![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Willmcw--There are two aspects of the Ross entry that remain somewhat inaccurate. One, is that the deprogramming of two Waco Davidians was not a "claim," but rather at least one case was widely reported and documented. That is, one of the Davidians deprogrammed (David Block) is cited in the Treasury Report, in a book published, through news coverage and the affidavit filed by the BATF to obtain a warrant against Koresh. Second, the FBI says one thing about Ross, Ross' statement contradicts their version and then there is Ammerman. What is the best way to reflect all this controversy? 67.134.82.78 13:52, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
None of us should get our way. This is a project to build an encyclopedia. Regarding the quotation marks I don't see the need for them myself. "Deprogram" is the correct and relevant word to use for the earlier activities of Ross. Quotation marks, or scare quotes, usually denotes that the term is being used dubiously or ironically. I don't see the need for that here. Regarding the Scott case, let's call it "unsuccessful." That's incrementally less POV than "failed". The article goes into detail about the case later. I see that some critics are specifically quoted, and others alluded to throughout the article. As far as improving the article goes, I'd suggest it could use more specific biographical information. Was Ross born in Arizona? Most recent activities? Regarding June 1: as with all dates, it's a great occasion to make NPOV summaries of verifiable information. -Cheers, - Willmcw 11:32, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
I am a bit late with this, but finally managed to get this done. These are my edits. Please note that each and every one of these edits is supported by well researched references.
-- Zappaz 8 July 2005 04:51 (UTC)
-I removed the "See also" seciton because all of the links in it were already in the "Cult template". - Willmcw July 8, 2005 22:21 (UTC)
What is Rick Ross' occupation? Deprogrammer ? -- AI 01:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
From media whore: -those of limited notability who go out of their way to gain the attention of various media outlets, namely reality television personalities. - those who use their access to such outlets to promote a particular commercial or ideological message.
(Sarcasm) I am a critic of Rick Ross and I think he is a Manchurian Candidate ;D Shouldn't the article reflect my criticism? -- AI 13:24, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
I was going to check this link to see if the title really was "Cult Awareness brainwashers, Galen Kelly exposed at last" and if so, put that in quotes to make it clear that it's the article's description. Except I found out that a) you can't follow the link directly (making it of dubious usefulness to have on the article page) and b) it's of dubious quality as well. You can read it yourself, you just have to go to the main page first and then scroll down. An excerpt from the first paragraph:
Kelly is not just
another thug; he is part of an international apparatus of Israeli, American, and British secret intelligence communities' "wetworks" capability. Kelly is on the board of JINSA, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, a liaison group between Israeli and American military establishments that is suspected of having been at the center of the Jonathan Pollard spy ring. Kelly is also the security henchman and a paid
operative of CAN.
And so on. It's not even about Ross; he is mentioned in ten consecutive sentences in the first paragraph, almost all of it background information that anyone would already know from having read the article. This link adds nothing except the not terribly surprising news that the Lyndon LaRouche movement, often accused of being a cult is among Ross's critics; the home of "Executive Intelligence Review" is http://www.larouchepub.com . -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Removed some repetitions. Also removed deprogrammer in the first paragraph - it is, later on, correctly mentioned, that he was a deprogrammer, but he is not one now, so this should not be in the first para. -- Irmgard 10:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Removed Quote from www.religiousfreedomwatch.org. The link to the page is ok, but the formulations on it are too biased to be cited in an encyclopedia. -- Irmgard 10:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
I have returned the entry to its final edited form before Zappaz again attempted to use Wikipedia for his or her personal polemic and rant. If Wikipedia is going to be taken seriously as a resource of information people like Zappaz will probably have to be reigned in. Otherwise, it is likely to be considered a strange collection of rants from the fringe, instead of objective information. Anyone that follows Zappaz's editing objectively can see his or her purpose here is to build a biased attack, not inform the public. He or she apparently has a history of involvement with a purported "cult" and is angry about those who inform the public about cults. In an effort to discredit a major source of such information Zappaz is here slinging mud. Isn't anyone going to be responsible? The sources Zappaz has chosen are cults, cult apologists often paid by cults and wacko conspiracy theroists. Anything or anyone that supports his or her views, no mattter how biased, specious or unreliable. For example, Anson Shupe has been well-paid by Scientology. He testified in the Scott case for Scientology lawyer Kendrick Moxon and made out very well financially. Nancy Ammerman has been featured in a Scientology magazine and lionized there. The Kabbalah Centre spokesperson quoted has a vested interest in protecting his turf, reportedly now under investigation by the IRS for nonprofit status violations. Ross cooperated to expose the group and was quoted in a Radar Magazine series recently run. The Ross Institute has a very large archive of news reports on the Kabbalah Centre and the group clearly doesn't like people reading it. Despite Zappaz's attempt to dismiss Ross and the Ross Institute, anyone that follows cults knows he and the institute database are perhaps the most widely quoted resource about cults and controversial groups cited by the media. A simple look at Web site rankings demonstrates the same. Time Magazine called Ross a "veteran cultwatcher" and the Ross Institute is cited by People Magazine this month in an article. Ross has appeared for years in media reports. Zappaz may not like all this and dislike Ross personally, but this is his or her POV not NPOV.
Some cult jerk must have cut the link to "Ross Responds to his Critics." Guess they didn't want anybody to see that. It's back now and these idiots should not be allowed to take it off again. What a farce these people are and how they mock the notion of an encylopedia with facts and supposed balance. 208.5.214.2 11:38, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Also added Ross response to critical websites that responds to Hassan and Apologetics statements. At least Ross has a sense of humor, which is more than you can say for the sad homorless cult people that post crap here. Since the links are posted to Hassan and this apologetics guy, Ross deserves a response. After all, there is also a link here to some huge critical file from the weirdos at Scientology and that nutcase Lyndon LaRouche is listed as a reference. Can you believe such junk even gets on a "encylopedia" entry? 208.5.214.2 11:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Religiousfreedomwatch.org. I deleted the quote from this website. This website by Scientology is too biased to be a reliable source for an encyclopedia.The information in it is consciously distorted to show Scientology critics as bad as possible. It's quality regarding facts is at best on the level of an election campaign.
It can be referenced to illustrate how Scientology describes someone, but should not be quoted in the encyclopedia text nor should the information in it be taken at face value. -- Irmgard 09:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
I moved "current activities" to "life" to get some structure into the article. Also I removed double referral to his counseling qualifications and shortened the introduction. All facts mentioned by Zappaz are in the article (and should remain there), but there is no need to repeat them several times (makes the article just longer, not more interesting).
I also removed the link to rickrossexposed - a biased anonymous website is not up to an encyclopedial level. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources, especially [[ Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Evaluating secondary sources -- Irmgard 09:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Deprogrammers are people who, at the request of a parent or other close relative, will have a member of a religious sect seized, then hold him against his will and subject him to mental, emotional, and even physical pressures until he renounces his religious beliefs. Deprogrammers usually work for a fee, which my easily run as high as $25,000. The deprogramming process begins with abduction. Often strong me muscle the subject into a car and take him to a place where he is cut from everyone but his captors. he may be held against his will for upward of three weeks. Frequently, however, the initial deprogrammingonly last a few days. The subject's sleep is limited and he is told that he will not be released until his beliefs meet his captors' approval. Members of the deprogramming group, as well as members of the family, come into the room where the victim is held and barrage him with questions and denunciations until he recants his newly found religion :
" * What does an intervention cost? My fees are currently $75.00 per hour or $750.00 per day when I work out of town. This does not include expenses such as travel, accommodations or other related expenses. An average intervention costs about $3,750.00 in fees plus expenses, which are usually below $1,000. This means that the total cost of an intervention should run about $5,000.00. The cost of an intervention may be somewhat higher if special research is required, a former member of a destructive group is brought in to assist and/or substantial travel time is required.Former members typically charge a fee of about $350.00 to $500.00 per day depending upon their experience. An intervention professional should have a detailed fee agreement that itemizes and explains his or her fee structure, costs associated with an intervention and outlines the terms of the intervention explicitly (see Ethical Standards)."
I suggest, yet again, you read WP:NPOV, before you edit. I would also suggest you read Wikipedia: What Wikipedia is not.
--
ZappaZ
17:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Personal comments of any kind are not called for. If there is an issue with a particular editor, discuss it on their talk page, file an RfC, or find someplace else to discuss it. However, editors who make personal assertions regarding their editing should expect to have those assertions open to challenge. - Willmcw 01:17, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
Zappaz, you seem to be the only one who wants the deprogrammer in the introduction - please accept the "no academic credentials" instead.
No accreditation for "counseling" is nonsense - Rick Ross offers speficially cult intervention (exit counseling) which consists by his definition of sharing cult-specific information - which is not the same as psychological or spiritual counseling. An accredited psychiatrist has by his accreditation no qualification for exit counseling and Ross does not have the qualification for counseling someone regarding psychological problems. The point is, Ross does not offer that, but only exit counseling. In the introduction is stated that he has no academic credentials which is correct and does not suppose or infer anything additional. -- Irmgard 12:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
If someone insists about qualifications, we have to do so much editing in wikipedia
Adolf Hitler - no qualifications to be Chancellor or failed world dictator
George Bush - Did not study a BA in "how to be President"
Stalin - unqualified communist leader and mass murderer (I think should he get an honary doctorate in "mass murder" though - posthumously)
Oprah Winfrey - unqualified talk show host (she did study communications though) T om Cruise - unqualified actor
Pablo Picasso - unqualified modern artist (learnt from his Father who was)
L. Ron Hubbard - unqualified author and unqualified theologian
Osama bin laden - I think its important to say that he's not professional terrorist as he doesnt have any professional credentials
Sigmund Freud - unqualified
Carl Jung - unqualified
Marcel Chevalier - unqualified French executioner
Steve Wade - unqualified English executioner
etc. etc. etc.
Now, some might think that in most cases it is extremely difficult to get qualified for these professions... the same is true for someone whos job is building implosion by explosives.... and the same is true for deprogramming
This page is not only referred to by the anti-cult movement and the University of Virginia but also, e.g. by the Press, by concerned parents, etc. etc. (anyway, we have no statistics who is clicking there why). So I shortened the sentence. That it is widely referred to is documented by Google which lists it among the top ten when searching for "cults". -- Irmgard 12:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
The section below is reverted to the former one - it does not correctly reflect what Ross himself writes on his ethical guidelines page http://www.rickross.com/ethics.html -- Irmgard 12:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
I also removed the section Deprogramming - it is taken out of context and gives a wrong impression, as it presumes a different definition of deprogramming than the one of Ross (see http://www.rickross.com/ethics.html where he also quotes Hassan's and Singer's definitions and http://www.rickross.com/reference/deprogramming/deprogramming7.html). If you want to quote Ross on deprogramming, quote his actual definition of deprogramming : "The first title used was "deprogrammer," which specifically describes the process of unraveling a destructive cult's program of emotional, psychological and informational control." But I think discussion of deprogramming should be left to the article Deprogramming and taken up in detail there. -- Irmgard 12:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Unacceptable. That text is very much supported by statements made on Ross website. --
ZappaZ
15:13, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Britain's FHM magazine named Rick Ross "America's number one cult buster", the New York Daily News referred to Ross as "Self-styled cult buster" and Time Magazine referred to him as “a veteran cult watcher."
See the following recent examples:
http://www.gothamist.com/archives/2005/07/18/rick_ross_cult_expert.php
http://www.sacbee.com/content/lifestyle/story/13276511p-14118809c.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/324820p-277473c.html NY Daily News -- "Rick Ross, founder of the New Jersey-based Ross Institute which monitors fringe religious groups."
Which quotes from what press becomes arbritray. But if you wanted to poll a consensus of the press articles over the past year or so to support a conclusive most used reference you could. But this would be time consuming and not really about a encyclopedia entry would it?
38.119.107.70 posted these press quotes again and apparently is in agreement with the Zappaz POV, but has not offered any discussion here concerning edits here. 67.134.82.77 15:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
I removed these references: the first is a biased third source report, not an encyclopedial reference, the second contains a set of biased questions to congress. The third one moved to Branch Davidians article, says more about them than about Ross -- Irmgard 12:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Why are we removing the word "database"? It seem to describe a colleciton of data, usch as what Ross has on his website. - Willmcw 19:03, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Reported 3RR on
User:67.134.82.77 --
ZappaZ
00:24, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Reported 3RR on -- ZappaZ Won't anyone reign in this guy??? I have repeatedly offered to discuss this point by point. He seems unwilling to work on edits and support his edits. Is Wikipedia supposed to be like this?
You need to reign on your mouse and stop deleting my work and the work of others on this article. If you see anything on this article that is not factual and that is not supported by citacions, please let us know and we will gladly delete it. I have substantiated each and everyone of my edits. The ones I was wrong about, were deleted as soon as someone pointed it out. Now stop vandalizing this article. Thanks. --
ZappaZ
00:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
First, you "vadalized" a long-standing entry here, by changing it with something 50 plus edits. Subsequently, you expect everyone to accept that. You admit at this point that you were "wrong." and submitted false and/or misleading information. Yet you want your entry to stand. No. You have yet to prove that a single point within my post is in error. Given your errors and conduct at this point you should prove what is false and/or misleading within my entry. Please begin to make these points so we can all move on.
I reverted edit by Zappaz about the paid testimonies of former members, which I incorrectly labelled as a minor edit. Sorry. I explained my revert hereabove. Andries 23:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
2005 (UTC)
I'm going to protect the page for a bit, as we seem to have an edit dispute going. Please note that this isn't an endorsement of the protected version as such. Fire Star 01:03, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
OK Zappaz. I will be calm and go over the paragraphs with you one at a time in an effort to find a balance that is NPOV. If you are not reasonable I will invite feedback before making another edit. This will be a process and very open for everyone to see. 67.134.82.77 01:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
First paragraph as follows:
"Rick Ross (born November 1952) is a controversial protagonist of the anti-cult movement who maintains a website with an extensive listing of articles about cults, controversial groups, and new religious movements, and related research about mind control theories, as well as the CultNews.com blog."
To be NPOV it should read as follows:
Rick Ross (born November 1952) is an internationally known cult expert who maintains an extensive database accessible through the Internet about controversial organizations, groups and movements, some that have been called "cults."
This is a simple opening paragraph that is factual, to the point and NPOV. If you wish to dispute that this is NPOV and factual please demonstrate your points factually.
Overwhelmingly, this is the reported media and general consensus about Ross and his website. Cults and their apologists represent a POV and are not NPOV. 67.134.82.77 01:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
The best way to get a consensus on this article is indeed to discuss the points one at a time:
Stay calm, stay patient and try to stay pleasant. One good thing about Wikipedia is that we have to work with people who disagree with us. In the end, though, that makes for more complete articles. Fire Star 01:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Thanks I will follow that advice. 67.134.82.77 01:36, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
As with other controversial articles, when the pan gets too hot, I unilaterally place myself on moratorium so that these disputes do not affect my sweet life too much. Therefore, my last edit of today will be the last one for a while. I wish anon 67.134.82.77 good luck with his first baby steps in WP, and hope Willmcw, Irmgard and Andries can make this article better in my self-imposed absence. That said, please note that I will return in a week or two and continue contributing to this article if I see the need to. Hopefully text that is properly supported by citations will not be deleted, only improved upon. As always, I reserve the right to challenge any deletions or additions that are unattributed opinious, speculation or propaganda. May you all have a pleasant weekend. --
ZappaZ
02:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
We have been here before. The article was revised, edited and completed before and up in that edited version for some time. Then Zappaz came back and edited the article more than fifty times until it fit his POV. This included "deletions, or additions" the "opinions" of those that agree with his POV and both "specution" and "propaganda." 67.134.82.77 05:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
There are quite a few repeated statements that are redundant. Also, many typos, spelling and gramatical errors. But let's start with the first few paragraphs or the introduction.
First paragraph currently reads as follows:
Rick Ross (born November 1952) is a controversial protagonist of the anti-cult movement who maintains a website with an extensive listing of articles about cults, controversial groups, and new religious movements, and related research about mind control theories, as well as the CultNews.com blog.
Ross, a former deprogrammer, describes himself today as a "cult intervention specialist". He has been interviewed and quoted by the media as a cult expert in the United States and around the world, and he has been called as an expert witness on several occasions.
He has numerous critics, especially from groups listed on his website, and he has played controversial roles in the case of Jason Scott and the ill fated Waco standoff with the Branch Davidians.
Britain's FHM magazine named Rick Ross "America's number one cult buster", the New York Daily News referred to Ross as "Self-styled cult buster" and Time Magazine referred to him as “a veteran cult watcher."
To be NPOV IMO it should read as follows:
Rick Ross (born November 1952) is an internationally known cult expert who maintains an extensive database accessible through the Internet about controversial organizations, groups and movements, some that have been called "cults."
This is a simple opening paragraph that is factual, to the point and NPOV.
Overwhelmingly, this is the reported media and general consensus about Ross and his database. Cults and their apologists that say otherwise represent a POV and are not NPOV.
It could further read:
Often called a "cult deprogrammer" Ross refers to himself as a "cult intervention specialist." He has been interviewed and quoted by the media in the United States and around the world, and testified as an expert witness.
He has been typically and frequently criticized by groups, organizations and movements listed within his database and also by academics and others sympathetic to those groups, organizations and movements.
Ross is also known for his role in the controversial Jason Scott case, which involved an involuntary deprogramming and as an expert used by law enforcement, the media and concerned families regarding the Waco Branch Davidians.
Britain's FHM magazine named Rick Ross "America's number one cult buster", Time Magazine referred to him as “a veteran cult watcher."'
IMO the NY Daily News quote is part of an article that reports about attacks on Ross and it is titled "Busting on the Cult Buster." It is not representitive of the overwhelming way in which Ross is referred to in the press. IMO this is a highly selective reference chosen to represent a POV.
The Scott case was controversial, essentially because Scientology used it as a vehicle to destroy the Cult Awareness Network, which was reflected in the news coverage and public interest.
Ross' role in Waco was not "controversial." He was consulted, lectured, was seen in the news frequently during and after the standoff as an expert and analyst. Cults and their apologists attempted to make Ross an object of controversy, but the reports, investigations and news covereage overwhelmingly did not reflect that and instead focused on the Waco cult, its deranged leader, his crimes and the tragic end he chose for his followers.
I look forward to comments and feedback. 67.134.82.77 05:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
I think the information about fees must be removed (or at least made less specific) because it violates the wikipedia policy (or guideline?) not to include information that dates quickly. Andries 11:51, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
I placed my seld on a self-imposed moratorium in editing this article, with the belief that editors will responsibly edit and improve upon the article. Unfortunately, the only editing has been a determided effort to delete text that was properly sources and referenced. I will have my weekend in peace, but note my strong objection to these deletions of text. --
ZappaZ
15:26, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Anton Hein and Ross did not disagree over "very critical attitude towards Christian missionary movements." They apparently disputed over poltical issues within the so-called "anti-cult movement."
Also see Ross' response to Hein at his "Flaming Websites" page.
See http://www.rickross.com/flamingwebsites.html
Hein says at his section about Ross that he become upset with him through an "email exchange during the Summer of 2003." The Google group exchange details this and the Q and A back and forth between the two. Hein seems to think that Ross being Jewish is problem, though he mentions this after citing the email dispute first. Specifically, "given the specialized knowledge and spiritual discernment necessary to deal with cults of Christianity, the publishers of Apologetics Index - themselves evangelical Christians - recommend contacting Christian cult experts instead."
Looks like politics and charcterizing this as a about Ross' "very critical attitude towards Christian missionary movements" is misleading and does not based upon facts.
The mention of Anson Shupe in this paragraph is redundant, since just below there is a complete statement by Shupe and his writing partner Darnell. I will edit the paragraph and combine the mention of Hassan and Hein together per a long-standing previous version. 67.134.82.77 15:21, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Anton Hein 13:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Anton Hein's opinions are his POV and not NPOV. He says, that he "doesn't endorse" Ross. Who cares? His POV is that Ross is "abusive" because "he disagrees with" others Hein likes and/or supports. Again who cares? Ross' lack of education has already been discussed and for the purposes of an encylopedia entry it doesn't need to be recited again by Hein. According to Hein's POV Ross has "a lack of the needed theological knowledge and balance for dealing with Christian-based cults." Hein has no degree, no ordination and no "theological knowledge" that has been officially tested and/or acknowledged through an accredited seminary. Who cares what he thinks. Ross' history of appointments by well-recognized bodies Jewish, interreligious, state, etc. and experience as a court expert witness, lecturer at major universities (including Baylor a Christian school) would seem to contradict Hein's POV. Hein says Ross "abusive attacks on Apologetics Index itself" (speaking in the third person?) once again expresses his POV. Reading the exchange between Ross and Hein at Google groups was enlightening. Hein was asked questions by Ross. Apparently Hein doesn't like to be questioned, but that's not "abusive." Not that it matters anyway, because that's Hein's POV being quoted and not NPOV. BTW--where and when did Hein ever "endorse" Ross? Can't find any past endorsement anywhere (see "Way Back"). Hein may not have previously so overtly attacked Ross, but he never really endorsed him. Hein has always made a point of labeling Ross a "Jew" and offered no endorsement of his work. Hein color codes his entries and Ross is color coded "Non Christian" in red. Interestingly Steve Hassan, who Hein seems to like, is not so identified as "Non Christian," but rather as "Secular." Whatever. Hein's POV is neither definitive nor appropriate for an encyclodia entry. Let's stary with NPOV facts. 38.96.137.19 14:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Let's avoid POV and state facts. Ross and Hassan had dispute and both posted something about that. Patrick Ryan was sued and that's court record as is AFF having well known cult-apologists speak at its conferences. Hein admits this and it is well documented. Hein's POV about Ross is not a fact, it's a POV. Let him hold forth at his website not Wikipedia, which is supposed to be a public encyclopedia. 38.96.137.19 14:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
There is an external link to Hein's attack on Ross. That affords Hein's POV more than enough special consideration.
If a reference and link is provided regarding Anton Hein's POV concerning Ross at Criticism section, so should a citation and link appear regarding the information gathered by Ross' and his POV regarding Hein.
Under "Life" the following quote appears. "Ross's involvement with cults started in 1982, when a messianic group infiltrated the Jewish nursing home in Arizona where his grandmother was a resident."
This is misleading.
Many groups are "messianic," such as the Unification Church, which believes Rev. Moon is the "messiah" or Jewish groups that are waiting for the fulfillment of messianic prophecies. But the group that raised Ross' concern specifically was a fundamentalist Pentecostal group that targets Jews for conversion. They may call themselves "messianic Jews," but this a controversial claim. If readers of Wikipedia are to understand the specific situation it should read more specifically -- "a controversial religious group that targets Jews for conversion."
See http://www.rickross.com/reference/jews_for_jesus/jews_for_jesus8.html
The above article explains the concern of the Jewish community, Ross' involvement through a committee and the equal concern of Christians that endorsed the educational brochure he and others worked on regarding the situation. 67.134.82.77 15:22, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
His Jewish identity is best noted as an introduction to concerns abount his grandmother in the third paragraph under "Life" rather than the first paragraph. 67.134.82.77 15:23, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Amended move to Arizona to include date and also dates of crimes committed in second paragrah. 67.134.82.77 15:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Ross was appointed to two different committees through the UAHC one about cults and another devoted to interreligious affairs.
See http://www.rickross.com/biography.html
And also http://www.rickross.com/cv.html
It is confusing and/or misleading to say he "left the Jewish Prisoners Program" in 1986. This was a professional position as opposed to volunteer work, which might be implied through the previously cited affiliations and committee work.
Specifically, Ross worked for Jewish Family and Children's Service and the Bureau of Jewish Education in Phoenix, Arizona. He was a member of the paid professional staff of both organizations. If there is space to repeat that Ross has "no academic credentials" and only a "high school" education,it is also meaningful to state his employment history/experience.
Under "Life" a publication is cited in a misleading manner. It says, "Ross wrote an 11-page paper "The missionary threat" in which he describes present-day Christian missionary activities "the greatest missionary threat in history" with which Jews are faced."
The site that listed this publication is no longer up on the Internet, though through the "Way Back Machine" it still can be seen.
See http://web.archive.org/web/19970712070258/www.berkshire.net/~ifas/bookstore.html
Note that it specifically cites "'Born again' crusades." Given Ross' historical concerns as expressed in numerous articles and the endorsements of Christian leaders of the brochure he worked on with the Jewish Federation titled "What in God's Name is Going on in Arizona" (previously cited), it not just any "Christian missionary activities" he is referring to in this document. Instead, Ross is specifically referring to fundamentalist Christian missionaries that target Jews for conversion. The paragraph should state that. And on balance the other brochure should be noted and that it received endorsements from Christian leaders so as not to mislead Wikipedia readers that Ross is somehow out to get the Christians.
See http://www.rickross.com/reference/jews_for_jesus/jews_for_jesus8.html
Also see http://www.rickross.com/reference/about/about4.html
The fact that Ross is not out to single out Christians for special consideration can be seen through the database he has gathered too.
There are actually very few Christian missionary organizations, given the number that exist. And many Christian anti-cult are linked through the site Links page.
See http://www.rickross.com/sg_alpha.html
Also see http://www.rickross.com/links.html
Note the section "Christian Cult Watchers."
Ross also has a section about Jewish groups.
See http://www.rickross.com/sg_jewish.html
On balance this should also be noted. 67.134.82.77 15:25, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Ross and other deprogrammers did use "force and restraint" through involuntary deprogramming efforts, which Ross acknowledges, but "threats" is over the top and not documented. What "threats"? In deprogrammings like Scott case, people were eventually free to go. It is reported that Scott "escaped" while eating dinner at a public place after his deprogramming days with Ross ended. Was the "threat" to take him out for dinner? Let's just stick to "force and restraint." This doesn't make much sense. But force used to bring someone into a deprogramming and restraint to keep them there is consistent with the facts. 67.134.82.77 15:27, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
There is no reason to include Guidstar information or lack of information, unless there has been some controversy regarding fund-raising or the use of funds, which there is not. Looking around Wikipedia this doesn't seem to be standard practice. So there is no reason to include such information, so it has been edited out. 67.134.82.77 15:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
It is common knowledge that Ross deprogrammed David Block. This is in the treasurey report, affidavit for the warrant to be served on David Koresh and all over the Internet, even Ross' critics acknowledge this.
See the following links:
http://www.carolmoore.net/waco/TDM-02.html http://www.carolmoore.net/waco/TDM-03.html (Carol Moore, cited as a Ross critic on Waco) http://www.freedommag.org/english/vol29I1/page08x.htm Scientology Freedom Magazine (seems they had Ross under watch during the deprogramming and shared that information with others e.g. Carol Moore). http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/issues/1995-11-30/news/feature2_7.html (Press account) http://www.skepticfiles.org/waco/wattenbe.htm (cites Block as a BATF source) http://www.rickross.com/reference/waco/waco_affidavit.html (BATF Affidavit) http://www.rickross.com/reference/waco/waco294.html (Book titled "See No Evil" by Tim Madigan)
The word "claims" is not appropriate. The second Davidian Ross says he deprogrammed was not reported about. But the first certainly and was recorded repeatedly by a number of different sources, often not friendly to him.
The Waco Tribune-Herald ran a lengthy series, but Ross is not cited as a "major source," only quoted.
See the following links:
http://www.rickross.com/reference/waco/wacopart1.pdf http://www.rickross.com/reference/waco/wacopart2.pdf http://www.rickross.com/reference/waco/wacopart3.pdf
Carol Moore is quoted regarding Ross. She is to say the least controversial. Moore is a Libertarian, her book was published by the Gun Owners of America and is acclaimed as a "polemic against the government."
See http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9602/reviews/roundup.html
Dean Kelley, often called an apologist and recommended by Scientology as a religious resource, proclaims; "Carol Moore has written a polemic against the government worthy of the organization to which she has devoted more than two years of work-the Committee for Waco Justice, which has staged demonstrations in Washington to protest what they view as crimes by the federal agencies. Her book is copublished by Gun Owners of America and highlights issues of interest to opponents of gun control and of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, but it is not untrustworthy because of that."
See http://www.boogieonline.com/revolution/by_name/M/CarolMoore.html
Moore once described herself as "libertarian non-violent pacifist decentralist pagan hippy communalist worshiper of the goddess maryjane."
See http://www.theconspiracy.us/9501/0019.html
Moore is cited on "Conspiracy Nation."
See http://www.constitution.org/waco/mtcarmel.htm
Carol Moore's "Committee for Waco Justice" was cited "the main legal fund for the civil case of the surviving Davidians against the U.S. government." The Davidian survivors lost that case at trial and subsequently upon appeal.
Ms. Moore's reports and supposed "facts" have been discounted, dismissed and/or disputed by various government reports, through both a criminal and civil trial and by the Danforth Investigation.
Moore represents a fringe conspiracy theory view of Waco. For example, her writings are featured at "New Dawn" Magazine, which states that its "mission" is "Challenging Consensus Reality...journal of alternative news."
See http://www.newdawnmagazine.com/whatisnewdawn.html
And also http://www.newdawnmagazine.com/Articles/Waco%20Four%20Years%20On.html
http://www.padrak.com/alt/index.shtml PADRAK Alternative Information
Here is Moore's bio http://www.carolmoore.net/biography/ she does have a history of activism on the radical fringe. If anyone can find any academic credentials please post a link to an NPOV source. 67.134.82.77 22:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
This section states, "The jury in that second trial held Ross liable for conspiracy to deprive Scott of his civil rights of freedom of religion." However, there is no citation offered here. The press coverage simply says "civil rights," which may have included "freedom of religion." But without independent verification this should be edited out and read simply "civil rights."
"The suit ended in Ross and the Cult Awareness Network being ordered to pay large judgments:" This is redundant and not necessary. The amounts are cited below, the reader can see that they are large.
Let's try to avoid needless repetition.
The CESNUR link is also needless. This site is VERY biased as the article title reflects "CAN, We Hardly Knew Ye: Sex, Drugs, Deprogrammers’ Kickbacks, and Corporate Crime in the (old) Cult Awareness Network." This is also misleading as no criminal charges were ever brought against the old CAN. The New Times newspaper account already cites the amounts and cirucumstances. 67.134.82.77 22:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
The Ross Institute website/database is "widely cited" and not only by "countercult" people. It is typically cited by the mainstream press, colleges, universitites, etc. This is demonstrated by numerious links and articles already posted at this discussion board. The FAQ section of the site and its disclaimer (linked from every page) does take care to clarify "the mention and/or inclusion of a group or leader within this archive does not define that group as a 'cult' and/or an individual mentioned as either destructive and/or harmful. Instead, such inclusion simply reflects that archived articles and/or research is available about a group or person that has generated some interest and/or controversy." The recent edit adding that some groups may be "insulted" by their inclusion is a POV and not relevant here. This is covered by the section titled "Criticism." The edits have been reverted. 67.134.82.77 22:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
If you go to site rankings you will find that the Ross Institute website www.rickross.com ranks 28,106 with 21, 666 links on the WWW. It is both widely used and widely cited. It is a very large database that contains news articles (AP, Reuters, various newspapers), court documents and public records about hundreds of groups, organizations and movements. As such a database it is widely used by the public and not limited to so-called "countercult" people. 67.134.82.77 12:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
The third paragraph from the top notes that Ross has "numerous critics especially from groups listed on his website..." This is sufficient and "extensive criticism" is not accurate. For example, "extensive criticism" would be widespread such as the media, many NPOV organizations without a vested interest, mental health professionals etc. Instead his critics are essentially the groups listed at his site, other groups called cults and academics that often defend such groups. The "scholars" or academic apologists are given their say in Criticism. 67.134.82.77 12:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Ross no longer engages in involunary interventions. He states this at his site under "Deprogramming." Taking up further space here on this subject is not necessary. Obviously (see Jason Scott a whole section) he was sued and subjected to a judgment. Anyone can see why he stopped. Use a little common sense. Again, repetition is not meaningful. The link may be useful though for those who want to know more. 67.134.82.77 13:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
User 38.119.107.70:
You have reverted edits without proper discussion or due process. There is a three revert rule. This user should be banned if there are three reverts. So far you have reverted once against the guidelines previously posted by Fire Star. Please read those guidelines. If you violate the three revert rule you may be locked out of this article. I and others have posted precise explanations of why edits were made and responded to your edits point by point. Simply adding a note to your edit, which should be in discussion, is not the process outlined. Please stick to the guidelines posted. 67.134.82.77 15:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
article, but if you want to delete material you will need to show that the material is either irrelevant or not properly supported by external references. -- 38.119.107.70 19:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
BTW--it seems like user 38.119.107.70 came in just as Zappaz declared his or her "self-imposed moratorium"--isn't that interesting? 67.134.82.77 00:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Under Branch Davidians there is the POV of Kimberly Post writing for a Web site originally created by Jeffrey Hadden, a controversial sociology professor that was criticized for working closely with groups called "cults" and recommended by the Church of Scientology as a resource. Ms. Post apparently did the entry quoted while a student of Hadden's sociology class. Her remarks reflect a POV and make unsubstantiated claims, such as "assumptions put forth by Breault and Ross decisively influenced the investigation and opinion of Koresh and his followers by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Attorney General Janet Reno, and President Clinton." She offers no factual evidence to support that claim. The footnotes for her article include Ms. Ammerman who is also quoted saying essentially the same thing that Ms. Post later reiterates. There is no need for repitition and this POV is already expressed by Ms. Ammerman, who unlike Ms. Post is not a student, but rather a professor.
Catherine Wessinger, another person often cited as a "cult apologist," calls Ross a "spurious self-styled expert." This is yet another example of a repititious POV entry that amounts to little more than name calling. There is already noted criticism from Anson Shupe, Ammerman etc. along these lines. Ross has Wessinger listed on his "Cult Apologist" page, perhaps she is mad about that. 67.134.82.77 16:42, 27 July 2005 (UTC) [9]
In the first paragraph there is no need to repeat that Scientology is critical of Ross or mention the Kabbalah Centre specifically. Scientology already has its criticism linked and the Kabbalah Centre is included by the statement about criticism from "new religious movements, controversial groups or organizations which are listed in his website..."
Shupe and Darnell's characterization of a private letter between Ross and Coates is a POV. Ross has done substantial ecumenical work through committees with Christians. For example he was elected chairman of the Religious Advisory Committee of the AZ Dept of Corrections, served on an interreligious national committee for the UAHC and has numerous links to Christian Cult Watchers on his Links page. [10] [11]
Within the criticism section there should be a footnote regarding Shupe being paid by Kendrick Moxon for expert witness work. 67.134.82.77 17:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
The LaRouche at "Executive Intelligence Review" was previously edited out because it did not meet Wikipedia guidelines as reliable.
The Danforth Reports are available on-line and should be linked along with other Congressional findings, which are also available online.
67.134.82.77
21:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
I have added a book excerpt from Conway and Siegelman book about deporgramming. They are experts in commuication and well-known authors. This in balance to the Deprogramming article by Shupe.
Stephen Kent is a noted sociologist, author and professor at the University of Alberta. He wrote a critique that includes information about Shupe's role in the Scott case and the issue of academic scholars working for cults and/or offering unbalanced papers that lack academic rigor.
I have cut some of the redundant articles linked from CESNUR, a site well-known for its defense of "cults." One by Jehovah's Witnesses was repetitive of the Scott case. another by Wessinger again is redundant and mirrors Ammerman and other reports already linked.
There should be balance in the references and they all should be linked online. 67.134.82.77 22:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Hey, I checked out these references and they are a total joke. Many of them are just cult mouthpieces that get paid by cults to defend them and cut down their critics. It's all over the WWW about these "scholars." Looks like there is some money to make for these guys if they work for the rich cults. Hadden, Shupe, Ammerman, Wessinger, Melton. And that "available online" website called "CESNUR" is run by some weird Italian dude that works with cults. Isn't their anyone at Wikipedia to reign in this crap? Or is this all just about whatever weirdos have the stamina to stay with it and keep "editing"? Seems like if you get enough cult members together you can make Wikipedia into anything you want. Pretty ridiculous to pass this off as an "enyclopedia" though isn't it?
Yea, these "scholars" are sell-outs to cults and seem to work for them. Wikipedia is really a joke having "references" like this. Really trash. See the following links to get the real info on this "cult apologists."
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/c11.html
http://home.snafu.de/tilman/faq-you/cult.apologists.txt
http://www.rickross.com/apologist.html
What a bunch of deleted expletive/personal attack. And anyone that believes these guys is ready for the "mother ship" to beam them up. Stuff like this makes Wikipedia look awful and kind of stupid. 208.5.214.2 23:51, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
With the exception of edits by Antaeus Felspar that added material to the article and provided references for his additions, all deletion of material by editor IP 38.119.107.70 is reducing the quality of this article and is against the principles set forth in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I don't understand why nobody else is objecting to deletion of material, when that material is supported by external, notable and relevant citations. I am reverting all edits with the exception of the edits by Felspar and Andries that made some needed neutralization. I am not new to Wikipedia as Felspar assumes, as I have edited for while last year when I was in between projects, a situation I find myself now as well. -- 38.119.107.70 02:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Get a load of ... insult removed.... He is here to slam Ross and use Wikipedia as a soapbox. Reading his edits is pretty revealing. Get real dude! 208.5.214.2 22:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Other than documents filed by Scientology lawyers there is no document with the name of Rikey Allen Ross regarding Ross. Only Rick Ross, Rick Alan Ross. This is really pretty ridiculous additions with nothing to commend it or demonstrate its accuracy. 12.27.54.146 11:04, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
-- Stefano Ponte 04:00, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
I come to realize that leaving for a
wikivacation is sometimes the best one can do. I can see that I am no longer needed here. Thanks to Irmgard, Stephano, Al and all anons for shouldering the effort in getting this article in good shape. --
ZappaZ
03:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Wow, Wikipedia seems to be like some kind of circle jerk, where weird fringe people sit around making bizarre entries based upon who they don't like etc. I have been reviewing this thread and find it amazing what passes for an enyclopedia here. Maybe that's why a lot of people mock this kind of site and don't cite it that seriously. Anyway, doesn't anyone here realize that no one is called "Rickey"? You guys are really silly. And the papers you cite over and over again are sourced to some wacko Scientology lawyers. They put "Rickey Allen" for there for their own purposes and the guy never used such a name, it's not a legit "aka," but I guess you know that. It's like you all take yourselves so seriously, but really are just hammering away against somebody you don't like and using Wikipedia as your soapbox. VERY PETTY and reflects poorly on the whole Wikipedia thing. 208.5.214.2 22:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I was mocking you and how easily ... insult removed... like you corrupt and twist Wikipedia. Look, you know why you here and it isn't to help people. You have your little mission to bash people and mislead anyone you can. The whole entry on "Rickey Allen" shows how ... insult removed... you are. You don't care about facts and I wouldn't waste my time with you. Go ahead and play in your little mud puddle here at Wikipedia. From the looks of the media reports that quote Ross constantly as a "cult expert" and all the work he does you lost the real battle. So whine and cry here. No one in the mainstream media will quote the junk here. And who ever heard of the "scholars" that you keep promoting? Some of them seem to make quite a bit of money off of cults and they certainly aren't quoted as much as Ross. I guess that's what really ticks you off 208.5.214.2 11:28, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
This guy that calls himself "Stefano Ponte" (probably a Scientologyist or member of another cult) is really pretty funny. He says Wicca objects to Ross including them within on his list, which is totally false. See http://www.rickross.com/reference/wicca/wiccavisitor.html Visitors are happy for the information. Obviously, "Ponte" is not interested in facts and is just another angry guy using Wikipedia to get at someone he doen't like. Looking over the Wicca section I can see why they are praising it. Ross has some really interesting articles that help make people better understand Wicca. See http://www.rickross.com/groups/wicca.html . Hey, and will someone explain to me why anyone would put this statement in a so-called "encylopedia" -- "Notwithstanding that diclaimer, several groups featured on his website, such as the Christian Fellowship, Wicca, and the Kabbalah Centre do not appreciate being listed as they claim the term "cult" has negative connotations and is perceived as an insult." Wow, what a totally bogus entry that is. I checked Ross' site and he doesn't even call these groups "cults." The statement is first totally false about Wicca and then shows a disregard for facts and research. So much for counting on Wikipedia as any kind of reliable source. 208.5.214.2 22:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Are you an deleted expletive/personal attack? Or can't you read? Ross never called these groups a "cult" and there is no such statement by him anywhere. This just shows everyone what ... insult removed... and how all this is for you is a game to get someone you don't like. What guru sent you here to mess up Wikipedia with all this junk? 208.5.214.2 11:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
This is a warning to anon user 208.5.214.2. Please note that abusive language and personal attacks are not acceptable behavior in Wikipedia. You are welcome to edit this and other articles, but you will have to learn to maintain a civil and corteous demeanor in the talk pages. I will comb these pages are delete your expletives and abusive language. --
ZappaZ
18:58, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Zappaz you are here to promote your guru and slime anyone who doesn't like him. You are using Wikipedia to do that. Your entries at Cult, Mind Control, Guru Maharaji prove that to anyone willing to take the time to see your "editing" work. Ross does have a sense of humor about people like you, proven by his "Flaming Websites" page. I am nominating this page in Wikipedia for an award. 208.5.214.2 22:10, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
There is an organized pro cult movement.
See these links---
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/c11.html
http://www.rickross.com/apologist.html
http://home.snafu.de/tilman/faq-you/cult.apologists.txt
Many of these sociologists and would-be "scholars" have been paid off by cults or their books and research funded by them. Something like scholarship for sale to the highest bidder. Looks like Gordon Melton tried to sell his wares to the "anti-cult movement" first, but found out that the cults had more money. Jeffrey Hadded also hatched a scheme to get money from cults, but his memo was leaked on the Internet.
So why not acknowledge that there is a pro-cult movement that is well organized and funded?
These guys get together and have conferences, attack the opposing side and have a well defined position. The same names even keep coming up.
How about a little honesty here at Wikipedia???
Or is that a "personal attack" that will be deleted??? 208.5.214.2 22:10, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
I have removed the nonsense about "pro-cult" movement. This anonymous user is not only opprobrious and very belligerent, but is also interested in original research... If anonymous finds a notable source that speaks of a Pro cult movement, he/she is entitled to then start an article on the subject and link it herein, otherwise he/she needs to desist from such efforts. --
Stefano Ponte
03:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Look like Hadden's memo outlined the members of the pro-cult movement and they are the same "scholars" who have at times been paid by cults to do books about them, research or be "expert witnesses." The same academics keep calling those they don't like who criticize cults as the "anti-cult movement." Anti-cult movement is a label they coined for propaganda purposes and it is their POV. BTW a big part of this "encyclopedia entry" is members of the pro-cult movement calling Ross names over and over again. How is that anything worth noting? They are all just spouting off because he and others have exposed them as pro-cult types that often make money from the cults. If my name calling is edited from discussion why isn't there name calling edited out of this entry? Looks like flaming to me. 208.5.214.2 11:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
OK. But the bias of the pro-cult movement and the history of its antagonists should be noted. Hadden was looking for money from cults and that is proven. Ammerman seems pretty popular and a stalwart within that movement too. The quotes offered from these hacks are little more than name calling and mud slinging. It's not the stuff for an encyclopedia and is just propaganda. At least identify them for what they are and if someone has no academic credentials admit it. Ross is hammered for having none, why not his critics. Also, if Ross' fees are posted, questioned etc. why not the people who make money from cults? Fair is fair, if this is to be fact based and neutral. 208.5.214.2 21:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
I posted this above, for another editor, but it is still the way to approach this issue. We can agree to disagree and also present every verifiable point of view in the article with NPOV. The best way to get a consensus on this article is to discuss the points of contention one at a time:
Stay calm, stay patient and try to stay pleasant. One good thing about Wikipedia is that we have to work with people who disagree with us. In the end, though, that makes for more complete articles. Fire Star 05:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
OK than the commentary offered that Ross is a "protaganist of the anti-cult movement" should be deleted. That is an opinion not a fact. The "anti-cult movment" is tried propaganda used by the academics that get funding and favors from the cults. They are a growing scandal within academia and not objective. They are often paid for their services like Melton, Shupe and Hadden. They have also organized themselves in groups, associations etc. 208.5.214.2 22:02, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
The introduction is misleading and does not represent facts. It is rather a POV as expressed by those who don't like Ross.
Specifically the statement "He faces considerable criticism from some of the groups he lists on his website, from scholars studying New religious movements, and from other individuals related to the roles he played in the controversial case of Jason Scott, and the ill fated Waco standoff with the Branch Davidians."
This reflects a POV about Ross as experessed by groups called "cults" and their apologists. It is not a historical or news reporting point of view, with the exception of articles where his critics express their POV.
Ross is a widely quoted expert on the subject of cults.
Those "editing" here may not like that, but that is a fact as reflected by numerous news stories. What Zappaz and others sympathetic to his POV have attempted to do here is skew the entry to reflect their POV.
If this entry is to be fair the previous statement should read as follows:
He faces criticism from some of the groups he lists on his website, from scholars sympathetic to those groups, and from other individuals related to the roles he played in the controversial case of Jason Scott, and the ill fated Waco standoff with the Branch Davidians.
To do otherwise is a kind of selective editing that has no place in a supposedly factually based "encyclopedia" entry.
Getting the quotes and references up to standard - so far only introduction and life completed. Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles -- Irmgard 19:50, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Dropouts so far:
-- Irmgard 12:03, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Zappaz, please provide a verifiable source for this, before reinserting it: "America's number one cult buster" (FHM magazine), -- Irmgard 19:38, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
I removed this quote, because I only found it in Freedomwatch, which is not a reliable source. If you find a better source, you are free to reinsert it (but for quotes we should have exact references). --
Irmgard
19:38, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
"A large award of punitive damages is also necessary under the recidivism and mitigation aspects of the factors cited in Haslip. Specifically, the Court notes that Mr. Ross himself testified that he had acted similarly in the past and would continue to conduct 'deprogrammings' in the future."
We ought to find a way to have an intro that works. SO far all attempts, even those that stay on for a few weeks, get changed back. Time again for another page protection? Or can we find a way to agree on a NPOV intro for this man's article? --
ZappaZ
16:45, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
I restored the former intro - the intro of a biography article has to show why the person is significan Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Opening paragraph and "describes himself as a "cult intervention specialist", a term he coined to describe his way of doing exit counseling." does not correctly describe why Ross is significant. That he is a controversial figure is said clearly in the third para - if you want to pound away on that subject, Zappaz, do it there. (the fact, that he was a deprogrammer does not make him encyclopedia-worthy either, BTW - most deprogrammers are not). -- Irmgard 19:38, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Ross is most often referred to by the media as a "cult expert." This can be seen by following articles and noting descriptions. Zappaz may not like this, but that is factual. FHM Magazine called him "America's Number One Cult Buster" see http://www.rickross.com/reference/media/media1.html The article was titled "Hellfire"! written by Bridget Freer and published by FHM in 1999. In the introduction media citations should be listed by date in chronological either date. They have now been arranged beginning with oldest date first. 67.134.82.77 14:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Zappaz is here to promote a very specific agenda. He is the devoted supporter of a guru often called a "cult leader" named Guru Maharaji (Divine Light Mission) aka Prem Rawat of Elan Vital.
See http://www.ex-premie2.org/
Zappaz has an axe to grind with those who criticize cults, explain their abuses, indoctrination/brainwashing techniques etc. He apparently hopes to use Wikipedia to go after cult critics and their "theories."
Editing by Zappaz follows two lines:
1. Get in whatever you can by way of false and/or misleading information and hope no one notices.
2. Edit and edit and edit until you have it your way with Wikipedia through reverting and/or repeatedly deleting what you don't want and then posting whatever you do want regardless of the facts.
Zappaz also relies heavily upon "scholars" of so-called NRMs "new religious movements," who often work closely with cults and are at times paid by them.
Zappaz likes to quote their name calling of people he doesn't like such as Ross. Note the quotes by Hadden (who has sought funding from cults), Melton, Wessinger, Shupe (who wrote his paper with the help of Scientology lawyer Kendrick Moxon a former employer Shupe made thousands from) and Nancy Ammerman. All cult apologists that have collectively caused a bit of a scandal within academia for their lack of research rigor to say the least.
Nevertheless, Zappaz doesn't want Wikipedia readers to know that. He hopes to edit out the actual context and/or background of their work or any historical information. He hopes Wikipedia readers will read their POV, but believe it is somehow NPOV.
Zappaz also cuts and tailors the introduction to mislead as much as possible. For example, he quotes "self-styled cult buster," hoping the reader will overlook that Ross is overwhelmingly referred to in the media as a "cult expert" over and over again in article after article and that this reference within an article about his critics is essentially exceptional. He also attempts to mislead the reader by implying that somehow the media interviews Ross becasue of "his interest" rather than due to their own interest in cults and related subjects for news purposes.
On and on it goes, round and round in the propaganda war waged by people like Zappaz at Wikipedia.
See cults, brainwashing, mind control, Prem Rawat, Divine Light Mission, deprogramming, cult, etc. and look for Zappaz edits and discussion. You will begin to realize what his purpose is here at Wikipedia.
In the end the Zappaz strategy at Wikipedia is to revert without discussion whenever he can and hope it gets by, depend upon other cult types (e.g. Scientologists) that will cut and edit like he does and genereally Zappaz goes on and on until he gets his way.
Sadly,...deleted personal attack do their worst here at Wikipedia, often making it into something of a joke, as noted by others, and not a reliable source of information. Zappaz and his fellow cult propagandists will hang out indefinitely editing until Wikipedia reads like they want.
Until Wikipedia very seriously addresses this problem it will never be a reliable reference for anyone searching for facts. Instead, it will be the idiosyncratic home of angry polemicists and their rants attempting to be passed off as NPOV information.
I think that about does it for me.
Zappaz once claimed he would give it a rest through his supposed "self-imposed moratorium." Maybe that's what I should really do.
After a while Wikipedia's lack of genuine editing based upon the facts becomes discouraging. It is easy to see why people like Zappaz so often win out here. No doubt he will get the last word. Not because he has the facts, but because Zappaz ...delete personal attack... 67.134.82.77 13:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Under the heading critique ZappaZ persists in reinstating as "highly relevant" a quote by Shupe/Darnell which is a general very negative opinion about deprogrammers without mentioning Ross specifically. This quote should, if at all, be inserted in the Deprogramming article, not here. -- Irmgard 21:27, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with Zappaz' addition of this material to clarify things. I believe Rick Ross worked very closely with the CAN and deprogrammers. Also it should be noted that Rick Ross has a problem that goes back to his youth: he is a sociopathic liar. This explains Ross' constant denying of facts about him. -- AI 02:34, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- ..."It is sociologically understandable that deprogrammers came to acquire “spoiled identities” as vigilantes and mercenaries rather than as bonafide counselors or therapists. Their coercive tactics outraged new religious movements (NRMs) and civil libertarian sympathizers and caused many deprogrammers to face legal and criminal complications when (as often happened) their “interventions” did not work. Operatives’ quest to institutionalize themselves as legitimate professionals acting within the law began not long after CAN was founded."
- "Even coercive deprogrammer Rick Ross was terming himself only an Expert Consultant and Intervention Specialist (an unique euphemism for exit counselor) on his late 1990s Internet Website.[16] when, just several years earlier, on January 18, 1991 he and several assistants violently abducted and for a week confined a Seattle, Washington man named Jason Scott. Scott was an adult whose mother wanted him to abandon memberships in a local United Pentecostal congregation. (Mrs. Scott was referred to Ross by CAN).[17]"
- ..."expert Rick Ross were still physically abducting unwilling adults belonging to unconventional religions and criminally restraining the latter according to the old deprogramming/mind control mythos."
Reference: http://www.cesnur.org/2003/shupe_darnell.htm
Rick Ross employed coercive tactics which caused him to face legal and criminal complications which significantly contributed to a spoiled identity. The spoiled identity is not created by the NRM's, they merely expose it and then they endure unwarranted attacks by cricis who claim they are "libeling" the spoiled identity... go figure. -- AI 23:31, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Catherine Wessinger, Professor of the history of religions and women's studies at the Loyola University in New Orleans, characterizes Ross as a "spurious self-styled expert[s]" in her paper The Branch Davidians and the Waco Media, 1993-2003 [16]
This para says nothing about the role of Ross in the Waco standoff - it's just gives Wessingers opinion on Ross with no reasons for it. No matter if she's a professor, such a text should not be quoted in an encyclopedia article. The source might be correctly quoted, but there are no facts involved. -- Irmgard 17:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for adding Ross' rebuttals. Please consider shortening them a bit. Thanks. --
ZappaZ
19:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
This article uses the religioustolerance.org website as either a reference or a link. Please see the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org and Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org as to whether Wikipedia should cite the religioustolerance.org website, jguk 14:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
I've noticed that apparently there are two standards used to determine if a group is a cult. As a Christian, the "sociological" standard is what concerns me. Using that standard, any religious group that takes seriously its teachings and upholds standards in accordance with those teachings, could be considered a cult. I'll give an example. Fundamentalist Christian churches are often targeted by "anti-cult" groups. Now, if they really are doing something unethical, immoral, or illegal, and still trying to pass themselves off as Christian, then they should be exposed. Fundamentalist Christian churches usually are not guilty of this, yet they're still considered "cultic". The reason given is that they have "high" expectations of their membership and practice "stern" discipline of those not conforming. The problem here is how one defines these terms. If, for example, a church is enforcing biblical standards of personal conduct amongst its members in a manner prescribed by their sacred writings (the Bible) and happen to expect its members to be more than nominally committed to the church, it can find itself being labeled as a cult because apparently these actions and expectations aren't as common as before. The reasoning goes that if the majority of Christian churches are no longer strict and operating according to tradition, then those churches that continue in the tradition are considered in error and aberrant. Is this really a valid claim though if one examines what the true teachings of the faith are? I think not. Therefore, when examining churches that claim to be Christian, it makes more sense to see what their doctrine is concerning the fundamentals of the faith (those teachings which define Christianity). If those core teachings are perverted or denied, then it necessarily follows that its practices will be as well. If, however, the doctrine is in line with the essential teachings of the faith, then no matter how "unusual" some of its practices or policies may seem, that church cannot really be called a cult. Therefore using "sociological" standards to define cults leaves virtually any religion eligible to being given that label since those standards tend to be arbitrarily defined. Jlujan69 07:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
... because most so-called cults Rick Ross lists have not been shown to be destructive at all, but there are some people who believe that they are destructive. -- Fossa 04:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Cults are defined as such - established religious groups with large memberships are called religions (good). Smaller and newer religious groups are called cults (bad). Many people make an industry out of "converting" people from the latter to the former. Then they are considered "normal". If Christianity were "born" today Jesus would be considered a dangerous cult leader who brainwashes his followers and encourages them to leave their families, at least those who do not accept/join christianity. For Jesus to claim those who do not accpet his brand of salvation are doomed to enternal hellfire (as he states in the bible), christianity would thus be considered a destructive cult. Guys like Ross and Hassan would make a ton of money "deprogramming" christians. Mr Christopher 16:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
What is a "maintainance revert"? Why is a revert being labelled as "maintenance"? - Will Beback 01:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Why are the majority of the links not neutral, i.e. they are linked back to a site that is fully run and operated by Rick Ross. This is not a neutral article. I have put my link: http://www.pottersclub.com/articleshow.asp?art_num=8 in the critical list, as the one I put in last time was deleted. I think that the wholesale deletion of links should be banned unless significant discussion is made. Potters house
Why were the links taken down? Is Wikipedia on Rick Ross' payroll? Why does the staff at Wikipedia delete any REAL critical links to Ross? This is bias. You said that the article linked was "bordering on anti-Semitism." So if I attack Rick Ross' beliefs I am anti-Semitic, but if he attacks biblical Christianity it is just research? How come if I delete any critical links on the page Potter's House, I am told this "may result in being blocked from Wikipedia without further warning" ... but in this article, people judge a link delete it and Wikipedia do nothing about it?
I think we need to take this higher, because this is religious discrimination
Nick
www.forumsau.com
Nick www.potershouse.com
The 2 links http://www.pottersclub.com/articleshow.asp?art_num=8 & http://www.rrexposed.u2k.biz/ Exposure of Rick Ross - should be maintained for neutrality.
Fair is fair. If you are going to have so many critical links, which are quite angry and biased, then why not have the response to such links? I have added a link that offers a response for balance under Links. It seems it was once there, but later removed--it's back again as before. 38.96.137.19 13:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I propose that this statement be added to the section called "Criticsm" on Rick Ross:
"As Rick Ross posts testimonials (on numerous organizations) that are considered negative on his web site, there should be a warning to all readers; especially as the opportunity for objectiveness is rendered obsolete."
There are no objective viewpoints that Rick Ross posts on his web site for any of the groups mentioned. Thus his web site provides a totally subjective viewpoint, and there should be checks and balances somewhere. Rick Ross stated that he will not place positive statements from anyone about any of the so-called cults. Why not state this on the Rick Ross WP article?
24.30.88.21 19:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)howardg
Because of the resource as Mr. Ross appears to provide, and the number of organizations and individuals who use his resource, it would be prudent to consider the following:
I have spent hours on the Ross Institute website, and it is very difficult to clearly see how Mr. Ross determines who's a cult and who isn't. The entire content of Mr. Ross appears subjective in nature - in spite of his disclaimer. What is very apparent however is the absence of some groups in Mr. Ross's database and the excessive number of other groups.
Furthermore, consider the fact that it is impossible to determine where the Ross Institute receives its funding from. Given the depth of the site and the amount of research, an academic citation of value should include the funding and financial support of the Ross Institute. This is a challenge; try to learn his funding. It would also be nice to know what groups are associated with the Ross Institute.
Additionally, aside from not completing Camden Military school, there is little mention made of Mr. Ross's academic or educational qualifications to proclaim himself an expert. What is more disturbing is that since his appearence in 1983 as a self-proclaimed expert, nearly every citation found in a google search points to information provided by Ross with few exceptions.
Lastly, aside from a nice list of "advisors" (something any organization can buy usually), there is no mention of any staff. The amount of research and organization provided by the Ross Institute would require a good sized staff of researchers, of which Mr. Ross says nothing. Shouldn't a researcher using the Ross Institute be able to contact a fellow researcher at the RI to discuss findings and compare data?
In any Wikipedia listing, in order to be fair and comprehensive to our readers, the above information should be provided.
Gilariverrider Gilariverrider 22:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I propose this article be looked over for potential bias. -- Caserini 11:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Because I think there is sufficient reason to conclude this article is slanted. I think it needs fresh eyes. Until that is completed, I am adding the NPOV check AGAIN. Please don't remove it until this is finished. It is up for discussion because I nominated it to be fact checked and reviewed for bias. Caserini 02:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree otherwise I would have left this alone. You have been on this for a long time. I think it is biased against Mr. Ross. Just because YOU have reviewed it, doesn't mean it's done. I'll be waiting for others to chime in. I have nominated it for review, so just because YOU think it's finished doesn't mean much. Caserini 09:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I will mention I have a difficult time with the article explaining the Scott/Waco etc. cases, which are critical of Ross AND having another section for the criticism. It's redundant. Also, where are Ross' rebuttals other than having a 10 line paragraph of negativity and one line saying he denies this. It's ridiculous. So, Mr. Tilman, if you remove the tag again, I will call in an admin. -- Caserini 09:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I was directed to look at this article by the RFC. The article is clearly biased too heavily in favor of criticism. Not only is there a dedicated section for it at the bottom which is completely free of any responses, the 'Branch Davidian' section is at least half criticism. I'd like to remind people of the suggestion given on the Biographies of Living Persons guideline page:
"The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material."
The criticism is clearly overwhelming. That being said, I'm not claiming that any information in the article is actually wrong (I didn't personally read the sources). There's a few places where references should be added, but overall the article is above-average in that regard. I think somebody has to sit down and add some good sourced information in support of Ross. Merzbow 07:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
It is still HEAVILY biased, Tilman. I will use the next week to see if I can help it any with additional sources in favor of Mr. Ross.
Thank you for your input, Merzbow. It's much appreciated. Caserini 12:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I am re-adding the POV tags because it is not up to the standard of the Biographies of Living Persons. I mentioned last week that I would try and clean this up as best as I can by the end of this week. I have been busy.
Thank you Jossi for helping. Maybe you could help pair down the criticism section like you mentioned? Caserini 14:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I suggest this entry be blocked for non-registered users. This game with the "two poor-quality external links" has become tiresome. -- Tilman 08:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I think that the two links should remain because there seems to be no other critical links except ones approved by Ross supporters! Other sites like the one on the Potter's House Christian Fellowship has many biased links from people whom I have proven to be unreliable sources, but they still remain. Why is there discrimination here? Where is the neutrality?
Nick.
www.waymanmitchell.com - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Potters house ( talk • contribs) 2006-07-03 23:13:46
I will be forced to make an official complaint to Wiki staff about the links and the inclusion of the Potter's House on the critics list. If it was not written in an "encyclopedic" language then perhaps you could have edited it instead of deleting it totally. Wiki is a neutral encyclopedia for the people, not a place to advertise for corporations like Rick Ross.
Actually, the Potter's House is listed at the Ross Institute database and is a controversial group called a "cult" by some of its critics. See http://www.rickross.com/groups/door.html the group has been criticized by evangelicals, that don't see Potter's House as simply "having a bible based theology." - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 38.96.137.19 ( talk • contribs) 2006-07-06 06:16:28 (UTC)
See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pottershousechurchcfm/ There are about 5 people who are on the internet daily and they ANONYMOUSLY write to Rick and have been proven liars before. But Rick is not interested in the truth but to sensationalize rumours and lies.
Ok so now you have concluded that we are in fact a cult because Rick says so, and this is now your reason for the deletion of the links?? There is no need to get off the point. My original point is that you keep deleting the two links I put up on this page. Wiki is a free for all encyclopedia, it wouldn't surprise me if your wage comes from Ross. But to avoid personal attack I will keep to the point. How can any organization defend itself from Ross if the people he calls a cult are not able to place some defensive links here because Ross calls them a cult!! That is circular reasoning. I am not here to debate you, but to point out that this article is not neutral.
Nick.
- Your links are poor-quality and not notable. Your continual attempts to restore them are pointless because we're watching this page and are just going to revert them. The consensus is against these links. - Merzbow 06:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't have a "guru" but read the bible. Are you saying that you are now refusing the links because I am a Christian? What about http://www.parishioners.org/false_exp/rossr1.html ??
To involved editors: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Please do not make them. It is your responsibility to foster and maintain a positive online community in Wikipedia..
Some suggestions:
God is watching, too. :-) -- Uncle Ed 19:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
It's hard to say objectively that anyone is a "cult expert" because, first of all there is no generally accepted definition of what a cult is. The word itself is relative and subjective: "a cult is a religion regarded as spurious." Note that this is not the same as "a cult is a spurious religion".
So calling Ross or anyone else a "cult expert" means that he knows a lot of accurate and true information about "religions regarded as spurious". However, many sources disagree about Ross's "expertise". That disagreement should be described fairly in the article.
I would suggest moving the "cult expert" paragraph out of the intro into a section called, say, "Dispute over credentials" or "Dispute over cult expertise". The intro should introduce the dispute by saying something like
Tilman, what do YOU think? -- Uncle Ed 14:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
That's a good point: I agree. If Ross has served as an expert witness in court, that is a matter of fact. This doesn't mean he is a "real expert". It only means that a court allowed him to be called as an expert witness.
This fits the model of X said Y about Z. The court (X) used the term "expert witness" (Y) to describe Rick Ross (Z). Kind like Margaret Singer who "went on to testify as an expert witness in dozens of cases" before losing that right after her attempt to justify her mind control theory failed to gain APA endorsement. -- Uncle Ed 22:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
The section recently added by someone, probably Anton Hein or a close friend, isn't worth much as an encyclopedia entry. It's just griping and sniping. Hein's opinions don't amount to much. He doesn't document anything. "Ministry"? Is Hein a minister? Who ordained him and made him a "minister"? Apologetics Index is just a Web site run by Hein. He doesn't like Ross. OK. But is Wikipedia the place for him go on about it?
So I went to sleep, woke up and you (38.96.137.19) still haven't improved your changes:
I'll still wait a few hours, giving you the chance to improve this. If you don't, I'll edit/revert. While it's ok to mention the criticism and the response, this should be put in a neutral tone - let the reader decide who is right. (personally, I haven't, so I'm rather neutral in this dispute) Finally, please sign your posts with --~~~~ in discussions. -- Tilman 04:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Please note that NNDB ( http://www.nndb.com) is not a reliable source for information about living people. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I reviewed all the evidence in all the references and put a point by point and date by date list in. I noticed another editor has removed most of my compilation of the facts. Before any further edits are done could we discuss that here please
After mor research I discovered articals which supported what other editors had done. It would have been better if it had been discussed here, but that life Mark1800 06:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Most of the negative information about Rick Ross is unsourced. I'm removing most of it as per WP:BLP. wikipediatrix 23:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Just because something is properly sourced doesn't mean it's fair. This is what's known as "Undue weight". Note how the article says all this:
"The role of Ross before and during the Branch Davidian standoff at Waco, Texas caused some controversy.
Ross deprogrammed Branch Davidian David Block in 1992, prior to the raid. That Davidian was later interviewed by the BATF, which also interviewed Ross. Ross says he deprogrammed another Davidian during the standoff, but this was not reported. He was also one source quoted in the Waco Tribune-Herald's series titled "Sinful Messiah" for which they interviewed over 100 people.
According to the FBI Ross approached them during the standoff and requested that he be interviewed, which he was. The Report to the Deputy Attorney General on the Events at Waco, Texas (February 28 to April 19, 1993) states that:
The FBI interviewed Ross only at Ross' request, and politely declined his unsolicited offers of assistance throughout the standoff. The FBI treated the information Ross supplied as it would any other unsolicited information received from the public: it evaluated the credibility of the information and treated it accordingly[10]".
And then has only this to say about the subject's side of the story:
Ross states that this information is not correct and details that he was contacted by FBI agent Bobby L. Siller on March 4, 1993 and in the later course by several others which he also names.
After this weak chance at rebuttal, the article goes on with further info critical of Ross:
Nancy Ammerman insisted they relied too much on Ross, a view which is not shared by the other three experts reporting to the Justice department. In her official report to the Justice Department Ammerman wrote: In late March, Ross recommended that agents attempt to humiliate Koresh, hoping to drive a wedge between him and his followers. While Ross's suggestions may not have been followed to the letter, FBI agents apparently believed that their attempts to embarrass Koresh (talking about his inconsistencies, lack of education, failures as a prophet, and the like) would produce the kind of internal dissension Ross predicted. Because Ross had been successful in using such tactics on isolated and beleaguered members during deprogramming, he must have assumed that they would work en masse. Any student of group psychology could have dispelled that misapprehension. But the FBI was evidently listening more closely to these deprogramming-related strategies than to the counsel of scholars who might have explained the dynamics of a group under siege[11].
And again, Ross gets only a few scant words devoted to his side:
In his account to the Department of Justice, Ross gives very different examples of advice he gave to the FBI agents.
I'm tempted to yank the whole thing until it can be rewritten fairly. Any thoughts, anyone? wikipediatrix 23:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
You can see the unsourced/improperly sourced text I removed, and you can see Jossi immediately reverting it back here.
I'd like to hear a detailed defense for Jossi's actions. wikipediatrix 23:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
None of the "www.rrexposed.u2k.biz" citation links work. wikipediatrix 23:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Why the deletion of this text? It is based on Ross's website material.
Deletion of properly sourced material, is considered vandalism. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Ditto regarding this text:
From http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/issues/1995-11-30/news/feature2_3.html : "It hasn't made him rich. Although his deprogramming fee is $500 a day, plus expenses, he never has earned more than $31,000 in a single year, and he rarely makes more than $20,000. He's motivated not by money, he says, but by the calls he gets from distraught parents--and the debt he believes he owes those who helped him get out of jail and get his own life in order. Since then, he had managed to keep from running afoul of the law."
≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I would expect that these editors that deleted properly sourced material, restore it. If the need is to provide inline citations rather than Harvad syle referencing, please say so. Note that both formats are acceptable. See
WP:CITE#Harvard_referencing
≈ jossi ≈
t •
@
00:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Replaced Harvard referencing with ref tags for these two paragraphs that were deleted. One of them is base on Ross' own words (from his website) and the other from Ortega's article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
The article states "Nancy Ammerman insisted they relied too much on Ross, a view which is not shared by the other three experts reporting to the Justice department." And yet, even though hers is clearly stated to be a minority opinion, a long second paragraph devoted to a quote from her follows thereafter. That's giving too much of a percentage of the article to someone whose opinion doesn't matter nearly as much as Ross himself, who only gets a sentence of weak rebuttal. wikipediatrix 00:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I removed this paragraph, and User:Jossi restored it with the edit summary "no, sorry. All material has been researched and refs added."
"Ross is criticized for his lack of academic credentials, for the two felony crimes in his twenties previously mentioned, and for his former deprogramming activities, the tort of unlawful imprisonment. A great part of the criticism originates from those associated with new religious movements, controversial groups or organizations which are listed in his website, such as the Church of Scientology and the Kabbalah Centre. "
So where's the source for this paragraph? wikipediatrix 00:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
[rm persomal attack] He is here to use Wikipedia as a platform to attack people he doesn't like and advance his POV. It is people like Jossi that are increasingly giving Wikipedia a bad name as an unreliable source for information. See http://www.rickross.com/reference/general/general865.html . Even though Wikipedia's disclaimer essentially says that what's here should be discounted and that entries may not be true, some people are too lazy to read the disclaimers and actually may think of Wikipedia as a regular research resource, which it is not. One quick proof, the entry for Rick Ross is now longer than those for Jonas Salk and Marie Curie. The length of a Wikipedia entry seems to depend upon how many folks *[rm personal attack]* are out there with an axe to grind, though if the person they don't like is dead (see Margaret Singer and Louis Jolyon West), regardless of importance, the critics are less likely to pile on. They seem to prefer using Wikipedia to attack their perceived living enemies. All in all it's often a pretty pathetic collection of petty wranglings here at Wikipedia and this entry demonstrates that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.91.230 ( talk • contribs)
Jossi:
Isn't your agenda as a follower of Maharaji, a guru that has been called a "cult leader," to post/revert whatever you can at Wikipedia to discredit cult critics, censoring even the discussion here? Do you have any other purpose here? And isn't this the purpose of your edits on various related subjects at Wikipedia? I suppose you will cut this labeling it as a "personal attack," but your involvement with Maharahi does explain why your editing is biased, reflects your POV and beleifs.
You may want to make a request at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard, so that other editors can help apply WP:BLP to this article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Per a helpful and kind suggestion by User:Jossi, I have placed my original above comment RE: the Unbalanced and personally attacking/nature of this article, at Section on Rick Ross. Again, my suggestion would be to shorten all of the long sections on major incidents that Rick Ross dealt with, and refer the user out to those main articles, as was done by User:Jossi with my original cut-and-paste to Rick_Ross_(consultant)#Landmark_Education_vs._Rick_Ross_Institute. By the way, I think specifically to that edit, I had no problem with User:Jossi shortening that part and referring the reader out to the main article on that topic, that is exactly what should be done with the other sections, to shorten the article's size and negatively-weighed nature of the whole piece. Yours, Smeelgova 03:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC).
Is Mr. Ross a researcher? I do not see any credentials listed in his biography. All other researcher in that category, have credentilas and have published the result of their research. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
List:
I would not object to a category about lecturers or consultants, but adding Mr. Ross to List of cult and new religious movement researchers may not be appropriate. I have not seen any books or articles by Mr. Ross, that warrant a such a categorization. See other articles in that category. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
These are not publications, these are a few articles, some of which are only available on his website. The first one is a book by Tim Madigan. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I cannot find any information about "The Missionary Threat, Institute for First Amendment Studies" anywhere. Citattion requested for WP:V ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I have contributed as much as I could to this article. No longer on my watchlist. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I have gutted, sacked, looted the article because almost none of it is sourced, and even the parts that are sourced are improperly weighted, as per the Jimbo's standards for articles on living persons. See WP:BLP. An article about a living person, even a controversial one, is not a "This is Your Life" for huge multi-paragraph sections to be devoted to every person on Earth they've ever pissed off. Like many controversial figures, there are no shortage of sources for people out there saying bad things about Rick Ross, but that doesn't mean they all need to be here. Can you imagine what bloated hate-fests the articles for Woody Allen, L. Ron Hubbard, or Britney Spears would be if all their haters got to chime in? Let's start this article again from the ground up, keeping WP:BLP in mind as well as WP:V and WP:RS. wikipediatrix 22:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
After having slept over it, I have decided to restore all of Wikipediatrix deletions. And I have also added a source for the Jason Scott case. That source was already in the unordered list anyway.
If the sources are poorly ordered, the solution is not to delete the whole article. "Delete first, discuss later" makes only sense, IMO, for extraordinary claims like in the Seigenthaler affair. This article is being watched by many people, so it is being checked for unsourced allegations.
The most that can (and should) be done, is to tag any apparently unsourced claims and put more sources (from the unordered list) at the appropriate places.
Rick Ross is a controversial person. He knows this himself, which is why he features parts of this on his own website. So it makes sense to feature these controversies here, with his position on it. -- Tilman 06:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I also see that Jason Scott (Life Tabernacle Church) seems to have been removed. Anyone knows when & why? -- Tilman 06:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sfacets This editor "Sfacets" is devoted to Sahaja Yoga, which is a group led by Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi, that is listed at the Ross Institute database (see http://www.rickross.com/groups/shahaja.html ). Wikipedia is often not taken seriously as an objective encyclopedia source because people with an "axe to grind" come here and edit to attack and/or discredit someone they don't like. This entry has gone back and forth historically on that basis. I have reverted it again to read NPOV and focused on the subject, rather than POV. 68.38.91.230 15:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I've posted an invitation for comments and review by other editors to WP:BLPN just now. wikipediatrix 19:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Somebody reverted this: In 1975, Ross received a felony conviction for "Conspiracy to Commit Grand Theft." He was given probation on the condition that he get psychiatric counseling. [30] This is sourced to Rick Ross's website. Is that considered an unreliable source? -- 172.190.53.213 15:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
First of all, what does this 31-year-old record have to do with this encyclopedia entry? It is an incident that took place years before Ross began his cult work. In the document you refer to it says, "As a term of my probation (later explained) I was a assigned to counseling. This counseling was provided by a State employed psychiatrist, who subsequently released me from that requirement a year later. I have never been diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder, nor treated at a hospital for a mental disorder." Seems like what you are trying to do is mislead the public by attempting to infer that Ross required psychiatric treatment for a disorder rather than "counseling," which is routinely recommended for many people that are put on probation and he was released from without incident. Again, your agenda is showing here. You are here to attack Ross and discredit him, not to help through a NPOV an encyclopedia entry. 68.38.91.230 14:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
(Refactored personal attacks from this page. Refactored text can be found in this diff ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Properly sourced material has been deleted from this article for no apparent reason. What happened? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Jossi--The explanation is very simple if you look back over very long discussion and changes concerning this entry. This is supposedly and encyclopedia entry not a place to bash people you don't like. This entry had become a long rambling critique on Ross not an NPOV fact based entry for an encyclopedia. [refactor PA]]. If Wikipedia is to be taken seriously as a source, rather than ridiculed as a flaky collection of idiosyncratic entries and rants, it's important not to litter it with POV entries designed to denigrate people you don't like. The explanation for each of my edits is explained and attached. If you continue let's agree that this is a biased and not neutral entry. And should be so noted. 68.38.91.230 14:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
OK. The Jason Scott case is included in the Scientology attack, which is cited and linked. Again, the focus of the entry is Ross not Scott and Ross' assorted critics. Criticism is noted and linked. Perhaps that's not enough for those that would prefer to make this entry more of a polemic as opposed to an encyclopedia entry. Again, this type of abuse here only serves to make users think that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. 68.38.91.230 16:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
The Scott case is not that meaningful historically, but the Waco Davidian standoff is. This entry need not go on and on as Ross is not that important. 68.38.91.230 16:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
The criminal record has been deleted. It is not relevant to Ross' work and little more than an attempt to color him as negative. It is also misleading. It seems to imply that Ross received probation due to a psychiatric report. But according to the explanation offered at Ross response to critics there were a number of reasons given for probation, such as full restitution, police not opposing probation, nor those that had their property returned. Ross specifically states, "My felony conviction was for "Conspiracy to Commit Grand Theft" in 1975. This specifically concerned the embezzlement of property from a jewelry company, where a friend of mine was employed. My friend and I were both involved. Everything taken was returned to the satisfaction of the store and the police did not oppose probation. No one was physically hurt in any way and this was not a violent crime. I plead guilty and was sentenced to probation. Two psychiatrists submitted evaluations to the court, both recommended that I receive probation. One of those psychiatrists who recommended probation was Dr. Domiciano E. Santos of Arizona State Hospital, quoted by Scientology/CAN. Dr. Santos saw me briefly for counseling as a term of my probation. However, he terminated that counseling early, satisfied with my progress and adjustment." The Scientology Web site with the large report about Ross does not dispute any of these facts. 68.38.91.230
Since Wikipediatrix has been blocked for a week (not sure what it was about, and she hasn't been active here anyway for a month), I've decided to be bold and to restore the last "big balanced" version. The current one is just a stub.
It is somewhat difficult to see if any "good" edits were made after that. I suspect that many of them were already in the "big balanced" version.
Please don't be a Wikipediatrix and delete again. If you find something specific unsourced, I'll come up with the source within 24 hours or delete it myself :-) A maximum of 5 facts per day, please. However I believe that all is sourced - at worst, some of the sources are at the bottom. Just tell me and I'll correct it, like I did in the Lisa McPherson article. -- Tilman 09:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree somewhat with 68.38.91.230 that the entry is somewhat misleading. The fact that he had a psychiatric evaluation is irrelevant, I suspect this is always done. The entry is a bit too detailed - although I'm not yet sure what to delete (I'll think about it if the definition isn't wikipediatrixed again). And I'd also wish to have a different source than the rrexposed site. A solution would be that Rick Ross put these documents on his own website. -- Tilman 15:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
OK. Then why so much details in 30-year-old criminal record that has been vacated? Such as citing "306 items of jewlery. (Case number 89445)." [refactored]. Seems like too much detail in this section considering it records something not relevant to cults, cult deprogramming etc. Again, more wasted space can be seen in citation of "Missionary Threat" article, fees descriptions and that no more "$20,000 is collected by Ross Institute." Who cares? More unncecessary details. The list of critics is too long and also unnecessary. "Apologetics Index," Steve Hassan etc. Is this going to be an encyclopedia entry or a gripes page to list anyone and everyone? An apologetics religious site is of little importance and carries little weight and Ross' competitors griping about him, so what? Once again, all this should be cut 68.38.91.230 14:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I see that Smeelgova followed my suggestion. (diff [32]) Thank you. However you missed some, and deleted some that may or may not apply. Here's a list of cites that I'm not sure if they could still apply:
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link){{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)-- Tilman 05:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
BabyDweezil, POV material is allowed to be in an article. Tanaats 22:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Smeelgova's continued deletions of sourced material that presents well sourced biographical material in an NPOV manner is beginning to border on vandalism. It should stop. BabyDweezil 19:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
(UTC)
:BabyDweezil, look first to yourself.
Tanaats
20:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Allow me to restate. BabyDweezil, before criticizing another editor, please consider the fact that you have deleted well-sourced material, sometimes great amounts of it, on a number of articles. Tanaats 20:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
And, Ed, this does pertain directly to this article. We don't want similar wholesale deletions here. Tanaats 20:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
BabyDweezil seems to be on an interesting mission using Wikipedia to express his POV. Looking at his or her editing over at "Cults" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cult )and reading through the discussion there, BabyDweezil goes on and on about Ross and the Ross "database." It seems like Wikipedia at times becomes a place for those who have an "axe to grind" with someone or something to vent and rant under the guise of "editing." If this kind of thing becomes widespread within Wikipedia can it ever be taken seriously as a research resource? In this sense Wikipedia is at times like reading a debate between letter writers within a newspaper's Op/Ed section or a "flame war" at an on-line message board. Is that the intent and/or mission of Wikipedia?
BabyDweezil also seems to be focused in part on cults like Jossi in what has been called "edit wars" and at times deletes from Wikipedia files without consensus or discussion. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BabyDweezil How does this help entries in Wikipedia? It seems like some people are not that interested in accurate content and facts, but rather either expressing a POV and/or attacking someone or something they don't like. It is important at controversial Wikipedia entries like this one to recognize the history of some editors and what baggage they bring to the table. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.0.42.27 ( talk • contribs).
The criticism section by definition is not the place to list ross' accomplishments or qualifications. That section should be dedicated to criticism of Ross. Mr Christopher 19:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Smee, per above, original research cannot be used as a rebuttal to criticism. You would need to find a WP:RS that specifically rebuts the criticism made in the article, not you own rebuttal via sources that appeared in entirely different contexts. BabyDweezil 19:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
In presenting an opinion, moreover, it is important to bear in mind that there are disagreements about how opinions are best stated; sometimes, it will be necessary to qualify the description of an opinion or to present several formulations, simply to arrive at a solution that fairly represents all the leading views of the situation.
-- Justanother 20:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)But it is not enough, to express the Wikipedia non-bias policy, just to say that we should state facts and not opinions. When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It is also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view.
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Willmcw--There are two aspects of the Ross entry that remain somewhat inaccurate. One, is that the deprogramming of two Waco Davidians was not a "claim," but rather at least one case was widely reported and documented. That is, one of the Davidians deprogrammed (David Block) is cited in the Treasury Report, in a book published, through news coverage and the affidavit filed by the BATF to obtain a warrant against Koresh. Second, the FBI says one thing about Ross, Ross' statement contradicts their version and then there is Ammerman. What is the best way to reflect all this controversy? 67.134.82.78 13:52, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
None of us should get our way. This is a project to build an encyclopedia. Regarding the quotation marks I don't see the need for them myself. "Deprogram" is the correct and relevant word to use for the earlier activities of Ross. Quotation marks, or scare quotes, usually denotes that the term is being used dubiously or ironically. I don't see the need for that here. Regarding the Scott case, let's call it "unsuccessful." That's incrementally less POV than "failed". The article goes into detail about the case later. I see that some critics are specifically quoted, and others alluded to throughout the article. As far as improving the article goes, I'd suggest it could use more specific biographical information. Was Ross born in Arizona? Most recent activities? Regarding June 1: as with all dates, it's a great occasion to make NPOV summaries of verifiable information. -Cheers, - Willmcw 11:32, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
I am a bit late with this, but finally managed to get this done. These are my edits. Please note that each and every one of these edits is supported by well researched references.
-- Zappaz 8 July 2005 04:51 (UTC)
-I removed the "See also" seciton because all of the links in it were already in the "Cult template". - Willmcw July 8, 2005 22:21 (UTC)
What is Rick Ross' occupation? Deprogrammer ? -- AI 01:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
From media whore: -those of limited notability who go out of their way to gain the attention of various media outlets, namely reality television personalities. - those who use their access to such outlets to promote a particular commercial or ideological message.
(Sarcasm) I am a critic of Rick Ross and I think he is a Manchurian Candidate ;D Shouldn't the article reflect my criticism? -- AI 13:24, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
I was going to check this link to see if the title really was "Cult Awareness brainwashers, Galen Kelly exposed at last" and if so, put that in quotes to make it clear that it's the article's description. Except I found out that a) you can't follow the link directly (making it of dubious usefulness to have on the article page) and b) it's of dubious quality as well. You can read it yourself, you just have to go to the main page first and then scroll down. An excerpt from the first paragraph:
Kelly is not just
another thug; he is part of an international apparatus of Israeli, American, and British secret intelligence communities' "wetworks" capability. Kelly is on the board of JINSA, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, a liaison group between Israeli and American military establishments that is suspected of having been at the center of the Jonathan Pollard spy ring. Kelly is also the security henchman and a paid
operative of CAN.
And so on. It's not even about Ross; he is mentioned in ten consecutive sentences in the first paragraph, almost all of it background information that anyone would already know from having read the article. This link adds nothing except the not terribly surprising news that the Lyndon LaRouche movement, often accused of being a cult is among Ross's critics; the home of "Executive Intelligence Review" is http://www.larouchepub.com . -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Removed some repetitions. Also removed deprogrammer in the first paragraph - it is, later on, correctly mentioned, that he was a deprogrammer, but he is not one now, so this should not be in the first para. -- Irmgard 10:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Removed Quote from www.religiousfreedomwatch.org. The link to the page is ok, but the formulations on it are too biased to be cited in an encyclopedia. -- Irmgard 10:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
I have returned the entry to its final edited form before Zappaz again attempted to use Wikipedia for his or her personal polemic and rant. If Wikipedia is going to be taken seriously as a resource of information people like Zappaz will probably have to be reigned in. Otherwise, it is likely to be considered a strange collection of rants from the fringe, instead of objective information. Anyone that follows Zappaz's editing objectively can see his or her purpose here is to build a biased attack, not inform the public. He or she apparently has a history of involvement with a purported "cult" and is angry about those who inform the public about cults. In an effort to discredit a major source of such information Zappaz is here slinging mud. Isn't anyone going to be responsible? The sources Zappaz has chosen are cults, cult apologists often paid by cults and wacko conspiracy theroists. Anything or anyone that supports his or her views, no mattter how biased, specious or unreliable. For example, Anson Shupe has been well-paid by Scientology. He testified in the Scott case for Scientology lawyer Kendrick Moxon and made out very well financially. Nancy Ammerman has been featured in a Scientology magazine and lionized there. The Kabbalah Centre spokesperson quoted has a vested interest in protecting his turf, reportedly now under investigation by the IRS for nonprofit status violations. Ross cooperated to expose the group and was quoted in a Radar Magazine series recently run. The Ross Institute has a very large archive of news reports on the Kabbalah Centre and the group clearly doesn't like people reading it. Despite Zappaz's attempt to dismiss Ross and the Ross Institute, anyone that follows cults knows he and the institute database are perhaps the most widely quoted resource about cults and controversial groups cited by the media. A simple look at Web site rankings demonstrates the same. Time Magazine called Ross a "veteran cultwatcher" and the Ross Institute is cited by People Magazine this month in an article. Ross has appeared for years in media reports. Zappaz may not like all this and dislike Ross personally, but this is his or her POV not NPOV.
Some cult jerk must have cut the link to "Ross Responds to his Critics." Guess they didn't want anybody to see that. It's back now and these idiots should not be allowed to take it off again. What a farce these people are and how they mock the notion of an encylopedia with facts and supposed balance. 208.5.214.2 11:38, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Also added Ross response to critical websites that responds to Hassan and Apologetics statements. At least Ross has a sense of humor, which is more than you can say for the sad homorless cult people that post crap here. Since the links are posted to Hassan and this apologetics guy, Ross deserves a response. After all, there is also a link here to some huge critical file from the weirdos at Scientology and that nutcase Lyndon LaRouche is listed as a reference. Can you believe such junk even gets on a "encylopedia" entry? 208.5.214.2 11:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Religiousfreedomwatch.org. I deleted the quote from this website. This website by Scientology is too biased to be a reliable source for an encyclopedia.The information in it is consciously distorted to show Scientology critics as bad as possible. It's quality regarding facts is at best on the level of an election campaign.
It can be referenced to illustrate how Scientology describes someone, but should not be quoted in the encyclopedia text nor should the information in it be taken at face value. -- Irmgard 09:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
I moved "current activities" to "life" to get some structure into the article. Also I removed double referral to his counseling qualifications and shortened the introduction. All facts mentioned by Zappaz are in the article (and should remain there), but there is no need to repeat them several times (makes the article just longer, not more interesting).
I also removed the link to rickrossexposed - a biased anonymous website is not up to an encyclopedial level. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources, especially [[ Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Evaluating secondary sources -- Irmgard 09:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Deprogrammers are people who, at the request of a parent or other close relative, will have a member of a religious sect seized, then hold him against his will and subject him to mental, emotional, and even physical pressures until he renounces his religious beliefs. Deprogrammers usually work for a fee, which my easily run as high as $25,000. The deprogramming process begins with abduction. Often strong me muscle the subject into a car and take him to a place where he is cut from everyone but his captors. he may be held against his will for upward of three weeks. Frequently, however, the initial deprogrammingonly last a few days. The subject's sleep is limited and he is told that he will not be released until his beliefs meet his captors' approval. Members of the deprogramming group, as well as members of the family, come into the room where the victim is held and barrage him with questions and denunciations until he recants his newly found religion :
" * What does an intervention cost? My fees are currently $75.00 per hour or $750.00 per day when I work out of town. This does not include expenses such as travel, accommodations or other related expenses. An average intervention costs about $3,750.00 in fees plus expenses, which are usually below $1,000. This means that the total cost of an intervention should run about $5,000.00. The cost of an intervention may be somewhat higher if special research is required, a former member of a destructive group is brought in to assist and/or substantial travel time is required.Former members typically charge a fee of about $350.00 to $500.00 per day depending upon their experience. An intervention professional should have a detailed fee agreement that itemizes and explains his or her fee structure, costs associated with an intervention and outlines the terms of the intervention explicitly (see Ethical Standards)."
I suggest, yet again, you read WP:NPOV, before you edit. I would also suggest you read Wikipedia: What Wikipedia is not.
--
ZappaZ
17:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Personal comments of any kind are not called for. If there is an issue with a particular editor, discuss it on their talk page, file an RfC, or find someplace else to discuss it. However, editors who make personal assertions regarding their editing should expect to have those assertions open to challenge. - Willmcw 01:17, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
Zappaz, you seem to be the only one who wants the deprogrammer in the introduction - please accept the "no academic credentials" instead.
No accreditation for "counseling" is nonsense - Rick Ross offers speficially cult intervention (exit counseling) which consists by his definition of sharing cult-specific information - which is not the same as psychological or spiritual counseling. An accredited psychiatrist has by his accreditation no qualification for exit counseling and Ross does not have the qualification for counseling someone regarding psychological problems. The point is, Ross does not offer that, but only exit counseling. In the introduction is stated that he has no academic credentials which is correct and does not suppose or infer anything additional. -- Irmgard 12:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
If someone insists about qualifications, we have to do so much editing in wikipedia
Adolf Hitler - no qualifications to be Chancellor or failed world dictator
George Bush - Did not study a BA in "how to be President"
Stalin - unqualified communist leader and mass murderer (I think should he get an honary doctorate in "mass murder" though - posthumously)
Oprah Winfrey - unqualified talk show host (she did study communications though) T om Cruise - unqualified actor
Pablo Picasso - unqualified modern artist (learnt from his Father who was)
L. Ron Hubbard - unqualified author and unqualified theologian
Osama bin laden - I think its important to say that he's not professional terrorist as he doesnt have any professional credentials
Sigmund Freud - unqualified
Carl Jung - unqualified
Marcel Chevalier - unqualified French executioner
Steve Wade - unqualified English executioner
etc. etc. etc.
Now, some might think that in most cases it is extremely difficult to get qualified for these professions... the same is true for someone whos job is building implosion by explosives.... and the same is true for deprogramming
This page is not only referred to by the anti-cult movement and the University of Virginia but also, e.g. by the Press, by concerned parents, etc. etc. (anyway, we have no statistics who is clicking there why). So I shortened the sentence. That it is widely referred to is documented by Google which lists it among the top ten when searching for "cults". -- Irmgard 12:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
The section below is reverted to the former one - it does not correctly reflect what Ross himself writes on his ethical guidelines page http://www.rickross.com/ethics.html -- Irmgard 12:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
I also removed the section Deprogramming - it is taken out of context and gives a wrong impression, as it presumes a different definition of deprogramming than the one of Ross (see http://www.rickross.com/ethics.html where he also quotes Hassan's and Singer's definitions and http://www.rickross.com/reference/deprogramming/deprogramming7.html). If you want to quote Ross on deprogramming, quote his actual definition of deprogramming : "The first title used was "deprogrammer," which specifically describes the process of unraveling a destructive cult's program of emotional, psychological and informational control." But I think discussion of deprogramming should be left to the article Deprogramming and taken up in detail there. -- Irmgard 12:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Unacceptable. That text is very much supported by statements made on Ross website. --
ZappaZ
15:13, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Britain's FHM magazine named Rick Ross "America's number one cult buster", the New York Daily News referred to Ross as "Self-styled cult buster" and Time Magazine referred to him as “a veteran cult watcher."
See the following recent examples:
http://www.gothamist.com/archives/2005/07/18/rick_ross_cult_expert.php
http://www.sacbee.com/content/lifestyle/story/13276511p-14118809c.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/324820p-277473c.html NY Daily News -- "Rick Ross, founder of the New Jersey-based Ross Institute which monitors fringe religious groups."
Which quotes from what press becomes arbritray. But if you wanted to poll a consensus of the press articles over the past year or so to support a conclusive most used reference you could. But this would be time consuming and not really about a encyclopedia entry would it?
38.119.107.70 posted these press quotes again and apparently is in agreement with the Zappaz POV, but has not offered any discussion here concerning edits here. 67.134.82.77 15:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
I removed these references: the first is a biased third source report, not an encyclopedial reference, the second contains a set of biased questions to congress. The third one moved to Branch Davidians article, says more about them than about Ross -- Irmgard 12:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Why are we removing the word "database"? It seem to describe a colleciton of data, usch as what Ross has on his website. - Willmcw 19:03, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Reported 3RR on
User:67.134.82.77 --
ZappaZ
00:24, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Reported 3RR on -- ZappaZ Won't anyone reign in this guy??? I have repeatedly offered to discuss this point by point. He seems unwilling to work on edits and support his edits. Is Wikipedia supposed to be like this?
You need to reign on your mouse and stop deleting my work and the work of others on this article. If you see anything on this article that is not factual and that is not supported by citacions, please let us know and we will gladly delete it. I have substantiated each and everyone of my edits. The ones I was wrong about, were deleted as soon as someone pointed it out. Now stop vandalizing this article. Thanks. --
ZappaZ
00:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
First, you "vadalized" a long-standing entry here, by changing it with something 50 plus edits. Subsequently, you expect everyone to accept that. You admit at this point that you were "wrong." and submitted false and/or misleading information. Yet you want your entry to stand. No. You have yet to prove that a single point within my post is in error. Given your errors and conduct at this point you should prove what is false and/or misleading within my entry. Please begin to make these points so we can all move on.
I reverted edit by Zappaz about the paid testimonies of former members, which I incorrectly labelled as a minor edit. Sorry. I explained my revert hereabove. Andries 23:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
2005 (UTC)
I'm going to protect the page for a bit, as we seem to have an edit dispute going. Please note that this isn't an endorsement of the protected version as such. Fire Star 01:03, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
OK Zappaz. I will be calm and go over the paragraphs with you one at a time in an effort to find a balance that is NPOV. If you are not reasonable I will invite feedback before making another edit. This will be a process and very open for everyone to see. 67.134.82.77 01:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
First paragraph as follows:
"Rick Ross (born November 1952) is a controversial protagonist of the anti-cult movement who maintains a website with an extensive listing of articles about cults, controversial groups, and new religious movements, and related research about mind control theories, as well as the CultNews.com blog."
To be NPOV it should read as follows:
Rick Ross (born November 1952) is an internationally known cult expert who maintains an extensive database accessible through the Internet about controversial organizations, groups and movements, some that have been called "cults."
This is a simple opening paragraph that is factual, to the point and NPOV. If you wish to dispute that this is NPOV and factual please demonstrate your points factually.
Overwhelmingly, this is the reported media and general consensus about Ross and his website. Cults and their apologists represent a POV and are not NPOV. 67.134.82.77 01:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
The best way to get a consensus on this article is indeed to discuss the points one at a time:
Stay calm, stay patient and try to stay pleasant. One good thing about Wikipedia is that we have to work with people who disagree with us. In the end, though, that makes for more complete articles. Fire Star 01:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Thanks I will follow that advice. 67.134.82.77 01:36, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
As with other controversial articles, when the pan gets too hot, I unilaterally place myself on moratorium so that these disputes do not affect my sweet life too much. Therefore, my last edit of today will be the last one for a while. I wish anon 67.134.82.77 good luck with his first baby steps in WP, and hope Willmcw, Irmgard and Andries can make this article better in my self-imposed absence. That said, please note that I will return in a week or two and continue contributing to this article if I see the need to. Hopefully text that is properly supported by citations will not be deleted, only improved upon. As always, I reserve the right to challenge any deletions or additions that are unattributed opinious, speculation or propaganda. May you all have a pleasant weekend. --
ZappaZ
02:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
We have been here before. The article was revised, edited and completed before and up in that edited version for some time. Then Zappaz came back and edited the article more than fifty times until it fit his POV. This included "deletions, or additions" the "opinions" of those that agree with his POV and both "specution" and "propaganda." 67.134.82.77 05:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
There are quite a few repeated statements that are redundant. Also, many typos, spelling and gramatical errors. But let's start with the first few paragraphs or the introduction.
First paragraph currently reads as follows:
Rick Ross (born November 1952) is a controversial protagonist of the anti-cult movement who maintains a website with an extensive listing of articles about cults, controversial groups, and new religious movements, and related research about mind control theories, as well as the CultNews.com blog.
Ross, a former deprogrammer, describes himself today as a "cult intervention specialist". He has been interviewed and quoted by the media as a cult expert in the United States and around the world, and he has been called as an expert witness on several occasions.
He has numerous critics, especially from groups listed on his website, and he has played controversial roles in the case of Jason Scott and the ill fated Waco standoff with the Branch Davidians.
Britain's FHM magazine named Rick Ross "America's number one cult buster", the New York Daily News referred to Ross as "Self-styled cult buster" and Time Magazine referred to him as “a veteran cult watcher."
To be NPOV IMO it should read as follows:
Rick Ross (born November 1952) is an internationally known cult expert who maintains an extensive database accessible through the Internet about controversial organizations, groups and movements, some that have been called "cults."
This is a simple opening paragraph that is factual, to the point and NPOV.
Overwhelmingly, this is the reported media and general consensus about Ross and his database. Cults and their apologists that say otherwise represent a POV and are not NPOV.
It could further read:
Often called a "cult deprogrammer" Ross refers to himself as a "cult intervention specialist." He has been interviewed and quoted by the media in the United States and around the world, and testified as an expert witness.
He has been typically and frequently criticized by groups, organizations and movements listed within his database and also by academics and others sympathetic to those groups, organizations and movements.
Ross is also known for his role in the controversial Jason Scott case, which involved an involuntary deprogramming and as an expert used by law enforcement, the media and concerned families regarding the Waco Branch Davidians.
Britain's FHM magazine named Rick Ross "America's number one cult buster", Time Magazine referred to him as “a veteran cult watcher."'
IMO the NY Daily News quote is part of an article that reports about attacks on Ross and it is titled "Busting on the Cult Buster." It is not representitive of the overwhelming way in which Ross is referred to in the press. IMO this is a highly selective reference chosen to represent a POV.
The Scott case was controversial, essentially because Scientology used it as a vehicle to destroy the Cult Awareness Network, which was reflected in the news coverage and public interest.
Ross' role in Waco was not "controversial." He was consulted, lectured, was seen in the news frequently during and after the standoff as an expert and analyst. Cults and their apologists attempted to make Ross an object of controversy, but the reports, investigations and news covereage overwhelmingly did not reflect that and instead focused on the Waco cult, its deranged leader, his crimes and the tragic end he chose for his followers.
I look forward to comments and feedback. 67.134.82.77 05:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
I think the information about fees must be removed (or at least made less specific) because it violates the wikipedia policy (or guideline?) not to include information that dates quickly. Andries 11:51, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
I placed my seld on a self-imposed moratorium in editing this article, with the belief that editors will responsibly edit and improve upon the article. Unfortunately, the only editing has been a determided effort to delete text that was properly sources and referenced. I will have my weekend in peace, but note my strong objection to these deletions of text. --
ZappaZ
15:26, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Anton Hein and Ross did not disagree over "very critical attitude towards Christian missionary movements." They apparently disputed over poltical issues within the so-called "anti-cult movement."
Also see Ross' response to Hein at his "Flaming Websites" page.
See http://www.rickross.com/flamingwebsites.html
Hein says at his section about Ross that he become upset with him through an "email exchange during the Summer of 2003." The Google group exchange details this and the Q and A back and forth between the two. Hein seems to think that Ross being Jewish is problem, though he mentions this after citing the email dispute first. Specifically, "given the specialized knowledge and spiritual discernment necessary to deal with cults of Christianity, the publishers of Apologetics Index - themselves evangelical Christians - recommend contacting Christian cult experts instead."
Looks like politics and charcterizing this as a about Ross' "very critical attitude towards Christian missionary movements" is misleading and does not based upon facts.
The mention of Anson Shupe in this paragraph is redundant, since just below there is a complete statement by Shupe and his writing partner Darnell. I will edit the paragraph and combine the mention of Hassan and Hein together per a long-standing previous version. 67.134.82.77 15:21, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Anton Hein 13:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Anton Hein's opinions are his POV and not NPOV. He says, that he "doesn't endorse" Ross. Who cares? His POV is that Ross is "abusive" because "he disagrees with" others Hein likes and/or supports. Again who cares? Ross' lack of education has already been discussed and for the purposes of an encylopedia entry it doesn't need to be recited again by Hein. According to Hein's POV Ross has "a lack of the needed theological knowledge and balance for dealing with Christian-based cults." Hein has no degree, no ordination and no "theological knowledge" that has been officially tested and/or acknowledged through an accredited seminary. Who cares what he thinks. Ross' history of appointments by well-recognized bodies Jewish, interreligious, state, etc. and experience as a court expert witness, lecturer at major universities (including Baylor a Christian school) would seem to contradict Hein's POV. Hein says Ross "abusive attacks on Apologetics Index itself" (speaking in the third person?) once again expresses his POV. Reading the exchange between Ross and Hein at Google groups was enlightening. Hein was asked questions by Ross. Apparently Hein doesn't like to be questioned, but that's not "abusive." Not that it matters anyway, because that's Hein's POV being quoted and not NPOV. BTW--where and when did Hein ever "endorse" Ross? Can't find any past endorsement anywhere (see "Way Back"). Hein may not have previously so overtly attacked Ross, but he never really endorsed him. Hein has always made a point of labeling Ross a "Jew" and offered no endorsement of his work. Hein color codes his entries and Ross is color coded "Non Christian" in red. Interestingly Steve Hassan, who Hein seems to like, is not so identified as "Non Christian," but rather as "Secular." Whatever. Hein's POV is neither definitive nor appropriate for an encyclodia entry. Let's stary with NPOV facts. 38.96.137.19 14:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Let's avoid POV and state facts. Ross and Hassan had dispute and both posted something about that. Patrick Ryan was sued and that's court record as is AFF having well known cult-apologists speak at its conferences. Hein admits this and it is well documented. Hein's POV about Ross is not a fact, it's a POV. Let him hold forth at his website not Wikipedia, which is supposed to be a public encyclopedia. 38.96.137.19 14:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
There is an external link to Hein's attack on Ross. That affords Hein's POV more than enough special consideration.
If a reference and link is provided regarding Anton Hein's POV concerning Ross at Criticism section, so should a citation and link appear regarding the information gathered by Ross' and his POV regarding Hein.
Under "Life" the following quote appears. "Ross's involvement with cults started in 1982, when a messianic group infiltrated the Jewish nursing home in Arizona where his grandmother was a resident."
This is misleading.
Many groups are "messianic," such as the Unification Church, which believes Rev. Moon is the "messiah" or Jewish groups that are waiting for the fulfillment of messianic prophecies. But the group that raised Ross' concern specifically was a fundamentalist Pentecostal group that targets Jews for conversion. They may call themselves "messianic Jews," but this a controversial claim. If readers of Wikipedia are to understand the specific situation it should read more specifically -- "a controversial religious group that targets Jews for conversion."
See http://www.rickross.com/reference/jews_for_jesus/jews_for_jesus8.html
The above article explains the concern of the Jewish community, Ross' involvement through a committee and the equal concern of Christians that endorsed the educational brochure he and others worked on regarding the situation. 67.134.82.77 15:22, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
His Jewish identity is best noted as an introduction to concerns abount his grandmother in the third paragraph under "Life" rather than the first paragraph. 67.134.82.77 15:23, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Amended move to Arizona to include date and also dates of crimes committed in second paragrah. 67.134.82.77 15:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Ross was appointed to two different committees through the UAHC one about cults and another devoted to interreligious affairs.
See http://www.rickross.com/biography.html
And also http://www.rickross.com/cv.html
It is confusing and/or misleading to say he "left the Jewish Prisoners Program" in 1986. This was a professional position as opposed to volunteer work, which might be implied through the previously cited affiliations and committee work.
Specifically, Ross worked for Jewish Family and Children's Service and the Bureau of Jewish Education in Phoenix, Arizona. He was a member of the paid professional staff of both organizations. If there is space to repeat that Ross has "no academic credentials" and only a "high school" education,it is also meaningful to state his employment history/experience.
Under "Life" a publication is cited in a misleading manner. It says, "Ross wrote an 11-page paper "The missionary threat" in which he describes present-day Christian missionary activities "the greatest missionary threat in history" with which Jews are faced."
The site that listed this publication is no longer up on the Internet, though through the "Way Back Machine" it still can be seen.
See http://web.archive.org/web/19970712070258/www.berkshire.net/~ifas/bookstore.html
Note that it specifically cites "'Born again' crusades." Given Ross' historical concerns as expressed in numerous articles and the endorsements of Christian leaders of the brochure he worked on with the Jewish Federation titled "What in God's Name is Going on in Arizona" (previously cited), it not just any "Christian missionary activities" he is referring to in this document. Instead, Ross is specifically referring to fundamentalist Christian missionaries that target Jews for conversion. The paragraph should state that. And on balance the other brochure should be noted and that it received endorsements from Christian leaders so as not to mislead Wikipedia readers that Ross is somehow out to get the Christians.
See http://www.rickross.com/reference/jews_for_jesus/jews_for_jesus8.html
Also see http://www.rickross.com/reference/about/about4.html
The fact that Ross is not out to single out Christians for special consideration can be seen through the database he has gathered too.
There are actually very few Christian missionary organizations, given the number that exist. And many Christian anti-cult are linked through the site Links page.
See http://www.rickross.com/sg_alpha.html
Also see http://www.rickross.com/links.html
Note the section "Christian Cult Watchers."
Ross also has a section about Jewish groups.
See http://www.rickross.com/sg_jewish.html
On balance this should also be noted. 67.134.82.77 15:25, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Ross and other deprogrammers did use "force and restraint" through involuntary deprogramming efforts, which Ross acknowledges, but "threats" is over the top and not documented. What "threats"? In deprogrammings like Scott case, people were eventually free to go. It is reported that Scott "escaped" while eating dinner at a public place after his deprogramming days with Ross ended. Was the "threat" to take him out for dinner? Let's just stick to "force and restraint." This doesn't make much sense. But force used to bring someone into a deprogramming and restraint to keep them there is consistent with the facts. 67.134.82.77 15:27, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
There is no reason to include Guidstar information or lack of information, unless there has been some controversy regarding fund-raising or the use of funds, which there is not. Looking around Wikipedia this doesn't seem to be standard practice. So there is no reason to include such information, so it has been edited out. 67.134.82.77 15:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
It is common knowledge that Ross deprogrammed David Block. This is in the treasurey report, affidavit for the warrant to be served on David Koresh and all over the Internet, even Ross' critics acknowledge this.
See the following links:
http://www.carolmoore.net/waco/TDM-02.html http://www.carolmoore.net/waco/TDM-03.html (Carol Moore, cited as a Ross critic on Waco) http://www.freedommag.org/english/vol29I1/page08x.htm Scientology Freedom Magazine (seems they had Ross under watch during the deprogramming and shared that information with others e.g. Carol Moore). http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/issues/1995-11-30/news/feature2_7.html (Press account) http://www.skepticfiles.org/waco/wattenbe.htm (cites Block as a BATF source) http://www.rickross.com/reference/waco/waco_affidavit.html (BATF Affidavit) http://www.rickross.com/reference/waco/waco294.html (Book titled "See No Evil" by Tim Madigan)
The word "claims" is not appropriate. The second Davidian Ross says he deprogrammed was not reported about. But the first certainly and was recorded repeatedly by a number of different sources, often not friendly to him.
The Waco Tribune-Herald ran a lengthy series, but Ross is not cited as a "major source," only quoted.
See the following links:
http://www.rickross.com/reference/waco/wacopart1.pdf http://www.rickross.com/reference/waco/wacopart2.pdf http://www.rickross.com/reference/waco/wacopart3.pdf
Carol Moore is quoted regarding Ross. She is to say the least controversial. Moore is a Libertarian, her book was published by the Gun Owners of America and is acclaimed as a "polemic against the government."
See http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9602/reviews/roundup.html
Dean Kelley, often called an apologist and recommended by Scientology as a religious resource, proclaims; "Carol Moore has written a polemic against the government worthy of the organization to which she has devoted more than two years of work-the Committee for Waco Justice, which has staged demonstrations in Washington to protest what they view as crimes by the federal agencies. Her book is copublished by Gun Owners of America and highlights issues of interest to opponents of gun control and of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, but it is not untrustworthy because of that."
See http://www.boogieonline.com/revolution/by_name/M/CarolMoore.html
Moore once described herself as "libertarian non-violent pacifist decentralist pagan hippy communalist worshiper of the goddess maryjane."
See http://www.theconspiracy.us/9501/0019.html
Moore is cited on "Conspiracy Nation."
See http://www.constitution.org/waco/mtcarmel.htm
Carol Moore's "Committee for Waco Justice" was cited "the main legal fund for the civil case of the surviving Davidians against the U.S. government." The Davidian survivors lost that case at trial and subsequently upon appeal.
Ms. Moore's reports and supposed "facts" have been discounted, dismissed and/or disputed by various government reports, through both a criminal and civil trial and by the Danforth Investigation.
Moore represents a fringe conspiracy theory view of Waco. For example, her writings are featured at "New Dawn" Magazine, which states that its "mission" is "Challenging Consensus Reality...journal of alternative news."
See http://www.newdawnmagazine.com/whatisnewdawn.html
And also http://www.newdawnmagazine.com/Articles/Waco%20Four%20Years%20On.html
http://www.padrak.com/alt/index.shtml PADRAK Alternative Information
Here is Moore's bio http://www.carolmoore.net/biography/ she does have a history of activism on the radical fringe. If anyone can find any academic credentials please post a link to an NPOV source. 67.134.82.77 22:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
This section states, "The jury in that second trial held Ross liable for conspiracy to deprive Scott of his civil rights of freedom of religion." However, there is no citation offered here. The press coverage simply says "civil rights," which may have included "freedom of religion." But without independent verification this should be edited out and read simply "civil rights."
"The suit ended in Ross and the Cult Awareness Network being ordered to pay large judgments:" This is redundant and not necessary. The amounts are cited below, the reader can see that they are large.
Let's try to avoid needless repetition.
The CESNUR link is also needless. This site is VERY biased as the article title reflects "CAN, We Hardly Knew Ye: Sex, Drugs, Deprogrammers’ Kickbacks, and Corporate Crime in the (old) Cult Awareness Network." This is also misleading as no criminal charges were ever brought against the old CAN. The New Times newspaper account already cites the amounts and cirucumstances. 67.134.82.77 22:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
The Ross Institute website/database is "widely cited" and not only by "countercult" people. It is typically cited by the mainstream press, colleges, universitites, etc. This is demonstrated by numerious links and articles already posted at this discussion board. The FAQ section of the site and its disclaimer (linked from every page) does take care to clarify "the mention and/or inclusion of a group or leader within this archive does not define that group as a 'cult' and/or an individual mentioned as either destructive and/or harmful. Instead, such inclusion simply reflects that archived articles and/or research is available about a group or person that has generated some interest and/or controversy." The recent edit adding that some groups may be "insulted" by their inclusion is a POV and not relevant here. This is covered by the section titled "Criticism." The edits have been reverted. 67.134.82.77 22:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
If you go to site rankings you will find that the Ross Institute website www.rickross.com ranks 28,106 with 21, 666 links on the WWW. It is both widely used and widely cited. It is a very large database that contains news articles (AP, Reuters, various newspapers), court documents and public records about hundreds of groups, organizations and movements. As such a database it is widely used by the public and not limited to so-called "countercult" people. 67.134.82.77 12:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
The third paragraph from the top notes that Ross has "numerous critics especially from groups listed on his website..." This is sufficient and "extensive criticism" is not accurate. For example, "extensive criticism" would be widespread such as the media, many NPOV organizations without a vested interest, mental health professionals etc. Instead his critics are essentially the groups listed at his site, other groups called cults and academics that often defend such groups. The "scholars" or academic apologists are given their say in Criticism. 67.134.82.77 12:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Ross no longer engages in involunary interventions. He states this at his site under "Deprogramming." Taking up further space here on this subject is not necessary. Obviously (see Jason Scott a whole section) he was sued and subjected to a judgment. Anyone can see why he stopped. Use a little common sense. Again, repetition is not meaningful. The link may be useful though for those who want to know more. 67.134.82.77 13:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
User 38.119.107.70:
You have reverted edits without proper discussion or due process. There is a three revert rule. This user should be banned if there are three reverts. So far you have reverted once against the guidelines previously posted by Fire Star. Please read those guidelines. If you violate the three revert rule you may be locked out of this article. I and others have posted precise explanations of why edits were made and responded to your edits point by point. Simply adding a note to your edit, which should be in discussion, is not the process outlined. Please stick to the guidelines posted. 67.134.82.77 15:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
article, but if you want to delete material you will need to show that the material is either irrelevant or not properly supported by external references. -- 38.119.107.70 19:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
BTW--it seems like user 38.119.107.70 came in just as Zappaz declared his or her "self-imposed moratorium"--isn't that interesting? 67.134.82.77 00:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Under Branch Davidians there is the POV of Kimberly Post writing for a Web site originally created by Jeffrey Hadden, a controversial sociology professor that was criticized for working closely with groups called "cults" and recommended by the Church of Scientology as a resource. Ms. Post apparently did the entry quoted while a student of Hadden's sociology class. Her remarks reflect a POV and make unsubstantiated claims, such as "assumptions put forth by Breault and Ross decisively influenced the investigation and opinion of Koresh and his followers by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Attorney General Janet Reno, and President Clinton." She offers no factual evidence to support that claim. The footnotes for her article include Ms. Ammerman who is also quoted saying essentially the same thing that Ms. Post later reiterates. There is no need for repitition and this POV is already expressed by Ms. Ammerman, who unlike Ms. Post is not a student, but rather a professor.
Catherine Wessinger, another person often cited as a "cult apologist," calls Ross a "spurious self-styled expert." This is yet another example of a repititious POV entry that amounts to little more than name calling. There is already noted criticism from Anson Shupe, Ammerman etc. along these lines. Ross has Wessinger listed on his "Cult Apologist" page, perhaps she is mad about that. 67.134.82.77 16:42, 27 July 2005 (UTC) [9]
In the first paragraph there is no need to repeat that Scientology is critical of Ross or mention the Kabbalah Centre specifically. Scientology already has its criticism linked and the Kabbalah Centre is included by the statement about criticism from "new religious movements, controversial groups or organizations which are listed in his website..."
Shupe and Darnell's characterization of a private letter between Ross and Coates is a POV. Ross has done substantial ecumenical work through committees with Christians. For example he was elected chairman of the Religious Advisory Committee of the AZ Dept of Corrections, served on an interreligious national committee for the UAHC and has numerous links to Christian Cult Watchers on his Links page. [10] [11]
Within the criticism section there should be a footnote regarding Shupe being paid by Kendrick Moxon for expert witness work. 67.134.82.77 17:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
The LaRouche at "Executive Intelligence Review" was previously edited out because it did not meet Wikipedia guidelines as reliable.
The Danforth Reports are available on-line and should be linked along with other Congressional findings, which are also available online.
67.134.82.77
21:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
I have added a book excerpt from Conway and Siegelman book about deporgramming. They are experts in commuication and well-known authors. This in balance to the Deprogramming article by Shupe.
Stephen Kent is a noted sociologist, author and professor at the University of Alberta. He wrote a critique that includes information about Shupe's role in the Scott case and the issue of academic scholars working for cults and/or offering unbalanced papers that lack academic rigor.
I have cut some of the redundant articles linked from CESNUR, a site well-known for its defense of "cults." One by Jehovah's Witnesses was repetitive of the Scott case. another by Wessinger again is redundant and mirrors Ammerman and other reports already linked.
There should be balance in the references and they all should be linked online. 67.134.82.77 22:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Hey, I checked out these references and they are a total joke. Many of them are just cult mouthpieces that get paid by cults to defend them and cut down their critics. It's all over the WWW about these "scholars." Looks like there is some money to make for these guys if they work for the rich cults. Hadden, Shupe, Ammerman, Wessinger, Melton. And that "available online" website called "CESNUR" is run by some weird Italian dude that works with cults. Isn't their anyone at Wikipedia to reign in this crap? Or is this all just about whatever weirdos have the stamina to stay with it and keep "editing"? Seems like if you get enough cult members together you can make Wikipedia into anything you want. Pretty ridiculous to pass this off as an "enyclopedia" though isn't it?
Yea, these "scholars" are sell-outs to cults and seem to work for them. Wikipedia is really a joke having "references" like this. Really trash. See the following links to get the real info on this "cult apologists."
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/c11.html
http://home.snafu.de/tilman/faq-you/cult.apologists.txt
http://www.rickross.com/apologist.html
What a bunch of deleted expletive/personal attack. And anyone that believes these guys is ready for the "mother ship" to beam them up. Stuff like this makes Wikipedia look awful and kind of stupid. 208.5.214.2 23:51, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
With the exception of edits by Antaeus Felspar that added material to the article and provided references for his additions, all deletion of material by editor IP 38.119.107.70 is reducing the quality of this article and is against the principles set forth in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I don't understand why nobody else is objecting to deletion of material, when that material is supported by external, notable and relevant citations. I am reverting all edits with the exception of the edits by Felspar and Andries that made some needed neutralization. I am not new to Wikipedia as Felspar assumes, as I have edited for while last year when I was in between projects, a situation I find myself now as well. -- 38.119.107.70 02:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Get a load of ... insult removed.... He is here to slam Ross and use Wikipedia as a soapbox. Reading his edits is pretty revealing. Get real dude! 208.5.214.2 22:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Other than documents filed by Scientology lawyers there is no document with the name of Rikey Allen Ross regarding Ross. Only Rick Ross, Rick Alan Ross. This is really pretty ridiculous additions with nothing to commend it or demonstrate its accuracy. 12.27.54.146 11:04, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
-- Stefano Ponte 04:00, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
I come to realize that leaving for a
wikivacation is sometimes the best one can do. I can see that I am no longer needed here. Thanks to Irmgard, Stephano, Al and all anons for shouldering the effort in getting this article in good shape. --
ZappaZ
03:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Wow, Wikipedia seems to be like some kind of circle jerk, where weird fringe people sit around making bizarre entries based upon who they don't like etc. I have been reviewing this thread and find it amazing what passes for an enyclopedia here. Maybe that's why a lot of people mock this kind of site and don't cite it that seriously. Anyway, doesn't anyone here realize that no one is called "Rickey"? You guys are really silly. And the papers you cite over and over again are sourced to some wacko Scientology lawyers. They put "Rickey Allen" for there for their own purposes and the guy never used such a name, it's not a legit "aka," but I guess you know that. It's like you all take yourselves so seriously, but really are just hammering away against somebody you don't like and using Wikipedia as your soapbox. VERY PETTY and reflects poorly on the whole Wikipedia thing. 208.5.214.2 22:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I was mocking you and how easily ... insult removed... like you corrupt and twist Wikipedia. Look, you know why you here and it isn't to help people. You have your little mission to bash people and mislead anyone you can. The whole entry on "Rickey Allen" shows how ... insult removed... you are. You don't care about facts and I wouldn't waste my time with you. Go ahead and play in your little mud puddle here at Wikipedia. From the looks of the media reports that quote Ross constantly as a "cult expert" and all the work he does you lost the real battle. So whine and cry here. No one in the mainstream media will quote the junk here. And who ever heard of the "scholars" that you keep promoting? Some of them seem to make quite a bit of money off of cults and they certainly aren't quoted as much as Ross. I guess that's what really ticks you off 208.5.214.2 11:28, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
This guy that calls himself "Stefano Ponte" (probably a Scientologyist or member of another cult) is really pretty funny. He says Wicca objects to Ross including them within on his list, which is totally false. See http://www.rickross.com/reference/wicca/wiccavisitor.html Visitors are happy for the information. Obviously, "Ponte" is not interested in facts and is just another angry guy using Wikipedia to get at someone he doen't like. Looking over the Wicca section I can see why they are praising it. Ross has some really interesting articles that help make people better understand Wicca. See http://www.rickross.com/groups/wicca.html . Hey, and will someone explain to me why anyone would put this statement in a so-called "encylopedia" -- "Notwithstanding that diclaimer, several groups featured on his website, such as the Christian Fellowship, Wicca, and the Kabbalah Centre do not appreciate being listed as they claim the term "cult" has negative connotations and is perceived as an insult." Wow, what a totally bogus entry that is. I checked Ross' site and he doesn't even call these groups "cults." The statement is first totally false about Wicca and then shows a disregard for facts and research. So much for counting on Wikipedia as any kind of reliable source. 208.5.214.2 22:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Are you an deleted expletive/personal attack? Or can't you read? Ross never called these groups a "cult" and there is no such statement by him anywhere. This just shows everyone what ... insult removed... and how all this is for you is a game to get someone you don't like. What guru sent you here to mess up Wikipedia with all this junk? 208.5.214.2 11:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
This is a warning to anon user 208.5.214.2. Please note that abusive language and personal attacks are not acceptable behavior in Wikipedia. You are welcome to edit this and other articles, but you will have to learn to maintain a civil and corteous demeanor in the talk pages. I will comb these pages are delete your expletives and abusive language. --
ZappaZ
18:58, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Zappaz you are here to promote your guru and slime anyone who doesn't like him. You are using Wikipedia to do that. Your entries at Cult, Mind Control, Guru Maharaji prove that to anyone willing to take the time to see your "editing" work. Ross does have a sense of humor about people like you, proven by his "Flaming Websites" page. I am nominating this page in Wikipedia for an award. 208.5.214.2 22:10, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
There is an organized pro cult movement.
See these links---
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/c11.html
http://www.rickross.com/apologist.html
http://home.snafu.de/tilman/faq-you/cult.apologists.txt
Many of these sociologists and would-be "scholars" have been paid off by cults or their books and research funded by them. Something like scholarship for sale to the highest bidder. Looks like Gordon Melton tried to sell his wares to the "anti-cult movement" first, but found out that the cults had more money. Jeffrey Hadded also hatched a scheme to get money from cults, but his memo was leaked on the Internet.
So why not acknowledge that there is a pro-cult movement that is well organized and funded?
These guys get together and have conferences, attack the opposing side and have a well defined position. The same names even keep coming up.
How about a little honesty here at Wikipedia???
Or is that a "personal attack" that will be deleted??? 208.5.214.2 22:10, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
I have removed the nonsense about "pro-cult" movement. This anonymous user is not only opprobrious and very belligerent, but is also interested in original research... If anonymous finds a notable source that speaks of a Pro cult movement, he/she is entitled to then start an article on the subject and link it herein, otherwise he/she needs to desist from such efforts. --
Stefano Ponte
03:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Look like Hadden's memo outlined the members of the pro-cult movement and they are the same "scholars" who have at times been paid by cults to do books about them, research or be "expert witnesses." The same academics keep calling those they don't like who criticize cults as the "anti-cult movement." Anti-cult movement is a label they coined for propaganda purposes and it is their POV. BTW a big part of this "encyclopedia entry" is members of the pro-cult movement calling Ross names over and over again. How is that anything worth noting? They are all just spouting off because he and others have exposed them as pro-cult types that often make money from the cults. If my name calling is edited from discussion why isn't there name calling edited out of this entry? Looks like flaming to me. 208.5.214.2 11:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
OK. But the bias of the pro-cult movement and the history of its antagonists should be noted. Hadden was looking for money from cults and that is proven. Ammerman seems pretty popular and a stalwart within that movement too. The quotes offered from these hacks are little more than name calling and mud slinging. It's not the stuff for an encyclopedia and is just propaganda. At least identify them for what they are and if someone has no academic credentials admit it. Ross is hammered for having none, why not his critics. Also, if Ross' fees are posted, questioned etc. why not the people who make money from cults? Fair is fair, if this is to be fact based and neutral. 208.5.214.2 21:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
I posted this above, for another editor, but it is still the way to approach this issue. We can agree to disagree and also present every verifiable point of view in the article with NPOV. The best way to get a consensus on this article is to discuss the points of contention one at a time:
Stay calm, stay patient and try to stay pleasant. One good thing about Wikipedia is that we have to work with people who disagree with us. In the end, though, that makes for more complete articles. Fire Star 05:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
OK than the commentary offered that Ross is a "protaganist of the anti-cult movement" should be deleted. That is an opinion not a fact. The "anti-cult movment" is tried propaganda used by the academics that get funding and favors from the cults. They are a growing scandal within academia and not objective. They are often paid for their services like Melton, Shupe and Hadden. They have also organized themselves in groups, associations etc. 208.5.214.2 22:02, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
The introduction is misleading and does not represent facts. It is rather a POV as expressed by those who don't like Ross.
Specifically the statement "He faces considerable criticism from some of the groups he lists on his website, from scholars studying New religious movements, and from other individuals related to the roles he played in the controversial case of Jason Scott, and the ill fated Waco standoff with the Branch Davidians."
This reflects a POV about Ross as experessed by groups called "cults" and their apologists. It is not a historical or news reporting point of view, with the exception of articles where his critics express their POV.
Ross is a widely quoted expert on the subject of cults.
Those "editing" here may not like that, but that is a fact as reflected by numerous news stories. What Zappaz and others sympathetic to his POV have attempted to do here is skew the entry to reflect their POV.
If this entry is to be fair the previous statement should read as follows:
He faces criticism from some of the groups he lists on his website, from scholars sympathetic to those groups, and from other individuals related to the roles he played in the controversial case of Jason Scott, and the ill fated Waco standoff with the Branch Davidians.
To do otherwise is a kind of selective editing that has no place in a supposedly factually based "encyclopedia" entry.
Getting the quotes and references up to standard - so far only introduction and life completed. Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles -- Irmgard 19:50, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Dropouts so far:
-- Irmgard 12:03, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Zappaz, please provide a verifiable source for this, before reinserting it: "America's number one cult buster" (FHM magazine), -- Irmgard 19:38, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
I removed this quote, because I only found it in Freedomwatch, which is not a reliable source. If you find a better source, you are free to reinsert it (but for quotes we should have exact references). --
Irmgard
19:38, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
"A large award of punitive damages is also necessary under the recidivism and mitigation aspects of the factors cited in Haslip. Specifically, the Court notes that Mr. Ross himself testified that he had acted similarly in the past and would continue to conduct 'deprogrammings' in the future."
We ought to find a way to have an intro that works. SO far all attempts, even those that stay on for a few weeks, get changed back. Time again for another page protection? Or can we find a way to agree on a NPOV intro for this man's article? --
ZappaZ
16:45, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
I restored the former intro - the intro of a biography article has to show why the person is significan Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Opening paragraph and "describes himself as a "cult intervention specialist", a term he coined to describe his way of doing exit counseling." does not correctly describe why Ross is significant. That he is a controversial figure is said clearly in the third para - if you want to pound away on that subject, Zappaz, do it there. (the fact, that he was a deprogrammer does not make him encyclopedia-worthy either, BTW - most deprogrammers are not). -- Irmgard 19:38, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Ross is most often referred to by the media as a "cult expert." This can be seen by following articles and noting descriptions. Zappaz may not like this, but that is factual. FHM Magazine called him "America's Number One Cult Buster" see http://www.rickross.com/reference/media/media1.html The article was titled "Hellfire"! written by Bridget Freer and published by FHM in 1999. In the introduction media citations should be listed by date in chronological either date. They have now been arranged beginning with oldest date first. 67.134.82.77 14:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Zappaz is here to promote a very specific agenda. He is the devoted supporter of a guru often called a "cult leader" named Guru Maharaji (Divine Light Mission) aka Prem Rawat of Elan Vital.
See http://www.ex-premie2.org/
Zappaz has an axe to grind with those who criticize cults, explain their abuses, indoctrination/brainwashing techniques etc. He apparently hopes to use Wikipedia to go after cult critics and their "theories."
Editing by Zappaz follows two lines:
1. Get in whatever you can by way of false and/or misleading information and hope no one notices.
2. Edit and edit and edit until you have it your way with Wikipedia through reverting and/or repeatedly deleting what you don't want and then posting whatever you do want regardless of the facts.
Zappaz also relies heavily upon "scholars" of so-called NRMs "new religious movements," who often work closely with cults and are at times paid by them.
Zappaz likes to quote their name calling of people he doesn't like such as Ross. Note the quotes by Hadden (who has sought funding from cults), Melton, Wessinger, Shupe (who wrote his paper with the help of Scientology lawyer Kendrick Moxon a former employer Shupe made thousands from) and Nancy Ammerman. All cult apologists that have collectively caused a bit of a scandal within academia for their lack of research rigor to say the least.
Nevertheless, Zappaz doesn't want Wikipedia readers to know that. He hopes to edit out the actual context and/or background of their work or any historical information. He hopes Wikipedia readers will read their POV, but believe it is somehow NPOV.
Zappaz also cuts and tailors the introduction to mislead as much as possible. For example, he quotes "self-styled cult buster," hoping the reader will overlook that Ross is overwhelmingly referred to in the media as a "cult expert" over and over again in article after article and that this reference within an article about his critics is essentially exceptional. He also attempts to mislead the reader by implying that somehow the media interviews Ross becasue of "his interest" rather than due to their own interest in cults and related subjects for news purposes.
On and on it goes, round and round in the propaganda war waged by people like Zappaz at Wikipedia.
See cults, brainwashing, mind control, Prem Rawat, Divine Light Mission, deprogramming, cult, etc. and look for Zappaz edits and discussion. You will begin to realize what his purpose is here at Wikipedia.
In the end the Zappaz strategy at Wikipedia is to revert without discussion whenever he can and hope it gets by, depend upon other cult types (e.g. Scientologists) that will cut and edit like he does and genereally Zappaz goes on and on until he gets his way.
Sadly,...deleted personal attack do their worst here at Wikipedia, often making it into something of a joke, as noted by others, and not a reliable source of information. Zappaz and his fellow cult propagandists will hang out indefinitely editing until Wikipedia reads like they want.
Until Wikipedia very seriously addresses this problem it will never be a reliable reference for anyone searching for facts. Instead, it will be the idiosyncratic home of angry polemicists and their rants attempting to be passed off as NPOV information.
I think that about does it for me.
Zappaz once claimed he would give it a rest through his supposed "self-imposed moratorium." Maybe that's what I should really do.
After a while Wikipedia's lack of genuine editing based upon the facts becomes discouraging. It is easy to see why people like Zappaz so often win out here. No doubt he will get the last word. Not because he has the facts, but because Zappaz ...delete personal attack... 67.134.82.77 13:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Under the heading critique ZappaZ persists in reinstating as "highly relevant" a quote by Shupe/Darnell which is a general very negative opinion about deprogrammers without mentioning Ross specifically. This quote should, if at all, be inserted in the Deprogramming article, not here. -- Irmgard 21:27, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with Zappaz' addition of this material to clarify things. I believe Rick Ross worked very closely with the CAN and deprogrammers. Also it should be noted that Rick Ross has a problem that goes back to his youth: he is a sociopathic liar. This explains Ross' constant denying of facts about him. -- AI 02:34, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- ..."It is sociologically understandable that deprogrammers came to acquire “spoiled identities” as vigilantes and mercenaries rather than as bonafide counselors or therapists. Their coercive tactics outraged new religious movements (NRMs) and civil libertarian sympathizers and caused many deprogrammers to face legal and criminal complications when (as often happened) their “interventions” did not work. Operatives’ quest to institutionalize themselves as legitimate professionals acting within the law began not long after CAN was founded."
- "Even coercive deprogrammer Rick Ross was terming himself only an Expert Consultant and Intervention Specialist (an unique euphemism for exit counselor) on his late 1990s Internet Website.[16] when, just several years earlier, on January 18, 1991 he and several assistants violently abducted and for a week confined a Seattle, Washington man named Jason Scott. Scott was an adult whose mother wanted him to abandon memberships in a local United Pentecostal congregation. (Mrs. Scott was referred to Ross by CAN).[17]"
- ..."expert Rick Ross were still physically abducting unwilling adults belonging to unconventional religions and criminally restraining the latter according to the old deprogramming/mind control mythos."
Reference: http://www.cesnur.org/2003/shupe_darnell.htm
Rick Ross employed coercive tactics which caused him to face legal and criminal complications which significantly contributed to a spoiled identity. The spoiled identity is not created by the NRM's, they merely expose it and then they endure unwarranted attacks by cricis who claim they are "libeling" the spoiled identity... go figure. -- AI 23:31, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Catherine Wessinger, Professor of the history of religions and women's studies at the Loyola University in New Orleans, characterizes Ross as a "spurious self-styled expert[s]" in her paper The Branch Davidians and the Waco Media, 1993-2003 [16]
This para says nothing about the role of Ross in the Waco standoff - it's just gives Wessingers opinion on Ross with no reasons for it. No matter if she's a professor, such a text should not be quoted in an encyclopedia article. The source might be correctly quoted, but there are no facts involved. -- Irmgard 17:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for adding Ross' rebuttals. Please consider shortening them a bit. Thanks. --
ZappaZ
19:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
This article uses the religioustolerance.org website as either a reference or a link. Please see the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org and Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org as to whether Wikipedia should cite the religioustolerance.org website, jguk 14:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
I've noticed that apparently there are two standards used to determine if a group is a cult. As a Christian, the "sociological" standard is what concerns me. Using that standard, any religious group that takes seriously its teachings and upholds standards in accordance with those teachings, could be considered a cult. I'll give an example. Fundamentalist Christian churches are often targeted by "anti-cult" groups. Now, if they really are doing something unethical, immoral, or illegal, and still trying to pass themselves off as Christian, then they should be exposed. Fundamentalist Christian churches usually are not guilty of this, yet they're still considered "cultic". The reason given is that they have "high" expectations of their membership and practice "stern" discipline of those not conforming. The problem here is how one defines these terms. If, for example, a church is enforcing biblical standards of personal conduct amongst its members in a manner prescribed by their sacred writings (the Bible) and happen to expect its members to be more than nominally committed to the church, it can find itself being labeled as a cult because apparently these actions and expectations aren't as common as before. The reasoning goes that if the majority of Christian churches are no longer strict and operating according to tradition, then those churches that continue in the tradition are considered in error and aberrant. Is this really a valid claim though if one examines what the true teachings of the faith are? I think not. Therefore, when examining churches that claim to be Christian, it makes more sense to see what their doctrine is concerning the fundamentals of the faith (those teachings which define Christianity). If those core teachings are perverted or denied, then it necessarily follows that its practices will be as well. If, however, the doctrine is in line with the essential teachings of the faith, then no matter how "unusual" some of its practices or policies may seem, that church cannot really be called a cult. Therefore using "sociological" standards to define cults leaves virtually any religion eligible to being given that label since those standards tend to be arbitrarily defined. Jlujan69 07:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
... because most so-called cults Rick Ross lists have not been shown to be destructive at all, but there are some people who believe that they are destructive. -- Fossa 04:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Cults are defined as such - established religious groups with large memberships are called religions (good). Smaller and newer religious groups are called cults (bad). Many people make an industry out of "converting" people from the latter to the former. Then they are considered "normal". If Christianity were "born" today Jesus would be considered a dangerous cult leader who brainwashes his followers and encourages them to leave their families, at least those who do not accept/join christianity. For Jesus to claim those who do not accpet his brand of salvation are doomed to enternal hellfire (as he states in the bible), christianity would thus be considered a destructive cult. Guys like Ross and Hassan would make a ton of money "deprogramming" christians. Mr Christopher 16:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
What is a "maintainance revert"? Why is a revert being labelled as "maintenance"? - Will Beback 01:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Why are the majority of the links not neutral, i.e. they are linked back to a site that is fully run and operated by Rick Ross. This is not a neutral article. I have put my link: http://www.pottersclub.com/articleshow.asp?art_num=8 in the critical list, as the one I put in last time was deleted. I think that the wholesale deletion of links should be banned unless significant discussion is made. Potters house
Why were the links taken down? Is Wikipedia on Rick Ross' payroll? Why does the staff at Wikipedia delete any REAL critical links to Ross? This is bias. You said that the article linked was "bordering on anti-Semitism." So if I attack Rick Ross' beliefs I am anti-Semitic, but if he attacks biblical Christianity it is just research? How come if I delete any critical links on the page Potter's House, I am told this "may result in being blocked from Wikipedia without further warning" ... but in this article, people judge a link delete it and Wikipedia do nothing about it?
I think we need to take this higher, because this is religious discrimination
Nick
www.forumsau.com
Nick www.potershouse.com
The 2 links http://www.pottersclub.com/articleshow.asp?art_num=8 & http://www.rrexposed.u2k.biz/ Exposure of Rick Ross - should be maintained for neutrality.
Fair is fair. If you are going to have so many critical links, which are quite angry and biased, then why not have the response to such links? I have added a link that offers a response for balance under Links. It seems it was once there, but later removed--it's back again as before. 38.96.137.19 13:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I propose that this statement be added to the section called "Criticsm" on Rick Ross:
"As Rick Ross posts testimonials (on numerous organizations) that are considered negative on his web site, there should be a warning to all readers; especially as the opportunity for objectiveness is rendered obsolete."
There are no objective viewpoints that Rick Ross posts on his web site for any of the groups mentioned. Thus his web site provides a totally subjective viewpoint, and there should be checks and balances somewhere. Rick Ross stated that he will not place positive statements from anyone about any of the so-called cults. Why not state this on the Rick Ross WP article?
24.30.88.21 19:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)howardg
Because of the resource as Mr. Ross appears to provide, and the number of organizations and individuals who use his resource, it would be prudent to consider the following:
I have spent hours on the Ross Institute website, and it is very difficult to clearly see how Mr. Ross determines who's a cult and who isn't. The entire content of Mr. Ross appears subjective in nature - in spite of his disclaimer. What is very apparent however is the absence of some groups in Mr. Ross's database and the excessive number of other groups.
Furthermore, consider the fact that it is impossible to determine where the Ross Institute receives its funding from. Given the depth of the site and the amount of research, an academic citation of value should include the funding and financial support of the Ross Institute. This is a challenge; try to learn his funding. It would also be nice to know what groups are associated with the Ross Institute.
Additionally, aside from not completing Camden Military school, there is little mention made of Mr. Ross's academic or educational qualifications to proclaim himself an expert. What is more disturbing is that since his appearence in 1983 as a self-proclaimed expert, nearly every citation found in a google search points to information provided by Ross with few exceptions.
Lastly, aside from a nice list of "advisors" (something any organization can buy usually), there is no mention of any staff. The amount of research and organization provided by the Ross Institute would require a good sized staff of researchers, of which Mr. Ross says nothing. Shouldn't a researcher using the Ross Institute be able to contact a fellow researcher at the RI to discuss findings and compare data?
In any Wikipedia listing, in order to be fair and comprehensive to our readers, the above information should be provided.
Gilariverrider Gilariverrider 22:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I propose this article be looked over for potential bias. -- Caserini 11:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Because I think there is sufficient reason to conclude this article is slanted. I think it needs fresh eyes. Until that is completed, I am adding the NPOV check AGAIN. Please don't remove it until this is finished. It is up for discussion because I nominated it to be fact checked and reviewed for bias. Caserini 02:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree otherwise I would have left this alone. You have been on this for a long time. I think it is biased against Mr. Ross. Just because YOU have reviewed it, doesn't mean it's done. I'll be waiting for others to chime in. I have nominated it for review, so just because YOU think it's finished doesn't mean much. Caserini 09:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I will mention I have a difficult time with the article explaining the Scott/Waco etc. cases, which are critical of Ross AND having another section for the criticism. It's redundant. Also, where are Ross' rebuttals other than having a 10 line paragraph of negativity and one line saying he denies this. It's ridiculous. So, Mr. Tilman, if you remove the tag again, I will call in an admin. -- Caserini 09:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I was directed to look at this article by the RFC. The article is clearly biased too heavily in favor of criticism. Not only is there a dedicated section for it at the bottom which is completely free of any responses, the 'Branch Davidian' section is at least half criticism. I'd like to remind people of the suggestion given on the Biographies of Living Persons guideline page:
"The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material."
The criticism is clearly overwhelming. That being said, I'm not claiming that any information in the article is actually wrong (I didn't personally read the sources). There's a few places where references should be added, but overall the article is above-average in that regard. I think somebody has to sit down and add some good sourced information in support of Ross. Merzbow 07:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
It is still HEAVILY biased, Tilman. I will use the next week to see if I can help it any with additional sources in favor of Mr. Ross.
Thank you for your input, Merzbow. It's much appreciated. Caserini 12:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I am re-adding the POV tags because it is not up to the standard of the Biographies of Living Persons. I mentioned last week that I would try and clean this up as best as I can by the end of this week. I have been busy.
Thank you Jossi for helping. Maybe you could help pair down the criticism section like you mentioned? Caserini 14:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I suggest this entry be blocked for non-registered users. This game with the "two poor-quality external links" has become tiresome. -- Tilman 08:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I think that the two links should remain because there seems to be no other critical links except ones approved by Ross supporters! Other sites like the one on the Potter's House Christian Fellowship has many biased links from people whom I have proven to be unreliable sources, but they still remain. Why is there discrimination here? Where is the neutrality?
Nick.
www.waymanmitchell.com - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Potters house ( talk • contribs) 2006-07-03 23:13:46
I will be forced to make an official complaint to Wiki staff about the links and the inclusion of the Potter's House on the critics list. If it was not written in an "encyclopedic" language then perhaps you could have edited it instead of deleting it totally. Wiki is a neutral encyclopedia for the people, not a place to advertise for corporations like Rick Ross.
Actually, the Potter's House is listed at the Ross Institute database and is a controversial group called a "cult" by some of its critics. See http://www.rickross.com/groups/door.html the group has been criticized by evangelicals, that don't see Potter's House as simply "having a bible based theology." - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 38.96.137.19 ( talk • contribs) 2006-07-06 06:16:28 (UTC)
See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pottershousechurchcfm/ There are about 5 people who are on the internet daily and they ANONYMOUSLY write to Rick and have been proven liars before. But Rick is not interested in the truth but to sensationalize rumours and lies.
Ok so now you have concluded that we are in fact a cult because Rick says so, and this is now your reason for the deletion of the links?? There is no need to get off the point. My original point is that you keep deleting the two links I put up on this page. Wiki is a free for all encyclopedia, it wouldn't surprise me if your wage comes from Ross. But to avoid personal attack I will keep to the point. How can any organization defend itself from Ross if the people he calls a cult are not able to place some defensive links here because Ross calls them a cult!! That is circular reasoning. I am not here to debate you, but to point out that this article is not neutral.
Nick.
- Your links are poor-quality and not notable. Your continual attempts to restore them are pointless because we're watching this page and are just going to revert them. The consensus is against these links. - Merzbow 06:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't have a "guru" but read the bible. Are you saying that you are now refusing the links because I am a Christian? What about http://www.parishioners.org/false_exp/rossr1.html ??
To involved editors: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Please do not make them. It is your responsibility to foster and maintain a positive online community in Wikipedia..
Some suggestions:
God is watching, too. :-) -- Uncle Ed 19:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
It's hard to say objectively that anyone is a "cult expert" because, first of all there is no generally accepted definition of what a cult is. The word itself is relative and subjective: "a cult is a religion regarded as spurious." Note that this is not the same as "a cult is a spurious religion".
So calling Ross or anyone else a "cult expert" means that he knows a lot of accurate and true information about "religions regarded as spurious". However, many sources disagree about Ross's "expertise". That disagreement should be described fairly in the article.
I would suggest moving the "cult expert" paragraph out of the intro into a section called, say, "Dispute over credentials" or "Dispute over cult expertise". The intro should introduce the dispute by saying something like
Tilman, what do YOU think? -- Uncle Ed 14:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
That's a good point: I agree. If Ross has served as an expert witness in court, that is a matter of fact. This doesn't mean he is a "real expert". It only means that a court allowed him to be called as an expert witness.
This fits the model of X said Y about Z. The court (X) used the term "expert witness" (Y) to describe Rick Ross (Z). Kind like Margaret Singer who "went on to testify as an expert witness in dozens of cases" before losing that right after her attempt to justify her mind control theory failed to gain APA endorsement. -- Uncle Ed 22:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
The section recently added by someone, probably Anton Hein or a close friend, isn't worth much as an encyclopedia entry. It's just griping and sniping. Hein's opinions don't amount to much. He doesn't document anything. "Ministry"? Is Hein a minister? Who ordained him and made him a "minister"? Apologetics Index is just a Web site run by Hein. He doesn't like Ross. OK. But is Wikipedia the place for him go on about it?
So I went to sleep, woke up and you (38.96.137.19) still haven't improved your changes:
I'll still wait a few hours, giving you the chance to improve this. If you don't, I'll edit/revert. While it's ok to mention the criticism and the response, this should be put in a neutral tone - let the reader decide who is right. (personally, I haven't, so I'm rather neutral in this dispute) Finally, please sign your posts with --~~~~ in discussions. -- Tilman 04:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Please note that NNDB ( http://www.nndb.com) is not a reliable source for information about living people. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I reviewed all the evidence in all the references and put a point by point and date by date list in. I noticed another editor has removed most of my compilation of the facts. Before any further edits are done could we discuss that here please
After mor research I discovered articals which supported what other editors had done. It would have been better if it had been discussed here, but that life Mark1800 06:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Most of the negative information about Rick Ross is unsourced. I'm removing most of it as per WP:BLP. wikipediatrix 23:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Just because something is properly sourced doesn't mean it's fair. This is what's known as "Undue weight". Note how the article says all this:
"The role of Ross before and during the Branch Davidian standoff at Waco, Texas caused some controversy.
Ross deprogrammed Branch Davidian David Block in 1992, prior to the raid. That Davidian was later interviewed by the BATF, which also interviewed Ross. Ross says he deprogrammed another Davidian during the standoff, but this was not reported. He was also one source quoted in the Waco Tribune-Herald's series titled "Sinful Messiah" for which they interviewed over 100 people.
According to the FBI Ross approached them during the standoff and requested that he be interviewed, which he was. The Report to the Deputy Attorney General on the Events at Waco, Texas (February 28 to April 19, 1993) states that:
The FBI interviewed Ross only at Ross' request, and politely declined his unsolicited offers of assistance throughout the standoff. The FBI treated the information Ross supplied as it would any other unsolicited information received from the public: it evaluated the credibility of the information and treated it accordingly[10]".
And then has only this to say about the subject's side of the story:
Ross states that this information is not correct and details that he was contacted by FBI agent Bobby L. Siller on March 4, 1993 and in the later course by several others which he also names.
After this weak chance at rebuttal, the article goes on with further info critical of Ross:
Nancy Ammerman insisted they relied too much on Ross, a view which is not shared by the other three experts reporting to the Justice department. In her official report to the Justice Department Ammerman wrote: In late March, Ross recommended that agents attempt to humiliate Koresh, hoping to drive a wedge between him and his followers. While Ross's suggestions may not have been followed to the letter, FBI agents apparently believed that their attempts to embarrass Koresh (talking about his inconsistencies, lack of education, failures as a prophet, and the like) would produce the kind of internal dissension Ross predicted. Because Ross had been successful in using such tactics on isolated and beleaguered members during deprogramming, he must have assumed that they would work en masse. Any student of group psychology could have dispelled that misapprehension. But the FBI was evidently listening more closely to these deprogramming-related strategies than to the counsel of scholars who might have explained the dynamics of a group under siege[11].
And again, Ross gets only a few scant words devoted to his side:
In his account to the Department of Justice, Ross gives very different examples of advice he gave to the FBI agents.
I'm tempted to yank the whole thing until it can be rewritten fairly. Any thoughts, anyone? wikipediatrix 23:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
You can see the unsourced/improperly sourced text I removed, and you can see Jossi immediately reverting it back here.
I'd like to hear a detailed defense for Jossi's actions. wikipediatrix 23:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
None of the "www.rrexposed.u2k.biz" citation links work. wikipediatrix 23:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Why the deletion of this text? It is based on Ross's website material.
Deletion of properly sourced material, is considered vandalism. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Ditto regarding this text:
From http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/issues/1995-11-30/news/feature2_3.html : "It hasn't made him rich. Although his deprogramming fee is $500 a day, plus expenses, he never has earned more than $31,000 in a single year, and he rarely makes more than $20,000. He's motivated not by money, he says, but by the calls he gets from distraught parents--and the debt he believes he owes those who helped him get out of jail and get his own life in order. Since then, he had managed to keep from running afoul of the law."
≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I would expect that these editors that deleted properly sourced material, restore it. If the need is to provide inline citations rather than Harvad syle referencing, please say so. Note that both formats are acceptable. See
WP:CITE#Harvard_referencing
≈ jossi ≈
t •
@
00:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Replaced Harvard referencing with ref tags for these two paragraphs that were deleted. One of them is base on Ross' own words (from his website) and the other from Ortega's article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
The article states "Nancy Ammerman insisted they relied too much on Ross, a view which is not shared by the other three experts reporting to the Justice department." And yet, even though hers is clearly stated to be a minority opinion, a long second paragraph devoted to a quote from her follows thereafter. That's giving too much of a percentage of the article to someone whose opinion doesn't matter nearly as much as Ross himself, who only gets a sentence of weak rebuttal. wikipediatrix 00:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I removed this paragraph, and User:Jossi restored it with the edit summary "no, sorry. All material has been researched and refs added."
"Ross is criticized for his lack of academic credentials, for the two felony crimes in his twenties previously mentioned, and for his former deprogramming activities, the tort of unlawful imprisonment. A great part of the criticism originates from those associated with new religious movements, controversial groups or organizations which are listed in his website, such as the Church of Scientology and the Kabbalah Centre. "
So where's the source for this paragraph? wikipediatrix 00:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
[rm persomal attack] He is here to use Wikipedia as a platform to attack people he doesn't like and advance his POV. It is people like Jossi that are increasingly giving Wikipedia a bad name as an unreliable source for information. See http://www.rickross.com/reference/general/general865.html . Even though Wikipedia's disclaimer essentially says that what's here should be discounted and that entries may not be true, some people are too lazy to read the disclaimers and actually may think of Wikipedia as a regular research resource, which it is not. One quick proof, the entry for Rick Ross is now longer than those for Jonas Salk and Marie Curie. The length of a Wikipedia entry seems to depend upon how many folks *[rm personal attack]* are out there with an axe to grind, though if the person they don't like is dead (see Margaret Singer and Louis Jolyon West), regardless of importance, the critics are less likely to pile on. They seem to prefer using Wikipedia to attack their perceived living enemies. All in all it's often a pretty pathetic collection of petty wranglings here at Wikipedia and this entry demonstrates that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.91.230 ( talk • contribs)
Jossi:
Isn't your agenda as a follower of Maharaji, a guru that has been called a "cult leader," to post/revert whatever you can at Wikipedia to discredit cult critics, censoring even the discussion here? Do you have any other purpose here? And isn't this the purpose of your edits on various related subjects at Wikipedia? I suppose you will cut this labeling it as a "personal attack," but your involvement with Maharahi does explain why your editing is biased, reflects your POV and beleifs.
You may want to make a request at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard, so that other editors can help apply WP:BLP to this article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Per a helpful and kind suggestion by User:Jossi, I have placed my original above comment RE: the Unbalanced and personally attacking/nature of this article, at Section on Rick Ross. Again, my suggestion would be to shorten all of the long sections on major incidents that Rick Ross dealt with, and refer the user out to those main articles, as was done by User:Jossi with my original cut-and-paste to Rick_Ross_(consultant)#Landmark_Education_vs._Rick_Ross_Institute. By the way, I think specifically to that edit, I had no problem with User:Jossi shortening that part and referring the reader out to the main article on that topic, that is exactly what should be done with the other sections, to shorten the article's size and negatively-weighed nature of the whole piece. Yours, Smeelgova 03:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC).
Is Mr. Ross a researcher? I do not see any credentials listed in his biography. All other researcher in that category, have credentilas and have published the result of their research. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
List:
I would not object to a category about lecturers or consultants, but adding Mr. Ross to List of cult and new religious movement researchers may not be appropriate. I have not seen any books or articles by Mr. Ross, that warrant a such a categorization. See other articles in that category. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
These are not publications, these are a few articles, some of which are only available on his website. The first one is a book by Tim Madigan. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I cannot find any information about "The Missionary Threat, Institute for First Amendment Studies" anywhere. Citattion requested for WP:V ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I have contributed as much as I could to this article. No longer on my watchlist. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I have gutted, sacked, looted the article because almost none of it is sourced, and even the parts that are sourced are improperly weighted, as per the Jimbo's standards for articles on living persons. See WP:BLP. An article about a living person, even a controversial one, is not a "This is Your Life" for huge multi-paragraph sections to be devoted to every person on Earth they've ever pissed off. Like many controversial figures, there are no shortage of sources for people out there saying bad things about Rick Ross, but that doesn't mean they all need to be here. Can you imagine what bloated hate-fests the articles for Woody Allen, L. Ron Hubbard, or Britney Spears would be if all their haters got to chime in? Let's start this article again from the ground up, keeping WP:BLP in mind as well as WP:V and WP:RS. wikipediatrix 22:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
After having slept over it, I have decided to restore all of Wikipediatrix deletions. And I have also added a source for the Jason Scott case. That source was already in the unordered list anyway.
If the sources are poorly ordered, the solution is not to delete the whole article. "Delete first, discuss later" makes only sense, IMO, for extraordinary claims like in the Seigenthaler affair. This article is being watched by many people, so it is being checked for unsourced allegations.
The most that can (and should) be done, is to tag any apparently unsourced claims and put more sources (from the unordered list) at the appropriate places.
Rick Ross is a controversial person. He knows this himself, which is why he features parts of this on his own website. So it makes sense to feature these controversies here, with his position on it. -- Tilman 06:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I also see that Jason Scott (Life Tabernacle Church) seems to have been removed. Anyone knows when & why? -- Tilman 06:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sfacets This editor "Sfacets" is devoted to Sahaja Yoga, which is a group led by Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi, that is listed at the Ross Institute database (see http://www.rickross.com/groups/shahaja.html ). Wikipedia is often not taken seriously as an objective encyclopedia source because people with an "axe to grind" come here and edit to attack and/or discredit someone they don't like. This entry has gone back and forth historically on that basis. I have reverted it again to read NPOV and focused on the subject, rather than POV. 68.38.91.230 15:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I've posted an invitation for comments and review by other editors to WP:BLPN just now. wikipediatrix 19:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Somebody reverted this: In 1975, Ross received a felony conviction for "Conspiracy to Commit Grand Theft." He was given probation on the condition that he get psychiatric counseling. [30] This is sourced to Rick Ross's website. Is that considered an unreliable source? -- 172.190.53.213 15:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
First of all, what does this 31-year-old record have to do with this encyclopedia entry? It is an incident that took place years before Ross began his cult work. In the document you refer to it says, "As a term of my probation (later explained) I was a assigned to counseling. This counseling was provided by a State employed psychiatrist, who subsequently released me from that requirement a year later. I have never been diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder, nor treated at a hospital for a mental disorder." Seems like what you are trying to do is mislead the public by attempting to infer that Ross required psychiatric treatment for a disorder rather than "counseling," which is routinely recommended for many people that are put on probation and he was released from without incident. Again, your agenda is showing here. You are here to attack Ross and discredit him, not to help through a NPOV an encyclopedia entry. 68.38.91.230 14:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
(Refactored personal attacks from this page. Refactored text can be found in this diff ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Properly sourced material has been deleted from this article for no apparent reason. What happened? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Jossi--The explanation is very simple if you look back over very long discussion and changes concerning this entry. This is supposedly and encyclopedia entry not a place to bash people you don't like. This entry had become a long rambling critique on Ross not an NPOV fact based entry for an encyclopedia. [refactor PA]]. If Wikipedia is to be taken seriously as a source, rather than ridiculed as a flaky collection of idiosyncratic entries and rants, it's important not to litter it with POV entries designed to denigrate people you don't like. The explanation for each of my edits is explained and attached. If you continue let's agree that this is a biased and not neutral entry. And should be so noted. 68.38.91.230 14:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
OK. The Jason Scott case is included in the Scientology attack, which is cited and linked. Again, the focus of the entry is Ross not Scott and Ross' assorted critics. Criticism is noted and linked. Perhaps that's not enough for those that would prefer to make this entry more of a polemic as opposed to an encyclopedia entry. Again, this type of abuse here only serves to make users think that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. 68.38.91.230 16:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
The Scott case is not that meaningful historically, but the Waco Davidian standoff is. This entry need not go on and on as Ross is not that important. 68.38.91.230 16:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
The criminal record has been deleted. It is not relevant to Ross' work and little more than an attempt to color him as negative. It is also misleading. It seems to imply that Ross received probation due to a psychiatric report. But according to the explanation offered at Ross response to critics there were a number of reasons given for probation, such as full restitution, police not opposing probation, nor those that had their property returned. Ross specifically states, "My felony conviction was for "Conspiracy to Commit Grand Theft" in 1975. This specifically concerned the embezzlement of property from a jewelry company, where a friend of mine was employed. My friend and I were both involved. Everything taken was returned to the satisfaction of the store and the police did not oppose probation. No one was physically hurt in any way and this was not a violent crime. I plead guilty and was sentenced to probation. Two psychiatrists submitted evaluations to the court, both recommended that I receive probation. One of those psychiatrists who recommended probation was Dr. Domiciano E. Santos of Arizona State Hospital, quoted by Scientology/CAN. Dr. Santos saw me briefly for counseling as a term of my probation. However, he terminated that counseling early, satisfied with my progress and adjustment." The Scientology Web site with the large report about Ross does not dispute any of these facts. 68.38.91.230
Since Wikipediatrix has been blocked for a week (not sure what it was about, and she hasn't been active here anyway for a month), I've decided to be bold and to restore the last "big balanced" version. The current one is just a stub.
It is somewhat difficult to see if any "good" edits were made after that. I suspect that many of them were already in the "big balanced" version.
Please don't be a Wikipediatrix and delete again. If you find something specific unsourced, I'll come up with the source within 24 hours or delete it myself :-) A maximum of 5 facts per day, please. However I believe that all is sourced - at worst, some of the sources are at the bottom. Just tell me and I'll correct it, like I did in the Lisa McPherson article. -- Tilman 09:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree somewhat with 68.38.91.230 that the entry is somewhat misleading. The fact that he had a psychiatric evaluation is irrelevant, I suspect this is always done. The entry is a bit too detailed - although I'm not yet sure what to delete (I'll think about it if the definition isn't wikipediatrixed again). And I'd also wish to have a different source than the rrexposed site. A solution would be that Rick Ross put these documents on his own website. -- Tilman 15:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
OK. Then why so much details in 30-year-old criminal record that has been vacated? Such as citing "306 items of jewlery. (Case number 89445)." [refactored]. Seems like too much detail in this section considering it records something not relevant to cults, cult deprogramming etc. Again, more wasted space can be seen in citation of "Missionary Threat" article, fees descriptions and that no more "$20,000 is collected by Ross Institute." Who cares? More unncecessary details. The list of critics is too long and also unnecessary. "Apologetics Index," Steve Hassan etc. Is this going to be an encyclopedia entry or a gripes page to list anyone and everyone? An apologetics religious site is of little importance and carries little weight and Ross' competitors griping about him, so what? Once again, all this should be cut 68.38.91.230 14:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I see that Smeelgova followed my suggestion. (diff [32]) Thank you. However you missed some, and deleted some that may or may not apply. Here's a list of cites that I'm not sure if they could still apply:
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link){{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)-- Tilman 05:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
BabyDweezil, POV material is allowed to be in an article. Tanaats 22:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Smeelgova's continued deletions of sourced material that presents well sourced biographical material in an NPOV manner is beginning to border on vandalism. It should stop. BabyDweezil 19:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
(UTC)
:BabyDweezil, look first to yourself.
Tanaats
20:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Allow me to restate. BabyDweezil, before criticizing another editor, please consider the fact that you have deleted well-sourced material, sometimes great amounts of it, on a number of articles. Tanaats 20:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
And, Ed, this does pertain directly to this article. We don't want similar wholesale deletions here. Tanaats 20:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
BabyDweezil seems to be on an interesting mission using Wikipedia to express his POV. Looking at his or her editing over at "Cults" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cult )and reading through the discussion there, BabyDweezil goes on and on about Ross and the Ross "database." It seems like Wikipedia at times becomes a place for those who have an "axe to grind" with someone or something to vent and rant under the guise of "editing." If this kind of thing becomes widespread within Wikipedia can it ever be taken seriously as a research resource? In this sense Wikipedia is at times like reading a debate between letter writers within a newspaper's Op/Ed section or a "flame war" at an on-line message board. Is that the intent and/or mission of Wikipedia?
BabyDweezil also seems to be focused in part on cults like Jossi in what has been called "edit wars" and at times deletes from Wikipedia files without consensus or discussion. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BabyDweezil How does this help entries in Wikipedia? It seems like some people are not that interested in accurate content and facts, but rather either expressing a POV and/or attacking someone or something they don't like. It is important at controversial Wikipedia entries like this one to recognize the history of some editors and what baggage they bring to the table. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.0.42.27 ( talk • contribs).
The criticism section by definition is not the place to list ross' accomplishments or qualifications. That section should be dedicated to criticism of Ross. Mr Christopher 19:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Smee, per above, original research cannot be used as a rebuttal to criticism. You would need to find a WP:RS that specifically rebuts the criticism made in the article, not you own rebuttal via sources that appeared in entirely different contexts. BabyDweezil 19:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
In presenting an opinion, moreover, it is important to bear in mind that there are disagreements about how opinions are best stated; sometimes, it will be necessary to qualify the description of an opinion or to present several formulations, simply to arrive at a solution that fairly represents all the leading views of the situation.
-- Justanother 20:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)But it is not enough, to express the Wikipedia non-bias policy, just to say that we should state facts and not opinions. When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It is also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view.
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |