Talk:Rick Alan Ross/Archive 7

See http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19940121&slug=1890837

Ah, that article says you were acquitted: "... the accused is free from the charge of an offence." Not the same thing at all as a "not guilty verdict." The prosecutor decided not to pursue prosecution -- in this case, after a hung jury, the pros. decided it was not worth the state's expense to risk another trial. I'd stake my grapefruit that you won't find any authorities equating that with "not guilty." Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 06:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

"Wheeler said he was surprised by the jury's verdict on Rick Ross after two hours of deliberation. 'I'm certainly glad this case is done,' he said.'" There was a jury verdict. There was no hung jury. To be acquitted the jury voted "not guilty." Jason Scott's mother "Kathy Tonkin, formerly of Kirkland, who hired a cult 'deprogrammer' to get her 18-year-old son out of a Bellevue church, will probably not be charged with any crimes following this week's acquittal of the deprogrammer on unlawful-imprisonment charges." The mother was the person that the prosecutor decided not to pursue.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 11:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

What part of acquittal is ambiguous here? An acquittal is indeed a not guilty verdict. The mother will not be prosecuted, so no test has been made of her guilt or innocence (she is merely presumed innocent), but the jury verdict was, according tot he report, Not Guilty because "prosecutors had not proved Ross participated in restraining Scott". That is pretty straightforward. This is not a Scottish court: the only verdicts available are Guilty and Not Guilty. In Scotland it would probably be not proven, but that is actually the same thing. Guy (Help!) 11:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

It was a hung jury. A hung jury is undecided, not the same as a finding of "not guilty." With a hung jury, the prosecutor can decide to retry the case as though it had never been tried before. On the other hand, a "not guilty" verdict is a statement of fact. The charges can never be brought again. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

As I said, what part of acquittal is unclear here? The source says acquittal, the source says "prosecutors had not proved Ross participated in restraining Scott". We're not going to substitute the verdict we think the court should have come to, for the actual result as reported. I have no idea why you'd even want to try. Ross is not guilty, in other news, cults continue to be a problem. Guy (Help!) 15:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Why do you think that book is a better source than a newspaper article written the day after the verdict was written? The newspaper says he was acquitted and that means they found him not guilty. -- GB fan 15:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The jury deliberated for all of two hours which does not seem congruent with a "hung jury" in my experience (judges do not accept "hung jury" at the two hour mark in deliberations). I suspect the "unlawful imprisonment" charge was the specific "not guilty" verdict - and there was no decision on the lesser included charges (coercion). This would be consonant with all the sources. Collect (talk) 16:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Find a good solid RS. Rush-to-print news is not as solid as scholarly accounts composed in leisure and deliberation. So far, we have no mention of a "verdict." Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 17:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The term "acquittal" is found in the reliable sources. Find a source which says "acquittal" is not a "verdict" <g>. Collect (talk) 17:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Additional sources for "acquittal":

• Haines, Thomas W. (September 21, 1995). "'Deprogrammer' Taken To Court -- Bellevue Man Claims Kidnap, Coercion". Seattle Times.
• Burkitt, Janet (March 23, 1999). "Anti-Cult Group Must Pay Award". Seattle Times.

- Cwobeel (talk) 17:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The sources are contradictory, so I can see where people on both sides of this argument are coming from. But to me, "acquitted" seems like the best option by far here. There is 1 source (that I've seen) that suggests a hung jury, and by all accounts (notwithstanding Mr. Ross' personal assessment), it is a reliable, high quality source. But that was written years after the fact, and it contradicts a much larger number of contemporary news sources. Certainly, we can say with certainty that Mr. Ross wasn't convicted - and I don't see much point in arguing over an alleged distinction between "acquitted" or "not guilty" or any other euphemism for a failure to convict. The law, after all, assumes that someone is innocent until proven guilty, it's not our place to split hairs and imply something less than an acquittal when none of the sources say that he was actually convicted of anything. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree. I have edited the article to refer to the acquittal as per the sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

This may explain it: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/acquittal - Cwobeel (talk)

I am correcting these references. Sorry for earlier sloppy work (Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC))

• James R. Lewis: Scientology^[1]
• Anson Shupe, Susan E. Darnell: Agents of Discord: Deprogramming, Pseudo-Science, and the American Anticult Movement^[2]

Acquittal is a description of the finding, not the finding itself. A hung jury is not an acquittal. A hung jury is a form of mistrial because there is no verdict. A jury that is unable to reach a verdict of guilty or not guilty. The result is a mistrial, and legal proceedings must be reinitiated to bring the case to trial again. Trying the case a second time does not constitute double jeopardy.Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, but we have only 1 source that says it was a hung jury, and lots of others that describe the verdict as an acquittal. If you want to substitute "hung jury" for "acquittal" then you need to make an argument why that source trumps the news coverage of the trial and the other sources that don't mention a hung jury at all. I'm open to being convinced, but we need to weigh the relative merits of contradictory sources here, it's not as simple as just deciding to go with the one source that says "hung jury." Fyddlestix (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

This is the kind of source that makes me think "acquit" is the best choice - newspaper coverage from the time says nothing about a hung jury, but rather specifically uses the term "acquit." Seattle Times did the same thing. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I have listed above two scholarly sources that state hung jury. Newspapers frequently rush to press, get things wrong, quote each other's errors, and use wire service reports without critical review. Scholars are more careful. The weight of truth and reliability is the opposite of your repeated statement. ("Acquit" is not legal verdict or judgment. It is an interpretation -- and in this case, a wrong interpretation of the actual events.) Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 19:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I missed the second source there, sorry! I'm puzzled at the contradictions between sources here - I'll see if I can get a hard copy of either one of those books and see if there are references or notes that might help bring some clarity to this question. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

@Sfarney: I see both sources to be the same URL. Can you provide the other source? - Cwobeel (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

It's This one, they linked it above too. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. It is on page 183. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry. Links and references amended above. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I think this is very definitive, line #97. -- GB fan 20:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Not as I see it:

Docket records unavailable online.
Court: G H Co Superior
Case Number: 93-1-00222-2
The docket data for this case may have been archived. Contact your local court for more details.
 	G H Co Superior
102 W Broadway Ave
Montesano, WA 98563-3621
Map & Directions 
360-249-3842[Phone] 
360-249-6381[Fax] 
Visit Website 

What did you see? Can you find a source we can use (not wp:primary and not wp:or)? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Very, very strange. This morning when I checked that URL it contained the docket data. Now it is gone. ???? - Cwobeel (talk) 23:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I can still see it. It pretty clearly says that the verdict was not guilty. Fyddlestix (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I see (when I click on it now and earlier) the docket from Ross's criminal case. Line #97 says the verdict was Not guilty. The link if we can get it to work for everyone can be used as a second source to refute the books that say hung jury. -- GB fan 00:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

If we are agreed that "best source" is "not guilty" it would be beyond weird to say "but this source said it was a "hung jury"" ... frankly I would have been worried about any jury being dismissed after two hours as "hung" <g>. Collect (talk) 00:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

It must be noted that the scholars cited on the criminal trial verdict are not reliable as the statements they made have been proven false. There are certain authors associated closely with group called "cults" that are funded by them for "research" or paid by them to do consulting. These academic sources are not objective and not reliable. At best they offer opinions, but as proven in this instance Lewis ignored and directly contradicted the facts.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Scholarly and academic sources are considered the most reliable sources for Wikipedia. If any such source is wrong, we usually need a source of the same caliber to provide a differing viewpoint. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

It has been proven by both the court record and press reports that these scholars made false statements. What this demonstrates is that certain scholars and the books they wrote are less than scholarly and deeply flawed. These scholars have proven that they are not reliable sources.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 02:14, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The link to the court record cannot be used on Wiki because (1) it is primary source, and (2) the court does not operate static links to the dockets. The viewer must make certain agreements before viewing court records. Nevertheless, the primary record shows the scholars cited above are in error on this point. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 01:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

What is does mean is that we can assuredly not use sources shown to be in error on that matter - the other sources all agree on "acquitted" and meet the requirements of WP:RS which basically ends this rather unimportant discussion. Collect (talk) 01:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Has a specific legal meaning - and where Ross was found not guilty of a criminal act, use of the term "co-defendants" for the civil case is proper. Collect (talk) 20:03, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

What plea deals were made by my co-defendants is not really relevant to my bio and your edit is factually wrong. They were referred to as defendants and therefore co-defendants not "associates" in court and through press reports . You also failed to state their plea deals correctly.They were " "sentenced to one-year jail terms, with all but 30 days suspended." Please revert this edit to state the facts without filtering or spin.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 11:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

My book "Cults Inside Out" is self-published through CreateSpace at Amazon in English, but the Chinese language version is published by Peace Book Company Ltd. [. I was interviewed by the Hong Kong daily newspapers Ta Kung Pao and Wen Wei Pao. Articles discussed my book and my lecture at the 2015 Hong Kong Book Fair. I was also interviewed by Phoenix Television about my book. Rick Alan Ross (talk) 21:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if a publication of a single, mostly unknown book, warrants the description of "published author". You could ask at WP:BLP/N if you want. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I am a published author. This is simply a fact. The Chinese version of the book is well known in China. It has been reported about by two of the most established newspapers in Hong Kong and is published by a respected and well-established publisher. I lectured and did a book signing in Hong Kong at the annual Hong Kong Book Fair, which is one of largest events of its kind in world. Does your opinion represent a consensus of the editors of here? I was told by BLP Noticeboard and administrators that there should be consensus of editors at this bio in agreement that I dispute before posting at the board. There should be a simple sentence that says in 2015 the Chinese language version of my book was published.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 12:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

two of the most established newspapers in Hong Kong I don't read Chinese, and can't verify these sources. Sorry. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

What are the names of these two Hong Kong newspapers? Do they have an online version? - Cwobeel (talk) 14:56, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

One of them, seem to be the Ta Kung Pao, which is a paper controlled by the LOCPG. The other one seems to be the Wen Wei Po, also state owned and controlled by the LOCPG. See also Wen_Wei_Po#Credibility. Do you have a translation of the articles in these newspapers? - Cwobeel (talk) 15:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I have the PDFs online, which show the book itself in the photo published by Peace Books, a long established publisher. I don't have an English translation of the articles. But the PDF and photos by the press of me and the book are proof of publication. The Hong Kong newspapers cited are very well known major publications and long established. Wikipedia: Notability (books) This meets the Wikipedia criteria. Tony Ortega is an important and well-known blogger and he reviewed the book. I have also been interviewed about the book on Sirius Radio, Media Mayhem LipTV, WUTQ-FM Utica, New York, Phoenix Television Hong Kong and Lions of Liberty Podcast. There is a photo of the Sirius Radio host Jenny McCarthy and I, she is holding the English version oof the book. . The book has also been cited in an interview on Nancy Grace .The book is published and notable.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 16:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Proof of publication is not what we need. Obviously the newspaper shows a photo with you and the book. I was referring to notability, and if such notability emanates from an article in publications controlled by LOCPG, that could be included. That is why a translation of the article may be useful. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Found the article online at http://news.takungpao.com/hkol/topnews/2015-07/3071420.html, and by a quick review via Google translate it seems that the publication of the article is related to the communist government of China's persecution of Falun Gong. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Some quotes from Google translate: "In an interview with Ta Kung Pao, Rick Alan Ross stressed that Falun Gong is obviously a cult" […] "Falun Gong founder Li Hongzhi is definitely a dictator, and Falun Gong is not a democratic framework, but entirely a totalitarian organization." […] "Ross emphasized that most effectively way prevent the public to join the cult is to educate, to let the public know that destructive cults are not founded on faith, but on behavior."

I see just but a minimal mention of the book in the opening paragraph, the rest of the article reads as propaganda. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The book includes a chapter about Falun Gong. It includes chapters about many cults. It also includes a chapter specifically about defining a destructive cult based upon behavior not beliefs. The focus of the Hong Kong press report is interest in Chinese cults and how to define a cult. This and other secondary sources that I have provided demonstrate according to Wikipedia: Notability (books) that my book is published in China and notable. Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

We are not talking about the book. We are talking about an press article that you proposed as a secondary source for your book. What I see is an article from an official organ of the Chinese government, critical of Falun Gong (as it would be expected) with no discussion or critique of the book. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:16, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any secondary sources that would attest to the notability of the book? Also, if the book was self-published, and also published in Hong Kong, was the latter edited at all by the Chinese publisher or it is the same book? - Cwobeel (talk) 20:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I have provided you with secondary sources. But you wish to dismiss them. The article is about the book and I have explained how it relates to the book specifically. The book is notable as demonstrated by secondary sources I have already posted here. The Chinese version is almost exactly the same book. There was a Chinese editor. Some articles that I wrote about Falun Gong were added at the back of the Chinese version. A chapter about abusive-controlling relationships included in the English version was not included in the Chinese version.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 20:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I have added a short mention. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

You did not mention that the book is published in China. Wikipedia: Tendentious editing Instead you added ad hominem information about the newspaper and selectively quoted the article in a relatively long mention that you used to include links. You are assigning undue weight to a single aspect of the subject and filtering the facts to make this bio as negative as possible.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

You said that you don't have translations, so please use Google Translate and read these articles as I did. They are 100% propaganda from the Chinese government and solely focused on Falun Gong. The summary is accurate. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I see that you have now included mention that the book was published. I have received very serious complaints about Falun Gong from families in North America and Europe that are consistent with the complaints expressed about the group in China. I personally interviewed Falun Gong self-immolation victims as did Reuters. IMO Falun Gong is a destructive cult. I explain this in detail with research footnotes from reliable sources in my book. Your POV is that the newspaper report about my book is "propaganda." IMO you are dismissing the facts and editing per your POV.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 21:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Please read Persecution of Falun Gong for alternative viewpoints. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

And yes, my POV is that these articles are propaganda, but the text in this article does not reflect that POV, it just states what these two articles are about. Readers can decide if the articles are propaganda or not. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the way you identified the newspapers as "official press organs of the Chinese LOCPG in Hong Kong" and characterized reporting as "opposition to Falun Gong" then linking my criticism to "Persecution of Falun Gong" is meant to influence the reader and spin the BLP.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

See for example Use of the ‘cult’ label, where the "evil cult" label used in the Wen Wei Po newspaper article is referred to. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

"Evil cult" is the Chinese version of what we would call a destructive cult. IMO Falun Gong is a destructive cult and this is in my book and accurately reflected within the newspaper articleRick Alan Ross (talk) 22:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

See also Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident, for alternative viewpoints on that incident. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The Reuters interview cited with survivors (footnote 72) is consistent with my personal interview with Hao Huijun and her daughter Chen Guo as referenced in my book and the newspaper articles.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 22:56, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The question is am I published author. I am, as a Hong Kong publisher published my book in Chinese. The book is notable as proven by published news reports, news interviews (e.g CNN, Sirus Radio) and it has been reviewed by a very prominent blogger. Including inflammatory ad hominem remarks about publications and making accusations is not helpful. Repeatedly demanding that others find good sources and then disputing or denigrating the reliability of apparently good sources is not helpful. Also, this article talk page should not be used as a soapbox to discuss Falun Gong or any other group. It is a talk page for a BLP not a debate platform concerning controversial groups and movements. And making claims that criticism of a group somehow must be equated to persecution is an inflammatory accusation and not helpful. I very strongly suggest that the words "two official press organs of the Chinese LOCPG" be removed and that links to Wikipedia articles about these Chinese newspapers be included at their names instead allowing the reader to review additional information. I also strongly suggest that the following selective quotes taken out of context be removed. "the former describing the book as exposing 'the evil cult Falun Gong', and the latter mainly referring to opposition to Falun Gong, labeling the spiritual practice as a totalitarian organization and a cult." The Google translate feature is quite rough, difficult to read precisely and not reliable. The quotes offered are cherry picked and do not represent the depth of the interview. For example in the interview I emphasized that my definition of a destructive cult is based upon behavior not belief and I explained exactly how Falun Gong fits the description of a destructive or "evil cult" IMO. For the purpose of this BLP the quotes used are not helpful and it would take too much space to properly contextualize them, putting them in concise perspective. This is a BLP not a debate about Falun Gong.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 13:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

There are about thirty-two newspapers in Hong Kong, of which three of them are LOCPG controlled. The articles describing your work appeared on two of the three, thus the mention. The quotes from the articles are relevant as they describe quite accurately the main thrust of the articles, which is to portray the official stance of the Chinese government on the Falun Gong, using your book as a confirming argument. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:30, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Added a mention of "destructive cult is based upon behavior not belief". I think we are done here. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

No. I provided with you with reliable sources to prove that my book was published in China. I suggest the following -- In 2014 Ross published the English version of his book Cults Inside Out.[32] A Chinese version of Ross's book was later published in China in 2015. [46][47]. Please don't use my bio as a soapbox about China and Falun Gong.Rick Alan Ross (talk)

Thank for your suggestion, but I believe the summary there now is concise, neutral, verifiable and NPOV. When you provide sources, we follow them. You can't ask we use the sources the way you want them to be used. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. IMO your edit is not concise, neutral or NPOV. So what do we do now?Rick Alan Ross (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Nothing much. You wait and see if other editors can improve upon my edits. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

You could also heed the advice given to you here. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Either the book's publication in China is a significant event in your biography, in which case we address it based on the sources, or it is not, in which case there is no reason to include mention of it. There is possibly a way to word things better but the basic thrust of the sources still must be represented. Since the publication has not been remarked on in the English press and the only way we even know about it is through the author pressing the matter, I would be inclined to remove the whole thing. You can always bring the matter up at the NPOV Noticeboard. If you do, remember to place a notice on this talk page that says you have done so. Jbh^Talk 20:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• Despite having done all the research based on the sources, which took a substantial amount of my time, I would not oppose the removal of the entire thing, including the mentioning of the self-published book if that would close this issue so that we can move on. But RAR needs to be aware of the law of unintended consequences: if he makes suggestions non-stop and provide sources to substantiate his arguments, the edits based on these sources may not be to his liking. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

In this case, Ross's book has been used by the Chinese government to justify its brutal repression of the sect members. Ross has insisted we include his connection, and I agree it is important.Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I have posted at the BLP Noticeboard.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 21:30, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is no RS making that claim. The text of the articles may imply that but we can not make that claim. Jbh^Talk 21:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what "claim" you mean here. The statement you reverted is fully supported by RS Human Rights Watch. The fact that Ross is still alive does not restrict truthful RS'ed statements about his activities. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Any implication that "Ross's book has been used by the Chinese government to justify its brutal repression" is WP:SYNTH. The text as it stands links to Persecution of Falun Gong to explain the context so there is no need to bring in AI reports that do not mention Ross or his book to show the persecution. It implies a link the sources do not support. Jbh^Talk 22:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Was any decision made? Where are we at now on this BLP? Will the many errors of fact, misleading statements and mistakes be fixed? Or am I now shunned?Rick Alan Ross (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The thread is at WP:NPOVN rather than WP:BLPN. You need to open a new thread there. I suggest you copy/paste the text in the quotebox below and then add some further explanation of why you think it violates NPOV.

Jbh^Talk 16:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I posted. I want to have good faith in the process at Wikipedia, but frankly it's becoming increasingly difficult. I follow the rules. Respond with restraint within the guidelines and am most often ignored, insulted and at times threatened. I strongly suggest if you want to do what's right do whatever you can to stop the nonsense at this BLP. Try to get out of the bubble and look at the BLP objectively. Stop blaming me for the problems here that I did not create.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually you just continued non-specific complaining - that almost never helps. I have posted the above quote and a description of the issue as I understand it. Please add anything I missed at NPOVN.

I know you are frustrated, please understand so are many of the other editors on this talk page. They have expressed why and there have been several cohorts, over several months who have expressed similar criticisms of how you engage here. I see no evidence of any campaign to make your biography negative and your continued accusations of bad faith will only serve to alienate you from everyone here. A primary policy of Wikipedia is assume good faith (read it). Accusing editors of bad faith without presenting evidence to back it up is a personal attack. If you feel there is a campaign against you collect and present the evidence (specific diffs are required) to WP:ANI and those editors can be sanctioned. Do not make such claims without presenting evidence. Jbh^Talk 17:51, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Jbhunley, you do realize that the grammar above is broken, don't you? A cult is not "based upon behavior," but that is what our text now says. The source says that determination of whether a cult is dangerous should be based on the conduct of the cult, not the beliefs. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 23:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I trimmed it to something that I hope isn't too far from the minimum content that anyone thinks is due. I am not sure what encyclopedic value we can derive from state-run press alone. --Ronz (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that if the Chinese publication is significant enough for mention it is significant enough to mention its "reception" there. Maybe something as small as "... where state run media described the book as exposing 'the evil cult Falun Gong'" although I would like to get something from a Chinese speaker to verify the phrase 'the evil cult Falun Gong' or maybe since RR says 'evil cult' is better translated as 'destructive cult' use that instead. Jbh^Talk 00:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps the most NPOV way of providing background about each newspaper would be to link its name to the Wikipedia article about that publication so that readers can click through and read about their background and current ownership status. The Chinese are interested in Chinese cults. This was also evident in the interview I did with Phoenix Television, which is not owned by the Chinese government and at my lecture at the 2015 Hong Kong Book Fair.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 15:30, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The change in the description of the Scott case violates NPOV and the additional section, containing only an extended quote, is UNDUE. A form of the information may be appropriate in another section depending on sourcing. Jbh^Talk 15:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

What change? How was the description changed before you reverted it?Rick Alan Ross (talk) 16:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Rick Ross is the most famous "deprogrammer" in the world. The most famous/infamous thing about him is his deprogramming. That is why this article should feature this material on his activities -- Why does he do it? He says that anyone's mind can be bent with coercion, deprivation, and isolation. Therefore, as shown by the evidence at his trial, he uses coercion, deprivation, and isolation to make people think like he wants them to think -- or however the parents want his clients/victims to think. NPOV does not mean sugar coating the truth. It means telling it like it is with RS. Now please explain how that violates WP editing policy. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

If you find independent reliable sources which comment on his techniques then we can use them subject to WP:DUE and WP:WEIGHT. The trial transcripts are WP:PRIMARY so are of no use per WP:BLPPRIMARY. We are not here to comment on nor judge his techniques ourselves. We summarize and report what reliable sources have to say about him. Jbh^Talk 23:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, you didn't read the RS. The characterization of the trial was paraphrased directly from the RS that was cited. Go to the cite (which is linked to Google books), and verify my words. It's all there. Then come back here and revert your reversion. Note: the whole chapter is about the military archetypes in deprogramming, crossed with the medical model of the "injured" cult member. It is heavily cross-sourced and an important RS. Thank you. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 04:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• You should also read the account of Scott's kidnapping in this RS: "After this dramatic kidnapping Ross et al. confined Jason Scott for five days, at times in a bathroom shower stall, on a nylon leash, but always in the cottage complete with motion sensors and thick nylon straps riveted in a mesh-like pattern over all the windows." Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 07:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
• Here is a third RS that reveals the so-called "cult" at issue was "a congregation of the United Pentecostal Church, an older denomination not considered by most people either a cult or a new religion."
• Paula Nesbitt calls the Scott/Ross incident "a very physical kidnapping and deprogramming." Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 08:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
• This RS says that Scott was held for five days by Ross and his helpers, yelled at, belittled, and insulted on his girlfriend, his minister, his beliefs, and the subject of Christianity generally. (all above by Sfarney)

• Alas - we have this tiny policy called WP:BLP and some of your points seem entirely too aimed at the person rather than at providing a neutrally worded biography. To the extent that you wish to include some of the wording above, I would point out that you would need a clear positive consensus for any inclusion of the claims. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:46, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • The facts above are not "claims." They are facts under the WP policy. Under the BLP policy, a horrible fact is still a fact when supported by sources, and refusal to include a well-sourced fact is "bias" under WP policy, the very opposite of WP:NPOV. Please tell me a valid reason for excluding this material. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) As it stands I would say it is WP:UNDUE in the biography while it may be more appropriate in Jason Scott case. Depending how the content evolves there it may then be mentioned here as a proper summary of that article here per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. That is at least how I would go about demonstrating its due weight for inclusion in the BLP if such indeed could be demonstrated. Jbh^Talk 15:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Just to be certain we are understanding each other here, we need a definition of the first "it" in your comment above. First, Ross's treatment of Scott and Ross's conduct in hundreds of other deprogramming incidents -- that is a fact. It is a serious, notable fact about Ross, not about Scott or the Ross case. You take Ross out in the vacuum between the stars, and his treatment of his clients is still a fact about Ross. Also a fact about Ross is he is a little careless of what he defines as a cult. Even the Christian Pentecostal church is a cult and he is willing to "deprogram" Christians with the same enthusiasm as Moonies. Those facts are most important to Ross and not to any other article. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 16:48, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps I should make myself clear - your desires are getting to be quite as problematic as Ross' desires for this BLP. Your iterated posts thereon are also getting to be quite as troublesome Sfarney. We have told Mr. Ross to cut down his argumentation, and it appears the exact same advice would well accord with your behaviour. Is this clear? The aim is a conservatively written biography of a living person - neither a polemic denouncing his acts as evil, nor a hagiography setting him up for sainthood. Collect (talk) 16:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The title of this section is "My revert". You invited me here to discuss why you reverted the material I put in the article. So far, you object to my discussion, but you have not offered much that is valid or substantive to support your reversion. I invite you to do that now, or revert your reversion. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 17:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually "My revert" refers to my_Jbh's revert whereas you seem to be addressing this to Collect. Jbh^Talk 17:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the confused persons -- Yes, you invited discussion. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) The changes you made were to the section on the Scott case so that is what I am addressing here. If there is a significant body of work about his conduct in general we can discuss that in a different section where we can evaluate the sources and see how to best integrate them. Jbh^Talk 17:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The changes you reverted involved two sections. Are you willing to restore the material in the new section you reverted? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 17:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Give it a break. If there's no consensus to restore it, it should remain out. --Ronz (talk) 18:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Jbhunley (talk · contribs) In your revert of my edit, you wrote: Ronz. Please discuss these changes on the talk page. The new description is the Scott case is very biased. The material is perfectly sourced (you did not dispute) and perfectly true (according to the Wiki rules). Wiki does not have an edit violation called "biased" and the reversion is improper. If you think there is other material necessary to balance what I wrote, please add it. But do not revert on IDLI. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Please see the comment I made above in "My Revert" where I said "The change in the description of the Scott case violates NPOV and the additional section, containing only an extended quote, is UNDUE. A form of the information may be appropriate in another section depending on sourcing."

@Rick Alan Ross: here is a diff of the edit as you requested above. Jbh^Talk 18:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the link.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I have a suggestion. Can we now agree by consensus to discuss one edit issue at a time on this BLP? This would require certain editors exercising restraint and not editing other areas of the BLP simultaneously. In this way we can focus on one thing at a time regarding a word used, a statement made, fact in discute, source, some error, etc. Can everyone agree to this process? In the past I have responded to recent edits repeatedly while discussing older edits. Editors here have also complained about being overwhelmed. This might be a solution.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 16:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The problem appears to be your overwhelming number of requests and your pov - WP:COITALK. It will be interesting to see how much longer the community tolerates it. --Ronz (talk) 16:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• I would be very happy if we could stick to one topic at a time. The largest burden here would fall on you to not make additional requests while one is being addressed. Other editors may bring up topics in the course of normal editing, which you can and should participate in if you want to, but we can not say to some editor "hey, don't make that edit - we are already discussing something else". The key is to limit the edit requests you initiate to one at a time. Thank you. Jbh^Talk 00:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I understand. From now on I will focus like a laser patiently on one edit issue at a time and process through it. The only exception will be if editors make new edits that include overt errors, misleading statements, unreliable sources or undue weight and I feel obliged to point that out.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 19:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I removed the section, noting that there's only one secondary source: Boyle 1999. Could someone please quote from it whatever it says specifically about Ross and his theories?

In 1995, Ross wrote about people who join cults:

... many of us prefer to believe that only people with problems from dysfunctional families become involved [in cults]. Extensive research has proven this assumption false. The mind is far more fragile than we would like to admit; anyone can be "brainwashed" at the right time and place, through certain techniques. In Chapter 22 of his book, Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism, Robert J. Lifton, M.D. lists eight criteria that clearly define the setting and conditions required to promote totalist thinking. Lifton is perhaps the foremost authority on the subject of mind control in the world today. He explains concisely the interlocking framework that forms the foundation of brainwashing. If a group can control a person’s environment, communication, social interaction, and access to information, it can program his or her mind.^[1]

However, the theory of cults using brainwashing and mind control on members was rejected by the American Psychological Association (APA) when it was proposed by Margaret Singer in 1983 in her thesis, Deceptive and Indirect Methods of Persuasion and Control. It has since been ruled by multiple US courts to be lacking in scientific validity.^[2][3][4][5]

Given the previous comments, if we should anything about the topic at all, we need to be sure it is noteworthy and properly sourced. --Ronz (talk) 02:12, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

My mistake, there's another secondary source, indirectly used, The Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements. Please quote from it as well. --Ronz (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

And again you err. I cited three secondary sources. Look at the material you pasted above: Boyle, Robin A., Women, the Law, and Cults: Three Avenues of Legal Recourse — New Rape Laws, Violence Against Women Act, and Antistalking Laws, Cultic Studies Journal, 15, 1-32.

Since your original reason for reverting was "only one secondary source" and that is shown to be wrong, please restore the text. Let's not move the target. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 02:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Do these sources mention Ross by name? If not the material is original research and therefore we can not use it. We do not analyse the validity of Ross' theory of deprogramming others must and they must do so by direct mention of Ross. The Boyle reference (here) does not mention Ross so it is of no use. The other sources are court cases which we can not use per WP:BLPPRIMARY. The main quote you pull from Ross' web site is again a primary source. Do you have any reliable secondary sources which comment on or describe his theory of deprogramming? Jbh^Talk 03:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense. If Smith advocates Flat Earth geography, we have no problem mentioning in Smith's biography that Flat Earth is a pseudoscience. Since Ross is pushing brainwashing mind-control cult-theory, and brainwashing mind-control cult-theory has been roundly discredited, we have no problem mentioning it. See, for example, Erich von Däniken, Graham Hancock, Brain Gym, and Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. All are living people, all with "pseudoscience" tacked to their pages because that is the way it isn't. Do not be afraid of the way it isn't. And any number of authorities will tell you that brainwashing and mind control is the way it isn't. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 05:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Here is a secondary source for the Kropinski case listed above. This RS cites that and more cases in which the Brainwashing Mind Control theory of cults was the basis for judgment in the trial court, then became the fulcrum of successful appeal (and reversal of judgment) when the court learned the BMC theory was unscientific:

Moreover, preceding the Fishman decision were several other decisions in which the unscientific character of anti-cult brainwashing testimony was the basis of successful appeals of judgments that had crucially turned on it (See, for example, George v. ISCON, 1988, Kropinski v. World Plan Executive Council, 1988, and Maroni v. Holy Spirit Association, 1986; see also Anthony v. Robins, 1992)^[1]

We are not moving the target any more. The theory of Brainwashing Mind Control is pseudo science. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 07:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

These seem like interesting questions to me:

1. How does Mr Ross think about brainwashing? — an answer to that question can be given referring to Mr. Ross' website (in an application of WP:BLPSELFPUB) and to Lifton's book (for which an edition and page number should be named).
2. Did Mr Ross' ideas about brainwashing change over time? Lifton's book went through some reworkings from 1961 to 2014: that's why we need to be precise which ideas of Lifton were adhered to by Mr Ross at which moment in time and/or does Mr Ross refer to a part of Lifton's book that remained unchanged over time?
3. Were Mr Ross' ideas about brainwashing addressed in reliable secondary sources? I see no reliable source in that sense being brought forward yet. When reliable sources say something about brainwashing, we need to be absolutely sure these sources address brainwashing as Mr Ross sees it for it to be eligible for his biographical article. Primary sources like court testimonies aren't very useable for this (they usually need too much interpretation that would go against WP:PRIMARY), maybe can result in nothing more than stating that Mr Ross was called as an expert witness on brainwashing-related court cases (and in which period, if that can be traced to reliable sources).
4. Further (but even less useable material being brought forward yet afaics): did Mr Ross address comments given in reliable sources about his ideas about brainwashing?

   Then the same four questions can be asked in the domain of deprogramming...:

5. How does Mr Ross think about deprogramming? — First it must be mentioned that if Mr Ross refers to someone else, like Lifton, for his ideas on brainwashing this doesn't imply he shares with Lifton any ideas on deprogramming: Lifton may have ideas on deprogramming that differ from Mr Ross', or it may be that Lifton doesn't say much about the topic of deprogramming, etc. The answer to the question can't be "inferred" from whatever combination of sources that treat the topic indirectly: the source needs to be pretty direct, e.g. "I, R. A. Ross, think ... about deprogramming" (for a WP:BLPSELFPUB source), or "Mr Ross thinks ... about deprogramming" (for a reliable secondary source, which in this case should be quite high profile imho, peer reviewed etc). So I don't see anything of the kind appearing yet.
6. Did Mr Ross' ideas about deprogramming change over time? — I was involved in a prior discussion (and update to the biographical article on Mr Ross) about a changement in attitude (no more forcible deprogramming on adults...), which was about legal risks, not about whether any of his ideas on how deprogramming works have changed over time. At the time of that article update I recall being primarily interested in that second half of the question, but as far as I can remember nothing useable for the biographical article turned up, neither in terms of recorded declarations by Mr Ross, nor in terms of reliable secondary sources describing such change, and least of all answers to questions like: if such change occurred, what caused it? I'm not even sure the Scott case was the (only?) cause of the change in attitude regarding the risks of performing forcible deprogramming on adults.
7. Were Mr Ross' ideas about deprogramming addressed in reliable secondary sources? Here again the court cases are usually a bit difficult to use (being primary, and usually needing interpretation); same goes about non-peer-reviewed sources of detractors, etc, most of it not very useable. Haven't seen much in terms of reliable sources about this topic. Which begs the question whether over-all the content of his ideas on deprogramming merit inclusion in his biography? I think it would be interesting to have some info on that, but when useable reliable sources that give this topic some weight are not forthcoming, Wikipedia should be silent about it in this biographical article about Mr Ross (WP:UNDUE issue probably for what I've seen from sources thus far)
8. Did Mr Ross address comments given in reliable sources about his ideas about deprogramming? Would be interested to see more about this... but fear it may lack enough body in reliable sources for mentioning in the article, like the answer to the previous question.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 10:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

And those questions make clear the "proposed edit" is clearly improper - the issues are quite varied and nuanced, and what might be a viewpoint directly aligned with Scientology might not be something Wikipedia should aver as fact. Collect (talk) 13:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Reread the wp:primary. Ross's statements about himself and his own thoughts are permitted and not forbidden by the primary rule. This is a case of WP:BLPSELFPUB and is a perfectly legitimate source. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 16:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

We should start with a secondary source that mentions Ross' beliefs. None have been offered. At this point it appears that the entire section is original research to present a viewpoint not in the sources. Please remember that this article is under ArbCom enforcement for such issues. --Ronz (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

We don't invent rules de jure to block each other's edits. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 17:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC.

Without secondary, independent sources that actually mention Ross' beliefs, I don't see how we can meet the requirements of the policies and ArbCom principles. --Ronz (talk) 17:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Q: "I don't see how ..."? A: WP:BLPSELFPUB. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 18:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

If you aren't interested in reading all of BLP to place BLPSELFPUB in context, I suggest you read at least the beginning of BLP. --Ronz (talk) 19:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

wp:ad hominem ignored. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 19:58, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Struck out in the interest of trying to keep the discussion focused on policies and content.

What appears to be ignored is BLP, "Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research." --Ronz (talk) 20:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Discovering a person's words on his own website describing his thoughts about own activities is not considered "original" research. If the subject publishes a statement (about self) that he/she gets his kicks by poisoning water reservoirs and forging letters to the editor, no WP rule forbids us to quote the statement. This quoted material meets all the criteria of Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 20:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. Cherry-picking quotes to further a pov not in any source is a OR and POV violation. In this case I'd say a NOT and ArbCom vio as well. --Ronz (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Take it to WP:BLP/N Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 06:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

(od) For the last time - if you wish to follow the procedures in WP:CONSENSUS, do so. Now. So far you seem to have no one else actually backing all of your edits, and new ones weighing in against them. There might be a clue hidden in that. Cheers. Collect (talk) 09:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The last discussion we had about this is at Talk:Rick Alan Ross/Archive 5#New request for edit re: Criminal Record afaik. Did anything change since then? --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:36, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The sources I cited are good sources. I don't see anything in our RSs about an expungement. OK, so he produced court records. Does it appear in newspapers? A judge can change legal status, but cannot change history. Ross's conviction was history. If we want to add the expungement as a legal fact, we can add that too. But history is history. Perhaps we need a court order that says "No biographer shall mention Ross's criminal record ..." but following such policy would be a bit odd since Ross is publishing the facts on his own web page.(here) Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 07:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

My stance in the previous discussion (which hasn't changed BTW) is to keep it in, and keep it short. One or two short sentences, not a multi-paragraph section with a separate section header. It is somewhat tangential to the biography, but with enough links (...popping up in later court procedures) to make a brief mentioning. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Re "The sources ... are good sources", no they're not: not one of them passes:

1. Shupe, Anson; Darnell, Susan E. (2011-12-31). Agents of Discord: Deprogramming, Pseudo-Science, and the American Anticult Movement. Transaction Publishers. ISBN 9781412808873.
   • No page number; Shupe far from ideal as a source on Ross
2. User, Super. "404 Error Page". culteducation.com. Retrieved 2016-01-26. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help); Cite uses generic title (help)
   • Really? Did you now just call a "404 Error Page" a reliable source?
3. Shupe, Anson; Darnell, Susan E. (2011-12-31). Agents of Discord: Deprogramming, Pseudo-Science, and the American Anticult Movement. Transaction Publishers. ISBN 9781412808873.
   • See #1. Also, since this is the same source the ref-re-use functionality should have been used.
4. "Group expert can testify in Ariz. sweat lodge case". Yahoo News. Retrieved 2016-01-26.
   • Don't think "Yahoo News" would be sufficient as a source here.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 08:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

In response, I point out that you have not kept it in -- you reverted it and now it is completely gone.

• I linked Ross's own web page copy of the Albany Times Union newspaper report. If the link did not work for you, please try again. If I erred, I apologise, but I also put the link in my comment above before you wrote yours. Did you see it? Did you try it?
• Unless you can show that Schupe is discredited as an WP:RS, he is a peer-reviewed academic RS. Personal opinion notwithstanding. I am sorry there is no page number -- that comes of using the WP cite generator from Google books. Shall we run through all such cites and delete them from WP? Click on the link and you will see the text.
• The Yahoo News link is a news report that says the source is Associated Press. I do not understand how you can say Yahoo News is not legitimate. Do we need another copy of the same text from another web site? Here is the same report from The Albuquerque Journal.

Let us be kind to each other and assume good intent. The sources are good and the facts are true. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 08:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

(ec) True facts can be cherry-picked to paint a picture that may be misleading. The 01:00, 26 January 2016 edit was unacceptable for a WP:BLP article. Ross was convicted regarding a nonviolent crime over forty years ago, when aged around 22. The conviction was vacated in 1983. A minor mention integrated into the text may be suitable if independent secondary sources show that the portrayal would be balanced. An edit featuring a "Criminal Record" section heading is undue, and padding it out with text cherry-picked from a judge's statement is not satisfactory—the judge obviously thought that bringing up 1972 criminal history in an unrelated 2011 case would be undue muck raking, and the same applies at Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 08:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

My last proposal was this:

In his early twenties Ross ran into justice twice, once for attempted burglary, and once for embezzlement of property.^[1] His civil rights were restored in 1983.^[2]

There was no consensus to keep it in at the last discussion. Maybe by now WP:CCC? Give others time to add their thoughts on the matter: changing a previous consensus may need its time.

Re. sources proposed by Sfarney: no, if you want to use a source you don't put it in the article without it being at least properly formatted. The reader of the article is not served by the idea "yeah we got it all wrong in mainspace, go search the talk page and its archives to get an inkling of what should've been here". --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Ross's conviction certainly was was not "vacated". Please, learn what legal terms mean before you use them. "Ran into justice" has no meaning. It is not like stumbling into something in the dark. There is no softening the fact that Ross deliberately and with mens rea determined to commit a criminal act, conspired to do it, and committed it. This is all in his confession. Many people recant. Ross was lucky enough to get a judge to recognize it. But it is history like everything else that happens, good and bad. We do not paint white fences black, nor black fences white. Tell it like it is. Planned it, did it, confessed, convicted, sentenced, served, and expunged. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 09:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Let's keep it at "no consensus to include" then (which was the outcome of the previous discussion, nothing has changed).

Possibly a way out would be Sfarney proposing an improved text here on talk, and try to find consensus for it. My criteria are "short", and "high quality referencing"; seems like Johnuniq could possibly live with that too: so it all depends on presenting an acceptable proposal here on talk, because, as said, until a proposal is accepted here at talk the previous consensus not to include any of it stands. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

A short statement backed a couple of high quality references may be appropriate but a single mention from a biased source and a single news article saying it could not be addressed in court is not sufficient. If it can be shown this is a regular issue when he testifies, rather than just mud judges regularly disallow, it would be significant. A single mention of a judge not allowing its mention is not sufficient in my view. A separate heading Criminal record is right out both because of BLP and because it has not been shown to be as significant as the other items that have their own top level headings. I am also concerned about Shupe in general as a source - he has proven unreliable once already. Jbh^Talk 13:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that Shupe is not a reliable source as proven by the false statement in his book that the Scott criminal trial ended in a "hung jury." Shupe worked for Kendrick Moxon, lead counsel for the Church of Scientology. I have notarized copies of the court documents subject to a phycical inspection if necessary. In 1983 the Maricopa County Superior Court officially ordered the vacating of both judgments of guilt, dismissed the charges and restored my civil rights. "Arizona does not presently have an ‘expungement’ statute. The laws about setting aside a conviction are presently found in A.R.S. §§ 13-904 – 912 . A.R.S. § 13-907 permits a person convicted of a felony to request a 'set aside' of a felony conviction under certain circumstances. The statutes use the term 'set aside the judgment.' An application to have your conviction set aside may use the language 'vacate judgment and dismiss charges.' In this situation, 'setting aside a conviction,' means the same thing as 'vacating judgment and dismissing the charges.'”Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

"I agree that Shupe is not a reliable source ..." It is a partisan issue. That is the nature of lawsuits and the world generally. Reverend Moon's opinion of Rick Ross is no more reliable than Rick Ross's opinion of Moon. Schupe, however, is an academic. Like Rick Ross, Schupe has worked for lawyers because lawyers pay money and everyone needs to eat. Lawyers do not always contaminate a person's integrity, however. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 19:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Shupe was did not just work for Moxon they were co-authors of

• Shupe, Anson; Darnell, Susan E.; Moxon, Kendrick (2003). "The Cult Awareness Network and the Anticult Movement - Implications for NRMs in America". New Religious Movements and Religious Liberty in America. By Davis, Derek H.; Hankins, Barry. Waco, Tx: Baylor Univ Press. pp. 25–42.

an article you have brought up in the past. Considering his relationship with Moxon it is hard to see him as an unbiased source and considering his error about the jury verdict, which supported his bias, it is hard to see him as a reliable source on this issue. Jbh^Talk 22:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The possibility of biases among otherwise reliable sources is considered and discussed in the wider forum of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. We do not strike them ad hoc among a small circle of friends. In any case, Schupe says nothing different from the standard news services on the subject and even Ross himself on his web page. Let us not be distracted. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Shupe worked for Moxon as an expert witness at the Scott civil trial. Shupe was later paid to work with Moxon on the book mentioned about the case. He was in possession of all the court records for both trials. How could Shupe not have known the facts regarding the previous criminal trial acquittal? It was discussed in pre-trial motions. It seems very unlikely that he did not know about this widely reported fact. Regarding the 1975 convictions, whcih are unrelated to my current work, the guilty verdicts were vacated and therefore set aside by the court in 1983. Full restitution was made to the satisfaction of the company and police did not oppose probation. I also paid a fine and served probation that probation was terminated early "due to good conduct" January 18, 1979. Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Shupe did not "work for Moxon" as an expert witness. The legal truth is that Schupe worked for the plaintiff, Jason Scott. Ross has also worked as an expert witness. If serving as an expert witness causes a person to become then and ever after a tool of the lawyer, by his own argument Ross has many masters, his intellect and integrity compromised by each. The book contains little indication of the level of cooperation between Shupe and Moxon. They may have had no more personal contact that Gilbert and Sullivan, if, indeed, contact with Moxon would automatically compromise anyone's intellect. The financial arrangements for that chapter of the book are not in evidence. In short, the comment above contains many allegations that might cast shadows where no substance exists. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Sfarney - has it occurred to you that adding negative claims into a BLP when no one else agrees with you might not actually arrive at a WP:CONSENSUS for inclusion of your eagerly sought edits? I fear some might conclude that your motivation here is not to make a neutrally worded and sourced encyclopedia article on this topic at all. If you do have any such motive, kindly rethink your participation in Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 15:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken:, why do you ask? Did you investigate the sources before you reverted? If not, why not? Yes, Ross is mentioned specifically as the subject of the statements in the source. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Please review WP:BLP. Afterward, if you think anything you added should be restored, make a case for it here, quoting the sources. --Ronz (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I am quite familiar with BLP. Ross espouses a pseudoscience that was vigorously rejected by the APA. There is no question but Ross credits Singer with the theory -- he uses the same language and cites her multiple times on his web page. The subject is scientific fraud. Since this group considers has chosen to cite Ross on the subject of the brainwashing theory, Wiki should also mention that the theory is has been rejected as non-scientific. Wiki should not be a forum or a megaphone for Ross to spout his non-scientific theories. The sources are fully cited in the material that was reverted with hot links. Now it is your turn. What do you find wrong with the sources. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

You appear unfamiliar with BLP. Please note the last sentence of it's introduction, "The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material" which is elaborated further in WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. --Ronz (talk) 23:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• Bromley: the paragraph pp. 99–100 speaks about Ross and CAN (somewhat further in the paragraph "Ross and accomplices"): this cannot be reduced to Ross exclusively in his bio (Bromley is not explicit whether he sees the "warfare" mentality in Ross, or in CAN, or in the "accomplices" or in any combination of these); the "impulse to rectify a perceived violation of oneself" is from another paragraph, p. 100 where Bromley quotes another author, but does not mention Ross. Bromley *may* want to suggest it applies to Ross and whoever he wants to associate with him (by some weird "guilt by association" presentation), but it is not OK for Wikipedia editors to perform the WP:OR and conflate two successive paragraphs into one sentence in Ross' biography (and present it as if Bromley implied it all applied to Ross – this isn't even fair to Bromley as it misrepresents what he wrote). --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
• Introvigne pp. 53–55 has a lot of ACM and CAN, but no Ross: inappropriate for the Ross biography. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Then we must remove the Ross statement about "brainwashing." Wiki cannot become a pulpit or a megaphone for Ross to preach his discredited pseudoscience. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

It's properly sourced, the viewpoint is clearly presented as Ross', it's highly relevant to his notability. If it were presented in Wikipedia's voice, then it would be the problem you describe.

Are you disputing that it was not Ross' viewpoint at the time? Otherwise, I don't know why it should be removed for the very reasons you give: it is a fringe and discredited theory that gives a very important perspective to Ross' work. Removing it might be considered a WP:FRINGE violation, the very opposite of what you appear to be arguing. --Ronz (talk) 00:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a pulpit for crackpots to voice their "opinions." Either we mention the opinion with a caveat or we do not advertise the opinions. I can give you a many examples. Consider Immanuel Velikovsky, Wilhelm Reich, the paranormal claims of Uri Geller, Erich von Däniken, the claims of Randell Mills, Richard Bandler, James V. McConnell, and many others. Ross is not an exception, regardless of personal opinions. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 01:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Please be careful to use language that fully complies with WP:BLP in articles and on all pages of Wikipedia. You are suggesting that the subject of this article is a crackpot whose opinions should not be voiced at Wikipedia—that suggestion comes very close to disqualifying you from participation in any BLP, but particularly shows you should not be editing or commenting on this topic which is evidently of extreme concern for you. Regarding the issue, there is no clear science on brainwashing so it is hard to see how there could be a pseudoscience. By contrast, Velikovsky contradicted the findings of many major disciplines, yet Immanuel Velikovsky#Ideas shows his opinions. Johnuniq (talk)

There certainly is a clear finding on brainwashing. Margaret Singer was the strongest professional proponent of cult brainwashing, she was tasked by the APA to study the issue along with a half dozen other professionals, she worked on her DIMPAC for years, and she failed miserably to make a scientific case before her peers. In the last three decades, no one else has either. As science, brainwashing stands equal with cold fusion, UFOs, and unicorns. No, the negative has not been proved, but ... The absence of evidence is interpreted in these cases to be evidence of absence. Such is pseudoscience. Rick Ross is not a professional and his opinion does not change that finding even by a whisker in the eyes of Wikipedia. Ross's cited authorities are just fringies in the profession who have failed to convince their colleagues. Note please, despite her disgrace and discredit, Ross still idolizes Margaret Singer: "There is also a special archive accessible through this page dedicated to the memory of Margaret Singer, Ph.D. Dr. Singer's pioneering work as a researcher, educator and clinical psychologist laid the foundation for specifically understanding cult mind control."
Yes, the article on Immanuel Velikovsky#Ideas shows his opinions, but also clearly labels them as pseudoscientific. If we do one, we also do both. Or we do neither. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 06:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The APA withdrew its brief and took no official position. Rick Alan Ross (talk) 05:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The APA's position on Margaret Singer's DIMPAC report was not at all ambiguous and the APA has never equivocated on that report. It said, in effect, "not science." That is all, but it is enough. Like the Island of Atlantis, telekinesis, and talking horses, there is simply no scientific foundation for the claim that cults brainwash the members. It is not a scientific theory. It might be poetry, metaphor, allegory, or fairy tale. But when someone pretends the allegation is science, they are spouting pseudoscience. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 05:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

When someone dedicates themselves to attacking the subject of an article, they can pull words from a laundry bag to further their advocacy. However, the science of whether a cult can brainwash its members is irrelevant when considering whether the views of the subject of an article should be expressed. Editors should not use any page on Wikipedia as part of a campaign against a BLP subject, so please stop making comments unless focused on policy-based improvements to text in the article. Johnuniq (talk) 06:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

You are mistaken and incorrect to call my edits "attacking." Wikipedia is founded on the idea that truth exists. WP has a defined process for approaching truth, while recognizing the result might not be perfect. Nevertheless, truth is the highest goal. We do not "attack" subjects and we do not "defend" subjects. We may defend the Encyclopedia from attack, but that is a different subject. The article now reads like a curriculum vitae, or maybe a promo piece for the Ross Exit Counseling Enterprise, rather than an encyclopedia entry on a very real and very controversial person. Strangely, little of the controversy appears in the article. Why is that? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 19:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Because rather than finding ways to address the negative material, which exists and should be represented in the article, you have been, in my opinion, attempting to not only include the material but to include it in a way that cast disparages the subject. I lost my faith that you are simply trying to include the material in an NPOV manner when you made a top level header for "Criminal Record". Whether it is your purpose or intnetion or not, your edits look like your purpose is to disparage RR and CAN rather than simply include negative material in an NPOV way. This has been mentioned to you by several editors.

You may want to consider proposing information which you think should be included and working on the talk page to craft an NPOV way to present it in the article. This tactic may lead to improvement in the article rather than attempting to introduce sweeping re-writes or new blocks of text which are seen to be in violation of BLP and/or NPOV. Jbh^Talk 19:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Apparently, you are agreeing the article is unbalanced in a subject-favorable direction, and you attribute that unbalance to something I have done or not done. But the balance (NPOV) should not depend on a single editor. All of us are responsible for the article as a whole. On your second point, I notice that the instance material is reverted completely rather than emended. This fact argues that the local editors are unwilling to include the controversies under any wording. In fact, the substance of the complaints have never mentioned my wording, which is understandable, since my wording always conforms relatively well in tone with the RS. The prospect for mere proposals, therefore, is dim. On your third subject, I have never done a "sweeping rewrite" on these articles. Let us confine our discussion to situations that are historical and at issue, lest we lose the substance of the discussion. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 20:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is founded on the idea that truth exists. WP has a defined process for approaching truth, while recognizing the result might not be perfect. Nevertheless, truth is the highest goal. " You're perspective on Wikipedia is incorrect. Take a look at WP:NOTTRUTH. --Ronz (talk) 23:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Read it. The misunderstanding is yours. The word "verify" means:
1. to prove the truth of, as by evidence or testimony; confirm; substantiate: Events verified his prediction.
2. to ascertain the truth or correctness of, as by examination, research, or comparison: to verify a spelling.
3. to act as ultimate proof or evidence of; serve to confirm.
You can't verify anything if there is no truth. If there were no truth, there could be no Encyclopedias -- anything said would be merest fantasy or propaganda. The WP policy you cite (and we all follow) contradicts the interpretation you give here: "The Verifiability policy ... does not mean Wikipedians have no respect for truth and accuracy, just as a court's reliance on rules of evidence does not mean the court does not respect truth. Wikipedia values accuracy, but it requires verifiability." The essence of that essay is that "truth ... is not good enough." It should not be necessary to provide you with examples: You are already arguing for that principle elsewhere. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 00:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

And where does it support anything remotely like what you wrote? WP:V doesn't. WP:POV certainly doesn't. The most applicable appears to be WP:RGW, but from the wrong perspective. --Ronz (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

"...what you wrote" ?? When? Where? About what? All my article edits are fully sourced. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 18:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Still referring to your, "Wikipedia is founded on the idea..." --Ronz (talk) 18:07, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

You chose the source to rebut what I wrote. But it does not contradict what I wrote, as I showed you. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 19:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

This page reads like a resume or Who is Who entry. All self-published and blog sources must be removed and the statements that depend on them likewise removed. We do have WP:BLP and this page does not conform. Let's clean it up. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Disallowed sources incude

• "Rick Ross's Biography".
• "Pastor Gil Kaplan".
• Ross, Rick (2014). Cults Inside Out: How People Get In and Can Get Out. CreateSpace Publishing. ISBN 978-1497316607.
• "About Us". Cult Education Institute. Retrieved July 9, 2014.
• "The Ross Institute has officially changed its name". Cult News. August 2, 2013. Retrieved July 9, 2014.
• "和平圖書". Peace Book Company. Archived from the original on January 15, 2016.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfarney (talk • contribs) 21:29, 4 February 2016

Actually it is pretty well balanced finally. Self-published sources are good for specific limited purposes, and as far as I can tell, none are being misused at this point in time. Nor do I find even a single barred "blog source" in the BLP. Mr. Ross is quiet, finally, and I do not see what will be gained by making any substantial changes now. If you have a specific edit to propose, please start an RfC, as being the only proper course when a contentious article, such as this one had been, has actually settled down this much. Cheers. (None of the sources you object to in your list violate WP:BLP or WP:RS as used in this biography, by the way.) If you wish to discuss any one of these sources, I recommend posting at WP:RS/N, stating the source and the claim made for it. I am sure the advice there will be sound. Collect (talk) 21:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Yep, RfC is the way to go now if you want to make edits like the ones you have been pushing for in the past. Also, since the use of sources has been gone over pretty thoughly RSN is the place to challence their use. Less drama all arround if you stick to formal processes. Jbh^Talk 21:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

To clarify, I am asking for help, not permission. You are among those who have pushed this page into the non-WP shape it is now. This is your chance to show you are on the right side of WP:NOTHERE. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

So what source is being misused where? Just listing a bunch of sources and claiming they can not be used is not productive. What do you think is being used here in violation of WP:BLPSELFPUB and how is it in violation? Jbh^Talk 22:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC) PS - please strike your baiting attack above. It is non-productive. I guess you could alternatly provide diffs to back it up - that would at least give me some insight into what you see as my deficiencies as an editor are. I might even learn something.

Diffs are not necessary -- we work with the page as it is now. And as you attest above, the resident editors have already "gone over pretty th[or]oughly" the sources in the page, presumably including those I have listed above. Each of those sources is forbidden under WP:BLP for the purpose it is now used. PS - please strike your baiting attack above. It is non-productive. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 23:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• "Rick Ross's Biography" is a self-published web page used to support --
  • where Ross attended school -- not notable enough to be mentioned by anyone but Ross himself.
  • other statements of objective history. Since the source is not RS, that's upside down.
• "Pastor Gil Kaplan" -- self published source, not RS, used to support other statements of objective history not sufficiently notable to be mEntioned by a real RS.

Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

If you could quote the specific claims you object to it would help me and likely others address them and will leave a clear record of the final consensus for the archives. Where he attended school is a pretty non-contravercial claim and is just the kind of thing BLPSELFPUB allows. That said I am agnostic on its inclusion - it is trivial but it is a biographical fact not very different from where he was born or where he now lives. Jbh^Talk 23:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

"If you could quote the specific claims you object to ..." It should not be necessary to reproduce the entire page here -- the original is only a click away. Nevertheless, I have cited his schooling specifically. Yet you say, "I see nothing ..." ?? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 00:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Wow! You did not read a word I wrote above did you? Would you care to point out why you think where he went to school should be removed? I already said I am agnostic on its inclusion. To spell it out on the one hand it is trivial ie meh remove it and on the other hand it is non-controvercial biographical information ie meh keep it - see agnostic or in more words - I do not know, make your argument for removing. Jbh^Talk 00:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I see nothing sourced from only his biography or Pastor Gill. I actually do not see why the Pastor Gill source is even in there. I can only find one place it is used and that statement has 4 footnotes. Jbh^Talk 00:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I assume your claim I said "I see nothing" is from this edit. Wow! Again - didn't read what I wrote. I agreed that the Pasoter Gill source is unneeded. Also, there is nothing in the article that is sourced only to Ross Biography so even if it were removed no content would change other than the bit about where he went to High School.Jbh^Talk 00:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

So you agree we should remove those elements from the page, right? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 00:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have no objection to removing the Pastor Gill source it is redundant. You have not made an argument to move me from meh about the school. What harm is it? It is not self serving. It is not exceptional. It is trivial but a better argument is needed than that to remove it since it is sources and does not violate WP:BLPSELFPUB that I can see. Why do you think it should be removed? Jbh^Talk 00:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

@Sfarney: Please write an actionable proposal without snark, or find another page to edit. Johnuniq (talk) 00:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

The Gil Kaplan source was first entered in Nov 2008. Those who ask for civility and good faith should first learn to practice it. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 02:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Removed Gill source per comments here. Jbh^Talk 02:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for this, jb, I think we have established by this example (what used to be footnote #3, which has been on the page since November 2008) that the statement above ("the use of sources has been gone over pretty th[or]oughly") is somewhat less than accurate. The editor who used that "RS" so long ago, and the others since then who permitted it, erred rather heavily on the permissive side. I recommend, given this error and the subject's own recent personal persistent lobbying for more favorable representation, the entire page and every reference should be thoroughly reviewed by independent parties for compliance with WP standards. For example, the statement that Ross's corporation is an "educational nonprofit corporation" cites ONLY self published sources and is unduly self-serving (in the words of WP:SELFPUB). No doubt every propaganda house would like to say the same about itself -- and I intend only the most neutral definition of "propaganda," from the Democratic Party to UFO information services. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 07:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

"Educational nonprofit corporation" is a legal "term of art" and to use the term otherwise by any corporation would be a violation of Federal law. indicates it is 501(c)(3) incorporated in New Jersey. IRS entry. And the donation is legally tax deductible (limit of 50% of income). I assume you accept that the term of art is correctly used, and that this is a useless sidetrack here. Collect (talk) 07:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

The Church of Christian Science and the Unification Church are also registered as 501(c)(3) corporations, as are most of the groups that Ross & Co. has undertaken to obliterate, The headquarters of Lyndon H. LaRouche, the same. Tax status registration has nothing to do with objective truth, and most certainly does not enable any editor to state in Wikipedia's voice that a corporation is "educational", with only self-published web pages to support the claim. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 08:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

You are flatly wrong. The statement is an objective fact. Admitedly it is one that many 501(c)3 corps use to sound 'lofty' but there is nothing we can do about that here since it is what it is and can legaly call itself that.

Trying to use my agreement with one of the issues you raised as a precident to call for some total review of sources is what I would call a chicken shit tactic. My agreement with one of your points does not make the others more valid. Also, you never did make your case for why his High School should be removed so I will assume it was simply another attempt to gain agreement on a minor issue to exploit as you just did with the Kaplan source.

If you think sources are misused bring them up along with the text they are supporting, either here or at RSN, and make your case. More non-specific complaints or attempts to put in undue and/or BLP violating material will result in a request for a topic ban for you. That said I agree that there may be material out there which merrits inclusion and that the article seems a bit overly positivePOV but that is not the consensus here and your continued attempts to push negative POV is not the proper eay to address those issues. Your over the top behavior here will only serve to harden the status quo and get the material you try to introduce rejected when a more moderate approach may have resulted in improvement in the article. Jbh^Talk 13:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

"My agreement with one of your points does not make the others more valid." Your capitulation on that point -- with no objection from the others -- is clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that you folks did not "th[or]oughly" review all the sources and their uses in this article. Since that bogus RS has been in the article since 2008, it shows that your claim was not truthful at the time you made it. You should probably move off this page and apply your time and skills to other topics where you can be more truthful and objective.

The simple truth bears repeating: Using Wikipedia's voice to call Ross's propaganda group "educational", and base the statement on two pages of his own self-published website, is just plain wrong. The whole section does not belong here. This is supposed to be a BLP, not an ad for web site and his consultancy. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 18:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Take it to a noticeboard or RfC. Right now all you are doing is wasting space on the talk page. You obviously see this as some sort of battle and are way too invested in this topic. I will also state, yet again, there is nothing in the article, except his school, that is sourced only to his website. Any this, again since you seemed to have missed it if you want something removed from the article quote the text here and state clearly why you think it should be removed anything else is simply bitching for thr sake of disruption. Oh about your repeated quoting of "th[or]oughly" it is called a typo no need to be a tool about it unless it makes you feel good about yourself then, please mock away it is no skin off my teeth and I can feel good that I have brought some joy into your life. Jbh^Talk 19:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

there is nothing in the article, except his school, that is sourced only to his website ?? As discussed at length above, the assertion in WP's own voice that Ross's institute is "educational" is entirely WP:SELFPUB. This is not at all trivial, since Ross's whole shtick is the pretense that he is saving the world from destructive cults, groups that "brainwash" their members -- a la Margaret Singer's discredited thesis. "Educational", as used here in WP's own voice, is effectively an endorsement of that claim. In contrast, the article on Kepler College shows how merchants of pseudoscience should be addressed. If the arguments of this group of editors were applied to that article, Kepler would turn into an "educational" institution, since without doubt, it is also a 501(c)(3) corporation. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 20:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• "We are a 501(c)(3) charitable organization and all cash donations are deductible." - Kepler Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
• "Avalon is a non for profit organization approved by the IRS 501 (c)(3) status. Please consider donating to Avalon. Your tax deductible donation will help us provide scholarship funds to students who could not afford to attend the school otherwise." -Avalon

Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 20:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

All 501c3 corporations must be organized and operated for one or more specific exempt purposes. These purposes are specified in the corporate charter when it is created. One of these specific purposes is education. You will note in your example above you give an example of "We are a 501c3 charitable organization..." - charity is a specified exempt purpose under 501c3 just as education is. An organization's tax status and organizational purpose are matters of fact and public record. Unless there is a particular reason to question the assertion it is a non-controversial statement. This is different from self serving claims like the 'member of NJ library association' and such which were removed a few weeks ago. In that case the claim was removed because it was UNDUE - anyone can join those associations - and self serving - the claims were used to puff up the Institutes image and legitimacy. Jbh^Talk 21:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

When advertised schools describe themselves as "charitable" organizations, but doing no real charity, you should realize that the description has no real substance. None. WP's description of Ross's enterprise as "educational" is an endorsement -- and an improper one, too. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I have given you my opinion and my reasons for it including the origin of the term and what it means in the US tax code. You may be able to make a case claiming the description is UNDUE but so far all you have done is assert your opinion which will do nothing to convince me of your position. I suggest that rather than pointlessly go back and forth here you open a thread at NPOVN or whereever and make your case to the wider group of editors there. Maybe they will agree with you, maybe not but whatever the result that will be the end of the matter. Jbh^Talk 22:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I have given you examples and sources. In addition, I have shown you that the current page violates WP policy on sources. You are in deliberate and knowing violation of WP editorial rules. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

You have demonstrated persistence, for sure. Now can you tone it down a bit and wait to see if you can get consensus before making foolish or improper edits? Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Sufficient explanation has been given, and consensus does not support Sfarney's proposal or edit. Further responses would merely feed the problem. Johnuniq (talk) 23:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Kendrick Moxon played a very prominent role in the Jason Scott Case. But his identify and historical significance is obscured in the bio, which states 'Kendrick Moxon, who was linked to the Church of Scientology,' This is a false and misleading statement. Kendrick Moxon is a very prominent Scientologist, has acted as an official of the church and is its lead counsel. IMO "linked" is a weasel word. Moxon should be correctly identified as his identity is both pivotal and integral to the historical notability of the case. Rick Alan Ross (talk) 16:33, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

A lawyer is an officer of the court, and an advocate for one of the parties. Usually, a lawyer is in the pay of the party represented, and is prejudiced in favor of that party. As was Ross's lawyer. Is this an assertion that Moxon's association with Scientology nullifies his right to practice law? Or that Moxon had an unfair advantage in the court by his association with Scientology? Regardless of the lawyer's religious affiliation (he could be a rabbi and nobody would care), a lawyer's arguments must convince the jury, and in this case, the jury was convinced of the relative rights and wrongs of the case between Scott and Ross. This page is not about Moxon or anyone else but Ross. Moxon's associations are actually irrelevant and should be deleted. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Moxon's association with Scientology has been remarked on by multiple RS with respect to the Scott case and needs to be included in the summary of the case per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. There is no need to give it undue emphasis in this BLP though and the simple mention that exists seems sufficient. Jbh^Talk 00:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

• Looking at the lead of the Scott article Moxon is described as "a prominent Scientologist attorney". I have no objection to using that characterization here as well. Jbh^Talk 00:25, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

• Can you explain how Moxon is relevant to a biography on Ross? It seems really far afield. Moxon is a lawyer. Alan also had a lawyer, but his name is not mentioned. Let's dig into Ross's lawyer a little bit -- could be reeally interesting. Did ye defend drunk drivers, murderers, and child molesters? Lots of lawyers do that, you know -- there is no shame in that, but it should be mentioned. Or maybe if the other clients that a lawyer represented are not really relevant in a biography, we should stick to that policy all the way through. Be consistent. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 01:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

• Read WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. We are summarizing the Jason Scott case here and the removal by Scott of Moxon is integral to the final settlement and RS say Moxon's affiliation with Scientology was at the root of that. There is a sentence relating to Moxon, it is not UNDUE. I doubt you will get consensus to remove mention of Moxon and his affiliation from the article but you are, of course, welcome to try. I have explained my reasoning and I have found doing so more than once with you to be unproductive so I shall leave it that and let others comment. Jbh^Talk 01:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

• The sources say that Moxon came into the case after it was filed, and that the Church of Scientology paid Moxon's legal fees. "Linked" sounds like Scott just discovered the connection and was revolted. Why should we tell a fake story? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 05:50, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

• See above where I suggested using the same phrase, ... a prominent Scientologist attorney.", which is used in the lead of Jason Scott case to duely summarize/identify Moxon. Jbh^Talk 11:33, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
  • The whole situation is a bit odd. Scott filed the case, then Moxon heard about it and went to Washington from California to fight the case on behalf of Scott. Moxon won a huge judgment for Scott. Then Scott decided to throw it away and get rid of Moxon (when Moxon objected?). Some days you just can win for losing. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Kendrick Moxon was Jason Scott's lawyer from the beginning to the end of Scott civil lawsuit. Moxon also was an outspoken advocate for the filing of criminal charges, which were not formally filed for almost two years after the deprogramming took place. Moxon worked closely with the country prosecutor in Washington State. Moxon played a pivotal historical role in the Jason Scott case as is described correctly in other Wikipedia entries. This was reported by numerous reliable news sources as previously cited and also by CBS "60 Minutes." Rick Alan Ross (talk) 15:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Can the proposed edit now be done?Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

AFAICS Jbh performed the edit they had proposed here (without further changes to that sentence thus far AFAIK). --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I know that talk pages are supposed to be about the article not the editors, however this must be pointed out because it is affecting Wikipedia. Rick Ross has spent months and months cajoling editors into removing unfavorable content in this article but now he at the Steve Hassan article arguing to add unfavorable content to one of his competitors. See long standing feud. If you ask me it crosses a line. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@Elmmapleoakpine: some of that is my fault. When he brought up Hassan as an OTHESTUFF example I encouraged him to edit a copy of the, at the time very poor, article to make it, in his view, "policy compliant". I hoped he would gain some insight by editing an article other than his BLP. He made a fair go of it and when another editor cleaned up the article I encouraged him to look at it.

I think he is mainly bothered that we lable his book self-published but not Hassan's works. If he is going to continue on Hassan's page then adding a {{connected contributor}} on that article's talk page would be appropriate. Jbh^Talk 00:02, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

See Talk:Steven Hassan#Anti-cult Trade War (please add further comments there, not here). --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes. I commented there.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 13:34, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the title "deprogrammer" is sufficient or completely accurate to describe me or my work today. I am referred to as an "author." [] as the "founder of the Cult Education Institute" [] and noted for my specialized knowledge and expertise regarding "destructive cults." [] []. In addition to being published in Chinese my book "Cults Inside Out" has also been published by Anteo Edizioni in Italian. [] Some adjustment should be made in the lead and at Occupation to more accurately reflect the facts.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you market yourself differently. This article is not a part of your marketing campaign. We've plenty of sources supporting "deprogrammer". --Ronz (talk) 16:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Primary notability is as a deprogrammer and this is what most sources say. Self reference is not relav_ent, I believe we discussed this a few months ago in the context of whether to use 'exit councilor. Jbh^Talk 17:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

No. My primary notability is as a cult expert as demonstrated by the linked reliable sources above. I have been qualified and testified many times as a court expert. I also lecture at the university and college level as a guest expert about cults. The reliable sources support that changes should be made in the lead and occupation of my bio for the purpose of historical accuracy.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

The news reports linked above reflect the facts. There are many more examples, but these are just a few. I am not often referred to as simply a "deprogrammer," though I still do cult intervention work. I have provided reliable sources. I am referred to as the founder and executive director of the Cult Education Institute, which is an educational tax-exempted 501 (c) (3) online library database. I am also referred to as an expert that provides expert testimony in court cases across the US. And as an expert, lecturer and published author, who is frequently interviewed by the media. The bio lead and occupation should reflect the reported facts.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

You may recall past discussions on how this is not a venue for your marketing campaigns. Nothing appears changed. --Ronz (talk) 16:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

What Wikipedia is not "Articles must be balanced to put entries...in a reasonable perspective." Wikipedia: Notability There is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent" and "editors should consider how best to help readers understand it." An article must not be "so narrow that [it] cannot be properly developed." I suggest that the bio reflect balance regarding the nature of my notability and reasonably reflect a historical perspective rather than be so narrowly focused on one aspect of my work. I am not simply notable for deprogramming, which I have established through reliable sources and will continue to add footnoted and linked sources above.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:25, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

We've been through this. It gets very old. Out of all the potential sources, identify a few that you feel are the absolutely best and I'll look them over. If you can't find any that have a strong historical context, you might want to wait until you find some. --Ronz (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Please review the overwhelming support from reliable sources that I have found and linked above. I will continue to compile more. The news reports and media interviews describe me and my work and provide strong historical context. I am not known nor notable simply as a "deprogrammer." The lead and occupation at my bio should reflect the historical facts not cherry picking.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• RR please do not change your comments after they have been replied to as you have done above. I have mentioned to you before that this is not appropriate because it changes the context of other editors replies to you. In this case it looks like more references were asked for when you had already given 30+ rather than when you had given 3-4. Thank you. Jbh^Talk 14:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry. I did later state that I would add additional linked sources. This took some time. I have added a note in bold regarding the sources later added to support the strong historical context as requested. I think it's important to show just how strong and pervasive the reliable sources are concerning this matter. BTW I was interviewed by CNN/HLN Nancy Grace yesterday as a "court expert." The transcript will be online soon. I am very rarely referred to as simply a "deprogrammer." That is a title that was primarily applied to me during the late 1980s and 1990s.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Adding sources is fine but please do so as a reply to the question. That way when someone reads the talk page they can follow what is going on without reading the history. This is why WP:REDACT, part of the Talk Page Guidelines says ...if anyone has already replied to or quoted your original comment, changing your comment may deprive any replies of their original context. Once others have replied, or best practice even if no one's replied but it's been more than a short while, if you wish to change or delete your comment, you should... Also, please use the preview button rather than making several minor changes to a comment after you have already saved it. I get so many edit conflicts when I try to respond to one of your comments that it wastes lots of time. Remember that those tweaks screw up other people's edits and force them to re-write or at the least copy/paste to avoid loosing their text. This is very impolite and I have also mentioned this to you before. Jbh^Talk

I will endeavor to follow those guidelines. Doing my best.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the title "deprogrammer" is sufficient or completely accurate to describe me or my work. I am referred to as an "author." [] aa the "founder of the Cult Education Institute" (formerly known as the Ross Institute of New Jersey) [] [] and noted for my specialized knowledge and expertise regarding "destructive cults." [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] []

+[]. In addition to being published in Chinese my book "Cults Inside Out" has also been published by Anteo Edizioni in Italian. [] Some adjustment should be made in the lead and at Occupation to more accurately reflect the facts.(Note: I added more reliable sources per request after the initial comments from editors 14:31, 26 April 2016)Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I restored the OP to the situation before first response, and moved the "updated" version above, for clarity.

@Rick Alan Ross: of course there is little chance this will work as long as you just post a sea of external links, without indicating, source by source who wrote what, when, in which publication, and what part of the linked text we should be looking at. I, for one, find this a highly counterproductive proceeding as long as such clarifications aren't posted, source by source, and will of course not start clicking random links to get something sorted that is not my problem by far. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. The sources linked demonstrate why I am notable. They refer to me as an expert, court expert and also mention my book and the Cult Education Institute. I am not often referred to as a "deprogrammer."

Can we assume then that not a single one of these potential sources actually have any strong historical context? --Ronz (talk) 16:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Rick Alan Ross (talk) 13:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Please don't assume anything. What the reliable sources reflect is my work, the reason that my work as an expert is notable as noted by the courts, journalists, in news reports, media, etc. The bio should be consistent with the facts. I have linked the information to make it easy for you or anyone to review.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Please stop wasting our time if you cannot screen sources for quality and content. --Ronz (talk) 18:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I have screened and provided reliable quality sources that support my request for editing of the lead and occupation. I suggest that the lead read something like -- "Rick Alan Ross (born 1952) is an American cult specialist and deprogrammer. Ross has testified as a court expert witness and is frequently interviewed by the media. He has done more than 500 deprogramming intervention cases in various countries, including a number of involuntary deprogramming interventions at the request of parents whose children joined controversial groups and movements. Ross is the founder of the Cult Education Institute, which is an educational nonprofit database." Under occupation it should read -- "Deprogrammer, Court Expert, Author"Rick Alan Ross (talk) 19:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I suggested that you identify a few source that you think are best, that include a strong historical context. You've not responded by identifying any in such a manner. As long as you ignore such requests, I see no reason to continue this discussion. --Ronz (talk) 14:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Notability Notability guidelines include books, films, organizations and Web content. My work has been significantly noted historically. And I have received significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent. Per Wikipedia guidelines, "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it." Here are some specific sources cited and dated source by source with directly relevant quotations.

1. The New York Daily News (2002) cites me as "New Jersey-based cult expert Rick Ross" []
2. In the book "Power of Cult Branding" (2002) I am referred to and quoted as "cult expert and intervention specialist Rick Ross" []
3. NBC News (2004) refers to me as "cult expert Rick Ross" []
4. Wired (2005) described me as "Rick Ross, a cult expert" []
5. ABC News interview described me as "Rick Ross, one of the country's leading experts on what are called destructive culs, controversial groups" []
6. IMDB lists some of the television programs and documentaries I have participated in from 1995 to 2014. I am descirbed in 1995 as a "deprogrammer," 2004-2005 as a "Cult and New Age Researcher," 2007 as a "cult investigator," 2008 as a "cult expert," 2010 as a "Religious Group Expert" and 2011 as "Cult Expert - Ross Institute for Cult Studies" []
7. The Gothamist (2005) refers to me as "an internationally known expert regarding destructive cults, controversial groups and movements. He has performed interventions, lectured, consulted, assisted local and national law enforcement, and testified as an expert witness on the subject." []
8. In the Tampa Tribune (2006) I am referred to and quoted as "Rick Ross, a cult expert who has researched Scientology for years" []
9. CBS News (2006) identifies me as "cult expert Rick Ross " []
10. UK News Shopper (2012) identifies me as " Rick Ross, an expert from the Rick Ross Institute in New Jersey, America, which studies destructive cults and controversial movements" []
11. The New York Post (2008) identifies me as "Cult expert Rick Ross" []
12. Yahoo News Australia (2011) identifies me as "Cult expert Rick Ross" []
13. The Arizona Republic (2011) states, "Rick Ross, who has a national reputation as an authority on cults and cult behavior. Ross, formerly based in Arizona, has a controversial background, including his work as a cult 'deprogrammer.'" The Repuglic also reported "Ross has testified in courts in several states and has written about cults and coercive techniques"[]
14. I was qualified and accepted as an expert in the James Arthur Ray case despite defense efforts to have me exclused. []
15. Albany Times-Union (2012) reported, "Rick Ross has been a cult tracker for more than 25 years" And further reported "Ross has been qualified and accepted as an expert witness regarding cults and cultlike groups in the courts of 10 states and has been used by the federal government as a consultant." []
16. Daily Mail (UK 2012) referred to me as "cult expert Rick Ross" []
17. The Observer (Uganda 2012) referred to me as " international cult expert, Rick Ross" []
18. Psychologist "Dr. Phill" (2013) national television program featured me as "cult expert Rick Ross" []
19. The New Yorker (2013) referred to me as "Rick Ross, a cult expert who has worked with law enforcement and knows the inner workings of Twelve Tribes" []
20. The Range (2013) described me as "Cult expert Rick Ross, who tracks religious groups through his Rick A. Ross Institute" []
21. The Independent (UK 2013) referred to me as "Rick Ross, a consultant on cults and an expert witness in many cases in the US" []
22. Vice (2015) described me as "Rick Alan Ross, a cult expert who founded the Cult Education Institute" []
23. Maxim (2015) reported "Rick Ross (no, not that one) is a consultant, author, and founder of the Cult Education Institute. He’s been a opponent of cults for several decades, and was even embroiled in a lawsuit for his controversial deprogramming methods" []
24. CNN (2015) describes me as a "cult expert []
25. People Magazine (2015) describes me as "Rick Ross, who has been cited internationally for his work on destructive cults" []
26. Inverse (2015) describes me as "Rick Ross, specialist on destructive cults and movements" []
27. Yahoo News (2016) identifies me as "Rick Ross, founder of the Cult Education Institute and author of Cults Inside Out" []
28. Raw Story (2016) described me as "Rick Ross, a cult expert who helped in Waco with the Branch Davidians" []
29. Lehigh Valley Live (Pennsylvania 2016) "Rick Ross, director of the Trenton-based Cult Education Institute" [] Also note that this article utilizes the Cult Education Institute database for historical articles and research.

These source by source citations and quotations demonstrate why I am notable and the historical context of how I am recognized.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 16:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Took the liberty to give them a number, hope that's OK. Next I would select the top five or so for reliability, does that seem like a good plan? --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. That looks much better and makes it easier for everyone. I will do that in the future.

1. Book "Power of Cult Branding" (2002) I am referred to and quoted as "cult expert and intervention specialist Rick Ross" []
2. The New Yorker (2013) referred to me as "Rick Ross, a cult expert who has worked with law enforcement and knows the inner workings of Twelve Tribes" []
3. Albany Times-Union (2012) reported, "Rick Ross has been a cult tracker for more than 25 years" And further reported "Ross has been qualified and accepted as an expert witness regarding cults and cultlike groups in the courts of 10 states and has been used by the federal government as a consultant." []

1. ABC News interview described me as "Rick Ross, one of the country's leading experts on what are called destructive culs, controversial groups" []

1. In the Tampa Tribune (2006) I am referred to and quoted as "Rick Ross, a cult expert who has researched Scientology for years" []
2. The Arizona Republic (2011) states, "Rick Ross, who has a national reputation as an authority on cults and cult behavior. Ross, formerly based in Arizona, has a controversial background, including his work as a cult 'deprogrammer.'" The Repuglic also reported "Ross has testified in courts in several states and has written about cults and coercive techniques" []
3. People Magazine (2015) describes me as "Rick Ross, who has been cited internationally for his work on destructive cults" []
4. IMDB lists some of the television programs and documentaries I have participated in from 1995 to 2014. I am descirbed in 1995 as a "deprogrammer," 2004-2005 as a "Cult and New Age Researcher," 2007 as a "cult investigator," 2008 as a "cult expert," 2010 as a "Religious Group Expert" and 2011 as "Cult Expert - Ross Institute for Cult Studies" []Rick Alan Ross (talk) 20:15, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd drop No. 8 (IMDB) — IMDB itself is not generally regarded as a reliable source (the explanation for which is at WP:USERGENERATED). The other seven could be brought to WP:RSN if there's insufficient response on this article talk page.

For clarity, this is the recommended format for WP:RSN:

• Source. The book or web page being used as the source. For a book, include the author, title, publisher, page number, etc. For an online source, please include links. For example: [http://www.website.com/webpage.html].
• Article. The Wikipedia article(s) in which the source is being used. For example: [[Article name]].
  
• Content. The exact statement(s) in the article that the source supports. Please supply a diff, or put the content inside block quotes. For example: <blockquote>text</blockquote>. Many sources are reliable for statement "X," but unreliable for statement "Y".

So it's basisally still the content ("exact statement(s)") that needs to be written down. Take the sentence(s) you would like to see changed (quote them, and indicate from which section/paragraph) and say something like "I'd like to see these sentences changed to..." and then give the exact sentence as you would like to see it (the clearer the sentence, the easier it is to handle by your fellow-editors: vaguish statements might lead to lack of response for that reason).

Maybe do the preparation here on this talk page, possibly you'd already receive feedback, and if not, you can copy-paste it to WP:RSN afterwards. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I'd like to see the following sentences in the lead section and Occupation description changed as follows:

Change "Rick Alan Ross (born 1952) is an American deprogrammer. Ross has intervened in more than 350 deprogramming cases in various countries, including a number of involuntary deprogramming interventions at the requests of parents whose children had joined controversial groups and movements."

To -- Rick Alan Ross (born 1952) is a widely known cult specialist, deprogrammer, court expert and author. Ross has done more than 500 interventions in the United States and internationally, His work as a deprogrammer has at times been controversial, specifically regarding involuntary family interventions concerning adult children involved in groups called "cults."

Change -- "Ross faced charges of unlawful imprisonment over a 1991 forcible deprogramming of United Pentecostal Church International member Jason Scott; a jury acquitted him at trial. In 1995, a civil lawsuit filed by Scott resulted in a multimillion-dollar judgement against Ross and his co-defendants. Later, Ross and Scott reached a settlement in which Ross agreed to pay Scott US$5,000 and provide 200 hours of professional services at no charge."

To -- Ross was charged with unlawful imprisonment in 1991. This was linked to the involuntary deprogramming of 18-year-old Jason Scott. Ross was acquitted by a jury at trial. Later in 1995 Scientology lawyer Kendrick Moxon filed a lawsuit on behalf of Scott in federal court. The litigation ended in a much reported about multi-million-dollar judgement against Ross. However, that judgement was later settled for $5,000 and 200 hours of Ross's professional services.

Change -- "Ross was the only deprogrammer to work with members of the religious group Branch Davidian prior to the Waco siege; some scholars later criticized his involvement with the siege."

To -- Ross is the only deprogrammer that worked with members of the Branch Davidian sect prior to the Waco siege.

Change Occupation from "Deprogrammer" to Cult intervention specialist, court expert, author

Rick Alan Ross (talk) 19:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

My comments on these suggestions by Rick Alan Ross: "Widely known" seems unnecessary peacockery in the first sentence. How widely known Ross is should appear from the article and its references, not be stated in the first sentence in Wikipedia's voice.

I suggest changing some punctuation, notable the comma at "internationally, His work.." and the choppy short sentences in the second paragraph. Get rid of the "However", one of those words that are very rarely encyclopedic. The "much reported about" insertion is too inelegant, please rephrase if you think it's important. I've no problem with changing the occupation as suggested. To be clear, then, I think the following wording would be acceptable:

First paragraph above: Change to -- Rick Alan Ross (born 1952) is a cult specialist, deprogrammer, court expert and author. Ross has done more than 500 interventions in the United States and internationally. His work as a deprogrammer has at times been controversial, specifically regarding involuntary family interventions concerning adult children involved in groups called "cults."

Second paragraph: Change to -- Ross was charged with unlawful imprisonment in 1991 over the involuntary deprogramming of 18-year-old Jason Scott. Ross was acquitted by a jury at trial. Later in 1995 Scientology lawyer Kendrick Moxon filed a lawsuit on behalf of Scott in federal court. The litigation ended in a multi-million-dollar judgement against Ross. That judgement was later settled for $5,000 and 200 hours of Ross's professional services.

Third paragraph: Change to -- Ross was the only deprogrammer that worked with members of the Branch Davidian sect prior to the Waco siege.

Infobox: Change Occupation from "Deprogrammer" to Cult intervention specialist, court expert, author.

Bishonen | talk 20:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC).

Thank your for your suggestions and input.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 15:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Bishonen: Can we now move forward with the edits per your suggestions?Rick Alan Ross (talk) 13:24, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry. As I feared, this is simply an attempt to make this article fit Ross' marketing campaign. Sure, when you're briefly mentioned or quoted by the press, they're happy to use the titles that you want. When it comes to some actual details about you, we have something rather different:

#6 http://archive.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2011/01/27/20110127arizona-sweat-lodge-guru-james-arthur-ray-witnesses.html#ixzz479ZnKhlP

Ross' status as a cult expert also came under question by Ray's attorneys, who said he has no education beyond a high-school degree and no special training in counseling or mental-health issues.

Prosecutors say Ross hasn't been involved in the "forcible detention and deprogramming" of adult cult members since 1990 and that his past shouldn't be mentioned in the trial. They said Ross has testified in courts in several states and has written about cults and coercive techniques.

People magazine as a source for the notability of your expertise? This is an encyclopedia, not a gossip column. --Ronz (talk) 20:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Prosecutors rebutted Ray's lawyers [] and the judge qualified and accepted me as an expert to testify at trial. [] The People Magazine article is not "gossip" but rather a report about a purported "cult" called the Missionary Society Church of God. People Magazine sought me out for comment about the group. [] There are many other articles listed that support the edits besides People.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 15:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• We have gone over most of these requests several times, particularly as the lead pertains to the Scott case. My opinion is that bringing that matter up again without significant new sources is edging into disruption and WP:IDHT. Many editors have expressed their opinions on this issue and bringing it up again every couple of months is going to do nothing but look like an attempt to wear down the participants here. Jbh^Talk 21:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

There is no marketing strategy or any effort by me in any way to wear anyone down. Over recent months I have studied Wikipedia policy and avoided needless arguments per the suggestion of editors. I have provided new and reliable sources as requested to support the suggested edits. The sources provided reflect the facts. These independent and reliable sources report who I am, why I am notable and provide historical context. IMO the bio should reflect the historical facts and a NPOV.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 15:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but there are no significant new sources there. There's nothing with a historical context, and nothing with any details about Ross. It's just throwing mud at the wall. --Ronz (talk) 18:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Mud? I respectfully disagree. There are many new, significant and sufficiently detailed sources. These sources historically support and contextualize the specifically suggested editing.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 19:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Mud. As such, I don't see the value of responding further. --Ronz (talk) 20:38, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand why and/or on what basis you can label reliable sources "mud." I complied per your request many historical and directly relevant reliable sources. IMO there are now more than enough reliable sources cited and confirmed by links to support the suggested edits.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 16:13, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Can we now move forward with edit changes per the suggestions offered by Bishonen?Rick Alan Ross (talk) 13:24, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

There's no consensus to do so, which is required. --Ronz (talk) 15:22, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Editor Bishonen recommended specific edits. Editor Francis Schonken also helpfully organized the supporting historical and reliable sources. This was done April 27 and 28th. It seems appropriate to move forward now with the edits as suggested by editor Bishonen. These edits are very well supported and reliable sources were properly screened, cited, detailed, reviewed and linked above.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Bishonen suggested changes (April 28th) as follows;

First paragraph: Change to -- Rick Alan Ross (born 1952) is a cult specialist, deprogrammer, court expert and author. Ross has done more than 500 interventions in the United States and internationally. His work as a deprogrammer has at times been controversial, specifically regarding involuntary family interventions concerning adult children involved in groups called "cults."

Second paragraph: Change to -- Ross was charged with unlawful imprisonment in 1991 over the involuntary deprogramming of 18-year-old Jason Scott. Ross was acquitted by a jury at trial. Later in 1995 Scientology lawyer Kendrick Moxon filed a lawsuit on behalf of Scott in federal court. The litigation ended in a multi-million-dollar judgement against Ross. That judgement was later settled for $5,000 and 200 hours of Ross's professional services.

Third paragraph: Change to -- Ross was the only deprogrammer that worked with members of the Branch Davidian sect prior to the Waco siege.

Infobox: Change Occupation from "Deprogrammer" to -- Cult intervention specialist, court expert, author.

There seems to be a growing consensus, excluding two editors, that these edits are reasonable and very well supported by reliable sources. When can these edits be implemented?Rick Alan Ross (talk) 12:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Some recent news reports and interviews again reflect how I am known and why I am notable.

1. Harris, Chris, "Killer Cult? Inside The Horrific Death of Teenager Lucas Leonard at the Word of Life Christian Church," People Magazine, (May 18, 2016) -- describes me as "Rick Ross, an internationally recognized cult expert."[]
2. Gettys, Travis, "Inside the bizarre cult that convinced two parents to brutally beat their son to death in church," Raw Story, (May 19, 2016) -- refers to me as "cult expert Rick Ross."[]
3. Twizted Myrtle (podcast 18) "Can Anyone Succumb to Cults and Brainwashing?" (May 14, 2016) -- introduces me "Rick Ross is the founder and Executive Director of The Cult Education Institute. He is an internationally known expert on destructive cults, controversial groups and movements." []Rick Alan Ross (talk) 15:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
4. Twizted Myrtle (podcast 18 pt 2) "ISIS & Mind Control: Looking at Suicide Bombers Through a Different Lens" (May 14, 2016) describes me as "Rick Ross, an expert on destructive cults" []
5. Mierjeski, Alex,"How to Tell If Someone You Know Is in a Cult" Attn.com (May 21, 2016) describes me as "cult specialist, author, and director of the Cult Education Institute" []Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:24, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

These are more of the same: Poor quality sources (many sources so poor that cannot be used at all) that do not establish notability. Most importantly, they do not even begin to demonstrate notability above that of the Scott case. Ross presents himself to the media, and some media is happy to repeat what he presents in their poor-quality and sensationalist articles. --Ronz (talk) 15:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

"Ross Presents himself to the media"? I have responded to media inquiries for decades (1982-2016). Reporters/journalists evaluate the facts and report the news citing sources as they see fit. Many reliable sources have been presented here that support the requested edits. The Scott case (1995) is not why I am notable today as the sources reflect. I suggest that Bishonen's edits, which were recommended April 28th, be implemented to present a NPOV at this BLP.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:03, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm just going to repeat myself, as this keeps being overlooked while it's the most important aspect about this: "Most importantly, they do not even begin to demonstrate notability above that of the Scott case." --Ronz (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

The edits suggested by Bishonen are very well supported by reliable sources helpfully organized by Francis Schonken and they neither remove nor negate the Scott case. As Figureofnine said there seems to be "unnecessary hardening of positions."Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:27, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Another reliable source to support suggested edits:

Grace, Nancy, "Prince`s Pain; Investigating the Death of Music Icon Prince," CNN Transcripts (Aired April 25, 2016 - 20:00:00 ET) -- described me as "Rick Ross, an expert in Jehovah`s Witness cases" []Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:51, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

How on earth does this person meet our notability criteria? Cassianto^Talk 14:57, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

@Cassianto: Mostly through the coverage he received re the Jason Scott case. His behavior in those events is said to have pretty much brought an end to the age of deprogramming. See the quote from Encylopedia of Religion 2ed on my talk page for the significance of the event. The follow-on coverage stemming from that initial notability is pretty extensive including quite a bit of coverage about his involvement with the Waco siege and the Branch Davidians. Much of the other coverage is of him as a 'talking head' whenever reporters need a comment about cults - he is known and makes himself available so there is a lot of that type of coverage.

You can see from the above discussions that there is some disagreement between the article subject and other editors about which aspects are most important.

There is also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick Alan Ross (2nd nomination). Oddly the main AfD link seems to be a redirect to 2nd nom so I'm not sure where the original discussion is. Here it is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick Ross (consultant) Jbh^Talk 15:26, 21 May 2016 (UTC) Update Jbh^Talk 16:56, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the Scott case makes him notable as a deprogrammer--Ronz (talk) 15:29, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

No. The Scott case, which took place more than 20 years ago, is not why I am notable today and it should not be given undue weight. Many reliable sources have been provided to support the requested edit changes suggested by Bishonen, which will provide a balanced historical perspective and NPOV.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Are you basing that from your interpretation of WP:N, WP:BIO, and WP:NPOV, or are you just using "notable today" in another sense? --Ronz (talk) 16:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:BIO "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Done. "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." Done. The reliable and multiple independent sources cited helpfully organized by Francis Schonken more than suffice to support the edits suggested by Bishonen.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

You appear to be ignoring NPOV completely, and you apparently are aware of the lack of depth that the sources you offer provide hence your need to quote "...is not substantial". I agree. It's not substantial. And as such doesn't begin to change the notability nor impact the past notability in any manner. --Ronz (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

What makes you even think that we believe you are Rick Alan Ross? In terms of this article, you are a faceless nobody, just like the rest of us. Cassianto^Talk 21:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

He verified his identity to Arbcom per a requirement in the Scientology case. There is a link in the {{connected contributor}} template at the top of the talk page. Jbh^Talk 21:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks for letting me know. Cassianto^Talk 21:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Rick Alan Ross has now started 4 sections on essentially the same topic, which are basically rehashes of previous talk page discussions. I know we give a lot of latitude to BLP subjects but this is clasic, long term "I didn't hear that behavior". To quote Bishonen's response from her talk page re his claim of 'growing consensus' "I've been thinking about it, but after reviewing how the talkpage discussion has gone since them, I don't see how I can add those changes. There isn't consensus for them, and the comments of Jbhunley and Ronz must weigh with me as well. They have been following the discussion longer and more continuously than I have, and I respect the nuanced positions they've been taking. Sorry, but I don't really see the "growing consensus" you speak of." . There is obviously no consensus for the edits he desires.

I really do not know where to go from here. The only thing I can think of is to have Rick Alan Ross put his proposed edits to WP:RFC. If they pass fine, however, if there is yet again no consensus for them to be added and he brings of up the issue again without significantly better sources then it is time for a ban. Revisiting the same issues over and over again is unacceptable as is allowing a strategy of wearing down volunteers in order to get one's way.

I was just dealing with another editor at DRAFT:Leon Raper who, like RR, was only concerned with his own biography. He was indefinitly blocked as not here to build an encyclopedia after only a few weeks of very similar behavior. This has been going on for a year or more and it is past time to put a stake in it.

Opinions?
Jbh^Talk 14:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC) Fixed typo Jbh^Talk 16:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia: BLP Disruptive? My involvement and concern about my bio was discussed at the BLP board. I have acted in good faith and other editors seem to appreciate my concerns, sources and suggestions. Per the previous suggestions of editors I have studied the Wikipedia guidelines. I have suggested edits based upon reliable sources within those guidelines.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I suggested your way forward was to formulate and publish a formal Request for Comments on the changes you want. If the RfC fails you need to drop the issue. Read the link about how to write a neutrally worded RfC then write and open one. At this point I would be unwilling to proceed through Dispute resolution because that process is not binding while an RfC is. Jbh^Talk 19:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I say again, in the hopes that this isn't just a case of IDHT, "Most importantly, they do not even begin to demonstrate notability above that of the Scott case." --Ronz (talk) 15:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Civility Ronz: The Scott case concluded 20 years ago. My notability is not confined to the Scott case as demonstrated repeatedly by reliable sources. My bio should include accurate and complete information under Occupation and in the lead to be factual and unbiased.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Seems like you simply don't understand the issues, and how WP:N and WP:NPOV apply. --Ronz (talk) 16:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Ronz: No. I understand Wikipedia: NPOV But I don't agree with you and think that you are wrong in opposing the reasonable edits suggested.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can see, "your" notability, if in fact you are Ross, is nondescript. You should be thankful to even have a stub, let alone what we have here. Cassianto^Talk 21:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Cassianto: please research the background of this bio. It has a history of contentious editors and sock puppets associated with groups called "cults." Some later banned. It seems to have been initiated by people using Wikipedia to attack me. I requested that it be deleted.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 12:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Ross, I'm afraid that I have to agree. While you have every right to correct inaccuracies and provide omitted information, it is frowned upon for subjects of articles to have such a significant role in the editing of articles on them. We run into this a lot, both with subjects and their hired people. It is a drain on volunteer resources. So while I am sympathetic to your concerns, I have to point out that your approach is not helpful and seems to be counterproductive. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I can appreciate that. But given the history of this bio I was encouraged through the BLP board to make suggestions at the Talk page regarding edits. Please keep in mind that members of groups called "cults" once edited this bio. I have studied Wikipedia guidelines and helpful editors have assisted me in following the Wikipedia format regarding citing reliable sources to support suggested edits. I think that that the recently suggested edits are both reasonable and well supported by reliable sources.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 15:02, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

(outdent) If it is true Mr. Ross's biography "does not even begin to demonstrate notability apart from the Scott case," as was suggested above, then the page should not exist and the discussion of the Scott case should be in an article on the Scott case. Conversely, if this page continues to exist, which thus far (for better or worse) the consensus has been that it should, then it needs to provide meaningful coverage of Mr. Ross's full career. That does not mean that we cover every nuance or load the page with unimportant matter but it does mean that we provide meaningful context.

I think several people here still don't realize, or need to be reminded, that this is not a situation in which the BLP subject is trying to foist his resume onto Wikipedia. This is a BLP subject who is forced to have his number one Google hit be this article and is trying to provide some useful input so that it is reasonable and balanced. The hostility toward him is unwarranted and if it continues, I am going to have to consider whether to suggest that some people be asked to step away from the article under the BLP enforcement procedures. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:13, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

There are editors here that did see the suggested edits as reasonable and the sources cited to support them directly relevant and reliable. There were many sources cited and linked. But certain editors disregarded those sources and then opened up a discussion about "fringe issues," which IMO is a diversionary tactic without substance. IMHO there was a growing consensus here to go forward with the suggested edits.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

• @Newyorkbrad: Please read through the talk page archives to get some idea of how grindingly difficult is has been to work with RR. His strategy has been to press issues over and over until he gets his way, I can think of at least three tranches of editors who have given up and walked away since I first responded to his BLPN request last year - classic civil POV pushing with predictable results . If you request I will be glad to step away from the article. If you think I have handled things generally badly I would appriciate any feedback you may have, at my talk page, on how I can handle similar situations better in the future. Jbh^Talk 16:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Since I weighed in I will try to add some value here, but I may not be able to put in much time until after the holiday weekend. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:37, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate the time and the thoughtfulness of the Wikipedia editors that have recently weighed in here. It was helpful and enlightening.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:34, 26 May 2016 (UTC)