![]() | 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 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
The "Further Reading" section has become another place that Jossi/Jayen466 hope to slant and bias my bio. Specifically. They apparently hope to weigh it toward their view. For example, "The Cultic Milieu: Oppositional Subcultures in an Age of Globalization" includes a chapter by J. Gordon Melton about the so-called "anti-cult movement." Melton has been paid large fees by cults to do "research," which ultimately is used to apologize for their behavior. He is not an objective, nor a credible source. The book about Waco "From the ashes" presents a certain author's point of view concerning the Branch Davidians, David Koresh and the standoff. It seems to me that the "Further Reading" section should be more balanced. Here are some books that are by very well respected authors that could be added; "See No Evil" by Tim Madigan, "Cults in Our Midst" by Margaret Singer and "Snapping" by Flo Conway and Jim Siegelman. The first edition (1978) of "Snapping" was not self-published, though the second printing is published by Stillpoint Press, which is owned/operated by Conway and Siegelman. Rick Alan Ross ( talk) 19:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Bringing up the well-established historical destructive cult status of Osho/Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh and the fact that Jayen466 is a devotee of the dead guru, is not a "personal attack." Instead, it is the most salient point to explain his activities generally on Wikipedia and narrow focus of subjects. For example, this bio. This is directly related to Jayen466 POV and bias in editing. Rick Alan Ross ( talk) 13:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
The following statement is false and/or grossly misleading. "Ross and his assistants had handcuffed Scott, placed duct tape over his mouth, held him in a seaside cottage under restraint for five days and told him he would only be released after the completion of the deprogramming."
1. Jason Scott was specifically secured by the three security people hired by his mother Kathy Tonkin. Ms. Tonkin was present at all times. I did not handcuff Jason, nor did I place duct tape over his mouth.
2. Jason was handcuffed and had duct tape over his mouth for a very brief period during the first day. Jason was not free to leave the cottage until his mother gave permission, but his mother and two younger brothers were present at all times. Jason ate and slept with his family. Rick A. Ross ( talk) 17:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
A quick search on Google showed a lot of articles disputing Rick Ross's self-proclaimed expertise on cults.. Maybe someone want to start a section on this..?
http://www.google.com/search?q=rick+ross+cult —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.185.207.244 ( talk) 14:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
My expertise regarding cults has been accepted in court within 10 states, including US Federal Court through what is called a "Daubert Hearing."
See http://www.rickross.com/witness.html
Note the court record at http://www.rickross.com/reference/expert_witness/expert_witness7.html
Most recently I was an official guest of the Chinese government and attended the International Forum on Cultic Studies sponsored by the the Centre for the Study of Destructive Cults in China. The paper I presented was published by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.
See http://www.cultnews.com/?p=2346
I was retained by Miramax/Disney to be the technical consultant to actor Harvey Keitel, in the movie "Holy Smoke."
"Self-proclaimed" is a very misleading way to describe an expertise, which has been widely and officially recognized.
Needless to say I have my critics, but they have never succeeded in having any court refuse to qualify me as an expert, though they certainly have made every effort. 96.248.94.7 ( talk) 16:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Rick, can you point out any problems with these edits of 2 February 2009? -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 20:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
COI tag was not backed up by anything. Therefore, removed it from this WP:BLP page. Cirt ( talk) 11:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Criminal record lacks detail and should not include his excuse.
1. Specifically: 'Ross has admitted making mistakes: "I had been in trouble as a young man, and I turned my life around ... I never again in my life made another mistake like that."'
This is history. Not PR. We should not be allowing the individual documented to make excuses for their history within these pages. That quote should not be there. Instead these facts should be presented without bias. Let both this individuals history as a criminal and not stand on its own. Find me the Britannica entry where the history of a criminal includes the quotation of his or her "excuse" - I cannot. Simply put, let history show Rick Ross the Burglar and Embezzler as clearly and concisely as it shows Rick Ross the Cult Expert.
2. Specifically: "In 1974 a court convicted Ross for the attempted burglary of a vacant model home and sentenced him to probation.[3] The following year he received a sentence of five years' probation for his involvement in a jewelry embezzlement scheme at a retail store in Arizona."
The word present in the first sentence that is key but lacks follow-up is "convicted". The word missing from the second sentence is the same as one does not receive sentencing in court without conviction. The missing follow-up is nature of those convictions. What were the charges exactly? Were they misdemeanors or felonies? Is Rick Ross a convicted felon? That seems a key piece of information this article has omitted.
3. Specifically: "In 1983, the Maricopa County Superior Court vacated both judgments of guilt in the absence of any opposition, dismissed the charges and restored Ross's civil rights."
Restoration of Ross's civil rights implies he was indeed a convicted felon and remained such for eight or nine years (i.e. fro either 1974 with the burglary conviction or 1975 with the embezzlement conviction). The vacating of judgement in the "absence of any opposition" doesn't prove innocence. It merely implies Ross was savvy enough to wait until there wasn't anyone around to oppose him before seeking to evade his own history. Wikipedia should not be facilitating him in that effort. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fbonds ( talk • contribs) 03:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
[1] = regarding this, primary sources should not be advanced on BLP pages for purposes of denigrating the subject of the BLP page. -- Cirt ( talk) 15:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I'd added a couple of points which have been reverted. My version before reversion is at 14:46, 28 September 2010; the differences are at http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Rick_Ross_%28consultant%29&diff=387550262&oldid=387539388
I'll explain my thinking here, but won't take any further action - if others agree with me I'd ask them to reinstate my edit, or add similar information to tie up loose ends.
The article before my edit mentioned the NXIVM Corporation, but didn't say what it was or did. I copied the sentence from the NXIVM website that started " "NXIVM is...". Either that, or some other brief description of what NXIVM 'is, is in my opinion needed; use of their own words is best.
The article before I changed it say that NXIVM was suing Ross for breach of copyright. I think it's highly relevant that the contract signed by the person who gave Ross the information had a "non-return of materials is fraud" clause.
This is factual information which makes the NXIVM issue more comprehensible (when I read the article I had never heard of NXIVM and had no idea what it was). If my suggestions are considered not to be neutral, don't include them, but it does leave a bit of vagueness. Pol098 ( talk) 18:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Upon expiry of this ban, any editor may remove this notice. Please refer to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology, the relevant Arbitration case in which the editor was banned, for further details. |- ! colspan="2" |
This notice was posted by {{{4| Mailer Diablo 02:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC) on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Rick Alan Ross |}
{{
Old AfD full}}
bck to the talk page. All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 19:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC).
I agree with the potter's house portion being removed as that was absurdly Undue but both the Jason Scott and Waco siege are both entirely appropriate for their own subsection The Resident Anthropologist ( talk) 19:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Should CESNUR pages be automatically assumed as WP:RS sources in a BLP article? Frankly, I think that they're pretty biased and rather dubious. (They have extensive pages on Buffy the Vampire Slayer too.) AndroidCat ( talk) 06:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
There are a number of controversies about Rick Ross which are detailed elsewhere and have verifiable sources. Should there be a section in this article dedicated to these issues or is their coverage in the Rick A. Ross Institute section enough? Wcwarren ( talk) 03:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Diff = Removed, as violations of WP:UNDUE WEIGHT in a WP:BLP article. -- Cirt ( talk) 15:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
[2] = contentious controversial info about a BLP. It this noteworthy for inclusion? Can this please be verified with quote from source? Is The Nation an appropriate source for this info? -- Cirt ( talk) 00:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
In 1993, it was reported that Ross was facing charges of unlawful imprisonment in the State of Washington due to a forceable detention of a intended deprogramming victim. This victim was identified as Jason Scott, an 18-year-old member of a United Pentecostal Church in Bellevue, Washington. In 1995 Ross filed for personal bankruptcy following a substantial damages award against him in a civil trial for actions associated with an attempt to deprogram Scott. FWest2 ( talk) 00:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that the Jason Scott case has an entire page with over 40 citations. Why doesn't the Rick Ross page have a section dedicated to the case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porfiry Petrovich deux ( talk • contribs) 23:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
The following paragraph seems to have a bit of an organizational problem:
In 1995 Ross filed for personal bankruptcy following a substantial damages award against him in a civil trial for actions associated with an attempt to deprogram Jason Scott, an 18-year-old member of a United Pentecostal Church in Bellevue, Washington.[34][35][36] Two men seized Scott;[37] he then experienced handcuffing, duct tape placed over his mouth, and confinement in a seaside cottage for five days. The deprogramming personnel restrained him and told him his release depended on the completion of the deprogramming.[35][38][39][40][41][42] A January 1994 jury trial for unlawful imprisonment resulted in acquittal for Ross.[40][43][44][45] A subsequent civil suit resulted in a judgment awarding Scott US$5 million in compensatory and punitive damages from a number of defendants, of which $3 million were from Ross.[20][46] In 1996 plaintiff Scott became reconciled with his mother and dismissed his Scientologist lawyer, Kendrick Moxon;[42] he then settled with Ross, accepting $5,000 plus 200 hours of Ross's professional services "as an expert consultant and intervention specialist".[34][42] [edit]
We go from 1995, discussing the implications of the civil suit, then talk about the Jason Scott case, then about the 1994 criminal trial, then the civil trial. How about starting in order with the Scott Case, then talking about the criminal case, then the civil suit and its implications. I also wonder, why mention the religious orientation of Scott's lawyer? It doesn't seem that important to be honest. Let me know what you think about the suggestions! FWest2 ( talk) 23:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Also through reading parts of the article I am confused. The page states that: "As of 2004, Ross had handled more than 350 deprogramming cases in various countries including the United States, the United Kingdom, Israel and Italy, with a typical cost of around $5,000 per case (in 2008 dollars).[3][15]"
However, later in the page it states "As a result of the legal risks involved, Ross stopped advocating coercive deprogramming or involuntary interventions for adults, preferring instead voluntary exit counseling without the use of force or restraint.[47] He states that despite refinement of processes over the years, exit counseling and deprogramming continue to depend on the same principles.[47]" So did he continue deprogramming until 2004, before the transition to exit counseling or is the information conflicting? FWest2 ( talk) 23:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
We need to add a criminal history section to the Rick Ross page. We need to address the attempted burglary and embezzlement convictions in his past. This article mentions them in passing but even Ross acknowledges that they played a formative role in his life. Plus any BLP must address these types of controversies. Porfiry Petrovich deux ( talk) 01:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Do we want to note what happened in the Scott cases in the lead? It seems jarring to me, but I've left it in (reworded) for the moment. I'm on the fence about it.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 16:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Is there a reason that the material on Wikisource about this individual is not linked-to in this article? -- 208.81.184.4 ( talk) 20:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- is this a wikisource link a beneficial addition? Off2riorob ( talk) 19:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I've reverted an edit by User:LogicalFinance33. The edit separated out controversial information from the body of the article into its own section titled "controversy". That is not a good way to structure an article and infact the guidelines specifically discourage dedicating sections to criticism or controversy which should preferably be integrated into the overall flow of the article - as it was the case here prior to LogicalFinance33's edit. I have no problems with the additional sourcing of course. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 23:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I've moved the burglary material back into chronological order and removed it from the lead. He is not known in any way for the crimes he committed in his youth. While they may belong in the bio, they are not important enough to draw so much attention to them.
Will Beback
talk
00:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
The article relies extensively on Religious Freedom Watch. Apparently, it is run by the Church of Scientology with the purpose of attacking its critics. Scientology controversies#"Dead agenting". On what basis are we considering it a reliable source for a BLP? Will Beback talk 10:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
the most recent discussion at WP:RSN of the Apologetics Index website seems to have concluded that it is not a reliable source. It is apparently a self-published source. The Ross page is specifically written by Anton Hein, the founder and owner of the site. [3] While it might argued that it's suitable for articles on religious groups, the standards are stricter for biographies of living people. Any other thoughts? Will Beback talk 21:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
From the States News service, a quote from the Civil Court decision in the Scott case: Ross and his associates "intentionally or recklessly acted in a way so outrageous in character and so extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community."
The Nation: Professor Nancy Ammerman of the Candler School of Theology at Emory University. Ross and CAN “have a direct ideological (and financial) interest in arousing suspicion and antagonism against what they call "cults." "Ross has a history of emotional disturbance and is also a convicted jewel thief." "[The government agents] should have understood the pervasiveness of religious experimentation in American history and the fundamental right of groups like the Davidians to practice their religion .... They should have understood that many new religious movements do indeed ask for commitments that seem abnormal to most of us, and these commitments do mean the disruption of "normal" family and work lives .... They should also understand that the vast majority of those who make such commitments do so voluntarily. The notion of "cult brainwashing" has been thoroughly discredited in the academic community."
From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, an interesting further insight into the Scott case: April 9, 1998
"Tonkin had joined the Life Tabernacle Church, a branch of the United Pentecostal Church, in 1991. She left less than two years later, but her three oldest sons wanted to stay. Two, age 16 and 13, were involuntarily deprogrammed by Ross, but Jason Scott, 18, resisted after being abducted and held captive for five days, the court said."
The Humanist July 1, 1993, speaks of Ross's involvement in the Northeast Kingdom Community fiasco: "Likewise, some years back police descended upon the Northeast Kingdom Community, a Christian commune in Island Pond, Vermont, with a long history of cordial relations with the town. There the authorities alleged that children were being systematically abused by "cult members," and some 350 kids were swept up in a raid that was as dramatic as it was expensive. An investigation followed, and shamefaced state officials were forced to concede that child abuse had indeed taken place --when the terrified kids were rounded up during the sweep itself. One of the experts relied upon in the Island Pond case was Rick Ross, professional deprogrammer and self-proclaimed anti-cultist. Ironically, Ross was one of several cult experts consulted by ATF in the Branch Davidian stand-off which began, in part, due to child-abuse allegations."
From The Philadelphia Tribune May 17, 1994 by Lenora Fulani, chairperson of the New Alliance Party and a practicing social therapist in Harlem:
"They insist that those in Congress responsible for overseeing federal law enforcement look into the clear abuse of government agencies. In particular, the Cult Awareness Network (CAN) and the American Family Foundation (AFF) demonized the Branch Davidians.
These two organizations label as "cults" religious and political groups which they don't like, and claim that membership in these "cults" destroys an individual's free will and rationality, inevitably leading to crime. As Deborah Green, a partner in Ross & Green, points out, "The Cult Awareness Network has played a major role in propagating an atmosphere of intolerance, fear and violence against new, smaller, non-mainstream religions."
Both before, during and after the 51-day siege and subsequent massacre at Waco, CAN and AFF spokespersons had easy access to the media. By their own count they gave hundreds of interviews to the radio and print media during this period in which they warned the American people about the supposed evil characteristics of "cults" and advocated the use of lethal force against them.
Even more insidiously, a CAN associate appears to have had the ear of the ATF and the FBI throughout this period. A report researched and written for the Justice Department by Dr. Nancy Amerman of Emory University, documents the active role played by Rick Ross, a CAN-associated "deprogrammer" with a criminal record stretching back to 1975."
The Nation May 9, 1994 by Alexander Cockburn
The weekend before the anniversary I got a call from Balenda Ganem, mother of a man who'd been in the compound that day. "My son David Thibodeau was one survivor of the fire. He was married to David Koresh's sister-in-law, Michelle. "My son was 24 at the time of the fire. "Already in Bangor I'd been in touch with Rick Ross, who was acting as an independent cult deprogrammer' and informant to the A.T.F. and F.B.I. When I got to know him in Waco, I understood that he was instigating the most negative aspect of the situation because he wished violence toward David Koresh. He never said he wanted him to be helped out. He wanted him to be wiped out. This is what he told me. He looked forward to David Koresh being in jail, where he would be tortured and raped, like he had done to the others in Mount Carmel. That's when I understood that this man was not working for the greater good. He had a personal vendetta. He wanted a cult leader; God, it was his passion. Reached for a comment by my colleague Steven Dudley, Rick Ross called Ganem a "pathological liar" and said, "I was constantly trying to get the F.B.I. to change; I tried to encourage them to work with families ... to avoid a violent end."
All interesting and perhaps useful for the article. Rumiton ( talk) 14:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Over the past few days I’ve been looking through the archives here and WOW, there is an unbelievable amount of controversy that exists over this page. Keeping that in mind I will be careful in edits I make and will try to bring up anything that may be deemed controversial (which is probably most things with this topic) here on the talk page.
That being said I would like to help in improving the article. I think the first paragraph in the Rick A. Ross Institute section should be moved to instead be the last paragraph in the preceding Consultant, lecturer, and deprogrammer section. It seems much more suited to be in the preceding section based on its content (dealing with his work as a deprogrammer). If it is moved then the first paragraph in the Ross Institute section would instead be the one starting with “In 1996 Ross started a website titled "The Ross Institute Internet Archives…”, which makes more sense to me.
Since I don't think this is controversial I'm going to go ahead with the edit. LogicalFinance33 ( talk) 00:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I noticed that the article for Steven Hassan has a large criticism section with questionable sources. From what I've gathered Hassan has had much less criticism than Ross, so either his criticism section should probably be removed entirely or we can justify having a small one on this page if it is acceptable. I've seen many pages on BLP's on Wikipedia with criticism or controversy sections. I don't believe it is necessary or good practice to list out all of the criticism. However, it seems like Ross has had enough people criticize his background and credentials that it would be notable to at least mention that the criticism exists. It is apparent by looking at the talk page that there is controversy surrounding Ross based on the multiple archives of arguing and the note at the top of the talk page that explicitly states, "The subject of this article is controversial." Something similar should be added into the article. LogicalFinance33 ( talk) 20:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
The source and material from Stuart Wright has been on this page for a long time. I believe you should have a good explanation of your reasoning for removing it and consensus before you do so? It is relevant to the page and the section it is in. LogicalFinance33 ( talk) 01:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi there, the notice on the article regarding Intro may no longer be needed. The intro now seems to cover the gist of the article,leaving nothing out that I can see. Would anyone be opposed to the removal of the tag? petrarchan47 t c 17:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi. The "Rick A. Ross Institute" changed its name to "Cult Education Institute". The website www.rickross.com has been sold; the new website is: http://www.culteducation.com. Please update. 87.183.205.179 ( talk) 09:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Already done Thanks,
Celestra (
talk)
22:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Rick Ross's website rickross.com has changed to http://www.culteducation.com/. His website "Cult News" has stayed the same. Incubeezer ( talk) 02:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Already done Thanks,
Celestra (
talk)
22:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
"In 1986 he began working full-time as a consultant, (sometimes involuntary) deprogramming members of controversial groups and movements." Should be "involuntarily". Or should it be volunteering? Doesn't make sense as is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.99.206.234 ( talk) 05:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
You're right, I'll change it Zambelo ( talk) 03:14, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
![]() | 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 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
The "Further Reading" section has become another place that Jossi/Jayen466 hope to slant and bias my bio. Specifically. They apparently hope to weigh it toward their view. For example, "The Cultic Milieu: Oppositional Subcultures in an Age of Globalization" includes a chapter by J. Gordon Melton about the so-called "anti-cult movement." Melton has been paid large fees by cults to do "research," which ultimately is used to apologize for their behavior. He is not an objective, nor a credible source. The book about Waco "From the ashes" presents a certain author's point of view concerning the Branch Davidians, David Koresh and the standoff. It seems to me that the "Further Reading" section should be more balanced. Here are some books that are by very well respected authors that could be added; "See No Evil" by Tim Madigan, "Cults in Our Midst" by Margaret Singer and "Snapping" by Flo Conway and Jim Siegelman. The first edition (1978) of "Snapping" was not self-published, though the second printing is published by Stillpoint Press, which is owned/operated by Conway and Siegelman. Rick Alan Ross ( talk) 19:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Bringing up the well-established historical destructive cult status of Osho/Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh and the fact that Jayen466 is a devotee of the dead guru, is not a "personal attack." Instead, it is the most salient point to explain his activities generally on Wikipedia and narrow focus of subjects. For example, this bio. This is directly related to Jayen466 POV and bias in editing. Rick Alan Ross ( talk) 13:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
The following statement is false and/or grossly misleading. "Ross and his assistants had handcuffed Scott, placed duct tape over his mouth, held him in a seaside cottage under restraint for five days and told him he would only be released after the completion of the deprogramming."
1. Jason Scott was specifically secured by the three security people hired by his mother Kathy Tonkin. Ms. Tonkin was present at all times. I did not handcuff Jason, nor did I place duct tape over his mouth.
2. Jason was handcuffed and had duct tape over his mouth for a very brief period during the first day. Jason was not free to leave the cottage until his mother gave permission, but his mother and two younger brothers were present at all times. Jason ate and slept with his family. Rick A. Ross ( talk) 17:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
A quick search on Google showed a lot of articles disputing Rick Ross's self-proclaimed expertise on cults.. Maybe someone want to start a section on this..?
http://www.google.com/search?q=rick+ross+cult —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.185.207.244 ( talk) 14:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
My expertise regarding cults has been accepted in court within 10 states, including US Federal Court through what is called a "Daubert Hearing."
See http://www.rickross.com/witness.html
Note the court record at http://www.rickross.com/reference/expert_witness/expert_witness7.html
Most recently I was an official guest of the Chinese government and attended the International Forum on Cultic Studies sponsored by the the Centre for the Study of Destructive Cults in China. The paper I presented was published by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.
See http://www.cultnews.com/?p=2346
I was retained by Miramax/Disney to be the technical consultant to actor Harvey Keitel, in the movie "Holy Smoke."
"Self-proclaimed" is a very misleading way to describe an expertise, which has been widely and officially recognized.
Needless to say I have my critics, but they have never succeeded in having any court refuse to qualify me as an expert, though they certainly have made every effort. 96.248.94.7 ( talk) 16:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Rick, can you point out any problems with these edits of 2 February 2009? -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 20:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
COI tag was not backed up by anything. Therefore, removed it from this WP:BLP page. Cirt ( talk) 11:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Criminal record lacks detail and should not include his excuse.
1. Specifically: 'Ross has admitted making mistakes: "I had been in trouble as a young man, and I turned my life around ... I never again in my life made another mistake like that."'
This is history. Not PR. We should not be allowing the individual documented to make excuses for their history within these pages. That quote should not be there. Instead these facts should be presented without bias. Let both this individuals history as a criminal and not stand on its own. Find me the Britannica entry where the history of a criminal includes the quotation of his or her "excuse" - I cannot. Simply put, let history show Rick Ross the Burglar and Embezzler as clearly and concisely as it shows Rick Ross the Cult Expert.
2. Specifically: "In 1974 a court convicted Ross for the attempted burglary of a vacant model home and sentenced him to probation.[3] The following year he received a sentence of five years' probation for his involvement in a jewelry embezzlement scheme at a retail store in Arizona."
The word present in the first sentence that is key but lacks follow-up is "convicted". The word missing from the second sentence is the same as one does not receive sentencing in court without conviction. The missing follow-up is nature of those convictions. What were the charges exactly? Were they misdemeanors or felonies? Is Rick Ross a convicted felon? That seems a key piece of information this article has omitted.
3. Specifically: "In 1983, the Maricopa County Superior Court vacated both judgments of guilt in the absence of any opposition, dismissed the charges and restored Ross's civil rights."
Restoration of Ross's civil rights implies he was indeed a convicted felon and remained such for eight or nine years (i.e. fro either 1974 with the burglary conviction or 1975 with the embezzlement conviction). The vacating of judgement in the "absence of any opposition" doesn't prove innocence. It merely implies Ross was savvy enough to wait until there wasn't anyone around to oppose him before seeking to evade his own history. Wikipedia should not be facilitating him in that effort. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fbonds ( talk • contribs) 03:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
[1] = regarding this, primary sources should not be advanced on BLP pages for purposes of denigrating the subject of the BLP page. -- Cirt ( talk) 15:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I'd added a couple of points which have been reverted. My version before reversion is at 14:46, 28 September 2010; the differences are at http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Rick_Ross_%28consultant%29&diff=387550262&oldid=387539388
I'll explain my thinking here, but won't take any further action - if others agree with me I'd ask them to reinstate my edit, or add similar information to tie up loose ends.
The article before my edit mentioned the NXIVM Corporation, but didn't say what it was or did. I copied the sentence from the NXIVM website that started " "NXIVM is...". Either that, or some other brief description of what NXIVM 'is, is in my opinion needed; use of their own words is best.
The article before I changed it say that NXIVM was suing Ross for breach of copyright. I think it's highly relevant that the contract signed by the person who gave Ross the information had a "non-return of materials is fraud" clause.
This is factual information which makes the NXIVM issue more comprehensible (when I read the article I had never heard of NXIVM and had no idea what it was). If my suggestions are considered not to be neutral, don't include them, but it does leave a bit of vagueness. Pol098 ( talk) 18:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Upon expiry of this ban, any editor may remove this notice. Please refer to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology, the relevant Arbitration case in which the editor was banned, for further details. |- ! colspan="2" |
This notice was posted by {{{4| Mailer Diablo 02:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC) on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Rick Alan Ross |}
{{
Old AfD full}}
bck to the talk page. All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 19:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC).
I agree with the potter's house portion being removed as that was absurdly Undue but both the Jason Scott and Waco siege are both entirely appropriate for their own subsection The Resident Anthropologist ( talk) 19:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Should CESNUR pages be automatically assumed as WP:RS sources in a BLP article? Frankly, I think that they're pretty biased and rather dubious. (They have extensive pages on Buffy the Vampire Slayer too.) AndroidCat ( talk) 06:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
There are a number of controversies about Rick Ross which are detailed elsewhere and have verifiable sources. Should there be a section in this article dedicated to these issues or is their coverage in the Rick A. Ross Institute section enough? Wcwarren ( talk) 03:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Diff = Removed, as violations of WP:UNDUE WEIGHT in a WP:BLP article. -- Cirt ( talk) 15:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
[2] = contentious controversial info about a BLP. It this noteworthy for inclusion? Can this please be verified with quote from source? Is The Nation an appropriate source for this info? -- Cirt ( talk) 00:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
In 1993, it was reported that Ross was facing charges of unlawful imprisonment in the State of Washington due to a forceable detention of a intended deprogramming victim. This victim was identified as Jason Scott, an 18-year-old member of a United Pentecostal Church in Bellevue, Washington. In 1995 Ross filed for personal bankruptcy following a substantial damages award against him in a civil trial for actions associated with an attempt to deprogram Scott. FWest2 ( talk) 00:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that the Jason Scott case has an entire page with over 40 citations. Why doesn't the Rick Ross page have a section dedicated to the case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porfiry Petrovich deux ( talk • contribs) 23:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
The following paragraph seems to have a bit of an organizational problem:
In 1995 Ross filed for personal bankruptcy following a substantial damages award against him in a civil trial for actions associated with an attempt to deprogram Jason Scott, an 18-year-old member of a United Pentecostal Church in Bellevue, Washington.[34][35][36] Two men seized Scott;[37] he then experienced handcuffing, duct tape placed over his mouth, and confinement in a seaside cottage for five days. The deprogramming personnel restrained him and told him his release depended on the completion of the deprogramming.[35][38][39][40][41][42] A January 1994 jury trial for unlawful imprisonment resulted in acquittal for Ross.[40][43][44][45] A subsequent civil suit resulted in a judgment awarding Scott US$5 million in compensatory and punitive damages from a number of defendants, of which $3 million were from Ross.[20][46] In 1996 plaintiff Scott became reconciled with his mother and dismissed his Scientologist lawyer, Kendrick Moxon;[42] he then settled with Ross, accepting $5,000 plus 200 hours of Ross's professional services "as an expert consultant and intervention specialist".[34][42] [edit]
We go from 1995, discussing the implications of the civil suit, then talk about the Jason Scott case, then about the 1994 criminal trial, then the civil trial. How about starting in order with the Scott Case, then talking about the criminal case, then the civil suit and its implications. I also wonder, why mention the religious orientation of Scott's lawyer? It doesn't seem that important to be honest. Let me know what you think about the suggestions! FWest2 ( talk) 23:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Also through reading parts of the article I am confused. The page states that: "As of 2004, Ross had handled more than 350 deprogramming cases in various countries including the United States, the United Kingdom, Israel and Italy, with a typical cost of around $5,000 per case (in 2008 dollars).[3][15]"
However, later in the page it states "As a result of the legal risks involved, Ross stopped advocating coercive deprogramming or involuntary interventions for adults, preferring instead voluntary exit counseling without the use of force or restraint.[47] He states that despite refinement of processes over the years, exit counseling and deprogramming continue to depend on the same principles.[47]" So did he continue deprogramming until 2004, before the transition to exit counseling or is the information conflicting? FWest2 ( talk) 23:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
We need to add a criminal history section to the Rick Ross page. We need to address the attempted burglary and embezzlement convictions in his past. This article mentions them in passing but even Ross acknowledges that they played a formative role in his life. Plus any BLP must address these types of controversies. Porfiry Petrovich deux ( talk) 01:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Do we want to note what happened in the Scott cases in the lead? It seems jarring to me, but I've left it in (reworded) for the moment. I'm on the fence about it.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 16:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Is there a reason that the material on Wikisource about this individual is not linked-to in this article? -- 208.81.184.4 ( talk) 20:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- is this a wikisource link a beneficial addition? Off2riorob ( talk) 19:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I've reverted an edit by User:LogicalFinance33. The edit separated out controversial information from the body of the article into its own section titled "controversy". That is not a good way to structure an article and infact the guidelines specifically discourage dedicating sections to criticism or controversy which should preferably be integrated into the overall flow of the article - as it was the case here prior to LogicalFinance33's edit. I have no problems with the additional sourcing of course. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 23:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I've moved the burglary material back into chronological order and removed it from the lead. He is not known in any way for the crimes he committed in his youth. While they may belong in the bio, they are not important enough to draw so much attention to them.
Will Beback
talk
00:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
The article relies extensively on Religious Freedom Watch. Apparently, it is run by the Church of Scientology with the purpose of attacking its critics. Scientology controversies#"Dead agenting". On what basis are we considering it a reliable source for a BLP? Will Beback talk 10:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
the most recent discussion at WP:RSN of the Apologetics Index website seems to have concluded that it is not a reliable source. It is apparently a self-published source. The Ross page is specifically written by Anton Hein, the founder and owner of the site. [3] While it might argued that it's suitable for articles on religious groups, the standards are stricter for biographies of living people. Any other thoughts? Will Beback talk 21:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
From the States News service, a quote from the Civil Court decision in the Scott case: Ross and his associates "intentionally or recklessly acted in a way so outrageous in character and so extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community."
The Nation: Professor Nancy Ammerman of the Candler School of Theology at Emory University. Ross and CAN “have a direct ideological (and financial) interest in arousing suspicion and antagonism against what they call "cults." "Ross has a history of emotional disturbance and is also a convicted jewel thief." "[The government agents] should have understood the pervasiveness of religious experimentation in American history and the fundamental right of groups like the Davidians to practice their religion .... They should have understood that many new religious movements do indeed ask for commitments that seem abnormal to most of us, and these commitments do mean the disruption of "normal" family and work lives .... They should also understand that the vast majority of those who make such commitments do so voluntarily. The notion of "cult brainwashing" has been thoroughly discredited in the academic community."
From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, an interesting further insight into the Scott case: April 9, 1998
"Tonkin had joined the Life Tabernacle Church, a branch of the United Pentecostal Church, in 1991. She left less than two years later, but her three oldest sons wanted to stay. Two, age 16 and 13, were involuntarily deprogrammed by Ross, but Jason Scott, 18, resisted after being abducted and held captive for five days, the court said."
The Humanist July 1, 1993, speaks of Ross's involvement in the Northeast Kingdom Community fiasco: "Likewise, some years back police descended upon the Northeast Kingdom Community, a Christian commune in Island Pond, Vermont, with a long history of cordial relations with the town. There the authorities alleged that children were being systematically abused by "cult members," and some 350 kids were swept up in a raid that was as dramatic as it was expensive. An investigation followed, and shamefaced state officials were forced to concede that child abuse had indeed taken place --when the terrified kids were rounded up during the sweep itself. One of the experts relied upon in the Island Pond case was Rick Ross, professional deprogrammer and self-proclaimed anti-cultist. Ironically, Ross was one of several cult experts consulted by ATF in the Branch Davidian stand-off which began, in part, due to child-abuse allegations."
From The Philadelphia Tribune May 17, 1994 by Lenora Fulani, chairperson of the New Alliance Party and a practicing social therapist in Harlem:
"They insist that those in Congress responsible for overseeing federal law enforcement look into the clear abuse of government agencies. In particular, the Cult Awareness Network (CAN) and the American Family Foundation (AFF) demonized the Branch Davidians.
These two organizations label as "cults" religious and political groups which they don't like, and claim that membership in these "cults" destroys an individual's free will and rationality, inevitably leading to crime. As Deborah Green, a partner in Ross & Green, points out, "The Cult Awareness Network has played a major role in propagating an atmosphere of intolerance, fear and violence against new, smaller, non-mainstream religions."
Both before, during and after the 51-day siege and subsequent massacre at Waco, CAN and AFF spokespersons had easy access to the media. By their own count they gave hundreds of interviews to the radio and print media during this period in which they warned the American people about the supposed evil characteristics of "cults" and advocated the use of lethal force against them.
Even more insidiously, a CAN associate appears to have had the ear of the ATF and the FBI throughout this period. A report researched and written for the Justice Department by Dr. Nancy Amerman of Emory University, documents the active role played by Rick Ross, a CAN-associated "deprogrammer" with a criminal record stretching back to 1975."
The Nation May 9, 1994 by Alexander Cockburn
The weekend before the anniversary I got a call from Balenda Ganem, mother of a man who'd been in the compound that day. "My son David Thibodeau was one survivor of the fire. He was married to David Koresh's sister-in-law, Michelle. "My son was 24 at the time of the fire. "Already in Bangor I'd been in touch with Rick Ross, who was acting as an independent cult deprogrammer' and informant to the A.T.F. and F.B.I. When I got to know him in Waco, I understood that he was instigating the most negative aspect of the situation because he wished violence toward David Koresh. He never said he wanted him to be helped out. He wanted him to be wiped out. This is what he told me. He looked forward to David Koresh being in jail, where he would be tortured and raped, like he had done to the others in Mount Carmel. That's when I understood that this man was not working for the greater good. He had a personal vendetta. He wanted a cult leader; God, it was his passion. Reached for a comment by my colleague Steven Dudley, Rick Ross called Ganem a "pathological liar" and said, "I was constantly trying to get the F.B.I. to change; I tried to encourage them to work with families ... to avoid a violent end."
All interesting and perhaps useful for the article. Rumiton ( talk) 14:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Over the past few days I’ve been looking through the archives here and WOW, there is an unbelievable amount of controversy that exists over this page. Keeping that in mind I will be careful in edits I make and will try to bring up anything that may be deemed controversial (which is probably most things with this topic) here on the talk page.
That being said I would like to help in improving the article. I think the first paragraph in the Rick A. Ross Institute section should be moved to instead be the last paragraph in the preceding Consultant, lecturer, and deprogrammer section. It seems much more suited to be in the preceding section based on its content (dealing with his work as a deprogrammer). If it is moved then the first paragraph in the Ross Institute section would instead be the one starting with “In 1996 Ross started a website titled "The Ross Institute Internet Archives…”, which makes more sense to me.
Since I don't think this is controversial I'm going to go ahead with the edit. LogicalFinance33 ( talk) 00:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I noticed that the article for Steven Hassan has a large criticism section with questionable sources. From what I've gathered Hassan has had much less criticism than Ross, so either his criticism section should probably be removed entirely or we can justify having a small one on this page if it is acceptable. I've seen many pages on BLP's on Wikipedia with criticism or controversy sections. I don't believe it is necessary or good practice to list out all of the criticism. However, it seems like Ross has had enough people criticize his background and credentials that it would be notable to at least mention that the criticism exists. It is apparent by looking at the talk page that there is controversy surrounding Ross based on the multiple archives of arguing and the note at the top of the talk page that explicitly states, "The subject of this article is controversial." Something similar should be added into the article. LogicalFinance33 ( talk) 20:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
The source and material from Stuart Wright has been on this page for a long time. I believe you should have a good explanation of your reasoning for removing it and consensus before you do so? It is relevant to the page and the section it is in. LogicalFinance33 ( talk) 01:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi there, the notice on the article regarding Intro may no longer be needed. The intro now seems to cover the gist of the article,leaving nothing out that I can see. Would anyone be opposed to the removal of the tag? petrarchan47 t c 17:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi. The "Rick A. Ross Institute" changed its name to "Cult Education Institute". The website www.rickross.com has been sold; the new website is: http://www.culteducation.com. Please update. 87.183.205.179 ( talk) 09:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Already done Thanks,
Celestra (
talk)
22:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Rick Ross's website rickross.com has changed to http://www.culteducation.com/. His website "Cult News" has stayed the same. Incubeezer ( talk) 02:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Already done Thanks,
Celestra (
talk)
22:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
"In 1986 he began working full-time as a consultant, (sometimes involuntary) deprogramming members of controversial groups and movements." Should be "involuntarily". Or should it be volunteering? Doesn't make sense as is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.99.206.234 ( talk) 05:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
You're right, I'll change it Zambelo ( talk) 03:14, 6 December 2013 (UTC)