Talk:James Arthur Ray/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Spokesman description removal

Why was this [1] removed with sources? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. Perhaps they missed Bragman's name earlier in the article and didn't know who he was? I put it back in, reworked. I also moved the Native American response section back down to the bottom where it was, it shouldn't be before the description of the tragedy and aftermath - someone moved it to the top. Brianyoumans (talk) 14:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

3 dead

The New York Times has a front page story today saying there were 3 dead of 21 taken to the hospital. It's a very good article for citeable, credible sourcing --166.205.5.161 (talk) 15:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• The article does mention the third death already. Thanks for the pointer. Brianyoumans (talk) 16:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion

James Arthur Ray

... This article is presented as a biography, but is not truly a biography and therefore I feel it should be deleted. It is mostly a list of news reports (skewing to one view) about a 10-day period of this man's life. The event should be included as a part of his overall, more extensive biography. This article would be better suited as a separate page on the event, providing a factual account of both sides of this event (I'm not sure it really does this ... it appears one-sided), and the biography page used to offer a bigger picture of Mr. Ray's life. This page would be akin to giving a detailed account of the Chappaquiddick incident as the biography page of Senator Edward Kennedy, overlooking numerous other aspects of him and his life, like fatherhood, his extensive charitable work and his decades of service as a US Senator. The article as presented on Mr. Ray is perhaps not neutral nor a biography according to Wiki's intent. Added MfD nomination at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Arthur_RayI have never nominated a page for deletion before. I hope I did it correctly. Thanks. Beth9000 (talk) 06:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)Beth9000

I appreciate your concerns, there is very little available from the subject to present in the article. It's a preponderance of the views available from reliable sources on a significant and notable event for the subject. I believe the content will be condensed as the issue matures and may even fork spinout to another article. Deletion isn't warranted. I suggest you contribute with reliable sources to balance your perceived skewness. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 14:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Unforunately, MfD is not the proper venue for such a discussion. Please refile your request at articles for deletion. TNXMan 03:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I recommend reviewing these Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

The NPOV dispute tag remains, however I am having difficulty seeing the specific disputes to be addressed. Perhaps there is an Wikipedia:Undue weight issue, but not necessarily on the sweat lodge event as a whole, but with a particular. The tag should not really remain if there nothing to address. The editor who placed it, left no talk. I am sensitive to the concern and warning, just puzzled about what to do to address a dispute. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I am removing the dispute tag, content was added. At worst it was a WP:DRIVEBY at best a review tag is appropriate. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Sweat Box

The term "sweat box" was used by some media sources. I believe changing the term in all the reference in this article is disruptive. Particularly in the source titles. What would seem appropriate is a sentences or two attributing the sources that applied the term "sweat box"Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 01:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Manosmilusos, if you are going to make judgments about the term "Sweat Box" or "Sweat Lodge" you must follow WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:NPOV to support your statements. I understand you may be new here ... Wikipedia has traditions too, they must not be offended too. Content must be relevant and notable from reliable sources. I've found no sources to support your statements. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• I agree, and have just reverted Manosmilusos again. It is fine to note in the article, with appropriate sources, that some Native Americans are upset by Ray's use/abuse of the sweat lodge custom, but the article should try to keep a neutral point of view. Brianyoumans (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Manosmilusos, your latest effort was better (assuming you were done). And thanks for pointing out the spelling error. If you really want to work in the term "sweat box", I would do it in the context of a quote... "Ed Rainwater, Lakota elder, said, '....'" I am not at all an expert on these things (except that I have been following this story, having "watched" this article some time ago), but to me "sweatbox" is a very inaccurate term for Ray's "lodge" - something big enough for 50 people is not a little "box".

• We already have a considerable section making it clear that Ray's construction was, in the opinion of Native American experts, very different from a traditional Native American sweat lodge. Nevertheless, it was called a sweat lodge, and was perhaps similar in some ways to other non-Native American sweat lodges. I don't think we can justify calling it anything else at this point, I don't think we have a better term to use. Brianyoumans (talk) 23:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Here's the search for Sweat Box articles [2] in my view the term displays media ignorance. It was intended as a Sweat Lodge, its analogy to a Sweat Box is unfortunate and provocative. The main point is that it wasn't constructed properly, according to experts, not what it is called. To me the term Sweat Box should reflect the media reports, not the nature of its construction or who made it. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• I am concerned that the Sweat Box term must follow Wikipedia:Avoiding harm Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 14:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• The article issues are too sensitive, must avoid Wikipedia:Or#Synthesis_of_published_material_that_advances_a_position when applying Sweat Box. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me a good way to handle the interpretation of the terms: sweat box, sweat lodge and vision quest is to link them to their wiki articles for the reader to judge. Applying them in this article requires cited sources that provide their context and meaning in relation to the subject. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 18:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I suspect these terms will be relevant to the Lakota lawsuit as their intellectual property. I am disappointed that there are few reports on this case. Amused as the identity theft / cultural appropriation issues will play out in the upcoming Avatar_(2009_film). To me it is fair to say in this article the there is a dispute over the Indian practices Ray conducted (sweat lodge and vision quest) that the media reported the structure as a sweat box. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 19:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• I think the real issue is that this is an article about James Ray, not an article about cultural (mis)appropriation. It is certainly relevant to mention the Native American point of view, and the lawsuit (which I can't take very seriously, frankly). But, for Ray, the real issue is the issue of wrongful death, of whether he was criminally careless in the way the "sweat lodge" was constructed or the "ceremony" was conducted. Brianyoumans (talk) 19:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

BLP Noticeboard report

Please discuss at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#James_Arthur_Ray Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 15:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Vanity page

This page is little more than a commercial for James Ray

previous pages were voted for and deleted as vanity pages Mywikieditor2007 (talk) 20:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Not anymore. Hanxu9 (talk) 13:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Outdated info removed

I removed the following text from the end of the Sweat lodge deaths section: "There has been no other date set. A hearing on pending motions is still set for August 10, 2010." As you can see, it was months out of date and needs to be replaced by more recent information. - dcljr (talk) 08:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:COATRACKING issues

This article spends alot of time on the Spiritual Warriors incident. This Undue weight in a Biography of a living person The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. There's far too much detail. See also BLP discussion started by RA.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Due weight is determined by coverage in secondary sources. What percentage of sources on the subject address this issue?   Will Beback  talk  01:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to split article

I think that the concerns about coatracking and undue weight would be addressed best by splitting off the material on the "Sweat lodge deaths" or "Spiritual Warrior" retreat. That topic is notable in its own right. A summary would be left here, per WP:SUMMARY.   Will Beback  talk  23:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm definitely against the status quo. I have no problem splitting the article, although I don't have a strong opinion whether the new article is sufficiently notable.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Spiritual Warrior sweat lodge deaths seems to get a lot of hits, so the notability shouldn't be a problem.   Will Beback  talk  00:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Pair back the event time line into something meaningful and relevant with due weight. I can not support the split, because seems like a fork. Ray is the "Spiritual warrior" who is responsible for the "sweat lodge deaths". Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem is deciding what is "relevant", and to whom. As a standalone crime article, the actions of third parties could be relevant in ways that they are not relevant to a biography, for example. If we limit the account to just Ray's involvement, then we're only telling part of the story.   Will Beback  talk  20:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

One of the reasons I don't have a strong feeling on whether a standalone article about the case is sufficiently notable is how difficult WP:EVENT is to apply. I can see editors picking out parts of the guideline and saying the article is not notable, and other editors picking out other parts of the article and saying it is. Frankly, although it may be one variable, I don't see the number of Google hits as being particularly helpful to the issue. Certainly, in terms of what he was ultimately convicted of - negligent homicide - it doesn't seem like a big deal. He wasn't convicted of murder or even voluntary manslaughter. At the same time, the facts of the case, the parties involved, the financial/self-help/ritual aspect of it, all combine to make it more interesting than the run-of-the-mill negligent homicide. And so I remain firmly perched on the fence.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• WP:N/CA: Articles about criminal acts[4], particularly those that fall within the category of "breaking news", are frequently the subject of deletion discussions. As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources.

I think this would fall into the "high-profile" category. Watergate was a high-profile crime and no one died, so a conviction of murder isn't needed.   Will Beback  talk  02:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm being sucked into the discussion I didn't want to have. I read that sentence you quote, but note that it says "provided such coverage meets the above guidelines", which I interpret to mean at least the guidelines about coverage and possibly all the guidelines (it's ambiguous), and it also says "can confer", which I read to mean that coverage alone isn't enough. There are many crimes that don't involve murder but are high-profile and have long-lasting ramifications (that second part is fairly important with respect to notability), but it's not clear to me that this is one of them. This is more about a guy who wanted to make some money and didn't care much about how he went about it. What does it say about anything but him? Watergate had tremendous political underpinnings and repercussions. But I'm really just playing devil's advocate here - as I've already said, I'm not against creation of the standalone article.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• Now the trial is over we can certainly condense the blow by blow material into a more concise form but I don't think there's any need to split the article until we've at least tried that, I would say that most people who have heard of him, certainly outside of the US or in the skeptical community, have only heard of him because of the sweat lodge deaths. Guy (Help!) 19:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
• Update: I have significantly pruned it. Please feel free to wordsmith around this, it's still not great prose, but I believe the salient points are made without excessive recourse to banalities and needless minutiae. Guy (Help!) 20:29, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources for non-Native issues may not be reliable when dealing with Native subjects

I have attempted to clarify that what Ray led was not an actual Native American ceremony. Putting the same name on it doesn't make it the same: what Ray led was a heat endurance event by non-Natives, for non-Natives, that violated all sweatlodge protocols. This is supported in the WP:RS and WP:V sources where Natives wrote or were interviewed. But as there are also WP:V sources, often more mainstream ones, that didn't bother to talk to Natives, in some places the article has been based more on Ray's self-reporting than on reliable sources on the topic. As often seen in articles in this area, what may be WP:RS for non-Native issues may not be a reliable source on Native cultures. - CorbieV^☊ 19:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

'Can't find reference to "heat endurance event." All the sources cited that I can see say "sweatlodge" or words to that effect. Some of the Internet-only sources cited are dead. Even the Native American sources refer to it as a "desecration" of their sweatlodge ceremony. Before changing to the new interpretation/verbiage, 'need to produce a RS that says it or words to that effect. Please cite and quote the source here first. WP policy is clear, straightforward--no OR. Please read and understand it. If I have missed the source that uses the new terminology, my apologies in advance. In that case, please cite it here AND quote the terminology, and cite it wherever you use it in the article. Paavo273 (talk) 19:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Ray wasn't Native American; however, even Indian Country Today, edited and written by Native American journalists, uses the term "sweat lodge."[3]. They qualify the term with "non-traditional sweat," so perhaps that term could be a compromise. -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Looking for sources on "heat endurance" - this term was used a lot in the trial. I'll see if any of the online sources that used it are WP:RS. - CorbieV^☊ 20:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

OK,

• LA Times: 'Polk began her closing arguments Wednesday, playing a recording of Ray from the fateful Spiritual Warrior session. In the tape he describes a "hellacious" heat endurance challenge, and instructs the participants to ignore their bodies' signs of distress and their natural inclination to help others who are in distress.'
• CNN/In Session : 'Polk maintained that Ray’s conduct caused the deaths and that he controlled “every aspect of the heat endurance challenge.”' (Has "blog" in the url, but looks to be a reporter from CNN/In Session.)
• DEATH & A BOGUS SWEATLODGE: "Mr. Ray has never conducted a traditional sweatlodge ceremony. The ceremony contrived and executed by James Ray was an extreme heat endurance challenge that resulted in deaths by heat exhaustion. He had been inspired by traditional sweatlodges of the Plains Indians, but had concocted a ceremony to be an extreme heat challenge as the grand finale of his Spiritual Warrior Retreat from which his clients could emerge as a different person ready to move on and realize their true potential. ¶ Mr. Ray had told his participants that his “sweat lodge” ceremony would be the most intense experience they had ever had. That they might feel like they are dying, but they won’t. That they might feel nauseated or might pass out, but not to worry – “We’ll take care of you.” That he is challenging them to play full on, to have one of the most intense altered states they could ever have during his “sweat lodge” ceremony. ¶ And then, instead of facilitating a traditional sweatlodge ceremony which is structured to be inherently safe, Mr. Ray proceeded to create a crock-pot of extreme heat. And his support team allowed each participant to experience his or her own journey, even after several of those participants had been pulled out of the lodge because they had passed out or could not exit under his or her own power." (Good overview; no idea who the person is who does the site.)

Googling James Ray "heat endurance" turns up a bunch more, like The Daily Mail, The Verde Independent and others. - CorbieV^☊ 21:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:RS

Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources; see WP:NEWSBLOG.

Wikipedia:Verifiability#Newspaper_and_magazine_blogs

Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process

David Schoetz is, in fact, a known journalist. And an employee of ABC News when he wrote the post. Also has worked for the NY Daily News and MSNBC (where he is currently an Executive Producer).

The AP article he quotes states " His bond has been set at $5 million, a figure his attorneys say is "excessive and oppressive."" which is, it would seem, quite clear. Finding current weblinks to individual AP reports from 2010 is not all that easy, so the RS blog is sufficient. The AP has suspended searches for archived articles - so the fact is that the blog is the best link as a reliable source. It is not an "opinion blog" for this sort of material, and is done under the auspices of a highly regarded news organization.

Is this quite clear? Would you prefer the exposure of your position on the WP:RS/N noticeboard - or is this sufficient for you to self-revert your deletion of the reliable source? Collect (talk) 21:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

In full, WP:BLBSPS states: "Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Posts left by readers are never acceptable as sources.[5] See below for our policy on self-published images." If you can show that "the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control," WP editors have no problem with the text. But until that is demonstrated, we can't use it. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

@Brianyoumans: the material about Ray's manager having a conflict of interest, as well as other concerns connected to Ray's criminal conduct, is stable and well-sourced. There is no reason to alter them, especially as you are not providing updated sourcing to rationalize any of these changes, aside from saying you believe them to be "improvements." This is insufficient for a well-sourced article that deals with criminal charges. Recently users have tried to downplay Ray's criminal history, due to the upcoming Dec 1 documentary. Given the timing here, I must ask if you have any connection to the subject of this article, or to his business, or to any of the companies involved in the upcoming documentary, such as the film company, CNN, etc. Thank you. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 01:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• I have no links to Ray. I've had the article on my watchlist for a long time. I think if you take a closer look at the changes made, you will find they are fairly innocuous - some of them remove duplicate language, others remove non-neutral bits. I took a quick look at the contributions of the editor who made those changes - they appear to go around cleaning up articles, and I have no problem with that. The bit about "conflict of interest" is arguable - while it is a fact that they share an agent, it might be inserting a bit of editorial opinion to say "conflict of interest". I think people can come to their own conclusions on that. If you want to put that back in, I guess you could, I don't feel strongly about it. You might want to spend a little time investigating editors before slinging around accusations; I've been on Wikipedia since 2006, I'm hardly an SPA. Brianyoumans (talk) 01:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

If you look at the edit history here, as I assume you've been following the article, you must be aware that there has been recent, disruptive SPA activity clearly editing on Ray's behalf or on the behalf of connected media interests. This has been an ongoing problem with this article, as is often the case when subjects of bios try to use WP for self-promotion or promotion of their business interests. So any time edits advance a similar POV, including simply changing the wording without any change to sourcing, the question must be raised. It's not only new editors who have done this. This is a question, not an accusation. But the issue stands - you changed the sourced wording without any change in sourcing. As the wording was arrived at via consensus, you don't have consensus for these changes unless you present new, WP:RS sources to provide a reason for changing the wording. Best, - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 02:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

So, these changes consist of (1) changing "have" to "had" in a number of locations (2) removing the single word "invented", changing "his invented version" to "his version". "invented" seems like an unneeded pile-on, but opinions could vary, I guess. (3) Removing "She died as a result of her injuries.", which is a duplication of the previous sentence, which states that she died. (4) Inserting "They further asserted that" referring to the idea that the sweat lodge ceremonies are the intellectual property of the tribes. Is the statement as is in fact supported by the source? It seems unlikely to me that it is an established legal principle that this is so, and much more likely that it was simply an unsupported assertion by someone. (The articles seem to be no longer easily available.) (5) And removing the words "conflict of interest", which is much of a muchness to me. So, most of these edits are pretty much cosmetic and grammar edits, and the rest seem to me perfectly reasonable edits that someone unfamiliar with the article would make in an effort to restore a neutral tone. I don't see where WP:RS even comes into the picture, except perhaps for the assertion about intellectual property, which actually appears to be unsupported as is.Brianyoumans (talk) 03:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Stop the revert-warring. What reason do you have to change the wording to position this as if concerns about his actions are in the past? That's what your "minor" rewordings are doing. This is a POV push to act as if this dangerous criminal is no longer a danger. There is no reason to change the wording. I don't believe you are suddenly "just trying to make it neutral" if you've been following this for as long as you claim. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I didn't make these changes, they were made by Mukogodo. I just reverted to them because they seemed fairly reasonable efforts to maintain a NPOV and avoid BLP problems. Mukogodo reverted back most recently. Since there appear to be only three people editing the article at the moment, and two of them seem to think these changes are OK, I don't see how this is going against consensus.Brianyoumans (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)