Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:56, 29 December 2015

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: 15 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 Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles 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.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion: Falun Gong / New religious movements Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of Falun Gong work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive. This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Please use a more specific OTRS template. See the Template:OTRS or below for available templates. 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

{{Template disambiguation}} shouldn't be transcluded in the talk namespaces.

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 article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: Snow Keep, 9 November 2015, see discussion. keep, 19 October 2008 (UTC), see discussion.

The following Misplaced Pages contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. Rick Alan Ross (talk · contribs) This user has declared a connection. (User:Rick Alan Ross is the subject of this biography. His identity has been confirmed by ArbCom )

Website rename

Don't get this removal, so propose to undo:

The website was re-launched in 2013 as the Cult Education Institute (CEI). CEI is a non-profit institution and member of the American Library Association and the New Jersey Library Association.

References

1. "About Us". Cult Education Institute. Retrieved 9 July 2014.
2. "The Ross Institute has officially changed its name". Cult News. 2013-08-02. Retrieved 9 July 2014.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 15:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the institute rename / personal website, these aspects are supported by self-published sources and not notable, and unless we can find secondary sources that attest to their notability, they should be excluded from the article. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Again, the notability of this person is related to his activities as a deprogrammer in the 80s and 90s. If later activities are notable, we should find substantial coverage in secondary sources. Misplaced Pages is not a resume. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Rick Ross website is named in the article (and refs), so when the entity renames, that name change can be recorded in the article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

The rename should be documented in the article so readers can identify the site in both a current and historical context. Jbh 15:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Done. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I removed the mention of the personal website from the lede, has this is unrelated to the subject's notability and as such has just a passing mention in the article's body. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

It neith a nominal or personal website. The Cult Education Institute is a tax-exempted charity recognized the by the IRS. The database was first launched in 1996 and is notable as demonstrated by secondary sources previously linked. Also, CEI is an online library and member of the American and New Jersey Library Associations. CEI is directly related to my notability and I am introduced in many media interviews as the executive director of CEI. Please restore the deleted text. Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

external links

Imho:

• Cult News: www.cultnews.com

qualifies better in the EL section than:

• The Cult Education Institute: www.culteducation.com

The first being rather the subject's personal website than the second (which should be mentioned in the article itself with a ref). --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Right now CEI is in the infobox. Maybe replace it with Cult News and place CEI in external links? Jbh 15:21, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

That could work. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't work, as, currently, cultnews rather qualifies as personal website than CEI website. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Ummm... shouldn't the 'personal' website be the one in the infobox? This is a personal biography not an article on his organization. Jbh 15:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, and the organization should be properly mentioned in the body, with a ref. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a need to list both. The WP:ELMINOFFICIAL exception doesn't really apply, as cultnews.com is prominently linked from culteducation.com, and is just a news site and blog. Neither is mainly about Ross. I changed the link in the External links section to link directly to his profile rather than the main site to focus on him. --Ronz (talk) 18:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect reference regarding Waco

The Waco Siege subsection states, "In 1992 and 1993, Ross opposed actions of the Branch Davidian group led by David Koresh in Waco, Texas and had previously deprogrammed a member of the group.." This incorrectly states the history and nature of my involvement. Footnote refers the reader to an article ( see http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/hush-hush-sweet-charlatans-6426159 ) by Tony Ortega. But nowhere in the article does Ortega report that "In 1992 and 1993, Ross opposed actions of the Branch Davidian group led by David Koresh." Ortega states, "Rick Ross first encountered Davidians, an offshoot of Seventh-Day Adventism, in 1987, when he deprogrammed a couple in upstate New York. But after 1988, he says, the calls he received about Davidians all dealt with Koresh's Mount Carmel group." He then discusses the deprogramming of Waco Davidian David Block. I suggest editing this to reflect the facts as follows: Ross first began to receive complaints about Davidian groups in 1987. He deprogrammed three members of these offshoot sects composed largely of former Seventh Day Adventists, including one member of the group led by David Koresh in Texas.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 21:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Your point is well-taken and I have fixed. See my reply below. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Quotes are not properly sourced and attributed

At the Waco Siege subsection there are some questionable quotes that lack proper source attribution. One quote states, "Ross 'has a personal hatred for all religious cults.'" Another quote states, "Ross...recommended that agents 'attempt to publicly humiliate Koresh, hoping to drive a wedge between him and his followers.'" The footnotes don't specifically confirm and directly attribute the quotes to exact sources. Did the authors of the books footnoted say that Nancy Ammerman made these comments, when she characterized government notes? What is the exact quote an specific source of that quote? I know that these are false statements. I don't have a personal hatred for any religious cults. I never suggested to the FBI attempt that they attempt to humiliate Koresh. These are characterizations or false statements.WP: Coatrack This "leaves the reader with a thoroughly incorrect understanding of the nominal subject." Also, the use of "biased negative opinions" is not helpful and is an "appeal to authority>" I suggest editing this as follows: Nancy Ammerman, a professor of sociology of religion, who reviewed FBI interview notes said that the BATF and FBI did rely upon Ross. Ammerman and other academics were critical of Ross' involvement with authorities concerning the Waco Davidians.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 21:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

See response in section below. As I said, the Ammerman material is apparently from this source, and is accurately quoted. However, given the negativity of the material and the sensitivity of this entire subject matter, I agree that it should be given close scrutiny. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:03, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Article is being treated too much like a resume and extension of Ross' marketing

I've trimmed the lede accordingly . This isn't his resume, nor an extension of his marketing, as much as he'd like it to be otherwise. Resumes list accomplishments. Encyclopedia articles present accomplishments in a historical context that demonstrates how they are encyclopedic and noteworthy. More reliance on secondary sources would likely solve most of these problems. See WP:BLPSOURCES. --Ronz (talk) 18:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more, Ronz. I've been saying the same thing re: the article looking like his resume for a few months now. Secondary sources on Ross, however, are few and far between. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

User Ronz. I am primarily known as a cult expert and as the founder of the Cult Education Institute (CEI) database. This has been reported by the press across the US and internationally. People Magazine reports, "Rick Ross, who has been cited internationally for his work on destructive cults" See http://www.people.com/article/former-members-call-south-korean-church-a-cult The Guardian (UK) reports, "Claims abound that Kabbalah is a cult that exploits people financially and psychologically, with many of the allegations documented by the Cult Education Institute." See http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/26/kabbalah-religion-marcus-weston-madonna note that the Guardian provides a link to the CEI database. I have been qualified and accepted as an expert witness within 10 states, including United States Federal Court. This has included high profile cases such as James Arthur Ray. Associated Press reports, "Group expert can testify in Ariz. sweat lodge case" see http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2011/feb/28/group-expert-can-testify-in-ariz-sweat-lodge-case/ Maxim reports, "Rick Ross (no, not that one) is a consultant, author, and founder of the Cult Education Institute. He’s been a opponent of cults for several decades." See http://www.maxim.com/entertainment/anti-cult-activists-surprising-reaction-tina-feys-new-cult-comedy The Philadelphia Daily News reported (2011) "Ross, 58, runs the Rick A. Ross Institute, a nonprofit Internet archive on "destructive cults" and "controversial groups and movements. Attorneys, universities and the media often go to Ross for explanations when seemingly benign groups go off the rails, and parents turn to him when their children fall under a cult's spell...Ross, who launched his Web archive in 1996 and makes a living as a consultant, expert witness and speaker." See http://articles.philly.com/2011-03-12/news/28683932_1_group-demands-cults-nursing-home Ronz please restore the lead historical information you deleted, which is well established through secondary sources.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 21:41, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm still getting up to speed on the topic. Thanks for the links.

It's unclear if you are aware of WP:NOT.

I have printed out WP: NOT and will review it. Thank you for the reference.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 00:18, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

You claim to be an expert. It doesn't appear to be the kind of expertise that most matters within Misplaced Pages, academic expertise. Ever publish in a peer-reviewed, science journal? --Ronz (talk) 22:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes I have had peer-reviewed papers published. See http://www.culteducation.com/cv.html I have also been qualified, accepted and testified in US Federal Court after a Daubert Standard hearding to confirm my expertise.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 00:12, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Your online curriculum vitae is not a reliable source for purposes of vetting whether or not you have had peer-reviewed papers published. Much of what's published these days and for the last 20+ years is accessible online. Do you have links that can support your claim you've been published in peer reviewed works? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:17, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything that establishes him as an expert in an academic sense.

So he's had some cases that have made him well-known in as a deprogrammer. His website was referenced by The Guardian for a rather poor article the growth of Kabbalah. I expect his website has similar references, but any that are better? --Ronz (talk) 01:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I continue to do local, national and international media programs, newspaper interviews, etc. Many of the legal cases I have consulted on and/or testified at trial have been notable. I am one of most quoted and well-known recognized experts in the field of cultic studies. The Cult Education Institute (CEI), formerly known as the Ross Institute of NJ, is one of the oldest, largest and most prominent databases concerning cults on the Web. I will continue gathering links. Please understand that some newspapers and media don't keep links up after a certain period of time, which is one of the reasons the CEI online library is os useful for historical information through its extensive archives.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 15:43, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/16/tulsi-gabbard-krishna-cult-rumors_n_6879588.html Story and http://www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-herald/news/68483000/Disciples-deities-and-development also recent radio interview about cult murder in NY http://wutqfm.com/interviews/archives/2015-10/ interview October 19, 2015 Rick Alan Ross (talk) 15:28, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

From what I can tell, his renown as a deprogrammer was years ago and he's no longer well-known except in his own city/state. Note on his CV that there are no dates associated with when he was an expert witness. And, as far as I can tell, being cleared to testify in a state as an expert witness doesn't mean you have testified as one in that state. The website and CV are, of course, subjective and primary sources, therefore, unreliable. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:03, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

See http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2011/feb/28/group-expert-can-testify-in-ariz-sweat-lodge-case/ "Yavapai County Superior Court Judge Warren Darrow made the ruling" The judge ruled, " Prosecutors will be allowed to call an expert to testify about why dozens of people felt that they couldn't leave a sweat lodge ceremony that turned deadly." The fact is that I was qualified and accepted as an expert. Very few people in the field of cultic studies have been qualified and accepted by a judge in a court of law as an expert. This is official recognition by an objective judge. See http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1083083.html In Noyes v. Kelly Services I was retained as an expert witness. See https://casetext.com/case/noyes-v-kelly-services "On March 17, 2008 at 10:00 a.m., a Daubert hearing ( see https://en.wikipedia.org/Daubert_standard ) on the motion will be held, at which Plaintiff's expert, Rick Ross" Subsequently I was qualified, accepted and testified at trial in United States Federal Court after a Daubert Standard hearing, See http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/sz9jg1py/california-eastern-district-court/noyes-v-kelly-services/ Also see http://culteducation.com/group/1253-expert-witness/26572-united-states-federal-court.html I believe the transcript is also avaialable through the previous link. Only a handful of cult studies professionals have been accepted through a Daubert hearing in Federal Court. The Noyes v Kelly Services $6.5 million dollar judgement against the defendant was notable. See http://hrdailyadvisor.blr.com/2008/06/01/religious-discrimination-employee-wins-6-5-million-jury-verdict-because-of-manager-s-favoritism-lessons-for-employers/ I have testified in about 20 court proceedings in ten states. I have testified in court this year 2015 as an expert and am retained on other cases as an expert currently.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 16:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

The CV lists the academic peer-reviewed articles that were published in academic journals. "Cults: Assessment", Presented at the International Symposium on Cultic Studies held at Assumption University, Thailand. Published by the Institute of Religious Studies Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences, China 2011. Is Falun Gong a Cult? International Forum on Cultic Studies sponsored by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Shenzhen, China 2009 I also was published in Cults: Opposing Viewpoints Chapter 4: "How Can Cult Members Be Helped," by Rick Alan Ross, Greenhaven Press 2012. My book "Cults Inside Out: How People Get In and Can Get Out" was published by Peace Books Hong Kong in Chinese, which has been reported by the Hong Kong press publications Ta Kung Pao, Wen Wei Po Daily News and Phoenix Television in Hong Kong (2015). I also have done interviews with Jenny McCarthy about the book on Sirius Radio and also with LipTV Media Mayhem see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJOd034pxUk Lions of Liberty Podcast see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjlT3-cSGac prominent blogger Tony Ortega also reported about my book http://tonyortega.org/2014/12/18/rick-ross-has-a-new-book-that-will-help-you-get-someone-out-of-scientology/ Tony Ortega also did a retrospective of my work http://tonyortega.org/2015/11/30/where-it-all-began-for-us-rick-ross-david-koresh-and-the-church-of-scientology/ I have lectured at more than 30 colleges and universities. My work is longstanding and broad including expert witness testimony in court cases, interventions, analysis for the media, consulting on film projects, documentaries and work with law enforcement. See http://gothamist.com/2005/07/18/rick_ross_cult_expert.phpRick Alan Ross (talk) 15:05, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

We're way off topic here.

I'm not seeing any secondary sources to substantiate that the expert witness work is due anything more than what's already in the "Other activities" section, and I think that is undue as sourced with a byline from an interview. --Ronz (talk) 17:03, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ronz, even with all he's posted above directly from his resume, I still don't see anything that establishes him as an academic expert. Online blogs, speaking at a symposium in China, one chapter in book that's listed in libraries as being juvenile non-fiction, and being interviewed by an "American model, television host, comedienne, actress, author, screenwriter and anti-vaccine activist" (Jenny McCarthy) is neither peer reviewed nor academic in nature. Some of these things wouldn't pass muster as being reliable sources for Misplaced Pages purposes. Further, being a court-declared expert witness doesn't necessarily make one an expert in a field in the academic sense. Expert witnesses are well-paid to give their opinion complimenting either the defense or prosecution's case. It's a distinction, for certain, but not an academic distinction. If included in the article, I think the difference between the two should be made for the benefit of readers in better understanding the article subject. Your observation regarding WP:NOT is spot on. I don't think he's getting that Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a free resume-hosting service. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:07, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Winkelvi WP: What Misplaced Pages is not This is not a "battleground" or a place "to attack the reputation of another person." Some of your comments border on insults. Please make points in a civil and polite manner. It is very difficult to be qualified and accepted in a court of law by a judge as an expert. It is is even more difficult to go through a Daubert Standard hearing in United States Federal Court and be ruled as an expert. I have very specifically cited high profile court cases in which judges determined that I am a recognized expert in my field. I am also a published author and am frequently interviewed as an expert. The Cult Education Institute is a well-known educational database on the Web established in 1996. Making insulting remarks doesn't change these facts.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

He's not saying he is an academic expert, at least in the way we mean it. He's still a widely noted expert though. --Ronz (talk) 17:16, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

No, he didn't say he is an academic expert, however, in response to your query as to whether or not he had any peer-reviewed articles in academic/scientific journals, his only response was to point you to his CV and then to a list of things that are not academic/scientific in nature. This, to me, said he felt his CV and everything else he posted were "credentials" establishing him as an academic expert. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

No. What I did was specifically list papers I had presented at international academic conferences that were published in peer-reviewed academic journals. I also cited an educational publisher, quite highly respected, that included a chapter written by me specifically in an educational book about cults (2013). I have frequently lectured at the college and university level (e.g. University of Chicago, Baylor, University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, Baylor, Arizona State University. Historically my work is respected and my expertise recognized by many academics.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:37, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

• The standards to be qualified as an 'expert witness' are discussed here , for reference. Jbh 18:01, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Very helpful, Jbhunley, thanks for posting the link here. What I gleaned is that anyone from a layperson to a scientist can be declared an expert witness and, according to the article, in the end it's up to the judge to make the declaration. I found the following quite interesting: "...most lawyers and judges lack the adequate scientific background to argue or decide the admissibility of expert testimony." -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:52, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

The publisher you refer to specializes in books for children - the book in which the chapter was written is listed by libraries as "Juvenile, non-fiction". Published, but not peer-reviewed published. As far as the claim of your presentations being published in peer-reviewed academic journals, what do you have to support this claim? I can't find anything online that supports it. For Misplaced Pages purposes, non-tangible evidence is not considered a reliable source. Lecturing at colleges is done frequently by many (the credentialed and non-credentialed, alike). If you were faculty or a professor at a college or university and actually teaching classes on cults, that would be a different story. Saying your work is "respected and recognized by many academics" is all fine and well, however, if we were ever to include content in the article stating as much we would need actual evidence from a reliable source to do so. "Many academics" is vague and non-specific. I am not saying I doubt what you are saying. But please understand that you are a primary source and your word is not enough to establish notability or reliability per Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. Little is out there on you that is recent. This is one of the reasons why content has been called into question from a sourcing standpoint in the article. You tell us you are such-and-so, your website and CV tells us you are such-and-so, but that's not enough from an encyclopedic and inclusion standpoint. See WP:VERIFY. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:22, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

The publisher Greenhaven Press is a part of Gale, Cengage Learning and highly respected. The book "Cults" is part of the "Opposing Viewpoints Series" and includes chapters by Jayanti Tamm Ph.D. and published author, David Bromley Ph.D., Douglas E. Cowan Canadian academic in religious studies, author Christopher Hitchens, Rolling Stone reporter and author Janet Reitman and many other notable contributors. My paper "Cult Deprogramming An Examination of the Intervention Process" is duly noted int he book chapter as the source which notes (p.165) that it was first presented at the "Schenzhen International Symposium on Cultic Studies, 2010 and reproduced by permission of the author." The book introduces me (p.165) "Ross is a renowned cult deprogrammer and founder of the Rick A. Ross Institute, which offers a database of articles, court cases and other materials on cults." Though my papers presented at international conferences in China and Thailand are not readily available online I have the copies of the peer-reviewed journals in my office. They are two online at the following links http://www.cultnews.com/2010/12/cult-deprogramming-an-examination-of-the-intervention-process/ http://www.cultnews.com/2009/01/is-falun-gong-a-cult/ Regarding my lectures. At Penn in Philadelphia see http://www.library.upenn.edu/docs/kislak/dp/1995/1995_04_13.pdf scroll down PDF for article "Expert: Cults target Ivy freshman" See http://www.culteducation.com/group/12623-cult-influence-expands-says-koresh-mediator.html This article is not online at the Chicago Maroon (University of Chicago) but is probably available through the university archive. See http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/hush-hush-sweet-charlatans-6426159 This article reports, "Rick Ross is describing how Arizona's cults use mind control to exploit their members. He warns about 70 people gathered at Arizona State University's Memorial Union that they are prime targets for groups that tend to prey on university students."Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:33, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

If this tangent is in any way related to improving the article, I can no longer see it. Editors may want to review WP:TALK, WP:COOL, WP:BAIT, and WP:BECONCISE. --Ronz (talk) 17:50, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I am attempting to provide secondary sources and establish the actual significance of the book cited and also academic peer-reviewed articles published.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:29, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

@Rick Alan Ross: Mr. Ross, I am new to this article but saw it referred to on a user talk page. It might be helpful if you could start a section indicating any errors or omissions or other article issues that you feel need to be dealt with. It is hard to ascertain from this and other discursive discussions. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 18:21, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that suggestion. I have offered suggestions regarding certain sections above regarding the Waco Siege subsection see https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Rick_Alan_Ross#Incorrect_reference_regarding_Waco and also https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Rick_Alan_Ross#Quotes_are_not_properly_sourced_and_attributed I will try to be more focused and specificRick Alan Ross (talk) 18:34, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. These long discussions can be hard to follow sometimes. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 18:48, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Re the Ortega article, I believe it's now consistent with the source, but if I fouled up please indicate. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:45, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

As for the Ammerman material, it is substantiated by this source, which has been accurately quoted. However, given the negative tinge of the Waco section, I agree that this section deserves additional scrutiny. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:02, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Exit counselor

The lede describes the subject as an "exit counselor", but there are no sources provided to substantiate that description, and there is no text in the article to warrant such inclusion in the lede. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:42, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

It should probably be removed. I'm also not quite sure about referring to him as a deprogrammer, since even according to his website, neither exit counseling nor deprogramming are listed as his current occupations. We know he was a deprogrammer at one time. Perhaps keep deprogrammer but qualify it with "former"? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:16, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I refer to myself and am often described as a "cult intervention specialist." See http://www.cultnews.com/2010/12/cult-deprogramming-an-examination-of-the-intervention-process/ (Cults: Opposing Viewpoints Series, Greenhaven Press,,2013 p. 167) "Over the years, that basic process of sharing information and demonstrating to cult members how the power of persuasion may have compromised their critical and independent thinking has been refined continuously and improved. In fact, the name 'cult deprogramming' itself has become something of a politically incorrect term. Today most professionals engaged in cult intervention work prefer other labels to describe their work, for example, 'exit counseling,' 'thought reform consultation,' or 'strategic intervention therapy." In my book "Cults Inside Out (Peace Books Publishing, Chinese version, CreateSpace English version p. 202) the job description is stated as "cult deprogrammers and intervention specialists." I prefer cult intervention specialist. See http://www.cifs.org.au/RickRoss.php also see http://www.reuters.com/article/ny-cult-ed-institute- see also idUSnBw165187a+100+BSW20141216 http://jewcy.com/post/brainwashings_nemesis See http://www.religioustolerance.org/falungong3.htm see http://articles.philly.com/2011-03-12/news/28683932_1_group-demands-cults-nursing-home reported as, "Ross began appearing on panels and committees, mostly in the Jewish community in Arizona, but his involvement expanded in the late 1980s, when he became a private consultant and intervention specialist/deprogrammer."Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:13, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

The second edition of Snapping: America's Epidemic of Sudden Personality Change describes Ross as an exit counselor on page 65-66. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Have a link for where you found the reference? Google Books or something else along those lines? I find it dubious that a 1978 book refers to Ross at all since it seems he didn't come into the public spotlight until the 1980s. But, if you're certain about this, I'm happy to be proven wrong. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:13, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Sans a response, I did some checking and see the book actually has two editions: the first in 1978 and the second in 1995. Pages 65-66 do refer to Ross as an exit counselor, but I have to wonder if this wasn't used as a euphemism for "deprogrammer". Minus anything else reliable that refers to him as such (even his online CV doesn't mention it), I'm still not sure it should be included in the article body or the lede. I'd be interested in hearing anyone else's thoughts on this. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:26, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

a single mention on a book by two pretty much unknown authors, may not be sufficient for inclusion in the lede, although I woud not oppose a short mention in the article's body, if fully attributed rather than rendered as fact and in WP's voice. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:46, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

"Snapping" is a very important book in the area of cultic studies See https://en.wikipedia.org/Snapping:_America%27s_Epidemic_of_Sudden_Personality_Change and see http://www.amazon.com/Snapping-Americas-Epidemic-Personality-Edition/dp/0964765004 Conway and Siegelman later wrote "Holy Terror" published by Doubleday & Company, 1982. Both books were widely received and reported about.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:24, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I continue to do intervention work and have never stopped. I have now done over 500 interventions, which has been reported and noted in interviews. My work is now more varied as a consultant, expert witness in court cases, media/entertainment technical advisor, executive director of CEI and also an author. But I never stopped doing cult intervention work.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:40, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything to substantiate a "widely received" statement. Seems to be circumscribed to a very narrow audience. - Cwobeel (talk)

I find very little on Conway and Siegelman, besides a 1979 participation in a congressional hearing. I have removed the "exit counselor" from the lede. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:43, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Conway and Siegleman are very well-known within the cultic studies community. Their ground-breaking research in "Snapping" (1978, 1995) about "information disease" and a later book "Holy Terror" (1982) published by Doubleday were widely received and reported about by the media. WP: Coatrack Please don't engage in "fact picking." This "creates an article that, as a whole is less than truthful."Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:48, 26 December 2015 (UTC) Please restore the lead.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:02, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I had the same concerns. I'm not sure at this point. First, we're talking about rather fringe work in a fringe area. I think we should expect approaches, roles, and labels to change.

I think it's fairly clear from the article that Ross' work changed in response to the situations leading to his bankruptcy. Whether or not the new label belongs in the lede, I'm unsure. --Ronz (talk) 17:13, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality

I am new to this article, and originally saw it referred to on a user talk page. Reading this article now bothers me. It strikes me as a generally rather negative article. Now, negativity does not necessarily mean that it is not neutral. However, I wonder - is it? Overall, looking at the article as a totality, is this article a fair representation of the subject? I was wondering if people, including Mr. Ross, could weigh in and briefly say how they feel and why? My position is undecided. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:37, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Without examining all the references closely and looking for further references, I don't know how any response is helpful to improving this article. However, given the subject matter of deprogramming, I'd expect that many people will find this article "negative". I think that's another topic, and I'll bring it up separately once I have time to review the references carefully. --Ronz (talk) 16:11, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes. I think the article is often negative. {{WP: Misplaced Pages Coatrack]] "Glosses over normal biographical details." For example the lead doesn't reflect my actual work and focuses on what I did 20 years ago from a negative perspective. WP: What Misplaced Pages is not "Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda..." Moreover "Articles must be balanced to entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view." Also "Articles must not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person." I have not done involuntary deprogramming with adults for more than twenty years. but I have done more than 500 cult interventions, most of those after the Scott case. Links to a paper published in a peer-reviewed academic journal "Cult Deprogramming: An Examination of the Intervention Process," which later was publsihed as a chapter within the book "Cults: Opposing Viewpoints Series" 92013) reflect this fact. I am not primarily known for the Jason Scott case, which ended in a judgement in 1995. The lead has been cult to focus only on involuntary deprogramming and the Jason Scott case specifically, as if that is all I am known for, which is false. WP: What Misplaced Pages is not "Undue attention to one particular topic within the scope of the article creates and article that, as a whole, is less than truthful." I realize that people may have strong feelings about the involuntary deprogramming work I did decades ago, but WP: Misplaced Pages is not a battleground Misplaced Pages is not the place to "carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear." The Waco Siege section suffers from "coat racking," soap boxing," "applying biased negative opinions" and "fact picking." TWP: Coatrack "Thus the article although superficially true., leaves the reader with a thoroughly incorrect understanding of the nominal subject. WP: Biographies of living persons "Do not give disportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." "Biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times." The opinions expressed by certain academics represent a minority view about Waco and are based upon "conjectural interpretation of a source." The opinions expressed by Nancy Ammerman ultimately offer "false light." "Experience has show that misuing Misplaced Pages to perpetuate legal, political, social literary, scholarly, or other disputes is harmul to the subject of biographical articles, to other parties in the dispute, and to Misplaced Pages itself."Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:41, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Here's a very specific example: In the first paragraph of the "Waco siege" section, the word "unsolicited" is used three times in two sentences. As well as being very bad writing, this is hammering home the negative connotations of the word through repetition. Cullen Let's discuss it 17:50, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

This section also states, "Ross "has a personal hatred for all religious cults." The footnote is "Report to the Justice and Treasury Departments, Nancy Ammerman, September 3, 1993, with an Addendum dated September 10, 1993" The note cited is not sourced other than through the Ammerman report. Then Ammerman characterizes or conjectures about my advice. My bio reads, Ammerman "further stated the BATF and the FBI did rely on Ross when he recommended that agents 'attempt to publicly humiliate Koresh, hoping to drive a wedge between him and his followers.'" However, this is a characterization based upon conjecture. In her report in context Ammerman says the following, "The FBI interview report includes the note that Ross 'has a personal hatred for all religious cults' and would willingly aid law enforcement in an attempt to 'destroy a cult.' The FBI report does not include any mention of the numerous legal challenges to the tactics employed by Mr. Ross in extricating members from the groups he hates." WP: Coatrack "A common fact picking device is great numbers of individual quotes criticizing the nominal subject, while expending little or no effort mentionieng that the criticism comes from a small fraction of people. That small fraction thus gets a soapbox that is far larger than reality warrants." The historical relevance of Ammerman is that she read the notes and disputed the Justice Department and FBI statements, "the FBI did not 'rely' on Ross for advice whatsoever during the standoff." According to the report, the FBI "politely declined his unsolicited offers of assistance throughout the standoff" and treated the information Ross supplied as it would any other information received from the public. Instead Ammerman reported "The interview transcripts document that Mr. Rick Ross was, in fact, closely involved with both the ATF and the FBI. He supplied ATF with "all information he had regarding the Branch Davidian cult," including the name of an ex-member he believed would have important strategic information. He also supplied information to the Waco newspaper and talked with the FBI both in early March and in late March. He clearly had the most extensive access to both agencies of any person on the "cult expert" list, and he was apparently listened to more attentively. The ATF interviewed the persons he directed them to and evidently used information from those interviews in planning their February 28 raid. In late March, Ross recommended that agents attempt to publicly humiliate Koresh, hoping to drive a wedge between him and his followers. While Ross's suggestions may not have been followed to the letter, such embarrassment tactics were indeed tried." WP: Weasel word Ammerman uses the weasel word "evidently," which she uses "to avoid making and outright assertion."Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:46, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

• I believe that part of the issue is that most of the secondary RS material about him is actually negative, or at the very least unflattering while much of the positive material comes from interviews and primary/self published material. For comaprason here is a diff of the article a bit before Rick Ross verified his account to Arbcom and today . After several months, a couple hundred edits and over a dozen editors the general content is pretty similar but generally tending towards greater NPOV . Jbh 18:25, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

No. The overwhelming majority of secondary sources such as news reports and descriptions of my work in the media have been positive and repeatedly refer to me as a well-known, notable, credible cult expert. Only a very small fraction of secondary mainstream sources has been negative. And repeatedly at this bio negative remarks may either be cherry picked out of a broader positive article or taken out of context as was recently done. Even the news coverage of the Jason Scott case essentially reported that it was a Scientology scheme. I am endeavoring to link to news reports, interviews, books and other secondary sources at the Talk page to demonstrate this fact as time allows.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:53, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

• Another example of the lack of NPOV was the summary of the Scott lawsuit in the lead. Completely missing from the lead until the edit I just made was the fact that the multi-million dollar judgment was settled for $5000 and 200 hours of Ross's professional services. Cullen Let's discuss it 18:39, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

That has been in and out of the lede several times in the last few months. Ross has wanted everything from a full description of the Scott case in the lede to having most of the lede cut and we have gone through most of the permutations in between. One thing that is missing from the Scott section - or more properly from my understanding of it - how that settlement came about. Based on my reading it seems to be a settlement after he declared bankruptcy and has no bearing on and represents no change in what was awarded by the courts ie it is no different than paying $500 when you have defaulted on your $50,000 credit card. If that is the case it does not belong in the lede because it implies the award was reduced for judicial reasons such as being unjust. - Framing has been an issue throughout this article both from a negative and positive POV. Jbh 01:00, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Please read current references #25 and #26, Jbhunley. This was not a "pennies on the dollar" settlement. Jason Scott ended up breaking with that group that Ross called a cult, reconciled with his mother, fired his Scientology staff attorney, hired an attorney critical of cults, and settled for substantive reasons. Cullen Let's discuss it 02:49, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

While Moxon and Scientology unquestionably were acting with ulterior motives we also need to capture the essence of a case which the judge felt compelled to comment in ref #24 "The court notes each of the defendants seeming incapability of appreciating the maliciousness of their conduct towards Mr Scott... Thus the large amount....". The new attorney seems to have no cleaner hands than Moxon did, just from the other side of the table since it is noted that he 'often assisted clients of CAN'. The narrative we have now is Scientology exploits poor Scott to crush CAN, Scott sees the light and settles for a pittance because mom and Ross really were actually right. A very different narrative from the only truly impartial person to comment on the case - the judge. Again, a framing issue - the article is using the change in money as a proxy for right/wrong when we have references which impartially consider the matter a heinous act. Add - This is also noted directly in ref 26 "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." Jbh 03:18, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Of course, this is a complex situation and with hindsight, clearly Ross was wrong to use coercive methods with an adult. I understand that money ought not be a proxy for morality. But if our article records a multi-million dollar judgment against him, then it must also record that the final settlement was very different. Cullen Let's discuss it 04:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I do not disagree that we must mention the settlement but I feel it should be in the Scott section. Maybe the mention of the award should be avoided in the lead altogether. Maybe use something like In 1995, a civil lawsuit over the forcible deprogramming of Jason Scott resulted in personal bankruptcy for Ross and the Cult Awareness Network. That simply acknowledges the case and its end result while allowing the details to be addressed in proper context elsewhere. Jbh 15:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• These are all very good points. Let's fix 'em, keeping in mind that if the sourcing is primarily negative than that's the way it has to be. What bothered me at the outset was the negativity in the lead. Reading this article, coming in fresh, it indicates a lack of balance. But that was just a superficial reading. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:33, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
• @Cullen328: - An example of a POSPOV framing/wording issue: In this edit 'criticized by some scholars' implies that there are scholars who commented on his involvement and did not criticize him. It can even be read as 'some scholars criticized him but most did not'. To my knowledge that is not the case. Based on the sources most or all scholars which commented were critical. Jbh 01:13, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Jbhunley, my main motivation for that edit was to remove the unsupported statement that Ross was criticized by law enforcement agencies. Reading the source for that claim revealed a lack of praise but no overt criticism whatsoever. As for the scholars, the references make it clear that one particular scholar criticized his role at Waco. Then, there are references to two other books, with text unavailable unline, with no hint to what their criticism of Ross was. I felt that qualifying language was in order, at least until the substance of the criticism in those two other books could be determined. Especially since there was other false information in the sentence before my edit. Cullen Let's discuss it 02:38, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I do see where you are coming from however I think it would be better to remove Waco from the lead entirely until there is a clearer view of his role. As it stands we have the Feds saying he was irrelevant and another scholar saying he was the most used consultant on the cult experts list. The only definitive information we have is he was a talking head for one of the news programs - (I guess we could use that). With the amount of contextualizing/attribution it would take to make a fair statement of his involvement any summary we put in the lead is likely to be POV either positive or negative. Jbh 02:55, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Using Google Books, I tried to see what Tabor and Gallagher's Why Waco? says about Ross. I could view nine snippets. None of them were overtly critical of Ross. I am not saying that the book doesn't criticize him, but it would be helpful to know what the substance is. Cullen Let's discuss it 03:41, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Similarly, I tried to see what Wright's Armageddon in Waco: Critical Perspectives on the Branch Davidian Conflict has to say about Ross.I could view 13 snippets. None of them were overtly critical of Ross, though they were not praising him either. I am not saying that the book doesn't criticize him, but it would be helpful to know what the substance of the criticism is. Cullen Let's discuss it 03:54, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I just bought both books to check the full text. They should be here in a couple of days. I do want to be fair to Ross however I also want to avoid the inevitable bias that seems to happen by filtering the article through the continual crafting of content by the subject of the article. Jbh 15:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The abduction and forcible deprogramming and Ross' role in both, was a key aspect of the case, and information about it was missing from the section. I copied a passage from the main article, but it may need some tweaking.- Cwobeel (talk) 15:57, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Lead paragraph problems

WP:Manual of Style/Biographies "MOS guidelines for lead paragraphs should generally be followed; the opening paragraph should establish notability, neutrally describe the person, and provide context. The opening paragraph should usually have: Name(s) and title(s), if any The notable positions the person held, activities they took part in or roles they played; Why the person is notable." WP:Neutral Point of View ""Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to dephth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." Right now undue weight is being given in the lead to deprogramming and the Jason Scott case. The Scott case in more than 20 years old and is not what I am notable for today as evidenced by numerous secondary sources previously linked on this Talk page. My notability is tied to the Cult Education database, my position as founder and Executive Director of that nonprofit online public library and my work as an internationally known cult expert, both in the media and in court. http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2011/feb/28/group-expert-can-testify-in-ariz-sweat-lodge-case/ I continue to be notable for my cult intervention work, but also as an author of peer-reviewed papers published in academic journals, through my published writings about the history and evolution of cult intervention work. I suggest the following lead that accurately represents the facts and why I am notable. -- Rick Alan Ross (born 1952) is an American cult expert http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Secrets-of-NXIVM-2880885.php and founder (1996) of the Cult Education Institute, a large nonprofit online library database. http://www.guidestar.org/organizations/45-0484329/cult-education-institute-study-destructive-cults.aspx http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/26/kabbalah-religion-marcus-weston-madonna Ross began his work in the 1980s as an anti-cult activist and community organizer, later he became widely known as a "cult deprogrammer," facilitating interventions at the request of parents whose children had joined controversial groups and movements. Ross has done more than 500 interventions. http://articles.philly.com/2011-03-12/news/28683932_1_group-demands-cults-nursing-home https://www.inverse.com/article/7085-the-word-of-life-church-is-an-old-school-cult-in-the-age-of-facebook A civil lawsuit over the 1991 forcible deprogramming of Jason Scott resulted in a multi-million civil judgement against Ross and his co-defendants. He was also involved in the coverage of the Waco siege. Ross is a published author, http://www.amazon.com/Cults-Opposing-Viewpoints-Roman-Espejo/dp/0737739959 lecturer and is frequently called upon by the media for his analysis. He has served as expert witness in a number of court cases.http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2011/feb/28/group-expert-can-testify-in-ariz-sweat-lodge-case/ Rick Alan Ross (talk) 16:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

References

1. Johnstone, Nick (December 12, 2004). "Beyond Belief". The Observer. London. Retrieved October 24, 2008.
2. "Rick Ross's Biography".

Some comments:

• Notability is not time bound. The Scott case was highly notable and you were a main actor. Any other notability aspect mentioned in the lede, should be at least equal in significance or at least highly significant for inclusion
• A self-published book, does not make one a "published author".
• You mention peer reviewed articles, please provide sources so that we can include them.

- Cwobeel (talk) 16:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Cwobeel: My notability is not for the Scott case, which took place more than 20 years ago. My notability today is tied to CEI, my work as an expert in the media and in court. I have been a consultant on high profile court cases, a regular on national, international media outlets. I am a published author. The book "Cults Inside Out: How People Get In and CAn Get Out" is published by Peace Book Co., Ltd. (est. 1958) in Chinese. This has been reported in the Hong Kong Press (Ta Kung Pao, Hong Kong, Wen Wei Po Daily News, Hong Kong) when I attended and lectured at the annual Hong Kong Book Fair. I was also interviewed about my book by Phoenix Television of Hong Kong. I have the actual academic peer-reviewed journals my papers were published ("Cults: Assessment", Presented at the International Symposium on Cultic Studies held at Assumption University, Thailand. Published by the Institute of Religious Studies Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences, China 2011, Is Falun Gong a Cult? International Forum on Cultic Studies sponsored by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Shenzhen, China 2009) in my office. I also have PDF of Chinese newspaper interviews about my published book. In the interest of including facts in the bio I would be happy to share this documentation with Misplaced Pages. I am not asked about the Jason Scott case in interviews with the press, television networks, or at lectures. I think the Scott case should be put in its proper context in the lead and not be given undue weight. The Scott case is most notable through news coverage as a Scientology scheme to destroy the Cult Awareness Network and me.http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/hush-hush-sweet-charlatans-6426159 http://www.cnn.com/US/9612/19/scientology/index.html?eref=sitesearch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCE-ICnqtVk http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1997-02-02/news/9702020115_1_cult-awareness-network-scientology-controversial-church Rick Alan Ross (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Re @Rick Alan Ross: : Please see the other parts of WP:LEAD: "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies."(emp. mine) and "When writing about controversies in the lead of the biography of a living person, notable material should neither be suppressed nor allowed to overwhelm:... What is most recent is not necessarily what is most notable.(emp. mine) Nearly half of the article text is about the Scott Case or Waco so both should be prominent in the lead. The lead summarizes the article since there is really nothing about what you have been doing recently it does not weigh into the content of the lead. There should however, be a bit about the Cult Education Institute though. Jbh 17:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• @Rick Alan Ross: Please watch for edit conflicts. Also never, ever edit another editors comment as you did here . Jbh 17:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that edit conflict. I will watch closely for this. I did not intentionally edit an editor's comment. Must have been a glitch during the conflict. Involuntary deprogramming and the Scott case is not a "most important point." A 20-year-old court case needs to be put in historical context relevant to my work (1982-2015). It's notable, but not the most important point in my 34 years of work. Right now in the lead the Scott case and involuntary deprogramming, which I stopped doing more than 20 years ago in favor of voluntary interventions, is being allowed to overwhelm the lead.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:12, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Please provide sources for the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and the Institute of Religious Studies Shanghai's papers, so that these can be Verified. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Also note that the lead summarizes the article. If we can build additional section based on verifiable sources, the lead can be adjusted accordingly. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:06, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, but he is raising a good point. Does the lead overemphasize his role in deprogramming? That being said, I would suggest that Mr. Ross not engage in extensive argumentation on this talk page. He has made his point. Editors are sometimes uncomfortable when article subjects become dominant participants in talk page discussions. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 18:11, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Who gives a shit if "editors are sometimes uncomfortable"? This is a man's life here; he has every goddamned right to be a "dominant participant". Joefromrandb (talk) 06:01, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Deprogramming seems to be the basis for his notability (from WP's perspective, that is). If his recent work in China is related to the persecution of Falun Gong, we may be able to find sources about it? - Cwobeel (talk) 18:14, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

WP: What Misplaced Pages is not "Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox, a battleground ; or a vehicle for propaganda." I have attended international conferences in China and Thailand. That is not about "persecution." I have the peer-reviewed journals on the shelf in my office. I can take photos and email these for verification. They are not available online. Reports by the Hong Kong press and television about my book lecture and the release of the Chinese version of my book by Peace Book is not online in English, but I have PDF of newspaper articles for verification. International Chinese language sources may not have links in English. But these are reliable published sources. WP: Verifiability published sources, journals, mainstream newspapers. There are photos of the Chinese version of my book.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 16:04, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Based on the sources we have here pretty much all of his notability is based on deprogramming. When and if we get independent third party RS discussing his other work we can include it per WP:WEIGHT. The nature of Misplaced Pages is that we document what others say about a person or subject and that tends to miss the mundane things that do not draw the attention of the press or scholars. Jbh 19:56, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree. He's notable for his involvement and the results of the Jason Scott case. Everything else is small in comparison. --Ronz (talk) 01:02, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

A Misplaced Pages biography should cover the person's entire life and career, and the lead section of the article should summarize the body of the article. There is no policy or guideline that I am aware of that says the lead section should emphasize recent events and de-emphasize events of decades ago. We should give due weight to all life events and strive to avoid recentism. Cullen Let's discuss it 02:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Has anyone done a google book search lately? when I type

Rick Ross Cult

in google books I see a lot of reliable sources linking to the subject's website, and pretty little about Scott. Taking into account that reality takes a bit longer to trickle down to google books, and remains there permanently as opposed to internet at large, I don't think this approach can be accused of recentism. The google book query

Rick Ross deprogramming

results in 90% less return (but agreed, in the remaining 10% there's a lot more Scientology and Scott). So I'd invite my fellow editors to take a step back and look at the broader picture: Mr. Ross' reputation over the decades he has been active does not "peak" around topics such as deprogramming, Scientology and Scott. The

Rick Ross Waco

query gives about as many results as the first query above, but then there I see more reliable sources referring to the Ross website for Waco "documentation" (without negative connotation) than our current Misplaced Pages article lets reasonably assume. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

ummm Google does not represent relative coverage in RS. Using his website for footnotes has nothing to do with his notability at all... We base the lead on what we have and even the articles Rick Ross linked at the begininning of this section center on deprogramming. I have no issue with including RS material that documents his other notability nor does anyone here, as has been said for months. He made his name publicly with the Scott case and Waco, without those incidents I doubt we would have an article on him. Jbh 11:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Re. "Google does not represent relative coverage in RS":

1. Please pay attention, I said "google books" not "google"
2. Google books can be used as a first indicator of relative importance of topics (not necessarily as the end and sum of it, but as a first indicator), see Misplaced Pages policies that mention google books in this context.

Taking the sources used in this and whatever other Misplaced Pages article as the "end, sum, and balance" of all that can be said about a topic is however WP:CIRCULAR, which is not acceptable. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The sources we have is what we can say about a the topic now. Additional sources would provide additional information which we can put in the article. Until we have those sources in the article we write with what there is. I disagree with most, if not all of the edits you just made and I believe the current consensus of this thread does not support them. Right now I am typing on a tablet so I will comment more later. Jbh 12:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC) -- Ooppss, Sorry I did not mean to bold looks like I used a bunch of ';' instead of ':' ... editing on an iPad sucks. Jbh 17:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Adding references

The "exit counselor" characterisation was lacking a reference. Here's what I did:

1. Go to google books
2. type Rick ross exit counselor and click the search button
3. click the first non-advertising link offered by Google books and evaluate the source. In this case: bingo, it seemed appropriate as a source to be used in Misplaced Pages from the first click.
4. add a ref tag with this content: Flo Conway and Jim Siegelman Stillpoint Press, 1995. ISBN 9780964765009,

The most complicated part of this operation is formatting the ref so that it is complete and that a working page link appears. Apart from that little bit of technicality I can't conceive what would be difficult about this.

Why am I telling this? For Mr. Ross: offering such directly useable references to third party sources helps your fellow-editors. Just a suggestion to make the communication environment as easy going as possible. To others watching this page: if you have any experience with Misplaced Pages: it's as easy as that. Works better than concentrating on what others didn't do. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:19, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank your for doing this research. Involuntary deprogramming I did more than twenty years ago and the Jason scott case have been given much undue weight in my bio. Your research demonstrates this point objectively. WP: Cherrypicking "selecting informatin without including contradictory or significant qualifying information from the same source and consequently misrepresenting what the source says."Also, the focus of news reporting about the Scott case was not about me, but rather about Scientology's involvement, which has been obscured in my bio. There has also been cherrypicking regarding the Waco Seige section "to misrepresent a conssensus or misrepresent what has been published." I am notable primarily because of the Cult Education Institute (CEI), which is an online library that has been under continuing construction since 1996. This fact is often cited in the media. I am the founder and executive director of CEI, which is a tax-exempted educational nonprofit and institutional member of both the American and New Jersey Library Associations. My work is notable because I am frequently sought as an expert on cults by the media, universities, law enforcement and governments, such as the Israeli government (e.g. Israel) see http://www.culteducation.com/reference/general/AnExaminationOfThePhenomenonOfCultsInIsrael.pdf I have been linked to high profile court cases and an expert consultant and witness. What can be seen from the research is that I am one of the most notable experts concerning cults, sought by the media, active in the judicial system and academia over the past two decades. I have provided secondary sources that meet the verifiability standards of Misplaced Pages to demonstrate this fact.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 16:26, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Have you read the thread above? It does not seem to be the case. A single mention of the Conway and Siegelman book is not significant enough for inclusion in the lead. In any case, I had enough of this article, so you will need to deal with other editors here and arrive at consensus. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:21, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Searching google books to find a reference on exit counceling is not how we determine weight, rather it appears that NPOV is being ignored completely. --Ronz (talk) 16:27, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I will leave you with this from the Scott case article:

According to religion scholar J. Gordon Melton, head of the Institute for the Study of American Religion at UC Santa Barbara, "The Scott case virtually brought deprogramming to a halt in this country" "What this judgment does . . . is cut the communication lines that allow deprogramming to go forward"

References

1. Cult fighters' future in doubt; lawsuits: Group with controversial ties to deprogrammers files for bankruptcy and may be forced to shut down in wake of $1-million judgment. (1996, Jun 29). Los Angeles Times

Gordon Melton works for cults as an expert witness and groups called cults have funded his research. See http://articles.latimes.com/1995-05-06/news/mn-62967_1_supreme-truth He is a contentious biased source. He is recommended as a resource by Scientology. Rick Alan Ross (talk) 19:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

One can argue that given that Ross was a deprogrammer, and that such line of business was virtually terminated by the Scott case, this may be one of the most significant aspect of the bio. Happy editing! - Cwobeel (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Cwobeel here, the recent edits are extremely POV. We are here to write what the majority of RS say about the subject, not count Google hits (whether Books or web sites, neither goes into a reference and until they can they count for nothing). I am not going to get into an edit war but I feel strongly that the article need to be returned to the state from this edit and discussing can go from there. I see no consensus for the edits which that edit reverted. Jbh 17:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

And I demur - this BLP is intrinsically a problem - and the current status is about as NPOV as we are likely to get reasonably. "Exit counselor" is the current term supplanting "deprogrammer" and is related to the mode of operation ("exit counseling" is voluntary) - in the case at hand, it appears to be a valid term in fairly common usage. Parsing it otherwise is simply nugatory here. Collect (talk) 18:08, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

It is fine to refer to him as an 'exit councilor' in the present tense however he is significantly known as a 'deprogrammer'. As mentioned above, due in no small part to his actions 'deprogramming' all but ceased and 'exit counseling' became the term. We also must consider that he has said he has quit doing involuntary deprogramming only for adults and by implication has not quit, or there is no RS statement he has quit, forcible deprogramming of minors. Therefore the term 'deprogrammer' seems to be appropriate both in past and present tense and we must be careful not to have 'exit councilor' used euphemistically. Jbh 18:20, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The title I use is actually "cult intervention specialist." I don't use the title counselor as I am not a counselor. The title "exit counselor" has largely been abandoned. From the beginning of deprogramming historically there has been both voluntary and involuntary deprogramming. Psychologist Margaret Singer explains, "Deprogramming is providing members with information about the cult and showing them how their own decision-making power had been taken awary from them." (Margeret Singer, Cults in Our Midst Sand Francisco, CA; Josseey-Bass, 1996 p. 285). So deprogramming is not intrinsically nor historically only involuntary. This is explained in the new documentary "Deprogrammed" about the life of the first deprogrammer Ted Patrick. See http://www.eyesteelfilm.com/deprogrammed I was interviewed and included in this documentary and wrote a chapter in my book about the "History of Cult Intervention Work." ("Cults Inside Out; How People Get In and Can Get Out" CreateSpace Publishing 2014 pp. 189-201). Involuntary deprogramming with minor children under the direct supervision of a legal guardian is perfectly legally. And many of the involuntary interventions done by Patrick in the 1970s were done by order of the court and therefore legal.~

I've reverted the edits. The sources appear either unreliable or to lack weight, and I agree with what others have said here - to go looking Google books for citations to support what you've already decided the article should say is very far from the correct way to approach this. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Done. This issue was never discussed in any meaningful depth. That is, concerning how consistently Misplaced Pages policy is being applied by editors. When I pointed this out before and it was explained and excused as "other stuff" I didn't fully understand the complete policy and its correct application. I do now and have noted it. There is glaring inconsistency regarding the editing and application of Misplaced Pages policies at the two bios, which is interesting. Please consider this issue.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:41, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages BLP and othee policy guidelines should be applied consistently

WP: Other stuff exists "'Other stuff exists' arguments can be valid or invalid." "The encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." For example, "Non-fiction literature, such as encyclopedias, is expected to be internally consistent. As such, arguing in favor of consistency among Misplaced Pages articles is not inherently wrong--it is to be preferred. Only when the precedent is itself in conflict with policy, guidelines or common sense is it wrong to argue that it should be followed elsewhere."

The bio of Steve Alan Hassan, a professional, spcicializing in cults, is not consistent with Misplaced Pages guidelines. See https://en.wikipedia.org/Steven_Hassan Hassan's Misplaced Pages bio states that he is "the author of three books on the subject of destructive cults." WP:Biographies of living personsd "never use self-published sources -- including but not limited to books, zines websites, blogs, and tweets -- as sources of material about a living person." All three of Hassan's books are self-published, including the new edition of his book "Combating Cult Mind Control." All of these books are published by "Freedom of Mind Press," owned and operated by Steve Hassan. Hassan is listed as an "author," but his books are self-published.

Under "Background" Misplaced Pages includes that Hassan "ultimately rose to the rank of Assistant Director of the Unification Church at its National Headquarters. In that capacity he met personally with Sun Myung Moon." This statement is supported by " Biography of Steven Hassan, Freedom of Mind Center" see https://freedomofmind.com//Media/biography.php There is nothing else to support this claim. This is not a reliable source. WP: Verifiability "Please remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced immediately." Questionable sources are defined as those that have "an apparent conflict of interest...as in artilces about themselves." Specifically, such sources are not to be used when the material 'unduly self-serving," "promotional" and there is "doubt as to its authenticity."The Hassan Misplaced Pages bio also states, "according to his biography, "During the 1977-78 Congressional Subcommittee Investigation into South Korean CIEA activities in the United States, he consulted as an expert on the Moon organization." The only source cited is again unreliable and represents a conflict of interest. Hassan may have testified as a former member of the Unification Church, but there is no record that he did so "as an expert." WP: Identifying reliable sources "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field."

Under the heading "Career" Misplaced Pages allows Hassan's unverifiable and self-promotional peacock claims about his intervention methodology such as "a much more refined method" and "far better than deprogramming and even exit-counseling." But these peacock claims can only be substantiated by Hassan's self-published books. The Misplaced Pages bio goes on to posit other claims by Hassan, which are sourced to his writings and website such as that he is "'an activist who fights to protect people's right to believe what they want to believe.'" And yet another peacock claim "that 'man unorthodox religions have expressed their gratitude to me for my books because it clearly shows them NOT to be a destructive cult." There is no secondary or reliable source to confirm these promotional claims. Hassan claims "that he spent one year assisting with deprogrammings before tuning to less controversial methods." This implies that Hassan only did involuntary interventions with adults for one year. The footnote indicates that the source for this statement is Hassan's personal website. It's unclear why there is a section on

Steve Hassan's "Personal life" as he is not a celebrity and little known to the general public. This seems like puffery and unnecessary though. In this subsection Misplaced Pages states, "Hassan married psychologist and conselor Aureet Bar-Yam in 1981. Bar-Yam died at age of 33 after falling through ice while trying to save the family dog. This statement is misleading and incomplete. It would have Misplaced Pages readers beleive that Hassan was widower who remarried. In fact. He and his first wife divorced. See http://bar-yam.org/aureet/AboutAureet/timeline.html Hassan divorced Bar-Yam in 1989. T

here has been very significant and serious criticism of the methodology of Steve Hassan by other professionals involved in cultic studies, intervention and recovery work regarding cult members and this is well-documented by a very reliable source. Hassan claims that because he is a professional counselor and former cult member he has melded a methodology that includes elements of counseling and aspects of the educational approach called "exit-counseling." However, no less than one of the most prominent cultic studies professionals, psychologist and International Cultic Studies Association Executive Director Michael Langone has questioned Hassan's approach. Langone says, "that although tries to communicate a body of information to cultists and to help them think independently, he also does formatl counseling. As with many humanistic approached Hassan's runs the risk of imposing clarity, however subtly, on the framework's foundational ambiguity and thereby manipulating the subject>' (M. D. Langone, ed., "Recovery from Cults, 2nd ed. New York: W.W. Norton, 1996, p. 174-175). It is my understanding that this criticism has been proposed, but repeatedly blocked from Steve Hassan's Misplaced Pages bio, despite that fact that is very reliably sourced and relevant. WP:Biogaphies of living persons "Crticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." The Langone analysis of Steve Hassan's methodology fits well within these parameters and the source is certainly reliable. Nevertheless it has been excluded despite Misplaced Pages policy.

My question is this, why does Misplaced Pages have such different editing standards in practice despite policy at the Steve Hassan bio while editors have exacted the most stringent standards at my bio. According to Misplaced Pages policy shouldn't both bios be consistent in the content the provide and exclude? And isn't it inherently wrong to allow so many infractions of policy at one bio that would never be allowed at another? For some reason there is glaring inconsistency between the editing practices and Misplaced Pages policy applications at my bio and the bio of Steve Hassan, which is not reasonable and defied common sense. Sorry for the "wall of text," but it is important to cite Misplaced Pages policy and how it specifically applies in this situation.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Reality check

The lead really doesn't reflect the reality of who I am or what I am doing and why I am notable. Some editors have pointed this out. Let's take a look and reflect.

I suggest that the lead reflect the facts, which are (1) During much of the 1980s I was known as community organizer, activist and served on committees and worked in social service. (2) In the very late 1980s I became very well known as a "cult deprogrammer." Notably deprogrammed two Waco Davidians and then came the court battle with Scientology known as the Jason Scott case. (3) Beginning with the launch of rickross.com in 1996 I became increasingly associated with the website/database and sought as an expert witness, lecturer, analyst etc. by the media, law enforcement, universities, colleges, academic conferences, government institutions etc. At this point I still do deprogramming interventions (more than 500 not 350 since 1982 as previously linked secondary sources report), but my primary notability is no longer deprogramming and that's not what I am notable for today. When I am called upon for interviews and seen, heard or read about by the general public in the US and internationally, it's about commentary as an accepted expert about particular groups (e.g. Scientology), trends, coercive persuasion techniques, etc. rickross.com became the nonprofit tax-exempted educational charity the Ross Institute, whcih ultimately is now the Cult Education Institute, arguably the most notable database about cults on the Web. Other sites under the CEI umbrella include cultnews.com, cultnews.net and the cult education forum message board, which has broken quite a few stories and informed the public through its presence for more than decade.

I am rarely asked about involuntary deprogramming. No one even mentions the Scott case, which ended 20 years ago, in interviews, unless it's a side note about Scientology. For example I had two recent interviews with People Magazine, one with the NBC Today Show. Web interviews, NY radio program and one a few days ago with a Korean magazine. No one asked about involuntary deprogramming or the Scott case.

That's reality based upon facts. I have offered some links to secondary sources and can offer many more to completely and fully demonstrate this.

I am a published author. My book is published in Chinese by a respected Hong Kong publishing house. I did interviews with the daily newspapers and local television network in Hong Kong when I appeared to promote my book at the Hong Kong book fair. I did a lecture that was widely reported about. I have proof of this in the form of photos of newspapers, the Chinese version of the book, which I can produce. The same regarding peer-reviewed academic journals published by Chinese Universities. This is discussed widely in the Chinese speaking world and millions of Chinese have read about it online. Many thousands of copies of the Chinese version of my book have been sold. I retained the English rights and published through CreateSpace at Amazon. And there has been media mention about my book through Sirius Radio, other media interviews that I have linked such as Media Mayhem on LipTV, NY radio, etc.

Also, I did many, many interviews about Waco. The very few scholars that criticized me represent a tiny minority and their conclusions about Waco are little more than fringe theory. I don't think they should be given undue weight here. And undue weight should not be given to the very few involuntary deprogramming cases I did more than 20 years ago with adults or a court case that ended in 1995 that was largely reported about because of the involvement of Scientology.

Misplaced Pages is for the public and should be reality based.

I suggest that the lead be plugged into reality rather than an alternate universe as follows:

Rick Alan Ross (born 1952) is a noted American commentator concerning destructive cults. He is the founder and executive director of the Cult Education Institute, which maintains a large online database with archived information about controversial groups and movements. Ross began as an anti-cult activist in the 1980s and later became widely known as a "cult deprogrammer." He is often interviewed by the media and has done more than 500 deprogramming interventions in the United States and internationally since 1982.

In the early 1990s Ross did some involuntary interventions with adults. In 1995, a civil lawsuit over the abduction and forcible deprogramming of Jason Scott resulted in a multi-million dollar civil judgement against Ross and his co-defendants, which led Ross to declare personal bankruptcy. Later, Ross and Scott reached a settlement in which Ross agreed to pay Scott US$5,000 and provide 200 hours of professional services at no charge.

Ross is the only deprogrammer that worked with members of the Branch Davidian religious group of Waco, Texas. Ross' role as a consultant and media analyst during the 51-day Davidian standoff with authorities drew sharp criticism from some scholars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick Alan Ross (talk • contribs) Rick Alan Ross (talk) 23:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't read all that. Mr. Ross, please be aware of the concept of "tl;dr"! However, a glance at the lead does lead me to wonder whether a 20-year-old lawsuit is acceptable in the lead. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:34, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. Just trying to sum things up. Could not read your reference link.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 23:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, a 20 yr old lawsuit that resulted in the end of 'deprogramming' in the US, had a major impact on the way of the 'Cult Wars' were fought, has its own article and the discussion of which is ~25% of the article most certainly does belong in the lead. Jbh 00:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Involuntary deprogramming with adults did end. But involuntary deprogramming of minors did not. And voluntary deprogramming did not end and continued. As pointed out J. Gordon Melton has worked closely with cults, groups called "cults" have funded his research and he is recommended as a resource by Scientology. Not a good source. See http://www.seachurchesmedia.org/articlelive/church-not-a-cult-says-expert-witness.html hired by cult, see http://culteducation.com/group/1971-evidence-of-expert-witness-attackeds.html said "Jim Jones not a cult" See http://culteducation.com/group/1983-tokyo-cult-finds-an-unlikely-supporters.html Aum paid Melton to come defend them in Japan see https://en.wikipedia.org/James_R._Lewis_(scholar) article referenced at James R. Lewis bio at Misplaced Pages See also http://www.prem-rawat-bio.org/academic/kent_sin2.html academic article about cult apologists See http://culteducation.com/group/1963-resources-recommended-by-the-church-of-scientology-published-list-from-freedom-magazines.html recommended by Scientology through its Freedom Magazzine.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 15:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. This source states categorically that the Scott case "ended involuntary deprogramming," and clearly speaks to the notability of the case. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The Scott case is notable, though it is primarily reported about regarding Scientology's war against the Cult Awareness Network (CAN) and an as example of what is called its "fair game" policy. Anyone reading all the reporting about the Scott case can see that. See http://culteducation.com/group/1073-cult-awareness-network/15143-scientologys-revenge.html ans see footnote for article at https://books.google.com/books?id=8lgHtauc5R4C&pg=PA245&lpg=PA245&dq=Scientology%27s+Revenge+by+Ron+Russell&source=bl&ots=vL2cxcRKwO&sig=7SKvfUq8wdXKq2Z3zUQtjmkU-kU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjfq8WUsYHKAhVD4D4KHdzhCJcQ6AEIIjAB#v=onepage&q=Scientology's%20Revenge%20by%20Ron%20Russell&f=false also see http://culteducation.com/group/1073-cult-awareness-network/23030-did-scientology-strike-back.html footnoted at https://en.wikipedia.org/New_Cult_Awareness_Network I have been involved in several notable court cases, James Arthur Ray manslaughter prosecution (qualified and accepted expert) see http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2011/feb/28/group-expert-can-testify-in-ariz-sweat-lodge-case/ , Noyes v. Kelly Services religious rights lawsuit (qualified, accepted and testified as court expert) http://hrdailyadvisor.blr.com/2008/06/01/religious-discrimination-employee-wins-6-5-million-jury-verdict-because-of-manager-s-favoritism-lessons-for-employers/ , Landmark v. Ross Institute (Internet defamation case Landmark dismissed its own case) see http://culteducation.com/reference/landmark/landmark106.pdf , NXIVM v. Ross, (Internet defamation case injunction appealed to the US Supreme Court NXIVM lost) http://www.dmlp.org/threats/nxivm-corp-v-ross , Church of Immortal Consciousness v. Ross (defamation case church lost appealed to US Supreme Court) , Pure Bride Ministries v. Ross (Pure Brides dismissed its own defamation case) See http://www.culteducation.com/group/1289-general-information/8368-st-lucie-minister-drops-suit-over-web-site.html , Gentle Wind Project v. Ross Institute (defamation lawsuit Gentle Wind lost and was later shut down by Maine Attorney General) see http://culteducation.com/group/946-the-gentle-wind-project/8882-judge-web-site-cant-be-sued-for-cult-comment-.html http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/The-Gentle-Wind-Project/nationwide/The-Gentle-Wind-Project-ripoff-medical-fraud-channeling-health-fraud-healing-instruments-i-100683 and Coughlin v. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, wrongful death lawsuit I consulted on that ended in $1.5 million settlement for plaintiff, a record at the time. My point is to put the Scott case in perspective, proper context and not give it undue weight in the bio.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 15:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Rick Alan Ross, here is a direct question: Do you think that you should be the lead author of an encyclopedia article about you? Your input makes it seem that way. Here's my advice to you. Back off! Leave it to other editors to decide how to write the prose and summarize your entire career. You really ought to confine yourself to pointing out overt errors of fact and bringing forth new sources. Your recent behavior here risks alienating editors who have sided with you in the recent disputes. Please back off. Cullen Let's discuss it 03:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

No. I was advised by Misplaced Pages to come here and participate at the Talk page. I have followed those guidelines. Editors here have directly requested repeatedly that I suggest specific edits and Misplaced Pages resolution and BLP has said the same. I offered an amended edited lead that reflects the facts without undue weight being given to involuntary deprogramming and the Scott case.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 15:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Lead author? Isn't is high time he stopped beating his wife as well? Perhaps Mr. Ross should take note that there is nothing whatsoever that prohibits him from editing this article himself–if he's going to get this kind of shit for disclosing his identity and following COI guidelines to the letter, I wouldn't blame him for simply taking matters into his own hands. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I cannot edit my bio. I can only offer suggestions regarding editing and corrections per discussions and arbitration concluded at Misplaced Pages. I have done that. Editors at this Talk page have encouraged me at times to be forthcoming in suggested edits and actually post how I think it should read. I have done that.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 16:36, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Correct, and you have made your case already in talk page, so as Cullen328 says above, take a long break and let editors do their work. We are not here to do what you want, to promote your views about yourself, or to discuss your competitors in your line of business. Give it a rest for a while. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I did take a long breath. And I am sure that I will again due to my work schedule. I thought you had decided to stop editing here? I know that you are not here to do what I want. And I have never asked anyone to either promote me or my views. I have acted exactly within the Misplaced Pages guidelines as arbitrated and suggested at BLP etc. in the interest of an NPOV article that does not give undue weight to certain cherrypicked facts, tiny minority opinions, soapbox and is factually accurate. That is my concern. I only offered the Steve Hassan bio violations of Misplaced Pages policy as an example to demonstrate that the policies so scrupulously cited by some editors here have not been followed at the Hassan bio. Misplaced Pages should be consistent.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 16:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

As you have been told innumerable times each article is different because each article receives different levels of attention. The Steven Hassan article has had little if any attention in many years and will likely be cleaned up soon in no small part due to your suggestions and drawing attention to it. Your article has drawn the attention of many editors several of which are very experienced in dealing with BLP's and/or COI because of the many times it has been brought up at those noticeboards. Complaining about heightened scrutiny and attention to policies and guidelines here by comparing this article with one which has not drawn the attention of many editors and implying if it is OK for the Steven Hassan article it should be OK for yours shows a massive level of disrespect for the editors who you have requested help from.

There are now enough people editing here that the article is assured to be well looked after. I second the suggestion you have been given by the other editors here - take a long break, six or eight months, and let a stable article emerge by consensus without your constant input. After it has become stable for some months come back and comment. Right now your constant walls of text seem to be annoying many if not most of the editors who are trying their best to make this article meet Misplaced Pages's requirements. Remember we are here for Misplaced Pages not for you. So please, back off for a few months. Thank you. Jbh 17:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Unassessed Crime-related articles
• Low-importance Crime-related articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• C-Class Religion articles
• Low-importance Religion articles
• C-Class New religious movements articles
• Mid-importance New religious movements articles
• New religious movements articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Articles edited by connected contributors