "force and restraint." This doesn't make much sense. But force used to bring someone into a deprogramming and restraint to keep them there is consistent with the facts.67.134.82.77 15:27, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

If we are going to debate the use of certain words, we ought to also use in this section the term "abduction", as this is what is written in the 1998-APR-8 decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals: . . . the only way to deprogram Scott was to abduct him and let Ross do his work. With the aid of two confederates, Ross abducted Scott and held him captive for five days. Scott feigned acceptance of Ross' deprogramming and escaped. Also note the last sentence about feigning acceptance. Where possible we ought to use official documents rather than anecdotal information from unknown sources. --38.119.107.70 18:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Guidestar information

There is no reason to include Guidstar information or lack of information, unless there has been some controversy regarding fund-raising or the use of funds, which there is not. Looking around Wikipedia this doesn't seem to be standard practice. So there is no reason to include such information, so it has been edited out.67.134.82.77 15:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Why to censor that information? Here you have non-profit Institute that has very little activity, so little, that it is not required by law to file any financial information (less than $25,000 in assets/income). The Guidestar website is used by people that want to contribute to a non-profit, to check what would do with their money. Seems that Ross' institute does not have much going on. I would argue that it is important, as Ross' website is owned by the institute. Facts like this one, are useful to orient people reading this article about Ross and his institute. --38.119.107.70 17:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
This is not the practice at Wikipedia. There are many nonprofits offered without Guidestar information. Unless there has been a stated problem and controvery about the nonprofit Guidestar information is not meaningful.67.134.82.77 18:52, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Why is that you have an objection to add information that is factual? Ross makes a point of running a non-profit institute for the benefit of the public. Is it not the case that the public ought to know what this institue's finances are about? Please do not delete factual information. --
You did not respond to the previous point. Such information is not run on Wikipedia about nonprofits unless there are concerns about the handling of funds. The information does not suggest this and therefore it is not meaningful and/or within the standard entry format.

Branch Davidians

It is common knowledge that Ross deprogrammed David Block. This is in the treasurey report, affidavit for the warrant to be served on David Koresh and all over the Internet, even Ross' critics acknowledge this.

See the following links:

http://www.carolmoore.net/waco/TDM-02.html http://www.carolmoore.net/waco/TDM-03.html (Carol Moore, cited as a Ross critic on Waco) http://www.freedommag.org/english/vol29I1/page08x.htm Scientology Freedom Magazine (seems they had Ross under watch during the deprogramming and shared that information with others e.g. Carol Moore). http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/issues/1995-11-30/news/feature2_7.html (Press account) http://www.skepticfiles.org/waco/wattenbe.htm (cites Block as a BATF source) http://www.rickross.com/reference/waco/waco_affidavit.html (BATF Affidavit) http://www.rickross.com/reference/waco/waco294.html (Book titled "See No Evil" by Tim Madigan)

The word "claims" is not appropriate. The second Davidian Ross says he deprogrammed was not reported about. But the first certainly and was recorded repeatedly by a number of different sources, often not friendly to him.

The Waco Tribune-Herald ran a lengthy series, but Ross is not cited as a "major source," only quoted.

See the following links:

http://www.rickross.com/reference/waco/wacopart1.pdf http://www.rickross.com/reference/waco/wacopart2.pdf http://www.rickross.com/reference/waco/wacopart3.pdf

Carol Moore

Carol Moore is quoted regarding Ross. She is to say the least controversial. Moore is a Libertarian, her book was published by the Gun Owners of America and is acclaimed as a "polemic against the government."

See http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9602/reviews/roundup.html

Dean Kelley, often called an apologist and recommended by Scientology as a religious resource, proclaims; "Carol Moore has written a polemic against the government worthy of the organization to which she has devoted more than two years of work-the Committee for Waco Justice, which has staged demonstrations in Washington to protest what they view as crimes by the federal agencies. Her book is copublished by Gun Owners of America and highlights issues of interest to opponents of gun control and of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, but it is not untrustworthy because of that."

See http://www.boogieonline.com/revolution/by_name/M/CarolMoore.html

Moore once described herself as "libertarian non-violent pacifist decentralist pagan hippy communalist worshiper of the goddess maryjane."

See http://www.theconspiracy.us/9501/0019.html

Moore is cited on "Conspiracy Nation."

See http://www.constitution.org/waco/mtcarmel.htm

Carol Moore's "Committee for Waco Justice" was cited "the main legal fund for the civil case of the surviving Davidians against the U.S. government." The Davidian survivors lost that case at trial and subsequently upon appeal.

Ms. Moore's reports and supposed "facts" have been discounted, dismissed and/or disputed by various government reports, through both a criminal and civil trial and by the Danforth Investigation.

Moore represents a fringe conspiracy theory view of Waco. For example, her writings are featured at "New Dawn" Magazine, which states that its "mission" is "Challenging Consensus Reality...journal of alternative news."

See http://www.newdawnmagazine.com/whatisnewdawn.html

And also http://www.newdawnmagazine.com/Articles/Waco%20Four%20Years%20On.html

http://www.padrak.com/alt/index.shtml PADRAK Alternative Information

Here is Moore's bio http://www.carolmoore.net/biography/ she does have a history of activism on the radical fringe. If anyone can find any academic credentials please post a link to an NPOV source.67.134.82.77 22:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

If Carol Moore is controversial, then say who consider her controversial. Opinions are not welcome unless are attributed to someone that is notable enough to be quoted. That way a reader can see where this protagonist stands and what are his/her motives. There is no need to have academic credentials to be quoted. Only that the person quoted is notable. I would argue that Moore is notable in reference to Waco. --38.119.107.70 18:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Enough information and links have been provided to demonstrate Ms. Moore is "controversial," her own bio also demonstrates her history of controversy. If Ross is to be described as "controversial" certainly Ms. Moore is. It's interesting to note that Ms. Moore's academic credentials are not of any concern to you, when Ross' lack of credentials are. You have not demonstrated that Ms. Moore is not controversial nor have you offered proof that the edit is false.67.134.82.77 22:40, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Moore is a recognized and often quoted/cited expert on the Branch Davidians. Trying to keep her POV out of this article is curious to say the least. And we do not exclude authors because their publisher holds pro-gun ownership views. Gun ownership in the United States is legal, mainstream and not controversial. If you read about the Davidian's you'll note most all gun rights groups were supportive of the Branch Davidians. Numerous gun magazines wrote articles about the Waco slaughter at the time. We also do not exclude authors who are politically libertarian or who may smoke or have smoked pot. Finally, we do not exclude sources because they are controversial. Mr Christopher 16:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Jason Scott

This section states, "The jury in that second trial held Ross liable for conspiracy to deprive Scott of his civil rights of freedom of religion." However, there is no citation offered here. The press coverage simply says "civil rights," which may have included "freedom of religion." But without independent verification this should be edited out and read simply "civil rights."

"The suit ended in Ross and the Cult Awareness Network being ordered to pay large judgments:" This is redundant and not necessary. The amounts are cited below, the reader can see that they are large.

Let's try to avoid needless repetition.

The CESNUR link is also needless. This site is VERY biased as the article title reflects "CAN, We Hardly Knew Ye: Sex, Drugs, Deprogrammers’ Kickbacks, and Corporate Crime in the (old) Cult Awareness Network." This is also misleading as no criminal charges were ever brought against the old CAN. The New Times newspaper account already cites the amounts and cirucumstances.67.134.82.77 22:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

It is not a good idea to remove references to articles because you consider them biased. Any article written by a notable person, can be used as a reference (articles by non-notable people are used as references as weel, but their relevance is disputed). The author is Anson Shupe, a scholar and a protagonist in the Scott case, as he was deposed in the trial.--38.119.107.70 18:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
This is a POV article not a news article. An article like this should be linked and noted under criticism.
All article are POV. The POV of the writer, scholar, editor, journalist, etc. News articles are actually the less relevant sources. --38.119.107.70 01:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
CESNUR is not a newspaper or wire service. It is a website devoted to the defense of groups called "cults" and is not a NPOV source. See http://www.kelebekler.com/cesnur/eng.htm The link is not necessary and should be confined to criticism. Shupe is quoted there. Repeating links, articles, etc. is redundant.67.134.82.77 12:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

website "widely cited," disclaimer and FAQ, POV of groups

The Ross Institute website/database is "widely cited" and not only by "countercult" people. It is typically cited by the mainstream press, colleges, universitites, etc. This is demonstrated by numerious links and articles already posted at this discussion board. The FAQ section of the site and its disclaimer (linked from every page) does take care to clarify "the mention and/or inclusion of a group or leader within this archive does not define that group as a 'cult' and/or an individual mentioned as either destructive and/or harmful. Instead, such inclusion simply reflects that archived articles and/or research is available about a group or person that has generated some interest and/or controversy." The recent edit adding that some groups may be "insulted" by their inclusion is a POV and not relevant here. This is covered by the section titled "Criticism." The edits have been reverted.67.134.82.77 22:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

If you say that the website ifs "widely cited" you need not only to say that it is so, but provide references to sustain that claim. A search on Google will show that 99% of websites that link back to Ross website are the countercult and not the mainstream press. There are 2,185 backlinks to rickross.com [8] of which 99% of these links are from Ross' website itself. In order to say that his website is widely cited, we ought to provide some kind of supportive material for that statement. --38.119.107.70 01:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
You seem to be avoiding the point. The media has "widely cited" the website in many, many articles since its inception. Posts previously provided prove this information. A Google News search will do the same. Also See http://www.trafficranking.com/

If you go to site rankings you will find that the Ross Institute website www.rickross.com ranks 28,106 with 21, 666 links on the WWW. It is both widely used and widely cited. It is a very large database that contains news articles (AP, Reuters, various newspapers), court documents and public records about hundreds of groups, organizations and movements. As such a database it is widely used by the public and not limited to so-called "countercult" people.67.134.82.77 12:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

numerous critics

The third paragraph from the top notes that Ross has "numerous critics especially from groups listed on his website..." This is sufficient and "extensive criticism" is not accurate. For example, "extensive criticism" would be widespread such as the media, many NPOV organizations without a vested interest, mental health professionals etc. Instead his critics are essentially the groups listed at his site, other groups called cults and academics that often defend such groups. The "scholars" or academic apologists are given their say in Criticism.67.134.82.77 12:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

involuntary vs. voluntary interventions

Ross no longer engages in involunary interventions. He states this at his site under "Deprogramming." Taking up further space here on this subject is not necessary. Obviously (see Jason Scott a whole section) he was sued and subjected to a judgment. Anyone can see why he stopped. Use a little common sense. Again, repetition is not meaningful. The link may be useful though for those who want to know more.67.134.82.77 13:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

reverting without support

User 38.119.107.70:

You have reverted edits without proper discussion or due process. There is a three revert rule. This user should be banned if there are three reverts. So far you have reverted once against the guidelines previously posted by Fire Star. Please read those guidelines. If you violate the three revert rule you may be locked out of this article. I and others have posted precise explanations of why edits were made and responded to your edits point by point. Simply adding a note to your edit, which should be in discussion, is not the process outlined. Please stick to the guidelines posted.67.134.82.77 15:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I read about the three revert rule. This applies if a user reverts three times within a 24 hr. period. I have not done that. I have responded point by point and you have ignored my arguments. The burden for deleting any material from an article are on the person deleting: As far as I can understand from the policies, any factual information that uses a citation and that is attributed to a notable source should not be deleted from an article. Unless you can overcome these arguments, you cannot delete the material. If you find any of the citations provided to be inaccurate, then I would agree to a deletion. So, feel free to add more material to the

article, but if you want to delete material you will need to show that the material is either irrelevant or not properly supported by external references. --38.119.107.70 19:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Creating a false argument is not the means to resolution. You have not responded to the points raised in previous discussion and simply reverted insisting upon having your way. That is not how I read the guidelines. You essentially seem intent upon turning this entry into a POV Opinion/Editorial piece as opposed to an NPOV encyclopedia entry.67.134.82.77 20:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

BTW--it seems like user 38.119.107.70 came in just as Zappaz declared his or her "self-imposed moratorium"--isn't that interesting?67.134.82.77 00:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

POV repetition under Branch Davidians

Under Branch Davidians there is the POV of Kimberly Post writing for a Web site originally created by Jeffrey Hadden, a controversial sociology professor that was criticized for working closely with groups called "cults" and recommended by the Church of Scientology as a resource. Ms. Post apparently did the entry quoted while a student of Hadden's sociology class. Her remarks reflect a POV and make unsubstantiated claims, such as "assumptions put forth by Breault and Ross decisively influenced the investigation and opinion of Koresh and his followers by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Attorney General Janet Reno, and President Clinton." She offers no factual evidence to support that claim. The footnotes for her article include Ms. Ammerman who is also quoted saying essentially the same thing that Ms. Post later reiterates. There is no need for repitition and this POV is already expressed by Ms. Ammerman, who unlike Ms. Post is not a student, but rather a professor.

Catherine Wessinger, another person often cited as a "cult apologist," calls Ross a "spurious self-styled expert." This is yet another example of a repititious POV entry that amounts to little more than name calling. There is already noted criticism from Anson Shupe, Ammerman etc. along these lines. Ross has Wessinger listed on his "Cult Apologist" page, perhaps she is mad about that.67.134.82.77 16:42, 27 July 2005 (UTC) [9]

Kimberly Post, Jeff Hadden, Ammerman, Wessinger, Moore, Supe have criticized Ross quite extensively each one of them on a different aspect of this man's work. Of course these are POVs, how can they not be. POV means Point of View. Ross has a point of view, the AFF has a point of view, Asnon hein as a point of view, and these people have a point of view etc. etc. etc. Not to sound repetitive, and regardless of your feelings for Ross, you cannot justify deletion of material because you don't like it, or because you speculate that someone wrote a scathing criticism due to Ross' listing. If supported by an academic citation, or by a notable source in the context of the article, the material is good to stay. You may want to look for citations that exalt the work of Ross (if these are from scholars or notable persons) and add these as a counterbalance. --38.119.107.70 19:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Criticism

In the first paragraph there is no need to repeat that Scientology is critical of Ross or mention the Kabbalah Centre specifically. Scientology already has its criticism linked and the Kabbalah Centre is included by the statement about criticism from "new religious movements, controversial groups or organizations which are listed in his website..."

Shupe and Darnell's characterization of a private letter between Ross and Coates is a POV. Ross has done substantial ecumenical work through committees with Christians. For example he was elected chairman of the Religious Advisory Committee of the AZ Dept of Corrections, served on an interreligious national committee for the UAHC and has numerous links to Christian Cult Watchers on his Links page.[10][11]

Within the criticism section there should be a footnote regarding Shupe being paid by Kendrick Moxon for expert witness work.67.134.82.77 17:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

You have a misunderstanding. It took me a while to see it, but now that I understand it, I find this policy of Neutral Point of View quite innovative. Please read this: To write from a neutral point of view, one presents controversial views without asserting them; to do that, it generally suffices to present competing views in a way that is more or less acceptable to their adherents, and also to attribute the views to their adherents. . So if we say "B is a bigot" that would not acceptable. But if we say "A writes in article Z that B is a bigot" and we have an "A" that is notable, then we are in NPOV territory. I also find this paragraph quite illuminating: First, and most importantly, consider what it means to say that unbiased writing presents conflicting views without asserting them. Unbiased writing does not present only the most popular view; it does not assert the most popular view is correct after presenting all views; it does not assert that some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Presenting all points of view says, more or less, that p-ists believe that p, and q-ists believe that q, and that's where the debate stands at present. Ideally, presenting all points of view also gives a great deal of background on who believes that p and q and why, and which view is more popular (being careful not to associate popularity with correctness). Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of the p-ists and the q-ists, allowing each side to give its "best shot" at the other, but studiously refraining from saying who won the exchange. All these citations are from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Feel free to say that Shupe was paid by Moxon, if you can provide an solid reference for that.
Lastly, and in regard to the GuideStar entry, you argue that it is not important to the readers. I say, let the reader decide what is and what is not important. Give the facts and let them make up their minds about what's important. This is also from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view There is another reason to commit ourselves to this policy. Namely, when it is clear to readers that we do not expect them to adopt any particular opinion, this leaves them free to make up their minds for themselves, thus encouraging intellectual independence. Totalitarian governments and dogmatic institutions everywhere might find reason to be opposed to Wikipedia, if we succeed in adhering to our non-bias policy: the presentation of many competing theories on a wide variety of subjects suggests that we, the creators of Wikipedia, trust readers' competence to form their own opinions themselves. Texts that present multiple viewpoints fairly, without demanding that the reader accept any one of them, are liberating. Neutrality subverts dogmatism, and nearly everyone working on Wikipedia can agree this is a good thing. --38.119.107.70 19:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Based upon your interpretation of the Wikipedia guidelines an entry should contain a long and every growing list of quotes from various sources expressing their POV on a subject or person. So a definition of the United States, would require that editors paste quotes from Iranian leaders, Lyndon LaRouche, Neo Nazis and on and on, after all they are "notable." Regarding Guidestar you are breaking new ground on Wikipedia. Despite the fact that no controversy whatsoever has taken place concerning the finances of the Ross Institute you want to post Guidestar information. Again, for the third or fourth time out now--what other nonprofits on Wikipedia would you offer of this new policy you have now invented?67.134.82.77 20:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is more about facts than quotes. Quotes such as .77 mentions should go to Wikipedia:wikiquote. Personally I do not like long quotes in any Wikipedia article. Andries 21:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

References

The LaRouche at "Executive Intelligence Review" was previously edited out because it did not meet Wikipedia guidelines as reliable.


The Danforth Reports are available on-line and should be linked along with other Congressional findings, which are also available online.67.134.82.77 21:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I have added a book excerpt from Conway and Siegelman book about deporgramming. They are experts in commuication and well-known authors. This in balance to the Deprogramming article by Shupe.

Stephen Kent is a noted sociologist, author and professor at the University of Alberta. He wrote a critique that includes information about Shupe's role in the Scott case and the issue of academic scholars working for cults and/or offering unbalanced papers that lack academic rigor.

I have cut some of the redundant articles linked from CESNUR, a site well-known for its defense of "cults." One by Jehovah's Witnesses was repetitive of the Scott case. another by Wessinger again is redundant and mirrors Ammerman and other reports already linked.

There should be balance in the references and they all should be linked online.67.134.82.77 22:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I checked out these references and they are a total joke. Many of them are just cult mouthpieces that get paid by cults to defend them and cut down their critics. It's all over the WWW about these "scholars." Looks like there is some money to make for these guys if they work for the rich cults. Hadden, Shupe, Ammerman, Wessinger, Melton. And that "available online" website called "CESNUR" is run by some weird Italian dude that works with cults. Isn't their anyone at Wikipedia to reign in this crap? Or is this all just about whatever weirdos have the stamina to stay with it and keep "editing"? Seems like if you get enough cult members together you can make Wikipedia into anything you want. Pretty ridiculous to pass this off as an "enyclopedia" though isn't it?

Yea, these "scholars" are sell-outs to cults and seem to work for them. Wikipedia is really a joke having "references" like this. Really trash. See the following links to get the real info on this "cult apologists."

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/c11.html

http://home.snafu.de/tilman/faq-you/cult.apologists.txt

http://www.rickross.com/apologist.html

What a bunch of deleted expletive/personal attack. And anyone that believes these guys is ready for the "mother ship" to beam them up. Stuff like this makes Wikipedia look awful and kind of stupid.208.5.214.2 23:51, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Objection to removal of material

With the exception of edits by Antaeus Felspar that added material to the article and provided references for his additions, all deletion of material by editor IP 38.119.107.70 is reducing the quality of this article and is against the principles set forth in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I don't understand why nobody else is objecting to deletion of material, when that material is supported by external, notable and relevant citations. I am reverting all edits with the exception of the edits by Felspar and Andries that made some needed neutralization. I am not new to Wikipedia as Felspar assumes, as I have edited for while last year when I was in between projects, a situation I find myself now as well. --38.119.107.70 02:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Get a load of ...insult removed.... He is here to slam Ross and use Wikipedia as a soapbox. Reading his edits is pretty revealing. Get real dude!208.5.214.2 22:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Rickey Allen

Other than documents filed by Scientology lawyers there is no document with the name of Rikey Allen Ross regarding Ross. Only Rick Ross, Rick Alan Ross. This is really pretty ridiculous additions with nothing to commend it or demonstrate its accuracy.12.27.54.146 11:04, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

You need to look at the references section. You will see there a link to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision (order), SCOTT v ROSS , 9635050o, filed August 26, 1998. It reads "JASON SCOTT, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. RICK ROSS, aka Rickey Allen". [12]
There is another document, this on on Ross' site, an affidavit by Jason Scott's mother: "Rick Ross, a/k/a Rickey Allen" [13]. Thanks for the tip on Ross' middle name. I will add it to the introduction to the article.

--Stefano Ponte 04:00, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

AS stated in previous entry these documents refer to filings by Scientology attorneys. And the citations you offer refer to filings by those attorneys. They filed the name "Rickey Allen Ross." No other documents reflect this name and Ross does not use this name. You have offered no objective source and this has no purpose in an encyclopedia entry. Why are you wasting time and edits on this?12.27.54.146 11:20, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
In response to your removal of material:
  1. "Rikey Alan" is stated as an alias on the court Order by Judge Schroeder (order # 9635050o US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals)
  2. "Cult intervention specialist", is a term coined by Ross
  3. Ross was quoted in several magazines and newspapers, in relation to his interests in cults. He was not interviewed for any other reason, whas he?
  4. Many groups that have been included on Ross' "one of the largest databases of information about controversial groups, some called 'cults,' and related information on the Internet" have complained publicly about it
  5. The Guidestar report and its relevance has been discussed at length in this discussion page. Basically, it is factual information and should remain. --Stefano Ponte 00:02, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Again, your references to "Rickey Allen" are citations based upon filings of Scientology lawyers. Ross does not use that name and it has no significance here for a encyclopedia entry. "A term coined by Ross" is redundant, the entry states in the same sentence "Ross describes himself..." Repeating this is not meaningful and serves no purpose. The entry about several magazines newspapers seems misleading. Ross is interviewed because of the media/public interest in cults, controversial groups and movements, not "his interests." Also, this would seem to imply a very limited number of interviews, when factually he appears in "several" interviews on a monthly basis. The statement about "groups have complained publicly" is again redundant and already noted. Repeating this again and again takes up space and is not necessary. The Guidestar information offers the reader nothing of importance. There is no controversy about funding. Perhaps if there were this would be relevant. Again, Wikipedia doesn't feature such information per format about nonprofits and there is no reason to do so here.
I have rebutted each and every one of your arguments: The fact that on an official court order he is called "Rikey Allen" is relevant as this is not only an encyclopedic article, it is a biographical article as well. The fact that Ross coined a term he now uses is relevant. The fact that he describes himself as he does, is relevant. The fact that he gets interviewed in the media because of interests in cults is relevant. The fact that the Ross Institute has no income to report is relevant (Note that Guidestar is used in several articles such as American Humanist Association, Children International, Council for Secular Humanism and many other non-profits. The fact that groups have complained of being included on Ross' list of cults (and some even went to the courts for that reason), is relevant. ---Stefano Ponte 19:26, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I come to realize that leaving for a wikivacation is sometimes the best one can do. I can see that I am no longer needed here. Thanks to Irmgard, Stephano, Al and all anons for shouldering the effort in getting this article in good shape. --ZappaZ 03:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Wow, Wikipedia seems to be like some kind of circle jerk, where weird fringe people sit around making bizarre entries based upon who they don't like etc. I have been reviewing this thread and find it amazing what passes for an enyclopedia here. Maybe that's why a lot of people mock this kind of site and don't cite it that seriously. Anyway, doesn't anyone here realize that no one is called "Rickey"? You guys are really silly. And the papers you cite over and over again are sourced to some wacko Scientology lawyers. They put "Rickey Allen" for there for their own purposes and the guy never used such a name, it's not a legit "aka," but I guess you know that. It's like you all take yourselves so seriously, but really are just hammering away against somebody you don't like and using Wikipedia as your soapbox. VERY PETTY and reflects poorly on the whole Wikipedia thing.208.5.214.2 22:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, some people mock Wikipedia, but still, after a long process of editing and by contributions from multiple editors most controversial articles get in a pretty good shape (good exampls are Abortion or Human. The "Rickey Allen" name is pulled out a court order document. Do you know if Ross name is actually Rickey Allen? If it is, it should stay. If it isn't, I do not understand why it is listed on a court order. You are most welcome to contribute to the article and make it better, if you are so inclined. Complaining about it usually does not accomplish much. --ZappaZ 04:34, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I was mocking you and how easily ...insult removed... like you corrupt and twist Wikipedia. Look, you know why you here and it isn't to help people. You have your little mission to bash people and mislead anyone you can. The whole entry on "Rickey Allen" shows how ...insult removed... you are. You don't care about facts and I wouldn't waste my time with you. Go ahead and play in your little mud puddle here at Wikipedia. From the looks of the media reports that quote Ross constantly as a "cult expert" and all the work he does you lost the real battle. So whine and cry here. No one in the mainstream media will quote the junk here. And who ever heard of the "scholars" that you keep promoting? Some of them seem to make quite a bit of money off of cults and they certainly aren't quoted as much as Ross. I guess that's what really ticks you off208.5.214.2 11:28, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Wicca

This guy that calls himself "Stefano Ponte" (probably a Scientologyist or member of another cult) is really pretty funny. He says Wicca objects to Ross including them within on his list, which is totally false. See http://www.rickross.com/reference/wicca/wiccavisitor.html Visitors are happy for the information. Obviously, "Ponte" is not interested in facts and is just another angry guy using Wikipedia to get at someone he doen't like. Looking over the Wicca section I can see why they are praising it. Ross has some really interesting articles that help make people better understand Wicca. See http://www.rickross.com/groups/wicca.html . Hey, and will someone explain to me why anyone would put this statement in a so-called "encylopedia" -- "Notwithstanding that diclaimer, several groups featured on his website, such as the Christian Fellowship, Wicca, and the Kabbalah Centre do not appreciate being listed as they claim the term "cult" has negative connotations and is perceived as an insult." Wow, what a totally bogus entry that is. I checked Ross' site and he doesn't even call these groups "cults." The statement is first totally false about Wicca and then shows a disregard for facts and research. So much for counting on Wikipedia as any kind of reliable source.208.5.214.2 22:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Much easier is just to remove info that is incorrect. I deleted the Wicca reference. The other two groups mentioned have complained. --ZappaZ 04:28, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Are you an deleted expletive/personal attack? Or can't you read? Ross never called these groups a "cult" and there is no such statement by him anywhere. This just shows everyone what ...insult removed... and how all this is for you is a game to get someone you don't like. What guru sent you here to mess up Wikipedia with all this junk?208.5.214.2 11:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

At Wikipedia it isn't done to say things like "Are you an idiot? Or can't you read?" or to insult other editors. In a situation where there is a disagreement over who has said what publicly, one instead asks other editors to cite their sources. No citation, no inclusion. Fire Star 13:41, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Warning to 208.5.214.2

This is a warning to anon user 208.5.214.2. Please note that abusive language and personal attacks are not acceptable behavior in Wikipedia. You are welcome to edit this and other articles, but you will have to learn to maintain a civil and corteous demeanor in the talk pages. I will comb these pages are delete your expletives and abusive language. --ZappaZ 18:58, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Zappaz you are here to promote your guru and slime anyone who doesn't like him. You are using Wikipedia to do that. Your entries at Cult, Mind Control, Guru Maharaji prove that to anyone willing to take the time to see your "editing" work. Ross does have a sense of humor about people like you, proven by his "Flaming Websites" page. I am nominating this page in Wikipedia for an award.208.5.214.2 22:10, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Your verbal abuse and behavior will not make you any friends around here and you will end with your IP address banned from Wikipedia if you persists with that behavior. Please remain civil. Thanks. For your information, I don't have a "guru". --ZappaZ 22:21, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Pro Cult Movement

There is an organized pro cult movement.

See these links---

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/c11.html

http://www.rickross.com/apologist.html

http://home.snafu.de/tilman/faq-you/cult.apologists.txt

Many of these sociologists and would-be "scholars" have been paid off by cults or their books and research funded by them. Something like scholarship for sale to the highest bidder. Looks like Gordon Melton tried to sell his wares to the "anti-cult movement" first, but found out that the cults had more money. Jeffrey Hadded also hatched a scheme to get money from cults, but his memo was leaked on the Internet.

So why not acknowledge that there is a pro-cult movement that is well organized and funded?

These guys get together and have conferences, attack the opposing side and have a well defined position. The same names even keep coming up.

How about a little honesty here at Wikipedia???

Or is that a "personal attack" that will be deleted???208.5.214.2 22:10, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

No, that is not a personal attack. The issue you discuss is already covered in Wikipedia. See Cult apologist, and Polarized views by scholars, and Apostates and Apologists. You can also follow the links to the articles on scholars that have been called apologists. If you feel inclined, you can get a userID and help make these articles better. But note that you will need to lower your tone of voice and learn to work with other people even those with a totally opposed POV to yours in a respectful and civil manner. You will also need to read and understand the Wikipedia principle of Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View. It will take time to get use to it, but it will be very rewarding if you do. --ZappaZ 22:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


I have removed the nonsense about "pro-cult" movement. This anonymous user is not only opprobrious and very belligerent, but is also interested in original research... If anonymous finds a notable source that speaks of a Pro cult movement, he/she is entitled to then start an article on the subject and link it herein, otherwise he/she needs to desist from such efforts. --Stefano Ponte 03:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Pro-cult movement is not very neutral and might have been coined on the go, so it should not be used. On the other hand, the confidential Hadden memo (made public by Beit-Hallahmi, who was one of the receivers [14]) shows there have been attempts by NMR scholars to organize opposition to cult watching groups: "AGENDA ITEM # 5 - Consider what collective action, if any, needs to be developed as an alternative to AFF's Project Recovery." (Hadden's words) This has been published by Beit-Hallahmi and commented by several others, so it is not original research. --Irmgard 09:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
BTW, it is also problematic to use the label anti-cultist too liberally - when talking of academics it is as POV as cult apologist, especially in cases like "Professor Jeffrey Hadden" vs. "alti-cultist Stephen Kent" while both are professor of sociology). --Irmgard 09:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
In any case, labels like pro-cult movement cult apologist or anti-cult activist etc. should be avoided when one is referring to a person in an encyclopedia, if they are not attributed and referenced. --Irmgard 09:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Look like Hadden's memo outlined the members of the pro-cult movement and they are the same "scholars" who have at times been paid by cults to do books about them, research or be "expert witnesses." The same academics keep calling those they don't like who criticize cults as the "anti-cult movement." Anti-cult movement is a label they coined for propaganda purposes and it is their POV. BTW a big part of this "encyclopedia entry" is members of the pro-cult movement calling Ross names over and over again. How is that anything worth noting? They are all just spouting off because he and others have exposed them as pro-cult types that often make money from the cults. If my name calling is edited from discussion why isn't there name calling edited out of this entry? Looks like flaming to me.208.5.214.2 11:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Because the public "name calling" directed at Ross is being done by notable public figures about a notable public figure, and it is documented. Wikipedia editors personally insulting each other and calling each other names on article talk pages isn't allowed, period. FYI, I agree with Ross about a lot of things (not everything) and think that his website is generally a public service. You have to recognise that an outspoken public profile will engender criticism, and that criticism can't be swept under the rug. We have to trust that our readers are intelligent enough to weigh the evidence presented. Civility in aid of the editorial consensus process at Wikipedia cannot be ignored. Fire Star 19:22, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

OK. But the bias of the pro-cult movement and the history of its antagonists should be noted. Hadden was looking for money from cults and that is proven. Ammerman seems pretty popular and a stalwart within that movement too. The quotes offered from these hacks are little more than name calling and mud slinging. It's not the stuff for an encyclopedia and is just propaganda. At least identify them for what they are and if someone has no academic credentials admit it. Ross is hammered for having none, why not his critics. Also, if Ross' fees are posted, questioned etc. why not the people who make money from cults? Fair is fair, if this is to be fact based and neutral.208.5.214.2 21:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

You cannot add commentary to the article that are your opinions. You can provide citations from notable sources, if you wish, but commentary that it is not supported by primary (or secondary) notable sources are not welcome and will be deleted. For example, you cannot say RR is a cult expert, but you can say (as the article reads) that "Ross has been referred to by the media as a "cult deprogrammer", a "internationally known expert", as "America's number one cult buster", a "cult expert" , as a "self-styled cult buster", and as “a veteran cult watcher". That is one of the things that NPOV is about. Same with your characterization of some of Ross critics. Source it, reference it, attribute it ... or lose it. --ZappaZ 22:43, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
For an example of a biographical article based on reported facts, that includes criticism as well, see Jeffrey K. Hadden. So rather than repeating the criticism on Hadden on this article, you can just wikilink to that section as follows: "Hadden was accused on being supportive of cults. See also Hadden's critics" --ZappaZ 22:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I posted this above, for another editor, but it is still the way to approach this issue. We can agree to disagree and also present every verifiable point of view in the article with NPOV. The best way to get a consensus on this article is to discuss the points of contention one at a time:

  1. Explain on the talk page exactly why you think what you wrote is right. Read what others say as well.
  2. Provide references from outside Wikipedia to back up what you think. If they do the same, read them.
  3. Ask for other people to look at the article and provide advice. Even if they know nothing about the subject they may be able to help.
  4. Remember that opinions shouldn't be in an article.
  5. If there is a real disagreement over what the facts are, not just between two editors but between different groups of people, then the best way may be to record both views and allow the reader to make up their mind.
  6. If you believe the other user really isn't listening to reason, then try Wikipedia:Request for comment to get other people's opinions.

Stay calm, stay patient and try to stay pleasant. One good thing about Wikipedia is that we have to work with people who disagree with us. In the end, though, that makes for more complete articles. Fire Star 05:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

OK than the commentary offered that Ross is a "protaganist of the anti-cult movement" should be deleted. That is an opinion not a fact. The "anti-cult movment" is tried propaganda used by the academics that get funding and favors from the cults. They are a growing scandal within academia and not objective. They are often paid for their services like Melton, Shupe and Hadden. They have also organized themselves in groups, associations etc.208.5.214.2 22:02, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

The introduction is misleading and does not represent facts. It is rather a POV as expressed by those who don't like Ross.

Specifically the statement "He faces considerable criticism from some of the groups he lists on his website, from scholars studying New religious movements, and from other individuals related to the roles he played in the controversial case of Jason Scott, and the ill fated Waco standoff with the Branch Davidians."

This reflects a POV about Ross as experessed by groups called "cults" and their apologists. It is not a historical or news reporting point of view, with the exception of articles where his critics express their POV.

Ross is a widely quoted expert on the subject of cults.

Those "editing" here may not like that, but that is a fact as reflected by numerous news stories. What Zappaz and others sympathetic to his POV have attempted to do here is skew the entry to reflect their POV.

If this entry is to be fair the previous statement should read as follows:

He faces criticism from some of the groups he lists on his website, from scholars sympathetic to those groups, and from other individuals related to the roles he played in the controversial case of Jason Scott, and the ill fated Waco standoff with the Branch Davidians.

To do otherwise is a kind of selective editing that has no place in a supposedly factually based "encyclopedia" entry.

Sources and References and Verifiability

Getting the quotes and references up to standard - so far only introduction and life completed. Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles --Irmgard 19:50, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Dropouts so far:

  • as "America's number one cult buster" (FHM magazine) - not a citable source like this
  • as a "self-styled cult buster"(the New York Daily News), - not a citable source like this
  • http://www.guidestar.org/. Not useable as reference - not exact enough and needs login
I disagree with all the above. Why FHM, The New York Daily news are not citable? and why Guidestar is "not exact" enough. Guidestar is the registry of all charitable institutions in the USA. Login is free. Reverted. --ZappaZ 19:59, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
New York Daily News and FHM are citable, but not just by giving them a source. For verifiability you should give date, author and title of the story. I found the New York Daily News article, it is from the gossip column by Lloyd Grove, so this should be given - it's quite difference, if the source is a columnist or an investigative reporter. FHM I found no precise info, Guidestar I have reformulated according to the actual source (which is the IRS form, not any boiler plate from guidestar).

--Irmgard 12:03, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

If you want to do that you need to properly write the dollar amount as well as to explain what it means, otherwise you are misleading. Most people do not know the meaning of these forms. Reverted. The citatitons for these quotes were presented before on this page. I will dig them out. --ZappaZ

Zappaz, please provide a verifiable source for this, before reinserting it: "America's number one cult buster" (FHM magazine), --Irmgard 19:38, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


I removed this quote, because I only found it in Freedomwatch, which is not a reliable source. If you find a better source, you are free to reinsert it (but for quotes we should have exact references). --Irmgard 19:38, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

The large punitive damages awarded were described in the judgement as follows:

"A large award of punitive damages is also necessary under the recidivism and mitigation aspects of the factors cited in Haslip. Specifically, the Court notes that Mr. Ross himself testified that he had acted similarly in the past and would continue to conduct 'deprogrammings' in the future."

Intro

We ought to find a way to have an intro that works. SO far all attempts, even those that stay on for a few weeks, get changed back. Time again for another page protection? Or can we find a way to agree on a NPOV intro for this man's article? --ZappaZ 16:45, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I restored the former intro - the intro of a biography article has to show why the person is significan Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Opening paragraph and "describes himself as a "cult intervention specialist", a term he coined to describe his way of doing exit counseling." does not correctly describe why Ross is significant. That he is a controversial figure is said clearly in the third para - if you want to pound away on that subject, Zappaz, do it there. (the fact, that he was a deprogrammer does not make him encyclopedia-worthy either, BTW - most deprogrammers are not). --Irmgard 19:38, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I think we are getting there. Only objection is the use "intervention specialist" as that is only used by Ross. He coined that term. I have made that change, hope it sticks. --ZappaZ 21:41, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Change sticks, orthography not ;-) Irmgard
To get an intro that is airtight, we need to briefly list how Ross describes himself and how his critics describe him, notable cases he has been involved with and any ongoing notability. Detail, as mentioned above, can be expanded on in later sections. Fire Star 01:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Ross is most often referred to by the media as a "cult expert." This can be seen by following articles and noting descriptions. Zappaz may not like this, but that is factual. FHM Magazine called him "America's Number One Cult Buster" see http://www.rickross.com/reference/media/media1.html The article was titled "Hellfire"! written by Bridget Freer and published by FHM in 1999. In the introduction media citations should be listed by date in chronological either date. They have now been arranged beginning with oldest date first.67.134.82.77 14:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

The mainstream media loves labels. I've seen them refer to "semi-automatic revolvers" and other contradictions. All computer users are "hackers." If you change the intro to "self-styled cult expert," then it would be neutral. As the article reads now, most of it is a puff piece for Rick Ross, one which he could have written himself. It gives him far more credibility than he has outside of the narrow community of "anti-cultists." Critic-at-Arms 16:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Zappaz revert

Zappaz is here to promote a very specific agenda. He is the devoted supporter of a guru often called a "cult leader" named Guru Maharaji (Divine Light Mission) aka Prem Rawat of Elan Vital.

See http://www.ex-premie2.org/

Zappaz has an axe to grind with those who criticize cults, explain their abuses, indoctrination/brainwashing techniques etc. He apparently hopes to use Wikipedia to go after cult critics and their "theories."

Editing by Zappaz follows two lines:

1. Get in whatever you can by way of false and/or misleading information and hope no one notices.

2. Edit and edit and edit until you have it your way with Wikipedia through reverting and/or repeatedly deleting what you don't want and then posting whatever you do want regardless of the facts.

Zappaz also relies heavily upon "scholars" of so-called NRMs "new religious movements," who often work closely with cults and are at times paid by them.

Zappaz likes to quote their name calling of people he doesn't like such as Ross. Note the quotes by Hadden (who has sought funding from cults), Melton, Wessinger, Shupe (who wrote his paper with the help of Scientology lawyer Kendrick Moxon a former employer Shupe made thousands from) and Nancy Ammerman. All cult apologists that have collectively caused a bit of a scandal within academia for their lack of research rigor to say the least.

Nevertheless, Zappaz doesn't want Wikipedia readers to know that. He hopes to edit out the actual context and/or background of their work or any historical information. He hopes Wikipedia readers will read their POV, but believe it is somehow NPOV.

Zappaz also cuts and tailors the introduction to mislead as much as possible. For example, he quotes "self-styled cult buster," hoping the reader will overlook that Ross is overwhelmingly referred to in the media as a "cult expert" over and over again in article after article and that this reference within an article about his critics is essentially exceptional. He also attempts to mislead the reader by implying that somehow the media interviews Ross becasue of "his interest" rather than due to their own interest in cults and related subjects for news purposes.

On and on it goes, round and round in the propaganda war waged by people like Zappaz at Wikipedia.

See cults, brainwashing, mind control, Prem Rawat, Divine Light Mission, deprogramming, cult, etc. and look for Zappaz edits and discussion. You will begin to realize what his purpose is here at Wikipedia.

In the end the Zappaz strategy at Wikipedia is to revert without discussion whenever he can and hope it gets by, depend upon other cult types (e.g. Scientologists) that will cut and edit like he does and genereally Zappaz goes on and on until he gets his way.

Sadly,...deleted personal attack do their worst here at Wikipedia, often making it into something of a joke, as noted by others, and not a reliable source of information. Zappaz and his fellow cult propagandists will hang out indefinitely editing until Wikipedia reads like they want.

Until Wikipedia very seriously addresses this problem it will never be a reliable reference for anyone searching for facts. Instead, it will be the idiosyncratic home of angry polemicists and their rants attempting to be passed off as NPOV information.

I think that about does it for me.

Zappaz once claimed he would give it a rest through his supposed "self-imposed moratorium." Maybe that's what I should really do.

After a while Wikipedia's lack of genuine editing based upon the facts becomes discouraging. It is easy to see why people like Zappaz so often win out here. No doubt he will get the last word. Not because he has the facts, but because Zappaz ...delete personal attack...67.134.82.77 13:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

If you believe the other user really isn't listening to reason, then you may try Wikipedia:Request for comment to get other people's opinions. Fire Star 14:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
I have already told you that I have no guru, I edit these articles (and many others), and continue to do out of interest in the subject. These asumptions of yours are unwarranted. You have a right to disagree with me, but please remain on purpose that is to write the best encyclopedia there is. I have been corteous, civil, and have encouraged you read the relevant information about how WP works and how consensus is reached. In my experience, the best articles are those that are written with the heat of the friction generated by opposing POVs when conducted with civility and without personal attacks, negative assessment of character, or assuming bad faith. If you have specifics about the scholars you discuss above, note that each one of them has an article in WP. You are welcome to edit these and find notable sources that support your POV (although most of these are already included in these articles). I am deleting your personal attack from your message as per WP policy. --ZappaZ 15:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
I will adopt another self-declared moratorium for 30 days in editing this article, with the hope that other participant editors ensure anon's edits comply with WP:NPOV. If no one challenges obvious non-NPOV edits by these anons I will do so at the end of my moratorium. That will give a chance to other editors to help improve upon this article. --ZappaZ 16:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Shupe Darnell Quote

Under the heading critique ZappaZ persists in reinstating as "highly relevant" a quote by Shupe/Darnell which is a general very negative opinion about deprogrammers without mentioning Ross specifically. This quote should, if at all, be inserted in the Deprogramming article, not here. --Irmgard 21:27, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

In a paper written with Darnell he is critical of Ross. They write that "[...] It is sociologically understandable that deprogrammers came to acquire “spoiled identities” as vigilantes and mercenaries rather than as bonafide counselors or therapists. Their coercive tactics outraged new religious movements (NRMs) and civil libertarian sympathizers and caused many deprogrammers to face legal and criminal complications when (as often happened) their “interventions” did not work. Operatives’ quest to institutionalize themselves as legitimate professionals acting within the law began not long after CAN was founded."[15]

I don't see anything wrong with Zappaz' addition of this material to clarify things. I believe Rick Ross worked very closely with the CAN and deprogrammers. Also it should be noted that Rick Ross has a problem that goes back to his youth: he is a sociopathic liar. This explains Ross' constant denying of facts about him. --AI 02:34, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

It wouldn't make any sense to add a general criticism of lawyers to a lawyer's biography, nor would we add a general condemnation of Jews to an article on some Jewish person. If the context of the quote can be re-worked to show its direct connection to Ross, then it would make sense. However if we're sure that he meant Ross specifically it'd be better to simply summarize the comment in our own words. -Willmcw 06:05, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
The paper mentions Ross as an example of deprogrammer. I do not understand why do we need to delete that text when it is about criticism of Ross, and in the pertinent section. I mean, read the text... it clearly addresses Ross as being the most notable protagonist of such "interventions" and one of the main persons to attempt to legitimize deprogramming or "exit counseling" as a valid profession. --ZappaZ 06:08, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Will have you read what the article says about Rick Ross? --AI 23:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
  • ..."It is sociologically understandable that deprogrammers came to acquire “spoiled identities” as vigilantes and mercenaries rather than as bonafide counselors or therapists. Their coercive tactics outraged new religious movements (NRMs) and civil libertarian sympathizers and caused many deprogrammers to face legal and criminal complications when (as often happened) their “interventions” did not work. Operatives’ quest to institutionalize themselves as legitimate professionals acting within the law began not long after CAN was founded."
  • "Even coercive deprogrammer Rick Ross was terming himself only an Expert Consultant and Intervention Specialist (an unique euphemism for exit counselor) on his late 1990s Internet Website.[16] when, just several years earlier, on January 18, 1991 he and several assistants violently abducted and for a week confined a Seattle, Washington man named Jason Scott. Scott was an adult whose mother wanted him to abandon memberships in a local United Pentecostal congregation. (Mrs. Scott was referred to Ross by CAN).[17]"
  • ..."expert Rick Ross were still physically abducting unwilling adults belonging to unconventional religions and criminally restraining the latter according to the old deprogramming/mind control mythos."
Reference: http://www.cesnur.org/2003/shupe_darnell.htm

Rick Ross employed coercive tactics which caused him to face legal and criminal complications which significantly contributed to a spoiled identity. The spoiled identity is not created by the NRM's, they merely expose it and then they endure unwarranted attacks by cricis who claim they are "libeling" the spoiled identity... go figure. --AI 23:31, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

That's your opinion, ok, (could also be Shupe's opinion), but it is no reason to insert a general negative quote on a group of persons into an article on a specific person. Put the quote into the deprogramming article, no problem with that (if it is said that Shupe is not the ideal of an NPOV witness). --Irmgard 18:42, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
By all means, put this quote in the deprogramming article; as it doesn't mention Rick Ross directly, it doesn't belong here. 206.114.20.121 21:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
MY MISTAKE. But even if Rick is mentioned, why the mistake in grammar? "...Rick Ross were still physically abducting..." I think this quote is missing something off the beginning that needs to be there; Ross is hardly the only person Shupe and Darnell were criticizing. 206.114.20.121 18:34, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Wessinger

Catherine Wessinger, Professor of the history of religions and women's studies at the Loyola University in New Orleans, characterizes Ross as a "spurious self-styled expert[s]" in her paper The Branch Davidians and the Waco Media, 1993-2003[16]

This para says nothing about the role of Ross in the Waco standoff - it's just gives Wessingers opinion on Ross with no reasons for it. No matter if she's a professor, such a text should not be quoted in an encyclopedia article. The source might be correctly quoted, but there are no facts involved. --Irmgard 17:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

What? That is no reason to delete text and reference. Reverted. --ZappaZ 17:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Catherine Wessinger is whining that Ross was often quoted in the local media, instead of e.g. herself. I have read several articles by Catherine Wessinger a few years ago - I consider her works to be rather poor research, full of blatant errors. See her entry in my cult apologist FAQ.[17] In my opinion, the text should indeed be deleted, but I've added a few "neutral" words what her criticism of Ross really is (that he's quoted by the media) 213.73.66.219 07:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)Tilman

Ross's rebuttals

Thanks for adding Ross' rebuttals. Please consider shortening them a bit. Thanks. --ZappaZ 19:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree (!), these are much too long, and should be shortened to mention the core of the rebuttal... my suggestion: for the first one, something like "Ross calls Wessinger a cult apologist and suggests that her motivation is not being quoted by the media enough". (Which was also my opinion, although I didn't even read Ross rebuttal)
The gist of the rebuttal to the other segment ("In a paper written with Darnell...") is that Shupe and Darnell mention the Jason Scott without mentioning the outcome, and that they heavily quote other cult apologists who have been paid by controversional groups.
While I 100% agree with the criticism of CESNUR, Melton & co, it isn't really part of this definition, and is explained elsewhere. Tilman 21:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)Tilman
So, be bold and take the knife to these rebuttals. Irmgard, just managed to do little shave.... :) --ZappaZ

Religioustolerance.org

This article uses the religioustolerance.org website as either a reference or a link. Please see the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org and Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org as to whether Wikipedia should cite the religioustolerance.org website, jguk 14:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

defining cults

I've noticed that apparently there are two standards used to determine if a group is a cult. As a Christian, the "sociological" standard is what concerns me. Using that standard, any religious group that takes seriously its teachings and upholds standards in accordance with those teachings, could be considered a cult. I'll give an example. Fundamentalist Christian churches are often targeted by "anti-cult" groups. Now, if they really are doing something unethical, immoral, or illegal, and still trying to pass themselves off as Christian, then they should be exposed. Fundamentalist Christian churches usually are not guilty of this, yet they're still considered "cultic". The reason given is that they have "high" expectations of their membership and practice "stern" discipline of those not conforming. The problem here is how one defines these terms. If, for example, a church is enforcing biblical standards of personal conduct amongst its members in a manner prescribed by their sacred writings (the Bible) and happen to expect its members to be more than nominally committed to the church, it can find itself being labeled as a cult because apparently these actions and expectations aren't as common as before. The reasoning goes that if the majority of Christian churches are no longer strict and operating according to tradition, then those churches that continue in the tradition are considered in error and aberrant. Is this really a valid claim though if one examines what the true teachings of the faith are? I think not. Therefore, when examining churches that claim to be Christian, it makes more sense to see what their doctrine is concerning the fundamentals of the faith (those teachings which define Christianity). If those core teachings are perverted or denied, then it necessarily follows that its practices will be as well. If, however, the doctrine is in line with the essential teachings of the faith, then no matter how "unusual" some of its practices or policies may seem, that church cannot really be called a cult. Therefore using "sociological" standards to define cults leaves virtually any religion eligible to being given that label since those standards tend to be arbitrarily defined. Jlujan69 07:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

There are many sociological definitions of cults, some or even most of which are incompatible w/ each other. Not only therefore, it is more value neutral to speak of "so-called cults", if one has not identified the concept of cult used at length beforehand.--Fossa 04:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Why "allegedly destructive cults"?

... because most so-called cults Rick Ross lists have not been shown to be destructive at all, but there are some people who believe that they are destructive. --Fossa 04:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Cults are defined as such - established religious groups with large memberships are called religions (good). Smaller and newer religious groups are called cults (bad). Many people make an industry out of "converting" people from the latter to the former. Then they are considered "normal". If Christianity were "born" today Jesus would be considered a dangerous cult leader who brainwashes his followers and encourages them to leave their families, at least those who do not accept/join christianity. For Jesus to claim those who do not accpet his brand of salvation are doomed to enternal hellfire (as he states in the bible), christianity would thus be considered a destructive cult. Guys like Ross and Hassan would make a ton of money "deprogramming" christians. Mr Christopher 16:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Maintainance revert

What is a "maintainance revert"? Why is a revert being labelled as "maintenance"? -Will Beback 01:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

That is meant jokingly. Several anti-cult activists revert my changes on a number of cult- and anti-cult related articles. They generally do not justify their opinions on the Talk page or let me even put up a neutrality warning. So in onder to register my dissent with this activism, I from time to time revert to the less biased pages.--Fossa 11:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

links

Why are the majority of the links not neutral, i.e. they are linked back to a site that is fully run and operated by Rick Ross. This is not a neutral article. I have put my link: http://www.pottersclub.com/articleshow.asp?art_num=8 in the critical list, as the one I put in last time was deleted. I think that the wholesale deletion of links should be banned unless significant discussion is made. Potters house

I'm impressed. After the ACM pundits try to paint Ross in an as glorious picture as possible, now you suggest also to include some warped anti-Ross point of view that's bordering on anti-Semitism. What's next? Ross' role in the planned invasion of Mars? Fossa 17:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
gahahahahahaha! Oh, this is rich -- Fossa, who keeps trying to re-insert into the external links a link which tries to argue that Ross is homosexual based on speculation about the various ways he could have finished the unfinished sentence "I have frequently ..." -- Fossa now complaining about "some warped anti-Ross point of view"? Oh, it's too rich... -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Frankly, if you had the decency to explain your reverts, I would have not reverted the deletion of that link, which anyways put "exposure" already into quotation marks. You also omitted to mention that religious tolerance is sponsored by Scientology. Fossa 19:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
See BTW (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rick_Ross&diff=45507213&oldid=45506119), where I was the first one to complain about this link. Had I read through its entierty at the time, I would heve deleted it. Notice, that you claimed to have made a full revert, while in fact you also deleted the link. Fossa 19:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Now I see that you earlier wrote "Has he actually looked at that external link, I wonder?". And, likely I didn't; so mea culpa, next time, specify the link you are referring to. Fossa 19:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Critical Links

Why were the links taken down? Is Wikipedia on Rick Ross' payroll? Why does the staff at Wikipedia delete any REAL critical links to Ross? This is bias. You said that the article linked was "bordering on anti-Semitism." So if I attack Rick Ross' beliefs I am anti-Semitic, but if he attacks biblical Christianity it is just research? How come if I delete any critical links on the page Potter's House, I am told this "may result in being blocked from Wikipedia without further warning" ... but in this article, people judge a link delete it and Wikipedia do nothing about it?

I think we need to take this higher, because this is religious discrimination

Nick

www.forumsau.com

If you are a christian as you claim, read the 10 commendments. There is something about not giving false testimony there. --Tilman 16:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Please state where the information on the link is false!

Nick www.potershouse.com

The 2 links http://www.pottersclub.com/articleshow.asp?art_num=8 & http://www.rrexposed.u2k.biz/ Exposure of Rick Ross - should be maintained for neutrality.

Neutrality? We are talking, after all, about a website which tries to argue that Rick Ross is homosexual based on all sorts of conjectured ways he might have (but, in the world of reality, did not) complete the sentence "I have often ..." Just because the website has been moved from its original Geocities home to its own hosting doesn't actually make it an external link worth having. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair is fair. If you are going to have so many critical links, which are quite angry and biased, then why not have the response to such links? I have added a link that offers a response for balance under Links. It seems it was once there, but later removed--it's back again as before. 38.96.137.19 13:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


Proposed Statement to be Added

I propose that this statement be added to the section called "Criticsm" on Rick Ross:

"As Rick Ross posts testimonials (on numerous organizations) that are considered negative on his web site, there should be a warning to all readers; especially as the opportunity for objectiveness is rendered obsolete."

There are no objective viewpoints that Rick Ross posts on his web site for any of the groups mentioned. Thus his web site provides a totally subjective viewpoint, and there should be checks and balances somewhere. Rick Ross stated that he will not place positive statements from anyone about any of the so-called cults. Why not state this on the Rick Ross WP article?

24.30.88.21 19:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)howardg

If you can find Ross's statement as a reference, then it is probably worthwhile to add something about it. However we should not word is as a "warning to readers", and instead simply state his policy without judgement. -Will Beback 22:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I suggest a similar statement for non-smokers organisations, or anti-drug organisations, or Greenpeace, of the sort "We never say anything objective about our targets". --Tilman 05:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Because of the resource as Mr. Ross appears to provide, and the number of organizations and individuals who use his resource, it would be prudent to consider the following:

I have spent hours on the Ross Institute website, and it is very difficult to clearly see how Mr. Ross determines who's a cult and who isn't. The entire content of Mr. Ross appears subjective in nature - in spite of his disclaimer. What is very apparent however is the absence of some groups in Mr. Ross's database and the excessive number of other groups.

Furthermore, consider the fact that it is impossible to determine where the Ross Institute receives its funding from. Given the depth of the site and the amount of research, an academic citation of value should include the funding and financial support of the Ross Institute. This is a challenge; try to learn his funding. It would also be nice to know what groups are associated with the Ross Institute.

Additionally, aside from not completing Camden Military school, there is little mention made of Mr. Ross's academic or educational qualifications to proclaim himself an expert. What is more disturbing is that since his appearence in 1983 as a self-proclaimed expert, nearly every citation found in a google search points to information provided by Ross with few exceptions.

Lastly, aside from a nice list of "advisors" (something any organization can buy usually), there is no mention of any staff. The amount of research and organization provided by the Ross Institute would require a good sized staff of researchers, of which Mr. Ross says nothing. Shouldn't a researcher using the Ross Institute be able to contact a fellow researcher at the RI to discuss findings and compare data?

In any Wikipedia listing, in order to be fair and comprehensive to our readers, the above information should be provided.

Gilariverrider Gilariverrider 22:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Check

I propose this article be looked over for potential bias. --Caserini 11:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

why? --Tilman 17:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Because I think there is sufficient reason to conclude this article is slanted. I think it needs fresh eyes. Until that is completed, I am adding the NPOV check AGAIN. Please don't remove it until this is finished. It is up for discussion because I nominated it to be fact checked and reviewed for bias. Caserini 02:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You still haven't said WHY. "it need fresh eyes" can apply to any topic. Additionally, I have now reviewed it and consider it finished - no bias involved (which you agree, since you didn't mention any actual bias). --Tilman 06:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree otherwise I would have left this alone. You have been on this for a long time. I think it is biased against Mr. Ross. Just because YOU have reviewed it, doesn't mean it's done. I'll be waiting for others to chime in. I have nominated it for review, so just because YOU think it's finished doesn't mean much. Caserini 09:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I will mention I have a difficult time with the article explaining the Scott/Waco etc. cases, which are critical of Ross AND having another section for the criticism. It's redundant. Also, where are Ross' rebuttals other than having a 10 line paragraph of negativity and one line saying he denies this. It's ridiculous. So, Mr. Tilman, if you remove the tag again, I will call in an admin. --Caserini 09:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

So what? It contains an allegation, and it contains Ross' detailed rebuttal. Fact is - there's a lot of criticism against Ross. While most of it is wrong or unfair, it is around, but it is portrayed fairly on wikipedia.
At least you have been able to tell "why" you put up this POV this time. I'll leave it to someone else to delete it. Or maybe I'll remove it tomorrow :) Feel free to call in an admin today already.
It is silly to add "citeneeded" when the source is mentioned above ("Report to the Deputy Attorney General...").
If you're really a newbie, I suggest you "lurk and learn" for a few weeks instead of this "Watch it, I'm coming!" attitude. --Tilman 16:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I was directed to look at this article by the RFC. The article is clearly biased too heavily in favor of criticism. Not only is there a dedicated section for it at the bottom which is completely free of any responses, the 'Branch Davidian' section is at least half criticism. I'd like to remind people of the suggestion given on the Biographies of Living Persons guideline page:

"The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material."

The criticism is clearly overwhelming. That being said, I'm not claiming that any information in the article is actually wrong (I didn't personally read the sources). There's a few places where references should be added, but overall the article is above-average in that regard. I think somebody has to sit down and add some good sourced information in support of Ross. Merzbow 07:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to improve the article somewhat, according to your suggestions. --Tilman 09:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It is still HEAVILY biased, Tilman. I will use the next week to see if I can help it any with additional sources in favor of Mr. Ross.

Thank you for your input, Merzbow. It's much appreciated. Caserini 12:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, biographical articles have to be focused on the subject and not it critics. I do not think that it is the case here, as what is presented are factual events in the life of Mr. Ross. What could be done for balance, is to evaluate if the description of these events (Waco and Jason Scott case events, in particular) are written in a neutral voice as per WP:NPOV or not. As I read the article now, the NPOV tag is not necessary as all material in the article seem to be properly supported by tertiary and reliable sources. The criticism section may be paired down as most of the material there is based on primary sources (Mr. Ross' critics). This material could be moved to the respective articles such as Jeffrey K. Hadden, Scientology and Anson Shupe, leaving here just a mention and wikilinks to these critic's articles. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I am re-adding the POV tags because it is not up to the standard of the Biographies of Living Persons. I mentioned last week that I would try and clean this up as best as I can by the end of this week. I have been busy.

Thank you Jossi for helping. Maybe you could help pair down the criticism section like you mentioned? Caserini 14:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not editing this article, just watching it, so I would leave this to involved editors. Please note that if you add an NPOV tag, you are expected to do something about it. IMO, the tag is not needed as the article is well referenced. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
An article being well-referenced has nothing to do with whether the article is NPOV or not. - Merzbow 16:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
This article is well referenced, describes major events on this person's life and contains a small section on criticism (that can be shortened as per my commet above). I fail to see why this article is not compliant with WP:NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
This article is clearly biased against Ross. I don't care how many references it has. Most of them are for his critics. Personally, I think it needs to be completely re-written. Caserini 15:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. There is only one section about his critics. You can try and re-write it, if you wish, but expect to be challenged when removing material. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd warn against a complete rewrite (which I doubt that Caserini will do, since he/she didn't participate in the editing process here). My experience with "complete rewrites" has been rather bad - usually, parts are lost and it takes months to make a decent article after that. --Tilman 17:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

partial block

I suggest this entry be blocked for non-registered users. This game with the "two poor-quality external links" has become tiresome. --Tilman 08:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

If it continues, I will semi-protect. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


Two links

I think that the two links should remain because there seems to be no other critical links except ones approved by Ross supporters! Other sites like the one on the Potter's House Christian Fellowship has many biased links from people whom I have proven to be unreliable sources, but they still remain. Why is there discrimination here? Where is the neutrality?

Nick.

www.waymanmitchell.com - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Potters house (talk • contribs) 2006-07-03 23:13:46

Your two links are of poor quality. They are of the kind "Rick Ross is wrong, and he's so baaad". Plus, your texts are rather harmless compared to the really nasty one from scientology that is already there, so why bother?
The same applies for the text you just added, which isn't written in an "encyclopedic" language. Plus, it's incorrect, since Rick Ross doesn't warn e.g. about the catholic church. Finally, it isn't really an "information" that the groups targeted by Ross disagree with his opinion. Nobody expects anything else. At most, your text might belong to Potters House.--Tilman 06:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Fairness

I will be forced to make an official complaint to Wiki staff about the links and the inclusion of the Potter's House on the critics list. If it was not written in an "encyclopedic" language then perhaps you could have edited it instead of deleting it totally. Wiki is a neutral encyclopedia for the people, not a place to advertise for corporations like Rick Ross.

You said:
Your two links are of poor quality. They are of the kind "Rick Ross is wrong, and he's so baaad". Plus, your texts are rather harmless compared to the really nasty one from scientology that is already there, so why bother?
Because they are detailed and factual links. Scientology is seen as a bizarre cult, whereas the Potter's House is seen as having bible based theology. It is like having the Davidians at Waco do a critique verses the Uniting Church, there is allot of difference in credibility.
Nick
http://www.rrexposed.u2k.biz - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Potters house (talk • contribs) 2006-07-05 22:34:15
Sure, go ahead. --Tilman 06:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the Potter's House is listed at the Ross Institute database and is a controversial group called a "cult" by some of its critics. See http://www.rickross.com/groups/door.html the group has been criticized by evangelicals, that don't see Potter's House as simply "having a bible based theology." - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 38.96.137.19 (talk • contribs) 2006-07-06 06:16:28 (UTC)

You can try show me credible sources who wrote these articles but you will not find any. Rick Ross and Co just parrot any slanderous thing about the group.

See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pottershousechurchcfm/ There are about 5 people who are on the internet daily and they ANONYMOUSLY write to Rick and have been proven liars before. But Rick is not interested in the truth but to sensationalize rumours and lies.

Nick.
www.pottershouse.com
First, please try to sign your articles with --~~~~.
Second, this is not the place for that sort of discussion. Rick Ross has been sued before and won. And your cult isn't just criticised by him, but by many other organisations. [18]. At most, this type of discussion should take place on Potter's House Christian Fellowship. I see that your interpretation of the facts is already in that definition anyway, so please stop wasting our time. You have been told all this before. Learn it, remember it and apply it.--Tilman 06:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok so now you have concluded that we are in fact a cult because Rick says so, and this is now your reason for the deletion of the links?? There is no need to get off the point. My original point is that you keep deleting the two links I put up on this page. Wiki is a free for all encyclopedia, it wouldn't surprise me if your wage comes from Ross. But to avoid personal attack I will keep to the point. How can any organization defend itself from Ross if the people he calls a cult are not able to place some defensive links here because Ross calls them a cult!! That is circular reasoning. I am not here to debate you, but to point out that this article is not neutral.

Nick.

http://www.rrexposed.u2k.biz

- Your links are poor-quality and not notable. Your continual attempts to restore them are pointless because we're watching this page and are just going to revert them. The consensus is against these links. - Merzbow 06:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The definition doesn't even mention Potters Group, so there is no need to discuss this. The best advice against people like Rick Ross is to reform and listen to the criticism of ex-members and think about it, instead of concentrating on poor quality work of the kind "Rick Ross is baaad because he is jewish so he isn't allowed to criticize christian cults".
Of course, if your guru is "always right", then it proves that Rick Ross is wrong :-) --Tilman 10:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a "guru" but read the bible. Are you saying that you are now refusing the links because I am a Christian? What about http://www.parishioners.org/false_exp/rossr1.html ??

It's crap, too. --Tilman 05:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, so any anti Rick Ross site is banned? I wish the same applied on the Potter's House site. There is a double standard here!!
No, anti Rick Ross sites are not banned. It's just that there is already one (of poor quality), and there isn't a need for more of that quality and with the same accusations. --Tilman 05:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

No personal attacks

To involved editors: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Please do not make them. It is your responsibility to foster and maintain a positive online community in Wikipedia..

Some suggestions:

  • Discuss the article, not the subject;
  • Discuss the edit, not the editor;
  • Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is;
  • If you feel attacked, do not attack back. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
If I was meant: My comment "It's crap" was about the older link. Not about Potter. --Tilman 05:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
(1) Jossi, I've got to side with Tilman on this one. I know him from the alt.religion.unification newsgroup in the late 1990s, and even though he was occasionally contentious there (and sarcastic in a delightfully humorous way), I don't feel he ever stooped to the level of making personal attacks. He was referring to the link, not to the contributor who brought it up and not to that contributor's religion.
(2) And just to change the subject, I'm looking for someone to collaborate with. I'd like to amplify the distinction between forcible deprogramming and voluntary deprogramming. The terms "deprogramming" and "exit counseling" sometimes seem designed to make this distinction, but also (I guess) sometimes seem designed to obscure this distinction. Any takers? --Uncle Ed 15:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for (1). About (2) You know my opinion on that one... even in the "kidnapping days", there were voluntary "deprogrammings", i.e. that cultists agreed to talk with a "deprogrammer" to listen to his side. The problem is that the D-word has been "positioned" as a "bad word" by the cults. The word "exit counselling" has been born because of that problem. But I see that the term already explains this.
I don't really have much time... but I'm observing, and possibly correcting / improving. Just remember that I'm watching :-) --Tilman 19:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

God is watching, too. :-) --Uncle Ed 19:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Expertise about cults

It's hard to say objectively that anyone is a "cult expert" because, first of all there is no generally accepted definition of what a cult is. The word itself is relative and subjective: "a cult is a religion regarded as spurious." Note that this is not the same as "a cult is a spurious religion".

So calling Ross or anyone else a "cult expert" means that he knows a lot of accurate and true information about "religions regarded as spurious". However, many sources disagree about Ross's "expertise". That disagreement should be described fairly in the article.

I would suggest moving the "cult expert" paragraph out of the intro into a section called, say, "Dispute over credentials" or "Dispute over cult expertise". The intro should introduce the dispute by saying something like

  • sources disagree about the level of expertise and objectivity Ross brings to his study of "cults".

Tilman, what do YOU think? --Uncle Ed 14:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Ed, the intro does not assert that Ross is an expert on anything, rather, it describes what others have said about him: "He has been referred to in the media as..." ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Jossi. --Tilman 16:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
How then does James Lewis get into the intro under "in the media"? Lewis frequently serves as an apologist for "cults" and is recommended by them as an "expert," but the quote offered is from his writings and is not a media quote. It is part of Lewis' criticism of Ross, so it should be under criticism. Frankly, it seems like this Wikipedia section is losing credibility as an objective source of information and becoming more like a place for angry, disgruntled folks to vent and rant against someone they don't like. Is that what Wikipedia is supposed to be used for?
BTW--Ed, you don't make much sense regarding an objective measurement of who is an "expert." Probably the most objective measurement would be in a court of law. Both sides argue before the judge whether someone should or should not be accepted as an "expert." Each side has their say and then the judge makes the final definitive decision and it becomes part of the public court record. Note that no one disputes that Ross has been repeatedly qualified and accepted as an expert witness in the US within several states. No one notes a single time that he has been rejected as an expert by any judge anywhere. Scientologists and other "cult" members have certainly researched and compiled a lot of information about Ross, which has then been posted and made public through the Internet. However, there is nothing to dispute his expert status as established repeatedly through the courts. So these angry folks may not appreciate his expert status, but there it is anyway.

That's a good point: I agree. If Ross has served as an expert witness in court, that is a matter of fact. This doesn't mean he is a "real expert". It only means that a court allowed him to be called as an expert witness.

This fits the model of X said Y about Z. The court (X) used the term "expert witness" (Y) to describe Rick Ross (Z). Kind like Margaret Singer who "went on to testify as an expert witness in dozens of cases" before losing that right after her attempt to justify her mind control theory failed to gain APA endorsement. --Uncle Ed 22:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

"expert witness" is not an occupation. Reverted. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Anton Hein (2)

The section recently added by someone, probably Anton Hein or a close friend, isn't worth much as an encyclopedia entry. It's just griping and sniping. Hein's opinions don't amount to much. He doesn't document anything. "Ministry"? Is Hein a minister? Who ordained him and made him a "minister"? Apologetics Index is just a Web site run by Hein. He doesn't like Ross. OK. But is Wikipedia the place for him go on about it?

I suggest you sign your texts. I don't know who added it - feel free to search in the history. It's been here for months. The site doesn't claim that Hein is ordained, or runs a non-profit. But Hein is quite respected and well-known, so it's relevant. (Doug Cowan mentions him [19]). Hein's US "problems" (i.e. his criminal case) have been known for years, the details are on his website, and this isn't relevant to the criticism against Ross. --Tilman 20:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Hein is known where? Don't see him quoted much News at Google News. Do you really think a man that is a convicted child molester, registered sex offender and wanted on a felony warrant should be "respected"? The word "ministry" implies some sort of minister status. And would you please point me to where on Hein's site he specifically acknowledges that (1) He is a registered sex offender (2) that he is now wanted on a felony warrant in the US. I couldn't find it. Other than at Ross' site, California's current sex offender registry and the San Diego Sherrif's Department archive of outstanding warrants, where else are meaningful details reported about Hein? Hein doesn't like Ross. OK. It's easy to see why. (1) Ross is critical of organizations and objectives Hein has supported such as converting Jews through groups like "Jews for Jesus." Hein also has a history with groups Ross has been critical of such as Youth With A Mission and Teen Challenge. When did Hein recommend Ross' services? Couldn't find that. And is there some official statement by AFF/ICSA denouncing Ross. All this sounds like petty professional jealousy, politics and maybe a little anti-Semitism. But what is its relevance to an supposed encyclopedia entry?
It's here: [20] and his criticism is relevant. Hein does recommend some people, and some not. Please take the time to read his website, you obviously didn't - the link is linked from the segment you deleted! --Tilman 06:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
This is Anton Hein. I did not add any sections to the Rick Ross entry at Wikipedia. I have added a response on this Talk page. I am not aware of friends posting something about me here. Personally, I don't care one way or another whether or not there is such a section. That said, the fact remains that we at Apologetics Index are critical of Rick Ross for the reasons stated here: http://www.apologeticsindex.org/132-ross That won't change regardless of who posts or edits material in the Wikipedia entry on Rick Ross. A) We do not get involved in Rick Ross' fights with various cult experts. B) We will not recommend Rick Ross to anyone in need of a cult expert and/or counselor. As for not being quoted at Google News, we are aware of some 1200 cult experts who are not quoted there. Most of them are involved in Christian ministry - not in sensationalism, marketing or medi-pandering. As for accusations against me, I have addressed them here: http://www.apologeticsindex.org/faq2.html . That page has been online since the Spring of 2000. Overall it won't change anyone's opionions of me. Those who believe me, believe me; those who don't, don't. As for AFF/ICSA, I can not speak for them. Perhaps you should contact them and try to get someone to refer you to Rick Ross? Anyway, there is a thirs reason that we will not refer anyone to Ross. Rather than quoting the entire section here, let me refer you to the paragraphs that start with "Incidentally, Ross claims that I do not like to discuss my past" at this page: http://www.apologeticsindex.org/132-ross I do not have the time or the interest to get involved in discussions here beyond posting this comment and a comment at the previous discussion about me (higher up on this page). Anton Hein 14:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


So I went to sleep, woke up and you (38.96.137.19) still haven't improved your changes:

  • You have still misrepresented Hein's argument, making him look like he's anti-semitic - he isn't. (And neither am I, just in case this would come up next)
  • Still positive POV about other people, instead of just linking to them, for example, Greene is described in his article (which I mostly edited)
  • specific typos still not corrected, new ones added
  • Still no sources that certain people "endorse" Rick Ross. You're obviously either Ross himself or someone close to him. It should be easy to get these sources.
  • Confused "Ross criticizing others" with "others criticizing Ross".

I'll still wait a few hours, giving you the chance to improve this. If you don't, I'll edit/revert. While it's ok to mention the criticism and the response, this should be put in a neutral tone - let the reader decide who is right. (personally, I haven't, so I'm rather neutral in this dispute) Finally, please sign your posts with --~~~~ in discussions. --Tilman 04:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

NNDB

Please note that NNDB (http://www.nndb.com) is not a reliable source for information about living people. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Early life

I reviewed all the evidence in all the references and put a point by point and date by date list in. I noticed another editor has removed most of my compilation of the facts. Before any further edits are done could we discuss that here please

After mor research I discovered articals which supported what other editors had done. It would have been better if it had been discussed here, but that life Mark1800 06:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

unsourced

Most of the negative information about Rick Ross is unsourced. I'm removing most of it as per WP:BLP. wikipediatrix 23:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

What is unsourced? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Every sentence I deleted that you just reinstated. wikipediatrix 23:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

undue weight

Just because something is properly sourced doesn't mean it's fair. This is what's known as "Undue weight". Note how the article says all this:

"The role of Ross before and during the Branch Davidian standoff at Waco, Texas caused some controversy. Ross deprogrammed Branch Davidian David Block in 1992, prior to the raid. That Davidian was later interviewed by the BATF, which also interviewed Ross. Ross says he deprogrammed another Davidian during the standoff, but this was not reported. He was also one source quoted in the Waco Tribune-Herald's series titled "Sinful Messiah" for which they interviewed over 100 people. According to the FBI Ross approached them during the standoff and requested that he be interviewed, which he was. The Report to the Deputy Attorney General on the Events at Waco, Texas (February 28 to April 19, 1993) states that: The FBI interviewed Ross only at Ross' request, and politely declined his unsolicited offers of assistance throughout the standoff. The FBI treated the information Ross supplied as it would any other unsolicited information received from the public: it evaluated the credibility of the information and treated it accordingly[10]".

And then has only this to say about the subject's side of the story:

Ross states that this information is not correct and details that he was contacted by FBI agent Bobby L. Siller on March 4, 1993 and in the later course by several others which he also names.

After this weak chance at rebuttal, the article goes on with further info critical of Ross:

Nancy Ammerman insisted they relied too much on Ross, a view which is not shared by the other three experts reporting to the Justice department. In her official report to the Justice Department Ammerman wrote: In late March, Ross recommended that agents attempt to humiliate Koresh, hoping to drive a wedge between him and his followers. While Ross's suggestions may not have been followed to the letter, FBI agents apparently believed that their attempts to embarrass Koresh (talking about his inconsistencies, lack of education, failures as a prophet, and the like) would produce the kind of internal dissension Ross predicted. Because Ross had been successful in using such tactics on isolated and beleaguered members during deprogramming, he must have assumed that they would work en masse. Any student of group psychology could have dispelled that misapprehension. But the FBI was evidently listening more closely to these deprogramming-related strategies than to the counsel of scholars who might have explained the dynamics of a group under siege[11].

And again, Ross gets only a few scant words devoted to his side:

In his account to the Department of Justice, Ross gives very different examples of advice he gave to the FBI agents.

I'm tempted to yank the whole thing until it can be rewritten fairly. Any thoughts, anyone? wikipediatrix 23:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

You area welcome to add additional rebuttals from Mr. Ross. But removing material that is verifiable, is not a good idea. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Also note that articles in Wikipedia are not necessarily "fair". They need to be properly sourced and competing viewpoints presented neutrally. There is no doubt that Mr. Ross has stirred controversy, and that controversy can be presented neutrally, by presenting the different viewpoints without asserting them. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
WP:NPOV states: "Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." wikipediatrix 23:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Jossi's blanket reversion

You can see the unsourced/improperly sourced text I removed, and you can see Jossi immediately reverting it back here.

I'd like to hear a detailed defense for Jossi's actions. wikipediatrix 23:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

All material in the article that you deleted, is properly referenced. The references were added using the Harvard style. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
That's not good enough for an article about a living person. Most of the paragraphs I deleted had no citations attached to them. Maybe you think a specific citation is supposed to apply to the four paragraphs that precede it, but how is the reader to know that? And simply saying "(Ortega, 1996)" in the introduction of the article doesn't help the reader verify anything at all. wikipediatrix 23:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Ortega's article is provided in the references. See http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/issues/1995-11-30/news/feature2.html ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
You may know that this is the link that "(Ortega, 1996)" refers to, but I do not and we cannot expect the reader to know either. It needs to be properly cited with ref tags, and if multiple critical claims are made about Ross, each one needs to be tagged separately so that it's clear what text is being sourced. Most of the paragraphs I deleted had no source cited. wikipediatrix 23:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
See WP:CITE#Harvard_referencing. Harvard referencing is an accepted format for citations. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

broken links

None of the "www.rrexposed.u2k.biz" citation links work. wikipediatrix 23:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Those links were working yesterday. Maybe that site is experiencing a problem. There are alternative sources for these documents, tough. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
These links are working now. Probably a momentary glitch. Nevertheless, I am not sure we can use primary sources. Would be better if we cn find a secondary source in which these documents are described. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Deleted text?

Why the deletion of this text? It is based on Ross's website material.

Ross no longer advocates coercive deprogramming or involuntary interventions for adults (he claims to have conducted dozens of such interventions), preferring instead voluntary "exit counseling" without the use of force or restraint. He states that the reasons for abandoning such practices are related to the exorbitant legal fees needed in defending his practice against legal challenges by controversial groups that oppose him. He claims these challenges exist because they have recognized the effectiveness of deprogramming in extricating people from cults. He states that although the process has been refined over the years, exit counseling and deprogramming are based on the same principles. (Ross, Deprogramming, 1) (http://www.rickross.com/prep_faq.html#Deprogramming)

Deletion of properly sourced material, is considered vandalism. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Ditto regarding this text:

According to Ortega, he never has earned more than $31,000 from deprogramming in a single year, and he rarely makes more than $20,000 (Ortega, 1995).

From http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/issues/1995-11-30/news/feature2_3.html : "It hasn't made him rich. Although his deprogramming fee is $500 a day, plus expenses, he never has earned more than $31,000 in a single year, and he rarely makes more than $20,000. He's motivated not by money, he says, but by the calls he gets from distraught parents--and the debt he believes he owes those who helped him get out of jail and get his own life in order. Since then, he had managed to keep from running afoul of the law."

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


I would expect that these editors that deleted properly sourced material, restore it. If the need is to provide inline citations rather than Harvad syle referencing, please say so. Note that both formats are acceptable. See WP:CITE#Harvard_referencing ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Replaced Harvard referencing with ref tags for these two paragraphs that were deleted. One of them is base on Ross' own words (from his website) and the other from Ortega's article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you're trying to say. However, the Harvard style referencing, although technically permissible (I didn't even know Wikipedia used it until just now), is not the preferred style. WP:HARV says: "The system may also be unfamiliar and distracting to a general readership, who are unfamiliar with journal articles." Given that, and given the controversial nature of this article about a living person, I still maintain that the Harvard style does not properly source the information in a way that is clear about what is being sourced. wikipediatrix 00:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Sure. Feel free to replace the Harvard style with inline ref tags. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

more undue weight

The article states "Nancy Ammerman insisted they relied too much on Ross, a view which is not shared by the other three experts reporting to the Justice department." And yet, even though hers is clearly stated to be a minority opinion, a long second paragraph devoted to a quote from her follows thereafter. That's giving too much of a percentage of the article to someone whose opinion doesn't matter nearly as much as Ross himself, who only gets a sentence of weak rebuttal. wikipediatrix 00:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure. You can expand Ross rebuttal, or summarize the Ammerman's long cite. Either will work, I would think. Better that complain about what does not work, it would be more constructive to fix what you consider broken. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

unsourced "Ross is criticized..." paragraph

I removed this paragraph, and User:Jossi restored it with the edit summary "no, sorry. All material has been researched and refs added."

"Ross is criticized for his lack of academic credentials, for the two felony crimes in his twenties previously mentioned, and for his former deprogramming activities, the tort of unlawful imprisonment. A great part of the criticism originates from those associated with new religious movements, controversial groups or organizations which are listed in his website, such as the Church of Scientology and the Kabbalah Centre. "

So where's the source for this paragraph? wikipediatrix 00:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

There is plenty of critical material written by the Scientologists and the Kabbalah center, as I am sure you know. It would be easy to find these. You can delete that text, or alternatively find some sources to substantiate these obvious claims. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if it's "obvious" or not. As per WP:BLP, it can't be here. Same for the other bits I deleted that had no source at all, not even Harvard-style ones. Furthermore, as I keep harping about "Undue weight", I'm not sure that MORE criticism, sourced or not, is appropriate. wikipediatrix 01:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
It took me less than 5 minutes on Google to find sources for these statements. Undue weight is not about too much criticism or too litte of it. Read WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. But if you feel that the criticism presented is not widely held, or that these criticisms are presented by a minority viewpoint that is not significant, we should pair it down. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[rm persomal attack] He is here to use Wikipedia as a platform to attack people he doesn't like and advance his POV. It is people like Jossi that are increasingly giving Wikipedia a bad name as an unreliable source for information. See http://www.rickross.com/reference/general/general865.html . Even though Wikipedia's disclaimer essentially says that what's here should be discounted and that entries may not be true, some people are too lazy to read the disclaimers and actually may think of Wikipedia as a regular research resource, which it is not. One quick proof, the entry for Rick Ross is now longer than those for Jonas Salk and Marie Curie. The length of a Wikipedia entry seems to depend upon how many folks *[rm personal attack]* are out there with an axe to grind, though if the person they don't like is dead (see Margaret Singer and Louis Jolyon West), regardless of importance, the critics are less likely to pile on. They seem to prefer using Wikipedia to attack their perceived living enemies. All in all it's often a pretty pathetic collection of petty wranglings here at Wikipedia and this entry demonstrates that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.91.230 (talk • contribs)

Refactored personal attack and placed WP:NPA warning on anon's talk page ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Wouldn't it have been appropriate to welcome the user before or along with warning them like that? Just curious as to welcoming policies. Smeelgova 22:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC).

Amusing

  • An amusing rant nonetheless, though User:Jossi's right that it won't stand for very long in the Wikipedia community. Both because of etiquette, and the various controversial opinions on the subject matter in question. Yours, Smeelgova 19:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC).
That was not amusing, neither is your comment. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Jossi:

Isn't your agenda as a follower of Maharaji, a guru that has been called a "cult leader," to post/revert whatever you can at Wikipedia to discredit cult critics, censoring even the discussion here? Do you have any other purpose here? And isn't this the purpose of your edits on various related subjects at Wikipedia? I suppose you will cut this labeling it as a "personal attack," but your involvement with Maharahi does explain why your editing is biased, reflects your POV and beleifs.

Anonymous user: Again, though perhaps your viewpoint may be factually accurate, you will soon find that if you continue expressing these kinds of comments, you will be dealt with swift retribution from Wikipedia Administrators on high. Beware. Yours, Smeelgova 15:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC).
With more than 3,000 edits, you are not a newbie, and you should know better. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
No, but the anonymous editor is, and you didn't even welcome him before threatening him on his talk page. You could at least say, "hello, I'm Jossi" first, that would be the nice way to do it, and assume good faith. Do unto others as you would want done unto you. Smeelgova 18:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC).
I welcome many users and I do that consistently, but there are newbies and there are newbies. How manty newbies have you welcomed, Smeelogva? And how many would you welcome if they attack you? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I welcome newbies when I see them. And yes , I would welcome a newbie who attacked me. I would give him the benefit of the doubt. I would not bite the newcomers, but apply the golden rule, and hope for the best. If, after a while, the guy didn't change, then I would send a warning. But for someone's first notice on their talk page to be a warning, with no welcome at all of any kind or even a hello, that's pretty darn harsh. Smeelgova 19:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC).
It is all sooo easy in theory, Smeelgova. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
It's the nicer, kinder, gentler way to promote community. I know it's hard, I know. But that's why my favorite barnstar is the "random acts of kindness". Golden rule, it's what my value system/religion teaches, I'm sure it's what yours does as well. What would your mentor tell you to do? My mentor(s) would tell me to treat people with respect and gentle kindness, even in the face of opposition and difficulty. Let's both work on doing that. Truly Yours, Smeelgova 19:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC).
My mentor does not tell me how to behave and does not teach me morals, but I hear you loud and clear, and will take up the challenge to be nicer, kindler, gentler. Hope you do the same. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, okay, well, whatever your beliefs are, are fine, truly that's great, and thanks so much for taking up the challenge. I will too. I will. It'll be easier if we both do. By the way, I am intrigued about your Maharaji, haven't read the related articles yet, but it would be interesting to discuss the value system and belief structure and all that at some point. Let me know, perhaps even off-Wikipedia at a later date. Since I know virtually nothing on the subject, I don't have much of a formed opinion at all on it. Yours, Smeelgova 19:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC).
You can alwasy email me. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Unbalanced

  • With regard to the above discussion, I have placed an "unbalanced" tag to the top of the article. It seems to the reader that the only reason this article is here on Wikipedia is to personally attack and discredit Rick Ross. This is not the purpose of Wikipedia and most certainly against Biography Policy. The article is also way too long for the notability of subject as compared to other Biography Articles. Some criticism content should be trimmed and/or removed, and some positive content should be added with proper sources and citations. Other historical accounts can also be shortened to more concise versions, and the reader can then be referred to the main article in question, as similar to the current section on Rick Ross and the Legal Dispute with Landmark Education from 2005. Yours, Smeelgova 19:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC).
There is substantial controversy around this person, and a criticism section can be added his biographical article, if only for these reasons. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Smeelgova, I would suggest that you ask the opinion of other editors, maybe closer to your POV, such as User:Andries, or User:Antaeus Feldspar, which have contributed to this article in the past, and ask them if the article as it stands deserves the tag you have added or not, and if the criticism section does not comply with WP:NPOV. That would be better, as I do not think you will accept any of my arguments, and I do not have neither the desire, nor the interest, in getting involved in editng this article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Please, as you have stated above to the anonymous editor, don't address me directly, but if you have an issue with the article's content or label, discuss that instead. Smeelgova 02:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC).
The one that has an issue with the article is you, not me. I did not add any tags to this article, you did. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You may want to make a request at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard, so that other editors can help apply WP:BLP to this article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I did not know that such a noticeboard existed, I will check it out. See, it's not that hard to be nice to me. Thank you. Smeelgova 03:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard

Per a helpful and kind suggestion by User:Jossi, I have placed my original above comment RE: the Unbalanced and personally attacking/nature of this article, at Section on Rick Ross. Again, my suggestion would be to shorten all of the long sections on major incidents that Rick Ross dealt with, and refer the user out to those main articles, as was done by User:Jossi with my original cut-and-paste to Rick_Ross_(consultant)#Landmark_Education_vs._Rick_Ross_Institute. By the way, I think specifically to that edit, I had no problem with User:Jossi shortening that part and referring the reader out to the main article on that topic, that is exactly what should be done with the other sections, to shorten the article's size and negatively-weighed nature of the whole piece. Yours, Smeelgova 03:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC).

Per your notice, I came here and quickly read the article and the last fifth of this talk page. I find nothing here requiring BLP involvement as it seems what, if anything, is wrong with this article is subtle rather than glaring. As such it needs subject experts rather than uninvolved third parties. It could use someone with excellent writing skills as it is very uneven and the tone varies and jars and needs polishing. I would recommend adding sourced data rather than deleting sourced data. Work on the tone of the article to flow better and have a more scholarly feel would be my main advice. I hope that helped. WAS 4.250 05:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the advice, I hope that will give us all some more direction. We shall see. Yours, Smeelgova 05:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC).

Researcher category?

Is Mr. Ross a researcher? I do not see any credentials listed in his biography. All other researcher in that category, have credentilas and have published the result of their research. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Ha ha ha, Jossi, I was just about to create this very same subheading, and there was an edit conflict! Oh well. What I was going to say was something along the lines of that I'll respect your removal/revert for now, and I'll add some summary points to why Ross should be added to List of cult and new religious movement researchers and to category:Researchers of cults and new religious movements, here below so we can involve others in discussion, hopefully. (Let me finish my list before responding, please.) However, others may feel free to add more reasons for if desired. Smeelgova 22:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC).

List:

  1. Founder or research institute, Rick A. Ross Institute for the Study of Destructive Cults and Controversial Groups and Movements, other noted Cult and NRM researchers serve or served on Advisory Board.
  2. expert witness in eight states and deposed and/or submitted affidavits as expert in additional five states.
  3. Lectured at well-known universities: Rutgers University, University of Pennsylvania, Dickinson College, Baylor University, the University of Chicago, Carnegie Mellon University, Arizona State University.
  4. Paid media consultant: CBS, CBC, Nippon of Japan, Miramax/Disney, Jane Campion film Holy Smoke.
  5. See Also Publications section, for related published works.
  6. Final point for me, (for the moment), if his current method of income is as a lecturer to these universities, as I understand from the article page, then at the very least the seven prestigious universities mentioned above must regard him as enough of an authority on the subject to pay him to come teach/lecture their students and faculty.
I would appreciate the responses of others in this discussion, especially others not as currently involved in the recent debate. Yours, Smeelgova 23:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC).

I would not object to a category about lecturers or consultants, but adding Mr. Ross to List of cult and new religious movement researchers may not be appropriate. I have not seen any books or articles by Mr. Ross, that warrant a such a categorization. See other articles in that category. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the response. I'll try to dig up some more references/points/or publications by him, as you have suggested. Yours, Smeelgova 23:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC).
Anyone else with any other opinions? Yours, Smeelgova.

These are not publications, these are a few articles, some of which are only available on his website. The first one is a book by Tim Madigan. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I cannot find any information about "The Missionary Threat, Institute for First Amendment Studies" anywhere. Citattion requested for WP:V≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I have contributed as much as I could to this article. No longer on my watchlist. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the thoughts. Does anyone else have other thoughts on this matter? Smeelgova 04:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC).
I think he should be included if it can be verified that he worked as a consultant for the Arizona Dept. of Corrections or the Bureau of ATF[21]. The list doesn't specify that these need to be permanent government positions to qualify (e.g. tenured academics or leaders of government-funded research centers). Antonrojo 20:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

cleanup time

I have gutted, sacked, looted the article because almost none of it is sourced, and even the parts that are sourced are improperly weighted, as per the Jimbo's standards for articles on living persons. See WP:BLP. An article about a living person, even a controversial one, is not a "This is Your Life" for huge multi-paragraph sections to be devoted to every person on Earth they've ever pissed off. Like many controversial figures, there are no shortage of sources for people out there saying bad things about Rick Ross, but that doesn't mean they all need to be here. Can you imagine what bloated hate-fests the articles for Woody Allen, L. Ron Hubbard, or Britney Spears would be if all their haters got to chime in? Let's start this article again from the ground up, keeping WP:BLP in mind as well as WP:V and WP:RS. wikipediatrix 22:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

You are severly mistaken. The article was checked before for WP:BLP problems and was found to be ok. The problem is that by removing so much, you've also removed his position about the many attacks that are going on. You've even removed the Jason Scott segment, which had an enormous impact on others (e.g. CAN). --Tilman 09:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Who exactly "found it to be ok"? Whoever they are, I disagree with them. As I understand it, unsourced information about living persons cannot be in articles, period. Jimbo says, "don't just slap a 'citation needed' tag on such information, remove it entirely". I didn't intend for it to stay removed. The Jason Scott section was almost entirely unsourced. I agree it's important, so let's restore it with fastidiously cited sources. wikipediatrix 14:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
1) See here[22]
2) The Jason Scott segment had at least three sources, including two court opinions. You ignored that. --Tilman 16:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I scroll down to "Ross' role in the Jason Scott case" and I see two Findlaw links, references that are specifically for the case's final judgment. (The "Ortega" reference no longer exists.) That still leaves the vast majority of this five-paragraph section without direct references to its multitudinous claims. We can't just assume - or least I can't - that the Findlaw ref tags are supposed to apply to all three paragraphs that precede it. If the entire section's information is indeed contained in the Findlaw links, feel free to reinstate it. But more item-specific ref tags would help. wikipediatrix 16:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Just because the Ortega link is gone (it isn't [23][24]), doesn't mean you have to delete the whole section. You could have looked for mirrors. You could have searched. You could have asked if anyone has the article. But its wrong to delete first, and to have other people make the effort to prove to you that the edits of months are correct. I have had this definition under observation for many months (I made some corrections here as my first edits ever), and there's nothing incorrect in it, except maybe the reference to scientology propaganda (which has a source), but it had a clear rebuttal so that Ross comes up as the winner after that.
I'll probably revert ALL of your deletions if someone else doesn't do it first. I strongly dislike it when people throw the work of many people and many years into the trash. But then, this is so easy, isn't it? Let just someone else have the work to prove every detail to you again. --Tilman 17:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Jeez. It isn't "thrown in the trash", it's right there in the history, and it doesn't have to stay there. I already told you, I do want the information to be in the article. I just want every one of its statements to be properly sourced. Is that so wrong?? Yes, I could have looked for mirrors, etc., and would have eventually, but satisfying WP:BLP, IMHO, should be any editor's first concern. In the interest of fairness, I'll tell you the same thing I tell the Scientologists who seek to make the article an anti-Ross hate fest: the burden of proof is on the editors who wish to insert unsourced material, not those who, quite properly, seek to remove it. wikipediatrix 18:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
The version before you started to delete had 32 citations. The one now has 9. And you seriously misunderstand WP:BLP if you think you can delete something as soon as a link expires. That doesn't make it "unsourced" overnight.
The main reason that I haven't reverted your deletions is because I think that the correct thing to do would be that you do it yourself. Especially considering that I showed you the Ortega link (took me less than a minute).
The "delete first" statement of Jimbo should be seen in the context of the Seigenthaler affair. --Tilman 18:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
This is crazy. Not going to argue about it. Rick Ross is a living person, and if this article says anything important or controversial about him, I think it should be very specifically cited with a ref tag to a valid source. Why would you disagree? The "everything in this article is supported by this long list of links at the bottom of the page, but it's up to you to figure out which source goes to which statement" style of article is not, IMHO, appropriate for a living person's article. wikipediatrix 18:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Like I said, there were 32 refs, and after your work, there were only 9 left. So you in this "unsourced" article, you deleted 23 refs. These were specific sources for specific statements. --Tilman 19:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

restore time

After having slept over it, I have decided to restore all of Wikipediatrix deletions. And I have also added a source for the Jason Scott case. That source was already in the unordered list anyway.

If the sources are poorly ordered, the solution is not to delete the whole article. "Delete first, discuss later" makes only sense, IMO, for extraordinary claims like in the Seigenthaler affair. This article is being watched by many people, so it is being checked for unsourced allegations.

The most that can (and should) be done, is to tag any apparently unsourced claims and put more sources (from the unordered list) at the appropriate places.

Rick Ross is a controversial person. He knows this himself, which is why he features parts of this on his own website. So it makes sense to feature these controversies here, with his position on it. --Tilman 06:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I also see that Jason Scott (Life Tabernacle Church) seems to have been removed. Anyone knows when & why? --Tilman 06:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Sept 21 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Scott (Life Tabernacle Church), leaving a few hanging links, Special:Whatlinkshere/Jason Scott (Life Tabernacle Church) AndroidCat 11:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

reversions

My way: [25]
Tilman's way: [26]
I cannot conceive that anyone would actually prefer this bloated, meandering, improperly sourced version that is filled with undue weight and gives extensive space to nobodies like Jeffrey K. Hadden, Kimberly Post (who? one of Hadden's students? Why is this here??), Carol Moore (who cares?), Nancy Ammerman, etc.... this article suffers from the apparent belief that if anyone, anywhere, said something about the subject, it's worth including in the article. In terms of WP:BLP, the version Tilman chose to revert to is atrocious. In terms of just plain being a readable and well written encyclopedia article, it's even worse. I would welcome other, impartial, editors to take a look and voice an opinion.
And like I keep saying like a broken record, I do want a lot of info I removed to come back, just not in this crappy form. It's not the end of the world if this article goes a few weeks without mentioning Jason Scott. Having a quality article, IMHO, is more important than having a bad one that contains more information. wikipediatrix 14:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleting first is not the best way to do it. The best way is to point out the specific problems first and to discuss them.
If we would work your way, then maybe we could as well delete the whole definition and restart from scratch, like done with Barbara Schwarz. The result: different text, same content.
I notice that your "argument" does not mention the Jason Scott segment, which you deleted again (with all the sources, including the extra one I added).
The Nancy Ammerman segment is important, she is an academic who has been (mis-)used against Ross. That is part of his life. I don't really care about Kimberly Post (indeed, just a student) and Carol Moore (probably a nut, possibly a scientologist). But you deleted incredibly large amounts, and since your initial logic (no sources) was flawed, your whole deletion is flawed. --Tilman 15:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Jimbo's edict regarding WP:BLP is that deleting first IS the best way, and in fact, the only way. Go ask him if you don't believe me. As for the Jason Scott text, you still didn't fix the problem: it is still unclear whether the source link at the end of the section is supposed to account for the several paragraphs that precede it, or just the sentence it follows. (The phoenixtimes link doesn't go to anything but the site's index page when I click it, incidentally.) wikipediatrix 16:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Show me that "deleting first" is the official Wikipedia policy. --Tilman 16:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Update: the link works now, but still doesn't contain all the information that it's supposed to be sourcing. wikipediatrix 16:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
What information is missing, according to you? --Tilman 16:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, let's see, for starters, you inserted:
Ross went into bankruptcy as well, but emerged in December 1996, when Scott reconciled with his mother and settled with Ross for $5,000, and for 200 hours of Ross's services "as an expert consultant and intervention specialist." Moxon was fired the next day and Scott then retained long-time Church of Scientology opponent Graham Berry as his lawyer instead.
And yet when I do a Ctrl-F for "expert consultant and intervention specialist" on the cited Findlaw and Pheonixnewtimes sources, I get nothing. So where'd this direct quote come from? wikipediatrix 17:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
The settlement is in the new times article source that you deleted twice: [27].
About expert consultant and intervention specialist: he calls this himself. Just enter it in google: [28]
I believe that your main problem is that you never heard of Rick Ross and the Jason Scott case until maybe a few days ago. Thus, all what you don't know, doesn't exist for you, because you don't want to look at the many cited sources.
In the meantime, have you found that "delete first" is an official wikipedia policy? --Tilman 17:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your utterly rude and wrong-headed personal speculation about me. However, your opinions of my "main problem" are irrelevant in the editing of this article. I will have no further communication with you on this matter. If you want the information to be in the article, it needs to be properly sourced with ref tags attributing each statement to its proper source. If you feel I am in error, feel free to take the matter to a higher power and/or to the WP:BLP noticeboard. wikipediatrix 18:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
It was properly sourced all the time. After my revert, that specific statement was also properly sourced with a "ref" [29] (Nr. 12). You didn't the time to read it - even right now!
You are not in the position to force me to "take this to a higher power", since you're not an admin. I'm as much a nobody (an ordinary editor) as you are. --Tilman 18:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sfacets This editor "Sfacets" is devoted to Sahaja Yoga, which is a group led by Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi, that is listed at the Ross Institute database (see http://www.rickross.com/groups/shahaja.html ). Wikipedia is often not taken seriously as an objective encyclopedia source because people with an "axe to grind" come here and edit to attack and/or discredit someone they don't like. This entry has gone back and forth historically on that basis. I have reverted it again to read NPOV and focused on the subject, rather than POV.68.38.91.230 15:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

invitation for comments

I've posted an invitation for comments and review by other editors to WP:BLPN just now. wikipediatrix 19:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Sanitizing this article

Somebody reverted this: In 1975, Ross received a felony conviction for "Conspiracy to Commit Grand Theft." He was given probation on the condition that he get psychiatric counseling. [30] This is sourced to Rick Ross's website. Is that considered an unreliable source? --172.190.53.213 15:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

First of all, what does this 31-year-old record have to do with this encyclopedia entry? It is an incident that took place years before Ross began his cult work. In the document you refer to it says, "As a term of my probation (later explained) I was a assigned to counseling. This counseling was provided by a State employed psychiatrist, who subsequently released me from that requirement a year later. I have never been diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder, nor treated at a hospital for a mental disorder." Seems like what you are trying to do is mislead the public by attempting to infer that Ross required psychiatric treatment for a disorder rather than "counseling," which is routinely recommended for many people that are put on probation and he was released from without incident. Again, your agenda is showing here. You are here to attack Ross and discredit him, not to help through a NPOV an encyclopedia entry.68.38.91.230 14:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The current version of the article has a more neutral recounting of that aspect of Ross's past. I am only posting to say this - a person's criminal record and convictions are important if that person continues to be involved in similar behavior. Charges were filed against him Jason Scott case even if they were later dismissed. I come from a law enforcement family and I can tell you that even if a conviction was expunged from the person's record, their arrest remains on file and often factors in decisions as to how to handle future charges against the person. It apears that Ross benefitted from a common practice with younger offenders in that his conviction was set aside or otherwise disposed of after he met a set of conditions outlined by the court. I know it seems as if that means he was never guilty in the first place but that's not how it works. It's more like a "do over". Like it or not, for the rest of his life, whenever Ross has contact with law enforcement, his arrest record and the old cases will be on his sheet. In my opinion, his critics make far too much hay out of the youthful offense and he makes far too little of it and his other brushes with the law. The thing here is, to just be as accurate as possible and try to avoid all the mischaracterizations of those events from both sides.

What happened to this article?

(Refactored personal attacks from this page. Refactored text can be found in this diff ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Properly sourced material has been deleted from this article for no apparent reason. What happened? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Before I continue restoring all the deleted material that was properly sourced, I would appreciate if someone can explain the reasons for these deletions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Jossi--The explanation is very simple if you look back over very long discussion and changes concerning this entry. This is supposedly and encyclopedia entry not a place to bash people you don't like. This entry had become a long rambling critique on Ross not an NPOV fact based entry for an encyclopedia. [refactor PA]]. If Wikipedia is to be taken seriously as a source, rather than ridiculed as a flaky collection of idiosyncratic entries and rants, it's important not to litter it with POV entries designed to denigrate people you don't like. The explanation for each of my edits is explained and attached. If you continue let's agree that this is a biased and not neutral entry. And should be so noted.68.38.91.230 14:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I will let other editors comment on your words and your deletions. Note that you have deleted information related the Jason Scott case, that is a highly significant episode, and well sourced information about this person;s critics. You may want to re-read WP:NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Also note that there is no such a thing as an "NPOV editor". We all have our biases and points of view, but when we edit Wikipedia we make efforts to put these aside and apply the content policies of WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Take sometime and check the talk page of any article about which there is controversy and you will find Islamists editing Israel, pro-life advocates editing abortion, Nazis editing The holocaust, etc. Difficult? Yes. But possible. If other editors do not step in to restore the deletion of material, I will place an RfC to invite non-involved editors to assist with this article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. The Jason Scott case is included in the Scientology attack, which is cited and linked. Again, the focus of the entry is Ross not Scott and Ross' assorted critics. Criticism is noted and linked. Perhaps that's not enough for those that would prefer to make this entry more of a polemic as opposed to an encyclopedia entry. Again, this type of abuse here only serves to make users think that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. 68.38.91.230 16:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The Scott case is not that meaningful historically, but the Waco Davidian standoff is. This entry need not go on and on as Ross is not that important.68.38.91.230 16:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain how describing a very significant episode in the life of this person be considered "abuse"? As far as I can see, the Scott case and the Wacco case were the most defining moments in this person's life, in addition to the material you deleted about this person' early involvement in the Jewish nursing home in Arizona and other biographical material. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I would appreciate that you spare us your assessment of the motives of other editors, as no one here assessing yours. Just pay attention to the comments of other editors, that clearly disagree with you about removing material from this article that is properly researched, sourced, and attributed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Most of the article was deleted by Wikipediatrix around Nov 14, claiming that it was unsourced (not true). Sadly, I had a business trip and then a lot to do, which is why I didn't have the energy to argue with "that person".
If anyone searches for a "good version" with all the pro & con details and balanced, get the last one edited by me. All after that is just crippled stuff. --Tilman 17:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Do you refer to this edit? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that was a good version. One would of course have to see if any improvements (to the parts that were not deleted) were made after that date - I haven't really checked whats going on, it is depressing. As I've said before, since he is a controversial person, it is important to keep both criticism (at least the one that isn't a cheap smear) and his rebuttal. --Tilman 20:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The criminal record has been deleted. It is not relevant to Ross' work and little more than an attempt to color him as negative. It is also misleading. It seems to imply that Ross received probation due to a psychiatric report. But according to the explanation offered at Ross response to critics there were a number of reasons given for probation, such as full restitution, police not opposing probation, nor those that had their property returned. Ross specifically states, "My felony conviction was for "Conspiracy to Commit Grand Theft" in 1975. This specifically concerned the embezzlement of property from a jewelry company, where a friend of mine was employed. My friend and I were both involved. Everything taken was returned to the satisfaction of the store and the police did not oppose probation. No one was physically hurt in any way and this was not a violent crime. I plead guilty and was sentenced to probation. Two psychiatrists submitted evaluations to the court, both recommended that I receive probation. One of those psychiatrists who recommended probation was Dr. Domiciano E. Santos of Arizona State Hospital, quoted by Scientology/CAN. Dr. Santos saw me briefly for counseling as a term of my probation. However, he terminated that counseling early, satisfied with my progress and adjustment." The Scientology Web site with the large report about Ross does not dispute any of these facts.68.38.91.230

You may want to appreciate that this is not an article about "Mr. Ross work", rather, it is a biographical article about Mr. Ross. That may be the source of your misunderstanding. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
IMO, the criminal record should be kept because this is frequently being mentioned by his detractors. The original definition did also show that he was rehabilitated successfully and had his civil rights restored. He was a bad apple who evolved into a good apple. He doesn't make any secret that he was a criminal decades ago. It is also useful in the context of his work with jewish prisoners. --Tilman 18:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Many websites mention the early criminal background of Ross (google for: Rick Ross jewel thief). He mentions it himself too [31] although this is somewhat "buried" in the website. I want it to be there to show that he was rehabilitated, a fact that you won't find on the "Rick Ross jewel thief" sites. --Tilman 09:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Since Wikipediatrix has been blocked for a week (not sure what it was about, and she hasn't been active here anyway for a month), I've decided to be bold and to restore the last "big balanced" version. The current one is just a stub.

It is somewhat difficult to see if any "good" edits were made after that. I suspect that many of them were already in the "big balanced" version.

Please don't be a Wikipediatrix and delete again. If you find something specific unsourced, I'll come up with the source within 24 hours or delete it myself :-) A maximum of 5 facts per day, please. However I believe that all is sourced - at worst, some of the sources are at the bottom. Just tell me and I'll correct it, like I did in the Lisa McPherson article. --Tilman 09:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Why so much detail in 30-year-old criminal record that has been vacated? Such as "with the exception of the ability to purchase, own or possess a firearm" and "of 306 items of jewlery. (Case number 89445)." Who cares about this other than people like Jossi that want to discredit Ross. Seems like too much detail in this section considering it records something not relevant to cults, cult deprogramming etc. More wasted space can be seen in citation of "Missionary Threat" article, fees descriptions and that no more $20,000 is collected by Ross Institute, again who cares, unncecessary details. The list of critics is too long and unnecessary. "Apologetics Index," Steve Hassan etc. Is this going to be an encyclopedia entry or a gripes page to list anyone and everyone? Some apologetics religious site is of little importance and carries little weight and Ross' competitors griping about him, so what? All this should be cut

Early life

I agree somewhat with 68.38.91.230 that the entry is somewhat misleading. The fact that he had a psychiatric evaluation is irrelevant, I suspect this is always done. The entry is a bit too detailed - although I'm not yet sure what to delete (I'll think about it if the definition isn't wikipediatrixed again). And I'd also wish to have a different source than the rrexposed site. A solution would be that Rick Ross put these documents on his own website. --Tilman 15:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree as well. In any case, that material is no longer in the article. The criminal conviction and later restoration of his civil rights is enough of a description for this article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Why so much detail in 30-year-old criminal record that has been vacated? Such as "with the exception of the ability to purchase, own or possess a firearm" and "of 306 items of jewlery. (Case number 89445)." Who cares about this other than people like Jossi that want to discredit Ross. Seems like too much detail in this section considering it records something not relevant to cults, cult deprogramming etc. All this should be cut68.38.91.230 15:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Again, (a) I did not add that material to the article; and (b) I had and have no intention to discredit anyone. Please stop making these type of accusations. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


The part about the firearm is on Ross' site itself.
I don't know who added it in the article. But if it wasn't there, somebody would whine that "...restored his civil rights" isn't accurate, since Ross isn't allowed to possess a firearm. --Tilman 19:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. Then why so much details in 30-year-old criminal record that has been vacated? Such as citing "306 items of jewlery. (Case number 89445)." [refactored]. Seems like too much detail in this section considering it records something not relevant to cults, cult deprogramming etc. Again, more wasted space can be seen in citation of "Missionary Threat" article, fees descriptions and that no more "$20,000 is collected by Ross Institute." Who cares? More unncecessary details. The list of critics is too long and also unnecessary. "Apologetics Index," Steve Hassan etc. Is this going to be an encyclopedia entry or a gripes page to list anyone and everyone? An apologetics religious site is of little importance and carries little weight and Ross' competitors griping about him, so what? Once again, all this should be cut68.38.91.230 14:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The institute is a non profit. So its finances are of course open to public scrutiny. Not mentioning it would cause speculation.
And as I said, Ross is a controversial figure. So yes, he has critics.
Instead of whining, why don't you use your energy to come up with some positive facts that aren't mentioned yet? For example, the win in the NEXIUM lawsuit, or in the gentle winds lawsuit. And then, there's the problem of replacing the links to the rrexposed site. I feel bad that the article uses that site as evidence. You could also help with moving the sources from the bottom to the new "ref" format (I have done this a bit). --Tilman 16:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
OK a NXIVM section has been added

cites at the bottom

I see that Smeelgova followed my suggestion. (diff [32]) Thank you. However you missed some, and deleted some that may or may not apply. Here's a list of cites that I'm not sure if they could still apply:

  • Lifton, Robert Jay - (Feb 1981). ""Cult Formation"". . The Harvard Mental Health Letter Vol. 7, Number 8,
  • MacWilliams, Mark - "Symbolic Resistance to the Waco Tragedy on the Internet", Nova Religio, March 2005, Vol. 8, No. 3, Pages 59-82 [36]
  • Lewis, JR (December 2003, pages 122-123). ""The Oxford Handbook of new Religious Movements"". . Oxford University Press

--Tilman 05:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Thank you for showing your appreciation for an edit I did! It is very rare for me to ever receive compliments for any of my actions on Wikipedia. Smeelgova 05:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC).
  • Though I think some of the references that you pasted above might be relevant, I could not find places where they were already cited within the article. If you can, please be my guest and pop some of them back in. Smeelgova 05:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC).
I already did put some back. These are the ones left.... --Tilman 05:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Early life, revisited

  • This section has been tagged for using Primary sources, not to mention it is Wikipedia:Original Research. The section presently uses a highly dubious and blatant attack website, http://www.rrexposed.u2k.biz/ . This is tantamount to using something like Scientology's "Religious Freedom Watch" and calling it a reputable source! We should pay more attention to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons. If individuals wish to include this part of Rick Ross's life, they should do so using reputable, secondary sources. For example, Jewish World Review, Las Vegas Sun, Phoenix News Times all make mention of the incidents in question. Utilizing these sources one would be able to provide a reputable mention of the events. I will remove the current section and cite these reputable secondary sources instead. Smeelgova 13:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC).
    • I have removed the questionable information above and replaced it with cited information from these three more reputable secondary sources. Smeelgova 13:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

POV material is allowed!

BabyDweezil, POV material is allowed to be in an article. Tanaats 22:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I assume you mean material which expresses a properly sourced viewpoint, and which makes it clear that Wikipedia neither agrees nor disagrees with the source's views. --Uncle Ed 20:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

deletions are bordering on vandalism

Smeelgova's continued deletions of sourced material that presents well sourced biographical material in an NPOV manner is beginning to border on vandalism. It should stop. BabyDweezil 19:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I wonder how much of this article consists of non-notable squabbling sourced solely with material from biased sites, i.e. the non-RS material is not for support of RS but constitutes the sole source of large amounts of this article. --Justanother 19:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I think that there was a "mostly" consensus weeks/months to remove the dispute between Rick Ross and Steve Hassan, per WP:BLP. My position was rather to keep it (altough I like both people involved and have no position about "who's right"). However, that BD is reinserting this, feels weird and makes me wonder whether I should reconsider my position, considering that he removed "negative" texts from cult apologist. Double standard?
I'll watch this, for now, without reverting one way or another. --Tilman 19:56, 2 February 2007

(UTC)

Here we go again. The Republic and Gazette newspaper quoted a disgruntled clergyman that apparently squabbled with Ross. That minister made a claim that the newspaper quoted according to his POV. Is the purpose of Wikipedia to provide space for angry folks to attack their perceived enemies? For example, Justanother is a Scientologist, and Scientology has declared Ross its enemy. Wikipedia may never been taken seriously as a source for meaningful information if this kind of behavior goes on.

:BabyDweezil, look first to yourself. Tanaats 20:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to restate. BabyDweezil, before criticizing another editor, please consider the fact that you have deleted well-sourced material, sometimes great amounts of it, on a number of articles. Tanaats 20:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

And, Ed, this does pertain directly to this article. We don't want similar wholesale deletions here. Tanaats 20:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Tanaats, please be accuarte when you make claims such as I "deleted well-sourced material, sometimes great amounts of it, on a number of articles." The deletions I made were where the material grossly violated original reasearch and other guidelines. The material Smeelgova keeps deleting is sourced, NPOV and directly related to an entry on Rick Ross. Wikipedia is not Rick Ross' website, Steve Hassan's website, or Anton Hein's website, or whatever the AFF is called now's website, where they can control the content. If there is concern that readers are going to find out that these characters have felony convictions, violent pasts, participated in forcible abductions and imprisonments, and are convicted sex offenders, one can always file an AfD for the articles. BabyDweezil 22:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
That is not the issue. The issue is concern not to violate Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons, and to utilize reputable secondary sources. Smee 07:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

BabyDweezil seems to be on an interesting mission using Wikipedia to express his POV. Looking at his or her editing over at "Cults" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cult )and reading through the discussion there, BabyDweezil goes on and on about Ross and the Ross "database." It seems like Wikipedia at times becomes a place for those who have an "axe to grind" with someone or something to vent and rant under the guise of "editing." If this kind of thing becomes widespread within Wikipedia can it ever be taken seriously as a research resource? In this sense Wikipedia is at times like reading a debate between letter writers within a newspaper's Op/Ed section or a "flame war" at an on-line message board. Is that the intent and/or mission of Wikipedia?

BabyDweezil also seems to be focused in part on cults like Jossi in what has been called "edit wars" and at times deletes from Wikipedia files without consensus or discussion. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BabyDweezil How does this help entries in Wikipedia? It seems like some people are not that interested in accurate content and facts, but rather either expressing a POV and/or attacking someone or something they don't like. It is important at controversial Wikipedia entries like this one to recognize the history of some editors and what baggage they bring to the table. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.0.42.27 (talk • contribs).

While I cannot speak to BD's "mission", I have noticed that, by and large, his removals are removals of material that is highly biased, from non-reliable sources, and of questionable notability. Exactly the sort of material that should be removed if it is clear that no better sources are forthcoming. If it is possible that there will be sources added (and quickly) then it would be better to rewrite the material in NPOV terms and ask for a source. --Justanother 16:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
You are funny Justanother. As a Scientologist and therefore a follower of Scientology, an organization that has made a serious effort to discredit Ross, your opinion of BabyDweezil's editing is just a bit suspect. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Justanother
No more suspect than the baiting claims of an anonymous editor who might want to take a look at WP:AGF. BabyDweezil 22:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I find it ironic that BabyDweezil is being singled out here, when it is obvious that users such as Smeelgova (judging by edits) also appears to have a POV and is busy pushing it. Perhaps we shoul focus less on the editors and more on the edits - and argue why or why not the content should be included, and if no concensus can be reached, then make a RFC. Sfacets 06:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Hear hear --Justanother 06:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I think that your suggestion is a very, very good idea. However, though it could be said that I have a POV, I am not the one who participates and instigates in vicious violations of Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks - which you were just referring to. It is in fact the other editor in question that has a habit of not adhering to "comment on the content, not the contributor" . The discussion and editing process would be a lot more pleasant if this editor would refrain from Personal Attacks, both on talk pages AND in edit summaries - which is highly inappropriate. Smee 06:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC).
I agree with you, Smee, that inappropriate remarks should be kept off. I have not been keeping up with your edits but I hope that you have made some appropriate changes to your editing behaviour, too. If so, then another Hear hear is in order. --Justanother 06:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Good. Then at least we can agree that there is never a justification for violating Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks, for inappropriate usage of the edit summary space for anything other than describing edits simply, and for those that refuse to follow: "comment on the content, not the contributor" . Smee 06:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

Criticism

The criticism section by definition is not the place to list ross' accomplishments or qualifications. That section should be dedicated to criticism of Ross. Mr Christopher 19:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Smee, per above, original research cannot be used as a rebuttal to criticism. You would need to find a WP:RS that specifically rebuts the criticism made in the article, not you own rebuttal via sources that appeared in entirely different contexts. BabyDweezil 19:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

There are reputable sources. And the material provides balance in a section that otherwise reads like an article purely to attack the subject, in violation of WP:BLP. Smee 19:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC).
You totally misunderstand WP:BLP as well as the purpose of a criticism section. Mr Christopher 19:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Please enlighten us, preferably with citations from guidelines. Tanaats 20:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Smee, It has bothing to do with [[WP:BLP], but WP:OR. Take a look here:
(QUOTE)Original research includes editors' personal views, political opinions, and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article. See this example for more details.
An edit counts as original research if it does any of the following:
  • It introduces a theory or method of solution;
  • It introduces original ideas;
  • It defines new terms;
  • It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms;
  • It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
  • It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;
  • It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source.(ENDQUOTE)
Get the idea? Tanaats' rebuttal of the criticism is a great example of this sort of OR. BabyDweezil 20:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
No, because there are reputable sources, cited appropriately. Smee 20:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC).
Smee, those sources werent responding to criticisms of Ross--it is YOU creating an "analysis or synthesis" favored by an editor (YOU) "without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source." BabyDweezil 20:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Believe or not, I believe in a fair hand. I would no more support non-RS or one-sided criticism of Ross than I would support non-RS or one-sided criticism of David Miscavige. Most, if not all, criticism falls under the heading of opinion. While, in the case of Ross (and DM), WP:BLP trumps all other policies, there is a place for well-sourced and notable opinion. However, we should be sensitive to the requirements of WP:NPOV and, to that end, a few applicable bits are presented below:

In presenting an opinion, moreover, it is important to bear in mind that there are disagreements about how opinions are best stated; sometimes, it will be necessary to qualify the description of an opinion or to present several formulations, simply to arrive at a solution that fairly represents all the leading views of the situation.

But it is not enough, to express the Wikipedia non-bias policy, just to say that we should state facts and not opinions. When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It is also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view.

--Justanother 20:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Justanother, I realize that as a Scientologist you see Ross as a "SP" Suppressive Person and enemy of your church. But please don't attempt to use Wikipedia as a place to carry out L. Ron Hubbard's directives about going after perceived enemies. The last addition you did at the introduction was nothing more than a screed. Try to behave like an editor not an operative for Scientology.
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. 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.