Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:47, 19 December 2008

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rick Alan Ross article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Psychology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 19 October 2008 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

POV tag

The "Jason Scott case" and the "Branch Davidians" subsections have undue negative weight, use multiple dubious sources with dubious statements, and need to be reworked and addressed for NPOV, especially in this WP:BLP article. Cirt (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Please pursue any apparent issues with sources at RS/N. Jayen466 17:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Also see above comments in above subsections on this page about troubling concerns in this article. Cirt (talk) 17:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the tag. As there is a whole article on the Jason Scott case, there really is no reason to expose material in such graphic detail and in such great length here in a person's biography. I tried to prune it back, but this (and a bunch of other stuff I thought improved the focus of the bio) was "boldly" reverted by Jayen, and I'm not getting involved in any edit warring here. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Ohconfucius, perhaps you could try trimming it back a bit, so I could see and discuss what you were getting at? Cirt (talk) 08:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The "graphic detail" is detail that has been reported in many, many sources. Its factual accuracy is uncontested. Please discuss any proposed deletions here first. We have had the bold deletions of sourced and verifiable material, we have had the revert, so let's discuss what the concerns are before deleting sourced material again. Jayen466 10:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

We are discussing. I would like to see what idea Ohconfucius has in mind as far as trimming the POV pushing from the article. Cirt (talk) 10:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, then let us discuss what Ohconfucius would like to trim before he trims it. Is that a problem? Jayen466 10:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• I already trimmed it, yet Jayen did an almost full revert whilst claiming a partial revert. This version to me seemed to be sufficiently concise, yet carries the essence of Ross' biography, yet Jayen said he thought the JS case deserved more weight. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I did an almost full revert to begin with and then went through your edits one by one, restoring another half dozen or so I agreed with. Jayen466 13:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

NPOV noticeboard

I've started a thread at NPOV/N -- I think we can do with some community input to get this right. Cheers, Jayen466 11:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits around the phrase "rescued many people from harmful situations"

This was the opinion of the Observer journalist, rather than a claim that Ross has made. I accept that editors might argue that it is only the opinion of one journalist, and thus should not be given WP:UNDUE weight, or that it should be attributed. However, I believe that there are other sources that have made the same assessment. Ideally, we should locate some of those and add them as references to this sentence to put it on a better footing. Jayen466 13:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

False or misleading statements that remain uncorrected

"Ross had handled more than 350 deprogramming cases in various countries including the United States, the United Kingdom, Israel and Italy, with a typical cost of around $5,000 per case (in 2008 dollars)."

This remains a a very questionable entry in part. Many of the intervention cases I have handled historically were done without any charge whatsoever through 1986. Then my fees gradually raised from $350 to $750 per day until a current case might total about $5,000.00, including all related travel expenses. But what is this doing in a encyclopedia entry? Fees are not typically reported in Misplaced Pages per my recollection, but for some reason Jayen466 insists upon including this information.

"Ross's defence laywer argued that Ross 'was hired to deprogram Scott but that others who restrained Scott were not under Ross's control.' The jury acquitted Ross; jurors said 'prosecutors had not proved Ross participated in restraining Scott.' Ross's associates pled guilty to coercion and were sentenced to one-year jail terms, with all but 30 days suspended."

In this section Jayen466 hopes to minimize the "not guilty" verdict of the jury as much as possible. He wants readers to think that the security guards somehow took responsibility. However, the jury made it very clear after the verdict was read that they approved of the involuntary intervention, when they congratulated me and thanked me for doing my work. The jury only deliberated for two hours. Jayen466 hopes to minimize the weight of the criminal trial, while maximizing the weight of the civil trial per his POV. I was offered the possibility of a plea bargain, though my lawyer advised it would not be as lenient as what was offered to my co-defendants. I refused to consider any plea offer. This should be edited to reflect the facts. For example, offering a comment without context from my lawyer and what some jurors may have said outside of their verdict. My lawyer actually said much more than what is quoted, he argued the lesser of two evils defense, that the deprogramming was for Jason's welfare, that his mother was in charge, but never charged, etc. etc. Jayen466 is attempting to parse quotes per his POV.

"The judge commented that the defendants appeared unable to appreciate the maliciousness of their conduct towards Scott, preferring instead to see themselves as victims of a vendetta. Hence the substantial damages awarded seemed necessary in order to deter similar conduct in future."

This quote is grossly misleading. The judge was later proven wrong by the facts as reported about the trial, the subsequent CAN bankruptcy and the liquidation of CAN's assets. All done at the behest of Scientology lawyers. This was also substantiated by Jason Scott's statements that Scientology used him through the litigation to get CAN, which he stated publicly on CBS "60 Minutes." Numerous press reports reflect the same. And when Scientology lawyer Kendrick Moxon came before the same judge attempting to reverse the settlement by having Jason Scott declared incompetent, it was a final demonstration that the case was never about Jason's Scott's ability to act independently as far as Mr. Moxon was concerned, but rather about Scietology's needs and its agenda. The judge rebuffed Moxon, as did a federal judge in Arizona responsible for my bankruptcy. This quote should be deleted as it is neither relevant nor ultimately historically meaningful.

"Scott's new lawyer, Graham Berry, a noted opponent of Scientology, said however that "it would be a mistake to assume that Scott's decision to make use of Ross' time was a vindication of Ross or his deprogramming methods."

Again, Jayen466 attempts to minimize the impact of the settlement. It is also an almost incoherent remark. Jason Scott valued my time, otherwise he would not have made it such a large part of the settlement. Needless to say, it was a humiliating setback for Scientology, i.e. that Kendrick Moxon's former client fired him, criticized him and Scientology publicly, and sold a $3 million dollar judgment that Scientology had spent so much time and money to get for so little monetarily and for my deprogramming time, which was what Moxon had sued me over in the first place. Very ironic to say the least. Berry's opinion about the settlement should be deleted, and discussion of the court actions by Moxon to declare Scott incompetent and to void the settlement included.

"Nancy Ammerman, a professor of sociology of religion and one of four experts commissioned to author a report to the Justice and Treasury Departments on events in Waco, similarly voiced criticism of the BATF and FBI for relying on Ross without taking these stakes into account."

This statement should be followed by the fact that none of the three other experts said anything about me and therefore did not concur with Ammerman's assessment.

Other than this the Waco Davidian section reads like some fantasy. Jayen466 has chosen his favorite "scholars," as surrogates to express his POV, which is what a very small minority faction might feel about Koresh and the Davidians. In this revisionist version of history Koresh is somehow not a "stereotypical...dangerous cult leader" and the Waco Davidians didn't fit "the generalized pattern of a destructive cult." And any former members of the group that walked away due to well-documented abuses are somehow simply labeled and categorized as "apostates." Such editing makes this entry seem disconnected from reality. Perhaps the best way to demonstrate balance here is to add references about the conclusions reached through the many investigations, reports, court proceedings, and also the opinions expressed by mental health professionals about David Koresh and the Waco Davidians. This would place the matter within its authentic and objective historical context.

Again, it's still somewhat amazing how a Misplaced Pages bio can become so dominated by one editor.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

That's, especially in esoteric articles such as this one is, not so surprising. What is more surprising is that the article nevertheless is in your favor. There are a number of reasons for that, I believe, one of which is that people involved in new religious movements are habitually on the defense. I do not have such qualms, as I'm an agnostic scholar. I don't believe in silly things like Scientology, but neither do I believe that zealots like you are dispensing the truth. You have hegemony on your side, I have reason and academia in my corner, let's see, who convinces more people. Fossa_?! 01:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

False and misleading statements should not appear in a bio per any objective academic standard. Unfortunately Misplaced Pages is a place where anyone with an ax to grind can become an anonymous editor. The above corrections remain valid.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 13:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Uhm, let's see: "This statement should be followed by the fact that none of the three other experts said anything about me and therefore did not concur with Ammerman's assessment." Someone says nothing and thereby disagrees with a colleagues' assessment? Where did you learn that logic? Demagoguery for Spin Doctors 101? Fossa_?! 17:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Fossa, whoever you are, you are not here for any reasonable discussion of the facts or to be an objective editor. You are here for propaganda purposes and because you have an ax to grind. This type of participation here is an example of a continuing problem at Misplaced Pages. The historical facts are really very simple, no other expert besides Ammerman felt that my involvement was important enough to raise as an issue specifically within their report. No spin, just fact. Your posts here are more like someone flaming a message board than constructive conversation.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 13:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty rich, I take it St. Ross does not have an ax to grind? "no other expert besides Ammerman felt that my involvement was important enough to raise as an issue specifically within their report": So what? This is not the article about the legal case, but about Rick A. Ross (and his involvement in the case). We have an opinion by a sociologist, and no opinion from any of the other board members. We have thus no way knowing their opinion other than mind reading. Since mind reading does not produce Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources, we do not write anything about their points of view. Fossa_?! 21:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the other three experts also were sharply critical, as was Ammerman, of the (lack of) expertise brought in. The article has changed quite a lot; what do you think of the current status, Fossa? Jayen466 01:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Article major WP:Undue problems, especially for WP:BLP

An examination of this article reveals extreme WP:Undue problems, resulting from WP:NPOV, which is espcially problematic where WP:BLP is an issue.

For example, a few negative cases involving the living person subject of this article comprise 58.97% of the size of the text portion of this article (18,717/31,738 bytes).

Particularly egregious was that the The Jason Scott section alone comprised 31.1% of the article's text, despite the fact that it is entirely duplicative of an independent article covering Jason Scott case, and not tailored toward the specifics of Ross.

I have summarized the Jason Scott case material including a main link to the actual article discussing the case and keeping all sources ref'd elsewhere.

But much work needs to be done on the other remaining cases with articles elsewhere to address these Misplaced Pages policy violations.Mosedschurte (talk) 23:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Can I ask you to check your maths here? The article up to and including the four notable cases comprised 2229 readable words. Of those, the Jason Scott case accounted for 398. How do 398 words out of 2229 words equate to 31.1%?

Come to think of it, the Jason Scott case section is particularly well sourced, since many, many published works have commented on it. So I reckon you included the reference citations in your wordcount. That is inappropriate.

In addition, you have introduced an error by claiming that "Ross and two associates were charged with unlawful imprisonment and later acquitted". His two associates were not acquitted; they pled to a reduced charge of coercion and went to jail.

Let me add that we have been to the BLP/N noticeboard before; at the time, the Jason Scott case was spun out to a standalone article, which it clearly deserves. But given the prominence of the case, it needs to be treated in sufficient detail here to reflect published sources' preoccupation with it. Almost all the mentions that the subject of this article has in published literature, especially scholarly literature, relate to these two cases. I don't think their coverage here was excessive. Cheers, Jayen466 23:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Re "maths", it was text size, not "words." I merely copied the old edited text in an editor, taking out the sections for articles, references, external links and intro box. The total was 31,738 bytes. I then did the same with the sections on negative cases. These totalled 18,717. Then with the old Jason Scott section alone. It totalled 9,861 bytes alone of the article. And yes, references, which comprise text in the reference sections, are included.Mosedschurte (talk) 23:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome to check the word counts, as well as the coverage the first two cases have received in reliable sources. Precisely because this is a BLP, and the facts are of the nature they are, extensive citations are required. That this inflates the byte count of the sections is unavoidable, but this kind of citation effort speaks for the article, not against it. Jayen466 00:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I also just corrected the error of regarding acquittal.Mosedschurte (talk) 23:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the statement: But given the prominence of the case, it needs to be treated in sufficient detail here to reflect published sources' preoccupation with it. Published source "pre-occupation" with a subject is simply not the standard weight in a given article.

Of most importance to one of the defendants in the case, Ross, the subject of this article, is that he was forced into bankruptcy, settled with the plaintiff and has since renounced "coercive deprogramming", in part because of the Scott case. All of which are now in the article.

The rest is duplicative of the Jason Scott case article.Mosedschurte (talk) 23:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

"Published source "pre-occupation" with a subject is simply not the standard weight in a given article." I might agree with that statement if you were talking about tabloids commenting, say, on someone's plastic surgery. But here we are talking about scholars who accord these two cases an historic importance. These cases were of interest to a wider public, whose subsequent attitudes were to some extent influenced by them. So I cannot agree that we should write the article on the basis of what is "of importance to the subject". We do not apply this kind of reasoning to articles on other public figures. Cheers, Jayen466 00:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

No one is arguing the "interest" level of media regarding the cases generally against all of the defendants. This is why they have their own article, the Jason Scott case.

But this simply isn't the standard for weight in the article of one of the defendants in one of those cases, especially with WP:BLP and WP:Undue Weight and the material being entirely factually duplicative of content in an existing Misplaced Pages article on the topic.Mosedschurte (talk) 00:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I respect your opinion, but I do not share it. We do not generally gloss over facts reported in reliable sources where a person has been at the wrong end of a court decision. Jayen466 00:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

That inaccurate characterization was quite revealing. There is zero "glosing over", and I'm not really concerned with either side or right or wrong ends of court opinions.

Articles should just adhere to Misplaced Pages policies.Mosedschurte (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I am quite sure the article complied before, as well. Some examples of what I perceive as "glossing over":

• The Jason Scott case section now states that "The complaint alleged that Scott was handcuffed" etc., as though there were any doubt that those things happened. There isn't, and it should simply be stated as a fact.
• There is now no record at all of what Ross was actually found guilty of held liable for in the civil trial.
• The settlement with Scott is now presented the way Mr Ross would like it to be presented, as a vindication of his approach, despite an explicit RS assertion from Scott's anti-Scientologist attorney – the one who replaced Moxon – that it should not be construed as such (the attorney refused to say what those services consisted of).

Besides you have managed to delete the major part of scholarly criticism in the Waco section, all of which was well-sourced, and have introduced material from primary sources, against uncontradicted advice given on RS/N when the appropriateness of the use of primary sources was brought up there. (The advice was, don't use them, stick to secondary sources.)

Your integration of the cases into the bio timeline, though, I think has merit.

Perhaps the way forward, given present status, is to have a Reception section again. We used to have a Criticism section (I deleted it, hoping to incorporate this material in the case descriptions themselves), and I think we now need something like this again. If you could look at the points I mentioned above, that would be great. Cheers, Jayen466 11:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

(1) This isn't an article on the Jason Scott case. That's here. This is an article on Rick Ross. The details of the Scott case are in the article on the Jason Scott case article.
(2) The reason it says "the complaint states" instead of "what Mr. Ross was actually found guilty of" is that the findings of fact accompanying the jury verdict do not specify details in any form at all, such as duct tape, even though there was uncontroverted evidence of such, though Ross argued he just watched. Rather, the Jury specified that Ross's negligence proximately caused damage to the plaintiff. Rather than dump all of these details, I left in the Complaint section. We can dump them altogether if you'd really like and just go with the actual verdict findings of fact, which are quite bland and legalistic. Given your prior edits, I would think you'd like it as it reads now, as it couly imply to some that the jury found the specifics of the Complaint to be true, which juries do not do (and one won't know unless one polls each jury member following a verdict what they actually thought re specifics).
(3) The settlement isn't presented "as Mr. Ross would like it presented," and such charges themselves border on violating Misplaced Pages policy. The article expresses no absolution by Scott of Ross's conduct, nor does it even go into Scott's feelings about Scientology, after Moxon solicited and litigated on behalf of Scott, afterwards. Rather the statement is presented as the following:
Scott then settled with Ross for $5,000 plus 200 hours of Ross's professional services.
Nor does it go into appeals on the matter as those and the rest of the details are covered extensively in the article on the Jason Scott case titled the Jason Scott case.
(4) First, the DOJ report has been published by several secondary sources such that its use does not contravene Misplaced Pages policy, and the report itself is also a secondary source reporting on the conduct of the Branch Davidians and the FBI. Accordingly, citation of such reports is commonplace even in Featured Articles and other articles on Misplaced Pages. In fact, a DOJ Report is cited on the article on the very topic at issue here, the Waco siege.
(5) Seven lines of the Rick Ross article are already devoted to criticism of Ross on the Waco incident alone, despite that Ross only provided unsolicited advice to the FBI, was not even retained as an expert and his advice was never relief upon. Mosedschurte (talk) 12:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• Re argument (2): You seem to be unaware that the sources we are citing include Ross's own account, which mentions that Scott was handcuffed, his mouth taped, etc. In other words, this is not just alleged, it was determined by two courts to be what happened, based on evidence and testimony, and it is confirmed by Ross himself in a RS. So let's please state the facts as facts. Jayen466 13:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
• Re the settlement, I said it is presented the way Mr Ross would like it presented because Mr Ross asked for it to be presented exactly like you have presented it now, above on this page. Jayen466 13:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
• Re argument (5), you are obviously unaware that Mr Ross himself has and continues to assert that the DoJ report is incorrect, that he was contacted by the FBI on several occasions, that his input was actively sought, and that the DoJ report is also contradicted by the addendum to Ammerman's report. If the relevant sections of the DoJ report relating to Ross have been published in a secondary source, please name it here; otherwise I am inclined to follow the advice received in RS/N, and stick strictly to secondary sources, excluding primary documents. Jayen466 13:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
• Please note that Mr Ross was found guilty liable not just of for negligence, but also conspiracy to deprive Scott of his civil liberties, and the tort of outrage. These are not small matters. Jayen466 14:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• No one said the duct tape/abduction part didn't happen. Your prior statement that "Mr. Ross was actually found guilty of" doing so was incorrect because the verdict is not that specific regarding details of the case, even though some part of the evidence was uncontroverted.
• Re " Re argument (5), you are obviously unaware that Mr Ross himself has and continues to assert that the DoJ report is incorrect ". I'm quite aware of what Mr. Ross claims. Mr. Ross obviously cannot dispute the report's conclusion regarding the lack of FBI reliance as he has no evidence regarding the Bureau's state of mind. Regarding Mr. Ross's disputes of the facts of the specific initiation of contact, this might be interesting if it is beyond contact as a fact witness regarding Branch Davidian events (there are obviously hundreds of people they contacted for that purpose) rather than as a cult expert. Also note that the report itself is an after-the-fact secondary source analyzing the conduct of many in the standoff, has also been cited by numerous other secondary sources (not that that matters) and is also not even cited here for the truth of the matter asserted, but rather the source and assertion itself, as is the case with nearly every citation to a government report in every Misplaced Pages article on a major topic involving government activity. See, e.g., Waco siege, 9-11, Jonestown. In fact, as with most such secondary source reportsc cited on Misplaced Pages, the report even further itself discussed the primary sources it used in its analysis, such as "Approximately 950 interviews were conducted, and tens of thousands of pages of documents and transcripts were read and analyzed."
• Also note that Mr. Ross was not "found guilty" of any offenses regarding the the Scott case. The matter was a civil case, and he was acquitted of all criminal charges.Mosedschurte (talk) 15:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why you say the civil case verdict was not "that specific". Ross was held liable for negligence, conspiracy to deprive Scott of his civil liberties, and the tort of outrage. The actual verdict pages are among the sources you deleted. For reference, they are here. There are six pages altogether. (These points are also mentioned in secondary sources.)

Use of primary sources is fine as long as secondary sources have cited the primary sources. Where they have done so, of course it makes sense to link the primary source as well, if it is online. What is dodgier is mining primary sources that have not been cited, as I am sure you know, and that was the point that was made on RS/N. (Penultimate archive, I think.) Jayen466 15:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• You've been mixing the two legal issues:
  

(1) Mr. Ross wasn't "found guilty" of anything regarding the Scott case, because it was a civil case, and he was actually acquitted in the criminal case.

(2) The jury verdict didn't contain specific findings of fact, such as duct tape or abduction. Rather, it just broadly found him liable for the three causes of action. This is what I pointed out above and why I included a cite to the jury verdict in the article.Mosedschurte (talk) 16:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• Re your quote regarding the Jury verdict: " For reference, they are". I'm actually the one who added it to this article today. That's why I can tell you they made no specific findings regarding the underlying facts, such as duct tape or abduction, even though there was uncontroverted evidence, in part, on such topics. This is why I had just left it to the Complaint alleged , and then another sentence with the judgment, including the amount apportioned against Ross.Mosedschurte (talk) 16:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• First, the DOJ report isn't a primary source. It is an after-the-fact secondary source analyzing the conduct of many in the standoff, has also been cited by numerous other secondary sources (not that that matters) and is also not even cited here for the truth of the matter asserted, but rather the source and assertion itself, as is the case with nearly every citation to a government report in every Misplaced Pages article on a major topic involving government activity. See, e.g., Waco siege, 9-11, Jonestown. In fact, as with most such secondary source reports cited on Misplaced Pages, the report even further itself discussed the primary sources it used in its analysis, such as "Approximately 950 interviews were conducted, and tens of thousands of pages of documents and transcripts were read and analyzed." Not that this matters for a secondary source, but the October 8, 1993 DOJ Waco report hasn't just been cited by Secondary Sources, but it is one of most cited reports in DOJ history, along with the subsequent Danforth Report. Not quite at 9-11 report levels, but likely not far behind. Mosedschurte (talk) 16:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I never said Ross was found "guilty of using duct tape." I said that the article now made no mention of what he was found guilty of. I did indeed not express myself correctly: I should have said "we say nothing about what he was held liable for". The thing with the duct tape is, no one contests that the duct tape was used. Multiple reliable sources refer to its use, and the use of handcuffs, as a factual occurrence, not an unsubstantiated allegation. Ross himself has admitted and described the use of handcuffs and tape in a published press interview. I think it is improper to call something that is an established and uncontested fact "an allegation", that's all. Jayen466 16:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The issue was with the prior statement that the jury found the specific facts (e.g., duct taping, etc.). However, I didn't have any problem with your edit (and didn't change it) saying the during the course of the attempted Scott deprogramming these occurred, citing sources saying so. There's no reason to think they did not.Mosedschurte (talk) 16:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Okeydoke. :-) Let me take this opportunity to say that upon reading the article today, I thought you had improved it in many respects. Still not sure if we don't need to reflect more scholarly criticism, because there is lots out there. Cheers, Jayen466 16:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The RS/N comment on the inappropriateness of using primary sources, and specifically of using the DoJ report, is here: . It was made by a widely respected admin. Jayen466 16:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

That was regarding Rick Ross's letter to the DOJ, not the DOJ Report.

As stated, the DOJ report is an after-the-fact secondary source analyzing the conduct of many in the standoff, and is the sort of secondary source after the fact government analysis cited in nearly every Misplaced Pages article on a major topic involving government activity. See, e.g., Waco siege, 9-11, Jonestown. In fact, as with most such secondary source reports cited on Misplaced Pages, the report even further itself discussed the primary sources it used in its analysis, such as "Approximately 950 interviews were conducted, and tens of thousands of pages of documents and transcripts were read and analyzed." Mosedschurte (talk) 16:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Please re-read JzG's comment. He specifically refers to the DoJ report, as well as Ammerman's report. The question with citing that part of the DoJ report is, has it been cited in sources mentioning Ross. If it hasn't, we shouldn't. Last time I looked, I couldn't find any sources that had, except a self-published source. Jayen466 16:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is the complete exchange:

1. "If the content is written from primary sources - DoJ or Ross - then we may be violating multiple policies (V, BLP, UNDUE etc.) so I would step back and describe how the issue is presented in independent sources."
2. "I guess the same could be said to apply to Ammerman's report then, as it was also government-commissioned. Would it be best to cover this only to the extent its content is described in secondary literature?"
3. "Yes. That is precisely what is meant by WP:NOR - we should not synthesise material from primary sources."

That is why I dropped the whole discussion about the level of Ross's involvement, because as far as I could see it was only discussed in primary sources. Jayen466 16:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You're misreading that conversation. The letter and DOJ's publication of it are primary sources.

But all government commissioned reports, including the DOJ and Ammerman's, are not uncitable primary sources. They are secondary after-the-fact factual analyses using primary sources (such as interviews and documents) that are not just cited, but repeatedly cited at length in Misplaced Pages articles involving large scale events. See, e.g., Waco siege, 9-11, Jonestown. As discussed, in fact, the DOJ report specifically discusses its analysis of primary sources "Approximately 950 interviews were conducted, and tens of thousands of pages of documents and transcripts were read and analyzed."

In addition, while there was no detailed discussion of the facts, Ammerman really didn't contradict the DOJ reports findings regarding the FBI on Ross specifically, she just emphasized different facts and made conclusions regarding the way that she thought Ross info should have been treated. She criticized the agencies for not seeing Ross as a potentially questionable source. Regarding the BATF, she merely stated that "Ross claimed" that he was "consulted by the BATF". She also just stated that he was "closely involved" with the BATF and FBI at various times, which the DOJ report did not contradict. In addition, she herself actually stated that Ross provided "strategic information" he'd gained from one witness (because of his prior interaction with the Davidians), which is acting as one of the hundreds of fact witnesses the FBI talked to during the crisis to gain information, not as a cult expert.Mosedschurte (talk) 16:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to be sure we are on the same page, here is the relevant Ammerman report. Is this the one you were referring to? Jayen466 16:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You're misreading that conversation. I don't believe I am. You are welcome to check with JzG what he meant. He quite clearly said we should cite neither the DoJ report nor Ammerman beyond the level they were cited in secondary sources. Jayen466 16:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The one I quoted above.Mosedschurte (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, the conversation doesn't say government reports can't be cited because they are primary sources (nor would it, as they are not an nearly every Misplaced Pages article on a major events cites them). Regarding contradictions, Ammerman never states (nor could she) that the FBI relied on Ross's statements or that the FBI solicited Ross's cult expertise, which is different (both legally and substantively) than factual information. This is why the "Cult Expert" portion was broken out in a different section in the DOJ Report.Mosedschurte (talk) 17:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You say above,

"*Re your quote regarding the Jury verdict: " For reference, they are". I'm actually the one who added it to this article today."

This is getting slightly absurd. This is the article version dated 25 Nov 2008. The verdict pages were references no. 33, 35, 36 and 38. You deleted them in this edit. You then twice reverted an IP who was trying to reintroduce this material. ;-) Jayen466 16:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I twice reverted "an IP"' wholesale reverts of huge fixes and additions to the article.Mosedschurte (talk) 16:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I also wasn't the last person to revert him. And, by the way, you attempted nearly the same mass revert at least once.Mosedschurte (talk) 16:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The IP was trying to revert huge deletions. And no, it wasn't me, and I don't know who it was either. Jayen466 16:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

This was your edit summary: "(Undid revision 255953902 by 98.149.75.138 (talk) anomymous IP deleted huge sourced parts of article)" By performing that revert, you deleted about 5.5 KB of sourced material, including the verdict forms you now claim you were the first one to introduce into the article with this edit. And just for the record, I had asked you to discuss major revisions first with my one revert that I made – which is no more than common courtesy and what editors are asked to do at the top of this talk page – and instead you chose to edit-war. Jayen466 17:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

First, the edit included both additions, deletions and corrections.

Second, I wasn't the last editor to revert the anonymous IP's massive revert huge additions and changes. Cirt -- an administrator -- was the last to do so.Mosedschurte (talk) 17:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure. You were both edit-warring. And Cirt has his own history of blocks for edit-warring. It's nothing new. Jayen466 17:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding "you were both", you were actually the first to go with the mass wholesale revert before even the anonmyous IP and Cirts undoing of his revert.

That is the normal and standard procedure as per WP:BRD. Someone makes a bold change, it is reverted, and then there is discussion. Jayen466 18:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Though this entire regurgitation of history seems pointless.Mosedschurte (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

For Reference - ANEW Board Complaint On Several Article Changes and Improvements on this article -> No vio

User:Jayen466 started an entry on "Edit Warring" at the Administrators Notice board regarding changes and additions to the article here. The result at the ANI board was no violation.

I didn't participate in the discussion (was away from the computer for several hours). I was a bit surprised at the complaint because User:Jayen466 gave an indication of agreeing with many of the changes and had also edited the article several times after they were made today before lodging an ANI board complaint about "Edit Warring", which certainly did not occur after his changes. In any event, the result appears correct and I would rather stick with discussing topics on this page. Mosedschurte (talk) 23:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

FBI involvement as per Ammerman

I've added the Ammerman version of events, to balance the DoJ account, and updated the lede to include a mention of the widespread scholarly criticism in this regard. I've also toned down the settlement in the lede; given the very clear statement in this source, I don't want it to sound like a glowing endorsement of Ross's methods when it wasn't. Cheers, Jayen466 00:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Apart from that, I think the article looks pretty good now, the rocky road notwithstanding. With any luck, and given a few weeks of stability, we might want to submit it for GA Review. Jayen466 00:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It is looking better, though there is still far too much undue weight given to criticisms over one case in which he was not even a physical participant. In fact, it borders on the ridiculous when compared to that in the Misplaced Pages articles of actual major actors at Waco, such as:

Janet Reno - who oversaw the government involvement, received massive national criticism from every format on the topic huge national criticism from every corner, and there is 1 line about Waco in Misplaced Pages article.

Jeff Jamar - headed up the entire operation on the ground, received criticism in numerous sources huge national criticism and there is not a single mention of the after-the-fact criticism in his Misplaced Pages article

Robert Ricks - supported Jamar, was the SAC before Jamar, received massive amounts of criticism and there is not one line of criticism in his Misplaced Pages article.

Here, Rick A. Ross, a cult "deprogrammer" who talked to the FBI and ATF a few times, was not an actor in the standoff and is not even mentioned in the Waco siege article, has several lines of criticism in his Misplaced Pages article.Mosedschurte (talk) 01:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Two of these articles are stubs though. And while this episode was a major factor in Ross's nationwide visibility, it wasn't in Reno's. Jayen466 01:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Just for fun: Jayen466 01:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: And while this episode was a major factor in Ross's nationwide visibility, it wasn't in Reno's. I take it you didn't live in the United States in the 1990s. I'm not being critical, it's just that that statement sounds bizarre given that it was BY FAR the most widely covered incident in which Reno was mentioned and most reporting (dwarfing the Elian and Ruby Ridge incidents) in Reno's career.

Regarding the others being "stubs", they contain quite a bit of text on both major Waco siege figures, and somewhat humorously given the discussion, neither contain nearly the criticism of the Waco incident (despite orders of magnitude more criticism) than that of the article of cult deprogrammaer Rick A. Ross.

Also just for fun, and not that this matters at all for magnitude but: the google search without limiting it to "jeff", since he usually goes by Jeffrey.

For even more fun here's Reno's in the same searchMosedschurte (talk) 01:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I noticed earlier there was rather a lot on Reno and Waco in google books. Sounds like her article could do with expansion then. ;-) You're right, I am on the other side of the pond and didn't live then nor at any other time in the States. Even so, Reno's name was familiar to me as an Attorney General, and I didn't particularly associate the name with Waco. Perhaps it's a case of false memory. At any rate, I assume Attorney Generals have some kind of nationwide visibility even without an event like this one coming along, no? Cheers, Jayen466 02:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

AG's do, but that was the most visible item of her career. Also note that, before any talking to agents at Waco, Ross's deprogramming had already received media coverage, including an entire hour on national prime time TV program 48 hours (CBS).Mosedschurte (talk) 02:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

AFAIR a number of sources report that Ross had come to nationwide prominence through his role in the Waco siege. Here e.g., "Ross gained national attention last spring when he worked with the FBI during the siege of the Branch Davidian complex near Waco, Texas." Btw, why do you say "Opposition to" and "opposed" the Branch Davidians? I think it would be more accurate to say something along the lines that he worked with the law enforcement agencies and the media, rather than opposed the Branch Davidians. Jayen466 03:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

He also deprogrammed a member apart from the media and government agencies, and given the secondary sources characterization of his efforts, "oppose" appears to be an accurate broader term for his general involvement. The specifics of that involvement are discussed in the sentences that follow, of course.Mosedschurte (talk) 03:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, Ross's efforts at Waco no doubt "gained national attention" -- he was on CBS (again) as an on-the-scene commentator, for one thing, though that was obviously not his own hour-long prime time special as he had in 1989.Mosedschurte (talk) 03:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but you know what these one-hour specials are like (or were then, at least). If you watched something on another channel, you'd miss it, and that was it. The Waco thing on the other hand went on for weeks, so presumably he was in lots of programs over a prolonged period of time, giving most viewers a chance to catch him somewhere along the line.

The "oppose" still doesn't work all that well for me. My impression was he only significantly "opposed" them once this situation arose, and then this "opposition" was in the form of media and agency input. Before then, the group was just one of many similar Christian groups out there, and not singled out for special attention. Jayen466 03:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

He had already independently deprogrammed a member before the standoff, and all of his actions and statements during the standoff (and after) appear to oppose the group (perhaps too vehemently if his critics are correct). Accordingly, "oppose" is an accurate blanket term for summary purposes.Mosedschurte (talk) 03:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but he opposes all such Bible-based groups, and others besides. It's his job! Jayen466 03:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure he opposes all such groups, but that's why the less specific word "oppose" was used for the Branch Davidians in summary of that section. The section addresses his general opposition (deprogramming, commentary, talks with agencies) to the Branch Davidians, not other groups.Mosedschurte (talk) 03:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

He is sometimes termed a "Bible-based cult" expert. Jayen466 03:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, the Opposition to me sounds like "Him against the Branch Davidians". And that was not the symmetry of the situation. Jayen466 03:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere in the word opposition does it say, or even remotely imply, that Ross alone opposed the Branch Davidians.Mosedschurte (talk) 03:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Let's leave it. Perhaps you'll see tomorrow what I mean, or vice versa. Cheers, Jayen466 03:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: "Perhaps you'll see tomorrow what I mean, or vice versa". To what does that refer?Mosedschurte (talk) 03:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I only meant that sometimes when you sleep over something, it looks different the next day. For example, I now think this article is coming along fine; yesterday or even this morning I did not think so. I think you're writing it very well. I'll catch some sleep now, late over here, and I've been short of sleep of late. Cheers, Jayen466 03:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha. I'm on the US West coast, so it's only 8pm here.Mosedschurte (talk) 04:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Articles & Publications

The external links section needs to be reviewed for compliance with Misplaced Pages:External links. If there are links that can be used as references, use them to support text in the article. Otherwise, linking should be limited to one page on the subject's website. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Please stop moving Articles and Publications by the subject of the article into External Links.

This is a separate category of articles and publications by the subject of the article, as is included in numerous Misplaced Pages articles involving authors and others who publish material. That some or all are also contain external internet links does not mean that the category should be eliminated, nor is it ever on such Misplaced Pages articles.Mosedschurte (talk) 16:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

All these "articles" are published on the subject website, and the others that are not, are links that could be listed. EL sections are not a dumping ground for any sources that cannot be used in the article itself. As I can see that you don't seem to accept the use of ELs nd sources, I will ask for a third opinion as the first step in dispute resolution ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• Stop editing my Talk page comments immediately or this will be taken to ANI, though I'd rather not waste their time on something so trivial.Mosedschurte (talk) 16:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• As for the substance of the article, a separate list of "Publications" is standard in many articles when the subject is actually a writer. A category containing his publications is not only non-remarkable, but quite ubiquitous on Misplaced Pages, and clearly helpful to the reader.

I could probably generate a hundred examples -- though I certainly won't waste the time on such a silly slam dunk dispute such as this -- but the article I happen to have open in a browser right now at this moment actually has such a list, some of which includes links to external sources, here Paul_Foot.Mosedschurte (talk) 16:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Paul Foot' article and many other articles carry a "articles & publications" sections that are populated by articles that have been published by reputable publishers, and are not self published as it is the case here. I have asked for a 3rd opinion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

First, I should hope this is not the case: I have asked for a 3rd opinion, as I have received no notice of any such dispute resolution about which I would purportedly be involved. Second, no discussion has occurred beforehand, as should occur before any WP:DR.

Third, you may want to look at the list again. Not all of those articles are "self-published".Mosedschurte (talk) 16:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

(1) See WP:3O; (2) In that list there articles all linked to Ross' site, and that site has already been deemed in different noticeboards not to be useful as Reliable sources, due to copyvios and other issues. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Some of the publications are clearly made first at other sources, like the Washington Post. Whether or not any link is contained to any website.Mosedschurte (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, WP:30Clearly states "Be sure to discuss the dispute on the talk page as the first step in the process before making a request here." Zero such discussion took place before you doing so.Mosedschurte (talk) 16:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

We did, and we are disagreeing. Be patient, someone will come and assist with this. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no we didn't before you started the 3O.Mosedschurte (talk) 16:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

List of linked material

List of "articles and publications" and "external links" section

Articles and publications section

1. http://www.cultnews.com/?p=2124 Why did Landmark Education leave France?], CultNews, [[2006-09-29
2. http://www.rickross.com/reference/flanding/flanding24.html The Emergence of New Hybrid/Composite Groups and Counseling Approaches: A Study of Friends Landing, Report 1999
3. http://www.rickross.com/reference/kabbalah/kabbalah27.html Has Madonna Joined a Cult?, Report 1997
4. http://www.rickross.com/reference/fundamentalists/fund175.html The Missionary Threat], [http://www.publiceye.org/ifas/ Institute for First Amendment Studies, 1995
5. http://www.rickross.com/reference/waco/waco3.html What Happened at Waco, Washington Post, 1995-07-25
6. http://www.rickross.com/reference/waco/waco297.html Foreword to "See No Evil", 1993-04-25
7. http://www.rickross.com/reference/youth/youth6.html Youth with a Mission, Report 1990
8. http://www.rickross.com/reference/teen_challenge/teenchallenge1.html Proselytizing Report: "Teen Challenge", Religious Advisory Committee, Arizona Department of Corrections, 26 July 1984
9. http://www.rickross.com/reference/fundamentalists/fund5.html Bigotry lurks in born-again Christian doctrine], The Arizona Republic, 6 November 1982

external links section

• Rick A. Ross Institute

1. http://www.rickross.com/ Rick A. Ross Institute for the Study of Destructive Cults, Controversial Groups and Movements (website)
2. http://www.rickross.com/cv.html Curriculum Vitae of Rick Ross

• Media/news

1. http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2004/dec/12/features.magazine137 Beyond Belief] The Observer, 2004-12-12
2. http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1136838328818 Suits Against Anti-Cult Blogger Provide Test for Online Speech (Law.com)
3. http://www.xenutv.com/cruise/factor.htm The O'Reilly Factor, Rick Ross appears as "expert on new religious movements", Bill O'Reilly, 31 May 2005.
4. http://dogmafreeamerica.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=185224# Dogma Free America podcast interview with Rick Ross

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I edited the articles and publications to take out the self-published material, so your list above is incorrect. Now it's all articles and books published by Ross elsewhere.

This is the sort of thing that would occur were you to follow Misplaced Pages policy and attempt discussion before 3O. Mosedschurte (talk) 17:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Corrected Articles & Publications; External Links

Articles and publications

1. Madigan, Tim and Rick Ross, See No Evil, Summit Publishing Group - Legacy Books, May 1993 (see Foreword)
2. Ross, Rick, What Happened at Waco, Washington Post, 1995-07-25
3. Ross, Rick, The Missionary Threat, Institute for First Amendment Studies, 1995
4. Ross, Rick, Proselytizing Report: "Teen Challenge", Religious Advisory Committee, Arizona Department of Corrections, 26 July 1984
5. Ross, Rick, Bigotry lurks in born-again Christian doctrine, The Arizona Republic, November 6, 1982

• (2) Is a "letter to the editors" so it is an SPS. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• Nope. Post published the letter.Mosedschurte (talk) 17:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Published the letter in the "Letters to the Editor" section, which are seldom used as sources as these do not pass editorial inspection and published as is. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Letters to the editor are actually often edited by the publisher, but that's beside the point: it's not self-published. The Post published it. In fact, they published Ross's rather long response to the article about him.17:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• (3) This is a copyvio, see ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• If you're referring to the republication as being a copyright violation, then that's another strike on the self-publication issue. Whether or not the link links to a page that is just a copyright violation goes to whether the link itself -- NOT THE CITATION -- should be included. Different matter, of course, that has nothing to do with self-publication (copyvio would just strike the link inside the cite)Mosedschurte (talk) 17:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Strike the link then. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that the link is a copyright violation. But that's a separate matter (and doesn't go to the cite, but the link).Mosedschurte (talk) 17:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• (4) This in an SPS ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• Strike three. That is a transcript of the RAC to the ADOC.Mosedschurte (talk) 17:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• (5) This one is OK. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

External links

Rick A. Ross Institute

1. Rick A. Ross Institute for the Study of Destructive Cults, Controversial Groups and Movements (website)
2. Curriculum Vitae of Rick Ross

Common practice is to provide one link to the official site of the subject of an article. I would keep the first one. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Media/news

1. Beyond Belief, The Observer, 2004-12-12
2. Suits Against Anti-Cult Blogger Provide Test for Online Speech (Law.com)
3. The O'Reilly Factor, Rick Ross appears as "expert on new religious movements", Bill O'Reilly, 31 May 2005.
4. Dogma Free America podcast interview with Rick Ross

Mosedschurte (talk) 17:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

These are OK, withe the exception of (4) which is a blog. As for (3) it may be a copyvio, but I am not sure. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Four is an interview of Ross by Dogma Free America. Check the interview link on the right. Whether three is a "copyvio", of course, goes to the link's inclusion, not the citation.Mosedschurte (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Dogma Free America is a blog. See WP:RS ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's not. It's a radio show. The link to the interview is on a page you think is a blog, but whether or not the page is, the interview of Ross most certainly is not a blog.Mosedschurte (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure? Seems to be a podcaster, not a radio station. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it's internet radio (podcast), and may be rebroadcast somewhere (many are), but that's beside the point regarding whether the external material itself is an interview, not a blog.Mosedschurte (talk) 17:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Nah... it does not pass the WP:RS threshold, a podcaster is the same as a blogger. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Not in WP:RS, and it wouldn't matter anyway because it's an interview.Mosedschurte (talk) 18:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there any reason to doubt that it is actually Ross being interviewed? If not, it doesn't matter where the interview is published. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Really? So, are you arguing that Podcasts can be now used in BLPs? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

We allow (and almost require) linking to blogs written by the subject, so why wouldn't we allow podcasted interviews of the subject? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. I will start a thread at WT:RS as I think this is an issue that goes beyond this specific article. IMO, an interview in a blog is not much different than an interview in a podcast. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Blogs_vs_Podcasts ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree they're not much different, and that both should be allowed. The important difference is between audio interviews and written interviews. Anybody could sit down and create an exchange and claim it to be an interview. It would be far more difficult to stage a faked audio interview, so that there is a presumption of reliability in an audio interview that doesn't exist in a printed interview. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, this link is being used as an external link, not a source. Different guidelines apply. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. See Misplaced Pages:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, point 11. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't listened to the interview. Is he making any significant statements about third parties? Jayen466 20:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It's quite easy to stage a faked audio interview, simply by finding someone with a voice that sounds similar to the purported interviewee. Since a self-published audio blog/podcast/etc has little reliability of its own (unless published by the interviewee himself), the only means by which we could verify the alleged interview would involve audio analysis whereby we would perform a qualitative and spectral comparison between the voice in the supposed interview and a known voice sample of the alleged interviewee, attempt to find any abrupt cut-outs which might indicate the splicing together of audio clips in a misleading fashion, etc. Because we would be performing our own determination of whether the purported interviewee's voice was authentic, and not relying on the representations of the source (the blog in which the audio interview was published), such audio analysis would constitute original research. Even if acceptable for articles concerning video games, or similar non-critical purposes where there would be little incentive to fabricate an audio interview out of whole cloth, the use of third-party audio blogs as sources should especially be avoided for the purpose of making controversial claims concerning living persons, where the temptations to fabricate an audio interview for the purpose of defamation are high, and the damage done to the subject of the controversial claims by the inclusion of bogus information from a faked audio interview may be considerable. Indeed, Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reliable_sources and Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source expressly prohibit the contemplated use of third-party audio blogs in biographies of living persons. John254 20:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Folks seem to be cross posting the same material here and WPT:RSN. To repeat myself too, I'd ask John254 to provide evidence of a problem with faked audio interviews. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I have responded at Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Blogs_vs_Podcasts. John254 02:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I specifically recall the interview in question. I did the interview.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 15:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

That's great. Now, when we can accept edits made on Misplaced Pages by the subject of the article as reliable sources, we can include the interview in the article. Oh, wait, Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Self-published_sources states that "Articles and posts on Misplaced Pages, or other websites that mirror Misplaced Pages content, may not be used as sources", perhaps because this isn't original-research-pedia. John254 15:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, the rule per Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Self-published_sources that "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons" is here just as much to protect you from defamation by the Church of Scientology as it is to protect anyone else. For instance, if David Miscavige published claims about you on his own website, would you really want such material to be included in your biography, his biography, or anywhere else on Misplaced Pages? John254 16:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

This bio is already largely dominated by "cult" (Osho/Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, Guru Maharaji/Prem Rawat) devotees (Jossi and Jayen466)as it is. It's sad how easy it is to manipulate Misplaced Pages. For esample, sources now cited for "Reading" such as CESNUR, which is run by a man very closely associated with groups called "cults" and frequent cult employee J. Gordon Melton, whose writings are included about the "anti-cult movement." These sources act as surrogates for cults and are little more than sock puppets.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Start-Class psychology articles
• Low-importance psychology articles
• WikiProject Psychology articles