Misplaced Pages

Talk:Rick Alan Ross: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:30, 4 December 2008 view sourceFossa (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,467 edits →False or misleading statements that remain uncorrected← Previous edit Latest revision as of 03:35, 5 August 2024 view source Grorp (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users12,502 editsNo edit summary 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{pp-protected|reason=Persistent ]|small=yes}}
{{skip to contents}}
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=blp}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|class=C|listas=Ross, Rick|1=
{{WikiProject Biography}}
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=Low|NRM=yes|NRMImp=Mid|FalunGong=yes}}
{{WikiProject Scientology}}
}}
{{OTRS talk|otrs=2014050110009454|issue=Contentious categorization, correction of information related to institute, subject's image updated}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(60d)
|maxarchivesize = 250K
| archive = Talk:Rick Alan Ross/Archive %(counter)d
|counter = 1
| counter = 9
|minthreadsleft = 1
| maxarchivesize = 250K
|algo = old(30d)
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
|archive = Talk:Rick Ross (consultant)/Archive %(counter)d
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 4
}} }}
{{Talkheader}}
{{WPBiography|living=yes|class=Start|priority=Mid|listas=Ross, Rick}}
{{oldafdfull| date = 19 October 2008 (UTC) | result = '''keep''' | page = Rick Ross (consultant) }}
{{controversial}} {{controversial}}
{{Old AfD multi | date = 19 October 2008 (UTC) | result = '''keep''' | page = Rick Ross (consultant) | date2 = 9 November 2015 | result2 = ''']''' | page2 = Rick Alan Ross (2nd nomination)}}
__TOC__
{{Connected contributor|User1=Rick Alan Ross|U1-EH=1|U1-declared=1|U1-otherlinks= ] is the subject of this biography. His identity has been confirmed by ArbCom }}

==RS/N thread opened==
Mr Ross, you have stated several times on this talk page that you preferred the old content of the Branch Davidian section. A number of statements in the old version of this section came from self-published sources on your website. To see if it might be possible to accommodate your wish, and include this information, I have opened the question to wider debate on one of our noticeboards designed to address questions of this type. You can find the related thread by clicking on ], and are invited to add your comments there. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 23:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

==Scientology and the NRM Scholars==
*{{cite web | first = Benjamin | last = Beit-Hallahmi | title = Scientology: Religion or racket? | url = http://web.uni-marburg.de/religionswissenschaft/journal/mjr/beit.html | work = ] | month = September | year = 2003 | accessdate = 2008-10-26 }}
See especially the paragraph beginning "NRM scholars have supported Scientology fronts at least since the 1980s." ] (]) 03:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
:What exactly do you suggest using that reference for? It doesn't mention Ross or any other content of this entry as far as I can see.] (]) 13:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
::The reference denotes the controversy that has historically surrounded such scholars.] (]) 14:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
:::My disagreement regarding said "controversy" notwithstanding, this entry is not about these scholars nor is it about Scientology. Again I ask how it relates to you and/or any of the content in this entry because none of it is mentioned in the reference. Regards.] (]) 21:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
::::For the last week or so, you've been asking Rick Ross for proper cites that back up his opinion that particular academic sources are biased or even have a conflict of interest. I supplied one, but it doesn't count because it doesn't specifically mention Rick Ross? ''*raises eyebrow*'' ] (]) 03:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
:::::Is this for real? Are you serious? I've been asking for sources to back the position that these scholars are biased regarding either Mr. Ross or Waco. As I've repeatedly pointed out I see neither mentioned in this reference anywhere. The position taken by Beit-Hallahmi regarding these scholars and Scientology is a minority/fringe position, but '''once again''' that's ''not even the point'' because this entry is not about these scholars or about Scientology. Lets try this one last time before I blank this section. What does this have to do with ], the entry which this talk page is used to discuss?] (]) 04:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
::::::Please try to remain ]. And your opinion regarding Beit-Hallahmi is OR. (I didn't see any disclamer on the Marburg Journal of Religion site.) Oh, and reconsider your threat to blank this section. ] (]) 04:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Really my "opinion" of Beit-Hallahmi is OR? Then you can provide plenty of other sources that make these same claims no problem. Lets see them? You ask me to be civil. You are perpetuating a campaign to call into question the ethics of a large group of respected scholars. I think you need to consider more carefully your own claims before you start picking on my tone. You have also not explained what the reference has to do with the content of this entry, which is the only viable topic of discussion on this talk page. The "threat of blanking" in fact simply a suggestion to abide by wikipedia policy and convention. Regards.] (]) 04:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
:::::::*Of course it's relevant. It goes towards evaluating the credibility of the "respected academics" you mentioned. However, working it in without it appearing to be ] is a bit trickier, but probably not impossible. I'm sorry, I sense the anger in your words, and I feel the threat of blanking comes across as ]. Let's try ]. ] (]) 05:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Background info on the academic standing of these scholars is available for example – see the entries on , , and others. Eugene V. Gallagher, one of the authors cited here, is of the ]. cite Bromley, Tabor, Gallagher and Chryssides as Required Reading. Those are the authors cited in our article. (Barker and Melton are in the syllabus list as well; so is the specific work by Tabor and Gallagher, ''Why Waco?'', that is referenced in this article.) <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 21:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
:*{{cite web | title = Academic Disputes and Dialogue Collection: Preface | first = Michael D. | last = Langone | url = http://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_articles/langone_michael_academicdialoguepreface_en0403.htm | work = ICSA E-Newsletter, Vol. 4, No. 3 | publisher = International Cultic Studies Association | month = September | year = 2005}} ] (]) 09:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
:::The point regarding these scholars, which is a relatively small group, is that there is controversy surrounding the opinions they express about groups called "cults," which specifically includes the Waco Davidians. In their opinions expressed about me they criticize my use of descriptions such as "a dangerous cult leader" and "destructive cult" as applied to David Koresh and the Branch Davidians. (1) This is an attempt by these scholars to dismiss and/or denigrate such descriptions, which direclty calls into question their scholarship and objectivity. (2) Since David Koresh is recorded historically as "a dangerous cult leader" and the Davidians behavior historically fit "the generalized pattern of a destructive cult." These supposedly scholarly observations calls into question the bias, objectivity and historical grounding of these cited scholars. What is it they mean to say? That Koresh was not a "dangerous cult leader" and the Davidians were not a "destructive cult"? This contradiction between their opinions and history illustrates why these scholars are often dismissed as cult apologists. Presenting such opinions as somehow definitive regarding anything connected to Waco is ridiculous and has no place within an encyclopedia entry. Jayen466 may agree with these scholars, but the purpose of an encyclopedia is not propaganda, but rather facts. Jayen466 has recently attempted to parse out words around these quotes in an attempt to ameliorate them, but this again only serves to promote his opinions, which is inappropriate.] (]) 14:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

== Serious remaining problems with this bio ==

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

Here are a few as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:The information regarding your work as en expert witness is present in both the lede and main body of the article, as it always has been. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 21:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
:::You have minimized the reference to my expert witness work. The bio before you edited it out included that I have been qualified and accepted in ten states. You cut and add per your agenda as previously mentioned. Anyone that looks back over the editing history of this Misplaced Pages entry can readily see that.] (]) 14:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

:: is the version dd. 3 October, prior to my edits. It states in the lede, {{quotation|He has been accepted in various courts as an expert witness, interviewed and quoted by the media in the United States and other countries in relation to his expert knowledge in cults/cultic methodologies.}}
::In the body, it states {{quotation|Ross has lectured at University of Pennsylvania, University of Chicago and University of Arizona and has testified as an expert witness in thirteen states.}}
:: is the version of 8 November, before you posted your above comment. It states in the lede, {{quotation|He has worked as an expert witness and an analyst for the media in cases relating to such groups.}}
::In the body, it states, {{quotation|Ross has lectured at the University of Pennsylvania, University of Chicago and University of Arizona and has testified as an expert witness in thirteen states.}}
::Then as now, the articles states that you have testified as an expert witness in thirteen states, based on the data given in . <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 16:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

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

=== Strong objection, talk to me ===

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

*]. There were a number of concerns:
*The listing of scholars in the lede missed the main ones referred to in the relevant section (Tabor, Gallagher). I don't think it is worth listing all these names in the lede.
*The use of the word "cultbuster" seemed a little out of place in the lede (too loose).
*The cost of a deprogramming is referred to in the '']'' piece, which is quite sympathetic to Mr Ross. It is adequately sourced.
*The RRI section was part of the CV timeline and I feel it should remain part of the bio, rather than being separated from the remainder of the bio timeline and moved to the end of the article.
*The Jason Scott case, which was very notable and set a legal precedent, deserves a little more detail than was left after the edits of {{user|Ohconfucius}}. It is not transparent to the reader why there should have been such a large judgment if we delete any mention of what happened beyond "Ross abducted Scott" and "Scott escaped and called the police". The facts are adequately sourced and attested in multiple reliable sources, including others not cited here.
*The edits in the Branch Davidian section seemed to depart from the sources in some respects, notably the wording "had persuaded government parties that they were dealing with dangerous cult leader." Tabor and Gallagher do not express it in those terms. I felt doubtful whether these edits were based on consultation of the source (available in google books) or just on a rewrite of the existing material in the article. We can look at how best to summarize Tabor and Gallagher, if the present summary seems inadequate.
*Also, it was agreed on RS/N not to quote Ammerman (a primary source) beyond the extent to which she is quoted in secondary sources (e.g. Tabor/Gallagher or Newport).
*Other edits seemed fine and clearly added value; those were kept. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 15:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
*I don't mind all that much whether we use "Ross's" or "Ross'" as the form of the possessive case. I plumped for "Ross's" because that is the form used in one of the Seattle Times verbatims. Since we shouldn't change something like this in verbatim quotes, I thought it would be better to go along with the Seattle Times and use their form throughout the article. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 16:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

RESPONSE:
#If Tabor & Gallagher were the main ones, by all means insert them in the place of some of the others.
#I disagree that 'cultbuster' is loose used in that way. If it appeared without that which followed, then maybe. But the word is sourced and referred to in the same paragraph as the $5000 typical fee.
#If you insist on the $5000, there is even less reason why this word cultbuster should be removed. Although the fee is sourced, mention of average fees is always misleading because it may hide a pretty wide range; it is also information which dates easily, and really should be avoided unless it imparts significant biographical value.
#In the same way that the scott case was mentioned in one sentence in his career section, RRI can also. As the RRI is a separate legal person, it should be in a different section down the bottom.
#The Jason Scott case is indeed well documented - It has its very own article, which this section links to prominently. It arguably not necessary for biographical purposes to mention how the 'seaside cottage', for example, imparts any biographic value. The Landmark case was also a high profile case, but is distilled to 2 lines in this article. I am not suggesting the Scott case should be cut to this level, but I fear that there is ] here.
#I thought that it was once again undue weight to separately mention what A B and C said when there was a common thread (based on how your text laid it out). I am not in possession of all the source articles, but was trying to find that common thread to avoid saying "A said lorum ipsum, B said Lorum ipsum and C also said Lorum ipsum". What T&G said made no sense, so I removed it. That fact was clearly marked in the edit summary
#Other remarks:
:*I find your writing sometimes difficult to parse. Although you made clarification to what T&G said, it is still not in a style of English that a lay reader would easily grasp. "Nancy Ammerman... voiced criticism of the BATF and FBI for relying on Ross without taking these stakes into account." is cryptic and incomprehensible, so I clarified it from Ammerman's text. You chose to revert that too.
:*Grammatically, for possessive forms of nouns ending in s, there is no s after the apostrophe - so it's Ross' and not Ross's. I have long since stopped being amazed at the fact that many journalists have no clue in basic grammar.
:*I could not understand why you insist on separating 'early career' and 'Full-time private consultant and lecturer'. This breaks up the career in a rather contrived fashion as Ross was evidently a lecturer and consultant in his early career too.
:*I removed several redundancies and straightened a number of convoluted phrases, all of which you chose to revert. In "criminally charged with unlawful imprisonment", unlawful imprisonment is a criminal offense, so the use of "criminally" is redundant. In fact, as I said, the only bit you left intact was the right of reply of Ross in the Washington Post, which you originally had as a one-liner for reasons I cannot fathom.
I'll leave it for now. ] (]) 16:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)
*Btw, Ohconfucius, I did not have second thoughts about the Washington Post quote. I took the text verbatim from this edit of yours: . Then I saw that you had added some words later on: . Realising that what I'd copied wasn't how you'd left it, I added the same words again: . Cheers, <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 16:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
*Re the apostrophe, ] says typesetters should attach " 's " to monosyllabic names ending in "s" (except classical names like Mars and Venus) and gives "Hicks's" and "Jones's" as examples to follow. The Webster's Compact Writers Guide approves of both versions. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 17:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
*Re the separation of early career and career as a consultant: It's been like that for and makes some kind of sense to me. Ross was a staff member of various Jewish organisations before setting out as an independent consultant; it was in his latter role that he became internationally notable. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 17:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
*As for average fees being misleading, I note that Mr Ross's current website , so we are not doing anything other than what the subject himself is doing on his site. I don't understand what should be contentious about this. The figure is in the public domain, and has been commented on in a sympathetic newspaper article.
*Should the fee change over time, we can simply add "at an average cost given as $5000 in 2004" or use a more recent article for an updated figure. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 18:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
::::I have done many interventions at no charge, and my fees began at $350.00 per day and are now $750 per day, a rate that has increased gradually over a period of 20 years.] (]) 14:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
:::::Are you aware of any ] mentioning these points? Are any other editors? <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 22:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

== Final Outcome of Scott case ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*The further interaction between Moxon and Scott is covered in ], and actually may need looking at to ensure it accurately reflects sources.
*I have reinstated that it was a CAN volunteer.
*Berry, Scott's ''new'' lawyer (after he dismissed Moxon), was reported on Dec 19 1996, by the source given in footnote 42, to have said regarding the settlement between Mr Ross and Scott, {{quotation|The premature announcement of the settlement, Berry says, made Scott so angry he may ask Ross to renegotiate terms. Berry refused to say what services Ross would provide to Scott under the agreement. But, the lawyer said, '''it would be a mistake to assume that Scott's decision to make use of Ross' time was a vindication of Ross or his deprogramming methods'''.|}}
*This being so, we cannot use this source to present it as such.
*"vacant model home" (see below) implemented. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 17:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

== Early Life misleading ==

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

== Seattle Judge's comments ==

"The judge commented that the defendants appeared unable to appreciate the maliciousness of their conduct towards Scott, preferring instead to see themselves as victims of a vendetta."

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

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

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

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

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

== Graham Berry statement ==

"The premature announcement of the settlement, Berry says, made Scott so angry he may ask Ross to renegotiate terms. Berry refused to say what services Ross would provide to Scott under the agreement. But, the lawyer said, it would be a mistake to assume that Scott's decision to make use of Ross' time was a vindication of Ross or his deprogramming methods."

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

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

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

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

== False statement about deprogramming ==

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

This is a false statement.

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

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

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

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

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


== Request for edit: Richardson's description ==
There have also been hi-profile sanctioned deprogrammings, such as the Winnifred Wright case and the Karen Robidoux case.


{{edit COI|P}}
See http://www.rickross.com/reference/attleboro/attleboro137.html


The following statement represents a point of view per a particular academic and lacks balance.
Karen Robidoux was deprogrammed while in jail and subsequently acquitted by a jury of charges concerning her son's death, due to cult mind control.


"Professor of Sociology and Judicial Studies James T. Richardson describes deprogramming as a 'private, self-help process whereby participants in unpopular new religious movements (NRMs) were forcibly removed from the group, incarcerated, and put through radical resocialization processes that were supposed to result in their agreeing to leave the group.'"
See http://www.rickross.com/reference/wright/wright14.html


It must be amended, both for balance and context.
A California judge officially approved a "deprogramming" in the Wright criminal case.


I suggest the following:
This false statement should be edited out.] (]) 19:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


There has been some controversy regarding the practice of deprogamming. Author and clinical psychologist Margaret Singer writes in her book "Cults in Our Midst" that deprogramming is "Providing members with information about the cult and showing them how their own decision-making power had been taken away from them." (Margaret Singer, Cults in Our Midst,San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers, 1995). But Professor of Sociology and Judicial Studies James T. Richardson, a defender of new religious movements called "cults," described deprogramming as the "private, self-help process whereby participants in unpopular new religious movements (NRMs) were forcibly removed from the group, incarcerated, and put through radical resocialization processes that were supposed to result in their agreeing to leave the group." However, according to Vanderbilt Law Review "For purposes of legal analysis, there are three types of deprogramming. Voluntary deprogramming; forcible deprogramming; and deprogramming carried out with a court's sanction, usually in the form of an order of conservatorship." See https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2794&context=vlr ] (]) 19:30, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
== POV tag ==
:<s>Please check and update the url. You may want to provide full citation information so it can be found in another manner. --] (]) 19:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)</s> That now works. Thanks! --] (]) 19:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
::Doing my best.] (]) 20:52, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
::Won't you please make the edit including statement by Vanderbilt Law Review. This does offer needed objective factual balance from a legal perspective.] (]) 18:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
:I {{strong|have implemented}} a version of this, that avoids making unsourced claims about Richardson and about NRMs in general, like "a defender of new religious movements called 'cults{{'"}}, which is just your attempt to character-assassinate him and them. That he has views supportive of NRMs is already apparent to every reader from his quotation. "Author and" was also redundant when the same sentence says "in her book". And it's not "her book", but a co-authored volume. {{strong|A page number is needed for this citation.}} A "But" construction followed by a "However" construction is poor writing. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 03:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
::Understood. Thank you for including the findings of Vanderbilt, which add a legal perspective."] (]) 16:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
::''Cults in Our Midst'' is not a reliable source. It is ] Singer's work for the APA Task Force on Deceptive and Indirect Methods of Persuasion and Control, but her findings were famously ] for its bias and lack of academic rigor. Since then, Singer has consistently been rejected as an expert witness in court. I suggest that information from this source gets removed from the article or replaced with information from a source that is more credible. ] (]) 22:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
:::We should probably clarify in the material about Singer's reputation in this sphere, though we are not citing her work for a claim of fact, only for a directly quoted opinion, and her material (and its early influence, and its castigation by APA) is certainly evidentiary of the "There has been some controversy regarding the practice of deprogamming" statement. There cannot be a controversy about something without at least one participant in the debate being wrong, or there would be no controversy but an agreement. That is to say, Singer did much to popularize some notions, rightly or wrongly, so is a part of the encyclopedically noteworthy controversy and should not be suppressed out of the material; we just need to make sure that ] is being served here and not make Singer out to be something like a widely-recognized expert. Do you have any revision suggestions? <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 01:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
::::Singer is controversial for her work on brainwashing, not for her views on deprogramming. It would be very difficult to find anyone who supports Ross's deprogrammings.
::::While the term "deprogramming" used to refer to both voluntary and involuntary interventions, today, that word refers to involuntary interventions. Those who practice voluntary interventions typically call their work "exit counseling" to distance themselves from those who practice involuntary intervention. The involuntary deprogramming that Ross practices has been widely condemned by countless scholars and experts. I am not aware of a single authoritative person who supports this practice.
::::So, I would say to remove the Singer reference as being outdated and unreliable. However, it is also important to have at least a paragraph explaining the widespread criticisms of Ross's deprogramming methods, since these criticisms have had such a large impact on his public image.
::::I actually think the entire "Career" section should be split into "Career" and "Criticisms and Controversies" section, but that might be too large of a change to make in addressing this one issue. ] (]) 19:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC)


==Properly covering Ross–NXIVM matters==
The "Jason Scott case" and the "Branch Davidians" subsections have undue negative weight, use multiple dubious sources with dubious statements, and need to be reworked and addressed for NPOV, especially in this ] article. ''']''' (]) 16:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
From the above threads, it appears that we are lacking some coverage of Ross's involvement in the ] controversy or whatever one wants to call it. The present article text mentions NXIVM only with the {{lang|la|non sequitur}} "NXIVM, in April 2004, unsuccessfully sued Ross's Cult Education Institute in ''NXIVM Corp. v. Ross Institute'', claiming copyright infringement.", follwed later by "Ross has been interviewed for various documentaries ... including: ''The Vow'', season 1, episode 6, "Honesty & Disclosure" (2020, HBO), about Catherine Oxenberg and the NXIVM cult; ''Seduced: Inside the NXIVM Cult'' (2020, Starz), about the same; ....".


So, the "meat" of the Ross–NXIVM connection is missing.
:Please pursue any apparent issues with sources at RS/N. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 17:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
{{collapse top|left=y|To very selectively quote just the relevant stuff from all the earlier threads, and consolidate this into one talk-page topic:}}
::Also see above comments in above subsections on this page about troubling concerns in this article. ''']''' (]) 17:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
All the above closed-out Edit-COI requests are likely to be moved to an archive page soon, so here's the relevant gist:
* "There are many others who have commented positively about my work, for example concerning NXIVM." —Ross. So, these should be findable sources.
* "my work did not end with the Scott case, but rather greatly expanded and continued, which also has been widely reported. See https://www.oxygen.com/true-crime-buzz/who-is-cult-expert-rick-ross-whats-his-connection-to-nxivm ..." —Ross. That source has already been used as proof of participation in a documentary, though I'm not sure it has anything about direct involvement with the NXIVM case.
* Some specific revision language that was suggested: "Ross testified for the prosecution at the criminal trial of NXIVM cult leader Keith Raniere in 2019. Raniere was found guilty of racketeering, human trafficking, sex offenses, and fraud and sentenced to 120 years in prison and a $1.75 million fine. See https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/founder-nxivm-purported-self-help-organization-and-five-others-charged-superseding and see https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/27/nyregion/nxivm-cult-keith-raniere-sentenced.html ... In 2020 Ross appeared in the widely watched documentaries ''The Vow'' and ''Seduced'' concerning NXIVM and Raniere. See https://onezero.medium.com/cult-deprogrammer-rick-alan-ross-on-nxivm-qanon-and-what-makes-us-vulnerable-62f6c709562c and see https://seduceddocumentary.com/theexperts/rickalanross/" —Ross. Some of the latter of this (about docus) has been integrated (by SMcCandlish), but the {{em|participation in the case directly}} stuff is what we're missing sources on (and any mention of in the article).
* "Regarding the documentary ''Seduced'' see https://en.wikipedia.org/Seduced:_Inside_the_NXIVM_Cult already established through notes here at Misplaced Pages." —Ross. I (SMcCandlish) did pull one source from that article to use for citing a documentary-related claim here, but there may be other relevant sources already cited there.
* "NXIVM: Neither source contains the text 'Ross', so they are not sources for any Ross involvement in that case. Involvement seems very likely and probably provable, but these are not sources for it. One source mentioned below does mention involvement in the case, but in too little detail to be useful. NXIVM stuff should be a separate edit request, suggesting particular material to add that provides a summary of the Ross involvement in that case, and multiple independent, reliable sources with in-depth coverage." —SMcCandlish; who is now opening the present thread as a way of addressing this, without waiting on another {{tlx|Edit COI}} request from Ross.
* "Variety mentions my historical significance See https://variety.com/2020/tv/news/the-vow-where-are-keith-raniere-allison-mack-1234808846/" —Ross
* "The ''Variety'' source ... mention of 'Ross' .. in connection to the background lawsuit" —SMcCandlish
* "NXIVM and the Waco Davidian standoff are the most prominent cult events in my work history. But the Jason Scott case is not how I am known by the public, its meaningful to be included, but not equally prominent when compared to NXIVM and Waco.
* "My book was the first book about cults to mention NXIVM. And the papers by two respected doctors published at culteducation.com was the first critical analysis by mental health professionals released about NXIVM. Raniere's 14-year legal battle with me, which he ultimately lost, was widely reported. And of course I worked with the Justice Department and FBI regarding his prosecution and testified as a fact witness at his trial. It seems to me that my battle with Raniere will be as important as Waco historically, due to legal precedents established. See https://en.wikipedia.org/NXIVM_Corp._v._Ross_Institute" —Ross. {{strong|This basically seems to be "the meat of the matter" that requires source research.}}
* "My work on ... NXIVM criminal trial testimony ... is notable and brings the bio up to date. ... My point is that my work did not cease in 2004 and in fact expanded and continued as reported." —Ross. This is reasonable and is why I (SMcCandlish) care enough to examine this; I don't like grossly outdated bio articles here, much less ones that have a {{lang|la|non sequitur}} in them, introducing something like an NXIVM lawsuit with no context at all (and no information on how that case resolved).
* "see from the many links regarding my documentary work, court battle with NXIVM and subsequent testimony at cult leader Keith Raniere's criminal trial ... there has been considerable work reported in the past 20 years that is both relevant and notable. So why isn't it in this bio? It is reflected elsewhere on Misplaced Pages. Certainly reliable and credible sources according to Misplaced Pages have reported it. NXIVM, by any objective measurement, is far more noteworthy than the Jason Scott case. ... put NXIVM in the lead and follow with Waco." —Ross. Overall this seems reasonable enough to look into, especially if other articles here have some sources cited already that can be re-used, though really just search-engining around for additional source materials should not be that much of a challenge.
{{collapse bottom}}


The above can be distilled into a very rough draft along the lines of the following (using a bit of existing material in the article and the source for it, but without any other sources yet):
::: I agree with the tag. As there is a whole article on the Jason Scott case, there really is no reason to expose material in such graphic detail and in such great length here in a person's biography. I tried to prune it back, but this (and a bunch of other stuff I thought improved the focus of the bio) was "]" reverted by Jayen, and I'm not getting involved in any edit warring here. ] (]) 03:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
::::], perhaps you could try trimming it back a bit, so I could see and discuss what you were getting at? ''']''' (]) 08:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
:The "graphic detail" is detail that has been reported in many, many sources. Its factual accuracy is uncontested. Please discuss any proposed deletions here first. We have had the ] deletions of sourced and verifiable material, we have had the ], so let's ] what the concerns are before deleting sourced material again. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 10:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
::We are discussing. I would like to see what idea ] has in mind as far as trimming the POV pushing from the article. ''']''' (]) 10:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
:::Well, then let us discuss what Ohconfucius would like to trim before he trims it. Is that a problem? <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 10:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
:::* I already trimmed it, yet Jayen did an almost full revert whilst claiming a partial revert. to me seemed to be sufficiently concise, yet carries the essence of Ross' biography, yet Jayen said he thought the JS case deserved more weight. ] (]) 10:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
::::I did an almost full revert to begin with and then went through your edits one by one, restoring another half dozen or so I agreed with. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 13:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


{{tqb|Ross's book was the first about cults to mention ], a non-religious group framed around "human potential development" seminars, and acting as a front for a variety of criminal activities. Papers published by Cult Education Institute (then still named Ross Institute) were the first critical analyses of NXIVM as a cult by mental-health professionals. NXIVM, in April 2004, sued Ross in '']'', claiming copyright infringement;<sup></sup> this 14-year legal battle against Ross ultimately was not successful. Ross later testified as a fact witness for the prosecution at the criminal trial of NXIVM leader ] in 2019. Raniere was found guilty of racketeering, human trafficking, sex offenses, and fraud, and was sentenced to 120 years in prison and a $1.75 million fine.}}
== NPOV noticeboard ==
I've started a ] -- I think we can do with some community input to get this right. Cheers, <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 11:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


This is missing various details (What did Ross's book and the CEI papers say about NXIVM, in nutshell summary? How exactly did the case resolve? Why was it a copyright case, which is kind of weird?), but I think there must be sources we can use already cited at the case article, at the NXIVM article, at the Raniere article, and possibly at one or another of the articles on the documentaries. One part from the thread summary above that is not addressed is "legal precedents established", since I don't know what that refers to, though perhaps the case article covers this (I haven't pored over it yet).
== Recent edits around the phrase "rescued many people from harmful situations" ==
This was the opinion of the Observer journalist, rather than a claim that Ross has made. I accept that editors might argue that it is only the opinion of one journalist, and thus should not be given ] weight, or that it should be attributed. However, I believe that there are other sources that have made the same assessment. Ideally, we should locate some of those and add them as references to this sentence to put it on a better footing. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 13:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


If something like the above block can be properly sourced and put into the article, then it would also be appropriate to include a summary of Ross's involvement with NXIVM matters in the lead of the article, since it's arguably more significant than some of what is already in the lead. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 03:17, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
== False or misleading statements that remain uncorrected ==


:The case article ] sums it up pretty well; but some statements there don't seem to be properly supported by the sources cited, so we'll need to investigate that some more. That article hopefully has enough sources to fill in all those details that seem missing above, like copyright: because NXIVM wanted to suppress the criticism and publication of their manuals; the precedent seems to be in the lead of the other article:"critical analysis of material obtained in bad faith, i.e., in violation of a non-disclosure agreement, was fair use since the secondary use was transformative as criticism and was not a potential replacement for the original on the market, regardless of how the material was obtained". If we need more sources for specific info we can ask Mr. Ross. ---''']]''' 00:05, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
"Ross had handled more than 350 deprogramming cases in various countries including the United States, the United Kingdom, Israel and Italy, with a typical cost of around $5,000 per case (in 2008 dollars)."


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


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


By 2004, Ross had handled more than 350 deprogramming cases in various countries and testified as an expert witness in several court cases. He has also contributed to a number of books, including a foreword to Tim Madigan's See No Evil and a chapter to Roman Espejo's Cults: Opposing Viewpoints.
In this section Jayen466 hopes to minimize the "not guilty" verdict of the jury as much as possible. He wants readers to think that the security guards somehow took responsibility. However, the jury made it very clear after the verdict was read that they approved of the involuntary intervention, when they congratulated me and thanked me for doing my work. The jury only deliberated for two hours. Jayen466 hopes to minimize the weight of the criminal trial, while maximizing the weight of the civil trial per his POV. I was offered the possibility of a plea bargain, though my lawyer advised it would not be as lenient as what was offered to my co-defendants. I refused to consider any plea offer. This should be edited to reflect the facts. For example, offering a comment without context from my lawyer and what some jurors may have said outside of their verdict. My lawyer actually said much more than what is quoted, he argued the lesser of two evils defense, that the deprogramming was for Jason's welfare, that his mother was in charge, but never charged, etc. etc. Jayen466 is attempting to parse quotes per his POV.


But I have testified in notable cult trials including NXIVM criminal trial of Keith Raniere and recently the rape trial of cult leader Eligio Bishop.
"The judge commented that the defendants appeared unable to appreciate the maliciousness of their conduct towards Scott, preferring instead to see themselves as victims of a vendetta. Hence the substantial damages awarded seemed necessary in order to deter similar conduct in future."


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


By 2004, Ross had handled more than 350 deprogramming cases in various countries and testified as an expert witness in several court cases.. Ross testified as a fact witness in the criminal trial of NXIVM leader Keith Raniere and as an expert witness at the trial of Carbon Nation leader Eligio Bishop. Both alleged cult leaders were criminally convicted and sentenced to prison, Raniere for more than 100 years and Bishop for life without parole. He has also contributed to a number of books, including a foreword to Tim Madigan's See No Evil and a chapter to Roman Espejo's Cults: Opposing Viewpoints.
"Scott's new lawyer, Graham Berry, a noted opponent of Scientology, said however that "it would be a mistake to assume that Scott's decision to make use of Ross' time was a vindication of Ross or his deprogramming methods."


See https://www.timesunion.com/nxivm/article/Cult-expert-testifies-about-his-dealings-with-13972283.php
Again, Jayen466 attempts to minimize the impact of the settlement. It is also an almost incoherent remark. Jason Scott valued my time, otherwise he would not have made it such a large part of the settlement. Needless to say, it was a humiliating setback for Scientology, i.e. that Kendrick Moxon's former client fired him, criticized him and Scientology publicly, and sold a $3 million dollar judgment that Scientology had spent so much time and money to get for so little monetarily and for my deprogramming time, which was what Moxon had sued me over in the first place. Very ironic to say the least. Berry's opinion about the settlement should be deleted, and discussion of the court actions by Moxon to declare Scott incompetent and to void the settlement included.


And see https://www.vice.com/en/article/j5wk88/what-its-like-to-be-surveilled-and-sued-by-nxivm
"Nancy Ammerman, a professor of sociology of religion and one of four experts commissioned to author a report to the Justice and Treasury Departments on events in Waco, similarly voiced criticism of the BATF and FBI for relying on Ross without taking these stakes into account."


Also see https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/cult-expert-testifies-at-rape-trial-of-accused-cult-leader-eligio-bishop
This statement should be followed by the fact that none of the three other experts said anything about me and therefore did not concur with Ammerman's assessment.


And see https://hoodline.com/2024/02/cult-clash-in-the-courtroom-expert-brands-eligio-bishop-a-destructive-leader-amidst-atlanta-rape-trial-shockers/ ] (]) 21:44, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Other than this the Waco Davidian section reads like some fantasy. Jayen466 has chosen his favorite "scholars," as surrogates to express his POV, which is what a very small minority faction might feel about Koresh and the Davidians. In this revisionist version of history Koresh is somehow not a "stereotypical...dangerous cult leader" and the Waco Davidians didn't fit "the generalized pattern of a destructive cult." And any former members of the group that walked away due to well-documented abuses are somehow simply labeled and categorized as "apostates." Such editing makes this entry seem disconnected from reality. Perhaps the best way to demonstrate balance here is to add references about the conclusions reached through the many investigations, reports, court proceedings, and also the opinions expressed by mental health professionals about David Koresh and the Waco Davidians. This would place the matter within its authentic and objective historical context.


:I added info from the TimesUnion source; I didn't see it using the term "fact witness". I don't have time now to look at the other sources, so that's all for now. ---''']]''' 01:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Again, it's still somewhat amazing how a Misplaced Pages bio can become so dominated by one editor.] (]) 17:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
: That's, especially in esoteric articles such as this one is, not so surprising. What is more surprising is that the article nevertheless is in your favor. There are a number of reasons for that, I believe, one of which is that people involved in new religious movements are habitually on the defense. I do not have such qualms, as I'm an agnostic scholar. I don't believe in silly things like Scientology, but neither do I believe that zealots like you are dispensing the truth. You have ] on your side, I have ] and ] in my corner, let's see, who convinces more people. <font color="#ff9900">]</font><tt><sub>]</sub></tt> 01:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 03:35, 5 August 2024

Skip to table of contents
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.
Article policies
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: 2 months 
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconBiography
WikiProject iconThis 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
WikiProject iconCrime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconReligion: Falun Gong / New religious movements Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is within the scope of Falun Gong work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as Mid-importance).
WikiProject iconScientology
WikiProject iconThis article is supported by WikiProject Scientology, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Scientology. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on Scientology-related topics. See WikiProject Scientology and Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ.ScientologyWikipedia:WikiProject ScientologyTemplate:WikiProject ScientologyScientology
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
VRT iconThis article is the subject of a request emailed to the Volunteer Response Team (VRT).

Issues identified are: Contentious categorization, correction of information related to institute, subject's image updated
The VRTS ticket number is 2014050110009454.

Please discuss these issues here, being mindful of the policies on biographies of living persons.

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.
Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
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.

Request for edit: Richardson's description

Part of an edit requested by an editor with a conflict of interest has been implemented.

The following statement represents a point of view per a particular academic and lacks balance.

"Professor of Sociology and Judicial Studies James T. Richardson describes deprogramming as a 'private, self-help process whereby participants in unpopular new religious movements (NRMs) were forcibly removed from the group, incarcerated, and put through radical resocialization processes that were supposed to result in their agreeing to leave the group.'"

It must be amended, both for balance and context.

I suggest the following:

There has been some controversy regarding the practice of deprogamming. Author and clinical psychologist Margaret Singer writes in her book "Cults in Our Midst" that deprogramming is "Providing members with information about the cult and showing them how their own decision-making power had been taken away from them." (Margaret Singer, Cults in Our Midst,San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers, 1995). But Professor of Sociology and Judicial Studies James T. Richardson, a defender of new religious movements called "cults," described deprogramming as the "private, self-help process whereby participants in unpopular new religious movements (NRMs) were forcibly removed from the group, incarcerated, and put through radical resocialization processes that were supposed to result in their agreeing to leave the group." However, according to Vanderbilt Law Review "For purposes of legal analysis, there are three types of deprogramming. Voluntary deprogramming; forcible deprogramming; and deprogramming carried out with a court's sanction, usually in the form of an order of conservatorship." See https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2794&context=vlr Rick Alan Ross (talk) 19:30, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Please check and update the url. You may want to provide full citation information so it can be found in another manner. --Hipal (talk) 19:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC) That now works. Thanks! --Hipal (talk) 19:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Doing my best.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 20:52, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Won't you please make the edit including statement by Vanderbilt Law Review. This does offer needed objective factual balance from a legal perspective.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
I have implemented a version of this, that avoids making unsourced claims about Richardson and about NRMs in general, like "a defender of new religious movements called 'cults'", which is just your attempt to character-assassinate him and them. That he has views supportive of NRMs is already apparent to every reader from his quotation. "Author and" was also redundant when the same sentence says "in her book". And it's not "her book", but a co-authored volume. A page number is needed for this citation. A "But" construction followed by a "However" construction is poor writing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Understood. Thank you for including the findings of Vanderbilt, which add a legal perspective."Rick Alan Ross (talk) 16:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Cults in Our Midst is not a reliable source. It is based on Singer's work for the APA Task Force on Deceptive and Indirect Methods of Persuasion and Control, but her findings were famously rejected by the APA for its bias and lack of academic rigor. Since then, Singer has consistently been rejected as an expert witness in court. I suggest that information from this source gets removed from the article or replaced with information from a source that is more credible. Theobvioushero (talk) 22:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
We should probably clarify in the material about Singer's reputation in this sphere, though we are not citing her work for a claim of fact, only for a directly quoted opinion, and her material (and its early influence, and its castigation by APA) is certainly evidentiary of the "There has been some controversy regarding the practice of deprogamming" statement. There cannot be a controversy about something without at least one participant in the debate being wrong, or there would be no controversy but an agreement. That is to say, Singer did much to popularize some notions, rightly or wrongly, so is a part of the encyclopedically noteworthy controversy and should not be suppressed out of the material; we just need to make sure that WP:DUE is being served here and not make Singer out to be something like a widely-recognized expert. Do you have any revision suggestions?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Singer is controversial for her work on brainwashing, not for her views on deprogramming. It would be very difficult to find anyone who supports Ross's deprogrammings.
While the term "deprogramming" used to refer to both voluntary and involuntary interventions, today, that word refers to involuntary interventions. Those who practice voluntary interventions typically call their work "exit counseling" to distance themselves from those who practice involuntary intervention. The involuntary deprogramming that Ross practices has been widely condemned by countless scholars and experts. I am not aware of a single authoritative person who supports this practice.
So, I would say to remove the Singer reference as being outdated and unreliable. However, it is also important to have at least a paragraph explaining the widespread criticisms of Ross's deprogramming methods, since these criticisms have had such a large impact on his public image.
I actually think the entire "Career" section should be split into "Career" and "Criticisms and Controversies" section, but that might be too large of a change to make in addressing this one issue. Theobvioushero (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Properly covering Ross–NXIVM matters

From the above threads, it appears that we are lacking some coverage of Ross's involvement in the NXIVM controversy or whatever one wants to call it. The present article text mentions NXIVM only with the non sequitur "NXIVM, in April 2004, unsuccessfully sued Ross's Cult Education Institute in NXIVM Corp. v. Ross Institute, claiming copyright infringement.", follwed later by "Ross has been interviewed for various documentaries ... including: The Vow, season 1, episode 6, "Honesty & Disclosure" (2020, HBO), about Catherine Oxenberg and the NXIVM cult; Seduced: Inside the NXIVM Cult (2020, Starz), about the same; ....".

So, the "meat" of the Ross–NXIVM connection is missing.

To very selectively quote just the relevant stuff from all the earlier threads, and consolidate this into one talk-page topic:

All the above closed-out Edit-COI requests are likely to be moved to an archive page soon, so here's the relevant gist:

  • "There are many others who have commented positively about my work, for example concerning NXIVM." —Ross. So, these should be findable sources.
  • "my work did not end with the Scott case, but rather greatly expanded and continued, which also has been widely reported. See https://www.oxygen.com/true-crime-buzz/who-is-cult-expert-rick-ross-whats-his-connection-to-nxivm ..." —Ross. That source has already been used as proof of participation in a documentary, though I'm not sure it has anything about direct involvement with the NXIVM case.
  • Some specific revision language that was suggested: "Ross testified for the prosecution at the criminal trial of NXIVM cult leader Keith Raniere in 2019. Raniere was found guilty of racketeering, human trafficking, sex offenses, and fraud and sentenced to 120 years in prison and a $1.75 million fine. See https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/founder-nxivm-purported-self-help-organization-and-five-others-charged-superseding and see https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/27/nyregion/nxivm-cult-keith-raniere-sentenced.html ... In 2020 Ross appeared in the widely watched documentaries The Vow and Seduced concerning NXIVM and Raniere. See https://onezero.medium.com/cult-deprogrammer-rick-alan-ross-on-nxivm-qanon-and-what-makes-us-vulnerable-62f6c709562c and see https://seduceddocumentary.com/theexperts/rickalanross/" —Ross. Some of the latter of this (about docus) has been integrated (by SMcCandlish), but the participation in the case directly stuff is what we're missing sources on (and any mention of in the article).
  • "Regarding the documentary Seduced see https://en.wikipedia.org/Seduced:_Inside_the_NXIVM_Cult already established through notes here at Misplaced Pages." —Ross. I (SMcCandlish) did pull one source from that article to use for citing a documentary-related claim here, but there may be other relevant sources already cited there.
  • "NXIVM: Neither source contains the text 'Ross', so they are not sources for any Ross involvement in that case. Involvement seems very likely and probably provable, but these are not sources for it. One source mentioned below does mention involvement in the case, but in too little detail to be useful. NXIVM stuff should be a separate edit request, suggesting particular material to add that provides a summary of the Ross involvement in that case, and multiple independent, reliable sources with in-depth coverage." —SMcCandlish; who is now opening the present thread as a way of addressing this, without waiting on another {{Edit COI}} request from Ross.
  • "Variety mentions my historical significance See https://variety.com/2020/tv/news/the-vow-where-are-keith-raniere-allison-mack-1234808846/" —Ross
  • "The Variety source ... mention of 'Ross' .. in connection to the background lawsuit" —SMcCandlish
  • "NXIVM and the Waco Davidian standoff are the most prominent cult events in my work history. But the Jason Scott case is not how I am known by the public, its meaningful to be included, but not equally prominent when compared to NXIVM and Waco.
  • "My book was the first book about cults to mention NXIVM. And the papers by two respected doctors published at culteducation.com was the first critical analysis by mental health professionals released about NXIVM. Raniere's 14-year legal battle with me, which he ultimately lost, was widely reported. And of course I worked with the Justice Department and FBI regarding his prosecution and testified as a fact witness at his trial. It seems to me that my battle with Raniere will be as important as Waco historically, due to legal precedents established. See https://en.wikipedia.org/NXIVM_Corp._v._Ross_Institute" —Ross. This basically seems to be "the meat of the matter" that requires source research.
  • "My work on ... NXIVM criminal trial testimony ... is notable and brings the bio up to date. ... My point is that my work did not cease in 2004 and in fact expanded and continued as reported." —Ross. This is reasonable and is why I (SMcCandlish) care enough to examine this; I don't like grossly outdated bio articles here, much less ones that have a non sequitur in them, introducing something like an NXIVM lawsuit with no context at all (and no information on how that case resolved).
  • "see from the many links regarding my documentary work, court battle with NXIVM and subsequent testimony at cult leader Keith Raniere's criminal trial ... there has been considerable work reported in the past 20 years that is both relevant and notable. So why isn't it in this bio? It is reflected elsewhere on Misplaced Pages. Certainly reliable and credible sources according to Misplaced Pages have reported it. NXIVM, by any objective measurement, is far more noteworthy than the Jason Scott case. ... put NXIVM in the lead and follow with Waco." —Ross. Overall this seems reasonable enough to look into, especially if other articles here have some sources cited already that can be re-used, though really just search-engining around for additional source materials should not be that much of a challenge.

The above can be distilled into a very rough draft along the lines of the following (using a bit of existing material in the article and the source for it, but without any other sources yet):

Ross's book was the first about cults to mention NXIVM, a non-religious group framed around "human potential development" seminars, and acting as a front for a variety of criminal activities. Papers published by Cult Education Institute (then still named Ross Institute) were the first critical analyses of NXIVM as a cult by mental-health professionals. NXIVM, in April 2004, sued Ross in NXIVM Corp. v. Ross Institute, claiming copyright infringement; this 14-year legal battle against Ross ultimately was not successful. Ross later testified as a fact witness for the prosecution at the criminal trial of NXIVM leader Keith Raniere in 2019. Raniere was found guilty of racketeering, human trafficking, sex offenses, and fraud, and was sentenced to 120 years in prison and a $1.75 million fine.

This is missing various details (What did Ross's book and the CEI papers say about NXIVM, in nutshell summary? How exactly did the case resolve? Why was it a copyright case, which is kind of weird?), but I think there must be sources we can use already cited at the case article, at the NXIVM article, at the Raniere article, and possibly at one or another of the articles on the documentaries. One part from the thread summary above that is not addressed is "legal precedents established", since I don't know what that refers to, though perhaps the case article covers this (I haven't pored over it yet).

If something like the above block can be properly sourced and put into the article, then it would also be appropriate to include a summary of Ross's involvement with NXIVM matters in the lead of the article, since it's arguably more significant than some of what is already in the lead.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:17, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

The case article NXIVM Corp. v. Ross Institute sums it up pretty well; but some statements there don't seem to be properly supported by the sources cited, so we'll need to investigate that some more. That article hopefully has enough sources to fill in all those details that seem missing above, like copyright: because NXIVM wanted to suppress the criticism and publication of their manuals; the precedent seems to be in the lead of the other article:"critical analysis of material obtained in bad faith, i.e., in violation of a non-disclosure agreement, was fair use since the secondary use was transformative as criticism and was not a potential replacement for the original on the market, regardless of how the material was obtained". If we need more sources for specific info we can ask Mr. Ross. ---Avatar317 00:05, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Court Expert Witness

The bio now states:

By 2004, Ross had handled more than 350 deprogramming cases in various countries and testified as an expert witness in several court cases. He has also contributed to a number of books, including a foreword to Tim Madigan's See No Evil and a chapter to Roman Espejo's Cults: Opposing Viewpoints.

But I have testified in notable cult trials including NXIVM criminal trial of Keith Raniere and recently the rape trial of cult leader Eligio Bishop.

I suggest the paragraph be revise to read:

By 2004, Ross had handled more than 350 deprogramming cases in various countries and testified as an expert witness in several court cases.. Ross testified as a fact witness in the criminal trial of NXIVM leader Keith Raniere and as an expert witness at the trial of Carbon Nation leader Eligio Bishop. Both alleged cult leaders were criminally convicted and sentenced to prison, Raniere for more than 100 years and Bishop for life without parole. He has also contributed to a number of books, including a foreword to Tim Madigan's See No Evil and a chapter to Roman Espejo's Cults: Opposing Viewpoints.

See https://www.timesunion.com/nxivm/article/Cult-expert-testifies-about-his-dealings-with-13972283.php

And see https://www.vice.com/en/article/j5wk88/what-its-like-to-be-surveilled-and-sued-by-nxivm

Also see https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/cult-expert-testifies-at-rape-trial-of-accused-cult-leader-eligio-bishop

And see https://hoodline.com/2024/02/cult-clash-in-the-courtroom-expert-brands-eligio-bishop-a-destructive-leader-amidst-atlanta-rape-trial-shockers/ Rick Alan Ross (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I added info from the TimesUnion source; I didn't see it using the term "fact witness". I don't have time now to look at the other sources, so that's all for now. ---Avatar317 01:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Categories: