Talk:Rick Alan Ross/Archive 2

message: Zappaz, you seem to be the only one who wants the deprogrammer in the introduction - please accept the "no academic credentials" instead.
:That is unacceptable. The fact that he was a deprogrammer is highly relevant in this biography. --ZappaZ  15:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur.  Rick won his fame and followers through his activities as a "deprogrammer" -- that is to say, using the same techniques of brainwashing which he condemns as a sign of a cult.  At best, he is a "recovering" deprogrammer, in the same way a former drunk is a recovering alcoholic.  Given the opportunity, he would likely continue those activities.  Critic-at-Arms 16:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Former deprogrammer in the introduction

message: :deleted: (Note: Ross has no professional accreditation in counseling)
No accreditation for "counseling"  is nonsense - Rick Ross offers speficially cult intervention (exit counseling) which consists by his definition of sharing cult-specific information - which is not the same as psychological or spiritual counseling. An accredited psychiatrist has by his accreditation no qualification for exit counseling and Ross does not have the qualification for counseling someone regarding psychological problems. The point is, Ross does not offer that, but only exit counseling. In the introduction is stated that he has no academic credentials which is correct and does not suppose or infer anything additional. --Irmgard 12:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: He was a deprogrammer, he calls himself a "professional" and "intervention specialist" and an "exit counselor". I attempted to present his views as per his website on what terms mean (as mostly are his invention) but you deteled them (my objection to that deletion noted). Read his website and see if he does not present himself as an expert. Read the judge in Scott case. Then with a straight face tell me that is not important to state in Ross article that he does not have any professional credentials. Highly relevant. --ZappaZ  15:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Accreditation

message: This page is not only referred to by the anti-cult movement and the University of Virginia but also, e.g. by the Press, by concerned parents, etc. etc. (anyway, we have no statistics who is clicking there why).  So I shortened the sentence. That it is widely referred to is documented by Google which lists it among the top ten when searching for "cults". --Irmgard 12:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ross website is widely cited by anti-cult movement only. If you want to say that his website is  widely cited by the press, then provide such citation. I have not seen any citation of Ross "database" as a source. The fact thar Ross website is listed in Google when searching for cult, proves nothing. --ZappaZ  15:16, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: rickross.com

message: :Changed: In recent year Ross, like much of the anti-cult community after the controversy and court cases against his deprogramming business, no longer advocates involuntary or coercive interventions for adults, preferring instead what he refers to as voluntary "exit counseling".
The section below is reverted to the former one - it does not correctly reflect what Ross himself writes on his ethical guidelines page http://www.rickross.com/ethics.html  --Irmgard 12:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Deprogramming

message: ::::The distinction by the press does not offer any additional facts  to ...he has been interviewed and quoted by the media as a cult expert in the United States and around the world, and has numerous critics'. It's very ok to have this on the discussion site as source, but in the article its just taking space.  --Irmgard 12:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Unacceptable. The way that Ross is refered in the press, attributed to magazines is 100% relevant to Ros biography. --ZappaZ  15:13, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If anyone was interested enough to take the time the NY Daily News title ""self-styled cult buster" is the exception not the rule. Overwhelmingly Ross is most often referred to as simply a "cult expert" without qualification. He is also more recently referred to as the founder/executive director of the Ross Institute of NJ etc. 
See the following recent examples:
http://www.gothamist.com/archives/2005/07/18/rick_ross_cult_expert.php
http://www.sacbee.com/content/lifestyle/story/13276511p-14118809c.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/324820p-277473c.html
NY Daily News -- "Rick Ross, founder of the New Jersey-based Ross Institute which monitors fringe religious groups."
Which quotes from what press becomes arbritray. But if you wanted to poll a consensus of the press articles over the past year or so to support a conclusive most used reference you could. But this would be time consuming and not really about a encyclopedia entry would it?
38.119.107.70 posted these press quotes again and apparently is in agreement with the Zappaz POV, but has not offered any discussion here concerning edits here.67.134.82.77 15:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: These are good quotes. If Ross see himself as a "cult expert quoted by the media", wouldn't it be appropriate to show how the media characterize him? Not only last year, but over his all career. We could add years to each, if that would help. --38.119.107.70 18:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No. The previous edit was factual and well documented. If you can demonstrate otherwise do so. The introduction reads "He has been interviewed and quoted by the media as a cult expert in the United States and around the world." Please offer proof that this is not true and that there is consensus by the media that Ross is not a "cult expert." I have demonstrated with recent links that he is quoted as such. Please understand that press links don't stay up long-term. The NY Daily News has described Ross in a recent article as the "founder of institute which monitors fringe religious groups" and in an isolated article about those who attack him he is called a "self-styled cult buster." But an encyclopedia entry is not about press clippings. The quotes are not meaningful for encyclopedia purposes. Again, if the edit up is false please enlighten everyone as to why it is false and document this.67.134.82.77 19:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not arguing about the previous edit being false. I am arguing that  these quotes from the media are highly relevant and ought not to be removed. You are welcome to add more quotes if so you wish. --38.119.107.70 01:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No. See first post in this discussion section. Such quotes are OK for Discussion Board, but just take up space in article and offer no new facts. Quotes like that are for a press release, ad, personal promotion, not an encylopedia entry. Removed.67.134.82.77 12:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Distinction by the press

message: I removed these references: the first is a biased third source report, not an encyclopedial reference, the second contains a set of biased questions to congress. The third one moved to Branch Davidians article, says more about them than about Ross --Irmgard 12:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Unacceptable. This is a milestone in Ross life work. You cannot remove text just because  you believe is biased. This is contrary to NPOV. --ZappaZ  15:13, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ross' contribution to the slaughter of the Davidian's is also well documented in a few books on the subject. Mr Christopher 15:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WACO References

message: OK Zappaz. I will be calm and go over the paragraphs with you one at a time in an effort to find a balance that is NPOV. If you are not reasonable I will invite feedback before making another edit. This will be a process and very open for everyone to see.67.134.82.77 01:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally I oppose the word "expert" stated as fact because it is an assessment of a person's knowledge and skills and as such original research and against NPOV guidelines. Some of the quotes and references have been selected to put Ross in a bad light and other quotes can be added to that put him in a more favorable light. Also I think it is fair to add that almost anyone (cult apologist or anti-cult activist) who writes about cults and NRMs is controversial.  Andries 10:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Point by point re: Zappaz constant POV edits. 

message: We have been here before. The article was revised, edited and completed before and up in that edited version for some time. Then Zappaz came back and edited the article more than fifty times until it fit his POV. This included "deletions, or additions" the "opinions" of those that agree with his POV and both "specution" and "propaganda."67.134.82.77 05:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Zappaz said this last time

message: There are quite a few repeated statements that are redundant. Also, many typos, spelling and gramatical errors. But let's start with the first few paragraphs or the introduction.
First paragraph currently reads as follows:
Rick Ross (born November 1952) is a controversial protagonist of the anti-cult movement who maintains a website with an extensive listing of articles about cults, controversial groups, and new religious movements, and related research about mind control theories, as well as the CultNews.com blog.
Ross, a former deprogrammer, describes himself today as a "cult intervention specialist". He has been interviewed and quoted by the media as a cult expert in the United States and around the world, and he has been called as an expert witness on several occasions.
He has numerous critics, especially from groups listed on his website, and he has played controversial roles in the case of Jason Scott and the ill fated Waco standoff with the Branch Davidians.
Britain's FHM magazine named Rick Ross "America's number one cult buster", the New York Daily News referred to Ross as "Self-styled cult buster" and Time Magazine referred to him as “a veteran cult watcher."
To be NPOV IMO it should read as follows:
Rick Ross (born November 1952) is an internationally known cult expert who maintains an extensive database accessible through the Internet about controversial organizations, groups and movements, some that have been called "cults."
This is a simple opening paragraph that is factual, to the point and NPOV.
Overwhelmingly, this is the reported media and general consensus about Ross and his database. Cults and their apologists that say otherwise represent a POV and are not NPOV.
It could further read:
Often called a "cult deprogrammer" Ross refers to himself as a "cult intervention specialist." He has been interviewed and quoted by the media in the United States and around the world, and testified as an expert witness.
He has been typically and frequently criticized by groups, organizations and movements listed within his database and also by academics and others sympathetic to those groups, organizations and movements.
Ross is also known for his role in the controversial Jason Scott case, which involved an involuntary deprogramming and as an expert used by law enforcement, the media and concerned families regarding the Waco Branch Davidians.
Britain's FHM magazine named Rick Ross "America's number one cult buster", Time Magazine referred to him as “a veteran cult watcher."' 
IMO the NY Daily News quote is part of an article that reports about attacks on Ross and it is titled "Busting on the Cult Buster." It is not representitive of the overwhelming way in which Ross is referred to in the press. IMO this is a highly selective reference chosen to represent a POV.
The Scott case was controversial, essentially because Scientology used it as a vehicle to destroy the Cult Awareness Network, which was reflected in the news coverage and public interest. 
Ross' role in Waco was not "controversial." He was consulted, lectured, was seen in the news frequently during and after the standoff as an expert and analyst. Cults and their apologists attempted to make Ross an object of controversy, but the reports, investigations and news covereage overwhelmingly did not reflect that and instead focused on the Waco cult, its deranged leader, his crimes and the tragic end he chose for his followers.
I look forward to comments and feedback.67.134.82.77 05:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The controvesy exists as Ross challenges the FBI' story on his involvement. There are conflicting reports, letters back and forth between Ross and the government, challenges from one to another, etc. If one is to judge by the amount of literature on the subject, as the very different perspectives offered by the protagonists, not calling it controversial would be innacurate. --38.119.107.70 18:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed edits to return article to NPOV 

message: I think the information about fees must be removed (or at least made less specific) because it violates the wikipedia policy (or guideline?) not to include information that dates quickly. Andries 11:51, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Unacceptable. Add the year and that's it. "As of 2005, Ross fees for intervention...." --ZappaZ  15:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Zappaz, it is highly unusual that Wikipedia articles contain detailed prices of products, because that would break generally accepted guidelines of excluding information that dates quickly. I see no reason here to break this guideline. Andries 17:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thoughts, I think Zappaz, you are right, I included "as of 2005" Andries 17:43, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I would also appreciate if you stand-up and voice disagrement about the unwarranted  deletion of facts and well referenced material.--ZappaZ  21:11, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: information about fees should be removed

message: I placed my seld on a self-imposed moratorium in editing this article, with the belief that editors will responsibly edit and improve upon the article. Unfortunately, the only editing has been a determided effort to delete text that was properly sources and referenced. I will have my weekend in peace, but note my strong objection to these deletions of text. --ZappaZ  15:26, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's try to get along and work in an NPOV way. Wikipedia is not really the place to posit your POV. Message boards might work better for this. Try editing with a NPOV, this may take time, little "baby steps," but put one foot in front of another and before you know it you just might get the hang of it.67.134.82.77 15:19, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? So now you are a WP expert as well? Fantastic... --ZappaZ  23:47, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Just making a general observation based upon your behavior and a reading of the Wikipedia guidelines.67.134.82.77 15:20, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note 

message: Under "Life" the following quote appears. "Ross's involvement with cults started in 1982, when a messianic group infiltrated the Jewish nursing home in Arizona where his grandmother was a resident."
This is misleading.
Many groups are "messianic," such as the Unification Church, which believes Rev. Moon is the "messiah" or Jewish groups that are waiting for the fulfillment of messianic prophecies. But the group that raised Ross' concern specifically was a fundamentalist Pentecostal group that targets Jews for conversion. They may call themselves "messianic Jews," but this a controversial claim. If readers of Wikipedia are to understand the specific situation it should read more specifically -- "a controversial religious group that targets Jews for conversion."
See http://www.rickross.com/reference/jews_for_jesus/jews_for_jesus8.html
The above article explains the concern of the Jewish community, Ross' involvement through a committee and the equal concern of Christians that endorsed the educational brochure he and others worked on regarding the situation.67.134.82.77 15:22, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "messianic group" 

message: His Jewish identity is best noted as an introduction to concerns abount his grandmother in the third paragraph under "Life" rather than the first paragraph.67.134.82.77 15:23, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ross Jewish 

message: Amended move to Arizona to include date and also dates of crimes committed in second paragrah.67.134.82.77 15:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  dates in bio 

message: Ross was appointed to two different committees through the UAHC one about cults and another devoted to interreligious affairs.
See http://www.rickross.com/biography.html
And also http://www.rickross.com/cv.html
It is confusing and/or misleading to say he "left the Jewish Prisoners Program" in 1986. This was a professional position as opposed to volunteer work, which might be implied through the previously cited affiliations and committee work.
Specifically, Ross worked for Jewish Family and Children's Service and the Bureau of Jewish Education in Phoenix, Arizona. He was a member of the paid professional staff of both organizations. If there is space to repeat that Ross has "no academic credentials" and only a "high school" education,it is also meaningful to state his employment history/experience.
:::You use the term "paid professional staff". Could you find any information about this? We ought just to use just "paid staff", unless we can find information that can be quoted to add the "professional" as an adjective. Definiton of the term professional: Of, relating to, engaged in, or suitable for a profession: lawyers, doctors, and other professional people. --38.119.107.70 18:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  mistakes and omissions within "Life" bio 

message: Ross and other deprogrammers did use "force and restraint" through involuntary deprogramming efforts, which Ross acknowledges, but "threats" is over the top and not documented. What "threats"? In deprogrammings like Scott case, people were eventually free to go. It is reported that Scott "escaped" while eating dinner at a public place after his deprogramming days with Ross ended. Was the "threat" to take him out for dinner? Let's just stick to "force and restraint." This doesn't make much sense. But force used to bring someone into a deprogramming and restraint to keep them there is consistent with the facts.67.134.82.77 15:27, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If we are going to debate the use of certain words, we ought to also use in this section the term "abduction", as this is what is written in the 1998-APR-8 decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals: . . . the only way to deprogram Scott was to abduct him and let Ross do his work. With the aid of two confederates, Ross abducted Scott and held him captive for five days. Scott feigned acceptance of Ross' deprogramming and escaped. Also note the last sentence about feigning acceptance. Where possible we ought to use official documents rather than anecdotal information from unknown sources. --38.119.107.70 18:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "force and threats" 

message: Carol Moore is quoted regarding Ross. She is to say the least controversial. Moore is a Libertarian, her book was published by the Gun Owners of America and is acclaimed as a "polemic against the government."
See http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9602/reviews/roundup.html
Dean Kelley, often called an apologist and recommended by Scientology as a religious resource, proclaims; "Carol Moore has written a polemic against the government worthy of the organization to which she has devoted more than two years of work-the Committee for Waco Justice, which has staged demonstrations in Washington to protest what they view as crimes by the federal agencies. Her book is copublished by Gun Owners of America and highlights issues of interest to opponents of gun control and of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, but it is not untrustworthy because of that."
See http://www.boogieonline.com/revolution/by_name/M/CarolMoore.html
Moore once described herself as "libertarian non-violent pacifist decentralist pagan hippy communalist worshiper of the goddess maryjane." 
See http://www.theconspiracy.us/9501/0019.html
Moore is cited on "Conspiracy Nation."
See http://www.constitution.org/waco/mtcarmel.htm
Carol Moore's "Committee for Waco Justice" was cited "the main legal fund for the civil case of the surviving Davidians against the U.S. government." The Davidian survivors lost that case at trial and subsequently upon appeal. 
Ms. Moore's reports and supposed "facts" have been discounted, dismissed and/or disputed by various government reports, through both a criminal and civil trial and by the Danforth Investigation.
Moore represents a fringe conspiracy theory view of Waco. For example, her writings are featured at "New Dawn" Magazine, which states that its "mission" is "Challenging Consensus Reality...journal of alternative news."
See http://www.newdawnmagazine.com/whatisnewdawn.html
And also http://www.newdawnmagazine.com/Articles/Waco%20Four%20Years%20On.html
http://www.padrak.com/alt/index.shtml
PADRAK Alternative Information
Here is Moore's bio http://www.carolmoore.net/biography/ she does have a history of activism on the radical fringe. If anyone can find any academic credentials please post a link to an NPOV source.67.134.82.77 22:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If Carol Moore is controversial, then say who consider her controversial. Opinions are not welcome unless are attributed to someone that is notable enough to be quoted. That way a reader can see where this protagonist stands and what are his/her motives. There is no need to have academic credentials to be quoted.  Only that the person quoted is notable. I would argue that Moore is notable in reference to Waco. --38.119.107.70 18:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Enough information and links have been provided to demonstrate Ms. Moore is "controversial," her own bio also demonstrates her history of controversy. If Ross is to be described as "controversial" certainly Ms. Moore is. It's interesting to note that Ms. Moore's academic credentials are not of any concern to you, when Ross' lack of credentials are. You have not demonstrated that Ms. Moore is not controversial nor have you offered proof that the edit is false.67.134.82.77 22:40, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Moore is a recognized and often quoted/cited expert on the Branch Davidians.  Trying to keep her POV out of this article is curious to say the least.  And we do not exclude authors because their publisher holds pro-gun ownership views.  Gun ownership in the United States is legal, mainstream and not controversial.  If you read about the Davidian's you'll note most all gun rights groups were supportive of the Branch Davidians.  Numerous gun magazines wrote articles about the Waco slaughter at the time.  We also do not exclude authors who are politically libertarian or who may smoke or have smoked pot.  Finally, we do not exclude sources because they are controversial.  Mr Christopher 16:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carol Moore 

message: The Ross Institute website/database is "widely cited" and not only by "countercult" people. It is typically cited by the mainstream press, colleges, universitites, etc. This is demonstrated by numerious links and articles already posted at this discussion board. The FAQ section of the site and its disclaimer (linked from every page) does take care to clarify "the mention and/or inclusion of a group or leader within this archive does not define that group as a 'cult' and/or an individual mentioned as either destructive and/or harmful. Instead, such inclusion simply reflects that archived articles and/or research is available about a group or person that has generated some interest and/or controversy." The recent edit adding that some groups may be "insulted" by their inclusion is a POV and not relevant here. This is covered by the section titled "Criticism." The edits have been reverted.67.134.82.77 22:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you say that the website ifs "widely cited" you need not only to say that it is so, but provide references to sustain that claim. A search on Google will show that 99% of websites that link back to Ross website are the countercult and not the mainstream press. There are 2,185 backlinks to rickross.com  of which 99% of these links are from Ross' website itself. In order to say that his website is widely cited, we ought to provide some kind of supportive material for that statement. --38.119.107.70 01:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be avoiding the point. The media has "widely cited" the website in many, many articles since its inception. Posts previously provided prove this information. A Google News search will do the same. Also See http://www.trafficranking.com/
If you go to site rankings you will find that the Ross Institute website www.rickross.com ranks 28,106 with 21, 666 links on the WWW. It is both widely used and widely cited. It is a very large database that contains news articles (AP, Reuters, various newspapers), court documents and public records about hundreds of groups, organizations and movements. As such a database it is widely used by the public and not limited to so-called "countercult" people.67.134.82.77 12:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  website "widely cited," disclaimer and FAQ, POV of groups 

message: The third paragraph from the top notes that Ross has "numerous critics especially from groups listed on his website..." This is sufficient and "extensive criticism" is not accurate. For example, "extensive criticism" would be widespread such as the media, many NPOV organizations without a vested interest, mental health professionals etc. Instead his critics are essentially the groups listed at his site, other groups called cults and academics that often defend such groups. The "scholars" or academic apologists are given their say in Criticism.67.134.82.77 12:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  numerous critics 

message: Ross no longer engages in involunary interventions. He states this at his site under "Deprogramming." Taking up further space here on this subject is not necessary. Obviously (see Jason Scott a whole section) he was sued and subjected to a judgment. Anyone can see why he stopped. Use a little common sense. Again, repetition is not meaningful. The link may be useful though for those who want to know more.67.134.82.77 13:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  involuntary vs. voluntary interventions 

message: User 38.119.107.70:
You have reverted edits without proper discussion or due process. There is a three revert rule. This user should be banned if there are three reverts. So far you have reverted once against the guidelines previously posted by Fire Star. Please read those guidelines. If you violate the three revert rule you may be locked out of this article. I and others have posted precise explanations of why edits were made and responded to your edits point by point. Simply adding a note to your edit, which should be in discussion, is not the process outlined. Please stick to the guidelines posted.67.134.82.77 15:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I read about the three revert rule. This applies if a user reverts three times within a 24 hr. period. I have not done that. I have responded point by point and you have ignored my arguments. The burden for deleting any material from an article are on the person deleting: As far as I can understand from the policies, any factual information that uses a citation and that is attributed to a notable source should not be deleted from an article. Unless you can overcome these arguments, you cannot delete the material. If you find any of the citations provided to be inaccurate, then I would agree to a deletion. So, feel free to add more material to the 
article, but if you want to delete material you will need to show that the material is either irrelevant or not properly supported by external references. --38.119.107.70 19:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Creating a false argument is not the means to resolution. You have not responded to the points raised in previous discussion and simply reverted insisting upon having your way. That is not how I read the guidelines. You essentially seem intent upon turning this entry into a POV Opinion/Editorial piece as opposed to an NPOV encyclopedia entry.67.134.82.77 20:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  reverting without support 

message: Under Branch Davidians there is the POV of Kimberly Post writing for a Web site originally created by Jeffrey Hadden, a controversial sociology professor that was criticized for working closely with groups called "cults" and recommended by the Church of Scientology as a resource. Ms. Post apparently did the entry quoted while a student of Hadden's sociology class. Her remarks reflect a POV and make unsubstantiated claims, such as "assumptions put forth by Breault and Ross decisively influenced the investigation and opinion of Koresh and his followers by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Attorney General Janet Reno, and President Clinton." She offers no factual evidence to support that claim. The footnotes for her article include Ms. Ammerman who is also quoted saying essentially the same thing that Ms. Post later reiterates. There is no need for repitition and this POV is already expressed by Ms. Ammerman, who unlike Ms. Post is not a student, but rather a professor.
Catherine Wessinger, another person often cited as a "cult apologist," calls Ross a "spurious self-styled expert." This is yet another example of a repititious POV entry that amounts to little more than name calling. There is already noted criticism from Anson Shupe, Ammerman etc. along these lines. Ross has Wessinger listed on his "Cult Apologist" page, perhaps she is mad about that.67.134.82.77 16:42, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Kimberly Post, Jeff Hadden, Ammerman, Wessinger, Moore, Supe have criticized Ross quite extensively each one of them on a different aspect of this man's work. Of course these are POVs, how can they not be. POV means Point of View. Ross has a point of view, the AFF has a point of view, Asnon hein as a point of view, and these people have a point of view etc. etc. etc. Not to sound repetitive, and regardless of your feelings for Ross, you cannot justify deletion of material because you don't like it, or because you speculate that someone wrote a scathing criticism due to Ross' listing. If supported by an academic citation, or by a notable source in the context of the article, the material is good to stay. You may want to look for citations that exalt the work of Ross (if these are from scholars or notable persons) and add these as a counterbalance. --38.119.107.70 19:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV repetition under Branch Davidians 

message: The LaRouche at "Executive Intelligence Review" was previously edited out because it did not meet Wikipedia guidelines as reliable. 
The Danforth Reports are available on-line and should be linked along with other Congressional findings, which are also available online.67.134.82.77 21:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: With the exception of edits by Antaeus Felspar that added material to the article and provided references for his additions, all deletion of material by editor IP 38.119.107.70 is reducing the quality of this article and is against the principles set forth in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I don't understand why nobody else is objecting to deletion of material, when that material is supported by external, notable and relevant citations. I am reverting all edits with the exception of the edits by Felspar and Andries that made some needed neutralization. I am not new to Wikipedia as Felspar assumes, as I have edited for  while last year when I was in between projects, a situation I find myself now as well. --38.119.107.70 02:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objection to removal of material 

message: This guy that calls himself "Stefano Ponte" (probably a Scientologyist or member of another cult) is really pretty funny. He says Wicca objects to Ross including them within on his list, which is totally false. See http://www.rickross.com/reference/wicca/wiccavisitor.html
Visitors are happy for the information. Obviously, "Ponte" is not interested in facts and is just another angry guy using Wikipedia to get at someone he doen't like. Looking over the Wicca section I can see why they are praising it. Ross has some really interesting articles that help make people better understand Wicca. See http://www.rickross.com/groups/wicca.html . Hey, and will someone explain to me why anyone would put this statement in a so-called "encylopedia" -- "Notwithstanding that diclaimer, several groups featured on his website, such as the Christian Fellowship, Wicca, and the Kabbalah Centre do not appreciate being listed as they claim the term "cult" has negative connotations and is perceived as an insult." Wow, what a totally bogus entry that is. I checked Ross' site and he doesn't even call these groups "cults." The statement is first totally false about Wicca and then shows a disregard for facts and research. So much for counting on Wikipedia as any kind of reliable source.208.5.214.2 22:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Much easier is just to remove info that is incorrect. I deleted the Wicca reference. The other two groups mentioned have complained. --ZappaZ  04:28, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

text: At Wikipedia it isn't done to say things like "Are you an idiot? Or can't you read?" or to insult other editors. In a situation where there is a disagreement over who has said what publicly, one instead asks other editors to cite their sources. No citation, no inclusion. Fire Star 13:41, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wicca 

message: This is a warning to anon user 208.5.214.2. Please note that abusive language and personal attacks are not acceptable behavior in Wikipedia. You are welcome to edit this and other articles, but you will have to learn to maintain a civil and corteous demeanor in the talk pages. I will comb these pages are delete your expletives and abusive language. --ZappaZ  18:58, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your verbal abuse and behavior  will not make you any friends around here and you will end with your IP address banned from Wikipedia if you persists with that behavior. Please remain civil. Thanks. For your information, I don't have a "guru". --ZappaZ  22:21, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warning to 208.5.214.2 

message: There is an organized pro cult movement.
See these links---
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/c11.html
http://www.rickross.com/apologist.html
http://home.snafu.de/tilman/faq-you/cult.apologists.txt
Many of these sociologists and would-be "scholars" have been paid off by cults or their books and research funded by them. Something like scholarship for sale to the highest bidder. Looks like Gordon Melton tried to sell his wares to the "anti-cult movement" first, but found out that the cults had more money. Jeffrey Hadded also hatched a scheme to get money from cults, but his memo was leaked on the Internet.
So why not acknowledge that there is a pro-cult movement that is well organized and funded?
These guys get together and have conferences, attack the opposing side and have a well defined position. The same names even keep coming up.
How about a little honesty here at Wikipedia???
Or is that a "personal attack" that will be deleted???208.5.214.2 22:10, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that is not a personal attack. The issue you discuss is already covered in Wikipedia. See Cult apologist, and Polarized views by scholars, and  Apostates and Apologists. You can also follow the links to the articles on scholars that have been called apologists. If you feel inclined, you can get a userID and help make these articles better. But note that you will need to lower your tone of voice and learn to work with other people even those with a totally opposed POV to yours in a respectful and civil manner. You will also need to read and understand the Wikipedia principle of Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View. It will take time to get use to it, but it will be very rewarding if you do.  --ZappaZ  22:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Pro-cult movement is not very neutral and might have been coined on the go, so it should not be used. On the other hand, the confidential Hadden memo (made public by Beit-Hallahmi, who was one of the receivers ) shows there have been attempts by NMR scholars to organize opposition to cult watching groups: "AGENDA ITEM # 5 - Consider what collective action, if any, needs to be developed as an alternative to AFF's Project Recovery." (Hadden's words) This has been published by Beit-Hallahmi and commented by several others, so it is not original research. --Irmgard 09:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

text: BTW, it is also problematic to use the label anti-cultist too liberally - when talking of academics it is as POV as cult apologist, especially in cases like "Professor Jeffrey Hadden" vs. "alti-cultist Stephen Kent" while both are professor of sociology). --Irmgard 09:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

text: In any case, labels like pro-cult movement cult apologist or anti-cult activist etc. should be avoided when one is referring to a person in an encyclopedia, if they are not attributed and referenced. --Irmgard 09:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Because the public "name calling" directed at Ross is being done by notable public figures about a notable public figure, and it is documented. Wikipedia editors personally insulting each other and calling each other names on article talk pages isn't allowed, period. FYI, I agree with Ross about a lot of things (not everything) and think that his website is generally a public service. You have to recognise that an outspoken public profile will engender criticism, and that criticism can't be swept under the rug. We have to trust that our readers are intelligent enough to weigh the evidence presented. Civility in aid of the editorial consensus process at Wikipedia cannot be ignored. Fire Star 19:22, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

text: You cannot add commentary to the article that are your opinions. You can provide citations from notable sources, if you wish, but commentary that it is not supported by primary (or secondary) notable sources are not welcome and will be deleted. For example, you cannot say RR is a cult expert, but you can say (as the article reads) that "Ross has been referred to by the media as a "cult deprogrammer", a "internationally known expert", as "America's number one cult buster", a "cult expert" , as a "self-styled cult buster", and as “a veteran cult watcher". That is one of the things that NPOV is about. Same with your characterization of some of Ross critics. Source it, reference it, attribute it ... or lose it. --ZappaZ  22:43, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

text: For an example of a biographical article based on reported facts, that includes criticism as well, see Jeffrey K. Hadden. So rather than repeating the criticism on Hadden on this article, you can just wikilink to that section as follows: "Hadden was accused on being supportive of cults. See also  Hadden's critics" --ZappaZ  22:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pro Cult Movement 

message: Zappaz is here to promote a very specific agenda. He is the devoted supporter of a guru often called a "cult leader" named Guru Maharaji (Divine Light Mission) aka Prem Rawat of Elan Vital.
See http://www.ex-premie2.org/
Zappaz has an axe to grind with those who criticize cults, explain their abuses, indoctrination/brainwashing techniques etc. He apparently hopes to use Wikipedia to go after cult critics and their "theories."
Editing by Zappaz follows two lines:
1. Get in whatever you can by way of false and/or misleading information and hope no one notices. 
2. Edit and edit and edit until you have it your way with Wikipedia through reverting and/or repeatedly deleting what you don't want and then posting whatever you do want regardless of the facts.
Zappaz also relies heavily upon "scholars" of so-called NRMs "new religious movements," who often work closely with cults and are at times paid by them.
Zappaz likes to quote their name calling of people he doesn't like such as Ross. Note the quotes by Hadden (who has sought funding from cults), Melton, Wessinger, Shupe (who wrote his paper with the help of Scientology lawyer Kendrick Moxon a former employer Shupe made thousands from) and Nancy Ammerman. All cult apologists that have collectively caused a bit of a scandal within academia for their lack of research rigor to say the least.
Nevertheless, Zappaz doesn't want Wikipedia readers to know that. He hopes to edit out the actual context and/or background of their work or any historical information. He hopes Wikipedia readers will read their POV, but believe it is somehow NPOV.
Zappaz also cuts and tailors the introduction to mislead as much as possible. For example, he quotes "self-styled cult buster," hoping the reader will overlook that Ross is overwhelmingly referred to in the media as a "cult expert" over and over again in article after article and that this reference within an article about his critics is essentially exceptional. He also attempts to mislead the reader by implying that somehow the media interviews Ross becasue of "his interest" rather than due to their own interest in cults and related subjects for news purposes.
On and on it goes, round and round in the propaganda war waged by people like Zappaz at Wikipedia.
See cults, brainwashing, mind control, Prem Rawat, Divine Light Mission, deprogramming, cult, etc. and look for Zappaz edits and discussion. You will begin to realize what his purpose is here at Wikipedia.
In the end the Zappaz strategy at Wikipedia is to revert without discussion whenever he can and hope it gets by, depend upon other cult types (e.g. Scientologists) that will cut and edit like he does and genereally Zappaz goes on and on until he gets his way.
Sadly,...deleted personal attack  do their worst here at Wikipedia, often making it into something of a joke, as noted by others, and not a reliable source of information. Zappaz and his fellow cult propagandists will hang out indefinitely editing until Wikipedia reads like they want.
Until Wikipedia very seriously addresses this problem it will never be a reliable reference for anyone searching for facts. Instead, it will be the idiosyncratic home of angry polemicists and their rants attempting to be passed off as NPOV information.
I think that about does it for me. 
Zappaz once claimed he would give it a rest through his supposed "self-imposed moratorium." Maybe that's what I should really do. 
After a while Wikipedia's lack of genuine editing based upon the facts becomes discouraging. It is easy to see why people like Zappaz so often win out here. No doubt he will get the last word. Not because he has the facts, but because Zappaz ...delete personal attack...67.134.82.77 13:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you believe the other user really isn't listening to reason, then you may try Wikipedia:Request for comment to get other people's opinions. Fire Star 14:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I have already told you that I have no guru, I edit these articles (and many others), and continue to do out of interest in the subject. These asumptions of yours are unwarranted. You have a right to disagree with me, but please remain on purpose that is to write the best encyclopedia there is. I have been corteous, civil, and have encouraged you read the relevant information about how WP works and how consensus is reached. In my experience, the best articles are those that are written with the heat of the friction generated by opposing POVs when conducted with civility and without personal attacks, negative assessment of character, or assuming bad faith. If you have specifics about the scholars you discuss above, note that each one of them has an article in WP. You are welcome to edit these and find notable sources that support your POV (although most of these are already included in these articles).  I am deleting your personal attack from your message as per WP policy. --ZappaZ  15:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I will adopt another self-declared moratorium for 30 days in editing this article, with the hope that other participant editors ensure anon's edits comply with WP:NPOV. If no one challenges obvious non-NPOV edits by these anons I will do so at the end of my moratorium. That will give a chance to other editors to help improve upon this article. --ZappaZ  16:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zappaz revert 

message: Catherine Wessinger, Professor of the history of religions and women's studies at the Loyola University in New Orleans, characterizes Ross as a "spurious self-styled expert[s]" in her paper The Branch Davidians and the Waco Media, 1993-2003
This para says nothing about the role of Ross in the Waco standoff - it's just gives Wessingers opinion on Ross with no reasons for it. No matter if she's a professor, such a text should not be quoted in an encyclopedia article. The source might be correctly quoted, but there are no facts involved.  --Irmgard 17:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What? That is no reason to delete text and reference.  Reverted. --ZappaZ  17:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Catherine Wessinger is whining that Ross was often quoted in the local media, instead of e.g. herself. I have read several articles by Catherine Wessinger a few years ago - I consider her works to be rather poor research, full of blatant errors. See her entry in my cult apologist FAQ. In my opinion, the text should indeed be deleted, but I've added a few "neutral" words what her criticism of Ross really is (that he's quoted by the media) 213.73.66.219 07:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wessinger

message: This article uses the religioustolerance.org website as either a reference or a link. Please see the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org and Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org as to whether Wikipedia should cite the religioustolerance.org website, jguk 14:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Religioustolerance.org

message: I've noticed that apparently there are two standards used to determine if a group is a cult. As a Christian, the "sociological" standard is what concerns me. Using that standard, any religious group that takes seriously its teachings and upholds standards in accordance with those teachings, could be considered a cult. I'll give an example. Fundamentalist Christian churches are often targeted by "anti-cult" groups. Now, if they really are doing something unethical, immoral, or illegal, and still trying to pass themselves off as Christian, then they should be exposed. Fundamentalist Christian churches usually are not guilty of this, yet they're still considered "cultic". The reason given is that they have "high" expectations of their membership and practice "stern" discipline of those not conforming. The problem here is how one defines these terms. If, for example, a church is enforcing biblical standards of personal conduct amongst its members in a manner prescribed by their sacred writings (the Bible) and happen to expect its members to be more than nominally committed to the church, it can find itself being labeled as a cult because apparently these actions and expectations aren't as common as before. The reasoning goes that if the majority of Christian churches are no longer strict and operating according to tradition, then those churches that continue in the tradition are considered in error and aberrant. Is this really a valid claim though if one examines what the true teachings of the faith are? I think not. Therefore, when examining churches that claim to be Christian, it makes more sense to see what their doctrine is concerning the fundamentals of the faith (those teachings which define Christianity). If those core teachings are perverted or denied, then it necessarily follows that its practices will be as well. If, however, the doctrine is in line with the essential teachings of the faith, then no matter how "unusual" some of its practices or policies may seem, that church cannot really be called a cult. Therefore using "sociological" standards to define cults leaves virtually any religion eligible to being given that label since those standards tend to be arbitrarily defined. Jlujan69 07:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many sociological definitions of cults, some or even most of which are incompatible w/ each other. Not only therefore, it is more value neutral to speak of "so-called cults", if one has not identified the concept of cult used at length beforehand.--Fossa 04:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  defining cults 

message: ... because most so-called cults Rick Ross lists have not been shown to be destructive at all, but there are some people who believe that they are destructive. --Fossa 04:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why "allegedly destructive cults"? 

message: What is a "maintainance revert"? Why is a revert being labelled as "maintenance"? -Will Beback 01:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is meant jokingly. Several anti-cult activists revert my changes on a number of cult- and anti-cult related articles. They generally do not justify their opinions on the Talk page or let me even put up a neutrality warning. So in onder to register my dissent with this activism, I from time to time revert to  the less biased pages.--Fossa 11:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Maintainance revert

message: Why are the majority of the links not neutral, i.e. they are linked back to a site that is fully run and operated by Rick Ross. This is not a neutral article. I have put my link: http://www.pottersclub.com/articleshow.asp?art_num=8 in the critical list, as the one I put in last time was deleted. I think that the wholesale deletion of links should be banned unless significant discussion is made. Potters house
: I'm impressed. After the ACM pundits try to paint Ross in an as glorious picture as possible, now you suggest also to include some warped anti-Ross point of view that's bordering on anti-Semitism. What's next? Ross' role in the planned invasion of Mars? Fossa 17:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: gahahahahahaha!  Oh, this is rich -- Fossa, who keeps trying to re-insert into the external links a link which tries to argue that Ross is homosexual based on speculation about the various ways he could have finished the unfinished sentence "I have frequently ..." -- Fossa now complaining about "some warped anti-Ross point of view"?  Oh, it's too rich... -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Frankly, if you had the decency to explain your reverts, I would have not reverted the deletion of that link, which anyways put "exposure" already into quotation marks. You also omitted to mention that religious tolerance is sponsored by Scientology. Fossa 19:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  See BTW (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rick_Ross&diff=45507213&oldid=45506119), where I was the first one to complain about this link. Had I read through its entierty at the time, I would heve deleted it. Notice, that you claimed to have made a full revert, while in fact you also deleted the link. Fossa 19:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  Now I see that you earlier wrote "Has he actually looked at that external link, I wonder?". And, likely I didn't; so mea culpa, next time, specify the link you are referring to. Fossa 19:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: links

message: I propose that this statement be added to the section called "Criticsm" on Rick Ross:
"As Rick Ross posts testimonials (on numerous organizations) that are considered negative on his web site, there should be a warning to all readers; especially as the opportunity for objectiveness is rendered obsolete."
There are no objective viewpoints that Rick Ross posts on his web site for any of the groups mentioned.  Thus his web site provides a totally subjective viewpoint, and there should be checks and balances somewhere.  Rick Ross stated that he will not place positive statements from anyone about any of the so-called cults.  Why not state this on the Rick Ross WP article?
24.30.88.21 19:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can find Ross's statement as a reference, then it is probably worthwhile to add something about it. However we should not word is as a "warning to readers", and instead simply state his policy without judgement.   -Will Beback 22:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I suggest a similar statement for non-smokers organisations, or anti-drug organisations, or Greenpeace, of the sort "We never say anything objective about our targets". --Tilman 05:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Statement to be Added 

message: I suggest this entry be blocked for non-registered users. This game with the "two poor-quality external links" has become tiresome. --Tilman 08:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it continues, I will semi-protect. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 15:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  partial block 

message: I think that the two links should remain because there seems to be no other critical links except ones approved by Ross supporters! Other sites like the one on the Potter's House Christian Fellowship has many biased links from people whom I have proven to be unreliable sources, but they still remain. Why is there discrimination here? Where is the neutrality?
Nick.
www.waymanmitchell.com - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Potters house (talk • contribs) 2006-07-03 23:13:46
:Your two links are of poor quality. They are of the kind "Rick Ross is wrong, and he's so baaad". Plus, your texts are rather harmless compared to the really nasty one from scientology that is already there, so why bother?
:The same applies for the text you just added, which isn't written in an "encyclopedic" language. Plus, it's incorrect, since Rick Ross doesn't warn e.g. about the catholic church. Finally, it isn't really an "information" that the groups targeted by Ross disagree with his opinion. Nobody expects anything else. At most, your text might belong to Potters House.--Tilman 06:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two links 

message: Please note that NNDB (http://www.nndb.com) is not a reliable source for information about living people. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NNDB 

message: I reviewed all the evidence in all the references and put a point by point and date by date list in. I noticed another editor has removed most of my compilation of the facts. Before any further edits are done could we discuss that here please
*Mark1800 06:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early life 

message: Most of the negative information about Rick Ross is unsourced. I'm removing most of it as per WP:BLP. wikipediatrix 23:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is unsourced? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Every sentence I deleted that you just reinstated. wikipediatrix 23:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  unsourced 

message: Just because something is properly sourced doesn't mean it's fair. This is what's known as "Undue weight". Note how the article says all this:
"The role of Ross before and during the Branch Davidian standoff at Waco, Texas caused some controversy.
Ross deprogrammed Branch Davidian David Block in 1992, prior to the raid. That Davidian was later interviewed by the BATF, which also interviewed Ross. Ross says he deprogrammed another Davidian during the standoff, but this was not reported. He was also one source quoted in the Waco Tribune-Herald's series titled "Sinful Messiah" for which they interviewed over 100 people.
According to the FBI Ross approached them during the standoff and requested that he be interviewed, which he was.
The Report to the Deputy Attorney General on the Events at Waco, Texas (February 28 to April 19, 1993) states that:
The FBI interviewed Ross only at Ross' request, and politely declined his unsolicited offers of assistance throughout the standoff. The FBI treated the information Ross supplied as it would any other unsolicited information received from the public: it evaluated the credibility of the information and treated it accordingly[10]".
And then has only this to say about the subject's side of the story:
Ross states that this information is not correct and details that he was contacted by FBI agent Bobby L. Siller on March 4, 1993 and in the later course by several others which he also names.
After this weak chance at rebuttal, the article goes on with further info critical of Ross:
Nancy Ammerman insisted they relied too much on Ross, a view which is not shared by the other three experts reporting to the Justice department. In her official report to the Justice Department Ammerman wrote:
In late March, Ross recommended that agents attempt to humiliate Koresh, hoping to drive a wedge between him and his followers. While Ross's suggestions may not have been followed to the letter, FBI agents apparently believed that their attempts to embarrass Koresh (talking about his inconsistencies, lack of education, failures as a prophet, and the like) would produce the kind of internal dissension Ross predicted. Because Ross had been successful in using such tactics on isolated and beleaguered members during deprogramming, he must have assumed that they would work en masse. Any student of group psychology could have dispelled that misapprehension. But the FBI was evidently listening more closely to these deprogramming-related strategies than to the counsel of scholars who might have explained the dynamics of a group under siege[11].
And again, Ross gets only a few scant words devoted to his side:
In his account to the Department of Justice, Ross gives very different examples of advice he gave to the FBI agents.
I'm tempted to yank the whole thing until it can be rewritten fairly. Any thoughts, anyone? wikipediatrix 23:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You area welcome to add additional rebuttals from Mr. Ross. But removing material that is verifiable, is not a good idea. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Also note that articles in Wikipedia are not necessarily "fair". They need to be properly sourced and competing viewpoints presented neutrally. There is no doubt that Mr. Ross has stirred controversy, and that controversy can be presented neutrally, by presenting the different viewpoints without asserting them. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP:NPOV states: "Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." wikipediatrix 23:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  undue weight 

message: You can see the unsourced/improperly sourced text I removed, and you can see Jossi immediately reverting it back here.
I'd like to hear a detailed defense for Jossi's actions. wikipediatrix 23:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All material in the article that you deleted, is properly referenced. The references were added using the Harvard style. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's not good enough for an article about a living person. Most of the paragraphs I deleted had no citations attached to them. Maybe you think a specific citation is supposed to apply to the four paragraphs that precede it, but how is the reader to know that? And simply saying "(Ortega, 1996)" in the introduction of the article doesn't help the reader verify anything at all. wikipediatrix 23:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ortega's article is provided in the references. See http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/issues/1995-11-30/news/feature2.html ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You may know that this is the link that "(Ortega, 1996)" refers to, but I do not and we cannot expect the reader to know either. It needs to be properly cited with ref tags, and if multiple critical claims are made about Ross, each one needs to be tagged separately so that it's clear what text is being sourced. Most of the paragraphs I deleted had no source cited. wikipediatrix 23:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  See WP:CITE#Harvard_referencing. Harvard referencing is an accepted format for citations. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jossi's blanket reversion 

message: None of the "www.rrexposed.u2k.biz" citation links work. wikipediatrix 23:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those links were working yesterday. Maybe that site is experiencing a problem. There are alternative sources for these documents, tough. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: These links are working now. Probably a momentary glitch. Nevertheless, I am not sure we can use primary sources. Would be better if we cn find a secondary source in which these documents are described. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  broken links  

message: Why the deletion of this text? It is based on Ross's website material.
:Ross no longer advocates coercive deprogramming or involuntary interventions for adults (he claims to have conducted dozens of such interventions), preferring instead voluntary "exit counseling" without the use of force or restraint. He states that the reasons for abandoning such practices are related to the exorbitant legal fees needed in defending his practice against legal challenges by controversial groups that oppose him. He claims these challenges exist because they have recognized the effectiveness of deprogramming in extricating people from cults. He states that although the process has been refined over the years, exit counseling and deprogramming are based on the same principles. (Ross, Deprogramming, 1) (http://www.rickross.com/prep_faq.html#Deprogramming)
Deletion of properly sourced material, is considered vandalism. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Ortega, he never has earned more than $31,000 from deprogramming in a single year, and he rarely makes more than $20,000 (Ortega, 1995). 
From http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/issues/1995-11-30/news/feature2_3.html : "It hasn't made him rich. Although his deprogramming fee is $500 a day, plus expenses, he never has earned more than $31,000 in a single year, and he rarely makes more than $20,000. He's motivated not by money, he says, but by the calls he gets from distraught parents--and the debt he believes he owes those who helped him get out of jail and get his own life in order. Since then, he had managed to keep from running afoul of the law."
≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, I see what you're trying to say. However, the Harvard style referencing, although technically permissible (I didn't even know Wikipedia used it until just now), is not the preferred style. WP:HARV says: "The system may also be unfamiliar and distracting to a general readership, who are unfamiliar with journal articles."  Given that, and given the controversial nature of this article about a living person, I still maintain that the Harvard style does not properly source the information in a way that is clear about what is being sourced. wikipediatrix 00:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. Feel free to replace the Harvard style with inline ref tags. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted text? 

message: The article states "Nancy Ammerman insisted they relied too much on Ross, a view which is not shared by the other three experts reporting to the Justice department." And yet, even though hers is clearly stated to be a minority opinion, a long second paragraph devoted to a quote from her follows thereafter. That's giving too much of a percentage of the article to someone whose opinion doesn't matter nearly as much as Ross himself, who only gets a sentence of weak rebuttal. wikipediatrix 00:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. You can expand Ross rebuttal, or summarize the Ammerman's long cite. Either will work, I would think. Better that complain about what does not work, it would be more constructive to fix what you consider broken. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  more undue weight 

message: I removed this paragraph, and User:Jossi restored it with the edit summary "no, sorry. All material has been researched and refs added." 
"Ross is criticized for his lack of academic credentials, for the two felony crimes in his twenties previously mentioned, and for his former deprogramming activities, the tort of unlawful imprisonment. A great part of the criticism originates from those associated with new religious movements, controversial groups or organizations which are listed in his website, such as the Church of Scientology and the Kabbalah Centre. "
So where's the source for this paragraph? wikipediatrix 00:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is plenty of critical material written by the Scientologists and the Kabbalah center, as I am sure you know. It would be easy to find these. You can delete that text, or alternatively find some sources to substantiate these obvious claims. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It doesn't matter if it's "obvious" or not. As per WP:BLP, it can't be here. Same for the other bits I deleted that had no source at all, not even Harvard-style ones. Furthermore, as I keep harping about "Undue weight", I'm not sure that MORE criticism, sourced or not, is appropriate. wikipediatrix 01:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It took me less than 5 minutes on Google to find sources for these statements. Undue weight is not about too much criticism or too litte of it. Read WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. But if you feel that the criticism presented is not widely held, or that these criticisms are presented by a minority viewpoint that is not significant, we should pair it down. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Refactored personal attack and placed WP:NPA warning on anon's talk page  ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't it have been appropriate to welcome the user before or along with warning them like that?  Just curious as to welcoming policies.  Smeelgova 22:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text: That was not amusing, neither is your comment. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Anonymous user: Again, though perhaps your viewpoint may be factually accurate, you will soon find that if you continue expressing these kinds of comments, you will be dealt with swift retribution from Wikipedia Administrators on high.  Beware.  Yours, Smeelgova 15:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With more than 3,000 edits, you are not a newbie, and you should know better. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: No, but the anonymous editor is, and you didn't even welcome him before threatening him on his talk page.  You could at least say, "hello, I'm Jossi" first, that would be the nice way to do it, and assume good faith.  Do unto others as you would want done unto you.  Smeelgova 18:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I welcome many users and I do that consistently, but there are newbies and there are newbies. How manty newbies have you welcomed, Smeelogva? And how many would you welcome if they attack you? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I welcome newbies when I see them.  And   yes  , I would welcome a newbie who attacked me.  I would give him the benefit of the doubt.  I would not bite the newcomers, but apply the golden rule, and hope for the best.  If, after a while, the guy didn't change, then I would send a warning.  But for someone's first notice on their talk page to be a warning, with no welcome at all of any kind or even a hello, that's pretty darn harsh.  Smeelgova 19:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is all sooo easy in theory, Smeelgova. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the nicer, kinder, gentler way to promote community.  I know it's hard, I know.  But that's why my favorite barnstar is the "random acts of kindness".  Golden rule, it's what my value system/religion teaches, I'm sure it's what yours does as well.  What would your mentor tell you to do?  My mentor(s) would tell me to treat people with respect and gentle kindness, even in the face of opposition and difficulty.  Let's both work on doing that.  Truly Yours, Smeelgova 19:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My mentor does not tell me how to behave and does not teach me morals, but I hear you loud and clear, and will take up the challenge to be nicer, kindler, gentler. Hope you do the same. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, okay, well, whatever your beliefs are, are fine, truly that's great, and thanks so much for taking up the challenge.  I will too.  I will.  It'll be easier if we both do.  By the way, I am intrigued about your Maharaji, haven't read the related articles yet, but it would be interesting to discuss the value system and belief structure and all that at some point.  Let me know, perhaps even off-Wikipedia at a later date.  Since I know virtually nothing on the subject, I don't have much of a formed opinion at all on it.  Yours, Smeelgova 19:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can alwasy email me. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  unsourced "Ross is criticized..." paragraph 

message: *An amusing rant nonetheless, though User:Jossi's right that it won't stand for very long in the Wikipedia community.  Both because of etiquette, and the various controversial opinions on the subject matter in question.  Yours, Smeelgova 19:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was not amusing, neither is your comment. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Anonymous user: Again, though perhaps your viewpoint may be factually accurate, you will soon find that if you continue expressing these kinds of comments, you will be dealt with swift retribution from Wikipedia Administrators on high.  Beware.  Yours, Smeelgova 15:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With more than 3,000 edits, you are not a newbie, and you should know better. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: No, but the anonymous editor is, and you didn't even welcome him before threatening him on his talk page.  You could at least say, "hello, I'm Jossi" first, that would be the nice way to do it, and assume good faith.  Do unto others as you would want done unto you.  Smeelgova 18:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I welcome many users and I do that consistently, but there are newbies and there are newbies. How manty newbies have you welcomed, Smeelogva? And how many would you welcome if they attack you? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I welcome newbies when I see them.  And   yes  , I would welcome a newbie who attacked me.  I would give him the benefit of the doubt.  I would not bite the newcomers, but apply the golden rule, and hope for the best.  If, after a while, the guy didn't change, then I would send a warning.  But for someone's first notice on their talk page to be a warning, with no welcome at all of any kind or even a hello, that's pretty darn harsh.  Smeelgova 19:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is all sooo easy in theory, Smeelgova. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the nicer, kinder, gentler way to promote community.  I know it's hard, I know.  But that's why my favorite barnstar is the "random acts of kindness".  Golden rule, it's what my value system/religion teaches, I'm sure it's what yours does as well.  What would your mentor tell you to do?  My mentor(s) would tell me to treat people with respect and gentle kindness, even in the face of opposition and difficulty.  Let's both work on doing that.  Truly Yours, Smeelgova 19:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My mentor does not tell me how to behave and does not teach me morals, but I hear you loud and clear, and will take up the challenge to be nicer, kindler, gentler. Hope you do the same. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, okay, well, whatever your beliefs are, are fine, truly that's great, and thanks so much for taking up the challenge.  I will too.  I will.  It'll be easier if we both do.  By the way, I am intrigued about your Maharaji, haven't read the related articles yet, but it would be interesting to discuss the value system and belief structure and all that at some point.  Let me know, perhaps even off-Wikipedia at a later date.  Since I know virtually nothing on the subject, I don't have much of a formed opinion at all on it.  Yours, Smeelgova 19:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can alwasy email me. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Amusing

message: *With regard to the above discussion, I have placed an "unbalanced" tag to the top of the article.  It seems to the reader that the only reason this article is here on Wikipedia is to personally attack and discredit Rick Ross.  This is not the purpose of Wikipedia and most certainly against Biography Policy.  The article is also way too long for the notability of subject as compared to other Biography Articles.  Some criticism content should be trimmed and/or removed, and some positive content should be added with proper sources and citations.  Other historical accounts can also be shortened to more concise versions, and the reader can then be referred to the main article in question, as similar to the current section on Rick Ross and the Legal Dispute with Landmark Education from 2005.  Yours, Smeelgova 19:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is substantial controversy around this person, and a criticism section can be added his biographical article, if only for these reasons. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Smeelgova, I would suggest that you ask the opinion of other editors, maybe closer to your POV, such as User:Andries, or User:Antaeus Feldspar, which have contributed to this article in the past, and ask them if the article as it stands deserves the tag you have added or not, and if the criticism section does not comply with WP:NPOV. That would be better, as I do not think you will accept any of my arguments, and I do not have neither the desire, nor the interest, in getting involved in editng this article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, as you have stated above to the anonymous editor, don't address me directly, but if you have an issue with the article's content or label, discuss that instead.  Smeelgova 02:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The one that has an issue with the article is you, not me. I did not add any tags to this article, you did. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you, I did not know that such a noticeboard existed, I will check it out.  See, it's not that hard to be nice to me.  Thank you.  Smeelgova 03:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unbalanced

message: Per a helpful and kind suggestion by User:Jossi, I have placed my original above comment RE: the Unbalanced and personally attacking/nature of this article, at Section on Rick Ross.  Again, my suggestion would be to shorten all of the long sections on major incidents that Rick Ross dealt with, and refer the user out to those main articles, as was done by User:Jossi with my original cut-and-paste to Rick_Ross_%28consultant%29#Landmark_Education_vs._Rick_Ross_Institute.  By the way, I think specifically to that edit, I had no problem with User:Jossi shortening that part and referring the reader out to the main article on that topic, that is exactly what should be done with the other sections, to shorten the article's size and negatively-weighed nature of the whole piece.  Yours, Smeelgova 03:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Per your notice, I came here and quickly read the article and the last fifth of this talk page. I find nothing here requiring BLP involvement as it seems what, if anything, is wrong with this article is subtle rather than glaring. As such it needs subject experts rather than uninvolved third parties. It could use someone with excellent writing skills as it is very uneven and the tone varies and jars and needs polishing. I would recommend adding sourced data rather than deleting sourced data. Work on the tone of the article to flow better and have a more scholarly feel would be my main advice. I hope that helped. WAS 4.250 05:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the advice, I hope that will give us all some more direction.  We shall see.  Yours, Smeelgova 05:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard]]

message: Is Mr. Ross a researcher? I do not see any credentials listed in his biography. All other researcher in that category, have credentilas and have published the result of their research. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would appreciate the responses of others in this discussion, especially others not as currently involved in the recent debate.  Yours, Smeelgova 23:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Alright, thanks for the response.  I'll try to dig up some more references/points/or publications by him, as you have suggested.  Yours, Smeelgova 23:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Anyone else with any other opinions?  Yours, Smeelgova.
These are not publications, these are a few articles, some of which are only available on his website. The first one is a book by Tim Madigan. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I think he should be included if it can be verified that he worked as a consultant for the Arizona Dept. of Corrections or the Bureau of ATF. The list doesn't specify that these need to be permanent government positions to qualify (e.g. tenured academics or leaders of government-funded research centers). Antonrojo 20:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Researcher category? 

message: After having slept over it, I have decided to restore all of Wikipediatrix deletions. And I have also added a source for the Jason Scott case. That source was already in the unordered list anyway.
If the sources are poorly ordered, the solution is not to delete the whole article. "Delete first, discuss later" makes only sense, IMO, for extraordinary claims like in the Seigenthaler affair. This article is being watched by many people, so it is being checked for unsourced allegations.
The most that can (and should) be done, is to tag any apparently unsourced claims and put more sources (from the unordered list) at the appropriate places.
Rick Ross is a controversial person. He knows this himself, which is why he features parts of this on his own website. So it makes sense to feature these controversies here, with his position on it. --Tilman 06:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sept 21 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Scott (Life Tabernacle Church), leaving a few hanging links, Special:Whatlinkshere/Jason Scott (Life Tabernacle Church) AndroidCat 11:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: restore time

message: I've posted an invitation for comments and review by other editors to WP:BLPN just now. wikipediatrix 19:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  invitation for comments 

message: I see that Smeelgova followed my suggestion. (diff ) Thank you. However you missed some, and deleted some that may or may not apply. Here's a list of cites that I'm not sure if they could still apply:
*
*
*Flo Conway and Jim Siegelman, (1978) Snapping: America's Epidemic of Sudden Personality Change, 2nd Edition -- Chapter 6: "Black Lightning"(excerpted) 
* "Interim Report to the Deputy Attorney General Concerning the 1993 Confrontation at the Mt. Carmel Complex Waco Texas" (2000) John C. Danforth, Special Counsel. 
*"Final Report from John C. Danforth, office of Special Counsel, Waco Investigation," PRN Newswire November 8, 2000. 
*Melton, Gordon J., - "The Fate of NRMs and their Detractors in Twenty-first Century America", Nova Religio, April 2001, Vol. 4, No. 2, Pages 241-248
*
*
*MacWilliams, Mark - "Symbolic Resistance to the Waco Tragedy on the Internet", Nova Religio, March 2005, Vol. 8, No. 3, Pages 59-82 
*
--Tilman 05:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I already did put some back. These are the ones left.... --Tilman 05:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: cites at the bottom

message: *This section has been tagged for using Primary sources, not to mention it is Wikipedia:Original Research.  The section presently uses a highly dubious and blatant attack website, http://www.rrexposed.u2k.biz/ .  This is tantamount to using something like Scientology's "Religious Freedom Watch" and calling it a reputable source!  We should pay more attention to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons.  If individuals wish to include this part of Rick Ross's life, they should do so using reputable, secondary sources.  For example, Jewish World Review, Las Vegas Sun, Phoenix News Times all make mention of the incidents in question.  Utilizing these sources one would be able to provide a reputable mention of the events.  I will remove the current section and cite these reputable secondary sources instead.  Smeelgova 13:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Early life, revisited

message: BabyDweezil, POV material is allowed to be in an article. Tanaats 22:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume you mean material which expresses a properly sourced viewpoint, and which makes it clear that Wikipedia neither agrees nor disagrees with the source's views. --Uncle Ed 20:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV material is allowed!