Talk:Rick Alan Ross/Archive 1

17 September 2004
Rephrased somewhat. ReligiousTolerance is not a website dedicated exclusively to criticism of Rick Ross. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ExitControl (talk • contribs)

Charges that Ross duped FBI into attacking Branch Davidians
Can we use any of the following?


 * Ross gained notoriety this summer after the BATF and FBI were criticized for utilizing him as a "consultant" leading up to and during the Waco stand-off in 1993. It was discovered that Ross had a prior conviction for $100,000 of jewelery theft and a psychiatric history that included being diagnosed as having "sociopathic inclinations." After deprogramming Branch Davidian David Block at the house of leading CAN official Priscilla Coates, Ross put Block in touch with the BATF. The Treasury Department report on Waco found that false information provided to the BATF by Block was a major factor in the BATF's decision to mount a raid against the Davidians. When the Davidian compound burned to the ground, Ross boasted on TV that he had also been in touch with the FBI throughout the "long haul" that led up to the disaster.

I've just read over the Rick Ross entry and see a particular flaw. The critics in the entry on Rick are Nancy Ammerman, Carol Moore, Kimberly Post, Catherine Wessinger, Religiousfreedomwatch.org (Scientology), Jeffrey Hadden, Anson Shupe, Darell, Religioustolerance.org. On the pro side, there is not much listed. It occurs to me that the hundreds of people Rick has helped in his dealings with cults are not people who write magazine articles, appear in court, or necessarily want to speak out in public. While I see many references to Rick's credentials on his own site (that seem undisputed) I can see why those could not be used because they could be considered possibly not NPOV. So where does that leave the Wikipedia entry? Very one-sided, imho. The entry on Rick is essentially critical, not NPOV. If there's no way to mention the people Rick has educated on cults through his speeches and media appearances, nor the people he has directly helped get out of cults, then his entry will never be NPOV. Silvertung


 * I can see that you have only started editing. Welcome to Wikipedia. I would suggest you get. acquainted with WP policies. A good place to start are the folllowing resources:
 * Neutral point of view
 * NPOV tutorial
 * Examples
 * Examples Debate
 * Understand Bias
 * --ZappaZ [[Image:Yin_yang.svg|12px]] 04:40, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't waste your time on this guy Zappaz. Look around Wikipedia on entries of his at places like cults, mind control, brainwashing, deprogramming. After checking that out you can see what he is up to. The guy is an angry cult devotee using Wikipedia to bash anyone or anything that might expose his little guru and BS. He is proof of what's wrong with Wikipedia and why many people don't trust the entries and much of anything.208.5.214.2 11:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

POV? You're soaking in it
The article is full of half-truths, dubious generalizations, lies by implication and other things that people who have the truth on their side don't need to resort to. Why does it (or rather, did it talk about the Cult Awareness Network but not link to the article? It couldn't be because  the article on CAN discusses the real reason behind CAN's bankrupting and buy-out, could it?


 * I'm not sure about the half-truths, etc., but about CAN I think we owe it to our readers to distinguish between the "old CAN" (cult fighters) and the "new CAN" (bought by a Scientologist and given a new slant). I don't want any confusion about, e.g., people wondering why "CAN changed its mind" about any particular NRM. We should make it clear that CAN lost a lawsuit, went bankrupt, and was taken over by a man in one of the groups CAN used to target: that man "changed CAN's mind". --Uncle Ed 13:53, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

found the copyvio
68.49.197.171's changes were taken with minor changes from here, including the POV "his moral credentials seem shaky at best." -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:13, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Minor" criminal record!?
Rick Ross has a major criminal record, not a minor one; burglary, theft, embezzlement and yet to come; practicing psychology w/o a license, profiteering from counseling and slander. The facts are different and this article is completely slanted. Most groups that Ross lists on his site are accused of doing exactly what he's doing while accusing them of it?!?

The facts are that Rick Ross has a High School diploma and is counseling people. He also has a criminal record. Ross lists only some groups, most of which most he has no experience or knowledge; just rumors and gossip. If he was actually doing what he claims he is, then according to HIS criteria; Wal-Mart, Air Force, The Baptist Church, Rick Ross Institute, Columbia KIA-Chevy, John Ashcroft and Vita Hair Products would on that list. For now, only the groups and people that Rick Ross benefits of listing are on his list.

Rick Ross and his site are nothing more but American media smoke and mirrors. Writing a couple of articles and gaining notoriety on controversy is nothing new, but cheap '60-Minutes', Jerry Springer and Daily Mirror tabloid journalism masked into authority that he actually doesn't have and this article is just as slanted as Ross.


 * Of the three crimes you list that are not "yet to come", two of them are actually the same crime counted twice: the 1975 embezzlement was formally charged as "Conspiracy to Commit Grand Theft".  It's not only been almost thirty years since that crime, it's been over twenty since the Superior Court of Arizona vacated the finding of guilt for both offenses.  As for the others you list, yes, he has been accused of those things.  But not only are they (as you yourself admit) "yet to come", some of them aren't even crimes:  what jurisdiction has a statute of "profiteering from counseling"?  (Such a statute would certainly be fought tooth and nail by some of the very groups that would most like to see Ross brought down.)  We can hardly describe as part of someone's "criminal record" acts which are not crimes.  Neither could any non-"slanted" article include under "criminal record" charges that have yet to be proved in a court of law, let alone accusations which have not even been entered as formal charges.


 * As for his formal training, his CV does indeed indicate that his highest formal degree is his high school diploma. It also notes that he has been qualified and accepted as an expert witness in cases in eight states, a process during which opposing counsel would certainly have had the opportunity to argue that his credentials are insufficient, which is pretty much what you're arguing now.  Had they succeeded, he would not have been qualified and accepted by the court.  I'm sure you're also aware that you don't get invited to lecture at Rutgers University and the University of Chicago just from having been on Jerry Springer or in the Daily Mirror. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:07, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Making a profit of counseling w/o a licence is a crime in many states. Slander, while not a crime until convicted, is inauthentic to say about a person who is accusing others (organizations/people) who are not convicted. Rick Ross is a convicted criminal. He studies people who are contraversial, maybe hoping that they too would be convicted some day.


 * Previously, you said Rick Ross was guilty of practicing psychology without a license. I hope you're aware that in most states, "psychology" and "counseling" are two different things, and there is no limit on who can call the services that they offer "counseling".  That is in fact what many of Ross's opponents count upon, since they would be in trouble if they were suddenly forced to produce some proof that the services they are providing are actually in line with some peer-reviewed approach.


 * I wonder from your references if you're from the UK. If so, you may be unaware that U.S. law holds truth to be the absolute defense in slander:  i.e., if what someone said is the truth, it can't be slander.  I have to wonder if your standard for slander is based on the UK model because honestly, it's very hard to figure out your standard: you seem to be arguing that if Rick Ross suggests that anyone else has done anything at all that they shouldn't, it constitutes slander, but on the other hand, because you believe Ross is guilty of something (i.e., slander) you can not only freely suggest that he has committed slander, you can actually talk about it as 'part of his criminal record yet to come', as if it had already been ruled upon by a court.  How do you resolve this double standard?


 * Anyone can, and in fact do, testify in courts. There are pseudo-psychologists, like Ross, and even real ones that make a living on the court circuits and TV without actually practising their trade. Some spend less than an hour with the people they testify 'for' or 'against' that day (who's paying).  Jailhouse snitches, "experts" and practically anyone can be called to testify.


 * Jailhouse snitches get qualified as lay witnesses, not expert witnesses. As has been said, the side calling an expert witness must qualify their expert witnesses during discovery and the opposition has just as much chance to argue the inapplicability of an expert witness's credentials as they do to impeach the testimony of a lay witness.  The court then decides whether the witness is admissible or not.  Courts in eight states have decided that despite Rick Ross' highest formal schooling being the completion of high school (one fact that you repeated over and over in different phrasings to make a paragraph) his credentials qualified him as an expert witness.


 * Universities and colleges have people all the time giving speeches or a lecture about abstinence, drug abuse, smoking or hazards of drinking etc...


 * "Giving speeches" and "giving lectures" are two very different things. One is not invited to give lectures at a major institution of learning, or to give a presentation at a major conference, on the same basis that one is invited to talk to freshman students about it being a bad idea to drink to excess.


 * Ross has a crimal record. He has convictions.


 * You've said that. Twice in the space of two sentences, actually.  I hope you realize that simply repeating a thing over and over will not increase its significance.


 * He's found a way to make a living by utilizing other people and organizations' work rather than being original and doing something himself, like going to school and become and expert instead of playing one on TV.


 * That's entirely your POV opinion on what's going on in his mind.


 * Writing a book ("My Sex Addition" or "How to Fly for Free") will get the 'Today Show' or 'Goodmorning America' calling to bring the 'expert' or 'author' on the show, that looks like legitimate... entertainment.


 * Yes, and that would be relevant if Ross's only qualifications were that he had written a book and been on a talk show.


 * Ross is nothing more than a gossip mongering rumor mill who will air ANYONE's gripes of only select organizations. If you look carefully, there is a certain underlining criteria, a hidden agenda, that he has, but I will leave that up to you to see. There are so many victim/weep stories from people who are offended by one thing or another, that they'd fill several libraries or a Rick Ross website -- and Ross gets to lecture at Rutgers -- smoke and mirrors.


 * I see more of a "certain underlining criteria, a hidden agenda" when I look at the people and organizations lining up to criticize Ross. More importantly (since you've shown interest in what I see) when Ross delivers criticism, I see a focus on deeds:  I see Ross stating "This is what the organization does to its members; this is how it treats them as no human being deserves to be treated, and this is how it confuses them so that they think they actually do deserve such treatment."  When Ross is criticized, the criticism tends to hammer at Ross as a person:  "He's got a criminal record.  He's a glory hound.  He's got a criminal record.  He's a fraud.  He's got a criminal record that includes slander, or would, if any court of law had actually found him guilty of slander, which has not happened but we're counting it as if it did.  He's got a hidden agenda.  Have we mentioned his criminal record, which gets bigger with every telling?"  Smoke and mirrors indeed. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:45, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ross is a questionable person because no professional would use such a flimsy and unscientific basis on their work as Ross. His theories, research/writing, hypothesis and methodology is entirely laughable and at best naive. If there is a complaint about the way an organization treats people ("like no human being deserves"), then file a police report or leave! Some people do both. All the power to them for taking action and actualy causing something in their lives.

Gossip, rumors, whining and complaints lead into nothing and that is Ross' business! In fact, it's repeat business because it leads into no one taking responsibility (esp. for themselves) and making anything actually happen. More of the same, the more fear and scandals, the better for these psychologists and "experts" like Ross who plays one on TV.


 * Well, you're certainly welcome to your opinion. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:52, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * OK. Now I understand better Antaeus Feldspar's POV. You could have said so. --Zappaz 03:46, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Heh. You know, I'd really like it if you actually did understand my POV, unlike all those times where you said you understood my POV but then proceeded to argue against an idea that I'd never stated and that I myself opposed.  I'll wait and see if you actually do understand where I'm coming from this time. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:44, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Missing info from this article
--Zappaz 04:09, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Brainwashing allegations (e.g. Elizabeth Smart' case) and his appearances in TV about the subject;
 * 2) Terminology invented by Ross such as "Expert Consultant and Intervention Specialist" after deprogramming became a bad word.
 * 3) Ross antagonism with Anton Hein and Hassan.
 * 4) and more ...

Expert witness
Can anyone confirm when was the last time Rick Ross was an expert witness in a legal case? It will be good to list these cases as well, but I have not managed to find a list that support this statement: He has however been qualified and accepted as an expert witness in court cases in eight states. --Zappaz 15:53, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I will remove this text unless someone can provide a reference for these. Otherwise is self-serving propaganda. --Zappaz 19:51, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm sure that you're quite aware that the information comes from Ross's CV. Do you have a particular reason (besides your declared dislike of him and distrust of his character) to think that the information is not true?  I'm a bit puzzled that you cannot seem to decide whether the information is insufficiently referenced or whether it is just too old ("Can anyone confirm when was the last time Rick Ross was an expert witness in a legal case?")  If of course "it is too old" is found to be an acceptable reason to remove this information, then naturally the information on his criminal record will have to go as well, since it's even older. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:51, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I found this quote purportedly from the civil suit]:
 *  The jury found that Ross &#8220;intentionally and recklessly acted in a way that is so outrageous in character and so extreme in degree as to be beyond all possible bounds of decency and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.&#8221;

I am not so sure of its autencity. Does any one have access to the transcript of the jury's statement? --Zappaz 16:04, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * We also need some info on the alleged 300 or so cases of deprogramming in which Ross was involved. --Zappaz 21:55, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Deleting factual data from article
Why is factual data is being remvoved from the article under the false pretense of NPOV?


 * Ross was found guilty of unlawful or false imprisonment. Fact
 * The civil case award was more than $4.8 million . Fact
 * The civil case resulted in his and the CAN's bankruptcy. Fact
 * Ross is a self-declared expert. Fact

Please do not delete these facts. Thanks. --Zappaz 15:34, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The civil case against Ross was not $4.8 million. Other people regard him as an expert too. CAN's bankruptcy is secondary. -Willmcw 18:32, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * The guy is super controversial, and as such info about the controversy must be presented in the intro. The fact that he a self-declared expert is well known. Anti-cultists repeating in 200 websites that he is an expert, it does not mean that he is. I would only agree to the NPOV format that, given the controversy, we say who consider him an expert. Such as anti-cultit believe Ross is a cult expert. --Zappaz 21:46, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Zappaz, take it a little slower, okay? You are on the right track, but Will is asking you to be more precise. (This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid newspaper :-)


 * The suit was against CAN, Ross and a couple other guys. While the total was nearly 5 million, Ross's part was less. We can look that up at Cesnur or Bernie. And the phrases "found guilty" or "convicted" might not apply to a civil case (like a lawsuit). Was he jailed? If so, we can say when and where.


 * The case by itself might not have bankrupted CAN, but it was a precipitating factor, i.e., the last straw.


 * We need to look into the usage of the word expert a little more. Will, is there a bit of "cult expert" vs. "cult apologist" going on? With the experts touting mind control and the apologists paying knee-jerk lip service to the cults who pay their bills? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 22:47, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * I already reduced the intro and renoved the CAN stuff. Ross was down for 2.5 million dollars and he declared personal bankruptcy because of that. The jury found him guitly and thus awarded the plaintiff that amount. I am not a lawyer so maybe we need to find the correct wording. See below. I am trying to find the transcript of the judgement. It was not small potatoes, and given the controvery around this man, it is encyclopedic to include this info. There is a pretty recent article in the Guardian, that paints an interesting picture of Ross. I am trying to find a copy of it. --Zappaz 00:09, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Here it is: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/magazine/story/0%2C11913%2C1371787%2C00.html --Zappaz 00:14, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just general reminder that it is the duty of each and every Wikipedia to write NPOV articles. None of us should write from a POV with the expectation that an opposing POV will someday come through and pull the article back towards neutral. Cheers, -Willmcw 02:47, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)


 * Will, I am of the understanding that you can only write articles respecting NPOV, when you embrace and accept the fact that you have a bias and have a very specific POV. Articles on controversial issues are best written when the dynamics of opposing POVs balancing each other come to play. To assume that we are unbiased editors writing articles that we do not have passionate POVs about, and that we can transcend our POV out of duty, is hypocrisy or at best wishful thinking. Just look at the articles about Mind control and Brainwashing. Left alone, these articles were a POV disaster. Then, I and others with opposing POVs intervened and worked on the articles. The result: The Brainwashing article is now comprehensive and an excellent one. I am placing that article next week as a candidate for FA. --Zappaz 16:26, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * You are both right. Zappaz is emphasizing the value of having a POV, while Will is emphasizing the value of transcending your POV. I hope both of you will stick around! -- Uncle Ed (talk) 20:32, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)


 * Embracing a POV is wonderful thing to do in life, but a terrible thing to do when writing an encyclopedia. Pointing out the faults of other editors is no excuse for engaging in those same faults. NPOV is more than wishful thinking, it is official Wikipedia policy. Neutral point of view. -Willmcw 05:32, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * My point, Ed, is that you cannot transcend your POV on articles that you feel passionately about. Some people in WP (they know who they are, I don't need to point fingers), claim to transcend their POV when actually they don't. I prefer a more honest approach to life, in which you assume your biases and POVs and learn to live with opposing ones. Note that I am not saying that NPOV is not a wonderful principle (it is!) and I am the first to protect its integrity. What I am saying is that in order to write NPOV, you have to assume your POV fully. Only then you can write for the enemy as well as protect the integrity of NPOV by providing a counterbalance. Wishful thinking is attempting to ingnore your POV and to claim that you trascend it when you actually don't. Capsishe?--Zappaz 05:39, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Use whatever theory or rationalization you prefer, just please make sure that your actual edits are NPOV. Do both Zappaz and Unlce Ed feel that this is an NPOV article? -Willmcw 06:48, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * I think we are getting there. Much more NPOV than six weeks ago when this article was an advert for his "intervention" business. We need some more info as explained below. We should include some more stuff from his website as well. --Zappaz 15:42, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Will, you're question is a fair one and a relevant one. I will review the article today, and give an answer. Before doing that (relying on memory), I would say that the trend has been to change the tone of the article from (A) endorsing Ross as a knowledgeable authority (on new religions) to (B) presenting him as someone who was legally admonished and punished for violating religious rights in an unconscionable way with forcible deprogramming (in the Jason Scott case, for example; as well as egging on the US gov't to cause (or trigger) the deaths at Waco.


 * If anyone still thinks he's a good guy (and there are many who praise Mao, Stalin, Hitler, etc.) we ought to include this POV (even though I think it's obvious that they are wrong).


 * This is my "bias", if you will. Please help us to (1) present the dark side of Ross, and (2) describe the POV of his defenders / fans - so the article will meet Wikipedia's NPOV standards. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 13:45, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * Bias or no, we are writing a biography. It should include information like where the subject lives, when he was born, etc. Arguing over his involvement in Waco is secondary to basic biographical info. That's the same standard as applies to any person that we write about here on Wikipedia. Cheers, -Willmcw 05:46, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course... Biography details are very important, and this includes his two criminal convictions before he became an anti-cult "expert", the fact that he only completed high school and has no formal education in counselling and most definitively the Waco involvement and the Jason case. All these are biographical and nothing to do with bias. These are facts subtantiated by solid references. If these were not notable aspects of his life, then why to feature an article on Ross? --Zappaz 16:28, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Describing only negative aspects of a person, even "facts", is POV. -Willmcw 17:13, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Compare the article before we starte adding facts. Do you think that the article was NPOV then? IMO, it was un-ecyclopedic and an advertisemnet. If there are positive aspects about this person, that are notable enough to be in an encyclopedic article, let's have these. We cannot add, "he is a nice guy" can we? But we could add, for example, that the anti-cult movement quote him extensively and consider him a champion of the  fight against cults, etc. --Zappaz 04:26, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we could provide some balance by saying that Ross is controversial. He is lionized by anti-cultists for his (claimed) hundreds of deprogrammings (half legal, half illegal, I think he said). He is demonized by pro-civil-rights and pro-religious-freedom groups for kidnapping people and forcibly breaking their faith.


 * It might even lead to an examination of why deprogrammers are lionized / demonized. Which should be part of the "cult" article: many regard joining a questionable religous group as something your family should rescue you from; many others regard it as something which is none of their business. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 16:51, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * Agree... care to write for the enemy and add a few snippets about the lionization of Ross by anti-cultists? --Zappaz 21:47, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

recent edits
Thanks. --Zappaz 17:14, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) If any text in article is not NPOV, then please re-write/edit and provide reasons here
 * 2) Having text that is considered not NPOV, does not give anyone the right to add text to support an oppposing POV. Alert us to the fact, discuss and propose alternatives.


 * Can you explain poiint #2 more clearly? I had always thought that the best way of balancing potentially POV statements was to add material from a different perspective. I had also thought that editors are free to edit without first consulting anyone, except in the case of articles previously tagged as being controversial. (Note, I'm not the editor of the material, but I saw your note here and don't understand it). Thanks, -Willmcw 17:56, May 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * What I meant, Will, is that if I have added text that you consider it to be not NPOV, please help out and fix it, rather than add more text that is not NPOV. This idea of adding materials from opposing POVs to reach NPOV, is a misunderstanding of NPOV policy IMO and usually creates havoc in controversial articles (see the mess at Talk:Guru). When we edit, text we write should not support any specific POV. Describing the controversy and staying within facts as written by notable sources or credible published opinion, is the way to write NPOV. --Zappaz 21:12, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

May 13 The entry as it previously was before recent editing was repetitive, and essentially a one-sided expression of opinion as opposed to facts. This type of rant should be reserved for a personal website as opposed to a supposedly neutral fact-based database. It is now factual and balanced.


 * It will be nice if youy get a user ID and you sign your comments. I disagree with the edit. WP is not aa place for advertisment of a business or a consultant. --Zappaz 02:54, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Your edit:
 * "Rick Ross is an internationally known professional consultant concerning cults and controversial groups and movements. He was consulted regarding the Waco Davidians before and during the 1993 standoff with federal law enforcement."
 * Current version:
 * "Rick Ross is one of the best-known anti-cult activists in the United States, a former deprogrammer, and a major proponent of the 'mind control' theory of 'cult' involvement. His involvement as a 'cult expert' in the Waco standoff was controversial."


 * "Professional consultant" is the way that Ross would want people to address him and it is non-encycloedic and against WP policy of advertising of business. He has no credentials to claim such "professionalism", and has been found to be extremely controversial in his career as a deprogrammer (read the judgement against him in the Scott case) and his involvement in the Waco disaster. Those are the facts. --Zappaz 03:01, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Zappaz wishes to post a rant here and a slanted version of events, which is neither neutral or objective.

Note Zappaz at other entries such as anti-cult movement, mind control, deprogramming etc. Essentially he is a propagandist attempting to use Wikipedia to present his own very slanted version on cult-related topics.

What facts are you disputing now? The entry is factual.

Please try to keep your personal bias out of Wikipedia.


 * It will be best if you get an account and you sign your postings. Particularly if you have the chutzpah to make an unwarranted acussation. And please stop removing facts from the article, such as the fact that Ross is has been widely criticized. Thanks.--Zappaz 19:47, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Quote from jury
I couldn't find the source for the quote from the jury in the Scott case. Does anyone have a reference? Thanks, -Willmcw 20:17, May 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * Will, that is the standard way that a judgement agains INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS is worded. That wording is present in the judgement against Ross. --Zappaz 05:09, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


 * It's a bit overdramatic to quote the legal boilerplate. Let's just say which crimes he was found guilty of, and leave it at that. -Willmcw 05:27, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Do you think that being kidnapped, bound, abused and demeaned is overdramatic? --Zappaz 15:23, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Zappaz--it is you that has the "chutzpah" as you are involved in expressing your opinions and not "facts." Your "editing" reads like propaganda. You really give Wikipedia a bad name. A Slate article said "Wikipedia is a real-life Hitchhiker's Guide: huge, nerdy, and imprecise." Your imprecise and biased work can easily be seen through your other so-called "editing."

Zappaz's bias is visible at "anti-cult movement," "mind control," cult apologist and "cult."

Also to better understand Zappaz's core of bias see his "editing" at "Divine Light Mission" and Prem Rawat," which read more like an adverstisement for the scandal-ridden guru that has often been called a "cult leader."


 * Thank you for the kind words. Would be nice to know your bias. My bias is against religious intolerance and anti-cultism as a manifestation of that intolerance, a good example of which is the venom in your above statement. If you really care about WP, come along, join the team and help make WP the best encyclopedia there is. But it will take an effort to understand NPOV, work with people with completely opposing POVs, and to reach consensus.  Not easy, but doable. --Zappaz

Your welcome Zappaz. Again, anyone interested can review your "editing" work on the above named sections and see what "venom" and POV/bias you have spread within Wikipedia.

You post essentially one-sided propaganda supposedly NPOV.

Try sticking to the facts.

"Relgious intolereance" sounds like your definition of criticism directed towards destructive cults. Please try to understand the concept of objective balance based upon historical facts. Groups often called "cults" can be destructive and harm people. That is evident to anyone that reads their recorded history through the mainstream press such as articles about the Branch Davidians, Aum Shinrikyo, Jonestown, the Solar Temple, Charles Manson, Heaven's Gate, the Movementent for the Restoration of the Tend Commandments, The Children of God, ISKCON, Scientology, Sai Baba and your apparent favorite Guru Maharaji, Prem Rawat founder of Divine Light Mission. Your input at Divine Light Mission and criticism of Prem Rawat is revealing.

Again, your entry on this guru reads like a POV paid infomercial.

Sadly, some entries in Wikipedia, like the one about the Branch Davidians, read more like a conspiracy theories than a historical fact-based record. And the entry on Aum Shinrikyo largely ignores the final outcome of evidence that demonstrates Asahara's guilt and "mind control" overwhelmingly. Entries like these is probably why Slate said "what's keeping Wikipedia from becoming the Net's killer resource. Accuracy is."

What world are you living in Zappaz? It seems to be one that is largely detached from history, world news and perhaps even somewhat from reality. But shouldn't "Wikiworld" be grounded in facts based upon the neutral point of view NPOV you claim to express?


 * I can see that you have no clue how WP works. As such, I am trying to be nice to you for now. As much as I contributed to the articles you mention, there were many, many other editors that contributed. These articles are not "mine" and not "my entries"! If you see any article that needs help, join the fry and help out. Just a note of caution, attacking others just because they have an opposing POV than yours, will not take far in WP. Lastly, I have publicly declared my bias and my interests (read my talk page), but we know nothing about you. Are you in any way or manner related to the Ross institute? Thanks. --Zappaz 15:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Zappaz--let me be precise. I am specifically discussing your "entries" (i.e. contributions) to the previously cited sections/topics. They fit a POV pattern that is not NPOV. Hopefully you will not persist here in attempting to mislead visitors.

I am not attacking you personally, but rather the way in which you attempt to manipulate Wikipedia to reflect your POV.

Let's just stick to the facts and avoid the "politics of personal destruction."

For example your use of "scholars" is an imprecise and misleading reference as is the reference to "minority religions."

The precise politically correct term promoted by those that share your POV is actually "new religious movements" (NRMs). "Minority religions" is an imprecise term that could denote anything from Orthodox Jews to the Amish and is therefore too general.

You also use "scholars" without qualification. Actually the critical scholars you prefer to focus on like Anson Shupe or Gordon Melton work for cults, many of these supposed academics are recommended by Scientology and ohter "cults" as "resources." Nancy Ammerman was once featured in a full page article within "Freedom Magazine" published by Scientology.

Such "scholars" are not NPOV and have a POV that matches your own. Because of this they have been called "cult apologists" as you must know.

To be NPOV you should denote "some scholars," which to say the least reflects the facts.

Many scholars don't agree with those you prefer to cite preferentially and there is a growing controversy within academia about their bias.

This brings me to another point, which is your insistence on the word "controversy" or "controversial."

No serious and meaningful media reporting reflected a "controversy" during or after Waco about cult experts consulted by the BATF and/or FBI. Ms. Ammerman tried to create one along with other "cult apologists," but it never really gained any credibility and it remains only a "controversy" amongst conspiracy theorists, cults and their apologists.

Interestingly, Carol Moore is actually quite controversial, as are various cult apologists and their "research" within academia. Why not denote that controversy within your "NPOV" editing?

I am trying to be nice, but you do make that difficult at times.


 * Mr or Mrs Anon: I am highly aware of all the terminology and highly aware of positions like yours: anti-cultists all bang a similar drum, so it your argments are very predictable (the same way that "cult apologists" bang theirs. I have been acussed to being one, and in one way feel proud to be considered one!). You have still not answered my question that begs an answer. For the third time I ask: Are you or are you not in any way or manner related to the Ross institute? Thank you. --Zappaz 20:21, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Zappaz--thanks for acknowledging that you "feel proud to be considered" a cult apologist. This helps everyone that reviews your contributions better understand your POV.


 * Mr./Mrs anon does not need to answer this question if s/he does want to. The only thing that matters is whether Mr. anon's edits follow Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. Andries 20:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Andries to the rescue! :) - Anon does not have to. But it will be nice to know if of he as anything to do Mr Ross, don't you think? He/She seems to know quite a bit about Ross. --Zappaz 20:42, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Contradictions
Ammerman claims Ross was co-responsible but the FBI says they did not seriously consider his advice. This has to be clarified. Andries 20:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Can you spell controversy? This is a good example of such. My reading (personal opinion): FBI wanted to distantiate as much as possible from Ross, because it was an embarrassement caused by the Scott case (check the dates and you will understand), thus the disclaimers on that report. --Zappaz 20:44, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Is there a source for the quote
 * The FBI interview transcripts on the Waco tragedy includes the note that "[Ross] has a personal hatred for all religious cults" and would aid law enforcement in an attempt to "destroy a cult" (sic).
 * besides Ammerman? If not we should add According to Ammerman, before the quote. -Willmcw 20:54, May 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * The quote is from the FBI report. Ammerman is just citing it. You can read a well referenced account at http://carolmoore.net/waco/TDM-08.html. --Zappaz 23:43, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The quote isn't in that reference. Is there a link to the FBI report that Ammerman claims to quote? If we can't find it directly then we need to attribute it to Ammerman. -Willmcw 23:52, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

If there is a "anti-cult movement" than there must be a "pro-cult movement." Zappas and other guru gaga guys try to tar everyone who says their leaders are con men with the label "anti-cult movement." Well, the people cults pay off and their spinmeisters are then part of the "pro-cult movement." If Wikipedia is going to be fair and balanced rather than becoming Wackopedia, that's the right way to make this entry.

The cult guys posting here are also trying to muddy the water and get everything fuzzy about Ross and the media. Anyone who looks through his CV or follows cult stories in the press, tv etc. knows he's on and quoted all the time. "Several magazines and newspapers" is a BS way of trying to minimize that fact. These kooks also are tying to mislead people by saying media interviews Ross because of "his interest in cults." Get real. The media calls him because of their interest and a story they are reporting. They want his input as an expert or they wouldn't bother calling the guy.

The cult guys who are screwing around with this entry are just mad that their "scholars" and other weirdos are not quoted as much and no one really cares that much about what they think. They are using Wikipedia in a get even grudge match.208.5.214.2 11:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Expert witness?
Try and google "expert witness" AND "rick ross". Lo and behold, only his website(s) and other anti-cult sites cite that. He claims to being an expert witness in eight states but fails to provide info on (a) when? (b) in which cases? and (c) what was the result of his involvement. Fascinating. Maybe anon can throw some light. --Zappaz 23:56, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

referenced here. So you are stating that the informaiton here is false and that the "eight states" stated is a lie? Don't you think that Scientology, which has 17 pages and a 196 page PDF file on this cult expert, would mention that? Certainly would be good grist for their mill. When can you remember Scientology missing an opportunity like that? FYI--they don't mention at any time that this expert was not qualified or his testimony striken from the record. Not one word. Do you really think Scientology would overlook that? Or do you think they didn't check? See And by the way, isn't being qualified and accepted in eight states as a cult expert and all the media work done as a paid professional and acknowledged cult expert not to mention the university and college lectures sufficient to come to the conclusion that POV statements like "self-proclaimed cult expert" and "cult expert" actually should be changed to recognized cult expert? Isn't that a NPOV fact? FYI--In Scientology's review of Steve Hassan's career they didn't overlook such detailed information Hassan has four pages, but they certianly included specific information about his testimony as an expert witness. Zappaz--give it up, you are not making any sense at all, other than attempting to mislead Wikipedia readers and present your proudly proclaimed "cult apologist" POV.

FYI--Ammerman stated in her report, supposedly based on FBI files and notes, that the FBI relied too much on Ross. Interesting, that the FBI says they did not rely on him at all, but Ammerman contradicts this in her cited report for the Justice Department. Is Ammerman a liar? Should this contradiction between Ammerman and the FBI be cited?

FYI--The Treasury report fully acknowledges that Ross was consulted and his deprogramming of David Block is reported there and within the book "See No Evil" by Tim Madigan. The other deprogramming is mentioned elsewhere, but apparently has never been reported about in depth, probably due to privacy issues.


 * Man (or woman) you really blow air, don't you? I did not argue that the info is false. I only asked a pertinent question: Where, when and in what cases RR was an expert witness? The fact that this info is not easily available, makes it an interesting question. Don't you think? Maybe you can help us know the answer ...as Ross' website do not provide that information. His website is what is called a "self-serving" statement. Being a consultant that makes his living by portraying to be an "expert", it is expected that his CV will be beautified. IMHO, RR is not an expert, but a media whore (that is just my opinion). Regarding Ammerman, feel free to explore these contradictions, although it may be better to explore them in the Waco article. Concerning your wish that I "give it up", do get your hopes to high on that hapenning anytime soon. Someone has to provide a counterbalance to those editors that think that human beings have no rights in the belief department. Thank god for NPOV, consensus and editors that help each other to achieve these, even if sometime it is through a rough process. Tell me: where in the world we would have had the opportunity to "cross swords", if it was not for wiki? Long live WP! :)-Zappaz 02:46, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I read this http://www.rickross.com/reference/expert_witness/expert_witness.html (a copy of http://www.rickross.com/witness.html) and wonder. It says a lot! Just read it and tell me what you think. i.e. Latest engagement 1998. Some engagements to do with divorce cases, and most important is what is missing: his testimonies in these cases! Given how much RR peddles his purported "expert witness" stature, it makes for quite a poor (and pretty old) showing. Will be interesting to read his testimony on these cases. Maybe anon can find these and share with us. That will be nice. It will also be interesting to know the people on the Ross institute's advisory board. That will be a nice addition to the article. --Zappaz 05:02, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Zappaz--Thanks. Your comments once again put your objectives and involvement here at Wikipedia into perspective. Terms like "media whore," "peddles his purported 'expert witness' stature" sound more like POV propaganda not NPOV facts. Thanks for admitting that you would "not argue that the info is false" regarding the expert witness work cited. Posting every expert witness appearence in detail would probably be time consuming, possibly against the advice of some lawyers and/or simply a personal choice. Whatever. Certainly opposing counsel examining an expert would be concerned with that and point out for the record that Ross lied on his CV or website. As stated previously in discussion with you whenever anyone takes the stand in court as a witness the opposing counsel grills them in an effort to disqualify their testimoney. Didn't you know that? And that becomes part of the public record. But Scineotlogy apparently found no such record that Ross lied or ever failed to be qualified. Considering the resources of Scientology and their effort to attack this expert, the fact that they have nothing posted should satisfy you, that is if you are actually interested in the facts and an NPOV entry here. Please stop the propaganda. "Media whore"? Or are you just upset that someone you say is "not an expert" is widely considerd one by the mainstream media, colleges, universities and the courts. Bottom line--you offer nothing here, but baseless POV rather than NPOV facts. Acknowledging the contradiction between what the FBI says (i.e. denial that Ross was consulted by them posted here) and the Ammerman quote that says they did, should be reconciled. The easiest way is to point out that Ms. Ammerman contradicted both the FBI and Justice Report as did Ross. Or do you just wish to exclude that relevant point for your own POV purposes?

Let's stick to the facts and be fair to Wikipedia readers.67.134.82.78 14:27, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Anon: To be fair to WP readers, we need to provide the facts. The fact is that this person is only notable due to the controversy surrounding him. As such, the controversy needs to be stated uniquevocally. I am still interested to know if you have anything to do with the Ross institute, that by the way is not called the "Ross Institute" (check my edit of yesterday). This is another example of "CC beautification, IMO. --Zappaz 15:29, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Proposal
No point on an edit war, when the spoils are so small.... There are several articles out there I am dying to sink my teeth into. I'll tell you what... I have done as much as I could to get this article in good NPOV shape (you should have seen its shape a few months ago!). Why don't you work with Willmcw (whom I respect despite our huge differences in POVs) on putting the final touches? I promise to stay out of editing this article for a while. When I return (let's say end of May), I will comment on this talk page before doing any additional editing. Will is an experienced editor and understand the nuances of NPOV very well. You will find it easier to work with him than with badass me, as he professes a POV that may be closer to yours, I think. See you end of May! :) --Zappaz 15:58, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Zappaz are you serious? The only reason Ross is "notable" and/or repeated quoted in news reports, college lectures and the courts is the "controversy surrounding him." That doesn't match up with many news articles on-line at all. Seems like this is wishful thinking on your part. Very few articles about him even mention any "controversy" that I've seen. Try Google News. You will find that the overwhelming majority of articles about Ross cite him as an "expert" or a source for information and/or informed comment. Likewise, through artilces about lectures, his television appearences or court testimony. Comments like this make me think you are not researching what you say. Your point about the Ross Institute name is actually a veery minor one. Many institutes that have longer names would be referred to with a shorter title for the sake of space. I don't see what your point is here. It is referred to as the Ross Institute, Ross Institute of New Jersey, RI and the Rick A. Ross Institute, or RRI. There are many "Ross Institutes" (Ross is a common name) and each one may have a longer more specific and identifying official filing name. No problem working out the facts and posting something NPOV and factual through an honest process of editing. I am skeptical about you though, based upon your contributions to other cult related sections and your response to criticism here. It seems to me that nothing less than an entry subject to your POV approval will ever satisfy you. Nevertheless let's try to work this out. But please support your edits with hard facts through research not name calling and your own subjective opinions.67.134.82.78 17:06, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey! I just leave you alone and you delete text without reason? It is a good thing that text does not disappear and it is available in the history. I would suggest thaat you slow way down and consult with other editors before you delete text without a good reason. The fact that the Ross institute is called what is called and the fact that it is only a shell, are all facts that are useful for the reader. Now, YOU try and stay within boundaries as I am not editing this article until the end of May. So you need to find ways to restrain yourself, without my counterbalance. Get help from Will. --Zappaz 17:50, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Zappaz--please try to calm down and understand that your POV doesn't make something a "fact." The last edit you did was not factual and based instead on your POV. Your claims about the Ross Institute of NJ are false. It is a nonprofit NJ corp. with tax-exempt status as recognized by the IRS. Sounds like you are reciting from the Scientology screed at "Religious Freedom Watch" rather than doing your own independent research. The "boundaries" I agree to stay within are determined by the facts not your POV.67.134.82.78 22:15, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Final NPOV Editing
Willmcw and others--One small error probably overlooked. "Scientology did not dispute this" was a reference to the Ross CV regarding his expert witness work. No need to keep these words with the current version.

The FBI has said it didn't initiate an interview with Ross, but he says they did. Shouldn't that be noted? See his "Letter to Janet Reno" 67.134.82.78 12:47, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Final? not so!
There is nothing "final" or NPOV about this current version. Will, I would have expected a more balanced approach... I mean, this article fails to recognize that fact that Ross is one of the most (if not the most) controversial figure in the anti-cult movement in the US. The article rides the waves of the scandals he was involved like these were no big deal. I intend to incorporate the factual information available about Ross and his past to this article, expand the criticism section and expand on the current business (or lack thereof) of Ross. I will do this when I have some more time, but hope that Will can incorporate some of the above to the current article. Ciao. --Zappaz 15:48, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) His criminal record is elegantly brushed under the editorial carpet. I would suggest you read the judgments against him, in particular in the jewelry hoist and the bomb threat. Given his prominence and his claims of being "the good guy", presenting facts about his past is highly relevant to readers
 * 2) when a jury ordered him to pay over two million dollars regarding the failed deprogramming of Jason Scott,  The $2 million judgement was not related to a failed deprogramming. It was because the horrendous ordeal Ross put this person through. Please read the judgement.
 * 3) The Ross institute: I have done some research (now removed from the article) that clearly shows that this "institute" is just a front for his "intervention" business
 * 4) Regarding "Intervention specialist" is that another invention of Ross. Have you read the "intervention ethics" he wrote? How these compute against the judgement against him in the Jason case?
 * 5) The Criticism section with one short paragraph fails to present the facts about this controversial character. Information about his critics is widely available and many documents preserved and made available online. There are also several websites with extensive dossiers on Ross. These are misteriously missing from the links section.
 * 6) The "expert witness" claims. Failing to present that the last such engagement (in a divorce case) was eight years ago presents a distorted picture. Let's bring the facts about these cases (in a summarized way).

Zappaz declares an edit war?
Just as previously predicted Zappaz will never be satisfied with anything less than a propaganda piece that represents his POV. He can't be NPOV. He has had his way pretty much at "cult," "anti-cult" and other related entries within Wikipedia. This guy has an agenda. The so-called "balanced approach" he advocates is nothing less than an ad hominem attack. Scientology's more than 200 pages of bashing Ross is already prominently linked, but that's not enough for him.

A little review to prove this point:

1. There was no "heist" or "bomb" the robbery was faked and Ross' partner in crime worked for the store. The charge was "embezzlement." This has nothing to do with his current work and according to my calculations occured some seven years before that. Ross was something like 22-years-old at the time. But despite the criminal record being cited twice, Zappaz, unlike a Superior Court judge that officially vacated the guilty verdicts over 20 years ago and the probation department that released Ross early in 1979, Zappaz isn't satisfied. Apprarently, the State of Arizona didn't mind quite that much since Ross was chairman of its state prison system religious advisory committee.

2. Here Zappaz seems to disagree with Jason Scott. Scott said he was "used" by Scientology very publicly on U.S. TV and no less than the Washington Post just before he fired his Scientology lawyer. He sold Ross the judgement, largely for what he originally sued over, which was Ross' consultation time.

3. The Rick A. Ross Institute is registered by the State of New Jersey as a nonprofit corp. and officially has been granted tax-exempt status by the US Internal Revenue Service, but Zappaz isn't happy about this and apparently rejects such official decisions.

4. The "ethical standards" Zappaz cites actually explain all this historically in context with pretty plain language. And Ross is referred to as a "deprogrammer" with plenty of details about the Scott case.

5. Zappaz wants to rant and have other rants included that agree with his POV. The whopper Scientology link with more than 200 pages is just not enough for him.

6. Even though Scinetology appraently can't cite anything to impeach Ross from appearing repeatedly as an expert witness Zappaz isn't satisfied. Somehow they just must have failed to mention that his CV is wrong and Zappaz wants to fix that too. Apparently Ross must now list every case to satisfy him.

Looks like Zappaz wants to have an "edit war."

Because in final analysis all he really cares about is his POV not Wikipedia or its users.67.134.82.78 18:33, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


 * .78 do you have references for the statement by Jason Scott that he was used by Scientology. Then it can god into the article. Andries 18:41, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes. Scott told the Washington Post "I want to let everyone know I'm fine, safe, very happy and making my own decisions now." He said this after Scientology lawyer Kendrick Moxon said "foul play" somehow was responsible for his sudden shift. (Washington Post December 23, 1996, "Plaintiff Shifts Stance on Anti-Cult Group" by Laurie Goodstein). In another artile titled "Scientology's Revenge" the LA New Times reported "Scott now says he was used as a pawn of Scientology" (September 9, 1999 by Ron Russell).


 * This has nothing to do with an edit war, and all to do with making this article accurate with FACTS. Note that your rethoric does not have any validity in these arguments, is superfluos, unwarranted and pathetic. When I do an edit that it is bad, or not NPOV, then tell me. The dossier that Scientology compiled on Ross contains quite a bit of commentary, but it is all supported by documentation not available elsewere. There are other dossiers available on the web with additional data. I intend to add as many references as needed so that readers can have access to information and facts and make up their own minds about this controversial anti-cultist. My take, and I hope you would agree unless you are related to Ross, is that facts speak for themselves only if you provide all the facts without embellishing them. In any case, you can relax as I do not intend to work on this for a few weeks. Hopefully by then, Andries, Will and others would have found make this article better researched. Take a break: a walk in the park does wonders for boiling blood woes. --Zappaz
 * "Superfluous, unwarranted and pathetic"? Sounds like an "edit war" to me. Thanks for noting your reliance on Scientology as a source for "documentation." It's good to know how you developed your POV. However, the mainstream media, both within the US and internationally, appear to disagree with you. Likewise the State of New Jersey, IRS and the State of Arizona authorities. Such sources seem to express more of a NPOV than Scientology. These are the "FACTS," though it doesn't seem like you care. You seem to see Wikipedia as a place to rant. Please do go for a long walk in the park and simmer down.67.134.82.78

No, anon. An edit war is when two editors engage in reverting/deleting the other's edits. As I have refrained from editing for a few weeks, you cannot call it an edit war. Andries: you can add the Scott about face. It is a well known and documented fact, although note that we are not discussing Scott's reversal, but the controversy Ross got himself involved in during his deprogramming activities, the falling of the CAN, etc. The Scott stuff is already explored in the Scott article in WP. --Zappaz 23:08, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Zappaz, someone else must be using your account. Someone calling themselves "Zappaz" has reverted this article about eight times in the last week. -Willmcw 04:25, May 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * Zappaz--that controversy is rather dated 1995-1996 and there is no "controversy" reported now. The Scott case has been noted and was concluded some years ago. When the media quote Ross as a cult expert now they don't cite any "controvesy" from a decade ago. They quote him simply as a "cult expert." There is a growing controversy though regarding J. Gordon Melton. He has been paid by cults to write nice things about them. He was the "expert" the cult that gassed Tokyo's subways paid to fly in and defend them. Perhaps you should be concerned about reflecting that growing controversy within academia in your own editing at Prem Rawat. Yet you cite Melton as a credible footnote. BTW why didn't you include meaningful balance about "the controversy [Guru Mahariji AKA "Prem Rawat"]got himself into." Given that Prem Rawat is more commonly known as the notorious "cult leader" of "Divine Light Mission" your editing seems anything but NPOV.67.134.82.78 23:36, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


 * All that is already explored at Criticism of Prem Rawat. That has nothing to do with this article. Are you related to the Rick Ross institute by any chance? Or are you one of the ex-premies under disguise? --Zappaz 00:47, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * You gave me an idea: maybe we ought to do the same here: Have a short summary about the critics of RR and then create a new article Criticism of Rick Ross in which we can explore in-depth the controversy around Ross. There is plenty of material on that: about 200 pages worth. --Zappaz 02:02, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Sounds excessive, but fits your obsessive pattern of attack. For those interested a review of your contributions at the "Criticism of Prem Rawat" section is rather revealing regarding your agenda here at Wikipedia. The point of mentioning your work at the section on Prem Rawat is to demonstrate the way you have chosen to "gloss over" the controversy surrounding him and his actual history. This "guru" is more well-known as a "cult leader" historically than the way you have depicted him. Again, no mistaking POV for NPOV there. Anyone who has access to a media archive like LexisNexus can easily look up "Guru Mahariji" or "Divine Light Mission" and find the facts reported through the mainstream press. You have also done your best to obscure the actual issues at "anti-cult movement" and "mind control" often ignoring historical facts, the payments from cults received by cult apologists (example Anson Shupe who made a bundle testifying for Scientology) and recent court findings regarding cult brainwashing in criminal trials such as Karen Robidoux,  Lee Boyd Malvo, Winnifred Wright  and Brian Mitchell/Elizabeth Smart. You seem to be on some sort of crusade concerning your POV. Does that make you an anti-"anti-cult activist"? Whatever, it doesn't serve those looking for facts here at Wikipedia.67.134.82.78 13:07, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Yep. You are either Rick Ross himself or a close associate attempting to gloss over your controversy. Welcome to Wikipieda. Regarding your acussations against me, please feel free to check my edits and challenge any of them (you will have plenty of company!). Concerning Prem Rawat, as I said, we have explored his controversy in depth in the relevant articles. Now we are working on yours. The fact that you are an anti-cultist, does not make you to be above scrutinity, on the contrary. For example, I intend to explore your essay on "ethics for intervention" that as you well know is mostly a copy from other ethic standards by real professionals, those that study, you know.) Yes, I have a bias, and so do you. That is the basis of editing WP articles on controversial subjects: people with opposing views working together to write articles in which these controversies can be described by providing facts.  --Zappaz 15:09, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Wow. "You are either Rick Ross himself or a close associate" -- Wow!  I've seen people put egg on their face by resorting ad hominem circumstantial arguments, but this hits a pretty impressive low.  I guess this means Zappaz must be Prem Rawat! -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:36, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

About your assessment that I am an "anti-anti-cultist", I must tell you that I do prefer to be considered a person that cares for: and against: Here is my bias, then for all to see. --Zappaz 15:41, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Freedom of opinion
 * Freedom of belief and religion
 * Freedom of association
 * Freedom of privacy
 * Freedom of pursuit of happiness
 * Bigotry
 * Hate
 * Religious intolerance
 * Witch hunts
 * Stupidity
 * Narrow mindness
 * Dogmatism
 * Zappaz, in spite of your many attempts to explain yourself your motivation remains a mystery to me. Every person with a little bit of common sense knows that there are groups that are likely to harm its members and I do not understand how you cannot understand this. Even when I was an ignorant, self-deceived follower of SSB, I did not have any doubts about this, but I thought this would happen to other people not to me. People are free to pursue happiness in the way they prefer but becoming a devoted follower of an unreliable guru or religious group is a good away of either losing your rationality or fail to get the happiness that you pursue. And hate is natural response to abuse, betrayal, explotiation and deception. Please help to stop the abuse etc. by religious groups and their leaders first if you want to stop hate. Andries 17:22, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * You misread me completely. Of course I am aware of groups that have the potential to harm people. Same way that I am aware that drugs can harm people, violent video games can harm people, political ideas can harm people, etc etc etc etc. But it is not up you, me or a self-declared expert with or without formal training to decide if a person is right in following any religion or belief. That is an individual choice and it is protected by the constitution (at least in the US). Respect that. --Zappaz 18:39, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * "Self-declared expert"? That's a rather telling statement Zappaz. Sounds just a bit bitter. Isn't what's bothering you that your "narrow minded" POV has been rejected? The media, courts etc. have turned to Ross as an expert, and universities and colleges have invited him to lecture. Maybe you are upset because the websites of anti-"anti-cult" folks like CESNUR and Gordon Melton's "Institute for the Study of American Relgion rank so low on the WWW. For example CESNUR is ranked at about 90,000 and Mr. Melton's site is at well below 200,000, while the Ross Institute site is sitting at 30,000. Even the old long-established "Relgious Tolerance" website pops up on the same page as the Ross Insitute when you search "cults" on Google. It appears that you want to use Wikipedia, which ranks at around 200, to vent views that have largely been dismissed as ill-informed apologetics in an attempt to ignore more widely held opinion and attack those you label "anti-cult."67.134.82.78 19:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Why don't you stop making unwarranted accusations about my motives. I have been trying to be civil but you are pushing the limits of my tolerance. Why are all anti-cultists so self-righteous? --Zappaz 20:21, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Now we can see what is anon's agenda: to use WP as a way to boost his website's prominence on Google.--Zappaz 20:29, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Zappaz please stop going on and try to control yourself. You are not making sense and all the name calling, personal attacks and posturing won't change the facts or add any weight to your POV.67.134.82.78 21:15, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Name calling? Posturing, personal attacks? You need to look at a mirror. I have been as civil as I can. The one doing the attacking is you. See you on June 1st. --Zappaz 22:11, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Anyone reading this exchange can judge that. "June 1st"? Sounds like when you can't have your way you declare an "edit war." 67.134.82.78 22:39, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

NON - WP:RS
The rick ross website and forum have been determined to not conform to WP:RS.

Per third-party non WP:RS material should neither be included in See Also nor External Links.

Lsi john 16:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) By whom?
 * 2) What policy? --Tilman 17:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Smee and I are in mediation and have called for Third-Party Opinions on various issues. In the mediation, the mediator and Smee both agreed that Rick Ross was not WP:RS and did not belong in Cited References, See Also or External Links. Other similar third party opinions have also been given in other related articles. My edit here was based on those findings, as they were worded in such a way as to apply to all articles. Lsi john 17:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As I understand the policy?, unregulated websites are subject to POV and are not WP:RS. I'm new and do not know all the specifics. In one specific example, copies of articles on the RR website were not permitted. I believe it was related to a lack of editorial control? review? and that the original article must be cited not a captured copy. (Don't hang me for using wrong words. I'm only trying to relate what I read.) Lsi john 17:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Please check with Smee and other editors before you revert this. You will open the door to the website being used in multiple other places. If you allow non WP:RS to be referenced here, then you will also be allowing non WP:RS material to be referenced in other articles. Lsi john 17:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I can understand that, but surely for biographical information about Rick Ross and for his responses to critics we have to cite his own website, yes?LiPollis 17:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I will not revert a 2nd time. However, Non WP:RS is non WP:RS, regardless of the articles subject matter. Allowing it here will allow it in other places as well. That is a slippery slope.

Based on a quick review of your userpage, it seems you are anti-scientology. That is unimportant except for the basis of this explanation... Do you wish to allow an article on Scientology to be able to use non WP:RS simply because it relates to the topic of the article? (no offense or implications intended to anyone for the example) Lsi john 17:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

If you believe Rick Ross needs to defend himself, or be defended, then find a WP:RS and use that. Lsi john 17:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

There are probably more non WP:RS which need removed. You're welcome to do that or I'll get around to it later. Peace. Lsi john 17:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

An external link is not a source.

Show me the link to your mediation that has determined that Rick Ross is not a reliable source. I remember an older, informal mediation where it was agreed that he is a reliable source, due to being an expert in his field, lecturer, expert witness in court etc. --Tilman 17:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Lsi john, I don't know WHERE on my userpage you could find anything to suggest I am Anti-Scientology. in fact, i am quite sympathetic to new religious movements including scientology.  I have done a fair amount of field work documenting the beliefs and practices of new religious movements and the re-established religions within native American groups.  I find much of Rick Ross's work to be hateful and dangerous.  I also personally find the Anti-Cult movement in general to be unamerican.  Anti-cultists seek to infantilize anyone who doesn't choose to stay in the religion in which their were raised or anyone who chooses to believe in a faith outside the mainstream.  When you consider how non-mainstream the beliefs of Pilgrims, Quakers, Shakers and other groups inmportant to the founding of this country, it makes one wonder, doesn't it?  i try to edit as fairly as possible and Rick Ross is no exception.  Just because I find him to be intelluctually dishonest doesn't mean I won't try and give his biography a fair pass.  If you want to chat about this or email, leave me a note.  You might find you and I have more in common than you initially believed.LiPollis 23:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC) (I neglected to sign my post earlier)
 * As I said, from a brief browsing of your website. Brief is not always good as this case seems to bear out. Regardless, I presume that the example I gave was still clear. My apologies for mis-stating. Lsi john 22:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I found this and Smee agreed only about forum.rickross.com. Not Rick Ross in general. --Tilman 18:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Tilman is exactly on point here. Smee 22:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Smee, why cant he be correct, why does he have to be exactly on point. Do you see how your words are so extra colorful as to be derisive and abrasive? I don't want to fight with you. Please don't pick at me. Lsi john 22:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You had previously removed my comment. That is a no-no.  Do not remove other people's comments from discussion pages.  And how is my agreement with Tilman's assessment of what my opinion would be wrong?  I am simply agreeing with Tilman's assessment here, saying that yes, he is exactly correct in this.  Smee 22:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Please lets not fight and throw accusations. please? I didn't intentionally remove your comment, there was an edit conflict because you were editing. I had edited in two places and Your edit comment did not look like you had edited where I was editing. I pasted in the text and then saw the revision history. I immediately copied your comment and put it back in.. please review the logs and you will see that. And you were putting it in at the same time, so we got two copies.. which is also visible in the logs. You have never seen me remove comments and there is no reason for you to believe I would do it now. Please lets call a truce? or just tell me to leave. I truly do not have the energy to do battle.


 * Regarding my comment. Please read it again in this light... you could have said "he is correct" and that would have reflected the situation accurately and clearly. Instead you said "He is exactly correct". Please step back and read that.. what would be the difference between correct and exactly correct? This is the issue we've had all along with your writing style. You add extra words that are unnecessary and confrontational. If you don't see it, at least accept that I see it and adjust accordingly so that I'm not offended. In the same way you say that you want me to stop being hurtful when I don't feel I'm being hurtful. Therefore I stopped typing WP:POV type labels at you. Lsi john 22:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do not hyper analyze the semantics of my choice of wording. Debating over the placement of my use of the word exactly ?  To refer to how correct Tilman's assessment of my opinions were? Please just stop this.  This is just so, so silly.  Smee 22:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC).


 * I see that now and stand corrected. Though, I would still argue that RickRoss.com is WP:NRS as there is no editorial control and his views are well documented to be anti-cult. It is unreasonable to expect someone with such an avid mission to be unbiased and reliable on their website. Lsi john 22:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

As to what should and what shouldn't be included in See Also and External Links.. well I try to get clarification on things like that in Admin Help and Third Opinion and Smee popped in and tried to kill my requests. I just want a set of standard.. hard and fast standards.. that can be used to decide what can be done and what can't be done. What is proper and what isn't proper. I make an edit, Smee reverts and says no no thats against the rules... then I see her make, what appears to me, to be an identical edit and I'm lost.

Anyway, its not worth the effort and struggle that its been. Though I'll have to acknowledge that I chose to engage in the struggle and thus the responsibility is mine. From here on, I'll probably limit my input to discussion pages. If she uses the input and the articles seem to balance out more, I'll stick around. If she doesn't, and the articles continue to be biased and slanted against LGAT and the good things that can be accomplished by the companies doing the seminars, then I'll leave. There needs to be a balance. The articles need to be fair and neutral. Both the bad AND the good need to be included, or wiki is what my best friend called it a blogapedia. Lsi john 22:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You must understand the differences between WP:RS and WP:EL, as well as the use of external Web sites which archive reputable news sources and other reputable citations, and the text of those older articles... Smee 22:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC).

On an article about a source, links to that source's website is permissible (under some limitations). See WP:V. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Smee 23:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC).

Please Explain
Please explain your position on WP:BLP. Before you revert it, perhaps because you just don't like it, please explain specifically why it is improper to add reliable cited material to an article. Lsi john 14:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The citation I added, was from his own website, in his own words and he specifically acknowledges the validity of it.
 * It is in the same paragraph with the other things he has been called.
 * It adds neutrality by showing both perspectives.
 * I'm not sure who you're speaking to, but I'll chime in anyway: the obvious answer is that just because an item is properly sourced still doesn't mean it belongs here. I could easily find reliable sources that say "Woody Allen is a pedophile", but notice the Woody Allen article does not say "Woody Allen has been called a pedophile." I could easily find reliable sources that say "President Bush is a retard" but notice the George W. Bush article does not say "Bush has been called a retard". Why? Because these are articles about living people, and WP:BLP is clearly against loading articles up with gratuitous gossip and insults, even if the insults happen to be true and even if they happen to be impeccably sourced. Derogatory names that people have called the subject of the article is not encyclopedic information. wikipediatrix 16:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Had I gone out and found an article where someone called Rick Ross- Satan, your comparison would be correct. The citation I gave, is a quote from Rick Ross, acknowledging the name calling. I believe there is a subtle difference. He has recognized the name calling, and thus given it importance. Lsi john 20:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You couldn't be more wrong. It doesn't matter whether the source of the insult was rickross.com or crazedcultloonynews.net. Trivial hearsay and gossip are not proper encyclopedic information and I'd still omit it even if Rick Ross himself came here and begged it to be included. wikipediatrix 21:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Lsi john, in BLPs we need exercise caution and not use bios as a way to perpetuate what somebody may have said about these BLPs. The article, without your addition, already does a good job of presenting the controversy surrounding this person. There is need need to "pile on". This is an encyclopedia and no a pamphlet. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Jossi, I do agree that neutrality needs to be maintained. That particular paragraph seems to include nothing but accreditations, citations, and accolades. Mr Ross himself used the words that I added, on his own website, in his own words. I feel it gives equal and opposing weight in the same place, at the same time, as the positive remarks and labels. If you consider yourself to be neutral, unbiased and with no opinion on the subject matter, and you believe it is unnecessary or unbalances the article then you are welcome to remove it. I feel it is appropriate to put it in the same location with his praises, and it is reliably cited, since he said it himself. Lsi john 20:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What you seem to be saying, then, is that in the interest of fairness, we should always balance accolades with negatives. That's totally wrong-headed. There are plenty of articles about living persons that include good things they've done without talking about the negative. Not all negativity is notable, and that someone called Rick Ross a "tool of Satan" ain't notable by any stretch of the imagination. Are you ready to start correcting the lack of negativity on those tens of thousands of other articles, or are you just especially interested in Rick Ross, hmmm? wikipediatrix 21:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not say that it needed to balance evenly. I said that the paragraph in question was the appropriate place to insert what I inserted. I felt it was appropriate material and the consensus is that it was not appropriate. I can accept a consensus. I cannot accept one editor reverting and citing a rule, without taking the time to explain it, and then reverting a 2nd time, again without having the common courtesy to explain it. Overlooking the sarcasm, both you and jossi have taken time to explain why it was not appropriate to include which is far more courtesy than Smee offered.
 * I'm interested in many things. I'm currently taking photos of Rosie Finches and Gold Finches in flight, as they fight for position at a feeder, which I will contribute to the appropritate article. I have one rapid-series of shots where one finch knocked another off his pearch and it is flying upside down. They are actually very amazing shots.
 * I'm also interested in Scuba Diving (to which I made minor edits). I also have an interest in mathmatics and made a minor update to one of their articles. Like Smee, most of my time has been spent on the LGAT articles, because it is currently of a higher emotional interest to me. Lsi john 21:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally I find Smee's reverts to be offensive and against wiki policy for reverting. My addition was reliably cited and before it gets reverted a discussion should be had. She is being heavy handed and dictatorial. It is not conducive to cooperation and respect. She owes me an apology for her rude behavior. Lsi john 20:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * FYI, I am not unbiased (I do not like Mr. Ross one bit...). Nevertheless, a biography should be factual and understated, and compliant with WP:BLP, WP:NOT, and it should not give undue weight to minority positions. Yes, Mr. Ross is controversial and has attracted considerable criticism. But to refer to him as a "tool of Satan" is not only playing to undue weight, but it also plays to a deliberate attempt to diminish the credibility of his critics. Let it go, John. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Already did. thank you for taking the time to explain it. I don't like Rick Ross, but I also DO want neutral and fair articles. Personally, calling him a tool of satan is nutty, he's simply a tool. ;) Lsi john 21:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Some citations to add to the article...
Smee 03:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC).
 * Nothing new in that source that it is not already covered in the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This was more a note to myself to add it to the article later than anything else. And yes, there are some interesting quotations, and more recent info.  I will add it soon.  Smee 05:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC).

Using Wikipedia to attack someone or something
Perhaps the primary reason Wikipedia has often been crticized as an unreliable research resource is the practice of editors, with an apparent "axe to grind," using it to attack someone or something they don't like. This can be seen within the editing of this entry. Rory Bowman is a supporter of the "Mankind Project." Jossi is a supporter of Prem Rawat, formerly known as the "Guru Maharaji" of "Divine Light Mission." "LSI john" is a supporter of LGATs (large group awareness training) which he prefers to call "personal growth" companies. LGATS, Divine Light Mission and Mankind Project are all included within the archives of the Rick A. Ross Institute. Having pointed this out for a bit of background let's look at a recent bit of edits. Repeatedly edits have been done recently to include the words "he considers" as a preface to "'destructive cults,' controversial groups and movements." This edit is meant to infer that inclusion of the groups is an opinion not a fact. But this is not the case. The news articles archived within the Ross Institute Web site from news reports, court records and/or links to discussion threads reflects the fact that the groups included have garnered some controversy. The label "destructive cults" or "cults" is also a description used within some of the media reports to describe some of the groups included at the Web site archives. The inclusion of the words "he considers" attempts to ignore these facts and mislead the readers of this Wikipedia entry. 24.0.42.27 14:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * See Attribution, and also WP:NPA. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I restored the wording that was stable for many months, before you changed it. It is neutral and accurate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, if you look back at the edit history you will see that Rory Bowman began the changes. 24.0.42.27 15:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * My familiarity with WP:RS and WP:SELFPUB was less then, and a "he considers" line is exactly in keeping with similar sentences such as one of mine which begins "MKP states that it promotes." Another one worth considering here is WP:WEASEL and a review of WP:ATP. A more appropriate place for this discussion might be a user talk page, if 24.0.42.27 would care to register for a standard editor's account. -  Rorybowman 16:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup of September 5
I have somewhat cleaned up the article, severely pruned the block quotes which I believe are a serious copyright nightmare. I have attempted to concisely smelt these into the sections. At the same time, I have used some of the [non-Ross] sources in the article to reduce the percieved bias of quoting directly from Ross. In the case of some of the more minor changes, I have removed the named source in the text where these are referenced in footnotes, as it will be clear where the citation came from. Ohconfucius 09:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Redirect removed
Talk:Rick Ross was redirecting here because some time ago, for a good reason at the time, someone "moved" that page here. Given that Rick Ross is now a disambiguation page currently involving three people, this no longer seems appropriate, and the redirect has been removed. Pdfpdf 06:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

COI (Conflict of Interest)
If any user editing this page, whether an account or IP address really is Rick Ross (consultant), please see WP:COI. Rlevse 01:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not Rick Ross. See my wiki page. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 21:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not Rick Ross. But I am Spartacus. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 06:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC).
 * Will the real Rick Ross please stand up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.102.7.201 (talk) 06:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I wish I was Nick Ross best TV presenter in England....O. Rick Ross? Sorry, never heard of him. He famous?

Reverted edits
I have today reverted the edits of User:Sfacets. The Shupe & Darnell sentence referring him as a violent deprogrammer is duplicated - there already is reference to him being a "coercive deprogrammer". Then, the ref to him being a convicted jewel thief with history of psy problems is attributable to Kabbalah, who relentlessly attacks him for his vendetta against it, and is not reliable. The jewellery theft is already well known fact already abundantly detailed in the bio; AFAIK, there is no source which indicates Ross has ever been so diagnosed. Ohconfucius 09:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The reference to him being a "violent deprogrammer" isn't duplicated. Also this is in the introductory part of the section, which aims at introducing each subsection. Scientology is mentioned for example. The source that details his ,"history of psychiatric problems" is the Las Vegas Sun - it is reliable, and it mentions him agreeing to his history of psychiatric problems: ""Rick Ross is a convicted felon with a history of psychiatric problems," Omer said. True enough, says Ross.  S facets  10:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Although he may have said "true enough", the context isn't exactly clear: I wouldn't entirely agree that "he has had counseling on several occasions in his life, he has never been hospitalized for psychiatric care" means he had "a history of psychiatric problems". Also, when is a "coercive deprogrammer" not a "violent deprogrammer"? Ohconfucius 02:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Well if he's agreeing with the statement, then it means that it's true. Coercive is when somebody uses force or threats, but isn't necessarily "violent" which is much more in the domain of physical brutality. S facets 02:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This seems like a really grey area. What were the problems, and was his response "true enough" the same as "true."? It sounds like someone conceding or placating. Just curious. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 02:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It may have been said in a placating context, however when it is written down that context vanishes, since it would be Original Research to make that assumption. S facets 03:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right. I was just curious. I see no reference to it in the article, don't see a problem with the article as it is. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 03:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Introduction section
I had re-worded the intro section according to WP:LEAD and it was reverted, inviting all editor's to express their concern here... so that we can zero down on something better!! --talk-to-me! (talk) 06:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * My concern with the lead was the addition of florid phrasing and weasel words which changed POV without adding anything of substance, such as


 * consultant and lecturer in the area of his expertise, cults (bolded words add nothing)
 * he is commonly referred to as is imprecise, especially given the quotation marks (and avoids "exit counseling"/kidnapping controversies)
 * he maintains an informative database etc inserts unnecessary opinions (see WP:Weasel)
 * he also owns cultnews.com and changing "blog" to "web site" obscures that these are self-published and not WP:RS
 * the fact that he is an expert witness in some courts is inarguable but the added phrase in relation to his expert knowledge etc adds nothing

As an editor I would note that single-article accounts are inherently suspicious and by themselves raise questions of WP:NPOV, so would encourage new editors to be slightly less effusive and more aware of an article's history before leaping into major revisions of a WP:Lead. Does that help explain my action a bit more? An editor may personally think that the subject of an article is the next Jesus Christ, Joseph Smith or L. Ron Hubbard, but this adoration need not enter into clean and precise WP:NPOV edits. - Rorybowman (talk) 15:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This is what the lead say's presently:-

Rick Alan Ross (born 1952 in Cleveland, Ohio, United States named Ricky Alan Ross) is a consultant and lecturer in the area of his expertise, cults. He is commonly referred to as a "cult intervention specialist", term which describes method of exit counseling or de-programming.

He maintains an informative database about controversial groups, most of which are listed as "cults," and related information on the Internet, containing press articles, court documents, and essays. He also own's Cultnews.com, an informative website.

He has been accepted in various courts as an expert witness, interviewed and quoted by the media in the United States and other countries in relation to his expert knowledge in cults/cultic methodologies.

Ross has been criticized by some of the groups he lists on his website, by some of the scholars who study new religious movements (NRMs), and by other individuals in relation to the roles he played in the controversial "deprogramming" case of Jason Scott and the ill-fated FBI standoff with the Branch Davidians.

what/where is the objection ! --talk-to-me! (talk) 07:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no list of "cults" on the site. see the disclaimer. Seems like you have a personal beef due to your interests in a group listed at the site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.4.106 (talk) 15:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Would you mind focusing on content's rather then contributer's ? --talk-to-me! (talk) 15:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * consultant and lecturer in the area of his expertise, cults (bolded words add nothing)
 * This seems pretty much ok, this is what he is... correct ?


 * he is commonly referred to as is imprecise, especially given the quotation marks (and avoids "exit counseling"/kidnapping controversies)
 * This is better version of he claims to be


 * he maintains an informative database etc inserts unnecessary opinions (see WP:Weasel)
 * Respectfully i disagree... this is what it is, we can exclude the term informative and just database, this is one of his works.


 * he also owns cultnews.com and changing "blog" to "web site" obscures that these are self-published and not WP:RS
 * This page is about a person who control that site, this link is a must in this page, cannot be avoided.


 * the fact that he is an expert witness in some courts is inarguable but the added phrase in relation to his expert knowledge etc adds nothing
 * Agree, this line can be removed.

--talk-to-me! (talk) 17:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Theological and Professional Criticisms
An anonymous editor from New Jersey has concerns regarding the following sentence. Could I get some feedback, please?


 * Evangelical Christian Anton Hein has theological criticisms of Ross on his Apologetics Index and Ross has also had public disagreements with Steven Hassan.

-Rorybowman (talk) 20:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know why Anton Hein's opinion on Ross in notable, or the dispute with Steven Hassan. Both those sources are self-published. It seems to me the major criticisms of Ross are already abundantly expressed (criticism by "cults", "cult apologetics", and about deprogramming) in the article. So I agree with the anon. RB972 02:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Each of the criticisms is from an individual with an ax to grind and as pointed out already self published. Hassan was forced to publish his fee schedule after being exposed for charging extraordinary fees at the Ross Institute Web site. Anton Hein was exposed at Cult News.com as a registered sex offender and fugitive with an outstanding felony warrant. Both men are angry, but what does that have to do with an encyclopedia entry? Hein is not a religious studies scholar and has no official or ordained standing to represent evangelicals.

FYI--Rory Bowman is a supporter of a large group awareness training program called the Mankind Project. The Rick A. Ross Institute has a subsection about that group within its archives, which contains critical news articles. The Mankind Project is also critically discussed within the Ross Institute message board. Bowman seems to feel that this Wikipedia entry is a useful means of retaliation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.4.106 (talk) 14:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It would be unchristian of me to suggest that Rick Ross get a regular editor account if he wishes to remove criticisms of his theological and professional competence by his colleagues in the anti-cult industry. The gist of both criticisms is that Ross is in many ways unqualified to offer criticism of (A) Christian groups as to to their theological orthodoxy, given his own lack of training or expertise in matters of Christian theology and apologetics (where terms such as "cult," "sect" and "faction" have subtle technical meanings) or to offer (B) psychological counseling or intervention, given his lack of credentials in those fields. Neither of these is an ad hominem attack. Is the criticism factually inaccurate? -Rorybowman (talk) 14:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * "Ad hominem"? That isn't the point. As pointed out previously, the citations offered are from self-published individual sources. Simply because they agree with your opinion and agenda doesn't make them any more credible. Look at the full paragraph, it is balanced with criticism first and then published rebuttal. You are attemtping to weigh in more criticism and unbalance the paragraph with individual opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.4.106 (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Rorybowman, your statement unqualified to offer criticism needs further elucidation!! You are making a statement that another person/institute is not qualified to offer criticism, when, from your edits in this article, it appear that its you who is doing this job (offering criticism)!! --talk-to-me! (talk) 23:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * What, CFW, would you argue makes someone qualified to offer criticism? Is it professional training, certification, or a long-term familiarity with the subject and an appreciation of its intricacies and nuance? Hassan has all of these things. Hein presumably has less, but Hein is clearly more familiar and versed in Christian theology and apologetics than Ross. Words like "apologetics" and "cult" have long and established meanings among scholars and did before they became pejoratives after Jonestown. Perhaps the reason that more qualified people would have an "axe to grind" with Ross is that he does not have these basic credentials, submits nothing to peer-reviewed journals and presumably makes at least a portion of his living by getting lawyers to have judges declare him an expert witness on a case-by-case basis. Are you asserting that Ross understands Christian theology better than Hein, or that he is more qualified in matters of psychology than Hassan? If Ross is put forward as a an expert on some subject, it seems reasonable to acknowledge the criticism of others with equal or greater expertise, no? Rorybowman (talk) 02:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW, I tried to track down Hassan's Masters qualifications a year or so ago and they appeared to come from what was then an unaccreditated distance school. Hassan does at least do "academic-like" commentary and writings. IMO Ross appears to be primarily an internet librarian and blogger - a collator of links and information. Quite frankly I'm astounded wikipedians consider him WP:RS --Insider201283 (talk) 12:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I doubt that most Wikipedians do consider Ross WP:RS, but there is a strong anti-cult presence which does. Although the term did not exist, I don't think it is too far off to consider him primarily a blogger these days. The argument that Hassan is any better largely focuses on professional credentials and published work, although I have no idea as to the quality of either and to to speculate would for me be WP:OR. All good points, to be sure! Rorybowman (talk) 17:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm dealing with a Wiki admin who insists the fact an organization is mentioned on Ross's website is notable and thus should be included in an article on the organization, with Ross's site as the source. --Insider201283 (talk) 00:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * With all due regards and admiration for Hassan, i would humbly request to remain focused on the contents of the articles rather than discussing the subject itself, as this will only scatter the discussion, coming back to point 1, elaborating on difference between S. Hassan and Rick Ross, may not help the content of the article, given the fact, they work on similar lines.--talk-to-me! (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)