Talk:Rick Alan Ross

Template:OTRS could refer to one of several templates related to the OTRS system. Instead of using this template, use one of the more specific templates listed below.

Commonly-used OTRS templates

• {{OTRS pending}}: Added when an email has been sent to OTRS
• {{OTRS permission}}: Permission received via OTRS
• {{OTRS ticket}}: Provides a link to an OTRS ticket
• {{OTRS talk}}: For article talk pages, where an issue is raised by OTRS
• {{OTRS received}}: OTRS received, but is not sufficient to confirm permission
• {{Verified account}}: Added to userpage when an account is verified

See also

• Category:OTRS templates, a more complete list of templates related to the OTRS process

New request for edit re: Criminal Record

Change "In 1974 at the age of 21, Ross was arrested for the attempted burglary of a vacant model home, pleaded guilty for trespassing, and was sentenced to probation.[8] The following year,[1] he robbed a jewelry store in Phoenix. Ross confessed to the crime, restored the property in his possession, and received probation.[8]"

Change to -- In 1974 at the age of 21, Ross was arrested for the attempted burglary of a vacant model home, pleaded guilty for trespassing, and was sentenced to probation.[8] The following year,[1] he was convicted of conspiracy to commit grand theft. Ross confessed to the crime, restored the property in his possession, and received probation.[8]

See http://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/theft-burglary-and-robbery There is a profound difference between robbery and grand theft. I was convicted of conspiracy to commit grand theft not robbery.

See http://www.culteducation.com/group/1284-scientology/23617-rick-ross-termination-of-probation-.html Also see http://culteducation.com/group/1284-scientology/23616-rick-ross-application-for-restoration-of-civil-rights-.html

I have the original document issued by the Arizona Department of Probation and signed by the Deputy Adult Probation Officer on January 18, 1979. I also have the original document signed by the judge in Arizona Superior Court vacating judgements of guilt against me, dismissing all charges and restoring my civil rights June 7, 1983. These documents are online and their authenticity has never been contested, but I am willing to produce them physically to resolve this matter. Rick Alan RossRick A. Ross (talk) 12:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

For now I'd propose:

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

+add something about the "probation", if it can be done short, with appropriate references and without too much of technical-juridical lingo. See my stance on this in previous talk page contributions. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

References

I don't think that statement is complete enough. It takes more words to handle something as serious as a criminal record. I propose a summary from 1974 to 1983 that would take the current bio entry from about 50 words to about 60 words. It' an addition of about ten words, but it's clear, focused and accurate. How about the following:

In 1974 Ross attempted burglary of a vacant model home, and a year later he was convicted for conspiracy to commit grand theft.[1] Ross confessed to both these crimes, made full restitution and received probation, which was ended early for good conduct in 1979. The court later dismissed all charges, expunged Ross' criminal record and restored his civil rights in 1983.[2]

Sources:

Ortega, Tony (November 30, 1995). "Hush, Hush, Sweet Charlatans. Clients of deprogrammer Rick Ross call him a savior. Perhaps that's why people he's branded cult leaders want to crucify him.". Phoenix New Times. Retrieved April 27, 2006.

Termination of Probation, Adult Probation Department, Superior Court of Arizona Maricopa County January 18, 1979. See http://www.culteducation.com/group/1284-scientology/23617-rick-ross-termination-of-probation-.html (Original document available upon request)

Order Vacating Judgement of Guilt, Dismissing Charges and Restoring Civil Rights (CASE NO 85433), The Superior Court of Arizona Maricopa County, June 7, 1983. See http://culteducation.com/group/1284-scientology/23616-rick-ross-application-for-restoration-of-civil-rights-.html (Original document available upon request).

Rick Alan RossRick A. Ross (talk) 13:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I am not convinced this information belongs in the article at all. It occurred relatively early in the article subject's adult life and has nothing to do with the reasons he is notable (if indeed he is notable). Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Very old information. When I was qualified to testify as an expert witness at the James Arthur Ray trial the judge determined that my criminal record was not relevant and could not be brought up at trial. See http://www.albuquerquejournal.com/news/state/apsweatlodgeross02-28-11.htm Rick Alan RossRick A. Ross (talk) 20:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Re. "(if [Rick Ross] is notable)" : last discussion seems to be at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick Ross (consultant), I don't see a reason why, when asked, the community would decide otherwise under current BLP policy (I got the impression reviewing the deletion discussion that there was a broader acceptance of courtesy deletion in those days than what remains of it in the current BLP policy). However, if the question regarding notability is an elephant in the room, maybe it is time, after seven years, to take the article through AfD afresh, otherwise I'd like to keep it to the fairly convincing community consensus established in 2008 that the subject is notable. In short, I suggest to either initiate a second AfD nomination, or to stop suggesting the subject is maybe not notable enough for a Wikipedia article.

Re. whether the early convictions are notable enough to be mentioned in the biography: I see at least two reliable secondary sources mentioning them, so on that level, yes, doesn't seem like a good idea to be completely silent about them in the Wikipedia article. Also w.r.t. the internal consistency of the biography I see at least two reasons to keep them in: it shows Ross getting experience with the US legal system before being involved in more famous legal proceedings (like for an actor we would mention he had a side-job as newspaper delivery boy before playing the role of a postman in one of his films), and secondly his NRM counterparts at least tried to use it against him later in life, and that is documented. IMHO Wikipedia just can't make it to act as if it never happened, would make a shaky biography this would lay the Wikipedia biography open to a possible reproach of being selective. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC) (updated 10:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC))

I understand the basis for your comments, but I disagree with your bottom line on this section. Let's see if anyone else wants to weigh in. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Tried to make the bottom line a bit more appealing. Indeed would welcome additional input. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

How did you make the bottom line a bit more appealing? Rick Alan RossRick A. Ross (talk) 12:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Wasn't implying I had been successful in making it more attractive, only that I tried to. Reviewing my original bottom line "IMHO Wikipedia just can't make it to act as if it never happened, would make a shaky biography" I saw that I was kinda talking in absolutes after the "IMHO", with some exaggeration added. Then I remembered how I appreciate Newyorkbrad for not talking in absolutes for as far as I can remember. So I toned it down a notch to "this would lay the Wikipedia biography open to a possible reproach of being selective", hoping this to be more compelling.

@Rick A. Ross: question: was anything about these youthful incidents mentioned in your 2014 book? I mean, I appreciate your being honest and open about what happened (as evident from your website, also here: Talk:Rick Ross (consultant)/Archive 5#Early Life), would think it a pity leaving this out of the Wikipedia biography completely just for some wording matters that don't seem too impossible to resolve to me. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

No. My book "Cults Inside Out" is not a biography, but an educational book about cults and intervention work. It includes the Jason Scott case in a chapter about the history of cult intervention work, but not my personal history from before 1982, which is not relevant. Rick Alan RossRick A. Ross (talk) 15:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that if the criminal record is left in it must be done accurately and not selectively. My proposed edit does that in 60 words. The current entry is 50 words. Ten more words. Rick Alan RossRick A. Ross (talk) 10:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Nothing seems to be going on here regarding the suggested edit. The account of my criminal record remains selective and incomplete. I suggest the following;

In 1974 at the age of 21, Ross was arrested for the attempted burglary of a vacant model home, but later pleaded guilty to misdemeanor trespassing. He was sentenced to probation. The next year Ross was convicted for the felony conspiracy to commit grand theft.[1] He again plead guilty, made full restitution and received probation, which was ended early for good conduct in 1979. Arizona Superior Court later dismissed all charges, expunged Ross' criminal record and restored his civil rights in 1983.[2]

The word "expunged" can be linked to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expungement_in_the_United_States

Rick Alan RossRick A. Ross (talk) 15:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

It has been a month since I posted the request for editing regarding my criminal record within this bio. It is selectively edited and misleading. It does not reflect the complete record 1974-1983. Why has this not been edited? Rick Alan Ross173.72.57.223 (talk) 15:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

None of the revised text proposals found consensus for implementation. I've been very clear on what needs to be done when you want me to join a consensus.

Please login when posting on this page, we've been through this before. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am not aware of any login account. My last recollection was that I have no account and cannot login. Rick Alan Ross96.235.133.43 (talk) 13:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLP is quite clear here - " If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.". I can't see that his very young brush with the law is noteworthy, and it certainly isn't relevant to his life. Regardless of the subject's claim that the charges were vacated (it would be very useful to see the documentation here, it would ensure this section never returned) I have therefore removed it. 11:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I have the original documents issued by Arizona Superior Court and the Arizona Adult Probation Department. I am willing to have them physically inspected. They are also a matter of public record. The fact that I made full restitution of everything in my possession to the satisfaction of the police and injured party is also a matter of court record and was reported by Tony Ortega in the Phoenix New Times. In the criminal court case concerning sweat lodge guru James Arthur Ray I was qualified and accepted as an expert witness for the prosecution. In that process Ray's attorney's, who opposed my qualification, filed a motion to have me barred as an expert, which was denied by the judge (2011). Ray's attorney's specifically wanted to bring up my past criminal record 1974-1975 at trial if I testified. The judge denied that request in his ruling stating it was not relevant. See http://news.yahoo.com/group-expert-testify-ariz-sweat-lodge-case-20110228-154433-807.html Rick Alan Ross96.235.133.43 (talk) 13:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC) Rick Alan Ross96.235.133.43 (talk) 13:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

PDF of court and probation documents online: See http://www.culteducation.com/group/1284-scientology/23617-rick-ross-termination-of-probation-.html Probation terminated early for good conduct. See http://www.culteducation.com/group/1284-scientology/23616-rick-ross-application-for-restoration-of-civil-rights-.html guilty verdicts vacated and civil rights restored. See http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/hush-hush-sweet-charlatans-6426159 full restitution made by Rick Alan Ross "everything in Ross' possession was returned to the store. Ross was sentenced to four years' probation." Rick Alan Ross96.235.133.43 (talk) 13:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Unnecessary opinion included

The bio states, "Ross claimed a success-rate of 75%; journalist Nick Johnstone, despite noting that Ross' moral credentials 'seem shaky at best,' credited him with having 'rescued many people from harmful situations'" The portion "Ross' moral credentials 'seem shaky at best'" expresses an opinion, which is not necessary. There are other articles that make no such claim and express no such opinion. The inclusion of the reporter's opinion by an editor was done to slant the bio. I suggest the sentence be edited to exclude the opinion and simply state the facts as follows:

Ross claimed a success-rate of 75%; journalist Nick Johnstone credited him with having "rescued many people from harmful situations".[18]

Also, the same article is sourced for the statement, "handled more than 350 deprogramming cases in various countries" dated 2004. A more current article in the Sun Sentinel run this month updates that number "conducted more than 500 interventions since 1982." See http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/palm-beach/boca-raton/fl-brf-church-0715-20150720-story.html#page=1 Rick Alan Ross96.235.133.43 (talk) 19:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC) Rick Alan Ross96.235.133.43 (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• Other opinions welcome; for the time being, I have replaced "despite noting" with "despite an opinion", as the existing text suggested that Johnstone's opinion was a fact. Black Kite (talk) 20:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Including the word "opinion" isn't meaningful. There have been many mainstream news reports and articles written about me over the years and they don't include such comments. The Johnstone article is essentially more of an opinion editorial piece than a news report. Including his opinion in my bio is selective editing to support the editor's POV that initially put it in, rather than NPOV editing. It is a fact that I have done many interventions (more than 500 as recently reported) to help people from harmful situations. This is supported by many news articles and books. But the comment that my "moral credentials seem shaky at best" is one reporter's subjective opinion and not a fact. This remark has no place in the bio if it is to be fact based and not biased. Please remove the comment.96.235.133.43 (talk) 13:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)Rick Alan Ross

Some articles written about me. http://www.maxim.com/tags/unbreakable-kimmy-schmidt http://articles.philly.com/2011-03-12/news/28683932_1_group-demands-cults-nursing-home http://jewcy.com/post/brainwashings_nemesis http://articles.mcall.com/2005-10-07/features/3644597_1_cult-member-rick-ross-intervention http://gothamist.com/2005/07/18/rick_ross_cult_expert.php Rick Alan Ross96.235.133.43 (talk) 13:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

As demonstrated by other articles the quote "moral credentials 'seem shaky at best'" is not something said by other news reports through objective reporting. Including this opinion, which represents a tiny minority within legitimate news sources, is simply a way that a previous editor used to insert POV rather than NPOV. it's there to attack not to inform and is inppropriate. Please remove this remark. Rick Alan Ross96.235.133.43 (talk) 14:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Number of cult interventions done by Rick Ross

I have done more than 500 interventions since 1982. See http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/palm-beach/boca-raton/fl-brf-church-0715-20150720-story.html#page=1 The numnber "350" is out of date and was reported in 2004.Rick Alan Ross96.235.133.43 (talk)

edited and added the new external Govindaharihari (talk) 15:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank You96.235.133.43 (talk) 15:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)Rick Alan Ross

Rick Alan Ross

I suggest for clarity that the heading of the bio be -- Rick Alan Ross (consultant) in order to avoid confusion with the rapper Rick Ross or another Rick Ross.Rick Alan Ross96.235.133.43 (talk) 15:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

moved Govindaharihari (talk) 15:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank You96.235.133.43 (talk) 15:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)Rick Alan Ross

Cost of interventions

The cost of interventions doesn't seem appropriate in the bio. It's not an advertisement for services. Also, this is mentioned repeatedly, as "typically charging around $5,000 per case" and then again "at a typical cost of $5,000." Is it necessary to repeat this twice?96.235.133.43 (talk) 13:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Rick Alan Ross

addressed Govindaharihari (talk) 15:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you96.235.133.43 (talk) 15:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)Rick Alan Ross

Including mention of Kendrick Moxon and Scientology in Jason Scott case

The media widely reported that Jason Scott was represented by Kendrick Moxon, a prominent Scientologist attorney. This is a very significant and pertinent fact and is prominently included in the Wikipedia entry about the Jason Scott case. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Scott_case Jason Scott also made statements to the media regarding Scientology after the settlement. This included Scott's interviews with "60 Minutes," The Washington Post and St. Petersburg Times.

I suggest that this fact also be included in the bio both in the account of the Jason Scott case and the lead. I suggest that the third paragraph of the lead be revised to read as follows:

Ross faced criminal charges over the 1991 forcible deprogramming of Jason Scott, but was found "not guilty." Subsequently Scott, represented by prominent Scientologist attorney Kendrick Moxon, filed a lawsuit that resulted in a judgement against both Ross and the Cult Awareness Network (CAN) for violating his civil rights. Scott was awarded $5 million in damages, which led to CAN and Ross declaring bankruptcy.[1][5] As a result of the legal risks involved, Ross stopped advocating coercive deprogramming or involuntary interventions for adults, preferring instead voluntary interventions without the use of force or restraint.

"Kendrick Moxon" should be linked to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kendrick_Moxon

I suggest that the section "Jason Scott Deprogramming" be edited to include the following:

Ross faced criminal charges over a 1991 forcible deprogramming of United Pentecostal Church International member Jason Scott, whose mother was referred to Ross by the Cult Awareness Network.[35] Ross was found "not guilty" by the jury at trial.[5] Scott later filed a civil suit against Ross in federal court and was represented by prominent Scientologist attorney Kendrick Moxon. In September 1995, a nine-member jury unanimously held Ross and other defendants in the case liable for depriving Scott of his civil rights and awarded Scott $5 million in punitive damages .[23] Ross' share of the damages was $3.1 million, which led to him declaring personal bankruptcy.[23] Scott later reconciled with his mother and was persuaded by her to fire Moxon and settle with Ross; under the terms of the settlement, the two agreed that Ross would pay Scott $5000 and provide 200 hours of his professional services.[36] Scott later stated that he felt he had been manipulated as part of Scientology's plan to destroy CAN. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kendrick_Moxon#cite_note-scientologysponsored-23

As a result of the legal risks involved, Ross stopped advocating coercive deprogramming or involuntary interventions for adults, preferring instead voluntary exit counseling without the use of force or restraint.[6] He states that despite refinement of processes over the years, cult intervention work continues to depend on the same basic principles originated through deprogramming.[6]

Excluding the Scientology connection in the Jason Scott leaves out important historical facts and is also inconsistent with other Wikipedia entries.96.235.133.43 (talk) 17:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)Rick Alan Ross

This may be better attended, responded to if it is posted to the biography noticeboard. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Done96.235.133.43 (talk) 11:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)Rick Alan Ross

Response to request posted at BLP/N

@Mr. Ross: Do you have any references which can be cited for this material? Wikipedia, particularly in articles about living people, only documents what reliable sources have to say about subjects/incidents. In general reliable sources are things like books, newspaper articles etc which are published by independent, third party sources. There are some narrow exceptions but one must be up on one's 'wiki-arcana' for them to make sense.

I am not familiar with the material so if you could break up your changes into:

• Statement to include

• Reliable source for that statement.

This is not so much to document what is true but to demonstrate that others considered the information notable enough to comment on which is something our content policies require. I will 'watch' this page so please reply here rather than at BLP/N. You can also reach me quickly on my talk page which will trigger an email notification to me. Cheers. Jbh^Talk 16:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The information has been considered notable and included at Wikipedia. This information is included at the Cult Awareness Network entry at Wikipedia see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_Awareness_Network#Jason_Scott_case And the sources cited are published press reports (Goodstein, Laurie December 23, 1996 "Plaintiff Shifts Stance on Anti-Cult Group - Scientology-Linked Lawyer Is Dismissed In Move That May Keep Network Running" The Washington Post The Washington Post Company p. A4.) see http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-805671.html and (Morgan, Lucy; Thomas C. Tobin December 23, 1997 "Scientology sponsored suit against opponent" St. Petersburg Times. p. 1A.) and (Quintanilla, Ray February 2, 1997 "Scientologists Now Run Barrington-Based Organization - Cult Awareness Group Has New Handlers" Chicago Tribune. p. 1.) See http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1997-02-02/news/9702020115_1_cult-awareness-network-scientology-controversial-church and (Ortega, Tony (1996-12-19). "What's $2.995 Million Between Former Enemies?" . Phoenix New Times. Retrieved 2008-08-24.) see http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/whats-2995-million-between-former-enemies-6423217 This information is also considered notable and included in the Wikipedia entry regarding the Jason Scott Case see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Scott_case The entry states, "...civil suit for damages was filed against Ross, the two convicted associates and CAN by Kendrick Moxon, a long-time member and counsel for the Church of Scientology, on behalf of Jason Scott." ( Haines, Thomas W. 1995-09-21 "'Deprogrammer' Taken To Court -- Bellevue Man Claims Kidnap, Coercion" Seattle Times Retrieved 2008-10-14.) see http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19950921&slug=2142801 and (Prendergast, Alan 1997-03-06 "Nightmare on the Net" . Denver Westword. Village Voice Media. Retrieved 2008-10-20.) see http://www.westword.com/news/nightmare-on-the-net-5057215 The same information is also included in the Wikipedia entry within the bio of Kendrick Moxon see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kendrick_Moxon that states, "Kendrick Lichty Moxon is a Scientology official and an attorney with the law firm Moxon & Kobrin. He practices in Los Angeles, California, and is a lead counsel for the Church of Scientology." This Wikipedia entry also says, "Scott stated that he felt he had been manipulated as part of the Church of Scientology's plan to destroy CAN." (Morgan, Lucy; Thomas C. Tobin December 23, 1997 "Scientology sponsored suit against opponent" St. Petersburg Times. p. 1A.) It also says that "Jason Scott also stated he felt he had been a 'pawn' in Scientology's 'whole game' (Hansen, Susan June 1997 "Did Scientology Strike Back?" The American Lawyer) article online archived at http://culteducation.com/group/1284-scientology/23030-did-scientology-strike-back.html 96.235.133.43 (talk) This same American Lawyer article is repeatedly cited in the book "The Church of Scientology: A History of a New Religion" By Hugh B. Urban see https://books.google.com/books?id=8lgHtauc5R4C&pg=PA245&lpg=PA245&dq=Did+Scientology+strike+back+American+lawyer&source=bl&ots=vL1bAjWBDM&sig=bEe1qwN0m0ht2jg6noLsMxz5LfY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAWoVChMI4JOe7ZDMxwIVgtk-

These reliable sources confirm that I have not done involuntary cult intervention work with adults for many years. http://gothamist.com/2005/07/18/rick_ross_cult_expert.php http://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2004/dec/12/features.magazine137 http://culteducation.com/group/1270-media/13381-hell-fire.html 96.235.133.43 (talk) 18:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)Rick Alan Ross

Ch1BGQq9#v=onepage&q=Did%20Scientology%20strike%20back%20American%20lawyer&f=false 96.235.133.43 (talk) 16:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)Rick Alan Ross

Please simply put your requests in the format I requested without editorializing. This makes it much easier for me to look at each requested edit, assess the source and see if it supports the edit. A wall of text like you presented above, without organization or clear edit request, is not something I am willing to parse.

Thank you for following out conflict of interest best practices by requesting modifications to the article rather than editing it yourself. I understand your desire to have proper information in the article and I am willing to work with you but it must be in a structured manner. This helps me keep things straight in my head and allows me to give your requests the consideration and attention they deserve. It also allows other editors to easily follow the discussion and see why changes were/were not made. Jbh^Talk 18:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I will try to do a better job following your guidelines.96.235.133.43 (talk) 14:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)Rick Alan Ross

• Statement in lead paragraph to include proposed editing in bold -- Ross faced criminal charges over the 1991 forcible deprogramming of Jason Scott, but was found "not guilty." Subsequently Scott, represented by prominent Scientologist attorney Kendrick Moxon, filed a lawsuit that resulted in a judgement against both Ross and the Cult Awareness Network (CAN) for violating his civil rights. Scott was awarded $5 million in damages, which led to CAN and Ross declaring bankruptcy.96.235.133.43 (talk) 14:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)Rick Alan Ross

• • Reliable sources
    1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_Awareness_Network#Jason_Scott_case
    2. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-805671.html
    3. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1997-02-02/news/9702020115_1_cult-awareness-network-scientology-controversial-church
    4. http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/whats-2995-million-between-former-enemies-6423217
    5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Scott_case
    6. http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19950921&slug=2142801
    7. http://www.westword.com/news/nightmare-on-the-net-5057215 96.235.133.43 (talk) 14:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)Rick Alan Ross

I have struck sources above which are not WP:RS. I also edited the 3rd para of the lead so it was more of a summary of what is in the Jason Scott section rather than a simple copy/paste. The sources easily let me add Moxon's name and his link to Scientology and I feel that information would be of help/interest to our readers. I have also reformatted your edit requests so I can separate them better. Jbh^Talk 15:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• Statement in Jason Scott deprogramming section with proposed edits -- Ross was found "not guilty" by the jury at trial.[5] Scott later filed a civil suit against Ross in federal court and was represented by prominent Scientologist attorney Kendrick Moxon. In September 1995, a nine-member jury unanimously held Ross and other defendants in the case liable for depriving Scott of his civil rights and awarded Scott $5 million in punitive damages .[23] Ross' share of the damages was $3.1 million, which led to him declaring personal bankruptcy.[23] Scott later reconciled with his mother and was persuaded by her to fire Moxon and settle with Ross; under the terms of the settlement, the two agreed that Ross would pay Scott $5000 and provide 200 hours of his professional services.[36]Scott later stated that he felt he had been manipulated as part of Scientology's plan to destroy CAN.96.235.133.43 (talk) 14:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)Rick Alan Ross

• • Reliable sources include those previously linked and
    1. http://culteducation.com/group/1284-scientology/23030-did-scientology-strike-back.html
    2. https://books.google.com/books?id=8lgHtauc5R4C&pg=PA245&lpg=PA245&dq=Did+Scientology+strike+back+American+lawyer&source=bl&ots=vL1bAjWBDM&sig=bEe1qwN0m0ht2jg6noLsMxz5LfY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAWoVChMI4JOe7ZDMxwIVgtk-Ch1BGQq9#v=onepage&q=Did%20Scientology%20strike%20back%20American%20lawyer&f=false 96.235.133.43 (talk) 14:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)Rick Alan Ross

I think the edits I mentioned above cover most of the information you wanted here. I will need to read more over the next couple of days to see what can be done with the Jason Scott section. I need to get a better idea of what the press was saying at the time etc. The book will require some looking in to see if it is RS. If there are particular sections/pages you think might be of use I will check into them. Jbh^Talk 15:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I think linking the lawyer's name and mentioning he was linked to Scientology gets the basic information to our readers. Additional information can be found in the article on the Jason Scott case. I think that, based on the article as it is now, going into Scott's and Scientology's motives might be WP:UNDUE since this is a biography. If, later, the article is expanded to address Ross's conflict with Scientology it could be brougnt in then. Jbh^Talk 15:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. But as Wikipedia notes with reliable sources in the bio of Kendrick Moxon he is an official of Scientology and its lead counsel. Please change "linked to Scientology," which does not reflect his actual historical significance, to -- Kendrick Moxon an official of Scientology and its lead counsel. Also this should also be in the lead. 96.235.133.43 (talk) 13:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC)Rick Alan Ross

• That is, however, how the source designates him. If people want more information about Moxon or want to explore his relationship with Scientology they will follow his link. We are not permitted to draw conclusions, make inferences etc. that the sources themselves do not make in the same context - see WP:SYNTH. The lead is intended to summarize material in the body of the article so going into detail of the who's and what's of the case is not appropriate. Also we have links to articles on the Jason Scott case, the Cult Awareness Network and Kendrick Moxon for readers who want more depth on those subjects. Other editors may, of course, feel differently. Jbh^Talk 14:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

note that this source does not say that Ross stopped doing interventions b/c of the Scott case; he just says that he stopped due to legal risks, and when we don't know when he stopped. I don't doubt that he did stop and that it was b/c of legal risks; we just have no source for the date or the specific reason. Jytdog (talk) 16:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for catching that and updating the article. Jbh^Talk 04:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The Way Back Machine shows the website rickross.com dated April 1998 page regarding Intervention and explains no more involuntary deprogramming with adults. Actually it was stated much earlier when the website was first launched in 1996, but this is proof from a reliable source that the date was at least 1998 See https://web.archive.org/web/19980429001130/http://rickross.com/ Look under "Getting Help" and then see "Intervention," which covers involuntary intervention/deprogramming specifically. Please change "Undated" to 1996, 1998 or revert to original version. (talk) 13:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)Rick Alan Ross

That is WP:OR. We need a source that provides the date. You have been informed many, many times about the relevant policies and guidelines that govern Wikipedia, and how we interpret them, yet you refuse to learn and follow them, but keep pushing for changes that would violate the policies and guidelines, and you keep taking up the community's time. Please stop doing that. If you want to ask for changes, ask for specific changes, based on specific reliable sources. I will not respond further on this.Jytdog (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: Re your removal, would that material not fall under the WP:ABOUTSELF carve out of WP:SELFPUB? Jbh^Talk 16:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

in my view Francis' diff is valid per WP:SPS - the claim that Ross stopped doing involuntary deprogrammings is extraordinary and should be sourced to an independent source, not a page from his website. Jytdog (talk) 18:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

(e.c. – @Jbhunley:) WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:SELFPUB link to the same policy section, they are subject to the same five conditions, the first of which is "the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim". So no, there is no material difference here: the changed appreciation regarding (forcible) deprogramming is some sort of apologetics (=self-serving), unduly so, or at least "exceptional", when no independent reliable source has noted a changed behaviour pattern in this respect, or at least has recorded the subject claims it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken and Jytdog: OK. The idea that it is a self serving claim works for me, particularly in the context of the source looking like it is an 'advertorial' FAQ. Jbh^Talk 19:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

There are independent reliable sources that have reported the fact that I no longer do involuntary interventions with adults. See http://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2004/dec/12/features.magazine137 http://gothamist.com/2005/07/18/rick_ross_cult_expert.php http://www.culteducation.com/group/13381-hell-fire.html 96.235.133.43 (talk) 19:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)Rick Alan Ross

Of the sources you present above only The Guardian one is really RS. It does not, based on my reading, say you no longer do coercive interventions and describes an intervention which could be reasonably described as coercive. Please remember that sources merely reporting what you have said cf. interviews, do not avoid the WP:ABOUTSELF issues mentioned above. Jbh^Talk 20:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Involuntary deprogramming means the use of physical restraint. The deprogramming described in The Guardian did not involve the use physical restraint and was voluntary, which means the person was free to leave at any time. Instead the Guardian reports that "brother persuaded her to give [me] one more hour of her time" and that people in such interventions can "walk out." The Gurardian also reported, "as soon as Ross introduced himself, Michael fled his grandmother's house." Indicating that he was free to leave and not physically restrained in any way. Former cult deprogrammer Steve Hassan also has a bio at Wikipedia See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Hassan Mr. Hassan's statements are footnoted as sources to support the statement that he no longer does involuntary deprogramming. I think Wikipedia must be consistent. I no longer do involuntary deprogramming and have stated so in many interviews going back to the 1990s. Though there have been many articles published about me since the Scott case, none have suggested that I still endorse and/or do involuntary cult interventions with adults. The statement formerly in the bio should be restored, both in the lead and at the Scott case subsection. Please restore the statement. 96.235.133.43 (talk) 13:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)Rick Alan Ross