Rick Alan Ross (talk | contribs) |
→This is getting disruptive: Again |
||
Line 217: | Line 217: | ||
::::Are you basing that from your interpretation of [[WP:N]], [[WP:BIO]], and [[WP:NPOV]], or are you just using "notable today" in another sense? --[[User:Ronz|Ronz]] ([[User talk:Ronz|talk]]) 16:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC) |
::::Are you basing that from your interpretation of [[WP:N]], [[WP:BIO]], and [[WP:NPOV]], or are you just using "notable today" in another sense? --[[User:Ronz|Ronz]] ([[User talk:Ronz|talk]]) 16:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC) |
||
:::::[[WP:BIO]] "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Done. "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." Done. The reliable and multiple independent sources cited helpfully organized by Francis Schonken more than suffice to support the edits suggested by Bishonen.[[User:Rick Alan Ross|Rick Alan Ross]] ([[User talk:Rick Alan Ross|talk]]) 18:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC) |
:::::[[WP:BIO]] "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Done. "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." Done. The reliable and multiple independent sources cited helpfully organized by Francis Schonken more than suffice to support the edits suggested by Bishonen.[[User:Rick Alan Ross|Rick Alan Ross]] ([[User talk:Rick Alan Ross|talk]]) 18:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC) |
||
==This is getting disruptive== |
|||
{{u|Rick Alan Ross}} has now started '''4''' sections on essentially the same topic, which are basically rehashes of previous talk page discussions. I know we give a lot of latitude to BLP subjects but this is clasic, long term [[WP:IDHT|"I didn't hear that behavior"]]. To quote {{u|Bishonen}}'s response from her talk page re your claim of 'growing consensus' {{tq|"I've been thinking about it, but after reviewing how the talkpage discussion has gone since them, I don't see how I can add those changes. There isn't consensus for them, and the comments of Jbhunley and Ronz must weigh with me as well. They have been following the discussion longer and more continuously than I have, and I respect the nuanced positions they've been taking. Sorry, but I don't really see the "growing consensus" you speak of."}} [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bishonen&diff=721666588&oldid=721660371]. There is obviously no consensus for the edits he desires. <p> I really do not know where to go from here. The only thing I can think of is to have {{u|Rick Alan Ross}} put his proposed edits to [[WP:RFC]]. If they pass fine, however, if there is yet again no consensus for them to be added and he brings of the issue again ''without significantly better sources'' then it is time for a ban. Revisiting the same issues over and over again is unacceptable as is allowing a strategy of wearing down volunteers in order to get one's way. <p> I was just dealing with another editor at [[DRAFT:Leon Raper]] who, like RR, was only concerned with his own biography. He was indefinitly blocked as [[WP:NOTHERE|not here to build an encyclopedia]] after only a few weeks of very similar behavior. This has been going on for a year or more and it is past time to put a stake in it. <p> Opinions? <br> [[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>]] 14:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:57, 23 May 2016
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rick Ross, deprogrammer
I don't think the title "deprogrammer" is sufficient or completely accurate to describe me or my work today. I am referred to as an "author." [[2]] as the "founder of the Cult Education Institute" [[3]] and noted for my specialized knowledge and expertise regarding "destructive cults." [[4]] [[5]]. In addition to being published in Chinese my book "Cults Inside Out" has also been published by Anteo Edizioni in Italian. [[6]] Some adjustment should be made in the lead and at Occupation to more accurately reflect the facts.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, you market yourself differently. This article is not a part of your marketing campaign. We've plenty of sources supporting "deprogrammer". --Ronz (talk) 16:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Primary notability is as a deprogrammer and this is what most sources say. Self reference is not relav_ent, I believe we discussed this a few months ago in the context of whether to use 'exit councilor. JbhTalk 17:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- No. My primary notability is as a cult expert as demonstrated by the linked reliable sources above. I have been qualified and testified many times as a court expert. I also lecture at the university and college level as a guest expert about cults. The reliable sources support that changes should be made in the lead and occupation of my bio for the purpose of historical accuracy.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- The news reports linked above reflect the facts. There are many more examples, but these are just a few. I am not often referred to as simply a "deprogrammer," though I still do cult intervention work. I have provided reliable sources. I am referred to as the founder and executive director of the Cult Education Institute, which is an educational tax-exempted 501 (c) (3) online library database. I am also referred to as an expert that provides expert testimony in court cases across the US. And as an expert, lecturer and published author, who is frequently interviewed by the media. The bio lead and occupation should reflect the reported facts.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- You may recall past discussions on how this is not a venue for your marketing campaigns. Nothing appears changed. --Ronz (talk) 16:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- What Wikipedia is not "Articles must be balanced to put entries...in a reasonable perspective." Wikipedia: Notability There is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent" and "editors should consider how best to help readers understand it." An article must not be "so narrow that [it] cannot be properly developed." I suggest that the bio reflect balance regarding the nature of my notability and reasonably reflect a historical perspective rather than be so narrowly focused on one aspect of my work. I am not simply notable for deprogramming, which I have established through reliable sources and will continue to add footnoted and linked sources above.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:25, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- We've been through this. It gets very old. Out of all the potential sources, identify a few that you feel are the absolutely best and I'll look them over. If you can't find any that have a strong historical context, you might want to wait until you find some. --Ronz (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- Please review the overwhelming support from reliable sources that I have found and linked above. I will continue to compile more. The news reports and media interviews describe me and my work and provide strong historical context. I am not known nor notable simply as a "deprogrammer." The lead and occupation at my bio should reflect the historical facts not cherry picking.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- RR please do not change your comments after they have been replied to as you have done above. I have mentioned to you before that this is not appropriate because it changes the context of other editors replies to you. In this case it looks like more references were asked for when you had already given 30+ rather than when you had given 3-4. Thank you. JbhTalk 14:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry. I did later state that I would add additional linked sources. This took some time. I have added a note in bold regarding the sources later added to support the strong historical context as requested. I think it's important to show just how strong and pervasive the reliable sources are concerning this matter. BTW I was interviewed by CNN/HLN Nancy Grace yesterday as a "court expert." The transcript will be online soon. I am very rarely referred to as simply a "deprogrammer." That is a title that was primarily applied to me during the late 1980s and 1990s.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- Please review the overwhelming support from reliable sources that I have found and linked above. I will continue to compile more. The news reports and media interviews describe me and my work and provide strong historical context. I am not known nor notable simply as a "deprogrammer." The lead and occupation at my bio should reflect the historical facts not cherry picking.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- We've been through this. It gets very old. Out of all the potential sources, identify a few that you feel are the absolutely best and I'll look them over. If you can't find any that have a strong historical context, you might want to wait until you find some. --Ronz (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- What Wikipedia is not "Articles must be balanced to put entries...in a reasonable perspective." Wikipedia: Notability There is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent" and "editors should consider how best to help readers understand it." An article must not be "so narrow that [it] cannot be properly developed." I suggest that the bio reflect balance regarding the nature of my notability and reasonably reflect a historical perspective rather than be so narrowly focused on one aspect of my work. I am not simply notable for deprogramming, which I have established through reliable sources and will continue to add footnoted and linked sources above.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:25, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- No. My primary notability is as a cult expert as demonstrated by the linked reliable sources above. I have been qualified and testified many times as a court expert. I also lecture at the university and college level as a guest expert about cults. The reliable sources support that changes should be made in the lead and occupation of my bio for the purpose of historical accuracy.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Adding sources is fine but please do so as a reply to the question. That way when someone reads the talk page they can follow what is going on without reading the history. This is why WP:REDACT, part of the Talk Page Guidelines says ...if anyone has already replied to or quoted your original comment, changing your comment may deprive any replies of their original context. Once others have replied, or best practice even if no one's replied but it's been more than a short while, if you wish to change or delete your comment, you should... Also, please use the preview button rather than making several minor changes to a comment after you have already saved it. I get so many edit conflicts when I try to respond to one of your comments that it wastes lots of time. Remember that those tweaks screw up other people's edits and force them to re-write or at the least copy/paste to avoid loosing their text. This is very impolite and I have also mentioned this to you before. JbhTalk
- I will endeavor to follow those guidelines. Doing my best.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think the title "deprogrammer" is sufficient or completely accurate to describe me or my work. I am referred to as an "author." [[7]] aa the "founder of the Cult Education Institute" (formerly known as the Ross Institute of New Jersey) [[8]] [[9]] and noted for my specialized knowledge and expertise regarding "destructive cults." [[10]] [[11]] [[12]] [[13]] [[14]] [[15]] [[16]] [[17]] [[18]] [[19]] [[20]] [[21]] [[22]] [[23]] [[24]] [[25]] [[26]] [[27]] [[28]] [[29]] [[30]] [[31]] [[32]] [[33]] [[34]] [[35]] [[36]] [[37]] [[38]]
- +[[39]]. In addition to being published in Chinese my book "Cults Inside Out" has also been published by Anteo Edizioni in Italian. [[40]] Some adjustment should be made in the lead and at Occupation to more accurately reflect the facts.(Note: I added more reliable sources per request after the initial comments from editors 14:31, 26 April 2016)Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- I restored the OP to the situation before first response, and moved the "updated" version above, for clarity.
- @Rick Alan Ross: of course there is little chance this will work as long as you just post a sea of external links, without indicating, source by source who wrote what, when, in which publication, and what part of the linked text we should be looking at. I, for one, find this a highly counterproductive proceeding as long as such clarifications aren't posted, source by source, and will of course not start clicking random links to get something sorted that is not my problem by far. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you. The sources linked demonstrate why I am notable. They refer to me as an expert, court expert and also mention my book and the Cult Education Institute. I am not often referred to as a "deprogrammer."
- I will endeavor to follow those guidelines. Doing my best.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- Can we assume then that not a single one of these potential sources actually have any strong historical context? --Ronz (talk) 16:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Rick Alan Ross (talk) 13:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Please don't assume anything. What the reliable sources reflect is my work, the reason that my work as an expert is notable as noted by the courts, journalists, in news reports, media, etc. The bio should be consistent with the facts. I have linked the information to make it easy for you or anyone to review.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- Please stop wasting our time if you cannot screen sources for quality and content. --Ronz (talk) 18:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- I have screened and provided reliable quality sources that support my request for editing of the lead and occupation. I suggest that the lead read something like -- "Rick Alan Ross (born 1952) is an American cult specialist and deprogrammer. Ross has testified as a court expert witness and is frequently interviewed by the media. He has done more than 500 deprogramming intervention cases in various countries, including a number of involuntary deprogramming interventions at the request of parents whose children joined controversial groups and movements. Ross is the founder of the Cult Education Institute, which is an educational nonprofit database." Under occupation it should read -- "Deprogrammer, Court Expert, Author"Rick Alan Ross (talk) 19:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- I suggested that you identify a few source that you think are best, that include a strong historical context. You've not responded by identifying any in such a manner. As long as you ignore such requests, I see no reason to continue this discussion. --Ronz (talk) 14:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia: Notability Notability guidelines include books, films, organizations and Web content. My work has been significantly noted historically. And I have received significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent. Per Wikipedia guidelines, "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it." Here are some specific sources cited and dated source by source with directly relevant quotations.
- The New York Daily News (2002) cites me as "New Jersey-based cult expert Rick Ross" [[41]]
- In the book "Power of Cult Branding" (2002) I am referred to and quoted as "cult expert and intervention specialist Rick Ross" [[42]]
- NBC News (2004) refers to me as "cult expert Rick Ross" [[43]]
- Wired (2005) described me as "Rick Ross, a cult expert" [[44]]
- ABC News interview described me as "Rick Ross, one of the country's leading experts on what are called destructive culs, controversial groups" [[45]]
- IMDB lists some of the television programs and documentaries I have participated in from 1995 to 2014. I am descirbed in 1995 as a "deprogrammer," 2004-2005 as a "Cult and New Age Researcher," 2007 as a "cult investigator," 2008 as a "cult expert," 2010 as a "Religious Group Expert" and 2011 as "Cult Expert - Ross Institute for Cult Studies" [[46]]
- The Gothamist (2005) refers to me as "an internationally known expert regarding destructive cults, controversial groups and movements. He has performed interventions, lectured, consulted, assisted local and national law enforcement, and testified as an expert witness on the subject." [[47]]
- In the Tampa Tribune (2006) I am referred to and quoted as "Rick Ross, a cult expert who has researched Scientology for years" [[48]]
- CBS News (2006) identifies me as "cult expert Rick Ross " [[49]]
- UK News Shopper (2012) identifies me as " Rick Ross, an expert from the Rick Ross Institute in New Jersey, America, which studies destructive cults and controversial movements" [[50]]
- The New York Post (2008) identifies me as "Cult expert Rick Ross" [[51]]
- Yahoo News Australia (2011) identifies me as "Cult expert Rick Ross" [[52]]
- The Arizona Republic (2011) states, "Rick Ross, who has a national reputation as an authority on cults and cult behavior. Ross, formerly based in Arizona, has a controversial background, including his work as a cult 'deprogrammer.'" The Repuglic also reported "Ross has testified in courts in several states and has written about cults and coercive techniques"[[53]]
- I was qualified and accepted as an expert in the James Arthur Ray case despite defense efforts to have me exclused. [[54]]
- Albany Times-Union (2012) reported, "Rick Ross has been a cult tracker for more than 25 years" And further reported "Ross has been qualified and accepted as an expert witness regarding cults and cultlike groups in the courts of 10 states and has been used by the federal government as a consultant." [[55]]
- Daily Mail (UK 2012) referred to me as "cult expert Rick Ross" [[56]]
- The Observer (Uganda 2012) referred to me as " international cult expert, Rick Ross" [[57]]
- Psychologist "Dr. Phill" (2013) national television program featured me as "cult expert Rick Ross" [[58]]
- The New Yorker (2013) referred to me as "Rick Ross, a cult expert who has worked with law enforcement and knows the inner workings of Twelve Tribes" [[59]]
- The Range (2013) described me as "Cult expert Rick Ross, who tracks religious groups through his Rick A. Ross Institute" [[60]]
- The Independent (UK 2013) referred to me as "Rick Ross, a consultant on cults and an expert witness in many cases in the US" [[61]]
- Vice (2015) described me as "Rick Alan Ross, a cult expert who founded the Cult Education Institute" [[62]]
- Maxim (2015) reported "Rick Ross (no, not that one) is a consultant, author, and founder of the Cult Education Institute. He’s been a opponent of cults for several decades, and was even embroiled in a lawsuit for his controversial deprogramming methods" [[63]]
- CNN (2015) describes me as a "cult expert [[64]]
- People Magazine (2015) describes me as "Rick Ross, who has been cited internationally for his work on destructive cults" [[65]]
- Inverse (2015) describes me as "Rick Ross, specialist on destructive cults and movements" [[66]]
- Yahoo News (2016) identifies me as "Rick Ross, founder of the Cult Education Institute and author of Cults Inside Out" [[67]]
- Raw Story (2016) described me as "Rick Ross, a cult expert who helped in Waco with the Branch Davidians" [[68]]
- Lehigh Valley Live (Pennsylvania 2016) "Rick Ross, director of the Trenton-based Cult Education Institute" [[69]] Also note that this article utilizes the Cult Education Institute database for historical articles and research.
- These source by source citations and quotations demonstrate why I am notable and the historical context of how I am recognized.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 16:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia: Notability Notability guidelines include books, films, organizations and Web content. My work has been significantly noted historically. And I have received significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent. Per Wikipedia guidelines, "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it." Here are some specific sources cited and dated source by source with directly relevant quotations.
- I suggested that you identify a few source that you think are best, that include a strong historical context. You've not responded by identifying any in such a manner. As long as you ignore such requests, I see no reason to continue this discussion. --Ronz (talk) 14:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- I have screened and provided reliable quality sources that support my request for editing of the lead and occupation. I suggest that the lead read something like -- "Rick Alan Ross (born 1952) is an American cult specialist and deprogrammer. Ross has testified as a court expert witness and is frequently interviewed by the media. He has done more than 500 deprogramming intervention cases in various countries, including a number of involuntary deprogramming interventions at the request of parents whose children joined controversial groups and movements. Ross is the founder of the Cult Education Institute, which is an educational nonprofit database." Under occupation it should read -- "Deprogrammer, Court Expert, Author"Rick Alan Ross (talk) 19:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- Please stop wasting our time if you cannot screen sources for quality and content. --Ronz (talk) 18:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- Please don't assume anything. What the reliable sources reflect is my work, the reason that my work as an expert is notable as noted by the courts, journalists, in news reports, media, etc. The bio should be consistent with the facts. I have linked the information to make it easy for you or anyone to review.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Adding sources is fine but please do so as a reply to the question. That way when someone reads the talk page they can follow what is going on without reading the history. This is why WP:REDACT, part of the Talk Page Guidelines says ...if anyone has already replied to or quoted your original comment, changing your comment may deprive any replies of their original context. Once others have replied, or best practice even if no one's replied but it's been more than a short while, if you wish to change or delete your comment, you should... Also, please use the preview button rather than making several minor changes to a comment after you have already saved it. I get so many edit conflicts when I try to respond to one of your comments that it wastes lots of time. Remember that those tweaks screw up other people's edits and force them to re-write or at the least copy/paste to avoid loosing their text. This is very impolite and I have also mentioned this to you before. JbhTalk
- Took the liberty to give them a number, hope that's OK. Next I would select the top five or so for reliability, does that seem like a good plan? --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you. That looks much better and makes it easier for everyone. I will do that in the future.
- Book "Power of Cult Branding" (2002) I am referred to and quoted as "cult expert and intervention specialist Rick Ross" [[70]]
- The New Yorker (2013) referred to me as "Rick Ross, a cult expert who has worked with law enforcement and knows the inner workings of Twelve Tribes" [[71]]
- Albany Times-Union (2012) reported, "Rick Ross has been a cult tracker for more than 25 years" And further reported "Ross has been qualified and accepted as an expert witness regarding cults and cultlike groups in the courts of 10 states and has been used by the federal government as a consultant." [[72]]
- ABC News interview described me as "Rick Ross, one of the country's leading experts on what are called destructive culs, controversial groups" [[73]]
- In the Tampa Tribune (2006) I am referred to and quoted as "Rick Ross, a cult expert who has researched Scientology for years" [[74]]
- The Arizona Republic (2011) states, "Rick Ross, who has a national reputation as an authority on cults and cult behavior. Ross, formerly based in Arizona, has a controversial background, including his work as a cult 'deprogrammer.'" The Repuglic also reported "Ross has testified in courts in several states and has written about cults and coercive techniques" [[75]]
- People Magazine (2015) describes me as "Rick Ross, who has been cited internationally for his work on destructive cults" [[76]]
- IMDB lists some of the television programs and documentaries I have participated in from 1995 to 2014. I am descirbed in 1995 as a "deprogrammer," 2004-2005 as a "Cult and New Age Researcher," 2007 as a "cult investigator," 2008 as a "cult expert," 2010 as a "Religious Group Expert" and 2011 as "Cult Expert - Ross Institute for Cult Studies" [[77]]Rick Alan Ross (talk) 20:15, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you. That looks much better and makes it easier for everyone. I will do that in the future.
- Took the liberty to give them a number, hope that's OK. Next I would select the top five or so for reliability, does that seem like a good plan? --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
I'd drop No. 8 (IMDB) — IMDB itself is not generally regarded as a reliable source (the explanation for which is at WP:USERGENERATED). The other seven could be brought to WP:RSN if there's insufficient response on this article talk page.
For clarity, this is the recommended format for WP:RSN:
- Source. The book or web page being used as the source. For a book, include the author, title, publisher, page number, etc. For an online source, please include links. For example: [http://www.website.com/webpage.html].
- Article. The Wikipedia article(s) in which the source is being used. For example: [[Article name]].
- Content. The exact statement(s) in the article that the source supports. Please supply a diff, or put the content inside block quotes. For example: <blockquote>text</blockquote>. Many sources are reliable for statement "X," but unreliable for statement "Y".
So it's basisally still the content ("exact statement(s)") that needs to be written down. Take the sentence(s) you would like to see changed (quote them, and indicate from which section/paragraph) and say something like "I'd like to see these sentences changed to..." and then give the exact sentence as you would like to see it (the clearer the sentence, the easier it is to handle by your fellow-editors: vaguish statements might lead to lack of response for that reason).
Maybe do the preparation here on this talk page, possibly you'd already receive feedback, and if not, you can copy-paste it to WP:RSN afterwards. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you. I'd like to see the following sentences in the lead section and Occupation description changed as follows:
Change "Rick Alan Ross (born 1952) is an American deprogrammer. Ross has intervened in more than 350 deprogramming cases in various countries, including a number of involuntary deprogramming interventions at the requests of parents whose children had joined controversial groups and movements."
To -- Rick Alan Ross (born 1952) is a widely known cult specialist, deprogrammer, court expert and author. Ross has done more than 500 interventions in the United States and internationally, His work as a deprogrammer has at times been controversial, specifically regarding involuntary family interventions concerning adult children involved in groups called "cults."
Change -- "Ross faced charges of unlawful imprisonment over a 1991 forcible deprogramming of United Pentecostal Church International member Jason Scott; a jury acquitted him at trial. In 1995, a civil lawsuit filed by Scott resulted in a multimillion-dollar judgement against Ross and his co-defendants. Later, Ross and Scott reached a settlement in which Ross agreed to pay Scott US$5,000 and provide 200 hours of professional services at no charge."
To -- Ross was charged with unlawful imprisonment in 1991. This was linked to the involuntary deprogramming of 18-year-old Jason Scott. Ross was acquitted by a jury at trial. Later in 1995 Scientology lawyer Kendrick Moxon filed a lawsuit on behalf of Scott in federal court. The litigation ended in a much reported about multi-million-dollar judgement against Ross. However, that judgement was later settled for $5,000 and 200 hours of Ross's professional services.
Change -- "Ross was the only deprogrammer to work with members of the religious group Branch Davidian prior to the Waco siege; some scholars later criticized his involvement with the siege."
To -- Ross is the only deprogrammer that worked with members of the Branch Davidian sect prior to the Waco siege.
Change Occupation from "Deprogrammer" to Cult intervention specialist, court expert, author
Rick Alan Ross (talk) 19:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- My comments on these suggestions by Rick Alan Ross: "Widely known" seems unnecessary peacockery in the first sentence. How widely known Ross is should appear from the article and its references, not be stated in the first sentence in Wikipedia's voice.
- I suggest changing some punctuation, notable the comma at "internationally, His work.." and the choppy short sentences in the second paragraph. Get rid of the "However", one of those words that are very rarely encyclopedic. The "much reported about" insertion is too inelegant, please rephrase if you think it's important. I've no problem with changing the occupation as suggested. To be clear, then, I think the following wording would be acceptable:
- First paragraph above: Change to -- Rick Alan Ross (born 1952) is a cult specialist, deprogrammer, court expert and author. Ross has done more than 500 interventions in the United States and internationally. His work as a deprogrammer has at times been controversial, specifically regarding involuntary family interventions concerning adult children involved in groups called "cults."
- Second paragraph: Change to -- Ross was charged with unlawful imprisonment in 1991 over the involuntary deprogramming of 18-year-old Jason Scott. Ross was acquitted by a jury at trial. Later in 1995 Scientology lawyer Kendrick Moxon filed a lawsuit on behalf of Scott in federal court. The litigation ended in a multi-million-dollar judgement against Ross. That judgement was later settled for $5,000 and 200 hours of Ross's professional services.
- Third paragraph: Change to -- Ross was the only deprogrammer that worked with members of the Branch Davidian sect prior to the Waco siege.
- Infobox: Change Occupation from "Deprogrammer" to Cult intervention specialist, court expert, author.
Bishonen | talk 20:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC).
- Thank your for your suggestions and input.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 15:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Bishonen: Can we now move forward with the edits per your suggestions?Rick Alan Ross (talk) 13:24, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry. As I feared, this is simply an attempt to make this article fit Ross' marketing campaign. Sure, when you're briefly mentioned or quoted by the press, they're happy to use the titles that you want. When it comes to some actual details about you, we have something rather different:
- #6 http://archive.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2011/01/27/20110127arizona-sweat-lodge-guru-james-arthur-ray-witnesses.html#ixzz479ZnKhlP
Ross' status as a cult expert also came under question by Ray's attorneys, who said he has no education beyond a high-school degree and no special training in counseling or mental-health issues.
Prosecutors say Ross hasn't been involved in the "forcible detention and deprogramming" of adult cult members since 1990 and that his past shouldn't be mentioned in the trial. They said Ross has testified in courts in several states and has written about cults and coercive techniques.
- People magazine as a source for the notability of your expertise? This is an encyclopedia, not a gossip column. --Ronz (talk) 20:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Prosecutors rebutted Ray's lawyers [[78]] and the judge qualified and accepted me as an expert to testify at trial. [[79]] The People Magazine article is not "gossip" but rather a report about a purported "cult" called the Missionary Society Church of God. People Magazine sought me out for comment about the group. [[80]] There are many other articles listed that support the edits besides People.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 15:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- We have gone over most of these requests several times, particularly as the lead pertains to the Scott case. My opinion is that bringing that matter up again without significant new sources is edging into disruption and WP:IDHT. Many editors have expressed their opinions on this issue and bringing it up again every couple of months is going to do nothing but look like an attempt to wear down the participants here. JbhTalk 21:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- There is no marketing strategy or any effort by me in any way to wear anyone down. Over recent months I have studied Wikipedia policy and avoided needless arguments per the suggestion of editors. I have provided new and reliable sources as requested to support the suggested edits. The sources provided reflect the facts. These independent and reliable sources report who I am, why I am notable and provide historical context. IMO the bio should reflect the historical facts and a NPOV.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 15:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, but there are no significant new sources there. There's nothing with a historical context, and nothing with any details about Ross. It's just throwing mud at the wall. --Ronz (talk) 18:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Mud? I respectfully disagree. There are many new, significant and sufficiently detailed sources. These sources historically support and contextualize the specifically suggested editing.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 19:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Mud. As such, I don't see the value of responding further. --Ronz (talk) 20:38, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- I don't understand why and/or on what basis you can label reliable sources "mud." I complied per your request many historical and directly relevant reliable sources. IMO there are now more than enough reliable sources cited and confirmed by links to support the suggested edits.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 16:13, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Mud. As such, I don't see the value of responding further. --Ronz (talk) 20:38, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Mud? I respectfully disagree. There are many new, significant and sufficiently detailed sources. These sources historically support and contextualize the specifically suggested editing.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 19:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, but there are no significant new sources there. There's nothing with a historical context, and nothing with any details about Ross. It's just throwing mud at the wall. --Ronz (talk) 18:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- There is no marketing strategy or any effort by me in any way to wear anyone down. Over recent months I have studied Wikipedia policy and avoided needless arguments per the suggestion of editors. I have provided new and reliable sources as requested to support the suggested edits. The sources provided reflect the facts. These independent and reliable sources report who I am, why I am notable and provide historical context. IMO the bio should reflect the historical facts and a NPOV.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 15:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Can we now move forward with edit changes per the suggestions offered by Bishonen?Rick Alan Ross (talk) 13:24, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- There's no consensus to do so, which is required. --Ronz (talk) 15:22, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Editor Bishonen recommended specific edits. Editor Francis Schonken also helpfully organized the supporting historical and reliable sources. This was done April 27 and 28th. It seems appropriate to move forward now with the edits as suggested by editor Bishonen. These edits are very well supported and reliable sources were properly screened, cited, detailed, reviewed and linked above.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Proposed phraseology
We keep going around and around in this article. I last looked in on it in December and there were similar issues raised by the subject. Can we soften the language slightly to make it a "cult expert who has engaged in deprogramming"? Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support for that position Figureofnine, the links provided support that, no need to take an aggressive stance against this living person just because he attempts to improve his biography. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- I agree. I am not sure from this discussion if there is consensus for that. I hope there is. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- What sources support such a change in pov and notability? --Ronz (talk) 14:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- The subject of the article has produced a long list of sources in which he is referred to as something other than a deprogrammer. I really don't understand why we have to reject them out of hand in determining how he is referred to in the first sentence of the article. "Deprogrammer" has a somewhat negative connotation and we need to be utterly fair in making such statements in Wikipedia's voice. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- He is unquestionably a 'deprogrammer', his notability is tied to the Scott case and his actions there as a deprogrammer. In fact that case is, in large part, what broke the back of the deprogramming, anti-cult, movement. His role as 'cult-expert' is tied to the press he got from those earlier cases. As far as I know he still does deprogramming but now calls is 'exit counciling' - see the archives for discussion on which term we used. Most of the articles presented above are quotes/comments from him where what he is called is likely based on his own preference, on various topics rather than being written about him. A couple of good sources with him as the topic rather than a commentator would be useful to show what he is notable for has changes but I am not going through 35 articles to see which one, if any, may be such a source. If, as others here have asked, a few high quality sources are presented, with quotes indicating what part of the article is being used to support which claim, I will reconsider my position. JbhTalk 16:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- The subject of the article has produced a long list of sources in which he is referred to as something other than a deprogrammer. I really don't understand why we have to reject them out of hand in determining how he is referred to in the first sentence of the article. "Deprogrammer" has a somewhat negative connotation and we need to be utterly fair in making such statements in Wikipedia's voice. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- What sources support such a change in pov and notability? --Ronz (talk) 14:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- I agree. I am not sure from this discussion if there is consensus for that. I hope there is. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- OK, so he has engaged in deprogramming and has been referred to as a cult expert. Why are we not utilizing the latter term, as I proposed? Why are we using such exacting standards in determining that it not be utilized in Wikipedia's voice? Since he's been called a cult expert, I don't see the problem with calling him that. I think that's happened is that the subject has been so aggressive and oppositional that it perhaps has resulted in pushback and unnecessary hardening of positions, even on a simple thing like what we call him. I'm not suggesting that we not call him a deprogrammer; my language simply adds a couple of additional words. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- The biggest problem I have with the term cult expert is that he is more a 'self described cult expert' and is basing that term on being recognized as an expert witness. He has no academic credentials, no peer reviewed publications etc ie no indication that experts in the field consider him an expert. There is a big difference between being recognized as an expert witness and media labels vs being recognized as an expert by other experts in the field. The later is what is needed before we can call him an expert in Wikipedia's voice. JbhTalk 13:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Bishonen suggested "cult specialist, deprogrammer, court expert and author," which has been very well supported by numerous reliable sources. "Self described cult expert" would be misleading as the reliable sources indicate I am described as an expert by numerous sources. Being qualified, accepted and testifying as a court expert is a complex and demanding process. The court objectively determines expertise based upon facts not opinions and has no vested interest. Very few people in the cultic studies field have been qualified as experts in court, even fewer through a Daubert hearing in United States Federal Court. I have been qualified in as an expert witness in 10 states including United Stated Federal Court through a Daubert hearing in Noyes v. Kelly Services.[[81]] [[82]] [[83]]. My expertise has also been recognized by the many universities and colleges that have asked me to lecture as an expert lecturer, such as Penn, Dickinson, University of Chicago, Baylor and many others. My book "Cults Inside Out" has been published in Chinese and Italian. And I have been published in peer-reviewed academic journals. My work history includes serving on national committees for the Union for Reform Judaism and working in Arizona on the paid professional staff of both Jewish Family Service and the Bureau of Jewish Education, where I taught classes about groups called "cults." My work in the field now spans three decades. My notability is based upon that, not any one single case. This is why researchers, documentary makers, universities and news outlets continue to seek me out. IMO my Wikipedia bio should reflect objective established facts based upon reliable sources.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- I have no problem with Bishonen's suggestion. "Self-described cult expert" would be pejorative. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- To be clear, I was not suggesting using the term 'self described' in the article. The point that I was making is that, based on the sources we have, the description of 'expert' is one he seems to be labeling himself with rather than other experts in the field. I have no problem describing him as an 'expert witness' and I believe that term is now used in the article. The problem I have is that the articles calling him an expert are mostly quotes or where he is a "talking head" and not talking about him but rather listing information from a resume as a preamble to his comments rather than being an independent description. JbhTalk 15:09, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed. He markets himself as a "cult expert". Some (poor) sources are happy to use his labeling, but there's no justification for it that has been pointed out despite all the requests that someone do so. The burden is on those seeking inclusion.
- "The subject of the article has produced a long list of sources in which he is referred to as something other than a deprogrammer. I really don't understand why we have to reject them out of hand in determining how he is referred to in the first sentence of the article." The sources offered do not demonstrate the weight, notability, and encyclopedic value that the proposal assumes. When the proposed sources are compared what we are currently using, they look even worse. We "reject" them because BLP requires us to follow policies and guidelines closely. --Ronz (talk) 16:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- The sources cited offer independent descriptions. These descriptions are not based on my comments, marketing or resume, but rather the established historical facts. The courts have also ruled on this and the arguments presented by opposing counsel against qualifying me as an expert were repeatedly rejected. Wikipedia: Notability My expertise "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are indendent." Wikipedia: Cherrypicking I am not known simply as a "deprogrammer" and/or primarily because of the Jason Scott case. Undue weight should not be given to the title "deprogrammer" or the Scott case.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 16:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- To be clear, I was not suggesting using the term 'self described' in the article. The point that I was making is that, based on the sources we have, the description of 'expert' is one he seems to be labeling himself with rather than other experts in the field. I have no problem describing him as an 'expert witness' and I believe that term is now used in the article. The problem I have is that the articles calling him an expert are mostly quotes or where he is a "talking head" and not talking about him but rather listing information from a resume as a preamble to his comments rather than being an independent description. JbhTalk 15:09, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- I have no problem with Bishonen's suggestion. "Self-described cult expert" would be pejorative. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Bishonen suggested "cult specialist, deprogrammer, court expert and author," which has been very well supported by numerous reliable sources. "Self described cult expert" would be misleading as the reliable sources indicate I am described as an expert by numerous sources. Being qualified, accepted and testifying as a court expert is a complex and demanding process. The court objectively determines expertise based upon facts not opinions and has no vested interest. Very few people in the cultic studies field have been qualified as experts in court, even fewer through a Daubert hearing in United States Federal Court. I have been qualified in as an expert witness in 10 states including United Stated Federal Court through a Daubert hearing in Noyes v. Kelly Services.[[81]] [[82]] [[83]]. My expertise has also been recognized by the many universities and colleges that have asked me to lecture as an expert lecturer, such as Penn, Dickinson, University of Chicago, Baylor and many others. My book "Cults Inside Out" has been published in Chinese and Italian. And I have been published in peer-reviewed academic journals. My work history includes serving on national committees for the Union for Reform Judaism and working in Arizona on the paid professional staff of both Jewish Family Service and the Bureau of Jewish Education, where I taught classes about groups called "cults." My work in the field now spans three decades. My notability is based upon that, not any one single case. This is why researchers, documentary makers, universities and news outlets continue to seek me out. IMO my Wikipedia bio should reflect objective established facts based upon reliable sources.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- The biggest problem I have with the term cult expert is that he is more a 'self described cult expert' and is basing that term on being recognized as an expert witness. He has no academic credentials, no peer reviewed publications etc ie no indication that experts in the field consider him an expert. There is a big difference between being recognized as an expert witness and media labels vs being recognized as an expert by other experts in the field. The later is what is needed before we can call him an expert in Wikipedia's voice. JbhTalk 13:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- OK, so he has engaged in deprogramming and has been referred to as a cult expert. Why are we not utilizing the latter term, as I proposed? Why are we using such exacting standards in determining that it not be utilized in Wikipedia's voice? Since he's been called a cult expert, I don't see the problem with calling him that. I think that's happened is that the subject has been so aggressive and oppositional that it perhaps has resulted in pushback and unnecessary hardening of positions, even on a simple thing like what we call him. I'm not suggesting that we not call him a deprogrammer; my language simply adds a couple of additional words. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Review of suggested changes
Bishonen suggested changes (April 28th) as follows;
First paragraph: Change to -- Rick Alan Ross (born 1952) is a cult specialist, deprogrammer, court expert and author. Ross has done more than 500 interventions in the United States and internationally. His work as a deprogrammer has at times been controversial, specifically regarding involuntary family interventions concerning adult children involved in groups called "cults."
Second paragraph: Change to -- Ross was charged with unlawful imprisonment in 1991 over the involuntary deprogramming of 18-year-old Jason Scott. Ross was acquitted by a jury at trial. Later in 1995 Scientology lawyer Kendrick Moxon filed a lawsuit on behalf of Scott in federal court. The litigation ended in a multi-million-dollar judgement against Ross. That judgement was later settled for $5,000 and 200 hours of Ross's professional services.
Third paragraph: Change to -- Ross was the only deprogrammer that worked with members of the Branch Davidian sect prior to the Waco siege.
Infobox: Change Occupation from "Deprogrammer" to -- Cult intervention specialist, court expert, author.
There seems to be a growing consensus, excluding two editors, that these edits are reasonable and very well supported by reliable sources. When can these edits be implemented?Rick Alan Ross (talk) 12:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
More recent media references to Rick Alan Ross
Some recent news reports and interviews again reflect how I am known and why I am notable.
- Harris, Chris, "Killer Cult? Inside The Horrific Death of Teenager Lucas Leonard at the Word of Life Christian Church," People Magazine, (May 18, 2016) -- describes me as "Rick Ross, an internationally recognized cult expert."[[84]]
- Gettys, Travis, "Inside the bizarre cult that convinced two parents to brutally beat their son to death in church," Raw Story, (May 19, 2016) -- refers to me as "cult expert Rick Ross."[[85]]
- Twizted Myrtle (podcast 18) "Can Anyone Succumb to Cults and Brainwashing?" (May 14, 2016) -- introduces me "Rick Ross is the founder and Executive Director of The Cult Education Institute. He is an internationally known expert on destructive cults, controversial groups and movements." [[86]]Rick Alan Ross (talk) 15:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- Twizted Myrtle (podcast 18 pt 2) "ISIS & Mind Control: Looking at Suicide Bombers Through a Different Lens" (May 14, 2016) describes me as "Rick Ross, an expert on destructive cults" [[87]]
- Mierjeski, Alex,"How to Tell If Someone You Know Is in a Cult" Attn.com (May 21, 2016) describes me as "cult specialist, author, and director of the Cult Education Institute" [[88]]Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:24, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- These are more of the same: Poor quality sources (many sources so poor that cannot be used at all) that do not establish notability. Most importantly, they do not even begin to demonstrate notability above that of the Scott case. Ross presents himself to the media, and some media is happy to repeat what he presents in their poor-quality and sensationalist articles. --Ronz (talk) 15:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- "Ross Presents himself to the media"? I have responded to media inquiries for decades (1982-2016). Reporters/journalists evaluate the facts and report the news citing sources as they see fit. Many reliable sources have been presented here that support the requested edits. The Scott case (1995) is not why I am notable today as the sources reflect. I suggest that Bishonen's edits, which were recommended April 28th, be implemented to present a NPOV at this BLP.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:03, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'm just going to repeat myself, as this keeps being overlooked while it's the most important aspect about this: "Most importantly, they do not even begin to demonstrate notability above that of the Scott case." --Ronz (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- The edits suggested by Bishonen are very well supported by reliable sources helpfully organized by Francis Schonken and they neither remove nor negate the Scott case. As Figureofnine said there seems to be "unnecessary hardening of positions."Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:27, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'm just going to repeat myself, as this keeps being overlooked while it's the most important aspect about this: "Most importantly, they do not even begin to demonstrate notability above that of the Scott case." --Ronz (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- "Ross Presents himself to the media"? I have responded to media inquiries for decades (1982-2016). Reporters/journalists evaluate the facts and report the news citing sources as they see fit. Many reliable sources have been presented here that support the requested edits. The Scott case (1995) is not why I am notable today as the sources reflect. I suggest that Bishonen's edits, which were recommended April 28th, be implemented to present a NPOV at this BLP.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:03, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- These are more of the same: Poor quality sources (many sources so poor that cannot be used at all) that do not establish notability. Most importantly, they do not even begin to demonstrate notability above that of the Scott case. Ross presents himself to the media, and some media is happy to repeat what he presents in their poor-quality and sensationalist articles. --Ronz (talk) 15:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Another reliable source to support suggested edits:
Grace, Nancy, "Prince`s Pain; Investigating the Death of Music Icon Prince," CNN Transcripts (Aired April 25, 2016 - 20:00:00 ET) -- described me as "Rick Ross, an expert in Jehovah`s Witness cases" [[89]]Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:51, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Notability
How on earth does this person meet our notability criteria? CassiantoTalk 14:57, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Cassianto: Mostly through the coverage he received re the Jason Scott case. His behavior in those events is said to have pretty much brought an end to the age of deprogramming. See the quote from Encylopedia of Religion 2ed on my talk page [90] for the significance of the event. The follow-on coverage stemming from that initial notability is pretty extensive including quite a bit of coverage about his involvement with the Waco siege and the Branch Davidians. Much of the other coverage is of him as a 'talking head' whenever reporters need a comment about cults - he is known and makes himself available so there is a lot of that type of coverage.
You can see from the above discussions that there is some disagreement between the article subject and other editors about which aspects are most important.
There is also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick Alan Ross (2nd nomination). Oddly the main AfD link seems to be a redirect to 2nd nom so
I'm not sure where the original discussion is.Here it is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick Ross (consultant) JbhTalk 15:26, 21 May 2016 (UTC) Update JbhTalk 16:56, 21 May 2016 (UTC)- Yes, the Scott case makes him notable as a deprogrammer--Ronz (talk) 15:29, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- No. The Scott case, which took place more than 20 years ago, is not why I am notable today and it should not be given undue weight. Many reliable sources have been provided to support the requested edit changes suggested by Bishonen, which will provide a balanced historical perspective and NPOV.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- Are you basing that from your interpretation of WP:N, WP:BIO, and WP:NPOV, or are you just using "notable today" in another sense? --Ronz (talk) 16:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- WP:BIO "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Done. "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." Done. The reliable and multiple independent sources cited helpfully organized by Francis Schonken more than suffice to support the edits suggested by Bishonen.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- Are you basing that from your interpretation of WP:N, WP:BIO, and WP:NPOV, or are you just using "notable today" in another sense? --Ronz (talk) 16:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- No. The Scott case, which took place more than 20 years ago, is not why I am notable today and it should not be given undue weight. Many reliable sources have been provided to support the requested edit changes suggested by Bishonen, which will provide a balanced historical perspective and NPOV.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, the Scott case makes him notable as a deprogrammer--Ronz (talk) 15:29, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
This is getting disruptive
Rick Alan Ross has now started 4 sections on essentially the same topic, which are basically rehashes of previous talk page discussions. I know we give a lot of latitude to BLP subjects but this is clasic, long term "I didn't hear that behavior". To quote Bishonen's response from her talk page re your claim of 'growing consensus' "I've been thinking about it, but after reviewing how the talkpage discussion has gone since them, I don't see how I can add those changes. There isn't consensus for them, and the comments of Jbhunley and Ronz must weigh with me as well. They have been following the discussion longer and more continuously than I have, and I respect the nuanced positions they've been taking. Sorry, but I don't really see the "growing consensus" you speak of."
[91]. There is obviously no consensus for the edits he desires.
I really do not know where to go from here. The only thing I can think of is to have Rick Alan Ross put his proposed edits to WP:RFC. If they pass fine, however, if there is yet again no consensus for them to be added and he brings of the issue again without significantly better sources then it is time for a ban. Revisiting the same issues over and over again is unacceptable as is allowing a strategy of wearing down volunteers in order to get one's way.
I was just dealing with another editor at DRAFT:Leon Raper who, like RR, was only concerned with his own biography. He was indefinitly blocked as not here to build an encyclopedia after only a few weeks of very similar behavior. This has been going on for a year or more and it is past time to put a stake in it.