→BLPN discussion: r @Collect |
|||
Line 531:
:: Facts? That the moon reflects the light of the sun is a fact. As for BLPs, we report the significant viewpoints as described in reliable sources. [[WP:NPOV]] is non-negotiable. - [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 23:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
::: {{ping|Collect}} My statement was in response to the proposed edits in the section above. There exists significant [[WP:RS]] commentary which analyses and discusses the results/outcome of the Waco siege and Rick Ross's participation. Simply stating 'fact' without analysis is not what we do when there is RS analysis to discuss. Whether the analysis is flattering to the subject or not is irrelevant only whether it is a significant viewpoint offered by mainstream authors. To quote from [[WP:BLP]] <em>{{blue|"Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone."}}</em> This is not talking about the 'mere recitation of facts' it is talking about proportionate reporting of significant opinions represented in reliable sources. Do you claim we should forgo the reporting of relevant analysis and significant opinion and merely report 'facts'? If so, please support your position with policy. Cheers. [[User:Jbhunley|<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:14pt;color:#886600">J</span><span style="font-family:Lucida Calligraphy;font-size:10pt;color:#886600">bh</span>]][[User_talk:Jbhunley|<span style="color: #00888F"><sup>Talk</sup></span>]] 23:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
|
Revision as of 23:51, 24 November 2015
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Please use a more specific OTRS template. See the Template:OTRS or below for available templates. Template:OTRS could refer to one of several templates related to the OTRS system. Instead of using this template, use one of the more specific templates listed below.
Commonly-used OTRS templates
{{OTRS pending}}
: Added when an email has been sent to OTRS{{OTRS permission}}
: Permission received via OTRS{{OTRS ticket}}
: Provides a link to an OTRS ticket{{OTRS talk}}
: For article talk pages, where an issue is raised by OTRS{{OTRS received}}
: OTRS received, but is not sufficient to confirm permission{{Verified account}}
: Added to userpage when an account is verified
See also
- Category:OTRS templates, a more complete list of templates related to the OTRS process
{{Template disambiguation}} shouldn't be transcluded in the talk namespaces.
Unnecessary opinion included
The bio states, "Ross claimed a success-rate of 75%; journalist Nick Johnstone, despite noting that Ross' moral credentials 'seem shaky at best,' credited him with having 'rescued many people from harmful situations'" The portion "Ross' moral credentials 'seem shaky at best'" expresses an opinion, which is not necessary. There are other articles that make no such claim and express no such opinion. The inclusion of the reporter's opinion by an editor was done to slant the bio. I suggest the sentence be edited to exclude the opinion and simply state the facts as follows:
Ross claimed a success-rate of 75%; journalist Nick Johnstone credited him with having "rescued many people from harmful situations".[18]
Also, the same article is sourced for the statement, "handled more than 350 deprogramming cases in various countries" dated 2004. A more current article in the Sun Sentinel run this month updates that number "conducted more than 500 interventions since 1982." See http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/palm-beach/boca-raton/fl-brf-church-0715-20150720-story.html#page=1 Rick Alan Ross96.235.133.43 (talk) 19:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC) Rick Alan Ross96.235.133.43 (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- Other opinions welcome; for the time being, I have replaced "despite noting" with "despite an opinion", as the existing text suggested that Johnstone's opinion was a fact. Black Kite (talk) 20:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- Including the word "opinion" isn't meaningful. There have been many mainstream news reports and articles written about me over the years and they don't include such comments. The Johnstone article is essentially more of an opinion editorial piece than a news report. Including his opinion in my bio is selective editing to support the editor's POV that initially put it in, rather than NPOV editing. It is a fact that I have done many interventions (more than 500 as recently reported) to help people from harmful situations. This is supported by many news articles and books. But the comment that my "moral credentials seem shaky at best" is one reporter's subjective opinion and not a fact. This remark has no place in the bio if it is to be fact based and not biased. Please remove the comment.96.235.133.43 (talk) 13:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)Rick Alan Ross
Some articles written about me. http://www.maxim.com/tags/unbreakable-kimmy-schmidt http://articles.philly.com/2011-03-12/news/28683932_1_group-demands-cults-nursing-home http://jewcy.com/post/brainwashings_nemesis http://articles.mcall.com/2005-10-07/features/3644597_1_cult-member-rick-ross-intervention http://gothamist.com/2005/07/18/rick_ross_cult_expert.php Rick Alan Ross96.235.133.43 (talk) 13:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
As demonstrated by other articles the quote "moral credentials 'seem shaky at best'" is not something said by other news reports through objective reporting. Including this opinion, which represents a tiny minority within legitimate news sources, is simply a way that a previous editor used to insert POV rather than NPOV. it's there to attack not to inform and is inppropriate. Please remove this remark. Rick Alan Ross96.235.133.43 (talk) 14:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Number of cult interventions done by Rick Ross
I have done more than 500 interventions since 1982. See http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/palm-beach/boca-raton/fl-brf-church-0715-20150720-story.html#page=1 The numnber "350" is out of date and was reported in 2004.Rick Alan Ross96.235.133.43 (talk)
- edited and added the new external Govindaharihari (talk) 15:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thank You96.235.133.43 (talk) 15:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)Rick Alan Ross
Rick Alan Ross
I suggest for clarity that the heading of the bio be -- Rick Alan Ross (consultant) in order to avoid confusion with the rapper Rick Ross or another Rick Ross.Rick Alan Ross96.235.133.43 (talk) 15:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- moved Govindaharihari (talk) 15:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thank You96.235.133.43 (talk) 15:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)Rick Alan Ross
Cost of interventions
The cost of interventions doesn't seem appropriate in the bio. It's not an advertisement for services. Also, this is mentioned repeatedly, as "typically charging around $5,000 per case" and then again "at a typical cost of $5,000." Is it necessary to repeat this twice?96.235.133.43 (talk) 13:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Rick Alan Ross
- addressed Govindaharihari (talk) 15:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you96.235.133.43 (talk) 15:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)Rick Alan Ross
Including mention of Kendrick Moxon and Scientology in Jason Scott case
The media widely reported that Jason Scott was represented by Kendrick Moxon, a prominent Scientologist attorney. This is a very significant and pertinent fact and is prominently included in the Wikipedia entry about the Jason Scott case. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Scott_case Jason Scott also made statements to the media regarding Scientology after the settlement. This included Scott's interviews with "60 Minutes," The Washington Post and St. Petersburg Times.
I suggest that this fact also be included in the bio both in the account of the Jason Scott case and the lead. I suggest that the third paragraph of the lead be revised to read as follows:
Ross faced criminal charges over the 1991 forcible deprogramming of Jason Scott, but was found "not guilty." Subsequently Scott, represented by prominent Scientologist attorney Kendrick Moxon, filed a lawsuit that resulted in a judgement against both Ross and the Cult Awareness Network (CAN) for violating his civil rights. Scott was awarded $5 million in damages, which led to CAN and Ross declaring bankruptcy.[1][5] As a result of the legal risks involved, Ross stopped advocating coercive deprogramming or involuntary interventions for adults, preferring instead voluntary interventions without the use of force or restraint.
"Kendrick Moxon" should be linked to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kendrick_Moxon
I suggest that the section "Jason Scott Deprogramming" be edited to include the following:
Ross faced criminal charges over a 1991 forcible deprogramming of United Pentecostal Church International member Jason Scott, whose mother was referred to Ross by the Cult Awareness Network.[35] Ross was found "not guilty" by the jury at trial.[5] Scott later filed a civil suit against Ross in federal court and was represented by prominent Scientologist attorney Kendrick Moxon. In September 1995, a nine-member jury unanimously held Ross and other defendants in the case liable for depriving Scott of his civil rights and awarded Scott $5 million in punitive damages .[23] Ross' share of the damages was $3.1 million, which led to him declaring personal bankruptcy.[23] Scott later reconciled with his mother and was persuaded by her to fire Moxon and settle with Ross; under the terms of the settlement, the two agreed that Ross would pay Scott $5000 and provide 200 hours of his professional services.[36] Scott later stated that he felt he had been manipulated as part of Scientology's plan to destroy CAN. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kendrick_Moxon#cite_note-scientologysponsored-23
As a result of the legal risks involved, Ross stopped advocating coercive deprogramming or involuntary interventions for adults, preferring instead voluntary exit counseling without the use of force or restraint.[6] He states that despite refinement of processes over the years, cult intervention work continues to depend on the same basic principles originated through deprogramming.[6]
Excluding the Scientology connection in the Jason Scott leaves out important historical facts and is also inconsistent with other Wikipedia entries.96.235.133.43 (talk) 17:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)Rick Alan Ross
- This may be better attended, responded to if it is posted to the biography noticeboard. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Done96.235.133.43 (talk) 11:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)Rick Alan Ross
- Done96.235.133.43 (talk) 11:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)Rick Alan Ross
Response to request posted at BLP/N
@Mr. Ross: Do you have any references which can be cited for this material? Wikipedia, particularly in articles about living people, only documents what reliable sources have to say about subjects/incidents. In general reliable sources are things like books, newspaper articles etc which are published by independent, third party sources. There are some narrow exceptions but one must be up on one's 'wiki-arcana' for them to make sense.
I am not familiar with the material so if you could break up your changes into:
- Statement to include
- Reliable source for that statement.
This is not so much to document what is true but to demonstrate that others considered the information notable enough to comment on which is something our content policies require. I will 'watch' this page so please reply here rather than at BLP/N. You can also reach me quickly on my talk page which will trigger an email notification to me. Cheers. JbhTalk 16:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- The information has been considered notable and included at Wikipedia. This information is included at the Cult Awareness Network entry at Wikipedia see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_Awareness_Network#Jason_Scott_case And the sources cited are published press reports (Goodstein, Laurie December 23, 1996 "Plaintiff Shifts Stance on Anti-Cult Group - Scientology-Linked Lawyer Is Dismissed In Move That May Keep Network Running" The Washington Post The Washington Post Company p. A4.) see http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-805671.html and (Morgan, Lucy; Thomas C. Tobin December 23, 1997 "Scientology sponsored suit against opponent" St. Petersburg Times. p. 1A.) and (Quintanilla, Ray February 2, 1997 "Scientologists Now Run Barrington-Based Organization - Cult Awareness Group Has New Handlers" Chicago Tribune. p. 1.) See http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1997-02-02/news/9702020115_1_cult-awareness-network-scientology-controversial-church and (Ortega, Tony (1996-12-19). "What's $2.995 Million Between Former Enemies?" . Phoenix New Times. Retrieved 2008-08-24.) see http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/whats-2995-million-between-former-enemies-6423217 This information is also considered notable and included in the Wikipedia entry regarding the Jason Scott Case see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Scott_case The entry states, "...civil suit for damages was filed against Ross, the two convicted associates and CAN by Kendrick Moxon, a long-time member and counsel for the Church of Scientology, on behalf of Jason Scott." ( Haines, Thomas W. 1995-09-21 "'Deprogrammer' Taken To Court -- Bellevue Man Claims Kidnap, Coercion" Seattle Times Retrieved 2008-10-14.) see http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19950921&slug=2142801 and (Prendergast, Alan 1997-03-06 "Nightmare on the Net" . Denver Westword. Village Voice Media. Retrieved 2008-10-20.) see http://www.westword.com/news/nightmare-on-the-net-5057215 The same information is also included in the Wikipedia entry within the bio of Kendrick Moxon see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kendrick_Moxon that states, "Kendrick Lichty Moxon is a Scientology official and an attorney with the law firm Moxon & Kobrin. He practices in Los Angeles, California, and is a lead counsel for the Church of Scientology." This Wikipedia entry also says, "Scott stated that he felt he had been manipulated as part of the Church of Scientology's plan to destroy CAN." (Morgan, Lucy; Thomas C. Tobin December 23, 1997 "Scientology sponsored suit against opponent" St. Petersburg Times. p. 1A.) It also says that "Jason Scott also stated he felt he had been a 'pawn' in Scientology's 'whole game' (Hansen, Susan June 1997 "Did Scientology Strike Back?" The American Lawyer) article online archived at http://culteducation.com/group/1284-scientology/23030-did-scientology-strike-back.html 96.235.133.43 (talk) This same American Lawyer article is repeatedly cited in the book "The Church of Scientology: A History of a New Religion" By Hugh B. Urban see https://books.google.com/books?id=8lgHtauc5R4C&pg=PA245&lpg=PA245&dq=Did+Scientology+strike+back+American+lawyer&source=bl&ots=vL1bAjWBDM&sig=bEe1qwN0m0ht2jg6noLsMxz5LfY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAWoVChMI4JOe7ZDMxwIVgtk-
- These reliable sources confirm that I have not done involuntary cult intervention work with adults for many years. http://gothamist.com/2005/07/18/rick_ross_cult_expert.php http://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2004/dec/12/features.magazine137 http://culteducation.com/group/1270-media/13381-hell-fire.html 96.235.133.43 (talk) 18:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)Rick Alan Ross
- The information has been considered notable and included at Wikipedia. This information is included at the Cult Awareness Network entry at Wikipedia see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_Awareness_Network#Jason_Scott_case And the sources cited are published press reports (Goodstein, Laurie December 23, 1996 "Plaintiff Shifts Stance on Anti-Cult Group - Scientology-Linked Lawyer Is Dismissed In Move That May Keep Network Running" The Washington Post The Washington Post Company p. A4.) see http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-805671.html and (Morgan, Lucy; Thomas C. Tobin December 23, 1997 "Scientology sponsored suit against opponent" St. Petersburg Times. p. 1A.) and (Quintanilla, Ray February 2, 1997 "Scientologists Now Run Barrington-Based Organization - Cult Awareness Group Has New Handlers" Chicago Tribune. p. 1.) See http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1997-02-02/news/9702020115_1_cult-awareness-network-scientology-controversial-church and (Ortega, Tony (1996-12-19). "What's $2.995 Million Between Former Enemies?" . Phoenix New Times. Retrieved 2008-08-24.) see http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/whats-2995-million-between-former-enemies-6423217 This information is also considered notable and included in the Wikipedia entry regarding the Jason Scott Case see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Scott_case The entry states, "...civil suit for damages was filed against Ross, the two convicted associates and CAN by Kendrick Moxon, a long-time member and counsel for the Church of Scientology, on behalf of Jason Scott." ( Haines, Thomas W. 1995-09-21 "'Deprogrammer' Taken To Court -- Bellevue Man Claims Kidnap, Coercion" Seattle Times Retrieved 2008-10-14.) see http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19950921&slug=2142801 and (Prendergast, Alan 1997-03-06 "Nightmare on the Net" . Denver Westword. Village Voice Media. Retrieved 2008-10-20.) see http://www.westword.com/news/nightmare-on-the-net-5057215 The same information is also included in the Wikipedia entry within the bio of Kendrick Moxon see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kendrick_Moxon that states, "Kendrick Lichty Moxon is a Scientology official and an attorney with the law firm Moxon & Kobrin. He practices in Los Angeles, California, and is a lead counsel for the Church of Scientology." This Wikipedia entry also says, "Scott stated that he felt he had been manipulated as part of the Church of Scientology's plan to destroy CAN." (Morgan, Lucy; Thomas C. Tobin December 23, 1997 "Scientology sponsored suit against opponent" St. Petersburg Times. p. 1A.) It also says that "Jason Scott also stated he felt he had been a 'pawn' in Scientology's 'whole game' (Hansen, Susan June 1997 "Did Scientology Strike Back?" The American Lawyer) article online archived at http://culteducation.com/group/1284-scientology/23030-did-scientology-strike-back.html 96.235.133.43 (talk) This same American Lawyer article is repeatedly cited in the book "The Church of Scientology: A History of a New Religion" By Hugh B. Urban see https://books.google.com/books?id=8lgHtauc5R4C&pg=PA245&lpg=PA245&dq=Did+Scientology+strike+back+American+lawyer&source=bl&ots=vL1bAjWBDM&sig=bEe1qwN0m0ht2jg6noLsMxz5LfY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAWoVChMI4JOe7ZDMxwIVgtk-
Ch1BGQq9#v=onepage&q=Did%20Scientology%20strike%20back%20American%20lawyer&f=false 96.235.133.43 (talk) 16:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)Rick Alan Ross
- Please simply put your requests in the format I requested without editorializing. This makes it much easier for me to look at each requested edit, assess the source and see if it supports the edit. A wall of text like you presented above, without organization or clear edit request, is not something I am willing to parse.
Thank you for following out conflict of interest best practices by requesting modifications to the article rather than editing it yourself. I understand your desire to have proper information in the article and I am willing to work with you but it must be in a structured manner. This helps me keep things straight in my head and allows me to give your requests the consideration and attention they deserve. It also allows other editors to easily follow the discussion and see why changes were/were not made. JbhTalk 18:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. I will try to do a better job following your guidelines.96.235.133.43 (talk) 14:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)Rick Alan Ross
- Please simply put your requests in the format I requested without editorializing. This makes it much easier for me to look at each requested edit, assess the source and see if it supports the edit. A wall of text like you presented above, without organization or clear edit request, is not something I am willing to parse.
- Statement in lead paragraph to include proposed editing in bold -- Ross faced criminal charges over the 1991 forcible deprogramming of Jason Scott, but was found "not guilty." Subsequently Scott, represented by prominent Scientologist attorney Kendrick Moxon, filed a lawsuit that resulted in a judgement against both Ross and the Cult Awareness Network (CAN) for violating his civil rights. Scott was awarded $5 million in damages, which led to CAN and Ross declaring bankruptcy.96.235.133.43 (talk) 14:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)Rick Alan Ross
- Reliable sources
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_Awareness_Network#Jason_Scott_case- http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-805671.html
- http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1997-02-02/news/9702020115_1_cult-awareness-network-scientology-controversial-church
- http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/whats-2995-million-between-former-enemies-6423217
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Scott_case- http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19950921&slug=2142801
- http://www.westword.com/news/nightmare-on-the-net-5057215 96.235.133.43 (talk) 14:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)Rick Alan Ross
- Reliable sources
- I have struck sources above which are not WP:RS. I also edited the 3rd para of the lead so it was more of a summary of what is in the Jason Scott section rather than a simple copy/paste. The sources easily let me add Moxon's name and his link to Scientology and I feel that information would be of help/interest to our readers. I have also reformatted your edit requests so I can separate them better. JbhTalk 15:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- Statement in Jason Scott deprogramming section with proposed edits -- Ross was found "not guilty" by the jury at trial.[5] Scott later filed a civil suit against Ross in federal court and was represented by prominent Scientologist attorney Kendrick Moxon. In September 1995, a nine-member jury unanimously held Ross and other defendants in the case liable for depriving Scott of his civil rights and awarded Scott $5 million in punitive damages .[23] Ross' share of the damages was $3.1 million, which led to him declaring personal bankruptcy.[23] Scott later reconciled with his mother and was persuaded by her to fire Moxon and settle with Ross; under the terms of the settlement, the two agreed that Ross would pay Scott $5000 and provide 200 hours of his professional services.[36]Scott later stated that he felt he had been manipulated as part of Scientology's plan to destroy CAN.96.235.133.43 (talk) 14:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)Rick Alan Ross
- Reliable sources include those previously linked and
http://culteducation.com/group/1284-scientology/23030-did-scientology-strike-back.html- https://books.google.com/books?id=8lgHtauc5R4C&pg=PA245&lpg=PA245&dq=Did+Scientology+strike+back+American+lawyer&source=bl&ots=vL1bAjWBDM&sig=bEe1qwN0m0ht2jg6noLsMxz5LfY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAWoVChMI4JOe7ZDMxwIVgtk-Ch1BGQq9#v=onepage&q=Did%20Scientology%20strike%20back%20American%20lawyer&f=false 96.235.133.43 (talk) 14:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)Rick Alan Ross
- Reliable sources include those previously linked and
- I think the edits I mentioned above cover most of the information you wanted here.
I will need to read more over the next couple of days to see what can be done with the Jason Scott section. I need to get a better idea of what the press was saying at the time etc. The book will require some looking in to see if it is RS. If there are particular sections/pages you think might be of use I will check into them.JbhTalk 15:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC) - I think linking the lawyer's name and mentioning he was linked to Scientology gets the basic information to our readers. Additional information can be found in the article on the Jason Scott case. I think that, based on the article as it is now, going into Scott's and Scientology's motives might be WP:UNDUE since this is a biography. If, later, the article is expanded to address Ross's conflict with Scientology it could be brougnt in then. JbhTalk 15:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. But as Wikipedia notes with reliable sources in the bio of Kendrick Moxon he is an official of Scientology and its lead counsel. Please change "linked to Scientology," which does not reflect his actual historical significance, to -- Kendrick Moxon an official of Scientology and its lead counsel. Also this should also be in the lead. 96.235.133.43 (talk) 13:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC)Rick Alan Ross
- That is, however, how the source designates him. If people want more information about Moxon or want to explore his relationship with Scientology they will follow his link. We are not permitted to draw conclusions, make inferences etc. that the sources themselves do not make in the same context - see WP:SYNTH. The lead is intended to summarize material in the body of the article so going into detail of the who's and what's of the case is not appropriate. Also we have links to articles on the Jason Scott case, the Cult Awareness Network and Kendrick Moxon for readers who want more depth on those subjects. Other editors may, of course, feel differently. JbhTalk 14:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- note that this source does not say that Ross stopped doing interventions b/c of the Scott case; he just says that he stopped due to legal risks, and when we don't know when he stopped. I don't doubt that he did stop and that it was b/c of legal risks; we just have no source for the date or the specific reason. Jytdog (talk) 16:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for catching that and updating the article. JbhTalk 04:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- The Way Back Machine shows the website rickross.com dated April 1998 page regarding Intervention and explains no more involuntary deprogramming with adults. Actually it was stated much earlier when the website was first launched in 1996, but this is proof from a reliable source that the date was at least 1998 See https://web.archive.org/web/19980429001130/http://rickross.com/ Look under "Getting Help" and then see "Intervention," which covers involuntary intervention/deprogramming specifically. Please change "Undated" to 1996, 1998 or revert to original version. (talk) 13:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)Rick Alan Ross
- That is WP:OR. We need a source that provides the date. You have been informed many, many times about the relevant policies and guidelines that govern Wikipedia, and how we interpret them, yet you refuse to learn and follow them, but keep pushing for changes that would violate the policies and guidelines, and you keep taking up the community's time. Please stop doing that. If you want to ask for changes, ask for specific changes, based on specific reliable sources. I will not respond further on this.Jytdog (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- The Way Back Machine shows the website rickross.com dated April 1998 page regarding Intervention and explains no more involuntary deprogramming with adults. Actually it was stated much earlier when the website was first launched in 1996, but this is proof from a reliable source that the date was at least 1998 See https://web.archive.org/web/19980429001130/http://rickross.com/ Look under "Getting Help" and then see "Intervention," which covers involuntary intervention/deprogramming specifically. Please change "Undated" to 1996, 1998 or revert to original version. (talk) 13:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)Rick Alan Ross
- Thank you for catching that and updating the article. JbhTalk 04:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- note that this source does not say that Ross stopped doing interventions b/c of the Scott case; he just says that he stopped due to legal risks, and when we don't know when he stopped. I don't doubt that he did stop and that it was b/c of legal risks; we just have no source for the date or the specific reason. Jytdog (talk) 16:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. But as Wikipedia notes with reliable sources in the bio of Kendrick Moxon he is an official of Scientology and its lead counsel. Please change "linked to Scientology," which does not reflect his actual historical significance, to -- Kendrick Moxon an official of Scientology and its lead counsel. Also this should also be in the lead. 96.235.133.43 (talk) 13:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC)Rick Alan Ross
- I think the edits I mentioned above cover most of the information you wanted here.
- @Francis Schonken: Re your removal, would that material not fall under the WP:ABOUTSELF carve out of WP:SELFPUB? JbhTalk 16:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- in my view Francis' diff is valid per WP:SPS - the claim that Ross stopped doing involuntary deprogrammings is extraordinary and should be sourced to an independent source, not a page from his website. Jytdog (talk) 18:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- (e.c. – @Jbhunley:) WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:SELFPUB link to the same policy section, they are subject to the same five conditions, the first of which is "the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim". So no, there is no material difference here: the changed appreciation regarding (forcible) deprogramming is some sort of apologetics (=self-serving), unduly so, or at least "exceptional", when no independent reliable source has noted a changed behaviour pattern in this respect, or at least has recorded the subject claims it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Francis Schonken and Jytdog: OK. The idea that it is a self serving claim works for me, particularly in the context of the source looking like it is an 'advertorial' FAQ. JbhTalk 19:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- There are independent reliable sources that have reported the fact that I no longer do involuntary interventions with adults. See http://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2004/dec/12/features.magazine137 http://gothamist.com/2005/07/18/rick_ross_cult_expert.php http://www.culteducation.com/group/13381-hell-fire.html 96.235.133.43 (talk) 19:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)Rick Alan Ross
- @Francis Schonken and Jytdog: OK. The idea that it is a self serving claim works for me, particularly in the context of the source looking like it is an 'advertorial' FAQ. JbhTalk 19:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Francis Schonken: Re your removal, would that material not fall under the WP:ABOUTSELF carve out of WP:SELFPUB? JbhTalk 16:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Of the sources you present above only The Guardian one is really RS. It does not, based on my reading, say you no longer do coercive interventions and describes an intervention which could be reasonably described as coercive. Please remember that sources merely reporting what you have said cf. interviews, do not avoid the WP:ABOUTSELF issues mentioned above. JbhTalk 20:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- Involuntary deprogramming means the use of physical restraint. The deprogramming described in The Guardian did not involve the use physical restraint and was voluntary, which means the person was free to leave at any time. Instead the Guardian reports that "brother persuaded her to give [me] one more hour of her time" and that people in such interventions can "walk out." The Gurardian also reported, "as soon as Ross introduced himself, Michael fled his grandmother's house." Indicating that he was free to leave and not physically restrained in any way. Former cult deprogrammer Steve Hassan also has a bio at Wikipedia See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Hassan Mr. Hassan's statements are footnoted as sources to support the statement that he no longer does involuntary deprogramming. I think Wikipedia must be consistent. I no longer do involuntary deprogramming and have stated so in many interviews going back to the 1990s. Though there have been many articles published about me since the Scott case, none have suggested that I still endorse and/or do involuntary cult interventions with adults. The statement formerly in the bio should be restored, both in the lead and at the Scott case subsection. Please restore the statement. 96.235.133.43 (talk) 13:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)Rick Alan Ross
- @Mr. Ross: My apologies. I misunderstood the term of art "involuntary". I do understand your frustration but in this case two other editors, whose experience I respect, have said we should have an independent reliable source which says you stopped and even if I were fully convinced of your position the best that could be done is try to seek a wider consensus from other experienced editors. Wikipedia works on a consensus model so no editor can change an article by fiat. This generally works for us but can sometimes be an issue, particularly on some biographies.
This article is a contentious subject so we must be very careful. Wikipedia does try to work with article subjects on matters like this but we at the talk page have no way of knowing who the person on the other side of an IP address or username actually is and in this case there has been an account, Rick A. Ross which you have said is not yours, active here as well so that calls for extra care. I am not saying this because I think you are other than who you say you are but only to illustrate why extra care must be taken. Wikipedia has set up a Volunteer Response Team for this type of situation. They are able to deal with personal information like identity verification and are much better equipped to handle this. They can modify article content based on private communication with the article subject although they are not required to and must, of course, stay within our content guidelines. I am sorry I was not able to help more. I will continue to watch this page and you can also reach me on my talk page if you have other issues or questions. The Volunteer Response Team can be reached via email at info-en@wikimedia.org. Cheers. JbhTalk 14:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- Now my identity has been verified. I previously raised the issue of consistency in Wikipedia policy. That is, why is former cult deprogrammer Steve Hassan's bio not governed by the same Wikipedia rules as my bio regarding the issue of involuntary deprogramming? If Mr. Hassan's statements suffice to support his Wikipedia entry regarding involuntary cult interventions "illegal methods"? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Hassan#Criticism why are mine somehow not relevant? I have not done an involuntary intervention with an adult for more than 20 years? And this fact is supported by interviews, articles and public statements. Please restore this historical fact to my bio in the lead and at the Jason Scott case section.RickAlanRoss1952 (talk) 12:24, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Mr. Ross: My apologies. I misunderstood the term of art "involuntary". I do understand your frustration but in this case two other editors, whose experience I respect, have said we should have an independent reliable source which says you stopped and even if I were fully convinced of your position the best that could be done is try to seek a wider consensus from other experienced editors. Wikipedia works on a consensus model so no editor can change an article by fiat. This generally works for us but can sometimes be an issue, particularly on some biographies.
IP editors pretending to be Rick Alan Ross
- OK, I think it is about time to discontinue allowing exceptions to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Rick Alan Ross instructed and restricted. IP editors pretending to be Rick Alan Ross, are all presumed to be socks of User:Rick Alan Ross, and should be blocked or at least reverted. If Mr. Rick Alan Ross has trouble living with that situation, he can contact ArbCom. For new editors to this page that may come as a surprise, but there's precedent. Tons of it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- Wow, had no idea that case or restriction existed. Totally agree with you Francis. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for the link. It did not occur to me to check editing restrictions. JbhTalk 17:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- I've taken this to ArbCom before as a clarification request, and it was closed as no action taken, even when we raised the issue of him editing as an IP. If his edits themselves are problematic, then feel free, but pure bureaucratic actions such as this are not going to result in action, and are going to just go round in circles especially as this was raised before. Mdann52 (talk) 20:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- There's nothing "pure bureaucratic" about this. I think I was the last one to try get this sorted out at WP:ARCA. ArbCom didn't ammend the original remedy regarding the editor, which means, as of 19 June 2015, the original remedy is in place unammended. Rick Alan Ross had all his chances to explain etc.
- The reason is that it is getting disruptive again: the anon accounts accusing the named accounts of "not being the real Mr Ross", although all the accounts, anon and named, exhibit the same disruptive editing patterns: taking large chunks of time of fellow editors asking for edits, that in the end, can only be sourced to Mr. Ross' website. Mr. Ross knows how to file a COI edit request, but can't accept refusal to implement, then wanders off to yet another message board, with a new IP address, and the whole story repeats.
- The solution is simple: Mr. Ross chooses a named account, and only edits with that account. ArbCom knew that in 2009, ArbCom knew that in June 2015. But what do we get instead? Gaming the system, block evasion, and IP's contending not to know how they can log in. Time to stop the repetitive patterns that take a lot of time but go nowhere: after each cycle there's agreement on applying content policy, but with each cycle editors have lost sizeable portions of time that could have been spent in a more productive fashion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:38, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
- DoneRickAlanRoss1952 (talk) 13:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- I've taken this to ArbCom before as a clarification request, and it was closed as no action taken, even when we raised the issue of him editing as an IP. If his edits themselves are problematic, then feel free, but pure bureaucratic actions such as this are not going to result in action, and are going to just go round in circles especially as this was raised before. Mdann52 (talk) 20:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Involuntary deprogramming
I have made many public statements since the Jason Scott Case (1990) that I no longer do involuntary deprogramming with adults. This fact is supported by press articles that explain in some detail voluntary interventions and is also further historically supported by both the Cult Education Institute database and also within my book "Cults Inside Out: How People Get In and Can Get Out" in various chapters. See the following links:
http://www.culteducation.com/prep_faq.html#Deprogramming
http://www.amazon.com/Cults-Inside-Out-How-People/dp/149731660X
http://gothamist.com/2005/07/18/rick_ross_cult_expert.php
http://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2004/dec/12/features.magazine137
This fact should be restored to the bio. That is, that "Rick Ross no longer does involuntary interventions with adults." It seems deliberately misleading not to include this historical fact, which was in the bio previously for some time.RickAlanRoss1952 (talk) 13:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- There no independent, reliable source that says "Rick Ross no longer does involuntary interventions with adults" without such a source that is not going to be placed in the article period. You have been told this many times by several editors. It is possible to use an attributed claim ie "Rick Ross says that he no longer does involuntary deprogramming on adults" and put it in the Jason Scott section where the issue comes up. To do that an independent reliable source needs to at least note you have made that claim. I am basing this on the discussion had with other editors above where Francis Schonken says "the changed appreciation regarding (forcible) deprogramming is some sort of apologetics (=self-serving), unduly so, or at least "exceptional", when no independent reliable source has noted a changed behaviour pattern in this respect, or at least has recorded the subject claims it. (Emp. mine) I do not think an attributed claim should be in the lead - personally I think the lead needs to be cut way down - essentially remove everything except the first paragraph.
What I will do is ask another editor I know who is good with this kind of sticky WP:BLP issue to come here and look at the question. I can neither promise his opinion will be different from what has been expressed here nor that I, or anyone else, will agree with him if it is. Pinging @Collect: JbhTalk 13:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- No problem involved in making the statement as you worded it - and I trust Mr. Ross would accept it as being clearly usable. Such a claim, however, can use an SPS - as a person is an acceptable source for his own statement. Collect (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thank youRickAlanRoss1952 (talk) 14:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- @RickAlanRoss1952 - Do you have a reference to use for a statement in the form of 'Rick Ross says (in some source) that he no longer performs involuntary deprogramming of adults', a direct quote of a published source, like an interview, would be perfect or a quote from your book? This would be placed in the Jason Scott section where it is relevant to the topic. Please give the source and the text which supports the statement if it is from a book please give page the page number. @Jytdog and Francis Schonken: you both commented on this before do you have any comment on the use of a clearly attributed claim placed in the Jason Scott section? JbhTalk 15:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- No problem for me. "Ross claims that...", with as reference a link to a source self-published by Mr. Ross that contains the claim as mentioned in Wikipedia would pass WP:BLPSELFPUB. Not in the lede seems preferable. "claims to abstain from forcible deprogramming on adults" is also not the redflag/self-serving part I had in mind when writing what is quoted above: if Mr. Ross would have said the opposite ("I continue to put myself liable for exorbitant indemnity claims" or something of the kind) that would be an absolute redflag. What Wikipedia can't say is what kind of deprogramming Mr. Ross did or did not do since the Scott case, unless what is in independent reliable sources. Also since when Mr Ross claims to have abstained from this type of deprogramming is something that would be more difficult to put in Wikipedia, while it cannot be sourced directly to a (primary) source, it would involve some WP:OR deduction and interpretation via the wayback machine etc (or an interview on a blog) afaik. Unless Mr. Ross writes it in his "Inside Out" book, in which case we should have at least a page number (and preferably also a quote of the exact wording, as Google books doesn't allow a preview for this book. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- There are two places within the book "Cults Inside Out" where this is discussed very specifically, within the Introduction (page XIV) and in the chapter (page 196) "The History of Cult-Intervention Work." Perhaps the quote at page 196 is good as it is brief. "I no longer do involuntary cult-intervention work with adults, though such an involuntary intervention for minor children remains completely legal in the United States when it is under the direct supervision of their legal guardian or custodial parents." In the introduction I also state, "I no longer reommend that any family consider such an approach due to the legal consequences." I have made such statements publicly and repeatedly in media interviews since the Scott case, which took place more than 20 years ago.RickAlanRoss1952 (talk) 17:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- There is a quote in the book that is visible online through Amazon.com at http://www.amazon.com/Cults-Inside-Out-How-People/dp/149731660X It's in the Introduction on page XV, "My limited involuntary intervention work with adults ended more than twenty years ago. I do only intervention work on a voluntary basis unless the cult-involved individual is a minor child."RickAlanRoss1952 (talk) 17:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Gave it a try. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- It's just a bit difficult to understand. Perhaps, "Since the Scott case Ross states that he has stopped doing involuntary cult-intervention work with adults, and advised against such involuntary interventions with adults due to the legal consequences." Also, there should be a fully attributed footnote that provides more than just name and page number.RickAlanRoss1952 (talk) 17:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Re. rewording to more fluent English, I'd defer to native English speakers (I'm not).
- So you'd leave out the "advised against..." part (or did I get that wrong)?
- Re footnote content: usually when the full source is listed below (as is the case for this book), a "short" reference (author, date, page) suffises (compare Biographies of Johann Sebastian Bach#References, a page I've been working on lately - refs are mixed "full refs" for e.g. magazine articles, with "short refs" that need looking further down). --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- No the footnotes are incorrect. You cite from above in the footnote section not from a link below. First there should be a full citation and then either Ibid, with page number, if it's different, or the footnote can be made shorter, but not as you have done. Per the format that seems to be is use at the page it should be as follows:
- It's just a bit difficult to understand. Perhaps, "Since the Scott case Ross states that he has stopped doing involuntary cult-intervention work with adults, and advised against such involuntary interventions with adults due to the legal consequences." Also, there should be a fully attributed footnote that provides more than just name and page number.RickAlanRoss1952 (talk) 17:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Gave it a try. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- There is a quote in the book that is visible online through Amazon.com at http://www.amazon.com/Cults-Inside-Out-How-People/dp/149731660X It's in the Introduction on page XV, "My limited involuntary intervention work with adults ended more than twenty years ago. I do only intervention work on a voluntary basis unless the cult-involved individual is a minor child."RickAlanRoss1952 (talk) 17:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- There are two places within the book "Cults Inside Out" where this is discussed very specifically, within the Introduction (page XIV) and in the chapter (page 196) "The History of Cult-Intervention Work." Perhaps the quote at page 196 is good as it is brief. "I no longer do involuntary cult-intervention work with adults, though such an involuntary intervention for minor children remains completely legal in the United States when it is under the direct supervision of their legal guardian or custodial parents." In the introduction I also state, "I no longer reommend that any family consider such an approach due to the legal consequences." I have made such statements publicly and repeatedly in media interviews since the Scott case, which took place more than 20 years ago.RickAlanRoss1952 (talk) 17:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- @RickAlanRoss1952 - Do you have a reference to use for a statement in the form of 'Rick Ross says (in some source) that he no longer performs involuntary deprogramming of adults', a direct quote of a published source, like an interview, would be perfect or a quote from your book? This would be placed in the Jason Scott section where it is relevant to the topic. Please give the source and the text which supports the statement if it is from a book please give page the page number. @Jytdog and Francis Schonken: you both commented on this before do you have any comment on the use of a clearly attributed claim placed in the Jason Scott section? JbhTalk 15:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thank youRickAlanRoss1952 (talk) 14:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- No problem involved in making the statement as you worded it - and I trust Mr. Ross would accept it as being clearly usable. Such a claim, however, can use an SPS - as a person is an acceptable source for his own statement. Collect (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Ross, Rick Alan (2014). Cults Inside Out: How People Get In and Can Get Out, CreateSpace Publishing p. 196 ISBN-13: 978-1497316607 and the second footnote would be -- Ross, Cults Inside Out, p. XIV or if it's directly below it could be -- Ibid, p. XIVRickAlanRoss1952 (talk) 20:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- I simplified the language some. I am open to other wording though. JbhTalk 18:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- I think this will work a bit better, "After the Scott case Ross says he stopped involuntary cult-intervention work with adults[36] and now advises families against such interventions due to the legal consequences.[37]"RickAlanRoss1952 (talk) 20:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- We'd try to avoid "now" in sentences. "In his 2014 book Ross advises..." (or something in that vein) would work ("now" would need to be revised every now and then, with a date indication it can stay put ...) --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- OK. So how about this -- "In his 2014 book Ross states that he gave up involuntary cult intervention work more than twenty years ago, and now advises families against such interventions due to the legal consequences." See previous link to Amazon to view page XV in Introduction.RickAlanRoss1952 (talk) 20:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- We'd try to avoid "now" in sentences. "In his 2014 book Ross advises..." (or something in that vein) would work ("now" would need to be revised every now and then, with a date indication it can stay put ...) --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- I think this will work a bit better, "After the Scott case Ross says he stopped involuntary cult-intervention work with adults[36] and now advises families against such interventions due to the legal consequences.[37]"RickAlanRoss1952 (talk) 20:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- I simplified the language some. I am open to other wording though. JbhTalk 18:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
I think at this point we are getting into nitpicking. If you have other issues to address you might want to consider we are volunteers here and 'crafting' is likely to wear thin very quickly. Just my two cents, others may feel differently. JbhTalk 00:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- I tweaked the sentence structure a bit. Unless the tweaking introduced factual errors I'm finished tweaking. JbhTalk 00:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. It's fine. Can the footnotes be fixed?Rick Alan Ross (talk) 13:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Lead
Thanks. I also agree with your previous suggestion that the lead be cut to only the first paragraph. And I think "author" should be added to the first sentence concerning what I do.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- I have some RL things I need to keep my eyes on, I will take a look at the article sometime in the next couple of days. If I have not posted something here by Monday ping me. JbhTalk 17:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 22:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- I have read through the lead and article again while considering WP:LEAD. While I do not really like the way the lead reads right now I think the information contained in it is a fair summary of the article and should stay. I was wrong about just cutting the last paragraphs. As I have time in the next several days I will see if I can come up with text that reads better. I think that it is likely the lead uses the staccato presentation it does is it is difficult to cover the necessary points in a concise and NPOV manner any other way.
'Author' is already in the opening sentence. JbhTalk 14:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- <g> I added "author" as being exceptionally non-controversial. And yes - I do think short declarative sentences work here - the florid style used in the past on too many Wikipedia articles is ill-suited to the huge amount of mobile views dominating the future. Collect (talk) 14:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you. Hopefully soon the lead will be cut to just the first paragraph, a suggestions offered by another editor that makes practical sense.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Rick Alan Ross. The 'other editor' was me and as I said above I reconsidered that idea. The material in the lead should stand. There may be a way to make it read better but per our guidelines for article leads the lead should summarize the material in the article. The text as it stands does that. I would like to get it to read better but I may not be able to come up with anything. JbhTalk 18:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you. Hopefully soon the lead will be cut to just the first paragraph, a suggestions offered by another editor that makes practical sense.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- <g> I added "author" as being exceptionally non-controversial. And yes - I do think short declarative sentences work here - the florid style used in the past on too many Wikipedia articles is ill-suited to the huge amount of mobile views dominating the future. Collect (talk) 14:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- I have read through the lead and article again while considering WP:LEAD. While I do not really like the way the lead reads right now I think the information contained in it is a fair summary of the article and should stay. I was wrong about just cutting the last paragraphs. As I have time in the next several days I will see if I can come up with text that reads better. I think that it is likely the lead uses the staccato presentation it does is it is difficult to cover the necessary points in a concise and NPOV manner any other way.
- Thank you.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 22:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
There is a problem with the first sentence. I still do cult intervention work, so I am not formerly a cult intervention specialist. The first sentence might be changed to read -- "Rick Alan Ross (born 1952) is an author, consultant, expert witness, lecturer and cult intervention specialist."Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- I will take a look at that as I try to reword things. JbhTalk 18:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. I also think your suggestion of cutting the lead down to just the first paragraph is a good idea.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 12:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Last paragraph of lead about Scott case
It seems to me that the last paragraph in the lead is not clear enough in summarizing the beginning, middle and the ending of the Scott case historically. I suggest the language be clearer and the ultimate end settlement included. For example, "Ross was criminally charged over the 1991 forcible deprogramming of Jason Scott, but found not guilty at trial. Subsequently Ross lost a civil lawsuit filed by Scott, which drove him into bankruptcy. But Scott later fired his Scientology-linked lawyer and settled with Ross."Rick Alan Ross (talk) 20:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- Uninvolved but interested editor here, I was brought here from the BLP Noticeboard. I see no problem with the current wording and understand well the beginning, middle, and end of the case by reading it. I understand that it must be frustrating to have an article about you that doesn't portray exactly all the ways you've been hurt, but your suggestion includes adding extra detail I don't really see as necessary to get a concise view of the facts (as is the point of a lead). Maybe other editors disagree with me, but I don't see grounds for making this change at this time. Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors 20:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors. As I said above the lead summarizes the body of the article. We do not put all of the details up front.
You said over on COIN that there were factual errors. What are they? JbhTalk 20:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- The factual error in the first sentence has been corrected. The problem with the third paragraph in the lead is that it does not include any mention of the final settlement. Also the wording is not very precise so that readers can easily follow the progression of events in the lead. I suggest this change -- Ross was criminally charged over the 1991 forcible deprogramming of Jason Scott, but found not guilty at trial. Subsequently Scott filed a civil lawsuit, which ended in a large judgement that forced Ross into bankruptcy. Scott later settled with Ross.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 16:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @Rick Alan Ross: That material is in the Scott section. Repeating it in the lead is not needed and summarizing "the beginning middle and end of the Scott case" is not the purpose of the lead. Typically we would use just "He was charged over the 1991 forcible deprogramming of Jason Scott." as part of the second paragraph just like we do with the other material. The "He was found not guilty in the criminal case" was, I believe, put there due to an abundance of care for our WP:BLP policy and "but a subsequent civil lawsuit resulted in a large judgement against him, leading to bankruptcy" was then needed to say there was a follow-on case - so readers are not left with the incorrect impression the "not guilty" ended the matter. How that case was resolved is for the body of the article. If I am way off on this I am sure one of the several other editors watching this page will chime in.
Very few people will like how an NPOV article about their life reads. I know I would be horrified having my biography on Wikipedia. We try very hard to make sure our biography articles accurately reflect what reliable third party sources have to say about the subject and will try to correct documented factual errors brought to our attention by the article subject. Subjects, however, do not have editorial control over their articles. Are there any other factual errors in the article you are concerned about? JbhTalk 16:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- Any opinions from watchers on "Ross later settled with Scott" in the lead? I think we are already talking about the Scott case too much in the lead. Maybe something like "Ross was
engageda defendant in a series of court cased related to the forcible deprogramming of Jason Scott in 1991." That pushes all the details into the body. I could use some input from others on this. Thanks. JbhTalk 16:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)- I think if you cut it that much it would be specifically accurate to say -- "Ross was a defendant in two notable court cases linked to the 1991 forcible deprogramming of Jason Scott." There were two court cases, which seems more accurate than saying "series of court cases"Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- Any opinions from watchers on "Ross later settled with Scott" in the lead? I think we are already talking about the Scott case too much in the lead. Maybe something like "Ross was
- (edit conflict) @Rick Alan Ross: That material is in the Scott section. Repeating it in the lead is not needed and summarizing "the beginning middle and end of the Scott case" is not the purpose of the lead. Typically we would use just "He was charged over the 1991 forcible deprogramming of Jason Scott." as part of the second paragraph just like we do with the other material. The "He was found not guilty in the criminal case" was, I believe, put there due to an abundance of care for our WP:BLP policy and "but a subsequent civil lawsuit resulted in a large judgement against him, leading to bankruptcy" was then needed to say there was a follow-on case - so readers are not left with the incorrect impression the "not guilty" ended the matter. How that case was resolved is for the body of the article. If I am way off on this I am sure one of the several other editors watching this page will chime in.
- The factual error in the first sentence has been corrected. The problem with the third paragraph in the lead is that it does not include any mention of the final settlement. Also the wording is not very precise so that readers can easily follow the progression of events in the lead. I suggest this change -- Ross was criminally charged over the 1991 forcible deprogramming of Jason Scott, but found not guilty at trial. Subsequently Scott filed a civil lawsuit, which ended in a large judgement that forced Ross into bankruptcy. Scott later settled with Ross.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 16:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors. As I said above the lead summarizes the body of the article. We do not put all of the details up front.
I have made the 'defendant' edit. Since I asked for input from others but did not really wait very long it is possible the change will be reverted. I have some RL work that will cause my attention here to be sporadic for a couple of days and I wanted to deal with the lead so it did not slip my mind. JbhTalk 17:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks that's fine, but I suggest that the word "his" be changed to -- the -- as I was hired by Jason Scott's mother to do the intervention.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 19:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- I actually changed it from "the" to "his" when I added the text because you were the one who performed the forcible deprogramming. Using "the" removes the actor (you) from the action (the forcible deprogramming) and in that sense it is a weasel word, which is something we avoid when stating something in Wikipedia's voice. JbhTalk 20:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- Seems like a POV. It should be NPOV don't you think? There were a number of actors, most importantly Jason's mother who hired everyone and initiated the action.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 21:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- Others are welcome to chime in but I have explained my view. JbhTalk 21:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yes it reflects your point of view. My concern is that it is not NPOV.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 11:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- I understand that. However, as I said above, I believe it is. To disassociate actor from action is to show bias because it implies the actor was somehow a passive participant. The way I understand the case you are the one who did the forcible deprogramming, you directed it and you were the only professional involved. It was not a group of professionals acting in committee or concert. Is this incorrect?
Here is a hypothetical to illustrate what I mean. Say there is a neurosurgeon, Bob, a minor patient Eve and her mother Molly and Bob's surgical team Adam and Claire. Bob, being very talented, has developed a surgical technique that can save Eve's life and he does the surgery. If there was a court case resulting from this we would use his operation on Eve for Bob because he was the responsible party while we would use the operation with Adam, Claire and Molly. If there were another surgeon, David, working as a partner making decisions about the operation we could use his part for both Bob and David. Does that make sense? JbhTalk 12:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Interesting analogy, but not exactly applicable. You are incorrect in that a cult intervention is typically a family intervention, which involves much more active participation and a group of people acting in concert. Jason's mother Kathy actually planned everything, including the pick-up, rental of the safe house, etc. Kathy also hired and paid for the security team. Kathy, Jason's two brothers and a close family friend all attended and actively participated in the intervention process. They also helped to provide security by watching Jason. Both of Jason's brothers had previously been successfully deprogrammed. The first jury in the criminal trial found me not guilty because they felt the mother should have been charged as she was principally responsible. The second jury in the civil trial didn't seem to care about that fact and awarded the highest judgement against me.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- The short answer is, in my editorial opinion, the professional in that situation is the 'primary actor' and distancing them from the action with "the" is a form of whitewashing. To be blunt if you did not feel "the"
did notpresented you in a better light than "his" you would not be so adamant about changing the word but from Wikipedia's point of view 'neutral' and 'better' are not necessarily the same thing if the change can mislead a reader - in this case minimizing your involvement in something you were in charge of. The lead has been softened as much as I am willing to do the details of the Scott case are addressed in the body rather than the lead to avoid bringing undue attention to the bankruptcy which I felt it was doing in the earlier version. You can, of course, make your case at the Neutral Point-of-view Noticeboard if you wish. I will make the same argument there as here and I expect the result will be the same.Please notify me if/when you open a noticeboard discussion about this article, it keeps me from needing to search through my watch list. It is also proper to post a notice on the article talk page when you open a thread relating to it on any noticeboard. That lets those editors who do not watch the drama boards but do watch the article talk page know what is going on and be able to participate if the want to. Thank you. JbhTalk 18:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC) Changed sentence structure to better present point and added material to better present my position. JbhTalk 00:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- The facts do not support your conclusion. Jason's mother Kathy hired me and was in charge. She determined that an intervention would take place, when it would take place and that it would be involuntary. She determined who would be involved, hired everyone, planned the pick-up, rented the safe house and determined the duration of the intervention and when and how it would end. I was not in control, nor was I the principal player or actor. I worked for Kathy as did others involved. As per any family intervention Kathy and her two sons, Jason's brothers, were very active in the intervention process. I don't quite understand why insist upon this word "his" which cannot be supported by the facts either reported in the press in news articles footnoted or per the court record. Changing it to "the" makes perfect sense and does not exclude my involvement, which is detailed elsewhere in the Jason Scott section of the bio. It is not a "weasel word" as you previously said, but rather correct and fact based.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 13:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- The short answer is, in my editorial opinion, the professional in that situation is the 'primary actor' and distancing them from the action with "the" is a form of whitewashing. To be blunt if you did not feel "the"
- Interesting analogy, but not exactly applicable. You are incorrect in that a cult intervention is typically a family intervention, which involves much more active participation and a group of people acting in concert. Jason's mother Kathy actually planned everything, including the pick-up, rental of the safe house, etc. Kathy also hired and paid for the security team. Kathy, Jason's two brothers and a close family friend all attended and actively participated in the intervention process. They also helped to provide security by watching Jason. Both of Jason's brothers had previously been successfully deprogrammed. The first jury in the criminal trial found me not guilty because they felt the mother should have been charged as she was principally responsible. The second jury in the civil trial didn't seem to care about that fact and awarded the highest judgement against me.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- I understand that. However, as I said above, I believe it is. To disassociate actor from action is to show bias because it implies the actor was somehow a passive participant. The way I understand the case you are the one who did the forcible deprogramming, you directed it and you were the only professional involved. It was not a group of professionals acting in committee or concert. Is this incorrect?
- Yes it reflects your point of view. My concern is that it is not NPOV.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 11:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Others are welcome to chime in but I have explained my view. JbhTalk 21:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- Seems like a POV. It should be NPOV don't you think? There were a number of actors, most importantly Jason's mother who hired everyone and initiated the action.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 21:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- I actually changed it from "the" to "his" when I added the text because you were the one who performed the forcible deprogramming. Using "the" removes the actor (you) from the action (the forcible deprogramming) and in that sense it is a weasel word, which is something we avoid when stating something in Wikipedia's voice. JbhTalk 20:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks that's fine, but I suggest that the word "his" be changed to -- the -- as I was hired by Jason Scott's mother to do the intervention.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 19:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
As I have said, I disagree. I understand that you want your biography to show you in the best possible light but that is not the job of Wikipedia nor is it the place to re-litigate the facts of the case. Wikipedia is supposed to document without improper bias. I have used my best editorial judgement to summarize this part of the article in the lede and I have explained my reasoning to you. Without independent reliable sources that provide additional information saying a) you are not a professional de-programmer b) you were not hired specifically for your expertise c) someone else planned the intervention, without your expert input etc. my view will remain the same. Since a-c are counter to the known facts of the case, or at least what I have gleaned from Jason Scott case, I do not see my view as likely to change on this matter. I did a quick check for sources [1][2] to make sure I am not completely off base in my reasoning and while I could not find anything directly on point I did find that the deprogramming team is referred to as yours which, in my view, supports my surgical team analogy. You can bring the issue up at the Neutral Point-of-view Noticeboard and we can get other opinions on this, maybe someone can come up with better wording, and I will follow consensus.
Barring your dispute with this wording are there any factual errors in the article now?
References
- ^ "
The Rise and Fall of "Deprogramming" In the United States".International Coalition for Religious Freedom....Jason Scott's abduction by deprogrammer Rick Ross and his team... // ... that Ross conducted involuntary deprogrammings. - ^ Kent, Stephen A. "Exit Counseling and the Decline of Deprogramming". International Cultic Studies Association.
...Ross, his deprogramming team..
JbhTalk 15:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- I suppose this can be discussed at the BLP board. I don't disagree with you completely, but feel "the" is more precise and factually appropriate word to use. Let's get some additional feedback. There are some remaining issues in the Waco section regarding the way it was edited and footnoted. I will be traveling for a couple of days. FYI the "International Coalition for Religious Freedom" was a cult front group that worked closely with Scientology. Rick Alan Ross (talk) 16:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- Ahh... thanks... I see they are related to Moon so are likely pretty biased on this. I struck that ref. It does not change my opinion but I it is an unfair source to quote in support. You might want to bring the issue up at the NPOV board to get fresh eyes and because the question is more related to our NPOV policy than our BLP policy, but I have no objection to either. JbhTalk 17:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- OK. I will get back to it in couple of days. There are problems with the Waco section and its citations as well.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 20:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Is it me or is there something strange about the subject of this article being the de-facto author of the article?
User:Jbhunley Looking at this talk page, I have a significant concern about the subject of the article being way too involved in the article. They are by any empirical measures a controversial figure and it seems like they are attempting to get others to whitewash the article of things they do not like. I would say the controversy is the primary reason they are even noteworthy and the kidnapping case -which is what it was- is one of the main reasons. Forceable deprogramming would rightly considered kidnapping today and the practice is no longer employed today in very large part because of the Jason Scott Case. Given the subject of the article makes a living in this field, I think there is a huge conflict of interest in them being this involved (and in having this much influence) in the article. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 21:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- First of all I requested that this bio be deleted, but that request was refused. I did not wish to be included here in Wikipedia, which is an open source website not a professionally edited and published research resource per its disclaimer. Having said that I am here at the Talk page of my bio because people use it to attack me and/or denigrate my work. The primary reason I am noteworthy is not the Scott case, which occurred more than 20 years ago. I have been interviewed for every major cult story by the mainstream media in the US and internationally for decades. My court work as an expert witness in eleven states has included major judgements for my clients including a $6.5 million dollar judgement linked to the Fellowship of Friends in California (2008) and a wrongful death settlement of $1.5 million paid by Jehovah's Witnesses (2003). I was also qualified and accepted as a court expert in the prosecution of self-help guru James Arthur Ray who was convicted of negligent homicide (2011). I have been invited to lecture at about 30 universities and colleges, participated in 14 documentaries, 12 since the Scott case. I continue to do intervention work and have done hundreds of voluntary interventions across the US and internationally since 1995. My involuntary intervention work with adults was brief, including very few cases and ended more than 25 years ago. But most of all I am known for the database rickross.com, launched in 1996, which is now culteducation.com. This is why my critics come here to use this bio to attack me. They are typically angry about a group or leader that is somehow included in the database and they want to retaliate. I am also the author of "Cults Inside Out" (2014), which has been translated and published in Chinese with another language version now pending. I discuss the Jason Scott case in my book, but it is rarely mentioned by any of the journalists, researchers or reporters that call me on an ongoing basis. FYI -- There was never a "kidnapping" charge regarding the Scott case, Jason's mother did not kidnap her own son and hold him for ransom. Kathy Tonkin, Jason Scott's mother, simply wanted to talk to Jason without group interference, which at that time was otherwise impossible. Kathy understood that the intervention would only last a few days and that Jason would ultimately decide to leave or stay in the group.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Elmmapleoakpine: Oh.. I quite agree that having the subject involved in their own biography article id far from ideal. As I understand it there was a lot of disruption and BLP violation going on here in the past, including impersonation of the subject by both IP and deceptive account names. There have been several discussions at WP:BLPN and WP:COIN about Rick Ross's involvement here as well. He has stuck to the talk page and while he suffers a bit from WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT he has not been, in my time here, particularly disruptive. So long as he stays compliant with out policies and guidelines he is as welcome to be here as any other editor.
I came to this article via BLPN before I had any idea of the ArbCom history here. When I got here there were enough issues of BLP concern being brought up by Rick Ross that I, along with a couple others worked with him. I think the others have drifted off for their own reasons though and I feel it would be wrong to leave the subject of a biography who has concerns about it 'in the cold' so to speak. I have tried to keep any changes well within our guidelines while remembering this one of the first pages that a search throws up on a real person. That said another perspective here would be very welcome as would a discussion of any edits that concern you. Cheers. JbhTalk 23:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Elmmapleoakpine: Would you please take a bit to time to explain what you object to in the part you reverted? The logic I used to remove the details of the Scott case out of the lead was based on due and NPOV. If we just mention the criminal case then the 'not guilty' gets mentioned but not the fact that a civil suite found him culpable - giving positive bias to the lede. If we discuss the results of the criminal, the civil and the resulting bankruptcy there is a negative bias because it was settled. If we discuss all three we are giving UNDUE weight to the case in the lede. Do you have any ideas on how to address that. Also note, the civil case was held up on appeal which is not mentioned in the Scott section. It was this which led to the bankruptcy. So maybe we can just say
He was charged with unlawful imprisonment over the 1991 forcible deprogramming of Jason Scott. He was found not guilty in the criminal case, but a subsequent civil lawsuit resulted in a multi-million judgement against Ross and his co-defendants.
What is your opinion? JbhTalk 01:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you @Jbhunley:- I think what you wrote is a great compromise and works really well. My concern was expressed in the comment I made to open this section. Also Since it was mentioned in the section above, I will also offer that I think that the Waco section is really well sourced. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 19:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- The lead now has a beginning, a middle but omits the final ending, which was so shocking it was widely reported by the Washington Post and other news sources. CBS "60 Minutes" and American Lawyer did reports about Scientology's involvement in the Scott case. The settlement was shocking because a $3 Million dollar judgement was sold by Jason Scott to me for $5,000 and 200 hours of my professional time as a cult deprogrammer. Scott largely settled for the same services that he sued me over. None of this is mentioned in any way in the lead, which remains incomplete as a summary. I suggest the following -- Ross was criminally charged with unlawful imprisonment over the 1991 forcible deprogramming of Jason Scott, but found not guilty at trial. Later a civil lawsuit resulted in a multi-million verdict against him. Jason Scott sold that judgement to Ross for $5,000 and 200 hours of his services. This summarizes what actually happened succinctly and accurately. Many people probably don't bother to read past the lead.
- Thank you @Jbhunley:- I think what you wrote is a great compromise and works really well. My concern was expressed in the comment I made to open this section. Also Since it was mentioned in the section above, I will also offer that I think that the Waco section is really well sourced. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 19:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Regarding Waco -- Citing scholars, for example James R. Lews and James Tabor, who either worked with new religious movements (NRM) called cults or repeatedly demonstrated a bias towards them is not NPOV and represents stacking the deck towards a POV. Both the civil and criminal court proceedings after Waco, Congressional Reports and hearings, Independent Danforth Report do not reflect the cited scholars very biased POV about Waco. What is significant, but obscured by some editing in the Waco section is that Nancy Ammerman, who actually reviewed the FBI notes and reported to the Justice Department, directly contradicted the FBI statement that the FBI did not seek my advice. She criticized them for doing so and then she rather selectively cited and interpreted portions of the FBI notes about me according to her bias. BTW--Ammerman was later touted as an expert in a full-page article within Scientology's "Freedom Magazine" after Waco. The scholars now cited about Waco reflect a narrow pro NRM/cults POV.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 13:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not about personal narratives. The sources in this section are secondary and reliable. The authors of the sources (I count 5 of them), Ammerman, Lewis, Wright, Tabor and Chryssides are cited in reference to Waco in more places than I can count. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 21:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- I must agree here. If you have other independent, third party reliable sources which say something else please present them so they can be considered. As Elmmapleoakpine has brought up, I am becoming increasingly uncomfortable with you trying to massage the article to your point of view. I am willing to address factual inaccuracies and issues which may violate our WP:BLP policy. I am not willing to go examine each and every reference for some hidden agenda nor do you get "source approval". If you want to challenge a particular source please bring it up at the Reliable sources noticeboard. Thank you. JbhTalk 23:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
refs in lead - MoS says we do not need to repeat cites found in the article proper
Self-explanatory. Collect (talk) 14:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Further Reading
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In the section at the bottom titled -- Further Reading -- some of my writings are listed in books. It seems to me that my book "Cults Inside Out: How People Get In and Can Get Out" should be included.
Ross, Rick (2014). Cults Inside Out: How People Get In and Can Get Out. CreateSpace Publishing. ISBN 978-1497316607.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 15:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Rick Alan Ross: that book is already listed in the citations. We only list books for 'further reading' if they are both relevant to the subject and have not already been cited in the text. JbhTalk 16:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- Francis Schonken solved the matter in a creative way by splitting off the source listings. JbhTalk 17:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- Don't quite understand your edit. Why would you do it this way rather than add to Further Reading?Rick Alan Ross (talk) 19:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- As I said, we do not duplicate cited references in the further reading section. Francis Schonken broke out the source to give it more prominence since it is your book. I do not fully agree with doing that but since your other books are listed prominently in the further reading section I do not see any harm in in it either. JbhTalk 19:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- User:Jbhunley for what it is worth I actually think the whole further reading section is self-promotional and part of the pattern I pointed out earlier. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Elmmapleoakpine: I am not enamored with the listings but they are not really different from every other author's page which lists the books they wrote. I have no question Rick Ross is here to promote himself and do his best to make the article as favorable as possible. My personal opinion is we should only address documented factual errors and and WP:BLP violations when working with the subject of a biography and I would not have chosen to break the book out in a separate "Sources" section to give it equal prominence to those in the "Further reading" section I just do not feel strongly enough about it to revert another editor who has been involved with the article. Combined with the "Further reading" it is not really different from mentioning the books in the body of the article. Do you have a preferred way to deal with the books? JbhTalk 01:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- I am here because historically my Wikipedia bio has been used by various cult members and others with an axe to grind as a place for propaganda and personal attacks. Anyone who researches the history of this bio can see that. My first concern is false and misleading statements, which has largely been addressed. Other than that all I expect is fair and equal treatment. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Hassan Note the bibliography section and references. All Hassan's books are listed under Bibliography and within References they are included with full citation. IMO Wikipedia must be consistent. I would like my book listed under Further Reading not Sources and the full citation to be restored at References. This is accurate, consistent, credible and fair and has nothing whatsoever to do with self promotion.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 15:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Elmmapleoakpine: I am not enamored with the listings but they are not really different from every other author's page which lists the books they wrote. I have no question Rick Ross is here to promote himself and do his best to make the article as favorable as possible. My personal opinion is we should only address documented factual errors and and WP:BLP violations when working with the subject of a biography and I would not have chosen to break the book out in a separate "Sources" section to give it equal prominence to those in the "Further reading" section I just do not feel strongly enough about it to revert another editor who has been involved with the article. Combined with the "Further reading" it is not really different from mentioning the books in the body of the article. Do you have a preferred way to deal with the books? JbhTalk 01:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- User:Jbhunley for what it is worth I actually think the whole further reading section is self-promotional and part of the pattern I pointed out earlier. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- As I said, we do not duplicate cited references in the further reading section. Francis Schonken broke out the source to give it more prominence since it is your book. I do not fully agree with doing that but since your other books are listed prominently in the further reading section I do not see any harm in in it either. JbhTalk 19:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- Don't quite understand your edit. Why would you do it this way rather than add to Further Reading?Rick Alan Ross (talk) 19:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- Francis Schonken solved the matter in a creative way by splitting off the source listings. JbhTalk 17:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- I have never suggested in any way, shape or form, nor do I imagine that I have any "editorial control." In fact I am relegated to the Talk section and can do nothing more than offer suggestions. I am not an editor and am only asking for accuracy, fairness and consistency. Please explain why at my bio under Further Reading my book is not included, but instead it is listed under Sources and the References citations have been cut. How is this consistent with the link to the other Wikipedia bio I posted? How does this specifically represent consistent and fair editing? BTW--I never wanted a bio about me at Wikipedia and did nothing to encourage it.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 22:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- Really? Once a document is used as a source it is not listed again in a "Further reading" section. Rules of the site that have been explained to you multiple times. I could give you the link to the guideline that says so, but really, put some effort into this, and maybe look up the rule for yourself. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- (e.c.) Here it is: WP:FURTHER: "The Further reading section ... should normally not duplicate the content of the References section..." – as none of the exceptions in that guideline apply, and in principle Mr. Ross is not advocating exceptions to what we normally do, we'll do it here like we normally do. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- Why put it under Sources? That is my question. And why is my bio done so differently and inconsistently than the other I posted a link to at Wikipedia. Please look at that bio and compare it to mine.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 22:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- Re. "Why put it under Sources?" – Really?? Because it is used as a source, evidently. Mr. Ross, please stop wasting our time on this topic. If your book attracted substantial press or the like we might list it in a "Bibliography" section above the references, but as long as there are no reliable sources attesting something of that kind, it stays under the references section as a "source" while it can be, and is, used as a source for the content of the article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- The book is published in Chinese and has been reported about in the press/media. But why is one bio in Wikipedia apparently functioning under a different set of editing rules than another? Can you explain that?Rick Alan Ross (talk) 22:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- Re. "Why put it under Sources?" – Really?? Because it is used as a source, evidently. Mr. Ross, please stop wasting our time on this topic. If your book attracted substantial press or the like we might list it in a "Bibliography" section above the references, but as long as there are no reliable sources attesting something of that kind, it stays under the references section as a "source" while it can be, and is, used as a source for the content of the article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- Really? Once a document is used as a source it is not listed again in a "Further reading" section. Rules of the site that have been explained to you multiple times. I could give you the link to the guideline that says so, but really, put some effort into this, and maybe look up the rule for yourself. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Wikipedia is a group of volunteer editors so the first thing you need to remember is everyone here is choosing to spend their time addressing the issues you raise to help you. The second is just because it is done one way in one article does not mean it will or should be done in another. Every article is set up under the same rules and guidelines and individual editors choose how to implement them. Nothing, to my knowledge, is violating those rules and guidelines however, you are asking us to do so.
I will be very blunt, You should limit your requests here to matters relating to factual errors and violations of our Policy on biographies of living persons. You are using a large amount of volunteer time on this type of request. Every editor must first be here to help build the encyclopedia you, quite obviously are here to watch your biography - that is OK but only within reason and you have hit the limit of what, in my opinion, is reasonable. The next step is to request, at WP:ANI, that your account be blocked as not being here to build the encyclopedia. I believe, based on the number of editors who have tried, unsuccessfully, to help you here that such a block would occur. At that point you would still be able to request help regarding WP:BLP violations and factual errors through WP:OTRS, which you have used before. JbhTalk 23:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Notability
The subject is notable for his involvement in the Jason Scott case and there are some mentions in primary sources about an unsolicited involvement in the Waco siege. So, it may conform to WP:GNG. Having said that, we now have an entire article based on limited sources (mainly the subject's website and some obscure sources), with content such as his working at his cousin's car-salvage company (now removed), and other material that may be deemed not notable at all. The article may benefit from a thorough cleanup, focused on the two notable aspects while removing material that is poorly sourced or not related to the notable aspects of the subject. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
I have attempted to clean up the article, hope others can help as well. His notability is directly related to the coverage about the Waco and Scott cases, there are no sources offered that attest notability as a consultant, author, expert witness, or lecturer. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- The lack of immediately verifiable notability is likely from the fact that most of his work in the field of deprogramming was done prior to the advent of the internet. I am personally familiar with his work from the 1980s and 1990s but don't recall seeing anything on him in recent years that could establish notability. Which is why I think there is a push for the new book to be placed in the article and his interest in getting the article up to a standard acceptable to him. I brought his involvement in the article to the COI noticeboard a couple of months ago, no one seemed concerned. Now we're dealing with that lack of concern over the report. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- Some people are notable for events that happened long ago, but that does not mean that any new non-notable activities and events have to be reported. If Ross was notable in the 80s and 90s for his work as a deprogrammer, the article should focus on that and avoid slating the article as a promotional tool for his endeavors. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- I have reworked the lede to reflect his notability. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
"claim" is a "word to avoid"
I had changed it per MoS to "saying" but someone in infinite wisdom reverted that change. I ask that the "word to avoid" be avoided. I note that "allege" is also on the "words to avoid" list.
- Words such as supposed, apparent, alleged and purported can imply that a given point is inaccurate, although alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial; when these are used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear.
- To write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence. Similarly, be judicious in the use of admit, confess, and deny, particularly of living people, because these verbs can convey guilt when that is not a settled matter.
As I am sure no one here would wish to use such language, I ask that "says" "saying" etc. be used rather than words which the Manual of Style calls "Words that may introduce bias". Collect (talk) 12:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
"with prejudice"
Now goes "around the barn" where I had given the exact link to Prejudice (legal term)#Civil law and it is now back to Prejudice (legal procedure)which is then redirected - but no to "Civil law" which is what readers will wish to see. Collect (talk) 12:21, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Recent changes
On the balance I think the recent changes made improve the article so I reverted the wholesale reversion of them. There may be individual changes that should be discussed or individually reverted. I have also collected the books Ross wrote into one section entitled 'Books'. It is a biographical fact he wrote these books but Wikipedia should not 'recommend' them as 'further reading'. Also, by doing this the reference to 'Ross (2014)' under 'References' can be easily identified.
Thanks to everyone who worked on this! Cheers. JbhTalk 14:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- Wrong on several levels:
- Wikipedia does not "recommend", but it is further reading on the topic, in books that pass vetting for inclusion.
- As such these are not "books" by Ross, just contributions to books by others
- etc... --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- Ah. I see. If they are just contributions then I would suggest that either they be collected with his one book under a heading of 'Publications' or the books his writings are in be listed in the 'Further reading' section without pointing to his specific article in that book unless his writings in them have been subject to outside note. JbhTalk 15:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- Nah, as I already said multiple times, the book didn't attract sufficient ouside views in reliable sources to be mentioned above the references section. I think the same goes for the contributions to books by others, so the "further reading" setup works fine. Although it should be explicited that it's only a chapter (or an introduction for one of the two instances) and not a book as such. That's just formatting, but it should be done too. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- Ah. I see. If they are just contributions then I would suggest that either they be collected with his one book under a heading of 'Publications' or the books his writings are in be listed in the 'Further reading' section without pointing to his specific article in that book unless his writings in them have been subject to outside note. JbhTalk 15:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Ross' book
Please stop removing Ross' book: it is used as a reference, so it should be named. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- If it is a reference, then keep it in the cite. There is no need to include it twice. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- Well, in the sources section where it belongs. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- Also, now it isn't even included once: two references refer to it but currently shox only "Ross 2014" with a page number, what "Ross 2014" refers to should be explicited in the sources section. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- Easily fixed: Instead of "Ross 2014" with a page number, use the full book cite in the ref. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) The way it is referenced in 'References' - as Ross (2014) - allows it to be in whatever section we use to list what he has written. The reader will not be confused there is no need for a break out section 'Sources' for one ref. JbhTalk 15:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- The "Sources" section is a better approach as to not repeat the book reference twice in a numbered ref. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- Make them a single ref. It is just for this sentence Ross said in his book, that after the Scott case he stopped involuntary cult-intervention work with adults,[27] and advised against such involuntary interventions with adults due to the possible legal consequences of such interventions.[28] - Cwobeel (talk) 15:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- The "Sources" section approach works too. That's the solution I'd apply. If you want to do it differently, go ahead. I just object to references that work being mutilated into something that doesn't work. The book shouldn't be removed from the sources section unless it is properly included in the references themselves. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- Please keep the page numbers. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:07, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- Make them a single ref. It is just for this sentence Ross said in his book, that after the Scott case he stopped involuntary cult-intervention work with adults,[27] and advised against such involuntary interventions with adults due to the possible legal consequences of such interventions.[28] - Cwobeel (talk) 15:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- The "Sources" section is a better approach as to not repeat the book reference twice in a numbered ref. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Website rename
Don't get this removal, so propose to undo:
The website was re-launched in 2013 as the Cult Education Institute (CEI). CEI is a non-profit institution and member of the American Library Association and the New Jersey Library Association.[1][2]
References
- ^ "About Us". Cult Education Institute. Retrieved 9 July 2014.
- ^ "The Ross Institute has officially changed its name". Cult News. 2013-08-02. Retrieved 9 July 2014.
--Francis Schonken (talk) 15:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- Regarding the institute rename / personal website, these aspects are supported by self-published sources and not notable, and unless we can find secondary sources that attest to their notability, they should be excluded from the article. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- Again, the notability of this person is related to his activities as a deprogrammer in the 80s and 90s. If later activities are notable, we should find substantial coverage in secondary sources. Wikipedia is not a resume. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- Rick Ross website is named in the article (and refs), so when the entity renames, that name change can be recorded in the article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
I removed the mention of the personal website from the lede, has this is unrelated to the subject's notability and as such has just a passing mention in the article's body. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
external links
Imho:
- Cult News: www
.cultnews .com
qualifies better in the EL section than:
- The Cult Education Institute: www
.culteducation .com
The first being rather the subject's personal website than the second (which should be mentioned in the article itself with a ref). --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- Right now CEI is in the infobox. Maybe replace it with Cult News and place CEI in external links? JbhTalk 15:21, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- That could work. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- Doesn't work, as, currently, cultnews rather qualifies as personal website than CEI website. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- Ummm... shouldn't the 'personal' website be the one in the infobox? This is a personal biography not an article on his organization. JbhTalk 15:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- Indeed, and the organization should be properly mentioned in the body, with a ref. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- Ummm... shouldn't the 'personal' website be the one in the infobox? This is a personal biography not an article on his organization. JbhTalk 15:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Further reading
What is the connection of the subject to the book listed in the further reading section? - Cwobeel (talk) 15:48, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
I can see that Ross is mentioned in a few pages, so if it would be best to use a a source if needed, otherwise omit. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Waco section
Nancy Ammerman offered claims or opinions characterizing my advice to the FBI. Note there are no direct quotations from the FBI notes only Ammerman's interpretation and/or characterization of the notes based upon her POV. These claims or opinions are not statements based upon established facts, but rather claims. Likewise other scholars offer similar claims about my work during the Waco Davidian standoff. It is not established that they ever read the FBI notes nor do they cite them. The only significant fact offered is that Ammerman did review FBI and BATF notes and she rejected the FBI statement that they "politely declined [my] unsolicited offers of assistance throughout the standoff." Notably Ammerman directly contradicts that statement based upon reading of the FBI notes and concludes that the FBI did rely upon me to some extent and she criticizes them for doing so. I don't think that claims and POV are edited with a NPOV based upon facts in the Waco section. Also, the claim that I have "a personal hatred for all religious cults" is a claim and characterization and not a fact.I never stated that during the acknowledged interview, which the FBI requested, nor do I think or feel that way. Destructive groups called "cults" vary greatly in the harm the do by degree and each group must be evaluated based upon its behavior accordingly. David Koresh was a particularly destructive cult leader and murderer who brutally beat and raped children. But all purported cult leaders are not the same. Many groups called "cults" are not even based on religion. I have stated this in many interviews this year and every year going back to the 1980s through the 1990s etc. And this year as recently as last month through various media outlets such as CNN, Sirius, the Hong Kong press and recently released documentaries. My book also explains this in great detail.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 16:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- Your book is a primary source, and as such, is not really considered a reliable source. The content on Ammerman is presented as her assessment based on FBI documents and is well referenced by reliable sources. There is no way that you (or your book) will be used as a reliable source above that of actual, verifiable, non-primary sources. The only thing that could be done is to quote you - from a source that quotes you - as refuting her statements. Please understand that the threshold for inclusion in a Wikipedia article - especially a WP:BLP - is verifiability over truth. Please read WP:VERIFY for more. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- I did not ask for my book to be used as a source regarding Waco. I suggest that Ammerman's claims, allegations and interpretations of FBI be identified as that rather than simply statements as if they are statements of fact. Ammerman expressed her POV, which reflects her bias. The same is true of other scholars (many closely associated with groups called "cults") referred to that offer their biased POV. The title of the section "Waco Siege" also reflects a POV and bias and is not NPOV. It would be NPOV to title the section Waco Davidians, David Koresh and the Waco Davidians, or simply the Waco Davidian standoff.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- You used your book as an example of why her statements are not factual, therefore, you are essentially saying we should use your book as proof that what she said is not true. Is there anything, anywhere, that proves what she said is not true (other than your book)? Further, it's pretty plain in the article that her comments are her own POV. There is nothing that prohibits Wikipedia and its associated editors from including content that is someone's POV. The only thing that would prohibit such is including content in Wiki-voice that is POV or commentary. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- I did not cite my book as a source. I cited what is on my Wikipedia bio page and placed in context. My point is that Ammerman is offering an opinion and characterization rather than facts. The editors that chose to include here statements without qualification are expressing their POV by selectively quoting Ammerman and others. There are other sources regarding the Waca Davidian standoff such as the Danforth Report, Treasury Report and Congressional hearings. The only significant thing about Ammerman is that she rebutted the FBI's claim that they did not rely upon me. Other than that she makes false characterizations of my advice and does not quote me per any report. Now someone has added " "Some even blame him for the disaster at Waco, Texas." This is a ridiculous claim. And the reporter that wrote the article knew that. Again, selective editing to slant the Waco section as much as possible.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 20:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Subjective statements are allowable on Wikipedia, provided they are presented without endorsement through POV voicing. Further, we cannot "qualify" statements by inserting our own interpretation of such quotes, as this would be blatant violation of some of our most important editorial policies (WP:Neutrality, WP:OR). The only method we can employ to contextualize the content is to utilize additional independent and secondary sources that meet our WP:RS standards. If you know of any such sources which meet these criteria and tend to balance what you see as an inaccurate characterization of the topic (that is, yourself), I encourage you to provide them and we can consider if they are appropriate. Snow let's rap 05:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
- I did not cite my book as a source. I cited what is on my Wikipedia bio page and placed in context. My point is that Ammerman is offering an opinion and characterization rather than facts. The editors that chose to include here statements without qualification are expressing their POV by selectively quoting Ammerman and others. There are other sources regarding the Waca Davidian standoff such as the Danforth Report, Treasury Report and Congressional hearings. The only significant thing about Ammerman is that she rebutted the FBI's claim that they did not rely upon me. Other than that she makes false characterizations of my advice and does not quote me per any report. Now someone has added " "Some even blame him for the disaster at Waco, Texas." This is a ridiculous claim. And the reporter that wrote the article knew that. Again, selective editing to slant the Waco section as much as possible.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 20:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- You used your book as an example of why her statements are not factual, therefore, you are essentially saying we should use your book as proof that what she said is not true. Is there anything, anywhere, that proves what she said is not true (other than your book)? Further, it's pretty plain in the article that her comments are her own POV. There is nothing that prohibits Wikipedia and its associated editors from including content that is someone's POV. The only thing that would prohibit such is including content in Wiki-voice that is POV or commentary. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
My book "Cults Inside Out" and consistent editing rules and guidelines
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The fact that I am published author with a book widely reported about by the media has been established repeatedly in links that I have shared at Wikipedia. The book "Cults Inside Out" is published in Chinese and the English version is available through Amazon and Kindle. This has been reported by such reliable sources as CNN, Sirius Radio, the Hong Kong press and Phoenix television in Hong Kong, radio interviews, Podcasts and LipTV interview online and in recently released documentaries. Popular blogger Tony Ortega, formerly managing editor of the Village Voice and featured in "Going Clear" documentary, also announced the release of the book and there were press releases done as well picked up by Reuters and other news outlets. I am concerned about the inconsistent standards in editing at Wikipedia. I was told, "Just because it is done one way in one article does not mean it will or should be done in another. Every article is set up under the same rules and guidelines [sic] and individual editors choose how to implement them." This seems arbitrary and that there is no editing standard used consistently at Wikipedia. I offered a link to the bio of Steve Hassan to demonstrate this point. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Hassan#Books Hassan's books are all self-published, including the recently revised version of "Combatting Cult Mind Control." Hassan is quoted extensively from his books in the bio. I am asking editors here to please be consistent and apply the same rules and guidelines equally to this bio as done at the Hassan bio and others.Rick Alan Ross (talk)
"I am asking editors here to please be consistent and apply the same rules and guidelines equally to this bio as done at the Hassan bio and others"
Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
- Also, I have to ask you, Rick: Are you interested in improving this project (Wikipedia) or are you only interested in what you see as improving the article on you? Because, to be honest, as another editor already pointed out to you a few days ago, you are taking up a lot of time given freely by other Wikipedia editors with your continual and repeated attempts at persuading us to change the article to your specifications and liking. And, I might add, all of the editors who are taking a great amount of time with you are then giving up time that could be used to improve and help further build Wikipedia. There are 5M+ articles on Wikipedia. Every time you make another request or lodge another complaint about how the article on you reads, you are taking time away from editing the encyclopedia apart from said article. Do you think it's fair and productive that (a) you continue to do that after being asked to stop, and (b) you are only focused on the Rick Alan Ross article, essentially being a single purpose account via your conflict of interest? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:24, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. Read it. "'other stuff exists' arguments can be valid or invalid." Ia m saying that it is valid to have consistent editing rules regarding published books, self-published books and quoting self-published material in a BLP. As stated, "Arguing in favor of consistency among Wikipedia articles is not inherently wrong–it is to be preferred."Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- I am here interested in helping to improve Wikipedia by encouraging consistency and reliance upon facts rather than POV. IMO my bio is an example of what's wrong with Wikipedia editing. Some editors work on bios to reflect their point of view. I too have much to do and taking time to be here is not something I want to do, but rather have been forced to do by the bio here. It has a long history of distortions, bias deliberately misleading editing and cult members using it to attack me. I never asked for a bio here. I asked that it be deleted, but it was decided that it would not be deleted. So I am doing the best that I can to helpfully work within the Wikipedia guidelines to make this bio NPOV, factual and not misleading. Meanwhile I have a database I have been building since 1996 as an online library, court cases I am retained in, families calling me and many other things to do too. I appreciate your time and concern, but please try to appreciate mine as well.Rick Alan Ross (talk)
"I am here interested in helping to improve Wikipedia by encouraging consistency and reliance upon facts rather than POV."
I would believe you if (a) You had actually edited articles other than your own; (b) you really understood POV and its relation to Wikipedia (which, from your comments above, show you do not); and (c) you would do more here than try to make your article look more favorable in regard to your public image. Sorry, but based on all this, I just don't buy what you're saying. And, just so you know, your posts are becoming WP:TLDR, causing me (and probably others) to just skim or ignore altogether. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC)- @Winkelvi: After seeing Ross start over with someone else who is interested in helping with this article and trying yet again to POV push and stage manage the material in the article I think this should be brought to either COIN or ANI and a request be made for an indef block for being WP:NOTHERE. I am engaged in a RL matter for the next couple days and will only be able to spend small chunks of time with WP. If you want to write up a block request I will support it and add what I can. Otherwise I will put one together as time allows. It is time for this time sink to end. JbhTalk 20:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- I agree, JBH, it is time for a block request or some kind of sanction (possibly topic ban). Since July 2015, as both an IP and with his named account, he has been doing nothing in Wikipedia except directing what should go in and what should come out of the article on him ([2], [3]). This is an obvious case of an WP:SPA/WP:NOTHERE account and he's been given a lot of leeway (too much, in my opinion). It's time to put a stop to it. I will do what I can -- if I can get a report filed in the next couple of hours, that is. After that, I don't know how much time I will have to devote to it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Winkelvi: After seeing Ross start over with someone else who is interested in helping with this article and trying yet again to POV push and stage manage the material in the article I think this should be brought to either COIN or ANI and a request be made for an indef block for being WP:NOTHERE. I am engaged in a RL matter for the next couple days and will only be able to spend small chunks of time with WP. If you want to write up a block request I will support it and add what I can. Otherwise I will put one together as time allows. It is time for this time sink to end. JbhTalk 20:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Sources
Francis Schonken: Here are additional sources about Ross that you may have missed and that could be used. I have no further interest in editing this article (I much prefer politicians' bios), so I leave to you and others to incorporate:
- Religious Intolerance in America: A Documentary History [4]
- Agents of Discord: Deprogramming, Pseudo-Science, and the American Anticult Movement [5]
- The Bloomsbury Companion to New Religious Movements [6]
- The Cultic Milieu: Oppositional Subcultures in an Age of Globalization [7]
- Terror and Taboo: The Follies, Fables, and Faces of Terrorism [8]
- Apocalypse Observed: Religious Movements and Violence in North America [9]
- Cwobeel (talk) 15:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Cwobee has listed his selected sources, which represent his bias. There is nothing wrong with having a biased POV, but using Wikipedia as a propaganda platform to express it is not in accordance with the rules and guidelines I have read regarding Wikipedia. There are many more reliable and objective sources than those listed above by Cwobeel and I hope to share them with neutral editors not invested in a POV, but rather interested in facts and objective editing. Rick Alan Ross (talk) 20:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Ummm... you know Francis Schonken did not provide those sources. They were provided by Cwobeel, an experienced editor who never edited the article prior to Nov 6 2015 [10]. This is precisely the type of problem that caused me to propose a ban for you. JbhTalk 21:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Excuse me for that mistake. I have apologized to Francis Schonken and am sorry about that. You are a bit naive. The list above is narrowly confined and skewed including the most negative and biased information the editor could gather, rather than an earnest effort to bring together balanced reliable sources. It's not right to try and ban me from my own bio Talk page. It's censorship and wrong. I am trying to work with you and other editors. Realize that not everyone knows all the rules and culture of Wikipedia. Know that Wikipedia forces people like me to come here in an effort to defend their reputation from anonymous editors. Also, you might consider that you don't know that much about cults, cult apologists and the way they spin and post propaganda on the Web through sites like Wikipedia. This has been reported about. The cult business is a big business--e.g. Scientology has $3 billion and counting. They promote books, pay academics, etc.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 22:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Mr. Ross you have been involved with Wikipedia for at least 6 years. You are, based on my interactions with you, neither stupid not lazy. If you do not understand Wikipedia rules and processes it is because it is advantageous not to. I have shown you the respect of being forthright in what I see as proper and improper both in the article and your behavior, please do me the courtesy of not making assumptions about my understanding - we all have real life professions.
What I, personally, find sad here is I end up spending all of my time on this article trying to keep you from slanting it based on your personal WP:COI that there is no time to learn the specifics needed to do source analysis. It would have been great to have you on hand to clear up misunderstandings and help with specialized interpretation. That would have been both fun and interesting and I might have even have learned something about an interesting subject area. That is not how things turned out. JbhTalk 23:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Mr. Ross you have been involved with Wikipedia for at least 6 years. You are, based on my interactions with you, neither stupid not lazy. If you do not understand Wikipedia rules and processes it is because it is advantageous not to. I have shown you the respect of being forthright in what I see as proper and improper both in the article and your behavior, please do me the courtesy of not making assumptions about my understanding - we all have real life professions.
- Excuse me for that mistake. I have apologized to Francis Schonken and am sorry about that. You are a bit naive. The list above is narrowly confined and skewed including the most negative and biased information the editor could gather, rather than an earnest effort to bring together balanced reliable sources. It's not right to try and ban me from my own bio Talk page. It's censorship and wrong. I am trying to work with you and other editors. Realize that not everyone knows all the rules and culture of Wikipedia. Know that Wikipedia forces people like me to come here in an effort to defend their reputation from anonymous editors. Also, you might consider that you don't know that much about cults, cult apologists and the way they spin and post propaganda on the Web through sites like Wikipedia. This has been reported about. The cult business is a big business--e.g. Scientology has $3 billion and counting. They promote books, pay academics, etc.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 22:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Are you now saying you proposed a ban for Rick Alan Ross for something Cwobeel did? Or because he confused me with Cwobeel? I won't take offense there, although, of course, I'm a quite different editor from Cwobeel.
- I was planning on taking a look at the sources listed above, but thus far only checked the first, which imho is just an example more of Ross' expert opinion being quoted, don't know whether many more examples in this sense are needed in the article.
- But indeed @Rick Alan Ross: please take care what you're replying to whom. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- I am sorry and apologize for missing who posted the list, which included a book by Anson Shupe. Shupe has extensively worked for Scientology. Another effort by a supposedly neutral editor to get in the most damaging, biased and negative information possible.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 22:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Ummm... you know Francis Schonken did not provide those sources. They were provided by Cwobeel, an experienced editor who never edited the article prior to Nov 6 2015 [10]. This is precisely the type of problem that caused me to propose a ban for you. JbhTalk 21:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Cwobee has listed his selected sources, which represent his bias. There is nothing wrong with having a biased POV, but using Wikipedia as a propaganda platform to express it is not in accordance with the rules and guidelines I have read regarding Wikipedia. There are many more reliable and objective sources than those listed above by Cwobeel and I hope to share them with neutral editors not invested in a POV, but rather interested in facts and objective editing. Rick Alan Ross (talk) 20:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Francis Schonken: No, I proposed a ban because he feels everything is something that needs to be addressed, in this case trying to poison the sources by saying they are from a "biased" editor rather than addressing the sources, it seems everything that criticizes him is biased or opinion while facts show him only in good light. That he was accusing the wrong editor just added to it. I am all but sure that this is in set up for a run at 're-casting' the Waco material as he has been hinting at for a bit. There may be a problem or there may not but the editors on this page need to be able to figure it out for themselves. He has created an environment where the subject of the article leaves his stamp on everything, not just an opinion or a comment but walls of text. There is no way an NPOV article can be created in such an environment and he will not respect the process enough to stop badgering the other editors here.
If this is not handled this time I am sure we will be back in the same position in a month or so. I wish it were not the case but as it stands we might as well allow him to write his own biography. If he is going to continue to engage here he needs to get a solid grip on the concept of reliable sources and why we use them. Brief insight into the sources is helpful but look at just the last couple of days on that.
PS - If you must know it was the 'Further reading' issue that pushed me over the edge to considering his participation on this page to be a net negative. When the difference was only a header and two lines of space on the page I knew he did not understand compromise or his WP:COI was way too strong. JbhTalk 22:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- It is like he is making my point for me -
"Another effort by a supposedly neutral editor to get in the most damaging, biased and negative information possible."
[[11]] - do you really think this kind of attitude is helpful here? Really? JbhTalk 22:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)- OK. So you think that the editor in question gathered the list in good faith in an earnest attempt to help improve Wikipedia? I have been working in the field of cultic studies for more than 30 years and the list was glaringly biased. OK. Maybe that's just a coincidence. I am here in good faith posting under my own name. I am transparent. But it seems that the Wikipedia process is to go through such a list one by one, step by step. OK. But IMO at times it may be that certain editors do this just to slow everything down and subvert the editing process.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 22:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Censorship at this Talk page?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It seems like some editors here are attempting to censor and control this Talk page. They apparently don't want me to be allowed to post comments here. They also appear to be uncomfortable with the questions I have raised about inconsistencies regarding application of the Wikipedia rules concerning the bios of living persons at Wikipedia. Now it seems that I may be blocked and silenced so that I can no longer comment at this Talk page about any of the editing done at my bio. I am asking for fair, fact based, unbiased editing and nothing more than that. Some editors here have done exactly that, while others apparently think insulting me or somehow impugning my integrity is a meaningful response to questions I have raised. It seems that some editors may see my Wikipedia bio as a vehicle to express their POV. They do this by editing according to their bias and selectively recognizing sources accordingly. All I am allowed to do is come here to the Talk page and comment. Now even that may be censored. I have followed the guidelines emailed to me by Wikipedia and read the Wikipedia links offered by editors, even at times quoting Wikipedia links to emphasize a point about fairness. I am under no obligation whatsoever to work for Wikipedia as a volunteer to earn the right to comment on this Talk page as some editors have implied. I have repeatedly requested to have my bio deleted due to the way it has historically been abused for propaganda purposes and personal attacks. I don't think blocking and censoring me now is fair and it doesn't reflect the principles of fairness that Wikipedia says it stands on.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 20:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
COI tag
I have removed the COI tag. The documentation for the tag is very specific when it should be used. The tag is not supposed to be a badge of shame it is supposed to be used to notify readers that there is a potential neutrality issue because someone with a coi has edited the article and only while cleanup is going on. The editor with the COI has not edited the article just the talk page. If the article is not neutral it is not the fault of Rick Ross it is the fault of the editors that have edited the article. -- GB fan 16:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- I replaced it. No one is using it as a so-called "badge-of-shame", and your attempts to accuse editors in good standing of doing so is unwarranted. The editor with the COI (the article subject) has been editing by proxy, essentially employing WP:MEAT, and has been dictating what needs to stay, what needs to be reworded, what needs to go. Even though he has yet to edit anything unrelated to himself, RAR is an editor (he has an editing account), and he has edited the article in the past as an IP and under another account name. Therefore, COI does apply. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
use of COI template on any article - read the template instructions
if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article
As Mr. Ross is not a "major contributor" to the article, and the article appears fairly neutral with peacock claims absent, adding that template to the article is improper. It is not intended to be used in the manner in which it has been used. Collect (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- I do believe that the his intense involvement can be a major issue with the neutrality of the article. He has managed to keep a lot of extremely critical material out of the article. Some of is likely properly but I strongly suspect that not everyone who criticizes him is some sort of 'cult apologist' or 'Scientologist'. Many likely are but I do not think the matter has been adequately addressed. In particular, even if the sources are biased if there is a body of reliable sources that have bad things to say they do need to be included per WEIGHT. JbhTalk 17:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- Um -- why the hell at 18:29 did you imply I had not posted on this talk page in your interesting post at WP:BLP/N? [12] is a quite remarkable post on your part - the one where you tell me to post on the talk page of the article. LOL? Collect (talk) 18:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- If the words "...where you opened a thread about an hour ago" somehow imply you did not post here I suggest that possibly we are not speaking the same language. The point was stop fricking forum shopping. You have a bad habit of opening up multiple, near simultaneous, threads when you disagree with something. I am a bit surprised you did not open up one on Jimbo talk as well. JbhTalk 19:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- Um -- why the hell at 18:29 did you imply I had not posted on this talk page in your interesting post at WP:BLP/N? [12] is a quite remarkable post on your part - the one where you tell me to post on the talk page of the article. LOL? Collect (talk) 18:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- Subject is playing by the rules, there's no apparent COI involvement for the article content, so the template should go. That something "can be" a major issue, that someone "strongly suspects" whatever, "if there is a body of reliable sources" (without naming a single one) and the like, without even a demonstrated link to subject involvement, are all aspersions which are not covered by a proper use of the COI template. Vaguishness is not an excuse to use the template. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- How is he playing by the rules? He has been disruptive, claims over and over he doesn't know Wikipedia "rules" to begin with after it being pointed out that he's not playing by the rules, has been told to stay away for three or more days to learn "the rules", and keeps coming back still claiming to not know the rules whilst claiming he's learning the rules. He is a disruptive SPA and has violated COI by meat-puppeting and having others proxy-edit for him. He contributes nothing to Wikipedia as a whole let alone the BLP on him. Truthfully, if he were an editor without a BLP his account would have been blocked for disruption long ago. Why do (some) editors insist on molly-coddling him? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- What editors have been his meet-puppets or have proxy-edited for him? -- GB fan 17:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thinking more about this proxy-editing is exactly what WP:COI talks about should be happening (unless you mean something different). He comes here and discusses what he thinks the article should say and then if other editors agree they make the proxy-edit for him. Now if he is going outside Wikipedia and getting friends, coworkers or others to come in and make edits that would be meat puppetry. Is that what you are saying he is doing? If so I would like to see some evidence of that or you need to retract it. -- GB fan 20:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- How is he playing by the rules? He has been disruptive, claims over and over he doesn't know Wikipedia "rules" to begin with after it being pointed out that he's not playing by the rules, has been told to stay away for three or more days to learn "the rules", and keeps coming back still claiming to not know the rules whilst claiming he's learning the rules. He is a disruptive SPA and has violated COI by meat-puppeting and having others proxy-edit for him. He contributes nothing to Wikipedia as a whole let alone the BLP on him. Truthfully, if he were an editor without a BLP his account would have been blocked for disruption long ago. Why do (some) editors insist on molly-coddling him? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- The "connected contributor" template on the talk page above is appropriate under the circumstances; a COI tag on the article itself is not. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Waco Siege quote
At subsection "Waco Siege" the following quote seems both out of context and/or minority/fringe view. "According to a 1995 article on Ross in the Phoenix, Arizona weekly newspaper, New Times, 'Some even blame him for the disaster at Waco, Texas.'[23]" In context the quote reads, "Ross has been reviled in print as a kidnaper and a vicious religion-hater. Some even blame him for the disaster at Waco, Texas. He's been hounded by private investigators and threatened with violence. Some of his friends fear for his life." The blame for Waco is used as an example of negative personal attacks, not as a reliable source based upon facts in evidence. I think that this quote should be deleted.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- As such, nothing seems to be wrong with the source (that is the Phoenix New Times article where the information is extracted from). There seems to be something wrong with what was extracted from the article, and how it was summarized. So I'd rather suggest a new summary. Maybe: "By the mid 1990s Ross was a national figure in the United States as an expert on Bible-based cults, New Age groups and the militia movement. Being a regular guest on talk-shows this also made him many enemies." (or something in that vein). I could live with "A magazine published by the Church of Scientology suggested that Ross was responsible for the deaths at Waco." (more "spectacular", but I think the first suggestion works better while not restricting to Waco, which the article in Phoenix New Times doesn't either). --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- Do you mean expand the section by adding more material? Would this be considered Peacock statements?Rick Alan Ross (talk) 21:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- Re. "expand the section" – no.
- Re. "Peacock statements" - the current content extracted from the Phoenix New Times article is rather Peacock (for the critics that is), nice catch BTW. My first suggestion above isn't, it better summarizes the thrust of the author of that article afaics. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- OK. I don't want anyone to think that I am here to promote myself through Peacock statements, which is absolutely not my intent. My point is that the quote as it is now does not genuinely represent the reporter's original intent and is therefore misleading. It also represents the opinion of an extremely small minority and not the historical majority view.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 15:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- Do you mean expand the section by adding more material? Would this be considered Peacock statements?Rick Alan Ross (talk) 21:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- I think it is best to include the quote in its full context as is. No one can spin that. I will do that. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 17:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- OK. Thanks. If you think that's the best way to handle it. But it seems meaningful to point out that "reviled in print" would be a very small minority.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- It's important to you, it's not important to Wikipedia. We don't make judgements we just include what reliable sources say. If there is negative press on an article subject we don't whitewash it or spin it or even try to create a false balance to make it look more favorable. It is what it is. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- Wikipedia: No Original research says, "But when incorporating research into an article, it is important that editors provide context for this point of view, by indicating how prevalent the position is, and whether it is held by a majority or minority."Rick Alan Ross (talk) 19:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- It's important to you, it's not important to Wikipedia. We don't make judgements we just include what reliable sources say. If there is negative press on an article subject we don't whitewash it or spin it or even try to create a false balance to make it look more favorable. It is what it is. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- OK. Thanks. If you think that's the best way to handle it. But it seems meaningful to point out that "reviled in print" would be a very small minority.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- I think it is best to include the quote in its full context as is. No one can spin that. I will do that. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 17:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- None of this falls under original research. It's well sourced. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- The problem lies not so much with WP:OR (nor with WP:PEACOCK for that matter), but with WP:CHERRY. Out of a long third party source, not hostile against the subject of this Wikipedia article, some negativity was "cherry-picked" to beef up the criticism regarding Waco (which wasn't even present in the article where half a sentence was cherry-picked from). The current expansion of the quote only partially mitigates that: the quote picked from the Phoenix article still doesn't summarize the thrust of that article very well. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for that clarification. Since the use of this quote does reflect cherry picking what about deleting it?Rick Alan Ross (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- The problem lies not so much with WP:OR (nor with WP:PEACOCK for that matter), but with WP:CHERRY. Out of a long third party source, not hostile against the subject of this Wikipedia article, some negativity was "cherry-picked" to beef up the criticism regarding Waco (which wasn't even present in the article where half a sentence was cherry-picked from). The current expansion of the quote only partially mitigates that: the quote picked from the Phoenix article still doesn't summarize the thrust of that article very well. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
It's reliably sourced, cherry picking or not. The only reason I can see why it should be completely removed is if it were something unreliably sourced, and that's not the case. As has already been stated, we don't whitewash articles. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- WP:NPOV? --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- Seems like it is also a WP;WEIGHT issue. I would suggest examining other critical sources to see what they have to say and t- get a fair idea of the balance of coverage. I am going to avoid content edits here for a bit to regain perspective but I do believe critical material is not being properly represented here. That said the quote as it initially was was just the king of thing Rick Alan Ross orany editor for that matter should bring up. I have no opinion on the full quote without looking at WEIGHT.
I would also like to thank RR for engaging here based on policies and guidelines. Cheers. JbhTalk 10:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- The only part of the quote that may be relevant to Rick Alan Ross#Waco siege is: "Some even blame him for the disaster at Waco, Texas." Bus stop (talk) 14:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- And yet, taken from its context (which basically found such a criticism to be a tad ludicrous), some readers might actually take it to mean "reasonable folks blame him" which would be mis-using the quote. The one thing we ought not do is present a sentence out of context where a reader might miss what was meant in the first place. Collect (talk) 15:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- It seems like the Waco Siege section has become a Coatrack to hang Fringe theories. The section now goes out of its way to find support for a particular bias. For example, some selected scholars that don't represent a majority consensus. Seems like soapboxing. The quote in question is an example of cherrypicking and changes the meaning of what the source is saying.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 16:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- There are no theories - fringe or otherwise - being included or alluded to here. WP:COATRACK doesn't apply, either. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- It seems like the Waco Siege section has become a Coatrack to hang Fringe theories. The section now goes out of its way to find support for a particular bias. For example, some selected scholars that don't represent a majority consensus. Seems like soapboxing. The quote in question is an example of cherrypicking and changes the meaning of what the source is saying.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 16:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- And yet, taken from its context (which basically found such a criticism to be a tad ludicrous), some readers might actually take it to mean "reasonable folks blame him" which would be mis-using the quote. The one thing we ought not do is present a sentence out of context where a reader might miss what was meant in the first place. Collect (talk) 15:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- The only part of the quote that may be relevant to Rick Alan Ross#Waco siege is: "Some even blame him for the disaster at Waco, Texas." Bus stop (talk) 14:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Question
Ref 21 (2nd Ammerman ref) ends with "Ms. Ammerman was a member of panel of experts convened after the Branch Davidian crisis. Each member of the panel wrote a separate assessment of the events that transpired in Waco. They were published in a volume entitled Recommendations of Experts for Improvement in Federal Law Enforcement after Waco (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1993)" – did any other members of the panel of experts find fault with Mr. Ross in their "separate assessment"? --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- It appears Ammerman was the only one that mentioned me. See https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/145688NCJRS.pdfRick Alan Ross (talk) 18:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- Also see https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Report_of_the_Department_of_the_Treasury_on_the_Bureau_of_Alcohol,_Tobacco,_and_Firearms_Investigation_of_Vernon_Wayne_Howell_Also_Known_as_David_Koresh_September_1993/Part_1_(%22The_Facts%22) The young man I deprogrammed (David Block) is cited in the US Treasurey Report.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- If they did, it should be included. If no one else made the same observation, that does not disqualify Ms. Ammerman's comments from being included in the article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- WP: Coatrack "But it's True!" Ammerman is "merely selected opinions" That "gives the reader a false impression about reality, even though the details may be true." She also presents a conspiracy WP: Fringe in her report. "A Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is." Ammerman is soapboxing and not a reliable source. Much of what she states in her report is based upon WP: No original research her own research without WP: Citing sources proper citations to support her claims.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 15:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- Before this discussion gets too heated I just want to say that my first impression is that Mr. Ross gives a correct interpretation here, but I can't give my final appreciation before having worked through a lot of reading, including the full report Mr. Ross linked to above (afaics now is that in that 178-page report he's mentioned in two paragraphs). So I'd welcome any concrete proposal to update the article to make it more conformant to WP:NPOV (especially in view of WP:BALASPS), but also to take this a small step at a time (as, as I said, this involves quite some reading of those trying to get this article in line with Wikipedia's content policies in a general approach), and step away from general philosophical discussions in favour of concrete proposals in the sense of "I propose to change '(current article text)' to '(proposed article text)' + proposed ref for the new text" – also getting a bit tired of proposals that only involve removing something without proposing a more valid replacement. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
"getting a bit tired of proposals that only involve removing something without proposing a more valid replacement."
Such proposals are being made because the one making the proposal is obviously trying very hard to sanitize his online image. Again, we have a focus on self-promotion (which has been brought up by other editors numerous times in the past). Such activity on Wikipedia is WP:COI behavior and against policy. The account holder in question has no interest in Wikipedia but only in the Wikipedia article on him; wanting content removed without any suggestions for what would be a valid NPOV replacement only further proves his intent and mission. My suggestion: anything proposed by the article subject that is not accompanied by a valid NPOV replacement that would benefit the article (rather than the article subject) should be met with silence. Because, WP:OBLIGATION. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)- You certainly do not know that anyone is here to sanitize their image online. An accurate article is in everyone's interest. I don't think I am "getting a bit tired of proposals that only involve removing something without proposing a more valid replacement". I think policy tells us the opposite: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." There is reason to feel that a section of the article may be problematic. It does not matter that the subject of the article is bringing this to our attention. We have a section of the article called Waco siege. It includes the quote from an Arizona newspaper: "Ross has been reviled in print as a kidnaper and a vicious religion-hater. Some even blame him for the disaster at Waco, Texas. He's been hounded by private investigators and threatened with violence. Some of his friends fear for his life." Does this represent a common perception of the subject of the biography as presented in the majority of reliable sources? Is this quote even entirely on-topic? Why, at the point in the article on "Waco siege", are we even invoking imagery of "kidnaper and a vicious religion-hater"? It may be a part of an intact quote from a reliable source but it is certainly off-topic at this point in our article. Do many good quality sources depict the subject this way? Until we decide how prevalent this view is, it might be proper to simply remove this quote. The topic can still be discussed on our Talk page. But the possibly harmful material can in the interim be removed from article-space. "It is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives". Bus stop (talk) 21:16, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- Before this discussion gets too heated I just want to say that my first impression is that Mr. Ross gives a correct interpretation here, but I can't give my final appreciation before having worked through a lot of reading, including the full report Mr. Ross linked to above (afaics now is that in that 178-page report he's mentioned in two paragraphs). So I'd welcome any concrete proposal to update the article to make it more conformant to WP:NPOV (especially in view of WP:BALASPS), but also to take this a small step at a time (as, as I said, this involves quite some reading of those trying to get this article in line with Wikipedia's content policies in a general approach), and step away from general philosophical discussions in favour of concrete proposals in the sense of "I propose to change '(current article text)' to '(proposed article text)' + proposed ref for the new text" – also getting a bit tired of proposals that only involve removing something without proposing a more valid replacement. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- WP: Coatrack "But it's True!" Ammerman is "merely selected opinions" That "gives the reader a false impression about reality, even though the details may be true." She also presents a conspiracy WP: Fringe in her report. "A Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is." Ammerman is soapboxing and not a reliable source. Much of what she states in her report is based upon WP: No original research her own research without WP: Citing sources proper citations to support her claims.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 15:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
My considerations are entirely practical. E.g., seems like we're going to reduce some of the Ammerman content (for WP:PRIMARY/WP:SPS/WP:BALASPS/...reasons); On the other hand Dany Ortega's Phoenix New Times article which has been mentioned above contains a large chunk of unexploited material regarding Mr. Ross' involvement with Waco. Deleting stuff is one aspect – adding viable material in order to get a balanced article is another. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- The only thing Ammerman says in the two paragraphs that can be confirmed by reliable sources and is not soapboxing or original research without citations is that I deprogrammed David Block who was interviewed by the BATF and that I was interviewed for the series "Sinful Messiah" by the Waco Tribune Herald. The Block intervention is further confirmed in the Department of Treasury Report. The Block intervention is also recounted in the book "See No Evil" by Tim Madigan pp. 77-92. See http://www.amazon.com/See-No-Evil-Devotion-Bloodshed/dp/1565300637 And it is further confirmed in the article "Hush, Hush, Sweet Charlatons" by Tony Ortega See http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/hush-hush-sweet-charlatans-6426159 So Ammerman IMO warrants a footnote denoting that she too confirmed that the David Block intervention took place, which was significant. Block disclosed important information, which is recounted in the Department of Treasure Report and helped to support the warrant for the arrest of David Koresh. All the other scholars like Ammerman, offer unproven allegations and opinions based upon WP: No Original research original research without meaningful citations. Like Ammerman they are evidence of WP: Coatrack and specifically "applying biased negative opinions...a coatrack goes out of its way to find facts that support a particular bias." In this case it's not facts, but rather opinions based upon original research. "Wikipedia policy specifically prohibits articles whose primary purpose is to disparage a particular person or topic." The Waco Siege section seems to fit this description. Using scholars to express opinions is an argument based upon authority, but without meaningful facts. Also the scholars chosen is evidence of WP: Cherrypicking with the possible exception of one scholar who apparently offered research that the FBI did interview and receive input from me. Ammerman seems to confirm the same. Rick Alan Ross (talk) 15:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I suggest that the Waco siege section might be better edited down to a core of relevant historical facts with citations, which might read something like as follows:
In 1992 and 1993, Ross was frequently interviewed by the media regarding the Branch Davidian group led by David Koresh in Waco, Texas[15] He had previously deprogrammed one Davidian.[16] The Davidian Ross deprogrammed provided information to the BATF. Ross was the only deprogrammer to work with Branch Davidian members prior to a raid and siege that resulted in the deaths of many Davidians and four federal agents at Waco.[18] Television network CBS hired Ross as an on-scene analyst for their coverage of the Waco siege.[1] The FBI said Ross offered unsolicited advice to the agency during the standoff[17]. A later-published Department of Justice report on the matter stated, "the FBI did not 'rely' on Ross for advice whatsoever during the standoff[17]. But according to other sources it did interview and receive input from him. [See Wright, S.A. 1995. Armageddon in Waco: Critical Perspectives on the Branch Davidian Conflict: University of Chicago Press.]
The Ammmerman footnote [19] could be used after [16] confirming the deprogramming of a member of the group. This would make that footnote 17 and affect other footnote numbering. Everything in the second paragraph IMO is Wp: Coatrack and WP: Cherrypicking and contains soapboxing based upon original research other than the confirmation that the FBI did interview and receive input from me. WP: No Original ResearchRick Alan Ross (talk) 15:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Rick Alan Ross: Just a quick note. The things you mention; original research, cherry picking, coat racking, soapboxing, etc. are all things Wikipedia editors are supposed to avoid not sources. All of the content guidelines exist to prevent editors from including their own viewpoint or distorting what the sources have to say. The primary argument which needs to be examined, in my opinion, is WP:WEIGHT. That is do other reliable sources say the same or similar things. If so then the quote, or something similar, would be included as representative.
There are basically four ways information can be presented in Wikipedia. In descending order of required support they are; in Wikipedia's voice, as a qualified statement, as an attributed opinion and as a quote. Qualified statements and attributed opinions ie minor yet significant views, and direct quotes must meet standards set out in WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE (Note fringe is a jargon term here with a specific definition not entirely congruent with its plain language meaning). Wikipedia is supposed to address all major viewpoints as well as 'significant major viewpoints'. If an opinion made it into a major report on a subject it is, in general, worth mentioning but how the information is addressed is an editorial matter subject to balancing tests based on various policies and guidelines. JbhTalk 16:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- (e.c.) @Rick Alan Ross: seems you still have some of the basics regarding Wikipedia's WP:NOR policy mixed up. Wikipedia can quote original research by academics (subject to WP:PRIMARY and some other rules such as WP:SPS and WP:BLPSELFPUB). There's no problem Ammerman publishing original research, and, apart from the caveats, no problem for Wikipedia to use such material when published in what for Wikipedia's purposes passes the WP:RS principles. This has nothing to do with whether or not the subject of the Rick Alan Ross article, or any Wikipedia editor for that matter, would "rely" on Ammerman to solve a crisis like the one that produced itself at Waco, or would "rely" on Ammerman's account being a truthful rendering of the facts.
- Deciding from a Wikipedia author's perspecive whether Ammerman is truthful or not is *exactly* what Wikipedia authors shouldn't do according to the WP:NOR policy: because that is *exactly* the kind of original research (from the Wikipedia editor's perspective) the WP:NOR policy forbids.
- We're going to have a hard time discussing this until you get these basics of the Wikipedia WP:NOR policy straight. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- There's also the issue of what seems to be an attempt to create a WP:FALSEBALANCE. Content comes from sources, reliable sources. If the reliable sources do not support a balance - especially in the area of analysis and opinion regarding an article subject - we don't try to create one just make the article look better. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- No clue what you mean by "If the reliable sources do not support a balance" – every reliable source has its own balance. When different sources have different balances (which seems to be the case here), Wikipedia article text creates its balance by applying WP:BALASPS, thus avoiding WP:FALSEBALANCE.
- Currently, what seems to be WP:UNDUE weight given to Ammerman's findings, and using only the "negativity" from what Ortega has to say on Mr. Ross' Waco involvement unbalances the second paragraph of the Waco siege section. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- What I'm saying is: If reliable sources available on the article subject - or an aspect of the article subject - are all or mostly negative, we don't add an equal amount of positive content to make commentary on the article subject seem balanced. And we certainly don't remove the negative content to balance the article out, either. Which, with Ross' own "suggestions" and pleadings to remove negative commentary on him, seems to be what he wants. You were right to point out that he's coming here wanting things removed but offers no suggestions for what can replace it. That is a perfect example of the article subject trying to not only scrub the article of all negative commentary/content on him, but it's also a perfect example of someone trying to create a false balance. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- Re. "...are all or mostly negative..." – well, apparently they aren't on the topic we're discussing here. That's the WP:FALSEBALANCE that has crept in afaics. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- What I'm saying is: If reliable sources available on the article subject - or an aspect of the article subject - are all or mostly negative, we don't add an equal amount of positive content to make commentary on the article subject seem balanced. And we certainly don't remove the negative content to balance the article out, either. Which, with Ross' own "suggestions" and pleadings to remove negative commentary on him, seems to be what he wants. You were right to point out that he's coming here wanting things removed but offers no suggestions for what can replace it. That is a perfect example of the article subject trying to not only scrub the article of all negative commentary/content on him, but it's also a perfect example of someone trying to create a false balance. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- I looked at one of the sources in the article: Armageddon at Waco: Critical Perspectives on the Brand Davidian Conflict 1995, University of Chicago Press. It is a collection of writings from a wide range of scholars who studied the AFT and FBI approach to the Waco Siege and the tragedy that followed. RAR's relationship to the those agencies is discussed by at least 3 of the scholars. I including relevant portions of chapters written by Lewis and Wright. (Ammerman is also in the volume, but is already being discussed here.)
- James. R. Lewis Page 98
- “While there were comparatively few direct connections between the BATF and the anti-cult movement that contributed to the Waco fiasco, they were significant. In particular, the testimony of deprogrammed former Davidian David Block, was adduced to support the contention that Koresh possessed massive firepower and illegal weapons, which appears to have been instrumental in the BATF’s ability to obtain a search warrant (U.S. Department of Treasury 1993, 143). Indeed, evidence for the warrants appears to rest largely on the accounts of apostates. The Treasury Department record shows that the investigative agent for the BATF sought to secure a warrant on November 2nd, 1992, which was denied by the magistrate for insufficient evidence (pD-5). However, on November 20, less than three weeks later, the agent returned and was able to secure warrants. The only additional evidence apparently acquired during this time, according to the Treasury Department record, was “soft” data—information obtained from interviews with apostates and family members of Davidians (pp.46-47, d-5).
- Equally important was the advisory role that Rick Ross played with the BATF prior to the attack. Before the blood had dried in the fields surrounding Mt. Carmel, Ross was busy promoting himself to the media on the basis of his role as advisor to the BATF. What were the qualifications that allowed this person to allow this person to have the ear of the BATF? Ross, it turns out, had deprogrammed several Branch Davidians. What was his background and training? It was certainly not counseling. Ross is an ex-convict with a psychiatric record. After completing an apprenticeship in petty crime, he graduated to the more lucrative career of deprogrammer, and as someone who makes his living deprogramming “cult members” for money, Ross clearly had a vested interest in portraying non-traditional religions in the worst possible light.”
- Stuart Wright Page 89
- “According to the Treasury report, much of the information about the weapons “was based almost exclusively on the statement of one former cult member, David Block” [1993, 314]. Breault initially learned of deprogrammer Ross from the Tribune-Herald reporter Mark England. Cult-buster Breault subsequently recounted his efforts to contact Ross and referred to an intermediary who “has detailed information on cult awareness groups and cultbusters” [1993, 317}. Ross’s apparent knowledge of the BATF raid twelve days before the event suggest in more than a peripheral role as government adviser.
- In the first segment of “The Sinful Messiah” series published by the Waco Tribune-Herald on February 27, the day before the raid, reporters Mark England and Darlene McCormick acknowledged that they had information from interviews with more than twenty “former members” and quoted a man “deprogrammed” by Ross. Herein, the transmission of constructed meanings as ‘news’ was accomplished. The language and rhetoric of apostate claimes clearly regurgitated anticult framing and signification: “Former cult members also said Howell uses traditional mind-control techniques to entrap listeners” (England and McCormick 1993, 12A). Mind control and brainwashing attributions were pervasive throughout the series, reflecting the core concepts and ideology of the anticult movement.
- An addendum to Nancy Ammermans’s report to the justice Department made evident the significance of deprogrammer Ross as an FBI adviser describing him as “closely involved with both the BATF and the FBI’ and as having “the most extensive access to both agencies as any person on the ‘cult expert’ list 9Ammermand 1993). Ammerman’s direct access (as a behavioral science expert (to government officials and nonpublic documents critical to the Waco catastrophe lends particular credence to the claim of the deprogrammer’s influence. (see also Ammerman, this volume)."
- While I don't doubt RAR's sincere memory of events, there are two government reports and the work of multiple scholars in relevant fields that are reliable sources for Wikipedia. It is my opinion after reading further that the Waco section doesn't adequately cover the scholarly criticism of RAR's involvement at Waco. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 19:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- The sources cited are not reliable, very biased and IMO represent "fact picking" WP: Coatracking "A common fact picking device is lisiting great numbers of individual people's quotes criticizing the nominal subject, while expending little or no effort mentioning that the criticism comes from a small fraction of people. That small fraction thus gets a soapbox that is far larger than reality warrants." For example James R. Lewis' remarks about David Block, whose statements to the BATF were later proven to be correct by the physical evidence according to criminal and civil court proceedings, news reports, congressional reports and the Danforth Report. That is, the Davidian weapons stockpile was "massive" and there was evidence of "illegal" activity regarding weapons. Other than confirming David Block's interview with the BATF and my contact with the BATF and FBI, Stuart, Lewis and Ammerman offer nothing more than negative attacks and criticism based upon conjecture, opinion and they represent a small fraction of people concerning what happened at Waco. Lewis once defended Aum (see http://www.culteducation.com/group/1984-alleged-persecution-of-cult-investigateds.html ) and he and Stuart have a history defending groups called "cults." Lewis has been recommended as a "religious resource" by Scientology ( see http://www.culteducation.com/group/1963-resources-recommended-by-the-church-of-scientology-published-list-from-freedom-magazines.html ). Other than using the Waco Siege section for soapboxing the only salient point these academics make is that contrary to what the FBI stated, I was consulted by the FBI. WP: Neutral Point of View IMO these academics have been given undue weight. "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view." Much of what these scholars offer can be seen as "false balance" based upon "conspiracy theories" and "speculative history." Lewis and Stuart use "weasel words" like "clearly," "appears," "suggest," "claim" and"apparently." Stuart states, "Ross, it turns out, had deprogrammed several Branch Davidians." News reports and government reports reflect that at the time of the raid I had only deprogrammed one Davidian. This is also stated in the book "See No Evil" by Tim Madigan chapter 6 "Rick Ross Takes One Back," which confirms this historical fact (pp.77-92). Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Your comments are borderline WP:TLDR. The sources cited are reliable according to Wikipedia guidelines. The sources state the FBI denies any in-depth consultation with you. You can say they are wrong all you want, but doing so only strengthens the argument that you are here to improve your article in order to improve your online image. I have a question for you, Rick: have you been working with/paying online reputation companies to rid the internet of as much negative press and other unflattering comments and content on you? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- WP: Civility Please "avoid condescension." There is no need for rudeness, belittling, taunting or baiting.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- WP:COI. Will you answer the question? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- No. I have never worked with such a company at any time under any circumstances. WP: Civility Why do you repeatedly make personal attacks and ill-considered accusations of impropriety?Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- Let me rephrase: have you employed the services of such a company to scrub the internet of as much negative press and content on you as possible? In answer to your question: I'm not making any personal attacks on you. I'm stating my observations in relation to your dealings in Wikipedia - having looked at all of your editing and commenting history going back to the first time you tried editing "your" article. I think your COI and agenda is obvious. Others do as well, others do not. Surely you've noticed that I'm not the only Wikipedia editor who is suspicious of your motives and believe they not only constitute a conflict of interest but also self-promotion and ridding the article of anything negative? You are, by the very definition, a WP:SPA who is not here to improve Wikipedia as a whole. If you were, you would be contributing to other articles. Pointing out such is not uncivil nor is it a personal attack. It's recognizing and calling out policy violations. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- No. I have never employed the services of any such company. Why do you persist in name-calling and accusations?Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- Name-calling? When have I engaged in such? Accusations...? Kind of. But only based on policy and what I believe is a violation of same. My continuation in believing you are here for self-focused reasons will continue until you convince me otherwise. So far - from the beginning of your history in Wikipedia until this moment - you have not. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- Winkelvi—there is a potentially productive discussion underway which you are interrupting. If the subject is being portrayed unfairly it is justifiable and understandable that the subject would use the Talk page to try to engage with editors to present factors that may not be readily apparent. Please see WP:BIOSELF. Bus stop (talk) 19:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- Name-calling? When have I engaged in such? Accusations...? Kind of. But only based on policy and what I believe is a violation of same. My continuation in believing you are here for self-focused reasons will continue until you convince me otherwise. So far - from the beginning of your history in Wikipedia until this moment - you have not. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- No. I have never employed the services of any such company. Why do you persist in name-calling and accusations?Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- Let me rephrase: have you employed the services of such a company to scrub the internet of as much negative press and content on you as possible? In answer to your question: I'm not making any personal attacks on you. I'm stating my observations in relation to your dealings in Wikipedia - having looked at all of your editing and commenting history going back to the first time you tried editing "your" article. I think your COI and agenda is obvious. Others do as well, others do not. Surely you've noticed that I'm not the only Wikipedia editor who is suspicious of your motives and believe they not only constitute a conflict of interest but also self-promotion and ridding the article of anything negative? You are, by the very definition, a WP:SPA who is not here to improve Wikipedia as a whole. If you were, you would be contributing to other articles. Pointing out such is not uncivil nor is it a personal attack. It's recognizing and calling out policy violations. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- No. I have never worked with such a company at any time under any circumstances. WP: Civility Why do you repeatedly make personal attacks and ill-considered accusations of impropriety?Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- WP:COI. Will you answer the question? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Section break
Proposing to replace:
Criticism of government agencies' involvement with Ross has come from Nancy Ammerman, a professor of sociology of religion, who cited FBI interview notes which stated Ross "has a personal hatred for all religious cults." She further stated the BATF and the FBI did rely on Ross when he recommended that agents "attempt to publicly humiliate Koresh, hoping to drive a wedge between him and his followers."[1][2][3] Other scholars also criticized Ross' involvement.[4][1][5] According to a 1995 article on Ross in the Phoenix, Arizona weekly newspaper, New Times, ""Ross has been reviled in print as a kidnaper and a vicious religion-hater. Some even blame him for the disaster at Waco, Texas. He's been hounded by private investigators and threatened with violence. Some of his friends fear for his life." [6]
by:
Scholars Nancy Ammerman, James. R. Lewis and Stuart Wright criticised Ross for not being an academic and for arousing suspicion and antagonism against Koresh, based on his own deprogramming experiences, prior to the siege.[7][8] Such criticisms, repeated by others,[4][5] put Ross in peril.[6]
--Francis Schonken (talk) 22:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- Expanded to include the whole paragraph. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Or this variant:
After the facts scholars argued that FBI, BATF and local press had relied too heavily on Ross' statements, picturing Ross as untrustworthy as part of their criticism against official instances.[9][10][4][5] For Ross, being thus caught in the criticism, the effect was devastating.[6]
References
- ^ a b Wright, Stuart A. (ed.) (1995). Armageddon in Waco. University of Chicago Press. pp. 98–100, pp. 286–290. ISBN 0-226-90845-3.
{{cite book}}
:|first=
has generic name (help) - ^ Report to the Justice and Treasury Departments, Nancy Ammerman, September 3, 1993, with an Addendum dated September 10, 1993
- ^ Template:Wayback, Nancy Ammerman, 1993
- ^ a b c Tabor, James D.; Gallagher, Eugene V. (1997). Why Waco?. University of California Press. pp. 93–96, 138–139, 233. ISBN 0-520-20899-4.
- ^ a b c Chryssides, George D. (1999). Exploring New Religions. Continuum International Publishing Group. pp. 55–56. ISBN 0-8264-5959-5.
- ^ a b c Tony Ortega (November 30, 1995). "Hush, Hush, Sweet Charlatans". Phoenix New Times. Retrieved November 8, 2015.
- ^ Nancy T. Ammerman (1993). "Report to the Justice and Treasury Departments: regarding law enforcement interaction with the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas" in Recommendations of Experts for Improvement in Federal Law Enforcement after Waco published by the U.S. Department of Justice. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, p. 1 (overall: p. 69)
- ^ Stuart A. Wright, editor (1995). Armageddon in Waco: Critical Perspectives on the Branch Davidian Conflict. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 9780226908458, p. 98 and p. 89
- ^ Nancy T. Ammerman (1993). "Report to the Justice and Treasury Departments: regarding law enforcement interaction with the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas" in Recommendations of Experts for Improvement in Federal Law Enforcement after Waco published by the U.S. Department of Justice. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, p. 1 (overall: p. 69)
- ^ Stuart A. Wright, editor (1995). Armageddon in Waco: Critical Perspectives on the Branch Davidian Conflict. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 9780226908458, p. 98 and p. 89
--Francis Schonken (talk) 08:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- My initial thought is that neither of these are really acceptable. There seems to be a consensus in the scholarly community that there were problems with Ross' participation. To weaken this view as a 'some scholars' statement or with implications of second guessing with 'after the fact' is not appropriate. As far as I have seen here there is no real significant counter-opinion in the scholarly opinion so we should not be soft selling it JbhTalk 09:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- There is no dissent among the scholars over the fact that no scholar was consulted until after the siege, for some (like Ammerman) that is central in their criticism towards FBI/BATF, e.g. in Ammerman's "recommendations" more than half of the text is devoted exclusively to this. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- IMO the previous edit that I proposed was solid and fact based with reliable sources cited. The selected scholars quoted (e.g. Lewis, Stuart, Ammerman) have been given undue weight and represent a minority opinion not supported by a wider consensus of experts, nor supported by the facts established repeatedly through court proceedings, congressional reports and the many other experts consulted. Including such biased and self-serving opinions doesn't reflect reality and doesn't belong in the Waco Siege section other than as footnotes as previously suggested.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Then we need to report what the sources have to say about his involvement not find ways to minimize or invalidate their commentary. The idea that everyone with something critical to say about Ross is somehow biased or not germane is a massive NPOV issue here. JbhTalk 18:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- The scholars selected are not representing facts, but rather offering personal attacks and personal opinions. They don't represent a consensus regarding my work before, during or after the Waco Siege. This can be confirmed by the sources I have offered.Rick Alan Ross (talk)
- Please show what independent third party reliable sources have to say. The gold standard for sources on Wikipedia are scholarly articles, it takes a pretty big weight of similarly academic/scholarly material to discredit them. They may have bad things to say about you but their opinions and views matter when writing an NPOV article. In fact they carry considerably more weight and significance then your own views on the matter even if your views were published in similar works. We do not write articles from the point of view of the subject.
If you say their views 'do not reflect reality' give some solid WP:RS material not WP:PRIMARY material that says so. On Wikipedia reality is what reliable sources say it is so please back up your claims with sources otherwise noting you have to say about these other authors is anything but you complaining about people who have a bad opinion of you and that is useless here. JbhTalk 19:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- Please show what independent third party reliable sources have to say. The gold standard for sources on Wikipedia are scholarly articles, it takes a pretty big weight of similarly academic/scholarly material to discredit them. They may have bad things to say about you but their opinions and views matter when writing an NPOV article. In fact they carry considerably more weight and significance then your own views on the matter even if your views were published in similar works. We do not write articles from the point of view of the subject.
- The scholars selected are not representing facts, but rather offering personal attacks and personal opinions. They don't represent a consensus regarding my work before, during or after the Waco Siege. This can be confirmed by the sources I have offered.Rick Alan Ross (talk)
- There is no dissent among the scholars over the fact that no scholar was consulted until after the siege, for some (like Ammerman) that is central in their criticism towards FBI/BATF, e.g. in Ammerman's "recommendations" more than half of the text is devoted exclusively to this. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Suggesting the following;
In 1992 and 1993, Ross was frequently interviewed by the media regarding the Branch Davidian group led by David Koresh in Waco, Texas[15] He had previously deprogrammed one Davidian.[16] The Davidian Ross deprogrammed provided information to the BATF. Ross was the only deprogrammer to work with Branch Davidian members prior to a raid and siege that resulted in the deaths of many Davidians and four federal agents at Waco.[18] Television network CBS hired Ross as an on-scene analyst for their coverage of the Waco siege.[1] The FBI said Ross offered unsolicited advice to the agency during the standoff[17]. A later-published Department of Justice report on the matter stated, "the FBI did not 'rely' on Ross for advice whatsoever during the standoff[17]. But other sources critical of Ross, disputed this and stated that the FBI did interview and receive input from him. [See Wright, S.A. 1995. Armageddon in Waco: Critical Perspectives on the Branch Davidian Conflict: University of Chicago Press.]
This is plain, solid and based upon well-established facts not personal attacks, fringe theories and speculation.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 19:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- How are the opinions of other professionals and academics - as near as I see the only other professional commentary on your activities - a WP:FRINGE theory?? History is the analysis of facts and learned commentary is how Wikipedia adduces what is important and what should be included. Mere recitation of 'facts' in not a service to our readers. We do not play the game of 'present the facts and let people figure it out themselves'. Wikipedia presents what competent and appropriate commentators have to say about a matter because they are the ones best qualified to draw conclusions or comment on an issue. Avoiding, suppressing or minimizing the views of a significant yet unflattering viewpoint is whitewashing and why we have a WP:COI policy. JbhTalk 20:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Deprogramming cases
Trying to get a handle on this subject, in the lead I read Ross has intervened in more than 350 deprogramming cases in various countries. This seems to be saying the deprogramming cases were underway and Ross somehow got involved. Is that the intention? Rumiton (talk) 02:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- Should correctly read -- Ross has done more than 350 deprogramming intervention cases in various countries, and has served as expert witness in a number of court cases. This is a bit old of a source though. I have done more than 500 to date. See http://articles.philly.com/2011-03-12/news/28683932_1_group-demands-cults-nursing-home Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
BLPN discussion
Collect has opened a discussion [13] at the BLP Noticeboard for some reason of his own. Check it out. JbhTalk 22:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- Alternatively you could leave off the editorialising of your own here ... the question is your seeming position that we can not trust readers with the facts - that they might reach the wrong conclusions. Amazingly enough, I did not find that inWP:BLP anywhere at all as part of the policy, so I asked at the noticeboard which is specifically designed for addressing such concerns. I apologize if you feel using the proper noticeboard is wrong because you might get the wrong answer there or the like. Collect (talk) 22:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- Facts? That the moon reflects the light of the sun is a fact. As for BLPs, we report the significant viewpoints as described in reliable sources. WP:NPOV is non-negotiable. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Collect: My statement was in response to the proposed edits in the section above. There exists significant WP:RS commentary which analyses and discusses the results/outcome of the Waco siege and Rick Ross's participation. Simply stating 'fact' without analysis is not what we do when there is RS analysis to discuss. Whether the analysis is flattering to the subject or not is irrelevant only whether it is a significant viewpoint offered by mainstream authors. To quote from WP:BLP "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." This is not talking about the 'mere recitation of facts' it is talking about proportionate reporting of significant opinions represented in reliable sources. Do you claim we should forgo the reporting of relevant analysis and significant opinion and merely report 'facts'? If so, please support your position with policy. Cheers. JbhTalk 23:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- Facts? That the moon reflects the light of the sun is a fact. As for BLPs, we report the significant viewpoints as described in reliable sources. WP:NPOV is non-negotiable. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)