Talk:Rick Alan Ross/Archive 5
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Rick Alan Ross. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Suggested edits
 | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. Agree with Jytdog; most of the proposed text is cited to primary sources and the walls of text are so huge, nobody could reasonably review this request |
Early Life
The "Early Life" portion of this entry does not reflect the complete history of the court record regarding the burglary and conspiracy to commit grand theft charge concerning a jewelry store. Nor does it reflect the complete history of the probation sentence.
I was convicted of one felony and a misdemeanor. My misdemeanor conviction in 1974 was for "Conspiracy" to commit a crime. This involved an attempted burglary of a vacant model home in 1974.
My felony conviction was specifically for "Conspiracy to Commit Grand Theft" in 1975. This concerned the embezzlement of property from a jewelry company, where a friend of mine was employed. My friend and I were both involved. Everything taken was returned to the satisfaction of the store and the police did not oppose probation. No one was physically hurt in any way and this was not a violent crime and did not involve a weapon. I plead guilty and was sentenced to probation.
I was sentenced to four years probation April 2, 1976. But my probation was terminated early "due to good conduct" January 18, 1979.
See http://www.culteducation.com/group/1284-scientology/23617-rick-ross-termination-of-probation-.html
In 1983 the Maricopa County Superior Court in Arizona officially ordered the vacating of both judgments of guilt, dismissed the charges against me and restored my civil rights.
If my (1974-1975) criminal convictions and probation is to be discussed here then the complete history of both judgments of guilt (1974 and 1983)and the actual length of my probation (1974-1979) must be included. Also, the words "robbed a jewelry store" are misleading. A jewelry store robbery implies an armed robbery or a burglary. The theft was neither. It was an embezzlement and involved an employee of the jewelry store.
Also, I am the author of the book "Cults Inside Out: Hop People Get In and Can Get Out"
See http://www.amazon.com/Cults-Inside-Out-How-People/dp/149731660X
The Chinese version of the book has been published in China by Hong Kong publisher Peace Books.
See http://www.facts.org.cn/Reports/China/201503/02/t20150302_2358069.htm
Rick Alan Ross 173.72.57.223 (talk) 19:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Waco
Waco
The overwhelming consensus of history, litigation and news reports contradicts the second hand speculation and opinions expressed by certain sociologists and religious studies professors, sympathetic to David Koresh and the Waco Davidians. Certainly, the government (BATF and FBI) made mistakes. But the academics cited in footnotes are expressing opinions, which have largely been discredited about Koresh, the final days of the Waco standoff, the following forensic investigation and as further established through both criminal and civil court proceedings and an independent investigation.
Those footnoted within the Waco section of my bio such as Nancy Ammerman, James Tabor, Stuart Wright, George Chryssides, Kenneth Newport, Crawford Gribben, Catherine Wessinger and George Michael are expressing their very biased point of view, not historically established and properly attributed facts.
Ammerman was lauded in a full page feature article within "Freedom Magazine" run by Scientology.
Wessinger is also a cult apologist who previously attempted to spin the "Heaven's Gate" mass suicide as a religious event rather than a cult mass suicide.
See http://culteducation.com/group/1941-is-catherine-wessinger-a-cult-apologists.html
The only significance of Ammerman regarding my work with the FBI is that she did review their notes and she says those notes reflect that the FBI worked with me. This contradicts the Justice Department report, which says that the FBI "politely declined [my] unsolicited offers of assistance throughout the standoff."
In fact I did work with the FBI at their request. This included working with two FBI agents who were assigned to work with me during the standoff.
See the following letters, which reflect an ongoing disagreement about my work with the FBI.
James Tabor is a self-styled expert who was once affiliated with a "cult" called the WorldWide Church of God and its school in Texas. Tabor likewise expresses his point of view and opinions. James Tabor and Stuart Wright are both recommended as "religious resources" by the Church of Scientology, which demonstrates that they are cult friendly apologists.
These cult apologists don't appreciate my work and are personally invested and professionally motivated in discrediting me. They come to the issue of Waco with a highly biased and self-serving point of view.
The paragraph about Waco needs editing to make it NPOV instead of POV.
Rick Alan Ross 173.72.57.223 (talk) 19:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Jason Scott
The Jason Scott section is largely based upon the biased accounts and characterizations of cult apologists paid by Scientology.
I never made "derogatory comments about [Jason Scott], his beliefs, his girlfriend and his pastor" and there were no "diatribes...about the ways in which Christianity and conservative Protestantism were wrong." These are very biased characterizations offered (see footnotes) by Anson Shupe, Susan Darnell and Alexander Cockburn. All three of these sources have a history of working closely with Scientology. Shupe worked for Scientology lawyer Kendrick Moxon during the Scott civil case as a highly paid expert who testified about the "anti cult movement" during the Scott civil suit trial in federal. I never compared "New Age religions and channeling...as "related to Pentecostalism." This is totally ridiculous and wholly fabricated.
Shupe, Darnell and Cockburn represent a very biased point of view. It is completely ridiculous to claim that I somehow denigrated Christianity or conservative Protestantism during the Scott intervention. Jason's mother and family, who were physically present throughout that intervention, were devoted Christians and conservative Protestants. We did discuss the excessive power held by Pastor Harold Kern. Kern is a minister for the United Pentecostal Church International (UPCI), which is not part of conservative Protestantism according to conservative Protestants. The Assemblies of God, which is the largest denomination of Pentecostal Christians, considers the UPCI a radical splinter group with heretical teachings and has called the UPCI a "cult."
See the following documents that support this.
http://culteducation.com/group/888-cult-deprogramming/5602-affidavit-of-katherine-l-tonkin-.html -- Affidavit of Jason's mother Kathy Tonkin, completely ignored by Shupe, Darnell and Cockburn, because it contradicts the biased narrative and their preferred point of view.
See also http://culteducation.com/group/888-cult-deprogramming/21711-sermon-of-upci-pastor-harold-kern-bellevue-washington.html -- Sermon by Harold Kern that illustrates his approach to ministry, beliefs and authority.
See http://culteducation.com/group/888-cult-deprogramming/5598-declaration-of-garry-scarff.html -- Declaration of Scientology operative explaining ties of the Scott case to Scientology.
See also http://culteducation.com/group/888-cult-deprogramming/5599-sworn-testimony-of-jason-scott.html -- Jason Scott's testimony confirming his involvement with Scientology operatives.
The jury in the civil suit was not allowed to hear any testimony about Scientology's involvement with Jason Scott and/or about the sexual abuse of Jason Scott's younger brother by a youth pastor within the UPCI church led by Harold Kern. The jury in the criminal trial did hear some testimony concerning these facts and acquitted me.
Please maintain factual balance within my bio, rather than allowing people editing here with a bias against me to use cult apologists that despise my work and/or work for the paid propaganda machine of Scientology to shape my bio, reflecting the bias of some editors here that want to use this bio for propaganda purposes.
I would prefer no bio at all rather than a bio biased upon propaganda at Wikipedia. Please understand that I never sought, a Wikipedia website entry. Frankly, I feel very uncomfortable with an open source self-styled encyclopedia that anyone can anonymously edit, which includes a disclaimer essentially obviating any meaningful responsibility for the validity of its content. You may mean well, but regarding controversial issues and/or people somehow linked to a controversial issue, Wikipedia often becomes a propaganda platform used by various interest groups like Scientology and their minions to create a narrative, which serves their own self-interest rather than education and objective research.
Rick Alan Ross 173.72.57.223 (talk) 19:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Further Reading
What is the purpose of this section? To reflect, argue or advance a point of view through suggested further reading? I
Instead, this section must be specifically relevant to the bio. That is my work and life.
Madigan, Tim, See No Evil, Summit Publishing Group – Legacy Books, May 1993, ISBN 1-56530-063-7 (Foreword by Rick Ross)
This book is relevant and specifically has a chapter about my work deprogramming a Waco Davidian.
Douglass, William A.; Zulaika, Joseba (1996). Terror and taboo: the follies, fables, and faces of terrorism. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-91759-X. OCLC 33664912.
This book has nothing to do with me or my work. Why is this book listed here?
Kaplan, Jeffery and Heléne Lööw,The Cultic Milieu: Oppositional Subcultures in an Age of Globalization, Rowman Altamira, 2002, ISBN 0-7591-0204-X
This book reflects someone's point of view, but has nothing to do directly with me or my work. Why is this book listed here?
Breitbart, Andrew and Mark C. Ebner, Hollywood, Interrupted: Insanity Chic in Babylon-- the Case Against Celebrity, John Wiley and Sons, 2004, ISBN 0-471-45051-0
This book has a chapter largely based upon an interview with me about groups called "cults" in Hollywood.
Newport, Kenneth G. C. (2006). The Branch Davidians of Waco: the history and beliefs of an apocalyptic sect. Oxford Oxfordshire: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-924574-6.
This book may reflect the point of view of the editor that added it to this reading list, but it has nothing to do directly with my work and is inappropriate to add to this reading list.
Ross, Rick Alan, (2014) Cults Inside Out: How People Get In and Can Get Out. CreateSpace ISBN 13: 978-1497316607
I wrote this book and it explains my work.
Roman Espejo,(2012)Book Editor, Cults; Opposing Viewpoints. Greenhaven Press ISBN 13: 978-0737739954
I contributed a chapter to this book titled "Ex-Cult Members Can Be Deprogrammed" p. 165 by Rick Alan Ross.
I have also had papers published in peer-reviewed academic journals in recent years. This would be relevant to further reading.
Rick Alan Ross 173.72.57.223 (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
External Links
This section is now empty, but previously had some helpful links, which were apparently deleted.
I suggest the following as helpful external links.
The Cult Education Institute www.culteducation.com
Cult News www.cultnews.com
Cults Inside Out: How People Get In and Can Get Out http://www.amazon.com/Cults-Inside-Out-How-People/dp/149731660X
Rick Alan Ross CV http://culteducation.com/cv.html
Rick Alan Ross 173.72.57.223 (talk) 20:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Jason Scott's lawyer Kendrick Moxon and involvement of Scientology in Scott lawsuit
One of the most important and reported facts about the lawsuit filed against me by Jason Scott is the fact that Jason Scott was represented by Scientology lawyer Kendrick Moxon.
Kendrick Moxon, before becoming a lawyer for Scientology, was a staffer at Scientology's notorious Guardian's Office later known as its Office of Special Affairs (OSA). This is significant because OSA is the office within Scientology delegated to go after and destroy Scientology's perceived enemies. In just such an activity Moxon was named as a co-conspirator, though not indicted, in the federal indictment against Scientology regarding the infamous Scientology program known as "Snow White." This program was ended when federal law enforcement raided Scientology facilities and arrested and prosecuted Scientologists. 11 Scientologists were sentenced to prison terms, including Mary Sue Hubbard, the third wife of Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard.
See Moxon named in federal indictmen at http://www.culteducation.com/group/1284-scientology/23185-stipulation-of-evidence-in-the-usa-vs-mary-sue-hubbard-.html#moxon2
More about the serious nature and historical significance of "Snow White."
Also See http://www.culteducation.com/group/1284-scientology/23187-the-thriving-cult-of-greed-and-power-.html
Also see http://www.newtimesslo.com/cover/2628/l-ron-hubbards-last-refuge/
Scientology filed more than 100 lawsuits against my co-defendant in the Scott lawsuit, the Cult Awareness Network, Moxon was involved directly in much of that legal activity.
The following articles report about Moxon and Scientology's involvement in the Jason Scott case.
http://culteducation.com/group/888-cult-deprogramming/23030-did-scientology-strike-back.html
http://culteducation.com/group/888-cult-deprogramming/21691-holy-wars-.html
http://culteducation.com/group/888-cult-deprogramming/5595-cults-in-the-courtroom-.html
http://culteducation.com/group/888-cult-deprogramming/5592-cult-buster-.html
Scientology lawyers, previous to representing Scott in the civil lawsuit, lobbied the country prosecutor to reopen and pursue criminal charges against me, which had previously been dropped. A jury acquitted me of those charges at trial. Subsequent to that acquittal the same Scientology lawyer, Kendrick Moxon, who sought criminal charges filed a civil lawsuit against me in federal court.
Scietology's involvement in the Scott is further supported by the sworn testimony of a former Scientology operative and further supported by Scott's sworn testimony in court.
See http://culteducation.com/group/888-cult-deprogramming/5598-declaration-of-garry-scarff.html
Also see http://culteducation.com/group/888-cult-deprogramming/5599-sworn-testimony-of-jason-scott.html
It is a glaring to withhold such information in any account of the Jason Scott civil lawsuit. That is, not to mention Scientology's direct involvement and Moxon, as it is one of the most prominently reported facts about the case.
Rick Alan Ross 173.72.57.223 (talk) 13:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Confusion in the fourth paragraph
Currently the fourth paragraph in the bio reads:
In 1993 Ross faced charges over a 1991 forcible deprogramming where he held an United Pentecostal Church International member Jason Scott against his will for five days, but was cleared the following year by jury trial.[4] Ross settled a civil suit with Scott in 1995, causing Ross to file for personal bankruptcy because of the $2,500,000 in punitive damages awarded against him.[5] In September 1995, a nine-member jury unanimously held Ross and other defendants in the case liable for negligence and conspiracy to deprive Scott of his civil rights and religious liberties. Scott later reconciled with his mother, who had originally hired Ross to deprogram him, and was persuaded by her to 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.[6]
This is muddled and confusing not making distinctions regarding the criminal and civil suit in historical order.
I suggest it be changed to read as follows:
In 1993 Ross faced criminal charges over a 1991 forcible deprogramming where he held an United Pentecostal Church International member Jason Scott against his will for five days, but was cleared the following year by jury trial.[4] Jason Scott later filed a civil suit against Ross in federal court. In September 1995, a nine-member jury unanimously held Ross and other defendants in the case liable for negligence and conspiracy to deprive Scott of his civil rights and religious liberties. Ross filed for personal bankruptcy because of the $2,500,000 in punitive damages awarded against him.[5] Scott later reconciled with his mother, who had originally hired Ross to deprogram him, and was persuaded by her to 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.[6]
Rick Alan Ross 173.72.57.223 (talk) 15:51, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Prominent Court Cases Rick Ross
The Scott court case, which concluded almost 20 years ago, is not the only prominent legal case I have been involved in. And the general public knows about me, not because of the Scott case, but rather for my work regarding the Waco Davidians before and during Waco Davidian standoff, my many appearances on local, national and international television, my media work with the local, national and international press and documentary work (14 documentaries) that I have done over the years and the database of the Cult Education Institute initially, which was first launched in 1996.
I question placing a paragraph about the Scott case prominently near top of the bio, in addition to the designated Jason Scott subsection. It seems to me that this gives the Scott case undue weight within this bio.
My work spans some 33 years to date. The Scott criminal and civil court cases are two of the many court cases I have been personally and/or professionally involved in over the years. I have been sued five times unsuccessfully by the Church of Immortal Consciousness (1999), Pure Bride Ministries (2002), NXIVM (2003), Landmark Education (2004), and the Gentle Wind Project (2005).
NXIVM v. Ross injunction was appealed to the United States Supreme Court and the ruling against NXIVM effectively expanded First Amendment rights on the Internet.
See http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1556&context=btlj (NXIVM v. Ross)
NXIVM v. Ross is now cited as an important court decision and precedent.
Other court cases involving groups called "cults" who sued me and lost.
See http://culteducation.com/group/1262-church-of-immortal-consciousness/10390-appeals-response.html (Church of Immortal Consciousness)
See http://www.culteducation.com/group/1256-general-assembly/8368-st-lucie-minister-drops-suit-over-web-site.html (Pure Bride Ministries).
See http://culteducation.com/group/1020-landmark-education/12390-introduction-to-the-landmark-education-litigation-archive.html (Landmark Education)
See http://culteducation.com/group/946-the-gentle-wind-project/8882-judge-web-site-cant-be-sued-for-cult-comment-.html (Gentle Wind Project)
I have been qualified as a court expert witness and testified in about 20 court proceedings within 10 states, including United States Federal Court, after a Daubert hearing.
The federal court case that I testified as an expert witness in California (2008) Noyes v. Kelly Services, Inc No. 2:02-cv-2685-GEB-CMK, ended in a $6.5 million dollar judgement for my client the plaintiff.
Also see http://culteducation.com/group/1253-expert-witness/26572-united-states-federal-court.html
I also worked as an expert consultant and potential expert witness in the wrongful death lawsuit Coughlin v. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (Jehovah's Witnesses). This lawsuit was filed in the Sate of Connecticut Superior Court at Milford (CV-00-0072183 S). The case settled for $1.5 million (2005), which was the largest out of court settlement ever paid by Jehovah's Witnesses to any plaintiff known at that time.
See http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/44805/wt-makes-out-court-settlement?page=2
In the widely reported criminal prosecution of the so-called "sweat lodge guru" James Arthur Ray, I was retained by the Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk as an expert. I worked with the prosecution team, which ultimately convicted Ray of three counts of negligent homicide. I was qualified and accepted as an expert witness in the case, despite the considerable efforts of Ray's legal team to have me disqualified. I never testified in court as a witness, but was thanked by the prosecution officially for my help in the case (letter from Prosecutor Sheila Polk dated December 20, 20111).
I was also presented with a United States Department of Justice citation signed by FBI Director Robert S. Mueller, III (April 2011) for my "outstanding assistance to the FBI in connection with its investigative efforts" regarding cyber attacks launched on the Web against numerous websites by Bruce Raisley. Raisley attacked the website servers of Corrupted Justice, music magazine Rolling Stone, Carnegie Mellon University and the Rick Ross Institute (now known as the Cult Education Institute). I testified as a fact witness at Raisley's trial. It was through my cooperation with the FBI that Raisley was identified, arrested, ultimately to be convicted at trial and sentenced to prison.
Rick Alan Ross173.72.57.223 (talk) 16:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Discussion
Hi Mr. Ross,
Saw this popping up on my watchlist, will take some time to look in to, hope for some help from other editors too. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks
Rick Alan Ross 173.72.57.223 (talk) 17:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- Re. suggestions at #Further Reading above: the books authored by Rick Alan Ross could also go in a separate section called "Writings" or something like that. Don't know if any info is available on how these writings were received (by the press, by oponents, etc.)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- Stumbled on this one: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Rick Alan Ross instructed and restricted: "User:Rick Alan Ross is requested to contact the Arbitration Committee by email to establish his identity or to rename; instructed to not edit using anonymous IP addresses; and restricted to one account only with his other named account, User:Rick A. Ross, indefinitely blocked and redirected to the main account." – Is this cleared? Need any assistance regarding this? --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- Question regarding page name: the article title is currently Rick Ross (consultant), seems the subject rather self-identifies as Rick Alan Ross. Don't know how the person is best known or usually referred to in third party sources: the version with the middle name or just "Rick Ross"? In the first case I'd change the article title to Rick Alan Ross. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I was specifically told by the Wikipedia Support team to post my concerns and suggestions here at the Talk Page.I use the name Rick Alan Ross now because of the rapper Rick Ross. For the same reason the name of the Ross Institute and domain name entry point was changed from rickross.com to culteducation.com.
Rick Alan Ross 173.72.57.223 (talk) 22:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- Re. Support team: the current support team may be unaware of the 2009 ArbCom remedy. I go from the assumption the situation is cleared. If doubts I would take it up at WP:ARCA, to get it rubber stamped or whatever the analogy. For me the only important thing is that "IP 173.72.57.223" identifies with "Rick Alan Ross" in real life and that this is clear henceforth.
- Re. page name of the biographical article: if everyone is OK with Rick Ross (consultant) for the time being I would keep it that way, once the Rick Alan Ross page name would become more opportune, the issue can be raised again here, and we can take it from there. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Hopefully something will be done to make this bio less biased and more neutral. I have posted several section related comments with supporting links to articles and documents.
Rick Alan Ross 173.72.57.223 (talk) 23:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- Started with the easier ones (further reading, external links), but intend to look into the other issues too. Others may join. Anyway, I'm off-line for some hours now (real life etc.) --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks.
Rick Alan Ross173.72.57.223 (talk) 14:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- Just to clarify as the OTRS team member who referred this here, I was unaware of any ARBCOM involvement - however if there is background, it's probably best to comply with what they say, just to prevent further issues. Mdann52 (talk) 17:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Scott
- Suggestions regarding last paragraph of intro (see #Confusion in the fourth paragraph above):
The paragraph currently reads:
In 1993 Ross faced charges over a 1991 forcible deprogramming where he held an United Pentecostal Church International member Jason Scott against his will for five days, but was cleared the following year by jury trial.[1] Ross settled a civil suit with Scott in 1995, causing Ross to file for personal bankruptcy because of the $2,500,000 in punitive damages awarded against him.[2] In September 1995, a nine-member jury unanimously held Ross and other defendants in the case liable for negligence and conspiracy to deprive Scott of his civil rights and religious liberties. Scott later reconciled with his mother, who had originally hired Ross to deprogram him, and was persuaded by her to 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.[3]
Rick Allen Ross proposes to replace by the following (retaining links and refs):
In 1993 Ross faced criminal charges over a 1991 forcible deprogramming where he held an United Pentecostal Church International member Jason Scott against his will for five days, but was cleared the following year by jury trial.[1] Jason Scott later filed a civil suit against Ross in federal court. In September 1995, a nine-member jury unanimously held Ross and other defendants in the case liable for negligence and conspiracy to deprive Scott of his civil rights and religious liberties. Ross filed for personal bankruptcy because of the $2,500,000 in punitive damages awarded against him.[4] Scott later reconciled with his mother, who had originally hired Ross to deprogram him, and was persuaded by her to 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.[5]
References
- ^ a b Haines, Thomas W. (September 21, 1995). "'Deprogrammer' Taken To Court -- Bellevue Man Claims Kidnap, Coercion". The Seattle Times.
- ^ Phoenix Hush, Hush, Sweet Charlatans – Phoenix New Times
- ^ http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/1996-12-19/news/what-s-2-995-million-between-former-enemies/ What's $2.995 Million Between Former Enemies? - Phoenix New Times
- ^ Phoenix Hush, Hush, Sweet Charlatans – Phoenix New Times
- ^ http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/1996-12-19/news/what-s-2-995-million-between-former-enemies/ What's $2.995 Million Between Former Enemies? - Phoenix New Times
Concerns:
- Are the references still OK? I mean, do they cover the content of the sentences to which they are appended? And/or are additional references needed?
- Doesn't this take too much space in the lede of the article? I mean, the case is apparently significant (it has a separate article, i.e. Jason Scott case) but isn't it nonetheless overemphasised in the lede?
--Francis Schonken (talk) 07:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
FYI--I have never used the name "Rick Allen Ross" my name is Rick Alan Ross. I recall Scientology using the middle name spelled "Allen," but I never have.
The paragraph about Jason Scott should appear at Jason Scott Deprogramming section. The following is the only other NPOV relevant historical information that section contains.
"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.[52] He states that despite refinement of processes over the years, exit counseling and deprogramming continue to depend on the same principles.[52]"
All the rest of the current Jason Scott Deprogramming section is unnecessary and/or POV expressed by biased sources. Please consider editing this NPOV and condensing it.
I would also appreciate a review of the other points and references I noted at this Talk Page for review and potential further editing.
Thank You,
Rick Alan Ross 173.72.57.223 (talk) 18:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
To be precise and correct the paragraph might read as follows:
In 1993 Ross faced criminal charges over a 1991 forcible deprogramming of United Pentecostal Church International member Jason Scott, but was found "not guilty" by the jury at trial.[1] Jason Scott later filed a civil suit against Ross in federal court. In September 1995, a nine-member jury unanimously held Ross and other defendants in the case liable for negligence and conspiracy to deprive Scott of his civil rights and religious liberties. Ross filed for personal bankruptcy because of the $2,500,000 in punitive damages awarded against him.[4] Scott later reconciled with his mother, who had originally hired Ross to deprogram him, and was persuaded by her to 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.[5] 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.[52] He states that despite refinement of processes over the years, cult intervention work continues to depend on the same basic principles originated through deprogramming.[52]
This sums up the Scott deprogramming case in one paragraph, which should appear only at the Jason Scott Deprogramming section. It' NPOV and fact based rather than relying upon the sensationalized POV and characterizations of biased sources.
Rick Alan Ross173.72.57.223 (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Combined:
(1) Last paragraph of intro
The approach originally called deprogramming was refined over the years, for which the Jason Scott case in the mid 1990s was a turning point.
(or:)
After the Jason Scott case in the mid 1990s Ross no longer advocated coercive deprogramming.
(or:)
Coercive deprogramming evolved into voluntary exit counseling, to which the Jason Scott case in the mid 1990s was instrumental.
(or:)
In the mid 1990s Ross left the coercive deprogramming approach in favour of voluntary exit counseling, to which his conviction in the Jason Scott case was instrumental.
(or:)
Convicted in the Jason Scott case, Ross left the coercive deprogramming approach in favour of voluntary exit counseling in the mid 1990s.
I was not "convicted" in the Jaason Scott case. A conviction occurs in a criminal case. In the criminal case I was found not guilty. I lost the civil lawsuit.
Correctly the sentence would read:
After losing in a lawsuit filed against him, the Jason Scott case (1995), Ross stopped doing involuntary interventions with adults.
Rick Alan Ross173.72.57.223 (talk) 16:13, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
(2) Section "Jason Scott deprogramming"
In 1993 Ross faced criminal charges over a 1991 forcible deprogramming of United Pentecostal Church International member Jason Scott, but was found "not guilty" by the jury at trial.[1] Jason Scott later filed a civil suit against Ross in federal court. In September 1995, a nine-member jury unanimously held Ross and other defendants in the case liable for negligence and conspiracy to deprive Scott of his civil rights and religious liberties. Ross filed for personal bankruptcy because of the $2,500,000 in punitive damages awarded against him.[2] Scott later reconciled with his mother, who had originally hired Ross to deprogram him, and was persuaded by her to 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.[3]
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.[4] He states that despite refinement of processes over the years, cult intervention work continues to depend on the same basic principles originated through deprogramming.[4]
References
- ^ Haines, Thomas W. (September 21, 1995). "'Deprogrammer' Taken To Court -- Bellevue Man Claims Kidnap, Coercion". The Seattle Times.
- ^ Phoenix Hush, Hush, Sweet Charlatans – Phoenix New Times
- ^ http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/1996-12-19/news/what-s-2-995-million-between-former-enemies/ What's $2.995 Million Between Former Enemies? - Phoenix New Times
- ^ a b Rick Ross. "Deprogramming". Intervention. Retrieved August 10, 2005.
--Francis Schonken (talk) 06:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- Re [1] – I don't think this is an improvement. The impact on the approach (coercive deprogramming → voluntary counceling) seems to me to be rather caused by it being a "conviction" rather than because it was a "civil court" case. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- this edit removed the Jason Scott case link from the lede. I'm not in agreement with that. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Early convictions
- Re. suggestions regarding crimes committed in Ross's early twenties, in #Early Life above:
Replace (second paragraph in Rick Ross (consultant)#Early life):
In 1974 at the age of 21, Ross was convicted of the attempted burglary of a vacant model home and sentenced to probation..[1] The following year, he robbed a jewelry store in Phoenix. Ross confessed to the crime and received five years probation.[1]
by:
In his early twenties Ross ran into justice twice, once for attempted burgulary, and once for the embezzlement of property.[1] In 1983 Ross was vacated of guilt for both cases, and his civil rights were restored.[2]
References
- ^ a b c Johnstone, Nick (December 12, 2004). "Beyond Belief". The Observer. London. Retrieved October 24, 2008.
- ^ Rick Ross Application for Restoration of Civil Rights at culteducation
.com
I don't believe the choice is either to omit this or otherwise go in excessive detail: an acceptable summary should work. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
What about the following:
In 1974 Ross was convicted for the attempted burglary of a vacant model home and subsequently in 1975 he was again convicted for conspiracy to commit grand theft by embezzlement. Ross confessed to these crimes, made restitution and was sentenced to probation, which was terminated early in 1979. Both judgements of guilt were later vacated and Ross' civil rights restored by court order in 1983.
Rick Alan Ross173.72.57.223 (talk) 15:55, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- Would prefer somewhat shorter. Maybe also get rid of rather technical juridical terms like "vacated", which may be a bit above the heads of a general readership. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't think vacate is difficult to understand. Other words commonly used are expunged or voided. Vacate is the most precise word and matches the wording of the court order.
How about this?
In 1974, at the age of 21, Ross was convicted for the attempted burglary of a vacant model home. In 1975 he was again convicted for conspiracy to commit grand theft by embezzlement. Ross confessed to these crimes, made full restitution and was sentenced to probation, which was terminated early in 1979. Both judgements of guilt were later vacated or removed by court order and Ross' civil rights were restored in 1983.
FYI--At the time of sentencing for the grand theft charge both the police and jewelry store company representatives attended. They advised the judge that they did not oppose probation. The store was satisfied by the full restitution made. That is, everything I had in my possession was returned to their satisfaction.
I am not a licensed counselor and do not do counseling. In my opinion and in the opinion of others in the field of cultic studies, intervention and counseling cannot be done ethically at the same time and represent a conflict of interest and potential violation of professional ethics. This is all detailed in my book "Cults Inside Out: How People Get In and Can Get Out" and also in my published academic journal paper "Deprogramming: An Examination of the Intervention Process," which explains that my approach is educational, based upon the sharing of information and discussion about that information. This is not counseling. Counseling requires informed consent per licensing and board requirements. Cult interventions, much like drug or alcohol interventions, occur as a surprise. Historically, cult intervention work has been based upon an educational model and not a counseling approach. That is why I prefer the title cult intervention specialist or consultant as opposed to "exit counselor," which was briefly in vogue during the early 1990s and later abandoned.
The sentences "After the civil verdict in the Jason Scott case Ross stopped coercive interventions for adults in the mid 1990s, in favour of voluntary exit counseling." would accurately read--
After the civil verdict in the Jason Scott case (1995) Ross stopped involuntary interventions with adults, in favor of voluntary interventions.
Likewise the opening sentence would accurately read -- Rick Alan Ross (born 1952 as Ricky Alan Ross) works as a consultant, lecturer, court expert witness and intervention specialist, with a focus on what has been described as "deprogramming" of those belonging to groups called "cults."
This makes it as NPOV as possible and accurate.
I do quite a bit of cult expert witness work and much media work. In fact most people know me through television, documentaries, news reports in the press, print media and online publications. I have probably done more work with the media than any other living person engaged in cultic studies. And I have been qualified, accepted and testified in more court proceedings in 10 states, including US Federal Court, than almost any other court qualified on the subject of groups called "cults," other than Gordon Melton, who has testified to defend such groups. This has included expert witness testimony in hi-profile cases. I have also worked extensively with law enforcement, governmental agencies and lectured at the college and university level across the US and in Asia. My book has been published in Chinese. The Cult Education Institute, formerly known as the Ross Institute, is one of the oldest and most utilized research database resources on the Web concerning controversial groups and movements. It's been online since 1996. These are the things the public actually knows me for, though my Wikipeida bio appears to minimize and obscure much of my work, or give it as little weight as possible. It seems to me that this was the intent of anonymous editors that worked on my bio in the past.
Rick Alan Ross173.72.57.223 (talk) 15:26, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- ...hence my proposal to reduce the amount of space devoted to the early convictions, not amplify it as also the second proposal by Rick Ross does.
- Re. "civil verdict", again the important point imho is not to qualify the verdict as "civil" vs. whatever, but as a "conviction", the change in approach (involuntary → voluntary) followed from it being a conviction, not from it being civil or criminal.
- The other points deserve attention too, will try to address one at a time.
- Something that bugs me: "born 1952 as Ricky Alan Ross" in the intro vs. "adopted by Paul and Ethel Ross in Cleveland, Ohio in 1953" in Rick Ross (consultant)#Early life (my bolding). Is there a story behind this or just inaccurracy? --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I was born November 24, 1952, but adopted 10 months later by Paul and Ethel Ross in Cleveland, Ohio. In 1956 my parents moved the family to Phoenix, Arizona, where I stayed until 2001. In 2001 I moved to New Jersey, first to Jersey City and now I live in Trenton. The name of my birth certificate is Ricky Alan Ross, but beginning as a teenager my name is Rick Alan Ross. That's what it says on High School diploma, passport, driver's license, etc. For some reason the court in my court papers regarding vacating the guilty judgments, the name is Ricky Allan Ross. But I have never spelled my middle name with more than one L.
If Wikipedia is going to include information about my 40-year-old criminal record the three sentences I have suggested are not an amplification, but rather a historical clarification. The court record reads accordingly and unless the point is to make my record look as bad as possible for propaganda purposes, explaining it fully in three sentences is the correct, complete and factual NPOV.
Again, there was never any conviction regarding the Jason Scott case. The jury in the criminal case found me not guilty after only two hours of deliberation. I was completely exonerated. The word "conviction" is associated with a criminal case not civil lawsuit. In a civil lawsuit there is a verdict and there is a civil judgement, but there is never a conviction. To use the word conviction implies that there was a criminal conviction, which is false.
My decision to stop doing involuntary interventions with adults actually ceased before the Scott case was resolved. I did a handful of involuntary interventions with adults, about a dozen in total before I stopped. The Scott case motivated me to stop because I could not afford to be in court endlessly and the expense bankrupted me. I realized it was not realistic for me to continue. But I have deep sympathy for the families that I helped and other families that are suffering due to cults. I have done 500 interventions from 1982 to present. My book recounts 88 between the years of 2006-2014. Some of them were involuntary interventions of minor children under the direct supervision of their legal guardian. So I continue to do involuntary interventions, but not with adults.
If this is to be a factual bio and NPOV it's important to get the facts straight and be balanced. Right now this bio is far from that and editors here have deliberately used misleading words, withheld information and generally twisted this bio to make me look as bad as possible.
In the United States when the presiding court, Maricopa County Superior Court in my case, vacates guilty verdicts and expunges them, they do so because the person has proven to be a good citizen and has earned the respect of the court. The only further action that can be done in such a matter is an official full pardon from the Governor of Arizona. This would be the equivalent of a Presidential pardon if someone was previously convicted of a federal crime. The fact that my convictions were vacated is quite significant. The fact that full restitution was made is also quite significant and a factor. The fact the grand theft conviction was not simply a robbery is important because the word robbed implies the possibility of a weapon, violent crime or jewel heist, which was not the case. The fact that the burglary involved a vacant model home is important as well because this means no one's home was burglarized and no one was in residence that might have been hurt. The fact that my probation was terminated early for good behavior is also relevant and laid the foundation for the court to later vacate the guilty verdicts. The fact that the Arizona Department of Corrections allowed me to be the Chairman of its religious advisory committee is significant because it requires a security clearance to enter prisons.
Whoever constructed what is up now wanted to leave out key facts to make me seem as bad as possible. That's their POV and purpose in editing here. It's called propaganda not an research resource or online encyclopedia.
Rick Alan Ross173.72.57.223 (talk) 19:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Rick, these walls of text are not helpful. Would you please propose specfic changes, with sourcing? The best thing to do would be to propose it like this: Please change "bla bla bla" to "bla bla bal"(ref). One thing at at time. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:14, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
request 1
Please change "After the civil verdict in the Jason Scott case Ross stopped coercive interventions for adults in the mid 1990s, in favour of voluntary exit counseling" to After the civil verdict in the Jason Scott case (1995) Ross stopped involuntary interventions for adults in favor of voluntary interventions.
Source documents have been previously linked and cited.
Rick Ross173.72.57.223 (talk) 21:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- I take it that this is the content in the lead, that you want to change. That content is based on content in the body in Rick_Ross_(consultant)#Jason_Scott_deprogramming that says:
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.[1] He states that despite refinement of processes over the years, cult intervention work continues to depend on the same basic principles originated through deprogramming.[1]
References
- ^ a b Rick Ross. "Deprogramming". Intervention. Retrieved August 10, 2005.
- SO - there are multiple things going on here. First of all, the source in the body no where says 1995 nor even ties stopping involuntary interventions to the Jason Scott case - there is no date or chronology at all in that source. So the proposed change is not OK, and even the existing content in the lead is not OK. For now I am changing the lead to simply read "Due to the legal risks, Ross stopped conducting coercive interventions for adults, in favour of voluntary exit counseling".
Not done with respect to naming a date. Question to Rick - are you aware of a reliable source that says when you stopped doing coercive interventions? Jytdog (talk) 22:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I actually stopped before the civil lawsuit verdict. That verdict certainly reinforced that decision.
See http://culteducation.com/group/1300-q-amp-a-brainwashed-rick-ross-talks-about-deprogramming-members-of-religious-cultss.html Interview 1995
See https://web.archive.org/web/19980429001130/http://rickross.com/
This documents my statements about involuntary vs. voluntary interventions at my website regarding adults and minor children going back to 1998. This was posted earlier, but I cannot access back any further through Internet Archives.
"Ross has been fighting a long and costly legal battle stemming from a forcible deprogramming he did in the early 1990s. He no longer does such forcible deprogramming, but only works with willing adults, or minors with the approval of their parents or guardians,"
Also see http://culteducation.com/group/10412-rick-ross-interview-with-hurontaria.html
Also see http://culteducation.com/group/13381-hell-fire.html
Rick Alan Ross173.72.57.223 (talk) 17:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- NO I am a volunteer here and I took probably three hours out of my life last night dealing with your slew of requests. I don't mind helping but you are becoming abusive now. I will say this again - please offer concrete suggestions for content with actual sourcing. Any change you want to make needs to be strictly supported by the source you provide - do not waste my time trying to add puffery.. Please use independent sourcing and not anything from from your website. Please write concisely. I don't care about anything other than the exact change you want to make and the sources for it and neither does anybody else here. So be concise. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- Also, it appears to me that some of documents you link to that are hosted on culteducation.com may violate copyright - you have copy/pastes from Willamette Week, FHM Magazine, etc. in links above. Wikipedia has strict rules about copyright and we cannot provide a link to a site that may be violating copyright. please do not post any more links here that may violate copyright. I will remove future links you post that appear to be copy/pasted from copyrighted sources and do not have a clear copyright release on them. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Many of the articles archived within the Cult Education Institute (CEI) database are not otherwise available on the Web. That is in part why the CEI archive exists. Much like the Internet Archives, which allows for the storage of many articles and documents that would not otherwise be available. CEI and Internet Archive are both online educational nonprofit libraries.
We are going back 20 years. Are you insisting that I go to a public library, physically go through the periodicals and hopefully find the specific articles archived at CEI or Internet Archives within a some paper stack and then create a PDF document for you to review? The Way Back Machine is an independent source. Hurontaria is likewise not online and may have closed. Many magazine sources from 20 years ago and newspapers have gone out of business or don't maintain extensive archives.
The FHM article likewise is not otherwise online.
See http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Bridget-Freer/53258046
The Reporter has referred people to the former Ross Institute site (now the CEI database) to read her work.
Rick Alan Ross173.72.57.223 (talk) 19:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- 1) i will repeat this - do not post links here that violate copyright. the reason you want to violate copyright does not matter. just don't do it.
- 2) you can post a useable citation here without a link. There are databases like lexisnexis where editors can find and read articles that are not otherwise online.
- thanks Jytdog (talk) 10:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
request 2
Please change "In 1974 at the age of 21, Ross was convicted of the attempted burglary of a vacant model home and sentenced to probation.[3] The following year, he robbed a jewelry store in Phoenix. Ross confessed to the crime and received five years probation.[3]" to In 1974 Ross was convicted for the attempted burglary of a vacant model home and subsequently in 1975 he was again convicted for conspiracy to commit grand theft. Ross confessed to these crimes, made restitution and was sentenced to probation, which was terminated early in 1979. Both judgements of guilt were later vacated and Ross' civil rights restored by court order in 1983.
Source documents have been previously linked and cited.
Rick Ross173.72.57.223 (talk) 21:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- the original content said:
In 1974 at the age of 21, Ross was convicted of the attempted burglary of a vacant model home and sentenced to probation.[1] The following year, he robbed a jewelry store in Phoenix. Ross confessed to the crime and received five years probation.[1]
References
- ^ a b Johnstone, Nick (December 12, 2004). "Beyond Belief". The Observer. London. Retrieved October 24, 2008.
- The proposed first sentence is fine and is supported by the source;
- the second sentence is unsourced. Not done. Question to Rick: What is the reliable source for: "Ross confessed to these crimes, made restitution and was sentenced to probation, which was terminated early in 1979. Both judgements of guilt were later vacated and Ross' civil rights restored by court order in 1983." That is not in the Guardian source. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Please review the following article and legal documents:
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/hush-hush-sweet-charlatans-6426159
"Some of the pieces his partner had taken had been melted down, but everything in Ross' possession was returned to the store. Ross was sentenced to four years' probation."
http://www.culteducation.com/group/1284-scientology/23617-rick-ross-termination-of-probation-.html
Rick Alan Ross173.72.57.223 (talk) 17:20, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- We cannot use documents from your website for any of this. See WP:BLPSPS. The ortega source supports a change from 5 years probation to 4 years for the jewelry store thing. I will make that change. Jytdog (talk) 18:13, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I have posted PDF images of the actual documents. All the pertinent court information is there. Do I have to fax you the document or email an PDF to someone at Wikipedia. The documents were issued by the probation department and court in Arizona.
In the article by Tony Ortega he reports, "Some of the pieces his partner had taken had been melted down, but everything in Ross' possession was returned to the store. Ross was sentenced to four years' probation." It is understood that I must have confessed to the crime before returning everything to the store through the authorities.
Please either don't include my criminal record from 1974-1975 or include the complete record. A previous editor very selectively chose to include only part of my record, the worst part.
Rick Alan Ross173.72.57.223 (talk) 19:11, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
request 3
Please change "In 1986 Ross left the staff of the JFCS and BJE to become a full-time private consultant and deprogrammer.[3][4] and worked as a Cult Awareness Network-associated deprogrammer."
To -- In 1986 Ross left the staff of the JFCS and BJE to become a full-time private consultant and deprogrammer.[3][4] He attended conferences and was a supporter of the Cult Awareness Network.
Rick Ross173.72.57.223 (talk) 21:47, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- the original content said:
In 1986 Ross left the staff of the JFCS and BJE to become a full-time private consultant and deprogrammer.[1][2] and worked as a Cult Awareness Network-associated deprogrammer.
References
- ^ Johnstone, Nick (December 12, 2004). "Beyond Belief". The Observer. London. Retrieved October 24, 2008.
- ^ "Rick Ross's Biography".
- and (saving) Jytdog (talk) 22:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- OK, what the Guardian actually says here, is "before striking out in 1986 as a private consultant and deprogrammer ". It does not mention going to conferences nor the "Cult Awareness Network" (at all). The Bio says "In 1986 Ross left the staff of JFCS to become a full-time private consultant, lecturer and cult intervention specialist.". It does not mention going to conferences nor the "Cult Awareness Network" (at all). The proposed content is not supported by sources. Note: for now I am removing the content after the sources in the original content.
- I am not making any other change. Question to Rick: if you want some content about Cult Action Network here, please provide a reliable source describing your involvement with them after 1986. Jytdog (talk) 22:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Done added content with source Jytdog (talk) 01:12, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
request 4
Please change "Rick Alan Ross (born 1952 as Ricky Alan Ross) works as a consultant, lecturer, and intervention specialist, with a focus on exit counseling and deprogramming of those belonging to cults. He runs a blog called Cult News[1] and in 2003 founded the Rick A. Ross Institute (later to be renamed the Cult Education Institute), which maintains a database of court documents, essays, and press articles on groups and individuals that have attracted controversy.[2]"
To -- Rick Alan Ross (born 1952 as Ricky Alan Ross) is well known expert regarding controversial groups called "cults." Ross is often quoted by the national and international media and has been qualified and testified as a court expert witness. Ross works as a consultant, lecturer, and intervention specialist, with a focus cult deprogramming. He is the founder and executive director of the Cult Education Institute, formerly known as the Ross Institute of New Jersey, which is an online database of court documents, research papers and press reports about groups and individuals that have attracted controversy.[2]
Rick Ross173.72.57.223 (talk) 22:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Original content in LEAD is
Rick Alan Ross (born 1952 as Ricky Alan Ross) works as a consultant, lecturer, and intervention specialist, with a focus on exit counseling and deprogramming of those belonging to cults. He runs a blog called Cult News[1] and in 2003 founded the Rick A. Ross Institute (later to be renamed the Cult Education Institute), which maintains a database of court documents, essays, and press articles on groups and individuals that have attracted controversy.[2]
References
- ^ "Cult News website Cultnews.com".
- ^ "Information Archives". The Ross Institute. Retrieved April 16, 2009.
The Rick A. Ross Institute has assembled one of the largest archives of information about controversial groups. This archive contains thousands of press articles, court documents, and essays.
Jytdog (talk) 23:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Breaking down requested change:
- sentence 1: Rick Alan Ross (born 1952 as Ricky Alan Ross) is well known expert regarding controversial groups called "cults."
- sentence 2: Ross is often quoted by the national and international media and has been qualified and testified as a court expert witness.
- sentence 3: Ross works as a consultant, lecturer, and intervention specialist, with a focus cult deprogramming.
- sentence 4: He is the founder and executive director of the Cult Education Institute, formerly known as the Ross Institute of New Jersey, which is an online database of court documents, research papers and press reports about groups and individuals that have attracted controversy.
- OK
- sentence 1 - change here is not to meaning but to add puffery. Not done. please do not waste time with things like this.
- sentence 2 - change here is not in any independent sources. Not done
- sentence 3: no change
- sentence 4: This seems OK. Done
- sentence 1 - change here is not to meaning but to add puffery.
- note - I am adding an instance of the Guardian source to the first sentence, since both sources 1 and 2 are WP:SPS. Also, no reason was given for deleting the blog, so I left that in. Jytdog (talk) 23:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Please review the following:
http://culteducation.com/cv.html
http://culteducation.com/group/1253-expert-witness/26572-united-states-federal-court.html
http://culteducation.com/reference/jamesarthur/02-08-2011-RESPONSE-TO-MOTION2.pdf
Rick Alan Ross173.72.57.223 (talk) 17:14, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- none of those sources are independent. Cannot use them. Jytdog (talk) 18:16, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
The PDF document if an actual court document and was filed by the prosecution in the James Ray case. The document cites my experience, including my expert testimony in United States Federal Court, after a Daubert hearing, which is quite significant.
See http://www.albuquerquejournal.com/news/state/apsweatlodgeross02-28-11.htm
I was able to find the Associated Press article elsewhere online.
I was able to find this report about the federal lawsuit judgement of 6.5 million in US Federal Court in California. I testified as an expert witness in this case at trial, after a Daubert hearing.
Rick Alan Ross173.72.57.223 (talk) 19:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- added "expert witness" to first sentence. it is well supported in the body of the article. i think this request is done. Jytdog (talk) 11:35, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
request 5
Please change "In 1996 Ross started a website titled "The Ross Institute Internet Archives for the Study of Destructive Cults, Controversial Groups and Movements".[34] Ross has lectured at the University of Pennsylvania, University of Chicago and University of Arizona,[35] and has testified as an expert witness in court cases.[3] According to the biography page on his website he has worked as a paid consultant for television networks CBS, CBC and Nippon, and Miramax/Disney retained him as a technical consultant to one of the actors involved in making Jane Campion's film Holy Smoke!.[4]"
To -- In 1996 Ross launched a website rickross.com, which later became "The Ross Institute Internet Archives for the Study of Destructive Cults, Controversial Groups and Movements" and is now the Cult Education Intitute, an institutional member of the American and New Jersey Library Associations.[34] Ross has lectured at many universities and colleges including the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, Baylor University, University of Chicago and University of Arizona,[35]. He has been qualified and testified frequently as an expert witness in court proceedings concerning groups called "cults."[3] He also worked for Miramax/Disney retained as a technical consultant to one of the actor Harvey Keitel for the Jane Campion film "Holy Smoke."[4]
Rick Alan Ross173.72.57.223 (talk) 22:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- original content with sources:
In 1996 Ross started a website titled "The Ross Institute Internet Archives for the Study of Destructive Cults, Controversial Groups and Movements".[1] Ross has lectured at the University of Pennsylvania, University of Chicago and University of Arizona,[2] and has testified as an expert witness in court cases.[3] According to the biography page on his website he has worked as a paid consultant for television networks CBS, CBC and Nippon, and Miramax/Disney retained him as a technical consultant to one of the actors involved in making Jane Campion's film Holy Smoke!.[4]
References
- ^ "Home page of The Ross Institute website".
- ^ Hennessy, Molly (July 14, 2001). "MINISTER SUES CULT EXPERT". Palm Beach Post. Retrieved May 19, 2011.
- ^ Johnstone, Nick (December 12, 2004). "Beyond Belief". The Observer. London. Retrieved October 24, 2008.
- ^ "Rick Ross's Biography".
Jytdog (talk) 23:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
proposed changes:
- sentence 1: "In 1996 Ross launched a website rickross.com, which later became "The Ross Institute Internet Archives for the Study of Destructive Cults, Controversial Groups and Movements" and is now the Cult Education Intitute, an institutional member of the American and New Jersey Library Associations" Did most of this.
- sentence 2: "Ross has lectured at many universities and colleges including the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, Baylor University, University of Chicago and University of Arizona," Not done no support in source for Baylor.
- sentence 3: "He has been qualified and testified frequently as an expert witness in court proceedings concerning groups called "cults. Not done Rick - what is the source for this statement?
- sentence 4: "He also worked for Miramax/Disney retained as a technical consultant to one of the actor Harvey Keitel for the Jane Campion film "Holy Smoke." no change Jytdog (talk) 23:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
((hat| hat content that violates WP:TPG Jytdog (talk) 20:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)}}
Please review the following court document.
Rick Alan Ross173.72.57.223 (talk) 17:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Please review the following:
http://culteducation.com/cv.html
http://culteducation.com/group/1253-expert-witness/26572-united-states-federal-court.html
http://culteducation.com/reference/jamesarthur/02-08-2011-RESPONSE-TO-MOTION2.pdf
Rick Alan Ross173.72.57.223 (talk) 17:12, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- none of those sources are independent. Cannot use them. Jytdog (talk) 18:16, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Please see the PDF document, which is part of the court record in the James Arthur Ray case, which cites my expert witness work and experience.
The filing states, "Mr. Ross has studied cults and the persuasive techniques used by cults for 25 years. Mr. Ross previously testified as an expert in the court of (10) states, as well as qualifying in 2008 as an expert in religious cults and persuasion following a Daubert hearing in a federal trial court in California. Mr. Ross has published articles on cults and coercive persuasion, has lectured at numerous universities, including the University of Chicago, Baylor University and the University of Pennsylvania. Mr. Ross has been cited or interviewed as an expert on numerous local, national and international new outlets."
Also see http://gothamist.com/2005/07/18/rick_ross_cult_expert.php
Also see http://www.cbsnews.com/news/leaving-endeavor-academy/ (cult expert analyst for CBS News).
See http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2009/may/27/cults-definition-religion (published piece in the Guardian).
Rick Alan Ross173.72.57.223 (talk) 19:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- added Gothamist and CBS sources. no change in content Jytdog (talk) 11:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
You have ignored the court document filed by the prosecution in the State v. Ray. Again, the document is part of the court record and supports my suggested edit.
Rick Alan Ross173.72.57.223 (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC) |}
- as promised. Not done as i said, if you want to offer simple, clear proposals for changes, with reliable sources, I will consider them. court briefs are not reliable sources for any other than "X said Y in a court brief" and that is not the sort of edit I will make in Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 20:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
request 6
Pleas change "Ross has worked as an expert court witness and as an analyst for the media in cases relating to such groups.[3] His work deprogramming a 14 year old Potter's House Christian Fellowship member was covered in a 1989 edition of the American TV series 48 hours.
To -- Ross has appeared in 14 documentaries and testified as an expert witness in court proceedings in ten states, including United States Federal Court subsequent to a Daubert hearing.[3] His work deprogramming a 14-year-old member of the controversial Potter's House Christian Fellowship was featured in a 1989 episode of the American TV series "48 hours." Ross deprogrammed two members of the notorious Waco Davidian sect led by David Koresh and was a paid professional analyst for the Dallas affiliate of CBS News during the Waco Davidian standoff. He has also worked as a paid consultant for CBC of Canada, Nippon and Ashai networks of Japan.
Rick Ross173.72.57.223 (talk) 22:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Not done. the source here is the beyond belief guardian source. None of this new content is in that source. Rick - above I asked you to provide proposed changes with sourcing. Please do so going forward for any new content you propose. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
| comment that violates WP:TPG. Jytdog (talk) 20:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Please review the following: http://culteducation.com/cv.html http://culteducation.com/group/1253-expert-witness/26572-united-states-federal-court.html http://culteducation.com/reference/jamesarthur/02-08-2011-RESPONSE-TO-MOTION2.pdf Rick Alan Ross173.72.57.223 (talk) 17:05, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Please change "Ross has worked as an expert court witness and as an analyst for the media in cases relating to such groups.[3] His work deprogramming a 14 year old Potter's House Christian Fellowship member was covered in a 1989 edition of the American TV series 48 hours." Ross has studied cults and the persuasive techniques used by cults for more than 30 years. He has testified as an expert in the court of (10) states, as well as qualifying in 2008 as an expert in religious cults and persuasion following a Daubert hearing in a federal trial court in California. Ross has published articles on cults and coercive persuasion, has lectured at numerous universities, including the University of Chicago, Baylor University, Arizona State University and the University of Pennsylvania. Ross has been cited or interviewed as an expert on numerous local, national and international new outlets. His work deprogramming a 14-year-old member of the controversial Potter's House Christian Fellowship was featured in a 1989 episode of the American TV series "48 hours." Ross deprogrammed two members of the Waco Davidian sect led by David Koresh and was a paid professional analyst for the Dallas affiliate of CBS News during the Waco Davidian standoff. He has also worked as an expert analyst for CBS National News. See the following: Also see http://gothamist.com/2005/07/18/rick_ross_cult_expert.php Also see http://www.cbsnews.com/news/leaving-endeavor-academy/ (cult expert analyst for CBS News). See http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2009/may/27/cults-definition-religion (published piece in the Guardian). See http://www.albuquerquejournal.com/news/state/apsweatlodgeross02-28-11.htm See http://culteducation.com/reference/jamesarthur/02-08-2011-RESPONSE-TO-MOTION2.pdf (court document) Rick Alan Ross173.72.57.223 (talk) 20:04, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
The point of the article about the $6.5 million dollar judgement, is the weight and importance of the case. I have specifically linked a court document filed by the prosecution in the State v. James Arthur Ray (PDF of document in court record). I have also provided you with a copy of the judge's finding regarding my expert testimony in Noyes v. Kelly. Both were very prominent cases. Also NXIVM v. Ross created a court precedent regarding freedom of speech online. Coughlin v. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society $1.5 million dollar settlement is one of the largest if not the largest out of court settlements paid by Jehovah's Witnesses. These important legal cases with considerable weight. If you are going to cite the Scott case why not cite other court cases I have been involved in more recently? Also the five court cases that involved groups called "cults" suing me, in which the cults lost. Church of Immoral Consciousness See Phoenix Hush, Hush, Sweet Charlatans – Phoenix New Times (Tony Ortega reports about lawsuit) See http://culteducation.com/group/1262-church-of-immortal-consciousness/10390-appeals-response.html (final response to appeal after I won in court) Pure Bride Ministries Chapman, Kathleen, (February 22, 2002) "St. Lucie Minister Drops Suit Over Web Site," Palm Beach Post Gentle Wind Project Kesich, Gregory D., (January 11, 2005)"Judge: Web site can't be sued for 'cult' comment," Portland Press Herald)Ultimately as the direct result of litigation the Gentle Wind Project was effectively shut down by the Attorney General of Maine. See http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/wg_home/clinical/gwp Landmark Education http://culteducation.com/group/1020-landmark-education/12390-introduction-to-the-landmark-education-litigation-archive.html This introduction by lawyers from the law firm Lowenstein Sandler puts into context through court documents the lawsuit against me, which Landmark dismissed. Historically, this may be the only time that the litigious company dismissed one of its own lawsuits. NXIVM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NXIVM_Corp._v._Ross_Institute Also see http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1556&context=btlj All of these court cases had an affect on the issue of freedom of speech online through the Web. The Cult Education Institute and I have been targeted, harassed etc. by various angry cult members for this very reason, including here at Wikipedia. Why give special consideration and weight only to the Jason Scott case? Rick Alan Ross173.72.57.223 (talk) 16:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC) |
- as promised. Not done as i said, if you want to offer simple, clear proposals for changes, with sources, I will consider them. Jytdog (talk) 20:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
| another wall of text that asks for changes with adequate sourcing Jytdog (talk) 23:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
It's not simply a court brief, it's a motion that includes a statement of facts concerning my work history entered by the Yavapai County Attorney in the Ray case and ruled upon favorably by the presiding judge who qualified me as an expert witness. It part of the official court record. I suggest the following simple clear and factual edit to reflect historical facts. I have repeatedly asked for simple, clear changes and supplied ample sources. Please change the following: "Rick Alan Ross (born 1952 as Ricky Alan Ross) works as a consultant, expert witness, lecturer, and intervention specialist, with a focus on exit counseling and deprogramming of those belonging to cults.[1] He is the founder and executive director of the Cult Education Institute, which is an online database launched in 1996 containing court documents, research papers and press reports about groups and individuals that have attracted cult-related controversy.[2][3] He runs a blog called Cult News[4]" To Rick Alan Ross (born 1952 as Ricky Alan Ross) works as a consultant, expert witness, lecturer, and intervention specialist regarding people involved in groups called "cults."[1] Ross has studied cults for more than 30 years, testified as an expert in 10 states, as well as qualifying as an expert in religious cults and persuasion following a Daubert hearing in a federal trial court in California. Ross is the author of the book Cults Inside Out: How People Get In and Can Get Out as well as published peer reviewed articles on cults and coercive persuasion. Ross has lectured at numerous universities, including the University of Chicago, Baylor University, Arizona State University and the University of Pennsylvania. Please change the following: "Ross' interest in controversial religious groups dates to a 1982 incident at his grandmother's nursing home. During the 1980s he represented the Jewish community on a number of advisory committees. In 1986 he began working full-time as a consultant, sometimes involuntarily deprogramming members of controversial groups and movements. His work deprogramming a 14 year old Potter's House Christian Fellowship member was covered in a 1989 edition of the American TV series 48 hours." To Ross' interest in controversial religious groups dates to a 1982 incident at his grandmother's nursing home. During the 1980s he represented the Jewish community on a number of advisory committees. In 1986 he began working full-time as a private consultant and intervention specialist. Ross has been cited or interviewed as an expert on local, national and international new outlets. His work deprogramming a 14-year-old member of the controversial Potter's House Christian Fellowship was featured in a 1989 episode of the American TV series "48 hours." Ross also deprogrammed two members of the Waco Davidian sect led by David Koresh and was a paid analyst for the Dallas affiliate of CBS News during the Waco Davidian standoff. He has also worked as an expert analyst for CBS National News. Ross is the founder and executive director of the Cult Education Institute, which is an online database launched in 1996 containing court documents, research papers and press reports about groups and individuals that have attracted controversy, some that have been called "cults."[2] This fairly reflects my actual work history so that people can understand why I appear at Wikipedia, other than to be attacked and discredited by critics. Please delete the section about the 25-year-old Jason Scott case from the lead, as it already has a subsection below and is being given undue weight. Please add additional subsections regarding the court cases previously cited with sources, which involve me professionally, and are equally important and more recent than the Scott case. If you wish to continue dismissing sources and refusing to make requested changes based upon those sources, then perhaps we must elevate this to some higher level within whatever Wikipedia protocol exists. No point wasting any more of both our time going back and forth like this. Rick Alan Ross173.72.57.223 (talk) 22:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC) |
- Not done. Rick, the concept here is very simple. Make a request to change one thing. Provide reliable, independent source(s) that support each and every word in the new content. For example, you keep asking us to add "ten states" but there is no source for that. I am willing to help you but if you don't give me what I need, there is nothing I can do. If you don't understand what I mean, please ask. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
request 7
Please change "In 1992 and 1993, Ross opposed actions of the Branch Davidian group led by David Koresh in Waco, Texas.[18] Ross had previously deprogrammed a member of the group.[19][20] Ross was the only deprogrammer to work with Branch Davidian members prior to a siege involving the death of many of the group's members at Waco.[21] Television broadcaster CBS hired Ross as an on-scene analyst for their coverage of the Waco siege.[3] Ross also offered unsolicited advice to the FBI during the standoff.[20] A later Department of Justice report on the matter stated that "the FBI did not 'rely' on Ross for advice whatsoever during the standoff."[20] According to the report, the FBI "politely declined his unsolicited offers of assistance throughout the standoff" and treated the information Ross supplied as it would any other unsolicited information received from the public.[20] 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 that Ross "has a personal hatred for all religious cults." She claimed that 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." She criticized them for doing so and ignoring the "wider social sciences community".[22][23][24] Other scholars also criticized Ross' involvement.[19][22][25][26][27][28] Ross characterized his critics as cult apologists who held the belief that cult groups "should not be held accountable for their action like others within our society".[29]"
To -- In 1992 and 1993, Ross helped to expose the destructive and abusive behavior of David Koresh, leader of the Branch Davidian sect in Waco, Texas.[18] Ross had previously deprogrammed a member of the group.[19][20] Ross was the only cult deprogrammer to work with Branch Davidian members prior to the Waco Davidan standoff.[21] CBS hired Ross as an analyst for their coverage of the Waco standoff.[3] According to the Department of Justice report "the FBI did not 'rely' on Ross for advice whatsoever during the standoff."[20] According to that report, the FBI "politely declined his unsolicited offers of assistance throughout the standoff"[20] Ross contested that account and claimed that the FBI had solicited his advice and that two agents of the FBI were assigned to him during the standoff. Criticism of government agencies' involvement with Ross came from from Nancy Ammerman, a professor of sociology of religion, who cited FBI interview notes.[22][23][24] Other scholars also criticized Ross' involvement.[19][22][25][26][27][28] Ross characterized Ammerman and other academic critics as "cult apologists" who held the belief that cult groups "should not be held accountable for their action like others within our society".[29]
See previously linked letters and published statements under Waco.
Rick Ross173.72.57.223 (talk) 22:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Not done the changes here are not sourced and violate NPOV. Jytdog (talk) 00:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Please change "According to the report, the FBI "politely declined his unsolicited offers of assistance throughout the standoff" and treated the information Ross supplied as it would any other unsolicited information received from the public.[22]"
To According to the report, the FBI "politely declined his unsolicited offers of assistance throughout the standoff" and stated that it treated the information Ross supplied as it would any other unsolicited information received from the public.[22] Ross contested the Department of Justice Report and stated that the FBI had requested his assistance and consulted him.
See the following documents online:
Please change " 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 that Ross "has a personal hatred for all religious cults." She claimed that 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." She criticized them for doing so and ignoring the "wider social sciences community".[24][25][26] Other scholars also criticized Ross' involvement.[21][24][27][28][29][30] Ross characterized his critics as cult apologists who held the belief that cult groups "should not be held accountable for their action like others within our society".[31]"
To -- Criticism of government agencies' involvement with Ross came from Nancy Ammerman, a professor of sociology of religion, who had access to FBI interview notes. She claimed that the BATF and the FBI did rely on Ross. She criticized them for doing so and ignoring the "wider social sciences community".[24][25][26] Other scholars, some that worked closely with groups called "cults," also criticized Ross' involvement.[21][24][27][28][29][30] Ross characterized his critics as cult apologists who held the belief that cult groups "should not be held accountable for their action like others within our society".[31]
Ammerman's POV and the FBI characterizations don't represent a common point of fact, but rather are characterizations that represent a point of view. I do not hate any religious cults, but do have concerns about the behavior of some cults. I never advised the FBI to humiliate David Koresh. These are claims and characterizations not supported by anything other than POV. Some of sthe scholars listed have either been recommended by the Church of Scientology and/or worked for and been paid by Scientology. I explained this and provided links to support this in my previous entry on the Talk Page about Waco.
Rick Alan Ross173.72.57.223 (talk) 16:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- none of the new sources are independent. Cannot use them. Jytdog (talk) 18:16, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- Never mind the POV language which we obviously cannot use, but what is the position of the project regarding material that is of importance to the subject and can possibly bring clarity to it, but is apparently no longer covered by secondary sources? On the one hand I'm of course weary of using primary sources like the ones Mr. Ross hosts on his website, but on the other can we present a full picture without them? This has cropped up from time to time. The most recent one I believe revolved around the publishing of material by a bio subject that attempted to "set the record straight" against multiple reliable secondary sources that covered negative information about them, and then subsequently abandoned any interest in their case, thus leaving things hanging, in a sense. I'm sorry I can't find that discussion, but maybe this would make a good case for an RFC even. It is a rather worrying gap in our ability to present information, especially about living persons. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 01:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- WP:SELFPUB sets the standards for use of self-published sources. In particular for WP:BLP articles (as the one we're dealing with here) WP:BLPSELFPUB is the policy governing this. WP:INDY is an essay that cannot be used in a refusal like this: "none of the (...) sources are independent. Cannot use them". It is Wikipedia policy that self-published sources can be used within certain boundaries, as explicited in the relevant policies. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- But in many of these cases the sources are not self-published, but rather primary sources hosted by the subject. The issue here is the interpretation, for which we (by policy) need to rely on secondary sources. This of course applies to all primary sources, self-published or authored and otherwise. But it does present a challenge in the sense that if no one was interested in the long-term outcome of a particular issue, we cannot report on it without using and interpreting these sources, and therefore we cannot be completely neutral and fair. This is problematic for biographical articles in particular where the material around the "15 minutes of fame" are all we have to build an article. To me this goes back to requiring a stricter interpretation of WP:BLP1E and the tightening of our notability guidelines. Would Mr. Ross have an article here if he hadn't been involved in the Jason Scott case? My guess is probably not. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 05:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- Re. "But in many of these cases..." – this is not the place to deal with cases in general: some cases relevant to the Rick Ross biography are presented here, let's deal with those.
- Of course WP:PRIMARY is another relevant policy. "Rick Ross's civil rights were restored in 1983" can be referenced to a primary source, available on self-published website of the subject (see above). As you can see, no need to problematise interpretation of primary sources. Next thing to check is WP:BALASPS, as we were doing in #Early convictions above on this particular issue. I propose to continue doing that on these issues one by one. Jytdog's recommendation somewhere above (couldn't find it anymore in the wall of text) to keep it snappy, and proceed with precisely formulated suggestions is of course something I subscribe to. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- I've carefully reviewed the current content and I think it is fine. I don't think Ross' proposed changes add value. These changes seem to be about spin, not substance. Jytdog (talk) 11:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Jytdog and Francis Schonken: Fair enough, I'm not trying to throw a wrench here, I guess I was just typing out loud after I read through the whole discussion and that popped into my head. You guys are handling this très bien. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- I've carefully reviewed the current content and I think it is fine. I don't think Ross' proposed changes add value. These changes seem to be about spin, not substance. Jytdog (talk) 11:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- But in many of these cases the sources are not self-published, but rather primary sources hosted by the subject. The issue here is the interpretation, for which we (by policy) need to rely on secondary sources. This of course applies to all primary sources, self-published or authored and otherwise. But it does present a challenge in the sense that if no one was interested in the long-term outcome of a particular issue, we cannot report on it without using and interpreting these sources, and therefore we cannot be completely neutral and fair. This is problematic for biographical articles in particular where the material around the "15 minutes of fame" are all we have to build an article. To me this goes back to requiring a stricter interpretation of WP:BLP1E and the tightening of our notability guidelines. Would Mr. Ross have an article here if he hadn't been involved in the Jason Scott case? My guess is probably not. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 05:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- WP:SELFPUB sets the standards for use of self-published sources. In particular for WP:BLP articles (as the one we're dealing with here) WP:BLPSELFPUB is the policy governing this. WP:INDY is an essay that cannot be used in a refusal like this: "none of the (...) sources are independent. Cannot use them". It is Wikipedia policy that self-published sources can be used within certain boundaries, as explicited in the relevant policies. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
| hat comment that violates WP:TPG. I have told you exactly what you need to do get changes made to the article. continuing to ignore that will get you exactly no where. Jytdog (talk) 20:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Please understand that I never requested to be included at Wikipedia. After learning that cult members were using my bio here as a propaganda platform I requested that the bio be deleted. Wikipedia declined to do so. The people that edit and post here are volunteers. I never volunteered to spend my time here at Wikipedia, but was forced to do so because of the false information posted here and the fact that this bio is being used for propaganda purposes. A number of identified cult members from Scientology and other groups were found to be editing Wikipedia and banned. Some were found working on this bio. To say that my bio was included at Wikipedia because of the 20-year-old Scott case is ridiculous. If that were true the cult members would never have bothered. I have posted a number of articles and documents at this Talk Page that demonstrate that my work has included a number of landmark hi-profile court cases as an expert witness, ongoing local, national and international media work. Work with law enforcement, government agencies, publishing of papers in peer-reviewed academic journals, etc. etc. etc. And of course the CEI databse, which is one of the largest, oldest and most used research sources on the Web regarding groups called "cults." That is whycult members use Wikipedia to attack me. Ignoring these facts makes Wikiepedia seem like a subculture disconnected from reality. See http://culteducation.com/cv.html This is my publicly posted CV, which reflects the length, duration and impact of my work to some extent. It certainly includes substantial work after the Scott case ended in 1995. Most of my work occurred after the Scott case. No attorney has ever contested any part of my CV in court. My CV is absolutely accurate and has been entered as an attached exhibit in numerous court proceedings before and/or during the expert witness qualification process. I am one of a handful of people studying cults in the US that has been qualified and testified in about 20 court proceedings, including US Federal Court after a Daubert hearing, which is a hearing specifically used by lawyers to oppose and disqualify an expert. I have never been disqualified in any court proceeding. The fact that I was not included by name as an expert witness in a report about the $6.5 million dollar award for my client is not surprising. The article is not about me, but it does reflect the importance of the verdict and judgement. I submitted a link to both the federal judge's order that qualified me as an expert in Noyes v. Kelly case and also the prosecution's motion in the State v. James ARthur Ray case recounting my expertise very specifically and specifically noting the US Federal case in California. It is in part because of impact legal victories such as Noyes v. Kelly and the $1.5 historic settlement made by Jehovah's Witnesses in the Coughlin v. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society case that cults come here to Wikipedia and edit. The James Arthur Ray case was also a hi-profile case that impacted the LGAT (large group awareness training) industry. The CEI database impacts controversial groups and movements, some called "cults" every day, by providing the general public with a free research library readily accessible online through any electronic device. Cult News, Cult News Network and the CEI attached message baord (more than 100,000 entries by former cult members and affected families) has been converted to Responsive and the CEI Web team is currently in the final lap of converting the database, which contains almost 30,000 documents and hundreds of controversial groups and leaders. Again, this is why the cult group members and their apologists spent the time here in an effort to edit my bio at Wikipedia as negatively and selectively as possible. By the way I am known now as the author of the book "Cults Inside Out: How People Get In and Can Get Out." See http://www.amazon.com/Cults-Inside-Out-How-People/dp/149731660X The book has been published (Chinese version) by a Hong Kong publisher and I will be attending a book fair in Hong Kong and doing a book tour in China. I have offered sources from original official documents repeatedly and/or news reports, which have been rejected. This documentation represents the facts not "spin" or "puffery." My 40-year-old criminal history is incomplete and does not report the historical facts regarding my probation and the further actions taken by the court to clear and restore my name and rights. Again, to be accurate and complete based upon court records, the entry regarding my criminal history must read -- In 1974 Ross was convicted for the attempted burglary of a vacant model home and subsequently in 1975 he was again convicted for conspiracy to commit grand theft. Ross confessed to these crimes, made restitution and was sentenced to probation, which was terminated early in 1979. Both judgements of guilt were later vacated and Ross' civil rights restored by court order in 1983. The following official documents record these facts. http://www.culteducation.com/group/1284-scientology/23617-rick-ross-termination-of-probation-.html These are PDF documents from the record issued by the court. I am willing to make them available for inspection. The article run in the New Times explains that I returned everything. See http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/hush-hush-sweet-charlatans-6426159 I plead guilty without a plea bargain regarding the grand theft charge, which is a matter of cult record. But common sense dictates that no one gives back property, as reported by the Phoenix New Times, without admitting they illegally took it. Please make the necessary changes to this section about my criminal record. There are other changes that I have carefully gone over, suggested and cited historical sources regarding Waco. Also, the disproportionate weight of the Scott case and its inclusion twice, once in the lead and then again in a subsection is historically unbalanced and arbitrary. Unlike the Noyes v. Kelly and Coughlin v. Watchtower judgements that ended with millions of dollars being paid to the plaintiffs by the defendants, I paid Jason Scott $5,000. The actual bulk of the my settlement with Jason was for 200 hours consulting time. At that time my hourly rate was $50.00 per hour, which means that part of the settlement was worth $10,000. FYI--Jason wanted me to deprogram his then wife who remained in the group. Later they divorced and he became estranged from his two children because of his refusal to return to the group. Jason later told both "60 Minutes" and the Washington Post that he felt used by Scientology and Scientology lawyer Kendrick Moxon. See http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/whats-2995-million-between-former-enemies-6423217 Also see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCE-ICnqtVk The real story about Jason Scott was how he was used by Scientology. Most news organization got that and reported it. Today with the prominence of the book and HBO documentary "Going Clear" people can see how Scietology has historically gone after its perceived enemies. You may claim this is an unnecessary wall of text, but to me it's an honest and detailed response about how my life and has been distorted and my work maligned by Wikipedia. I have read the disclaimer that Wikiepedia has posted that essentially says no one can take Wikipedia seriously as a valid factual source for anything, which concludes, "all information read here is without any implied warranty of fitness for any purpose or use whatsoever." Can't you at least try a little harder to make the editing process credible? Rick Alan Roas173.72.57.223 (talk) 15:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC) |
- as promised. Not done as i said, if you want to offer simple, clear proposals for changes, with sources, I will consider them. Jytdog (talk) 20:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
It seems to me that you have dismissed sources and refused to make changes based upon those sources. Now you are apparently stopping discussion. Perhaps we need to go to whatever Wikipedia protocol exists above this level? No point in wasting time. What do you think?
Rick Alan Ross173.72.57.223 (talk) 22:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- I am not stopping discussion. What I am saying is Wikipedia 101. No competent editor here is going to make changes not supported by sources. If you want to see changes made, make simple suggestions, and provide reliable sources for them. This not rocket science, it is high school research paper stuff. Jytdog (talk) 23:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
9 Request Criminal Record
Change -- "In 1974 at the age of 21, Ross was convicted of the attempted burglary of a vacant model home and sentenced to probation.[1] The following year, he robbed a jewelry store in Phoenix. Ross confessed to the crime and received four years probation.[1][8]"
To --In 1974 at the age of 21, Ross was convicted of the attempted burglary of a vacant model, which was plead down to trespassing and he received probation.[1] In 1975 he was convicted of second degree conspiracy to commit grand theft in Phoenix. Ross confessed to the crime, made full restitution and received four years probation.[1] Ross' probation was terminated early due to good conduct. In 1983 a Superior Court in Arizona ordered to vacate the Judgement of Guilt, dismiss charges and restore his civil rights.
This represents my complete criminal record (1974-1983) from beginning to end.
Sources as follows:
Ortega, Tony, (November 25, 1995) "Hush, Hush, Sweet Charlatons" Phoenix New Times, which reports, "pled down to trespassing" and also states, "but everything in Ross' possession was returned to the store."
See http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/hush-hush-sweet-charlatans-6426159
PDF of official signed original document of the Adult Probation Department Superior Court, which was terminated early due to good conduct January 18, 1979.
See 1979 PDF official document from the Adult Probation Department http://www.culteducation.com/group/1284-scientology/23617-rick-ross-termination-of-probation-.html
PDF of official signed document of the Superior Court of Arizona Maricopa Country Case No. 85433 June 7, 1983.
See http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/index.asp This is the Judicial Branch of Arizona Maricopa County website. The records are on file there as proven by the PDF documents, but documents that old are not accessible online.
I have the original documents in my possession and am willing to have them inspected by a neutral party to be verified.
I have voted in Arizona since 1983 and was allowed security clearance to enter county, state and federal jail and prison facilities as an official to conduct programs and visit inmates as part of the Jewish Prisoner Program of Jewish Family and Children's Service of Phoenix. This would not have been possible without the previously cited court orders necessary for a security clearance.
Source -- "Ross to head religious committee for state corrections department," (March 12, 1986) Greater Phoenix Jewish News.
Source -- Norton, Ann M. (September 29, 1984) "Synagogue-state program now serves Jewish inmates" The Arizona Daily Star.
Source -- Stocker, Joseph (June 17, 1983)"Protective Custody or Christianity It's a tough choice for Arizona's inmates" Greater Phoenix Jewish News.
These three articles are not available online, other than through the archive at the Cult Education Institute. But they all report my entrance and activities officially within county, state and federal jails and prisons within Arizona.
Another Source online.
See http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/hush-hush-sweet-charlatans-6426159
Tony Ortega reports for the Phoenix New Times, "In 1985, Ross deprogrammed Joyce Lukezic, who was accused and later acquitted in the famous Redmond murder case. While awaiting her three trials, Lukezic had fallen into a radical Pentecostal jail ministry and given up Judaism."
The deprogramming of Joyce Lukezic would not have been possible if I did not have the security clearance to enter the jail she was held in.
Rick Alan Ross173.72.57.223 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- No, for reasons given above (#Early convictions, and other sections). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- The argument that you could not have entered the jail if you did not have security clearance violates one of our core policies, WP:OR, specifically the section called WP:SYN. The next time you are interviewed, you should ask the reporter verify that your probation was terminated early due to good conduct and that in 1983 a Superior Court in Arizona ordered to vacate the Judgement of Guilt, dismiss charges and restore your civil rights, and to include discussion of that. It is remarkable that no one has written about that yet. The bottom line is that until that appears in a reliable, independent source, we cannot discuss that here. That is how Wikipedia works - it is what keeps all kind of garbage out of the encyclopedia. Sometimes it is frustrating, I know, but this place would be a cesspool if it were not for WP:VERIFY, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP. Think of all the crap that people who don't like you would try to add, based on the same kinds of reasoning. Jytdog (talk) 12:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
The official documents confirm the facts. Court records don't require a confirmation through a media interview. No one in the mdia has asked me in years about my 1974-1983 criminal records. It's not relevant or of interest in the news interviews I do. The documents alone are proof positive. Tony Ortega reported (November 25, 1995) "Hush, Hush, Sweet Charlatons" Phoenix New Times, that the burglary charge was "pled down to trespassing" and also reported, "everything in Ross' possession was returned to the store."
Please change my bio to read as follows -- In 1974 at the age of 21, Ross was convicted of the attempted burglary of a vacant model home, which was plead down to trespassing. He was sentenced to probation.[1] The following year, he robbed a jewelry store in Phoenix. Ross confessed to the crime, made full restitution and received four years probation.[1][8]
I read WP:OR, specifically and the section called WP:SYN. I didn't see anything that specifically addressed legal documents as sources. Please direct me to where specifically in Wikipedia policy the issue of legal or official documents provided as proof exists. (added in this dif)
Regarding the other changes requested regarding my criminal record at this time I would also like to request further review from someone else in Wikipedia, perhaps the legal department. Someone that would review a claim of libel and/or defamation regarding Wikipedia for arbitration. Regarding the other changes requested concerning my incomplete criminal record within the bio at this time. I would also like to request further review from someone else in Wikipediafor the purpose of further arbitration regarding official legal documents used as sources to establish facts. (changed in this dif and this dif)
Rick Alan Ross173.72.57.223 (talk) 13:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- are you threatening legal action? if you are, you will be banned from Wikipedia per Wikipedia:No legal threats which is policy. If you are not, please strike that. That is not something to mess around with. I am cutting you slack by asking. Please respond quickly - if you do not, I will assume it was a legal threat and you will be promptly banned. Jytdog (talk) 13:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- the current change you are asking for is OK, by the way, with the exception of "full restitution" ( you could not restore everything since you didn't possess everything) and I am making it. the legal threat issue remains open. Jytdog (talk) 13:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- I don't agree with the change, for reasons given above. WP:BALASPS is imho the relevant policy here, and the reason why this falls below the radar of WP:BLPSELFPUB and/or why a viable application of WP:PRIMARY is uncalled for here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- francis the change is fully supported by the sources provided. I would not make a change that wasn't. Jytdog (talk) 13:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- Didn't say it wasn't supported by the sources, and I appreciate your work in checking these. What I say is that in the whole of the reliable sources on Rick Alan Ross (including those passing WP:BLPSELFPUB) these early convictions are generally treated in the margin, so Wikipedia should not give them more attention than the reliable sources generally do. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- Rick, thanks for striking the legal-threat-ish language. Francis, a few words do not lend UNDUE weight, and they help resolve the issues here. please unrevert. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- Didn't say it wasn't supported by the sources, and I appreciate your work in checking these. What I say is that in the whole of the reliable sources on Rick Alan Ross (including those passing WP:BLPSELFPUB) these early convictions are generally treated in the margin, so Wikipedia should not give them more attention than the reliable sources generally do. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- francis the change is fully supported by the sources provided. I would not make a change that wasn't. Jytdog (talk) 13:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Jytdog--your edit was not exactly correct. To be accurate it must read -- In 1974 at the age of 21, Ross was charged for the attempted burglary of a vacant model home, which was plead down to trespassing. The charge was plead down through a plea agreement, which provided for the final conviction of "trespassing," which is a misdemeanor, not a felony. Very important distinctions. I was never convicted of burglary. Rick Alan Ross173.72.57.223 (talk) 14:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- Right now I am trying to understand Francis's objection, which doesn't make sense to me. Francis, please do reply. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- This is what the "Beyond belief" source has:
[Ross] ... falling into trouble with the law. In 1974, he was convicted for the attempted burglary of a vacant show house and sentenced to probation. The following year he was sentenced to five years' probation after he and a friend embezzled property from a jewellery company.
- This is what the "Beyond belief" source has:
- This is what I proposed above:
In his early twenties Ross ran into justice twice, once for attempted burgulary, and once for the embezzlement of property.[1] In 1983 Ross was vacated of guilt for both cases, and his civil rights were restored.[2]
- The first sentence is a summary of the secondary source (shorter, the essentials). That's what Wikipedia generally does: summarizing secondary sources.
- The second sentence is the WP:BLPSELFPUB/WP:PRIMARY based content. On second thought, I wrote above, I would not retain the "vacated" part of the sentence, so I would propose something like "Ross's civil rights were restored in 1983" for the second sentence.
- This is what I proposed above:
- Ross' latest proposal reads:
In 1974 at the age of 21, Ross was charged for the attempted burglary of a vacant model home, which was plead down to trespassing. He was sentenced to probation.[1] The following year, he robbed a jewelry store in Phoenix. Ross confessed to the crime, restored the property in his possession, and received four years probation.[1][3]
- Ross' latest proposal reads:
- I'm open to including something about "probation" etc. as long as the whole treatment of these incidents does not exceed the current length of the paragraph (e.g. "Phoenix", true but circumstantial, no need to retain that in a summary: for the whole importance of those incidents in Ross's biography – who has a biography here for being a deprogrammer, with a much more famous case later in life, etc. – whether that early incident was in Phoenix or in the next town has near to zero relevance.) --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
The Jason Scott case is 25 years ago and though it may be a focus for cults and my critics to attack me, it really isn't why this bio is up here. This bio is here because of the Cult Education Institute Web presences (1996-present). People that are angry about the database and message board use Wikipedia to discredit me. They often focus on the Scott case though there are other court cases of equal importance and much more current that I have been involved in as an expert witness or defendant. My critics at Wikipedia always want everything positive brief, if at all visible, and anything negative in detail with POV footnotes from scholars, etc. The editing of this bio has often been used as a place to attack me and/or my work. Rick Alan Ross173.72.57.223 (talk) 17:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
References
- ^ a b c d e Johnstone, Nick (December 12, 2004). "Beyond Belief". The Observer. London. Retrieved October 24, 2008.
- ^ Rick Ross Application for Restoration of Civil Rights at culteducation
.com - ^ a b Ortega, Tony (November 30, 1995). "Hush, Hush, Sweet Charlatans. Clients of deprogrammer Rick Ross call him a savior. Perhaps that's why people he's branded cult leaders want to crucify him". Phoenix New Times. Retrieved April 27, 2006.
- thanks for clarifying. the "hush hush sweet charlatan" source says:"Some of the pieces his partner had taken had been melted down, but everything in Ross' possession was returned to the store. Ross was sentenced to four years' probation." That is the source for the restitution part of the probation length for the jewelry store robbery. i forgot which source said what, sorry. are you OK with the edit now, if we add that source? Jytdog (talk) 15:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- When something is added (of course with appropriate sourcing), some superfluous detail should best be taken out. Maybe best to write the proposal here before implementing. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Schonken--full recovery of the stolen items is not "superfluous." If you are not willing to include the wording necessary to have an accurate balanced NPOV history of my court criminal record then perhaps it's superfluous to include anything and just delete the whole paragraph. No one asks me about any of it in media interviews. It's a topic of interest for cult members and critics who use it to attack me. They don't ever discuss any of the details such as restitution, probation cut short for good conduct or that the charges were later dismissed and my guilty verdicts expunged by the court. That is not what they want people to see in my bio. They just want the bad stuff and leave out the rest. Rick Alan Ross173.72.57.223 (talk) 16:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- Really? You make us read walls of text, see the example above of the word I indicated as superfluous ("e.g. "Phoenix", true but circumstantial, no need to retain that in a summary: for the whole importance of those incidents in Ross's biography – who has a biography here for being a deprogrammer, with a much more famous case later in life, etc. – whether that early incident was in Phoenix or in the next town has near to zero relevance."), thanks for reading what I write (and not imagining things I didn't write). --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Francis Schonken: My biography is here because of rickross.com, which before the rapper became famous, was known as the entry point to one of the largest archives about cults on the Web. I sold the domain name some time ago because of the name association with the rapper Rick Ross. Now the database is culteducation.com. The Web presence is why the bio is here and why people want to use it to attack me. The Jason Scott intervention is one of 500 interventions I have done (1982-present) and one of six times I have been sued by cult lawyers. The other five lawsuits were about free speech issues. I prevailed in all of that litigation. One of those lawsuits (NXIVM) is cited here. Rick Alan Ross173.72.57.223 (talk) 17:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I propose adding 38 words per the following:
In 1974 Ross was charged for the attempted burglary of a vacant model home, which was plead down to trespassing. He was sentenced to probation.[1] The following year, he was charged with conspiracy to commit grand theft. Ross confessed to the crime, returned the property in his possession, and received four years probation.[1][3] His probation was terminated early in 1979 for good conduct. In 1983 by court order Ross' criminal record was expunged, all charges dismissed and his civil rights restored. Rick Alan Ross173.72.57.223 (talk) 17:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- I've done here everything we can do, based on good sources. Please leave this alone, and let's move on. Jytdog (talk) 19:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
arbitrary break for request 9
Please do the following necessary edit:
In 1974 at the age of 21, Ross was arrested for the attempted burglary of a vacant model home, pleaded guilty for trespassing, and was sentenced to probation.[8] The following year,[1] he was convicted of conspiracy to commit grand theft regarding a jewelry store. Ross confessed to the crime, restored the property in his possession, and received probation, which was ended early for good conduct in 1979.[8] In 1983 his criminal record was expunged and his civil rights restored by court order. Rick Alan Roass173.72.57.223 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- Ric:
- what is the source for: "which was ended early for good conduct in 1979."
- What is the source for "In 1983 his criminal record was expunged and his civil rights restored by court order."
- Please answer briefly and provide a source for each of those. I will then take this to RSN and we will get community feedback on that. Jytdog (talk) 21:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I have the original document issued by the Arizona Department of Probation and signed by the Deputy Adult Probation Officer on January 18, 1979. I also have the original document signed by the judge in Arizona Superior Court vacating judgements of guilt against me, dismissing all charges and restoring my civil rights June 7, 1983. These documents are online and their authenticity has never been contested, but I am willing to produce them physically to resolve this matter. Rick Alan Ross173.72.57.223 (talk) 22:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Break
Calling for a break in updating the bio page, until the authentication of the editor claiming to be Rick Alan Ross has been sorted, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Statement by Newyorkbrad giving an update on the situation. Newyorkbrad recommends the current arbitrators to reach out to Rick Alan Ross. I expect the latter to do the same towards the arbitration committee (see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee#Contacting the Committee). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
What exact action does Wikipedia expect for me to do now? Please be very specific as I don't know all your rules. I read the links, but it's not precisely clear. I am expected to email certain people or What? Rick Alan Ross173.72.57.223 (talk) 11:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- Proposed steps:
- "... contact the Arbitration Committee by email to establish ... identity ..." (per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Rick Alan Ross instructed and restricted)
- How to contact the Arbitration Committee by email is explained at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee#Contacting the Committee – I suppose the standard email address - arbcom-l
lists.wikimedia.org - is the one that should preferably be used as addressee of the email - Send the email from whatever current email account owned by Rick Alan Ross, preferably one that is helpful in establishing identity (using "the "Email this user" feature at "User:Arbitration Committee"" is probably not the way to proceed unless when logged in with a non-IP user account, so just copy the email address above in the "send to" box of your standard email application)
- some patience will be needed, some email exchange between yourself and the Arbitration Committee will probably ensue.
- As none of these exchanges are visible outside the Arbitration Committee's internal dealings, I suppose the Arbitration Committee will ultimately inform other editors via proper channels which user ID will be accepted henceforth as "edits by Rick Alan Ross".
- If none of this works (not even after excerting patience as recommended in step 4 above), report back here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Done. email sent to various addresses as posted. Rick Alan RossRick A. Ross (talk) 12:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- Per [2], it looks like the ArbCom and Mr. Ross are now in communication. Hopefully this can be straightened out now. For Mr. Ross's benefit, please note arbitrator Roger Davies' comment on the arbitration page that the reason for the restriction was partly to avoid potential impersonation problems, i.e., in a deeply fraught area such as Scientology and its opponents, anyone could claim to be anyone else. Now that communication has been established, your account status can be resolved. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Rick Alan RossRick A. Ross (talk) 16:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
We will be able to move forward with more editing soon? Rick Alan RossRick A. Ross (talk) 12:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Third paragraph redundant
The third paragraph is redundant. There is already a subsection in the topic box about the Jason Scott case and anyone interested can go there or to the Wikipedia pages about Jason Scott and/or the Cult Awareness Network, through links provided. I propose that the third paragraph be shortened as follows:
Ross went through two court proceedings over the 1991 involuntary deprogramming of Jason Scott. As a result of the legal risks involved, he stopped advocating involuntary interventions for adults, preferring instead voluntary interventions without the use of force or restraint. He states that despite refinement of the process over the years, cult intervention work continues to depend on the same basic principles originated through deprogramming.[6]
I also propose deleting the redundant text in the Jason Scott section as follows:
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] Rick Alan Ross173.72.57.223 (talk) 19:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- Not done Rick please read WP:LEAD and then re-think what you wrote above. Jytdog (talk) 19:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Jytdog:read WP:LEAD. Please be more specific. I don't see how my proposed edit is not in complete compliance with the guidelines of summarizing in the opening.Rick Alan Ross173.72.57.223 (talk) 20:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- the lead summarizes the body. so it makes no sense to say that anything in the lead is redundant. Jytdog (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
My edit accomplishes that exactly. Rick Alan Ross173.72.57.223 (talk) 21:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- I have asked you several times to ask for one change at a time and to provide sources for everything new you want to add. You continue to ignore me. So I am done responding to you. I was willing to try to help you but you have used up all my good will. Goodbye. Jytdog (talk) 22:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry you feel that way. Thank you for your time. I am doing my best to work with Wikipedia guidelines. I think the edits offered are quite reasonable. Nothing new. Everything is old and already sourced so there is no need for new sources. The last paragraph in the lead summarizes legal situation that occurred succinctly. The edit to the Jason Scott subsection deletes redundancy and that section has support links for further information. Rick Alan Ross173.72.57.223 (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- It is not about how i feel. you abused my good will and took no consideration for my time, or for what any wikipedia editor will need to work with you. if you treat people this way, no one will help you. everybody can see what has happened here. Most people will probably ignore you now. Jytdog (talk) 23:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Hopefully you are wrong. If not then Wikipedia is very sad and bad place where anything goes regardless of facts, documentation or in the interest of being any kind of meaningful information resource. I am not here as a volunteer. I tried to have this bio deleted after years of it being used as a propaganda platform for cults and their supporters. I am here now at the suggestion of the Wikipedia Support team. You insulted me personally, as did the other editor, and I ignored it in deference to Wikipedia. I never abused your good will. Why don't you just for second imagine what it's like to have anonymous editors raking over your personal history from 40 years ago to construct a negative narrative, which dismisses facts and twists words for their own POV. Have some consideration for the way that professional people like me are dragged into Wikipedia and vilified with little if any policing being done here. Pretty shameful. If no one cares in this community then shame on Wikipedia. Rick Alan Ross173.72.57.223 (talk) 00:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)173.72.57.223 (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC). Rick Alan RossRick A. Ross (talk) 13:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
173.72.57.223 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- i tried to help you. I told you exactly what you need to do (several times), to get as much of what you want as Wikipedia's policies and guidelines allow, and I even offered to carry something to the community. You ignored me and instead kept wasting my time (and yours). And used up all my patience, of which I have a lot. If you had actually apologized for ignoring me and promised to write here simply what you want - one change at a time, with sources for everything new - I would have come back. But I cannot help someone who will not listen. I am unwatching this page so will not see further replies. Jytdog (talk) 00:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't edit or use Wikipedia regularly. I came here because of this unsolicited bio about me, its bias, inconsistencies and mistakes. I was repeatedly insulted by condescending editors here who attempted to bully me and ignore the sources provided. In my opinion this was handled very poorly. How old are the anonymous editors here and what real life professional experience do they have? I often work with professional editors, producers and directors on articles, programs and documentaries without any difficulties. These professionals, unlike some of the editors here, exhibited genuine patience and were sincerely focused on getting a job done. Good editors enjoy the back and forth of authentic editing and don't quit when challenged. Rick Alan Ross173.72.57.223 (talk) 10:47, 27 May 2015 (UTC) I am just beginning to understand all the rules and protocols here. Please excuse my ignorance. My goal is to make the bio accurate, factual and balanced without bias. Rick Alan RossRick A. Ross (talk) 13:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- Please "Comment on content, not on the contributor" --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:01, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I have already commented here and in emails to Wikipeida. Frankly I think editors here have used the myriad of rules and regulations at Wikipedia to subvert honest objective editing. I have noted your direction to the rules and amended my previous comments. I will refrain from "huffing and puffing" and stay focused on the edits and sources for edits one by one. Rick Alan RossRick A. Ross (talk) 12:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC) 13:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- When we're done huffing and puffing I'd like to actually get some work done:
- Note WP:BURDEN: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution", so go find the sources yourself they're already used somewhere in the article doesn't really cut it.
- Wikipedia editors are not usually professional editors (I take that as a compliment). The policies help us to get as near to professional standards as possible. No use bitching on the handful policies and guidelines that are crucial to get us through here: WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, WP:COI, and lately WP:NPA.
- The idealised interaction with professional publishers didn't prevent the printing of "[Ross] ... was convicted for the attempted burglary ..." (my bolding). WP:BLPSELFPUB (a section of WP:BLP) offers a possibility to rectify erroneous information in Wikipedia, but within a rather strict framework.
- Despite predictions to the contrary I didn't run away screaming yet. Yes I tend to slow down in a contentious area (which I take as a compliment too), especially as this is a content area I have near no prior knowledge about.
- That being said, let's get back to content now. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- When we're done huffing and puffing I'd like to actually get some work done:
Thank you. You are right. News reports do at times make mistakes, despite professional editing. Rick Alan RossRick A. Ross (talk) 13:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- See WP:REDACT on how to edit your own contributions already replied to. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Slowly but surely learning the rules and process here. Rick Alan RossRick A. Ross (talk) 16:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
New request for edit re: Criminal Record
Change "In 1974 at the age of 21, Ross was arrested for the attempted burglary of a vacant model home, pleaded guilty for trespassing, and was sentenced to probation.[8] The following year,[1] he robbed a jewelry store in Phoenix. Ross confessed to the crime, restored the property in his possession, and received probation.[8]"
Change to -- In 1974 at the age of 21, Ross was arrested for the attempted burglary of a vacant model home, pleaded guilty for trespassing, and was sentenced to probation.[8] The following year,[1] he was convicted of conspiracy to commit grand theft. Ross confessed to the crime, restored the property in his possession, and received probation.[8]
See http://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/theft-burglary-and-robbery There is a profound difference between robbery and grand theft. I was convicted of conspiracy to commit grand theft not robbery.
See http://www.culteducation.com/group/1284-scientology/23617-rick-ross-termination-of-probation-.html Also see http://culteducation.com/group/1284-scientology/23616-rick-ross-application-for-restoration-of-civil-rights-.html
I have the original document issued by the Arizona Department of Probation and signed by the Deputy Adult Probation Officer on January 18, 1979. I also have the original document signed by the judge in Arizona Superior Court vacating judgements of guilt against me, dismissing all charges and restoring my civil rights June 7, 1983. These documents are online and their authenticity has never been contested, but I am willing to produce them physically to resolve this matter. Rick Alan RossRick A. Ross (talk) 12:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- For now I'd propose:
In his early twenties Ross ran into justice twice, once for attempted burglary, and once for embezzlement of property.[1] His civil rights were restored in 1983.[2]
- +add something about the "probation", if it can be done short, with appropriate references and without too much of technical-juridical lingo. See my stance on this in previous talk page contributions. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
References
- ^ Johnstone, Nick (December 12, 2004). "Beyond Belief". The Observer. London. Retrieved October 24, 2008.
- ^ Rick Ross Application for Restoration of Civil Rights at culteducation
.com
I don't think that statement is complete enough. It takes more words to handle something as serious as a criminal record. I propose a summary from 1974 to 1983 that would take the current bio entry from about 50 words to about 60 words. It' an addition of about ten words, but it's clear, focused and accurate. How about the following:
In 1974 Ross attempted burglary of a vacant model home, and a year later he was convicted for conspiracy to commit grand theft.[1] Ross confessed to both these crimes, made full restitution and received probation, which was ended early for good conduct in 1979. The court later dismissed all charges, expunged Ross' criminal record and restored his civil rights in 1983.[2]
Sources:
Ortega, Tony (November 30, 1995). "Hush, Hush, Sweet Charlatans. Clients of deprogrammer Rick Ross call him a savior. Perhaps that's why people he's branded cult leaders want to crucify him.". Phoenix New Times. Retrieved April 27, 2006.
Termination of Probation, Adult Probation Department, Superior Court of Arizona Maricopa County January 18, 1979. See http://www.culteducation.com/group/1284-scientology/23617-rick-ross-termination-of-probation-.html (Original document available upon request)
Order Vacating Judgement of Guilt, Dismissing Charges and Restoring Civil Rights (CASE NO 85433), The Superior Court of Arizona Maricopa County, June 7, 1983. See http://culteducation.com/group/1284-scientology/23616-rick-ross-application-for-restoration-of-civil-rights-.html (Original document available upon request).
Rick Alan RossRick A. Ross (talk) 13:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
For what it is worth, I am not convinced this information belongs in the article at all. It occurred relatively early in the article subject's adult life and has nothing to do with the reasons he is notable (if indeed he is notable). Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree. Very old information. When I was qualified to testify as an expert witness at the James Arthur Ray trial the judge determined that my criminal record was not relevant and could not be brought up at trial. See http://www.albuquerquejournal.com/news/state/apsweatlodgeross02-28-11.htm Rick Alan RossRick A. Ross (talk) 20:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- Re. "(if [Rick Ross] is notable)" : last discussion seems to be at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick Ross (consultant), I don't see a reason why, when asked, the community would decide otherwise under current BLP policy (I got the impression reviewing the deletion discussion that there was a broader acceptance of courtesy deletion in those days than what remains of it in the current BLP policy). However, if the question regarding notability is an elephant in the room, maybe it is time, after seven years, to take the article through AfD afresh, otherwise I'd like to keep it to the fairly convincing community consensus established in 2008 that the subject is notable. In short, I suggest to either initiate a second AfD nomination, or to stop suggesting the subject is maybe not notable enough for a Wikipedia article.
- Re. whether the early convictions are notable enough to be mentioned in the biography: I see at least two reliable secondary sources mentioning them, so on that level, yes, doesn't seem like a good idea to be completely silent about them in the Wikipedia article. Also w.r.t. the internal consistency of the biography I see at least two reasons to keep them in: it shows Ross getting experience with the US legal system before being involved in more famous legal proceedings (like for an actor we would mention he had a side-job as newspaper delivery boy before playing the role of a postman in one of his films), and secondly his NRM counterparts at least tried to use it against him later in life, and that is documented. IMHO
Wikipedia just can't make it to act as if it never happened, would make a shaky biographythis would lay the Wikipedia biography open to a possible reproach of being selective. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC) (updated 10:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC))- I understand the basis for your comments, but I disagree with your bottom line on this section. Let's see if anyone else wants to weigh in. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- Tried to make the bottom line a bit more appealing. Indeed would welcome additional input. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- How did you make the bottom line a bit more appealing? Rick Alan RossRick A. Ross (talk) 12:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- Wasn't implying I had been successful in making it more attractive, only that I tried to. Reviewing my original bottom line "IMHO Wikipedia just can't make it to act as if it never happened, would make a shaky biography" I saw that I was kinda talking in absolutes after the "IMHO", with some exaggeration added. Then I remembered how I appreciate Newyorkbrad for not talking in absolutes for as far as I can remember. So I toned it down a notch to "this would lay the Wikipedia biography open to a possible reproach of being selective", hoping this to be more compelling.
- @Rick A. Ross: question: was anything about these youthful incidents mentioned in your 2014 book? I mean, I appreciate your being honest and open about what happened (as evident from your website, also here: Talk:Rick Ross (consultant)/Archive 5#Early Life), would think it a pity leaving this out of the Wikipedia biography completely just for some wording matters that don't seem too impossible to resolve to me. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- No. My book "Cults Inside Out" is not a biography, but an educational book about cults and intervention work. It includes the Jason Scott case in a chapter about the history of cult intervention work, but not my personal history from before 1982, which is not relevant. Rick Alan RossRick A. Ross (talk) 15:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- How did you make the bottom line a bit more appealing? Rick Alan RossRick A. Ross (talk) 12:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- Tried to make the bottom line a bit more appealing. Indeed would welcome additional input. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- I understand the basis for your comments, but I disagree with your bottom line on this section. Let's see if anyone else wants to weigh in. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I think that if the criminal record is left in it must be done accurately and not selectively. My proposed edit does that in 60 words. The current entry is 50 words. Ten more words. Rick Alan RossRick A. Ross (talk) 10:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Nothing seems to be going on here regarding the suggested edit. The account of my criminal record remains selective and incomplete. I suggest the following;
In 1974 at the age of 21, Ross was arrested for the attempted burglary of a vacant model home, but later pleaded guilty to misdemeanor trespassing. He was sentenced to probation. The next year Ross was convicted for the felony conspiracy to commit grand theft.[1] He again plead guilty, made full restitution and received probation, which was ended early for good conduct in 1979. Arizona Superior Court later dismissed all charges, expunged Ross' criminal record and restored his civil rights in 1983.[2]
The word "expunged" can be linked to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expungement_in_the_United_States
Rick Alan RossRick A. Ross (talk) 15:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
It has been a month since I posted the request for editing regarding my criminal record within this bio. It is selectively edited and misleading. It does not reflect the complete record 1974-1983. Why has this not been edited? Rick Alan Ross173.72.57.223 (talk) 15:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- None of the revised text proposals found consensus for implementation. I've been very clear on what needs to be done when you want me to join a consensus.
- Please login when posting on this page, we've been through this before. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I am not aware of any login account. My last recollection was that I have no account and cannot login. Rick Alan Ross96.235.133.43 (talk) 13:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
WP:BLP is quite clear here - " If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.". I can't see that his very young brush with the law is noteworthy, and it certainly isn't relevant to his life. Regardless of the subject's claim that the charges were vacated (it would be very useful to see the documentation here, it would ensure this section never returned) I have therefore removed it. 11:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- I have the original documents issued by Arizona Superior Court and the Arizona Adult Probation Department. I am willing to have them physically inspected. They are also a matter of public record. The fact that I made full restitution of everything in my possession to the satisfaction of the police and injured party is also a matter of court record and was reported by Tony Ortega in the Phoenix New Times. In the criminal court case concerning sweat lodge guru James Arthur Ray I was qualified and accepted as an expert witness for the prosecution. In that process Ray's attorney's, who opposed my qualification, filed a motion to have me barred as an expert, which was denied by the judge (2011). Ray's attorney's specifically wanted to bring up my past criminal record 1974-1975 at trial if I testified. The judge denied that request in his ruling stating it was not relevant. See http://news.yahoo.com/group-expert-testify-ariz-sweat-lodge-case-20110228-154433-807.html Rick Alan Ross96.235.133.43 (talk) 13:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC) Rick Alan Ross96.235.133.43 (talk) 13:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
PDF of court and probation documents online: See http://www.culteducation.com/group/1284-scientology/23617-rick-ross-termination-of-probation-.html Probation terminated early for good conduct. See http://www.culteducation.com/group/1284-scientology/23616-rick-ross-application-for-restoration-of-civil-rights-.html guilty verdicts vacated and civil rights restored. See http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/hush-hush-sweet-charlatans-6426159 full restitution made by Rick Alan Ross "everything in Ross' possession was returned to the store. Ross was sentenced to four years' probation." Rick Alan Ross96.235.133.43 (talk) 13:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Comments
- 46 citations, no images at this time. Article could use some paraphrasing of blockquotes... Smee 22:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC).
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)
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
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
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
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)
- 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)
- Done. I removed the book from the 'Further Reading' section as well because it is now in the citation list. JbhTalk 15:56, 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)
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)
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)
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)
- Yes, I agree. I have felt for some time now that his recent involvement at the article was definitely WP:COI related. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:43, 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)
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)