Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:46, 27 November 2008

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

Biography Start‑class

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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

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

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.

RS/N thread opened

Mr Ross, you have stated several times on this talk page that you preferred the old content of the Branch Davidian section. A number of statements in the old version of this section came from self-published sources on your website. To see if it might be possible to accommodate your wish, and include this information, I have opened the question to wider debate on one of our noticeboards designed to address questions of this type. You can find the related thread by clicking on this link, and are invited to add your comments there. Jayen466 23:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Scientology and the NRM Scholars

• Beit-Hallahmi, Benjamin (2003). "Scientology: Religion or racket?". Marburg Journal of Religion. Retrieved 2008-10-26. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

See especially the paragraph beginning "NRM scholars have supported Scientology fronts at least since the 1980s." AndroidCat (talk) 03:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

What exactly do you suggest using that reference for? It doesn't mention Ross or any other content of this entry as far as I can see.PelleSmith (talk) 13:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The reference denotes the controversy that has historically surrounded such scholars.Rick A. Ross (talk) 14:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

My disagreement regarding said "controversy" notwithstanding, this entry is not about these scholars nor is it about Scientology. Again I ask how it relates to you and/or any of the content in this entry because none of it is mentioned in the reference. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 21:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

For the last week or so, you've been asking Rick Ross for proper cites that back up his opinion that particular academic sources are biased or even have a conflict of interest. I supplied one, but it doesn't count because it doesn't specifically mention Rick Ross? *raises eyebrow* AndroidCat (talk) 03:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Is this for real? Are you serious? I've been asking for sources to back the position that these scholars are biased regarding either Mr. Ross or Waco. As I've repeatedly pointed out I see neither mentioned in this reference anywhere. The position taken by Beit-Hallahmi regarding these scholars and Scientology is a minority/fringe position, but once again that's not even the point because this entry is not about these scholars or about Scientology. Lets try this one last time before I blank this section. What does this have to do with Rick Ross (consultant), the entry which this talk page is used to discuss?PelleSmith (talk) 04:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Please try to remain WP:CIVIL. And your opinion regarding Beit-Hallahmi is OR. (I didn't see any disclamer on the Marburg Journal of Religion site.) Oh, and reconsider your threat to blank this section. AndroidCat (talk) 04:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Really my "opinion" of Beit-Hallahmi is OR? Then you can provide plenty of other sources that make these same claims no problem. Lets see them? You ask me to be civil. You are perpetuating a campaign to call into question the ethics of a large group of respected scholars. I think you need to consider more carefully your own claims before you start picking on my tone. You have also not explained what the reference has to do with the content of this entry, which is the only viable topic of discussion on this talk page. The "threat of blanking" in fact simply a suggestion to abide by wikipedia policy and convention. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 04:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Of course it's relevant. It goes towards evaluating the credibility of the "respected academics" you mentioned. However, working it in without it appearing to be original research is a bit trickier, but probably not impossible. I'm sorry, I sense the anger in your words, and I feel the threat of blanking comes across as trying to make a point. Let's try not to get so worked up. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Background info on the academic standing of these scholars is available here for example – see the entries on Barker, Beit-Hallahmi, Bromley and others. Eugene V. Gallagher, one of the authors cited here, is on the board of the American Academy of Religion. Syllabus materials on the AAR website cite Bromley, Tabor, Gallagher and Chryssides as Required Reading. Those are the authors cited in our article. (Barker and Melton are in the syllabus list as well; so is the specific work by Tabor and Gallagher, Why Waco?, that is referenced in this article.) Jayen466 21:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Langone, Michael D. (2005). "Academic Disputes and Dialogue Collection: Preface". ICSA E-Newsletter, Vol. 4, No. 3. International Cultic Studies Association. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) AndroidCat (talk) 09:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The point regarding these scholars, which is a relatively small group, is that there is controversy surrounding the opinions they express about groups called "cults," which specifically includes the Waco Davidians. In their opinions expressed about me they criticize my use of descriptions such as "a dangerous cult leader" and "destructive cult" as applied to David Koresh and the Branch Davidians. (1) This is an attempt by these scholars to dismiss and/or denigrate such descriptions, which direclty calls into question their scholarship and objectivity. (2) Since David Koresh is recorded historically as "a dangerous cult leader" and the Davidians behavior historically fit "the generalized pattern of a destructive cult." These supposedly scholarly observations calls into question the bias, objectivity and historical grounding of these cited scholars. What is it they mean to say? That Koresh was not a "dangerous cult leader" and the Davidians were not a "destructive cult"? This contradiction between their opinions and history illustrates why these scholars are often dismissed as cult apologists. Presenting such opinions as somehow definitive regarding anything connected to Waco is ridiculous and has no place within an encyclopedia entry. Jayen466 may agree with these scholars, but the purpose of an encyclopedia is not propaganda, but rather facts. Jayen466 has recently attempted to parse out words around these quotes in an attempt to ameliorate them, but this again only serves to promote his opinions, which is inappropriate.Rick A. Ross (talk) 14:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Serious remaining problems with this bio

There are some serious remaining problems with this Misplaced Pages bio, which have essentially been stonewalled by Jayen466 in an effort to maintain and perpetuate his POV.

Here are a few as follows:

1. The Jason Scott entry is misleading, distorted and needs to be focused on facts rather than opinions (see discussion).

2. The Waco section offers one set of opinions from a faction of often discredited academics frequently called "cult apologists" recommended and at times sponsored by groups called "cults" (e.g. Scientology). The opinions of these "scholars" is not consistent with the documented facts about Waco and is quite biased. Words like "informant" and "apostates" are evidence of this and are little more than name calling. This should have no place in a legitimate encyclopedia entry IMO (see discussion).

3. Sniping remarks at the Ross Institute subsection, i.e. "which also advertises Ross's own for-profit services as an exit counselor and expert witness, along with his professional fees" are not relevant and should be cut. Unless this type of detailed disclosure is typical within Misplaced Pages nonprofit entries, which seems unlikely.

4. Since the issue of qualified expertise has been made an issue it should be mentioned, as it was previously, that I have been qualified and accepted as an expert witness about cults in 10 states in court proceedings officially, including United States Federal Court through a "Daubert hearing."

See http://www.rickross.com/reference/expert_witness/expert_witness7.html

This linked court document is from the official records in US Federal Court within California regarding my qualification and acceptance as an expert witness about cults (Daubert Hearing).

Conclusion: Jayen466 seems to pretty much run this bio now. His POV dominates the entry as anyone can see that looks through the edit history here. But due to an obvious conflict of interest (see discussion) is Jayen466 really an appropriate person to be running this enry? IMO this is an abuse of Wikiepedia by someone using this open source site to advance a personal and possibly even professional agenda.

If other editors will scrutinize the pattern and discussion of Jayen466 editing and re-editing you can readily see that he is not really that interested in facts or a NPOV. Instead, he plays editing games, politics and whatever else he can do to disingenuously parse the words within this entry in an effort to distort and/or obscure facts so as to mislead the public.Rick A. Ross (talk) 17:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The information regarding your work as en expert witness is present in both the lede and main body of the article, as it always has been. Jayen466 21:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You have minimized the reference to my expert witness work. The bio before you edited it out included that I have been qualified and accepted in ten states. You cut and add per your agenda as previously mentioned. Anyone that looks back over the editing history of this Misplaced Pages entry can readily see that.Rick A. Ross (talk) 14:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is the version dd. 3 October, prior to my edits. It states in the lede,

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

In the body, it states

Ross has lectured at University of Pennsylvania, University of Chicago and University of Arizona and has testified as an expert witness in thirteen states.

Here is the version of 8 November, before you posted your above comment. It states in the lede,

He has worked as an expert witness and an analyst for the media in cases relating to such groups.

In the body, it states,

Ross has lectured at the University of Pennsylvania, University of Chicago and University of Arizona and has testified as an expert witness in thirteen states.

Then as now, the articles states that you have testified as an expert witness in thirteen states, based on the data given in this source. Jayen466 16:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

As this article is on my watchlist, I have been distantly aware of the dispute surrounding the neutrality of this article. Although I have engaged on certain points as time has gone on, I have not read the disputed issues in depth. Today, I have gone and cleaned up the article with respect to the sources cited, and my familiarity with WP's policies, most importantly WP:BLP. I have tried to break down edits in order to be transparent, and have left fairly detailed edit summaries where appropriate. There were a number of issues, principally the inclusion of excessive tangential detail, and a tendency to give undue weight to only one side of certain arguments, however valid. If there are any issues wrt my edits, I will be happy to discuss them here. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Strong objection, talk to me

• Jayen has reverted all my edits, including corrections of grammatical errors (for example, corrections of use of apostrophe after names ending in 's') except for Rick Ross' right of reply - even then Jayen couldn't resist injecting some bias before having second thoughts. Would xhe care to comment here in detail what the issues are before I revert the whole lot in a flash? Such reverts are down-right hostile, and I refuse to accept 'restored edit' as a legitimate grounds for nullifying several hours of my hard work, not to mention restoring the very obvious problematic issues that I pointed out. Ohconfucius (talk) 13:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• WP:BRD. There were a number of concerns:
• The listing of scholars in the lede missed the main ones referred to in the relevant section (Tabor, Gallagher). I don't think it is worth listing all these names in the lede.
• The use of the word "cultbuster" seemed a little out of place in the lede (too loose).
• The cost of a deprogramming is referred to in the The Observer piece, which is quite sympathetic to Mr Ross. It is adequately sourced.
• The RRI section was part of the CV timeline and I feel it should remain part of the bio, rather than being separated from the remainder of the bio timeline and moved to the end of the article.
• The Jason Scott case, which was very notable and set a legal precedent, deserves a little more detail than was left after the edits of Ohconfucius (talk · contribs). It is not transparent to the reader why there should have been such a large judgment if we delete any mention of what happened beyond "Ross abducted Scott" and "Scott escaped and called the police". The facts are adequately sourced and attested in multiple reliable sources, including others not cited here.
• The edits in the Branch Davidian section seemed to depart from the sources in some respects, notably the wording "had persuaded government parties that they were dealing with dangerous cult leader." Tabor and Gallagher do not express it in those terms. I felt doubtful whether these edits were based on consultation of the source (available in google books) or just on a rewrite of the existing material in the article. We can look at how best to summarize Tabor and Gallagher, if the present summary seems inadequate.
• Also, it was agreed on RS/N not to quote Ammerman (a primary source) beyond the extent to which she is quoted in secondary sources (e.g. Tabor/Gallagher or Newport).
• Other edits seemed fine and clearly added value; those were kept. Jayen466 15:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
• I don't mind all that much whether we use "Ross's" or "Ross'" as the form of the possessive case. I plumped for "Ross's" because that is the form used in one of the Seattle Times verbatims. Since we shouldn't change something like this in verbatim quotes, I thought it would be better to go along with the Seattle Times and use their form throughout the article. Jayen466 16:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

RESPONSE:

1. If Tabor & Gallagher were the main ones, by all means insert them in the place of some of the others.
2. I disagree that 'cultbuster' is loose used in that way. If it appeared without that which followed, then maybe. But the word is sourced and referred to in the same paragraph as the $5000 typical fee.
3. If you insist on the $5000, there is even less reason why this word cultbuster should be removed. Although the fee is sourced, mention of average fees is always misleading because it may hide a pretty wide range; it is also information which dates easily, and really should be avoided unless it imparts significant biographical value.
4. In the same way that the scott case was mentioned in one sentence in his career section, RRI can also. As the RRI is a separate legal person, it should be in a different section down the bottom.
5. The Jason Scott case is indeed well documented - It has its very own article, which this section links to prominently. It arguably not necessary for biographical purposes to mention how the 'seaside cottage', for example, imparts any biographic value. The Landmark case was also a high profile case, but is distilled to 2 lines in this article. I am not suggesting the Scott case should be cut to this level, but I fear that there is undue weight here.
6. I thought that it was once again undue weight to separately mention what A B and C said when there was a common thread (based on how your text laid it out). I am not in possession of all the source articles, but was trying to find that common thread to avoid saying "A said lorum ipsum, B said Lorum ipsum and C also said Lorum ipsum". What T&G said made no sense, so I removed it. That fact was clearly marked in the edit summary
7. Other remarks:

• I find your writing sometimes difficult to parse. Although you made clarification to what T&G said, it is still not in a style of English that a lay reader would easily grasp. "Nancy Ammerman... voiced criticism of the BATF and FBI for relying on Ross without taking these stakes into account." is cryptic and incomprehensible, so I clarified it from Ammerman's text. You chose to revert that too.
• Grammatically, for possessive forms of nouns ending in s, there is no s after the apostrophe - so it's Ross' and not Ross's. I have long since stopped being amazed at the fact that many journalists have no clue in basic grammar.
• I could not understand why you insist on separating 'early career' and 'Full-time private consultant and lecturer'. This breaks up the career in a rather contrived fashion as Ross was evidently a lecturer and consultant in his early career too.
• I removed several redundancies and straightened a number of convoluted phrases, all of which you chose to revert. In "criminally charged with unlawful imprisonment", unlawful imprisonment is a criminal offense, so the use of "criminally" is redundant. In fact, as I said, the only bit you left intact was the right of reply of Ross in the Washington Post, which you originally had as a one-liner for reasons I cannot fathom.

I'll leave it for now. Ohconfucius (talk) 16:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)

• Btw, Ohconfucius, I did not have second thoughts about the Washington Post quote. I took the text verbatim from this edit of yours: . Then I saw that you had added some words later on: . Realising that what I'd copied wasn't how you'd left it, I added the same words again: . Cheers, Jayen466 16:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
• Re the apostrophe, Hart's Rules says typesetters should attach " 's " to monosyllabic names ending in "s" (except classical names like Mars and Venus) and gives "Hicks's" and "Jones's" as examples to follow. The Webster's Compact Writers Guide approves of both versions. Jayen466 17:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
• Re the separation of early career and career as a consultant: It's been like that for at least a year and makes some kind of sense to me. Ross was a staff member of various Jewish organisations before setting out as an independent consultant; it was in his latter role that he became internationally notable. Jayen466 17:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
• As for average fees being misleading, I note that Mr Ross's current website gives this figure as a typical value, so we are not doing anything other than what the subject himself is doing on his site. I don't understand what should be contentious about this. The figure is in the public domain, and has been commented on in a sympathetic newspaper article.
• Should the fee change over time, we can simply add "at an average cost given as $5000 in 2004" or use a more recent article for an updated figure. Jayen466 18:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I have done many interventions at no charge, and my fees began at $350.00 per day and are now $750 per day, a rate that has increased gradually over a period of 20 years.Rick A. Ross (talk) 14:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you aware of any reliable sources mentioning these points? Are any other editors? Jayen466 22:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Final Outcome of Scott case

Currently the entry says "In 1996 Scott reconciled with his mother, dismissed Moxon as his lawyer, and settled with Ross for $5,000, and 200 hours of Ross's services."

However, this only reflects part of what actually happened, unlike the previous entry that existed before Jayen466 began editing.

Scott also hired "Graham Berry, who is well-known for his role in litigation against the Church of Scientology" according to footnoted article "What's $2.995 Million Between Former Enemies?" (footnote 42)

Also, within another footnoted article (41) it is reported that "Scott's former attorney, Moxon, has filed emergency motions in two states alleging that Scott has been coerced by CAN supporters to switch attorneys and settle for far less money than he won in court. "He's really been abused by CAN and disgustingly abused by this guy Berry," Moxon said."

These motions, which would have declared Scott incompetent, were denied.

Both footnoted articles report about the Scientology effort to destroy the Cult Awareness Network through the Scott litigation. Scott himself confirms this in a segment on CBS "60 Minutes."

All of this was cut by Jayen466, which reflects his bias and effort to tilt the entry subsection per his POV.

Specifically, a CAN voluteer named Shirley Landa referred Kathy Tonkin to me, initially to help her minor children. Jayen466 simply says CAN, which was not involved, through its main offices in the Tonkin referral. This was specifically stated by CAN at trial and reported by the press.

The ironic twist of the Scott case ending is lost on Jayen466 and certainly not reflected in his editing, i.e. That Jason Scott largely settled his $3 million dollar judgment against me for more deprogramming time (200 hours), which was what he sued me for in the first place. And that after that settlement Kendrick Moxon went to court maintaining that Jason was under undue influence, unable to make sound decisions and needed someone appointed by the court to help him. But previously in his lawsuit Moxon maintained that Jason's mother was wrong for not respecting his choices and for seeing him as undue influence.Rick A. Ross (talk) 15:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• The further interaction between Moxon and Scott is covered in Jason Scott case, and actually may need looking at to ensure it accurately reflects sources.
• I have reinstated that it was a CAN volunteer.
• Berry, Scott's new lawyer (after he dismissed Moxon), was reported on Dec 19 1996, by the source given in footnote 42, to have said regarding the settlement between Mr Ross and Scott,

  The premature announcement of the settlement, Berry says, made Scott so angry he may ask Ross to renegotiate terms. Berry refused to say what services Ross would provide to Scott under the agreement. But, the lawyer said, 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.

  — Phoenix New Times

• This being so, we cannot use this source to present it as such.
• "vacant model home" (see below) implemented. Jayen466 17:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Early Life misleading

Under "Early Life" it reads, "In 1974 a court convicted Ross for the attempted burglary of a show house and sentenced him to probation." Most Americans have no idea what "a show house" is. This should read "a vacant model home."Rick A. Ross (talk) 15:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Seattle Judge's comments

"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."

However, these comments later proved to be something of an embarrassment for that same judge.

In subsequent news reports (some footnoted here) it was disclosed that Scientology did use the Soctt case as a vehicle for its long-running vendetta against the Cult Awareness Network (CAN). As reported a Scientologist bought the CAN judgment. And a Scientologist then bought the name, logo, phone number, files etc. of CAN in the subsequent bankruptcy proceeding forced upon CAN by the judgment.

Kendrick Moxon specicially appeared before the same federal judge in Seattle requesting that the settlement made with me be set aside because Jason was essentially incompetent and therefore unable to make his own decisions without a conservator, which would be a lawyer provided by Moxon.

The federal judge in Seattle declined and rejected Moxon's legal effort as did the federal judge presiding over my bankruptcy in Phoenix.

Not including such information within the Jason Scott subsection distorts the actual historical significance of the Scott case per court records and numerous media reports, including CBS "60 Minutes."Rick A. Ross (talk) 18:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Graham Berry statement

"The premature announcement of the settlement, Berry says, made Scott so angry he may ask Ross to renegotiate terms. Berry refused to say what services Ross would provide to Scott under the agreement. But, the lawyer said, 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."

Berry's opinion is of little value here. The facts remain the same. The Jason Scott settlement was substantially for my services as a deprogrammer. At the time this represented two-thirds of the value of the settlement, as my fees were $50.00 per hour. This means the settlement was one-third in cash $5,000.00 and two-thirds in services $10,000.00.

Mr. Berry represented Jason Scott fairly briefly, but the settlement was finalized and never renegotiated in any way, shape or form, which is a matter of court record. In fact, the validity and finality of the judgment was officially recognized by two federal judges, one in Seattle and the other in Phoenix.

Jason Scott, according to the final settlement, valued my "methods" sufficiently to make my services the largest portion of the agreed upon final settlement.

Again, this is ironic, considering that it was my "services" as arranged and paid for by his mother, which became the basis for the Scott lawsuit as filed by Kendrick Moxon.Rick A. Ross (talk) 18:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

False statement about deprogramming

"With the Scott decision, the practice of deprogramming came to an almost complete halt in North America."

This is a false statement.

In fact, deprogramming continued unabated, though not the involuntary deprogramming of adults.

Voluntary deprogramming became repackaged/relabeled as "strategic intervention," "exit-counseling," "thought reform consultation" etc. and continues to this day.

Involuntary deprogramming continues with minor children, under the direct supervision of a legal guardian.

This statement seems to reflect the wishful thinking and bias of the source footnoted, but it is neither factual nor accurate.

I have done hundreds of deprogramming cases within the United States since the Scott decision. And many of these interventions were with minor children on an involuntary basis, but under the direct supervision of their legal guardian.

There have also been hi-profile sanctioned deprogrammings, such as the Winnifred Wright case and the Karen Robidoux case.

See http://www.rickross.com/reference/attleboro/attleboro137.html

Karen Robidoux was deprogrammed while in jail and subsequently acquitted by a jury of charges concerning her son's death, due to cult mind control.

See http://www.rickross.com/reference/wright/wright14.html

A California judge officially approved a "deprogramming" in the Wright criminal case.

This false statement should be edited out.Rick A. Ross (talk) 19:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

• Start-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics