Talk:Rick Alan Ross/Archive 9

DOJ Source
I googled the title of the DOJ source and found out that the version cited in the article is redacted. I could only find other redacted versions, so I removed this content for now until a better source can be found per WP:BLPREMOVE. It's a primary source anyway and there are several secondary sources that talk about the weico siege, so we should be using those more than the DOJ source anyway and if we're going to citing it when we find a current version, we shouldn't use anything from it to support statements that don't also have support from better sources. —PermStrump ( talk )  12:11, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/145688NCJRS.pdf is the unredacted version afaik (mentioned in the 6th archive of this talk page). What I remember (if not tricked by memory) is that Ammerman later added a postscript letter, rather vicious towards Ross, that wasn't in the official document. So the redacted versions (and in fact also the secondary sources based on that redacted version) must be sorted out with care. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:03, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * What page number are you looking at? I don't see the report that was redacted in the link you just posted. I don't think I understand what you're saying about the archive. What did you mean? I also don't think it's appropriate to quote Ammerman's letter since it's essentially self-pub, which is a violation of WP:BLPSPS. The FBI did not exercise editorial control or fact checking before making public the reports written by others. —PermStrump  ( talk )  15:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The report is not a primary source. It is a sythisys and analysis of experts who examined and reported on the primary sources ie the very definition of a secondary source. This is set out in Procedure of Inquiry on page 3 of the report. It is, in fact, one of the best sources we have analyzing and commenting on the Ross' "participation" in Waco unless you are claiming that Ammerman lied in a government report. Ammerman's additional letter which is not in the official report is another matter. If it was published separately from the report it would be SELFPUB but it is still by a recognized expert in the field. I do not believe the article is using the letter as a source though is it? J bh  Talk  16:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Which source did you mean is the best source we have? This archived version of a DOJ report that was redacted in its entirety after Janet Reno initiated a re-investigation into Waco in 2000, the Danforth Report (preliminary), which found that government officials misrepresented certain facts in the initial report and that their "negligence was at best a mishandling of evidence, and at worst a criminal attempt to conceal the truth from investigators"? The section that talked about Ross (in the redacted version) was a primary (and nonindependent) source because it was the first-hand account of FBI agents who were reporting to their "bosses" to justify their own actions during the siege and was included as one piece of evidence in the investigation. But that's irrelevant since it was redacted and I haven't been able to find an updated version of the redacted report other than the preliminary Danforth report, which doesn't mention Ross or Ammerman, so to the best of my knowledge the source that you are calling the "best source" doesn't seem to exist anymore. —PermStrump  ( talk )  18:58, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe you are misinterpreting "redacted". On a report such as this it simply means that material was omitted in the public version which exists in a classified to confidential version. In the case of this report the version which is on the DOJ web site still discusses Ross . There is no indication whatsoever that they no longer stand by that version. On what do you base that this report is in some way biased? Do you have sources which call into question the recitation of events as they are documented? J bh  Talk  19:37, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Just to be sure we are on the same page. This is from the current version of the report on the DOJ web site and which I linked to above: This material is important because it stands in contrast to what is claimed by Ross elsewhere and is a direct summary from someone who had access to all of the primary source information from DOJ. J bh Talk  19:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC) Ammended  J bh  Talk  19:47, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Oops! I had retracted stuck in my brain. Well, that's embarrassing. I guess it was wishful thinking... For a brief moment I thought I got out of needing to write a long explanation as to why the Scruggs report (the original FBI report that pasted above that was cited in the article until I removed it yesterday) is inappropriate for a BLP on multiple levels. So, back to Plan A (aka the long version):


 * "Attorney General Reno asked Richard Scruggs, an experienced federal prosecutor, to conduct the factual inquiry into the activities of the FBI and Department of Justice at Waco...The FBI’s Inspections Division provided the investigative resources for the review. This effort was led by FBI Inspector Victor Gonzalez and Assistant Inspectors Herbert Cousins and Roderick Beverly. The FBI compiled memoranda of interviews (called “302's”) and other documents. Scruggs and his team then drafted a summary of the beliefs of the Davidians and a narrative of the events occurring at Waco. Scruggs and his team did not conduct a formal investigation. They did not make efforts to determine or challenge the veracity of the statements of witnesses, nor did they test or challenge the FBI’s widely publicized contention that it did not fire guns or use pyrotechnics during the standoff."
 * "The failure of the Scruggs team to discover and report that the FBI used pyrotechnic tear gas rounds was the result of initiating the investigation with the assumption that the FBI had done nothing wrong, was inconsistent with the responsibility to conduct a thorough and complete investigation, and was clearly negligent."
 * "The failure of certain government officials to acknowledge the use of the pyrotechnic tear gas rounds until August of 1999 constitutes, at best, negligence in the handling of evidence and information and, at worst, a criminal effort to cover up the truth."

The Scruggs report...
 * 1) is a primary source according to the description in the Danforth report: It was an informal, internal investigation relating first-hand accounts of the FBI's interactions with Ross during the Waco siege. It was not a secondary source, i.e., a document "relat[ing] or discuss[ing] information originally presented elsewhere". According to BLP, IRS, and NOR, primary sources should only be used in a BLP sparingly and only if it's supplementing material from a reliable secondary source (not the case here). "Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source."
 * 2) is a questionable source (i.e., not reliable) due to a clear conflict of interest: It was written by FBI and DOJ officials who were directly involved in the events at Waco and their reputations and employment were on the line. According to [PBS, "Two ATF supervisors, Chuck Sarabyn and Phillip Chojinacki, were fired, although they were later reinstated at a lower rank. No FBI agents have been officially disciplined.") Everyone involved in writing it had good reason to spin things in a way to justify the FBI's decisions, especially since the internal investigation was initiated in response to criticism the FBI had already received about their actions. Per [[WP:QS]]: "Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, (see #3 below) lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest...Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties" (my emphasis).
 * 3) is a questionable source, because it has a poor reputation for fact-checking: Upon review in 2000, the preliminary report by Danforth (the final report doesn't seem to be available to the public) found that the Scruggs report did not engage in fact-checking, "did not make efforts to determine or challenge the veracity of the statements of witnesses," and was "inconsistent with the responsibility to conduct a thorough and complete investigation, and was clearly negligent", which further emphasizes the importance of using independent sources in BLPs since "All such conflicts-of-interests make the source suspect of giving more importance to advancing interests in the topic than to advancing knowledge about the topic."
 * 4) needs to be contextualized by the opposing viewpoints, yet is impossible to contextualize with appropriate weight and balance, because the only sources that discuss the Scruggs report in relation to Ross are the primary accounts. And the primary accounts of both Ross and Ammerman, state that the Scruggs report didn't accurately represent the FBI's interaction with Ross (in different ways). Even with proper attribution, trying to contextualize those 3 opposing viewpoints using primary sources would be WP:OR or WP:SYNTH (or both) and would be next to impossible to do without also violating WP:NPOV.
 * 5) *** Most importantly:*** We have other sources that address Ross's role in Waco and the controversy surrounding it, contextualized through the lens of independent and reliable secondary sources. (Those 3 are just examples, but there are more.) Per WP:WPNOTRS: "Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred."
 * TLDR: The FBI report is a primary source with a COI and a poor reputation for fact-checking and makes contentious statements that (1) put the subject of a BLP in a negative light and (2) aren't supported by reliable secondary sources. More importantly, we have multiple reliable and independent secondary sources that cover Ross's involvement at Waco that we could cite instead. —PermStrump  ( talk )  02:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * For the moment, taking these reasons as valid, the report makes multiple explicit statement which directly contradict other's claims about Ross' involvement. Unless you can make a case that the report falsified that information the contrary views expressed therein about Ross' involvement should be included. This is a government report, written by people with best access to facts that directly contradicts other reports, which are mostly based on Ross' own reporting of his participation. If you are concerned about properly contextualizing Ross' participation then a statement from the DOJ that they neither sought nor used him and only interviewed him at his request is a pretty major point to leave out of the article. Going a bit further, the criticism of the report seems to be focused on the use-of-force issues rather than the sections referring to the use of outside consultants so most of the issues of bias/ass covering are not really on point. Finally per BLPRESTORE the quote removed is not "unsourced or poorly sourced". A government report/inquiry is not the same as a blog and I firmly disagree that the summaries of use of outside consultants can be considered PRIMARY nor can I agree that the DOJ inherently lacks a reputation for fact checking and accuracy.  J bh  Talk  02:34, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The Danforth report, which was also a government publication, explicitly stated that the authors of the Scruggs report did not engage in fact checking and had printed false information, either due to negligence or due to a "criminal effort to cover up the truth". The full report isn't available to the public, so we don't know the extent of the re-investigation or what they said about the expert consultations. We do know that they heavily criticized the integrity of the report and the people writing it. That's why it's a questionable source/poorly sourced. "This is a government report, written by people with best access to facts," and people who have a blatant COI (as explained above). "directly contradicts other reports..." If the only source we have that directly contradicts numerous reliable, secondary sources is a primary source with a blatant COI and a poor reputation for fact checking, that says a lot about what POV should be getting the most WP:WEIGHT. "...which are mostly based on Ross' own reporting of his participation The policies and guidelines consider mainstream news sources reliable sources, so as Wikipedia editors, we have to assume that journalists are doing appropriate fact-checking and aren't just basing everything they say off of Ross's statements about himself. —PermStrump  ( talk )  04:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This is probably something best hashed out at RSN. You have good arguments, I just do not agree with them. Some other perspectives may change my mind. I certianly think it is quotable as the finding of the report, it was not making the claim in Wikipeida's voice. J bh  Talk  14:23, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

RSN discussion opened
I have opened a discussion at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. J bh Talk  14:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * (From RSN)A primary source can be used to state the primary sources opinion/statement of its own actions. Not for statements about third parties. "We did not consult RAR" is fine. "RAR has a hatred of cults" is not (even if that is their opinion). Since there are secondary sources which allege RAR was in close contact and being used as an asset by the FBI, it is neither undue, nor a BLP violation or synth to include a primary source from the FBI/DOJ to say 'no they didnt'. Technically all you need to add for sufficient weight would be 'This has been disputed by the FBI' (ref DOJ report). It doesnt actually matter if they did or not, their official position is they didnt, and that is what the source is supporting. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 'This has been disputed by the FBI' would be WP:SYNTH. Regardless,, if the only issue were that it's a primary source, I would agree, but it's a questionable primary source. The larger part of the issue is that it was published by a primary source with a blatant COI that has a history poor-fact checking in the same exact document (see thread above). "Poor" as in, they didn't even engage in fact checking. There were so many doubts about the reliability of the original report (the Scruggs report; the one cited in this article) that in 2000, the government initiated a re-investigation (the Danforth report). Danforth said "Scruggs and his team did not conduct a formal investigation. They did not make efforts to determine or challenge the veracity of the statements of witnesses..." and that their failure to report certain facts that were uncovered later "was the result of initiating the investigation with the assumption that the FBI had done nothing wrong, was inconsistent with the responsibility to conduct a thorough and complete investigation, and was clearly negligent." Those statements were about unrelated facts in the investigation but it speaks to the document's and the authors' poor reputation for fact checking. It also speaks to the fact that the COI was clearly relevant and not just something I'm harping on as a hypothetical possibility. —PermStrump  ( talk )  16:43, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * As you said, it does not speak to the material we are discussing and poor performance in one area is not indicative of asserting blatant untruths in another. The motives to cover-up use-of-force matters is different from the motive (which to my knowledge has never been articulated) to cover-up use-of-Ross. The section in question is asserting simple statements of fact:
 * Rick Ross initiated contact with the FBI and they interviewed him at his request. They did not seek him out.
 * The FBI treated his info as any other unsolicited information
 * The FBI did not rely on any information provided by Ross
 * These are simple assertions contrary to Ross' narrative. Is there any evidence that they lied about these things in the report? Is there any source which says they even had motive to cover up relying on Ross' information? Basicly are there any impeachment sources for the information relating to use of outside consultants? Even if such things existed, and to my knowledge they do not, the FBI's statement re using Ross is proper to include because the people he says he consulted for are categorically denying he dis any such thing. J bh  Talk  18:03, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's policy doesn't say that the exact claim cited has to have been called into question. WP:NOTRS says that "Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest ." So the Scruggs report is questionable on two levels, (1) by reputation and (2) COI. There's no policy that says there needs to be a clear motive for the COI to count, but for your satisfaction... A potential motive for the FBI to be dishonest about whether the they solicited Ross's advice vs Ross offered unsolicited advice would be that prior to the Scruggs report, Nancy Ammerman had written the FBI a letter criticizing their response at Waco. In short, she said that if they had listened to her unsolicited advice, the violence could have been prevented and she also heavily criticized them for "depending" on Ross for advice. When you read the Scruggs report in that context, it's clear that they were directly responding to the complaints they had already received and it's clear that it was in the FBI's self-interest to present the scenario in a way that would justify their actions. They didn't stand to benefit from admitting they reached out to Ross since they consulted 60+ other experts and were hardly going to be accused of not seeking external input from experts. On the other hand, they did run the risk of more criticism for "depending" on one specific individual who happened to not have a PhD since they'd already received some. So from the FBI's perspective, throwing Ross under the bus presented no real risk and there was potential benefit (defending themselves and avoiding more criticism). I obviously have no way of knowing whether that was their thought process, but that's not a requirement for considering it WP:QUESTIONABLE and the COI is unquestionably obvious. —PermStrump  ( talk )  20:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I can think of several ways that it would be fairly easy for journalists to verify whether the FBI consulted Ross or vice versa. #1 Ross could give them the name of the FBI agent who contacted him and journalists could call that person directly to confirm. There's no reason based in Wikipedia's policies to assume that the mainstream news sources that discuss Ross's involvement with the FBI during Waco failed to fact-check before going to print. It's possible that they didn't... in the sense that it's always possible. But we'd never be able to cite anything if all we had to do was imagine how easy it would be to not fact check something and from there assume that that means the journalist probably didn't. —PermStrump  ( talk )  20:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * For clarity: I commented on this at RSN. I never think it a good idea to have the same discussion in two different places at the same time. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:41, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Has the discussion been suspended at RSN? Or has a consensus been reached on this point?Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:03, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The discussion has been archived here. There was no formal closure of the discussion: afaics it upheld PermStrump's removal of the DOJ material (at least not sufficient support to revert it). There were some interesting side-discussions, but I don't see anything directly implementable for the biographical article. Maybe after further discussion on this talk page? --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:21, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * ThanksRick Alan Ross (talk) 13:19, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

deprogrammer, cult specialist, and author
The Box "Occupation" should be changed to reflect the lead. "Deprogrammer" should be changed to -- Deprogrammer, Cult Specialist, AuthorRick Alan Ross (talk) 20:47, 20 June 2016 (UTC) I added some examples of what this might look like in the infobox, and glad I did so: it made me realise that "specialist" isn't really an occupation in the sense of the "Occupation" infobox field. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm still wondering why "consultant" is no longer mentioned in the lead section? It used to be the parenthetical disambiguator in the article title (and still is at Wikimedia Commons), but further it is only mentioned once in the body of the article. A technical side-question regarding this: when being an expert witness in a court case, does that fall in a broad and/or narrow sense under the "consultant" job description? Am I right in assuming that jobs performed as a deprogrammer are also technically jobs as a consultant? Maybe I'd replace the "deprogrammer" in the infobox by the more neutral "consultant" for the time being until consensus can be found on another short desription (a long chain of qualifiers doesn't work well in an infobox). --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * How about "consultant, publisher" for the "occupation" field in the infobox? "Author" is correct: it does include the (further unmentioned) blog, but not really the "Institute" website (which is mentioned more often in secondary sources afaik). For the original English version of the book Ross is both "author" and "publisher" (translating the book to other languages was rather someone else's "occupation" I presume). So, for the infobox I'd rather choose "publisher" than "author", while covering all what seems most significant in the context. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Alternatively: probably the "occupation" field is not what serves most for recognition of what this biographical page is about, so maybe better to use the "known for" field of the infobox than the "occupation" field? --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * ...or combining bland/non-descript "Occupation" qualifiers with more outspoken "Known for" qualifiers. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe we have had this discussion several times before. His primary notability is as a deprogrammer not exit councilor not some "neutral" euphemistic "consultant" but a deprogrammer. We have discussed "expert witness" to death. This is getting silly... The most I am comfortable with is adding "media consultant" to the infobox occupation parameter as that is demonstratively a major part of what he does. He has published one book and "author" is no more descriptive of his primary occupation than "expert witness" all arguments against adding that term apply equally to "author" to the extent that it probably should not even be in the lede. The "known for" is simply not appropriate. Also, he simply is not a publisher.  J bh  Talk  11:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I am most known today for my work as a cult specialist, expert witness and as the founder and executive director of the Cult Education Institute database, which has been online since 1996. Previously cited reliable sources confirm this fact. I am also called a deprogrammer. I work professionally as a consultant, which includes a range of work from court cases, media/entertainment projects to intervention work, which is well documented. It is silly to dispute these facts.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 16:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe we have had this discussion several times before.Yep. One book does not make one's occupation "author". "Consultant" is meaningless without specifics. I'm not very familiar with the general consensus on the use of the "occupation" field vs others, but it seems to me that highlighting what he's known for is much more important than his occupation, which should be reflected in the infobox. --Ronz (talk) 16:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * What I am notable and/or known for is not simply "deprogrammer" as reflected by many reliable sources. I realize that there are some very strong personal opinions here, but staying with the facts is best. "Occupation" is what you do for a living.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I am most known today for my work as a cult specialist, expert witness and as the founder and executive director of the Cult Education Institute database, which has been online since 1996. Having read literally every source cited in this article, this seems accurate to me, at least "cult specialist" and founder/executive director. I don't have a problem with the "expert witness" but, but I know that's a sensitive topic for whatever reason, so I'd almost rather discuss it separately. It seems odd that we don't give more attention to the Cult Education institute IMO. —PermStrump  ( talk )  21:56, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I am often referred to as the founder and/or executive director of the Cult Education Institute.  Perhaps Occupation should read -- Deprogrammer, cult specialist, founder and exectuive director of the Cult Education Institute.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 12:19, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Recent report about a purported "cult" in Complex introduced me as "cult specialist, deprogrammer, and author Rick Alan Ross" Rick Alan Ross (talk) 11:28, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Cult expertise acknowledged by media
GG reports "Rick Alan Ross, America’s leading cult expert" and Raw Story ran report identifying Rick Alan Ross as "America's foremost cult expert." Rick Alan Ross (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Rawstory.com has been both questioned and endorsed (usually somewhat weakly) as an RS; see the Reliable Source Noticeboards archives. I'm not sure whether it'll fly here. GQ, however, hasn't appeared much at the RSN, except as an example of sources considered reliable, so I think that's a good one. So give it a week or so for any other editors here to weigh in on the Rawstory link, and if there are no objections, I'll put them both in. For now, I think the GQ source should support the claim. The question is, do I add it to the lead (i.e. replace 'specialist' in the opening sentence with 'expert') or do I add it in the career section as a quote from the author of the GQ piece? The latter would be less controversial, but it wouldn't flow as well, being as there are no other such quotes. Again, I'd like to see some input on that. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  17:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see how these sources provide weight and reliability for a change in Wikipedia's voice, nor change anything not addressed in past discussions. Certainly he's accepted as an expert by the media. That's about as far as it goes. --Ronz (talk) 18:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No. I have been qualified, accepted and testified as a court expert in cases across the US about authoritarian groups called "cults," and invited to lecture at universities and colleges as an expert on the subject across the US and internationally as an expert. I just appeared on CNN (September 1, 2016 "The Lead with Jake Tappper") as an expert regarding cults shortly before the premiere of the documentary "Holy Hell" (2016) which included me in historical footage about cults. GQ and Raw Story simply reflect the historical fact that I have worked and been accepted as an expert concerning cults for many years.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Your behavior here has been noted as disruptive many times in the past. This is more of the same. --Ronz (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No. Other editors have discussed this before as you know. The consensus was that I can come here and contribute suggestions and make comments, but not edit. It's not disruptive, but rather constructive and editors have said it is understandable given the history of editing at this bio.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree. See my comments and reasoning in the archives from the last times this came up. These sources nor any number of similar sources change my opinion stated therein. J bh  Talk  02:07, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * So the question seems to be one of WP:WEIGHT and possibly WP:UNDUE and or WP:WEASEL, does that sum up the objections so far? That "expert" is a value judgement that WP doesn't need to make? (I'm not arguing, I'm happy to go with consensus on this.) MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  13:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Basically, his "expertise" is recognized by those who like to promote fringe theories about "cults", mostly for entertainment value. --Ronz (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No. My expertise is recognized by courts of law, major universities and sought by law enforcement and governments (e.g Ministry of Social Welfare, Israel) as previously noted at this bio many times with supporting reliable sources cited and linked.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


 * While I'll admit that there is some grounds for referring to someone as an expert in wikivoice, and while I'll admit at least one of those sources seems an RS that supports it, I also question the overall fitness of an individual to edit an article about themselves when they spend this much time trying to prove they are an expert as opposed to a specialist. My question for is: What does this change accomplish, other than rubbing your ego? If you have a legitimate answer, I'm open to it. But "it's more accurate to call me an expert" isn't a legitimate argument: 'expert' is a value judgement for which we need good sources. As The two others have pointed out, both of these articles could boost readership by taking a controversial or fringe position (thereby engendering controversy, which is like ambrosia to a media outlet). So there's a good case to be made that they have played fast and loose with the word "expert" in order to frame the story in a more appealing way.  MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  16:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a misunderstanding. I have not suggested any edit or change. I simply wanted to note the news reports.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Given the fact that there has been at least one fairly recent argument about whether to describe you as an 'expert' or 'specialist', with you coming down on the 'expert' side (alone, if I remember correctly, mostly alone at best), the wording of the section title (the word "acknowledged" to be specific) and your own level of education and intelligence (I highly doubt you picked that word without being aware of the connotations as well as the context), I find that hard to believe. Had you simply been providing links to new sources, I would have expected a section called "new sources" or something similar. Again, I'm not opposed to rubbing your ego (nor even to heaping lavish praise and removing criticism) if it improves the article. But Ronz and Jbhunley have both made good points. Those are extra parenthesis, in case I needed them.  MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  18:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Excuse me. I should have very specifically labeled my latest entry here as -- new sources for the article. If it is acceptable to everyone the section title could be changed to "New Sources." I will keep that in mind in the future. I am correctly identified as a cult specialist and am also a court expert. So it is correct to refer to me as both a cult specialist and court expert. This has been supported by reliable sources. Ronz and Jbhunley have determined that my frequent work as a court expert be relegated to the bottom of the this article under "Other activities." Rick Alan Ross (talk) 13:57, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If that is your intent, when you add potential new sources, please indicate in what way they are different from others. Otherwise it looks like you are here to promote yourself and complain about not being able to promote yourself more directly. --Ronz (talk) 16:09, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * OK. When new reports come up I will note them under the section title "New Sources."Rick Alan Ross (talk) 13:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That's you just promoting yourself, while you ignore all concerns about your behavior in doing so.
 * I think we now have plenty of evidence to make a strong case for banning Ross from this article. I'd prefer an easy case. Do we need the IDHT to continue longer?--Ronz (talk) 17:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ronz -- Your desire to ban me and silence me at this bio has been repeatedly discussed at various forums, but the consensus went against you and your request was denied. I know you have a very strong POV concerning this bio. Perhaps you should take a step back from editing here. I have been encouraged by other editors to post suggestions and sources here. Frankly, I think you are projecting a bit now as you seem more likely to fit the profile of a disruptive editor.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 13:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Now not only are you ignoring what's been said, you attack others by claiming that they may be doing what you most definitely are doing. Please stop wasting our time. Please respect WP:COITALK. --Ronz (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ronz. I've seen your edit history, and the vast majority of edits have been to this page right here. That smacks of ego, and ego ruins objectivity; one of the cornerstones of Wikipedia. In fact, after considering the fact that I've never once seen you suggest any edit that might not reflect well upon you, I'd go so far as to say that it doesn't just remind me of an ego at work, but that it's empirical evidence that you are not here to help build an encyclopedia, but rather to make sure your article paints a complimentary picture of you. On the other hand, Ronz's exasperation with you doesn't indicate anything that could harm the article in any way. I've yet to see him dig in his heels and refuse to agree to add something that reflects well on you. His edits have added and advocated both positive and negative information about you. That's the very definition of objectivity. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  17:26, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This bio historically has been used by cult members and/or those paid by cults to attack me. Some have been banned from Wikipedia. This bio has a deeply troubled history of being used for such purposes. Other editors have pointed out that of course I am concerned about this. I am concerned about false and/or misleading information, which has appeared at this bio. For example, concerning my criminal record and the Jason Scott case. I have not sought to remove these subjects, but rather to suggest edits that reflect the facts accurately supported by reliable souuces. There is no conflict of interest and I am not an editor. I never requested that there be a bio about me here. I did request that it be deleted, but that was voted down repeatedly. I simply watch this bio as anyone would concerned about false and/or misleading information being posted about them at Wikipedia. I do so openly using my own name, which has been authenticated.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The vast majority of people whose WP bios have been used as evidence to make untruthful allegations against them have seen great success by responding "So? It's fucking Wikipedia! Anyone can edit that shit!" Might I suggest you try this tact? MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  17:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

New Sources
I appear within the CNN documentary "Holy Hell" about the Buddhafield cult now available through Netflix [] [] Rick Alan Ross (talk) 12:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Please respect WP:COITALK. Make a specific request for content change, quoting from the sources and identifying the context within those sources. --Ronz (talk) 16:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This pertains to my documentary work. I have been included in 16 documentaries since 1983, the most recent "Holy Hell" and last year "Deprogrammed," a film by Mia Donovan . I am known for my work in documentaries.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 13:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I think information Rick Alan Ross brings to our attention bolsters the argument that his notability extends to his work in documentaries. The subject of the article is widely accepted as an expert on cults. I don't think we should be carping when the subject of the article brings relevant information to our attention. Even if that information does not lead to a concrete addition to the article at this time I see no harm in interested editors being apprised of relevant developments on previously discussed points. We have previously discussed whether or not our article should note the subject's work in video documentaries on cults. Additionally there is a persistent undercurrent on this page questioning the subject's primary area of notability—namely his expertise on cults. I find this alarming. We have an article on Rick Alan Ross. We can't at the same time carp about his primary notability. Yet I find saying on this Talk page "Basically, his 'expertise' is recognized by those who like to promote fringe theories about 'cults', mostly for entertainment value." Not all articles have participation by the subject of the biography but that participation here has been restrained, respectful, and has demonstrated an abundant willingness to abide by Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and procedures. It is not the norm to have participation by the subject of the article. But I think we should endeavor to extend tolerance to the subject's participation in this instance. Bus stop (talk) 14:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm unable to differentiate his participation from self-promtion, because of his inability to make requests for change. In this specific case, he was unable to identify verifying sources. --Ronz (talk) 15:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I suggest that something be added to denote that I have been included in numerous and significant historical documentaries such as those previously cited most recently and others such as"Witness to Waco" (2009) MSNBC, "Polygamy: Religion or Mind Control?" (2008) MSNBC "THS Investigates: Cults, Religion and Mind Control," (2008} , "Join Us"by Ondi Timoner (2007) , "Heaven's Gate: The Definitive Story" (2007) , "Yoga Inc." by John Philip (2007) , "Transformation: The Life & Legacy of Werner Erhard" (2006) Symon Productions , "Crimes in the name of God" (1999) BNN  and "Waco: The Rules of Engagement" (1997) . Some international documentaries and an old documentary (1983) "In the Name of God" by Post Newsweek are without information online.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Are there any sources in there that verify what you are requesting? If so, please identify them. Otherwise, this looks like more promotion from you. --Ronz (talk) 19:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment As far as statements re being a "documentarian" or whatever: simply being sought out and included in documenteries is not sufficient for us to draw attention to that fact. Some source needs to say 'Rick Ross is well known for his work on documentaries...' otherwise it is simply OR. We do not say anything in a Wikipedia article until a RS says it. Even then it is subject to DUE etc. This has been explained numerous times. Quote the source that makes the claim then it can be discussed. Until then it is a waste of time, text and patience (and there is not a hell of a lot of that remaining here from what I can see) to repeat what has been said here many, many times over the last year or so. J bh  Talk  15:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The addition of new sources establishes the fact that I have been interviewed and/or included in many historical and notable documentaries over the years. This is how many people know about me and my work. It was suggested previously here that I am primarily known or notable for the Jason Scott case. This is false and the listed documentaries demonstrate this in part along with continuing news reports/new sources. It could be stated under "Other Activities" and/or in the lead that I have been interviewed and/or included for many notable documentaries, most recently "Holy Hell" featured on CNN.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 15:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I have a hard time believing you don't understand the questions and comments directed to you. If you are not interested in responding, you shouldn't be here. --Ronz (talk) 16:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Just find a good RS that comments on it and present it. What you seem to, repeatedly, be missing is there is a difference between lots of people quoting you and some RS commenting on the fact that lots of people quote you. Only the second case is relevant. If, for instance one of the documenteries received significant coverage in its own right it may be appropriate to mention you contributed to it. What is key is having some third party draw attention to the matter. What you need to provide are sources and quotes from those sources which show such third party commentary.  J bh  Talk  16:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

NXIVM lawsuit dismissed in December
NXIVM v. Ross was dismissed in December 2016 Rick Alan Ross (talk) 13:14, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rick Alan Ross. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150507074838/http://gothamist.com/2005/07/18/rick_ross_cult_expert.php to http://gothamist.com/2005/07/18/rick_ross_cult_expert.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

NXIVM v. Ross
NXIVM v. Ross has become an important cult ruling. See https://www.google.com/search?q=nxivm+v.+Ross&oq=nxivm+v.+Ross&aqs=chrome..69i57j33i160l4.4048j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 Also see https://en-academic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/11789319

This was a major victory not only for the defendants, but also for freedom of speech.

The court noted that defendants’ misconduct in obtaining unauthorized material is one of several relevant factors in a fair use defense as set forth by the Supreme Court in Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises, but that obtaining the manuscript in bad faith does not preclude a fair use defense.[9]

The court weighed the four fair use factors to determine if Ross’s use was fair, and made the following findings:[2]

The purpose and character of the use was transformative as criticism and favored the defendants even if the defendants’ bad faith in obtaining the manual favored the plaintiffs. The nature of the copyrighted work was unpublished and favored the plaintiffs. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole did not favor the plaintiffs as (1) it was reasonable for the defendants to quote liberally from the manual in order to critically comment on it and (2) there was no identifiable "heart" of the manual. The market inquiry heavily favored the defendants because, "as a general matter, criticisms of a seminar or organization cannot substitute for the seminar or organization itself or hijack its market." The court ruled in favor of the defendants and affirmed the denial of the preliminary injunction, stating,

If criticisms on defendants' websites kill the demand for plaintiffs' service, that is the price that, under the First Amendment, must be paid in the open marketplace for ideas...Certainly, no critic should need an author's permission to make such criticism, regardless of how he came by the original; nor should publication be inhibited by a publisher's anxiety or uncertainty about an author's ethics if his secondary work is transformative.[1]

See Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NXIVM_Corp._v._Ross_Institute#Opinion_of_the_court Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

ESP, NXIVM and Rick Alan Ross
The Cult Education Institute was historically the first organization to expose Keith Raniere and his cult. The Cult Education Institute database published three papers by two doctors examining and analyzing ESP/NXIVM training. As a direct result, the doctors (John Hochman and Paul Martin), the Ross Institute (now known as the Cult Education Institute) Rick Alan Ross and others were sued. This lawsuit went on for 14 years, until not long before Keith Raniere's arrest, the lawsuit was dismissed in NJ Federal Court.

I was the first cult expert to expose Keith Raniere and the first cult deprogrammer to work with his victims.

My book "Cults Inside Out" is also the first book about cults to include NXIVM.

These historical points are noteworthy in this biography as Raniere is mentioned within the bio and is now one of most widely known cult leaders in modern history.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:42, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

This bio could use an update
In the years since this bio was last meaningfully updated, quite a bit has happened.

The lawsuit filed against me by NXIVM was dismissed. Subsequent to that Keith Raniere was arrested and ultimately convicted of multiple crimes and sentenced to more than 100 years in prison. I assisted the prosecution team and testified for the prosecution at Keith Raniere's criminal trial. I also worked closely with Catherine Oxenberg to rescue her daughter India, a victim of Keith Raniere. This is reflected in the HBO series "The Vow" and later my work with India on the Starz series "Seduced." See https://www.oxygen.com/true-crime-buzz/who-is-cult-expert-rick-ross-whats-his-connection-to-nxivm And see https://www.timesunion.com/nxivm/article/Cult-expert-testifies-about-his-dealings-with-13972283.php Also see https://onezero.medium.com/cult-deprogrammer-rick-alan-ross-on-nxivm-qanon-and-what-makes-us-vulnerable-62f6c709562c

Also significant was my work with Ubisoft on the 5th installment of the popular videogame "Far Cry." My work was on "Far Cry 5." See https://www.nine.com.au/entertainment/viral/far-cry-5-cult-expert-rick-ross/ea820842-96f3-47dd-8b24-a5ac2f286f4f And see https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2017/10/26/an-exclusive-behind-the-scenes-look-at-the-making-of-far-cry-5s-cult/?sh=7f8b354161a1

Rolling Stone Magazine listed my book on a short list of "5 Books About Cults and Why People Join Them" See https://www.rollingstone.com/product-recommendations/books/best-books-about-cults-1097491/ And says in part -- "Rick Alan Ross is one of the leading experts out there on destructive cults. His career spans over three decades and boasts some serious credibility (along with getting plenty of lawsuits and death threats). Ross has worked as an analyst for CBS and the CBC, lecturing at colleges and universities, consulting with the FBI, and testifying as an expert in US Federal Court."

I was also chosen by Vanity Fair as an expert to review films about cults, the YouTube video release has now reached 1.8 million views. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLoVHyuYVBY&t=51s A recent article published by Esquire Magazine identified me as "America’s foremost cult deprogrammer, Rick Alan Ross." See https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a40105747/the-follower-staten-island-1980s-cult/ Esqurie also asked me to do a sidebar video specifically devoted to defining a destructive cult. See the same article and scroll down to video sidebar.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 20:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

KHOU-11 News in Houston, Texas specifically describes me "Rick Alan Ross is a world renowned cult expert." in a news report about the murder of a young couple and disappearance of their baby tied to a cult. See https://www.khou.com/video/news/local/texas/cult-expert-gives-insight-into-the-religious-group-he-suspects-to-have-given-baby-holly-marie-away/285-b45acd8f-5850-4911-aeed-eb4ca63df4ed Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikpedia bios, editors and editing
It seems to me that a bio of a living person at Wikipedia can be historically accurate or woefully incomplete, out of date and inaccurate depending upon who is interested in editing.

For example, this bio is quite a bit historically out of date, but if you look up Steven Hassan, another "cult expert," his bio is completely current and arguably somewhat inflated and promotional.

This illustrates how Wikepedia often works.

That is, if someone has a "cult following" that will edit his or her bio at Wikipedia, it will be enhanced and updated. And this editing will largely reflect what the subject of that bio wants to appear at Wikipedia.

In this sense the issue isn't what is historically relevant and noteworthy, but rather who has fans that are willing to spend time on Wikepedia helping to promote them through their bio.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 15:04, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Update the bio
This bio is not up to date.

Here are some relevant sources that can be used to update the bio.

See https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a40105747/the-follower-staten-island-1980s-cult/ "America’s foremost cult deprogrammer, Rick Alan Ross" Esquire Magazine 2022

See https://www.salon.com/2022/07/30/rick-ross-deprogrammer-profile/ "Ross is the preeminent cult deprogrammer in the United States" Salon 2022

See https://www.oxygen.com/true-crime-buzz/who-is-cult-expert-rick-ross-whats-his-connection-to-nxivm

See https://www.oxygen.com/true-crime-buzz/who-is-cult-expert-rick-ross-whats-his-connection-to-nxivm "Who Is Rick Ross, The Cult Expert That NXIVM Spent Millions Suing And Allegedly Surveilling?"

See https://www.timesunion.com/nxivm/article/Cult-expert-testifies-about-his-dealings-with-13972283.php "Longtime cult expert and NXIVM foe Rick Ross told jurors Wednesday he quickly identified the secretive self-help organization as a "destructive program" trying to create clones of spiritual leader Keith Raniere."

See https://www.nine.com.au/entertainment/viral/far-cry-5-cult-expert-rick-ross/ea820842-96f3-47dd-8b24-a5ac2f286f4f ""We have a pedigree of building these unique characters in Far Cry," the game's creative director Dan Hay told 9Pickle, "so when it came time to build The Father, (the cult leader) we wanted to do our homework". That homework came in the form of destructive cult expert Rick Ross, who was enlisted to consult with the creative team during the game's development."

See https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2017/10/26/an-exclusive-behind-the-scenes-look-at-the-making-of-far-cry-5s-cult/?sh=7b47dacd61a1 "Ross, the founder and executive director of the nonprofit Cult Education Institute, is working with the team behind Far Cry 5, Ubisoft Montreal, as a consultant on cults, helping the developers craft the real deal."

These are well-known and credible sources that report more recent work that is not mentioned in the bio. Rick Alan Ross (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2022 (UTC)