Talk:Rick Alan Ross/Archive 1

message: 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:
:* Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
:* NPOV tutorial
:* Examples
:* Examples Debate
:* Understand Bias
:--ZappaZ  04:40, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charges that Ross duped FBI into attacking Branch Davidians 

message: 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)
thread_title:  POV?  You're soaking in it 

message: 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)
thread_title:  found the copyvio 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Expert witness 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Expert witness? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Proposal 

message: 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. 
#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
#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.
#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
# 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?
# 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.
# 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).
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)
thread_title: Final? not so! 

message: *
Smee 03:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing new in that source that it is not already covered in the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Some citations to add to the article... 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Using Wikipedia to attack someone or something 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cleanup of September 5 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Redirect removed 

message: 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)
replies: text: I'm not Rick Ross. See my wiki page. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 21:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not Rick Ross. But I am Spartacus.  Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 06:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Will the real Rick Ross please stand up.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.102.7.201 (talk) 06:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  COI (Conflict of Interest) 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Theological and Professional Criticisms