Talk:Rick Alan Ross/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Fringe issues

One thing that may need to be addressed here is that the worldview that Ross works within is fringe: it's based upon the belief in brainwashing, deprogramming, and that there is something substantial when some religious entities are labeled "cults". Let's not forget, "cult" is a derogatory term that's otherwise fairly meaningless. "Cult" and other terms, beliefs, assumptions, etc from the Opposition to new religious movements worldview need to be used with care, and qualified. Because Ross works completely within this worldview, we need to be especially careful what we present and how. Currently the article does a fairly good job of not assuming this worldview, but probably needs to address it stronger than just the Opposition to new religious movements links at the bottom of the article. For example, while "deprogrammer" is appropriate linked, "cult" never is, and "brainwash" should be linked to Mind_control#New_religious_movements.

Note that the changes that are being repeated proposed by Ross assume and assert his worldview far beyond anything we currently have in the article. --Ronz (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Civility Ronz: "The worldview that Ross works within is fringe"? "'Cult' is a derogatory term that's otherwise fairly meaningless."? Not according to numerous court rulings, law enforcement, government reports, substantial research in the fields of sociology, pscyhology, communications and ongoing news reports by the mainstream media. Wikipedia: NPOV This may be your POV, but the bio should reflect a NPOVRick Alan Ross (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry that you don't like my take on the fringe nature of all this. No offense meant. Will you be offering supporting sources at some point? --Ronz (talk) 16:41, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I changed the brainwashing link to the more specific target you recommended. I am not sure if all of the cults he deals with fall under the definition of NRM or not so I just linked to cult. I have no objection if someone else makes the more specific link though. Jbh^Talk 16:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like Ross' labeling of a "cult" is extra-vague, even for within the worldview.

Do others consider these obvious FRINGE issues? Would a WP:FTN discussion help? --Ronz (talk) 16:41, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I think it would be useful to get an outside perspective from FTN. I am inclined to consider the bulk of deprogramming/"exit counciling" as fringy, at least as the practice is defined wrt this topic. One of the main reasons I object to using the term "expert" is that I have seen no evidence the methods/techniques/mode of analysis he uses is based on or informed by the current, main stream, academic disciplines that spply (psychology (behavioral and neuro), sociology, anthropology). Nor do I see any evidence that experts in those fields who work on cults acknowledge him a peer or make use of his works. Hmmm... looks like I defined WP:FRINGE... so yeah... Jbh^Talk 18:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Jbhunley: "Fringe"? Wikipedia:Tendentious editing I have repeatedly noted and linked reliable sources to confirm my expertise. I have been invited to lecture at more than 30 Universities and colleges in the United States, Thailand and China. I have been a consultant to law enforcement and also the Israeli Social Ministry. My book, which contains more than 1,200 research footnotes and a 18-page bibliography, draws upon the fields of psychology, sociology and communications. My book has been published in Chinese and Italian. I have presented papers at three international conferences, which have been published in peer-reviewed academic journals. My expertise has been recognized in a court of law and I have testified in court proceedings as a qualified and accepted expert in 10 states including US Federal Court. My expertise is recognized by the mainstream media in the United States and internationally. I have worked with psychiatrists, psychologists, clergy and social workers professionally regarding specific cases. I have been a paid professional analyst for CBS, CBC, Nippon and Asahi News. My work history is not limited to deprogramming interventions.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I think taking it to WP:FTN is a fine idea. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I Agree with Dbrodbeck . My agreement is based on my work as an Anthropologist studying New Religious Movements. In Anthropology, we call NRM's that Mr. Ross calls Cults, "High Demand Religions", in general. We have other terms for abusive movements intended to enrich their founders or abuse their congregations. No one is suggesting there aren't abusive religious groups; just that Ross's definition is overly broad as to be almost meaningless. I'm an inclusionist and as one, I agree that Ross deserves a detailed article since people see him as a Talking Head all over what used to be educational channels such as The History Channel which have become fringe TV. I agree with the sentiment that we try hard to keep in-article wikilinks neutral. LiPollis (talk) 21:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

The historical problem with using NRM as a label is that many groups called "cults" are not based upon religion. Some are based upon such things as pseudo-science, UFOs, politics, martial arts, philosophy, business schemes, environmental issues, etc. Authoritarian High Demand Groups might work But as you must know there is disagreement within academia on the issue of cults in the fields of sociology and religious studies. In my book I propose the nucleus for a definition of a destructive cult based upon a paper published at Harvard University by Robert Jay Lifton titled "Cult Formation" and cite how many definitions converge on Lifton's three primary characteristics. [[1]]. I acknowledge that there can be personality driven groups dominated by a living leader considered benign cults. With all due respect CBS News, CBC, CNN and the BBC are not "fringe TV." My work with the mainstream media as an analyst/consultant goes back to the 1980s and is ongoing today.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 15:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I have posted at the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard regarding our exchange here.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 21:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:FTN discussion started: Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Rick_Alan_Ross_-_deprogrammer --Ronz (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that this is a fringe subject*. I'm also completely certain that Rick's claim to notability hinges entirely upon the Jason Scott case. That being said, I do agree that the lead sentence calling him simply a "deprogrammer" is inaccurate and not reflective of the sources.

*Quite a bit of psychology is fringe, by simple dint of the fact that psychology -especially applied psychology- is constantly running up against the boundary of what we know about the subject. For example, a new paper in physics is likely built upon well-tested principles with hundreds of papers addressing them. New papers in psychology tend to be more 'bleeding edge' in that they're based upon new, unproven theories with relatively few papers and few experiments to back them up. This is not a critique of psychology, simply an acknowledgement that we know quite a bit less about the human mind than we know about other scientific areas, such as physics or mathematics. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE/PS says "Alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process. They should not be classified as pseudoscience but should still be put into context with respect to the mainstream perspective." I don't even know how alternative of a view this is, but I'm not ready to say it's fringe. There's definitely plenty of literature about it, so what are the main arguments that it's fringe? —PermStrump(talk) 20:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I do not believe anyone is calling brainwashing pseudoscience rather a "fringe theory" per WP:FRINGE "... fringe theories in science depart significantly from mainstream science and scientific consensus while having little or no scientific support." The question being asked is whether there is support for the concepts of brainwashing and deprogramming within mainstream science and if there at one time was whether it is supported by the current state of knowledge within the relavent fields. Jbh^Talk 20:54, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Part of the problem as I see it is that Ross' formulation of what "brainwashing" is has not been subject to peer review nor, based on the article, have his methods/views on deprogramming. Jbh^Talk 20:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I generally use fringe to mean "that which exists on the fringes". So as I've said before, I consider loop quantum gravity to be a fringe theory, even though it is certainly legitimate. But I've been into this subject for years, and I've seen that the difference between it and something obviously pseudoscientific like free energy theories is one of degrees, not fundamentals. So while I understand that my definition diverges from the definition given on various policy and style pages, I stick with it. If you ask me, this is fringe. If you ask the writers of the the relevant WP policy pages? Probably not. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:08, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

As I've just posted on the "fringe noticeboard" (it's not helpful for this discussion to be fragmented all over the place), I'm not sure how this theoretical discussion of what is "fringe" or not relates to the actual content of the article. This isn't a situation in which a BLP subject (or anyone else) is trying to push some theory or viewpoint onto Wikipedia. I believe it's clear that Mr. Ross would just as soon not have a Wikipedia article at all. Whatever we might choose to write about brainwashing or deprogramming in those articles, I'm not sure how whether Mr. Ross's work is based upon peer-reviewed or non-peer-reviewed theories is supposed to bear on the content of this article. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I think that policy uses fringe and pseudoscience somewhat interchangeably at times. My takeaway from that was that alternative theoretical formulations aren't the same as fringe, but still need to be contextualized and given due weight (like everything else in wikipedia). So far this is what I found about brainwashing... In 2010 in the peer-reviewed journal Deviant Behavior, someone I never heard of, Dominiek Coates from the University of New Castle in Australia, wrote

Cult membership is an area of psychological and sociological interest, with an overview of the literature indicating little agreement among researchers who study cults or new religious movements. These researchers generally join the ranks of one of two opposing camps; those who support ‘‘brainwashing theories,’’ predominantly psychologists, psychiatrists, and social workers (Hassan 1988, 2000; Lalich and Tobias 2006; Singer 2003; Singer and Ofshe 1990; Singer 1979; West 1993), and those who argue that cults simply represent alternative cultures that people join through an exercise of their own volition; a volition they also use to leave after some time (Barker 1984; Richardson 2004). (doi:10.1080/01639625.2010.548302)

It sounds to me like he's saying there are people on both sides of the fence, not that everyone disagrees with people who believe in brainwashing. Newyorkbrad It relates to this article because it would probably change the way things are framed. —PermStrump(talk) 21:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't jive with my recollection, but Coates is likely a better source than my recollection. So if we have an RS that states it's controversial, we should go that route. It'd be easy enough to confirm by checking out his sources for those two statements. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. My take from the discussions related to my initial questions are that these are definitely fringe issues, but there's little concern that they're being treated improperly. (I forgot about this revert that's relevant and shows that we need to take care not to COATRACK or give undue weight to the background of the fringe issues.) I think the FTN results to change the first sentence, along with the discussion here, and relevant edits are warranted and properly worded, with the exception of the expert witness mention, which I'll start a separate discussion.

As mentioned below, we need to actually identify a reliable source for the changes to the lede, and be sure they are used in the article. Without reviewing the past discussions, I recall a People Magazine ref being proposed that may not be too poor to use. --Ronz (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Unarchive request

@Bishonen: I noticed the threads under discussion have been archived. Would you, or anyone else who knows how to, please unarchive Talk:Rick_Alan_Ross/Archive_7#Rick_Ross.2C_deprogrammer and Talk:Rick_Alan_Ross/Archive_7#Review_of_suggested_changes? I do not know if just cut/pasting them back to the talk page will mess up the archiving bot and do not want to risk it. Thank you. Jbh^Talk 02:18, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Would advise against unarchiving threads. Not so much for technical reasons (the bot would just archive them again), as for a choice that was made some time ago to not keep threads too long on this page. Better to post a notification in current threads that the relevant discussions are now at

• Talk:Rick Alan Ross/Archive 7#Rick Ross, deprogrammer
• Talk:Rick Alan Ross/Archive 7#Review of suggested changes

The parameters of the archive bot could be changed to keep threads longer on this page (which is really simple to do), but I would oppose it. Linking to the archived threads has the advantage that these links won't change again, also not when current threads on several pages will be archived in the future.

Maybe the lesson to draw here is to not start new threads too soon, when posting further comments about talk page sections that should still be active.

That being said, commenting about the archived threads linked to above:

• I've seen Rick Alan Ross imply in several places that I would have vetted his selection of sources: nothing is less true, I scarcely looked at them. It was my intention, clearly expressed in the first of the two threads linked to above, to format this for a WP:RSN request, and wait for the outcome of such procedure.
• Regarding Bishonen's and other rephrasing proposals: I didn't comment on these yet, while, yeah I'd like to have seen them pass an appropriate noticeboard first.
• Re. Jbhunley's stance that R. A. Ross is almost exclusively known for the Scott case: that has been repeated so many times now, and I'm still not convinced. So please stop repeating that as if The Truth, without being able to prove it. Afaik, there are many references to Ross in reliable sources that can be found at (for instance) Google books referring to him and/or his website as a source for all kinds of information, not tied to the Scott case (nor even necessarily to Scientology). It takes some effort to sort out, while not all sources at Google books are necessarily reliable (a lot of it is mere Scientology propaganda or otherwise not a WP:RS), but a lot of it passes that criterion.

I'd like to see more of that as a support of R. A. Ross' notability, instead of popular TV shows, blogs about these, and the like (which are always a bit more difficult WP:RS-wise). I'd invite R. A. Ross again to have a good look at the WP:RS guideline. It is not well-written (its information is a bit of a hotchpotch), nonetheless it is clear that most WP:BLOGS are on sight rejected as unreliable sources for Wikipedia's interests (so please stop proposing sources in that sense as if they're something we should take into account).

I think the fact that we have now two external discussions concurrently (FTN, BLPN) unfortunate, and would have prevented it if I could. My suggestion was clear: take this to WP:RSN now first, but at this point opening a third thread on a external noticeboard would make things only worse. The opening sentence suggestion "Rick Alan Ross is a noted expert in the field of cults, who gained early notoriety for his involvement in controversies related to deprogramming" at FTN is the best I saw thus far coming out of current noticeboard discussions. What do others think about that suggestion?

The whole "Fringe theory" approach is imho a bit of a red herring, for reasons similar to what was already discussed on this talk page, e.g. Talk:Rick Alan Ross/Archive 7#"Does any of these sources mention Ross?": Ross is afaik not so much a theorist. I've seen no RSs thus far that explain his theories about cults: if none of the (Wikipedia-wise) reliable sources explain his theories in that respect, nor contain refutations of Ross' particular theories in that respect, Wikipedia must remain silent about the point in Ross' biography. Otherwise: show me the sources. And I mean: not the general ones, the ones that may or may not apply to Ross. In my experience, thus far, Ross seems more like a hands-on man than someone who publishes minute theoretical approaches about what is the difference between a cult and a NRM, or the psychological definitions of brainwashing and deprogramming. He applies the theories, and without further discussion in reliable sources we don't know which of the panoply of theories on the point that were published by various theorists, really apply to Ross' approach. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your notes on how to handle the archived threads. Particularly about starting so many threads on the same topoc. One point I think worth clairifying from your post - I do not think "Ross is known almost exclusivly for the Scott case" and I do not believe I have stated that although others have. My position is that his notability arises primarily from the Scott case and related actions and a bit less so from reporting surrounding the Waco siege. These are the things the highest quality sources talk about when they discuss him after the flurry of Scott and Waco reporting. The other sources are primarily ephemeral where he is acting as a "talking head" for news media - I have no objection to mentioning this role only to using the introductory descriptions of his background used by these segments when describing him as that type of reporting the "talking head" often provides the bio and because of his role it is not reporting about him. Nor do I have objection to mentioning his work as an expert witness but again most of these reports are primarily about the trials which he is involved in rather than being the type of sources from which long term notability and biographical information is gleaned.

In short, based on the sources we have, he made a couple of big splashes which put him on the map with lots of ripples spreading from those splashes. Jbh^Talk 10:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

For instance what I would like to see are independent RS talking about his multiple media consultant roles and how that is significant rather than adding up lots of these and ourselves saying they are significant. The same goes for his role as an expert witness. Yes, he has done these things many times but we have no sources saying this agregate is significant. Making that claim of significance on our own is kind of WP:ORy in my opinion. And using the intros to these same appearances to document the same appearances are in aggregate significant is circular. Jbh^Talk 10:45, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

My point in that respect being that apart from the notability deriving from the famous cases and possibly/questionably from the popular media appearances, there's a Wikipedia-wise important notability factor deriving from his web-archive on Cults/NRMs (and that substantial notability factor seems to be systematically ignored on both sides of this debate). Here's a search I just tested in GoogleBooks: "Rick Ross Institute cult -Wikipedia -Scientology -Scott -Waco". Many reliable sources (I don't say all of the over thousand that appear) refer to the web archive managed by Ross. If that were all we had WP:GNG-wise, it would warrant an article. It is underrepresented in Ross' Wikipedia biography, and more particularily in the lead section of the article.

I don't live in the US, consequently I heard about Ross' involvement in Waco and the Scott case only after having encountered the web archive. Reasonings on whether the web-archive would have become popular with or without the prior Scott case are immaterial, not the kind of WP:OR Wikipedians should indulge in. The web archive is an accomplishment of Ross referenced in hundreds of reliable sources, that furthermore are not too difficult to find. So, let's build on that a bit. @Rick Alan Ross: I know that much of what can be found on Google books is not favorable to you, but trying to override it with references to blog-like features won't work (as should be clear by now). But there's a vast field to be explored there, and a lot of these sources just refer to your work in a factual manner. I propose to concentrate on that for a bit to get out of the current conundrums. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I quickly went through Google books again and from the first page of results the pattern is, as has been noted here before, that the vast majority of hits are footnotes/references. The one book I found that commented on his site had this, in toto, to say. "Mr Ross is a deprogrammer deeply involved in the anti-cult movement. Mr Ross was part of the court case that drove CAN into bankruptcy. He has been featured extensivly in the media on programms like 48 Hours. Ross' site features a fairly extensive archive of newspaper articles related to controversial new religions." ^{Lewis, James R. Cults a Reference and Guide. p. 210.} Yes, the archive is cited a lot but I am just not seeing sources which talk much about it. Before we go down this road, particularly since there are already several outstanding edit requests with ongoing discussion, could you please identify a few good RS which have some significant coverage about his work creating the institute? That way we have something concrete, other than a general web search, to base discussion on. Jbh^Talk 12:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

James R. Lewis is a questionable source. His objectivity has been questioned by academic scholars. [2]. Lewis defended the doomsday cult Aum found guilty of gassing the Tokyo subway system. All Lewis' expenses for travel to Japan were paid for by Aum. [3]. Lewis has been recommended as a "religious resource" by Scientology.[4] Lewis is correct in stating that I have been "featured extensively in the media on programs." My media work continues to today as noted in sources that I submitted. I am frequently consulted for analysis and continue to be a cult specialist and court expert. I am primarily noted as a cult specialist, court expert and founder and executive director of the Cult Education Institute, which Lewis acknowledges as a "fairly extensive archive."Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Lewis does have some problems as a source, admittedly, although his reference works relating to NRMs tend, from what I can remember anyway, to be rather highly regarded. That raises to my eyes one thing which, maybe, might be useful here. I am going to assume @Rick Alan Ross: is familiar with most of the reference works relating to NRMs, cults, "deprogramming," the New Age, and the like. If he could point out any reference works which do discuss him at some length, they might be a useful rough indicator for how to structure this article. John Carter (talk) 14:50, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

The books "Snapping" by Flo Conway and Jim Siegelman, [5] "See No Evil" by Tim Madigan has a chapter about my intervention work concerning the Waco Davidians.[6] The book "Hollywood Interrupted" By Marck Ebner and Andrew Breitbart has a chapter about cults in Hollywood, which cites my expertise and work.[7] The book "Cult Branding" also cites my expertise.[8]Rick Alan Ross (talk) 19:06, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Some of those above I know to be very good sources, but I was thinking myself about anything more along the lines of articles in encyclopedias, or topical dictionaries, or the like. In, I suppose, as many related areas as possible, like NRMs, psychology, etc. Such articles would probably be closer to the length of our own article, or main article, and might taken as a group give a good idea as to how to structure and how much weight to give specific areas here. John Carter (talk) 19:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

@John Carter: Ross is discussed in Jones, Lindsay (2005). Encyclopedia of Religion 2ed volume 4. McMillan Reference USA. p. 2292. which is the extent of tertiary reporting in high quality works I have been able to find. The text is quoted on my talk page at User talk:Jbhunley#Scientology. That that is all another encyclopedia has to say about him is part of what drives my editorial opinion here. Jbh^Talk 01:20, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

He is referred to as "...alledged cult "expert" Rick Ross.."_{("scare quotes" in original)} in The Oxford Book of New Religious Movements. p. 122. when discussing his testimony in the Heaven's Gate trial. Jbh^Talk 01:33, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I never testified in a trial concerning "Heaven's Gate." I have been qualified, accepted and testified as an expert witness in about 20 court proceedings. There has been a division and disagreement within academia regarding controversial groups and movements referred to as "cults." I am cited derisively in the writings of some academics that defend NRMs. At times these academic writings are factually incorrect. For example, it was proven on this Talk page that one source incorrectly reported the outcome of my criminal trial concerning the Jason Scott deprogramming. The fact that some pro-NRM scholars see the need to refer to me at all in their writings IMHO reflects my notability, the strength of my work over the decades and the impact of the Cult Education Institute database. The fact that I am a cult specialist and court expert is indisputable and not an allegation or POV. That's my occupation. IMO my occupation at this bio should reflect what I actually do professionally. I am a cult specialist, court expert and author. I also earn income as a paid consultant and/or analyst for the media, entertainment industry and I am a lecturer. This has been reported repeatedly by reliable sources linked and cited previously at this Talk page. I continue to do intervention work. But the number of interventions I have done has increased to over 500. The old Guardian article is out of date stating 350. I have linked reliable sources that reflect these facts.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 13:49, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

This is a huge problem on this page. Not every source that is critical of Rick Ross is some plot by "NRM apologists" to discredit him. Even if it were there are a large number of maintream accademic sources which are critical, the two I have mentioned The Oxford Book of New Religious Movements and Encyclopedia of Religion are the very definition of RS no matter the opinion of RR on the subject. NPOV requires that we write the article to reflect all of the major viewpoints not just the viewpoints which are acceptable to the subject. RR can, of course, give his opinion of sources but 'defending NRMs' or what he sees as defending NRMs is not a reason to disqualify a source. We have seen some sources with provable factual errors but they are the exception and were addressed when identified.

Again ROSSPOV is not NPOV. We have been trying to get this point through to RR for a year. Jbh^Talk 15:57, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

• The full text referring to Ross is '...that testimony was almost immediately followed by the testimony of alleged cult "expert" Rick Ross who opined "the Internet has proven a powerful recruitment tool for cults" and that "Heaven's Gate was emblematic of a growning number of small, computer connected cults that have flourished in the last decade"' in The Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements p.122 it was in relation to a NYT article discussing the Heavens' Gate suicides so maybe it was not a trial. Jbh^Talk 17:32, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I have never said that "every source that is critical of [me] is some plot by 'NRM Apologists.'" Nor do I somehow expect that "viewpoints" be "acceptable to [me}." I have pointed out historical errors and misleading statements made by some academics about me, which have been noted at this Talk page. There is disagreement about NRMs amongst academics. And there is also controversy concerning how the research of some academics has been funded by groups called "cults" and/or promoted by such groups.[9]. My point is that scholars that have often defended NRMs have referenced me and my work in their writings le albeit critically. This simply establishes the fact that I am notable even amongst scholars critical of my work.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 13:58, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Being referenced a lot in reliable sources is a notability factor to be reckoned with. There's some Wikipedia guidance that incites to establish reasons for notability in the lead section. This one should no longer be ignored.

Selecting reliable sources that give more background information on that is another matter. That's the more painstaking work. I would no longer postpone it though. To me the current noticeboard discussions seem a bit void of substance thus far because this aspect has been ignored too long (as said, on both sides). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Job descriptions

I started making this table in excel to be able to see an overview of how the majority of sources are describing RR's profession. It has the sources from the current reference list (that I could access online), some of the things people have linked to on the talkpage and some that I found in my own search. Here's the quick rundown of the 54 sources in my spreadsheet and how they described Ross:

• Deprogrammer/intervention specialist/exit counselor—35x
• Consultant (private/media/law enforcement/govt/legal)—31x
• Cult tracker/researcher/maintains website of archives—20x
• Anti-cult activist/cultbuster—18x
• Cult expert—14x
• Expert witness—11x
• Founder/director of a nonprofit—10x
• Lecturer—3x

After going through all of the sources, I think the tone is overly critical in the article as a whole, especially the in the lead. UNDUE weight is given to criticism on the basis that it's a reflection of the scholarly sources, but it's actually a reflection of a small group of scholars of religion who have a vested interest in defending fringe religious groups from what they feel is or could easily become religious "persecution" by the state and/or because they're closely associated with an NRM themselves. I think other editors should be more open to hearing arguments for contextualizing the criticism with popular press sources since the majority of the "scholarly" sources are from within a small circle of folks that have a very specific agenda and they only make up a very small percentage of the available sources. Most of the in-depth coverage is in the popular press. He's wasn't a media consultant on all of them. —PermStrump(talk) 12:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Table and references

Table and references *Refs are in the Discussion section below collapsed in pink

Rick Ross's credentials and how he makes a living as described by the sources Year Source *Bias pro-NRM/anti-RR ?Maybe biased †RR was possibly consulted for piece Independent, unbiased, academic-ish Type Description In the order they appeared in the text (more or less) 1989 †Anchorage Daily News Pop press Deprogrammer 1989 The New York Times Pop press Deprogrammer 1993 *Digilib.bu.edu Self-pub Works in conjunction with CAN [Said he was] "consulted" by the BATF [Has] a direct ideological (and financial) interest in arousing suspicion and antagonism against what they call "cults" Call themselves "cult experts," they are certainly not recognized as such by the academic community Had the most extensive access to both [the FBI and BATF] of any person on the "cult expert" list Was apparently listened to more attentively [by the FBI and BATF] 1993 ?US Department of Justice Govt report "Cult expert" Self-described "cult expert" 1994 The Seattle Times Pop press "Cult buster" Nationally known opponent of cults Deprogrammer 1994 †The Chattanooga Times Pop press Professional deprogrammer 1995 †The Seattle Times Pop press Deprogrammer Involvement in several high-profile cases Appearance on national television talk shows 1995 Phoenix New Times Pop press One of the nation's foremost "exit counselors"--as deprogrammers prefer to be called [University lecturer] Notoriety as an expert on Bible-based cults, New Age groups and the militia movement National figure Regular on the talk-show circuit Known for his facility with the Bible...his talent for untwisting the Scripture When Rick Ross calls a group a cult, people listen [BATF consultant] 1995 *University of Chicago Press Book Deprogrammer [FBI consultant] Describes himself as a "cult expert" and consultant to the BATF investigation Ex-convict with a psychiatric record Intimately familiar with deprogramming strategies Anticultist Self-appointed "cult expert" Anticult spokesperson 1996 The Washington Post Pop press Deprogrammer "Expert consultant and intervention specialist," according to the confidential settlement agreement [in the Jason Scott case] 1996 Phoenix New Times Pop press Deprogrammer Anticult activist 1996 *BYU Law Review Peer-reviewed Perhaps the best known contemporary deprogrammer in the US 1997 *Nova Religio Peer-reviewed Deprogrammer Exit counselor 1997 *UC Press Book Self-styled deprogrammer For-hire cultbuster specializing in Bible-based cults Independent anticult contractor Informant for governmental agencies and journalists Appeared on numerous television talk shows and news programs as a "cult expert." Contributed crucial "information" and shaped the perspectives of the first popular books about the Waco siege 1999 *Continuum Book [FBI consultant] CAN member Deprogrammer Trained to confront NRMs Has on several occasions been convicted* 2001 The Palm Beach Post Pop press Deprogrammer Consultant Lecturer Frequently interviewed Earned a high profile after assisting the FBI investigation Site profiles dozens of groups Qualified court expert who has testified in numerous cases 2002 *Journal of Police Crisis Negotiations Peer-reviewed Deprogrammer [CAN member] 2003 *American Journalism Peer-reviewed "Expert" [according to the Tribune-Herald] Anti-cult activist "Cult deprogrammer" 2004 The Guardian Pop press Cultbuster Deprogrammer America's top 'cult expert' [according to the writer's friend] Private consultant 2004 Wiley Book Internationally recognized cult expert Deprogrammer 2005 Gothamist Newsblog Internationally known expert regarding destructive cults, controversial groups and movements Performed interventions Lectured Consulted Asisted local and national law enforcement Testified as an expert witness [Nonprofit founder/director] 2005 APH Publishing Book Executive director [of a nonprofit] 2005 *Nova Religio Peer-reviewed Self-styled cult expert 2006 New Jersey Law Journal Trade journal Anti-cult blogger [Website] replete with data about what he labels as cults or otherwise suspect entities Makes a living as a deprogrammer Has served as an expert witness on cults Frequently quoted in the news media worldwide 2006 *Greenwood Publishing Book Rick Ross Web site, an anticult source Deprogrammer 2008 ?OUP USA Book Alleged cult "expert" 2009 Infobase Publishing Book High quality Internet site for terrorism Extensive database Controversial Unusual source of considerable information about rather obscure groups 2009 *Nova Religio Peer-reviewed [Nonprofit founder/director] Leading/high-profile/well-known figure in the ACM Appears often on television and radio, as well as print news Self-proclaimed cult expert Former deprogrammer Professional career in the ACM network Sued by one of his victims Cult educator Website...includes a substantial archive 2010 †The Baltimore Sun Pop press Studied cults in the US for 30 years Has testified as an expert witness in 13 states 2011 Philly.com Pop press Runs...a nonprofit Internet archive Makes a living as a consultant, expert witness and speaker Private consultant Intervention specialist/deprogrammer Exposing cults, hate groups and frauds 2011 Yahoo News Pop press Group expert [Judge] says RR can testify about large group awareness Defense attorneys can cross-examine Ross on his cult deprogramming 2012 †The Telegraph Pop press [Nonprofit founder/director] Maintains an online archive of data 2012 †Time Pop press Expert on cults Expert witness in court cases 2012 †Reuters Pop press Expert on cults Expert witness in court cases 2013 †The Independent Pop press Consultant on cults Expert witness in many cases 2013 *Journal of the American Academy of Religion Peer-reviewed [The FBI's] list of experts included Rick Ross Not an academic Deprogrammer Committed to destroying groups that he identified as cults Cult-buster 2014 †The Arizona Republic Pop press Executive director and founder of [a nonprofit] Tracks information about groups it considers to be cults Cult researcher 2014 ?Routledge Book Deprogrammer Deeply involved in the anti-cult movement Featured extensively in the media Site features a fairly extensive archive 2015 Springer or Springer Book [In the context of child custody evaluations,] when investigating specific groups for the possibility of cultic processes, there are several independent and reliable online sources, including: Rick Ross Cult Education Institute, culteducation.com Maintains an extensive database 2015 Routledge Book Abducted and attempted to deprogram a member of the UPCI, a civil suit ensued, [the Jason Scott case] [ACM figure] 2015 The New York Times Pop press Cult authority Renowned expert 2015 †People Magazine Pop press Cited internationally for his work on destructive cults 2015 †Sun Sentinel Pop press Expert on Scientology A leading cult expert [Author] Deprogrammer 2015 Phoenix New Times Pop press Cult expert De-programmer Consulted with the prosecution on Ray's case 2015 Phoenix New Times Pop press Intervention specialist Controversial figure 2015 Times Union Pop press Self-described cult tracker 2015 The State Press Pop press Intervention specialist 2015 Niagara Falls Reporter Pop press Cult tracker Publishes [data about cults] on his website 2016 The Korea Observer Pop press One of America’s leading [cult] experts Exit counsellor 2016 †People Magazine Pop press Internationally recognized cult expert Studied [cult] tactics 2016 †People Magazine Pop press Cited internationally for his work on destructive cults 2016 People Magazine Pop press Cult expert Has deprogrammed more than 350 former cult members 2016 †Vice Pop press Executive director [of a nonprofit] 2016 Niagara Falls Reporter Pop press Professional cult expert Deprogrammer

One point. I began doing media work in the 1980s. First through newspapers and local media in Phoenix, Arizona connected to the Jewish community issues. I also appeared within a national Post/Newsweek documentary "In the Name of God" (1983). Later in the 1980s began appearing on national talk shows such as Geraldo (1988), Donahue (1989), Sally Jesse Raphael (1989) and Oprah (1989). In 1989 I was featured by the CBS News program "48 Hours" in a full hour report titled "The Deprogramming of Aaron."Rick Alan Ross (talk) 15:22, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

@Rick Alan Ross: Re-reading what I wrote, it does sound like I was saying you started appearing on TV in the 1990s. I meant something more like this:

"He’s known for his involvement in the anti-cult movement^[10] and has frequently appeared on television and in the news discussing his research on groups he considers cults,^[11][12] becoming nationally known for his work in this area by the 1990s.^[13][14]

It’s a little clunky, but I’m trying to give a timeframe for context without being accused of OR and I feel like that's the best I can do with the sources I currently have at hand. —PermStrump(talk) 01:50, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Tx Permstrump! "Consultant" comes second in this selection of sources. Yet: not mentioned in the lead section of our Wikipedia article, although further down, in the body of the article, we learn that R. A. Ross is a "full-time" consultant. How about starting with:

Rick Alan Ross (born 1952) is a consultant known for <whatever he is known for>

"Consultant" being the profession as "naval reserve officer" is in

Edward John Smith, RD, RNR (27 January 1850 – 15 April 1912) was an English naval reserve officer. He served as commanding officer of numerous White Star Line vessels. He is best known as ...

(see Edward Smith if you don't already know what he's best known as). In other words R. A. Ross is one of these cases where the profession in itself is somehow defining, but not by far what a person is best known for. The Edward Smith example above is one of several possibilities of how Wikipedia approaches this (another is, for example, in the Charles-Edouard Jeanneret article: list all the notable and less notable activities, whether professional activities or accessory, in the lead sentence, starting with the one the person is best known for, and follow through in decreasing order of notability – in this case the profession the person would have had if only following through his education is listed third). --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. Here's my first attempt at revising paragraph #1:

Rick Alan Ross is an American consultant, cult specialist, and executive director of the nonprofit organization, the Cult Education Institute (CEI). He is known from his frequent appearances on television and in the news since the 1990s for his involvement in the anti-cult movement and for “deprogramming” interventions that support individuals involved in cults with their transition back to mainstream society. He is a controversial figure because of his deprogramming methods and his identification of certain groups as cults who disagree with the label, including the Church of Scientology.

The 2nd paragraph talks all about his deprogramming-related charges and I don't think it's DUE to go into detail about it in both paragraphs 1 and 2 the way it is now. —PermStrump(talk) 15:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I suggest striking that support individuals involved in cults with their transition back to mainstream society. There is no support in sources for that description of deprogramming/"exit counciling". Jbh^Talk 15:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Agree. --Ronz (talk) 15:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

The inclusion and placement of "He is known from his frequent..." seems undue from the one source. Seems like it might be outright OR, but there's lots to review. Perhaps there's a far better source for it? --Ronz (talk) 15:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

"Consultant" is so generic, that alone means almost nothing. What type of consulting can we properly synthesize from the sources? --Ronz (talk) 15:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Given WP:NOTNEWS, WP:FRINGE, and all the better sources we have beyond the popular press, I think we need to take care on how much weight we give pop press sources and how we present info from them that's not supported by the better ones. --Ronz (talk) 15:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Given I have stated my position and reasons a half dozen times in the last couple of weeks please just consider those reasons restated here. Jbh^Talk 16:07, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

All of the statements I made are well supported by numerous sources, including some of the “good sources” and new good sources that I’ve come across. I was trying to avoid citekill, which is why I pasted the table above with the sources I’m working from. Here’s Take 2 though:

Rick Alan Ross is an American consultant, cult specialist, and executive director of the nonprofit organization, Cult Education Institute (CEI) that keeps an online archive of material related to cults and controversial groups. He is known for his frequent appearances on television and in the news since the 1990s, his involvement in the anti-cult movement, and for “deprogramming” interventions that are intended to facilitate the transition back to mainstream society for individuals involved in cults. He is a controversial figure because of his deprogramming methods and his identification of certain groups as cults who reject the label, including the Church of Scientology.

“Frequent appearances” or an equivalent phrase is in almost all of the sources I cited for that statement and the direct quotes are in the table I made with all of the sources for easy reference. I’m open to more succinct ways to describe deprogramming from a POV that gives context to the discussion in the next paragraph. I’m not saying we need a whole paragraph on the kinder description of it, but it’s not NPOV to ignore the fact that the mental health field and anti-cult activists have a different view of it than a small circle of academics of religious studies, several of whom have been accused of having close associations with or being paid off by different cult groups exposed by Ross and Co; and all of whom are clearly biased based on their vested interest in in defending fringe religious groups from what they feel is or could easily become religious "persecution" by the state. —PermStrump(talk) 19:53, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I collapsed the reference list because it was long, but I think you have to have it expanded in order for the footnote links to work. —PermStrump(talk) 20:00, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• Question: @Permstrump: Are you really planning on incorporating the lead with every single one of those references? I'm not seeing any pushback against any of the statements there, and that last version is extremely difficult to read. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

References
References

• No I didn't mean all of those sources should go in the article. I should have clarified. I was just trying to demonstrate for Ronz and Jbh that certain points they had questioned weren't UNDUE or SYNTH/OR. Ronz, I agree that "consultant" is vague and I hate when I meet someone and they say that that's their job and leave it at that as if it's supposed to mean something, but I thought that could be fleshed out better in the body as opposed to getting into it in the lead. I'm not sure. From a combination of sources, I gather that he does private consulting (for family members of people in cults and for people who are leaving cults), media consulting (giving commentary to reporters, etc. on various groups when issues arise and there's a new story in the news), legal consulting (a few sources say he consulting with prosecution on this or that, testifying as an expert witness, etc.), and assisting law enforcement and other government agencies. I think that's everything. —PermStrump(talk) 21:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Of the sources you cite for the phrase I questioned 2 are by the same author and at least one other is relating to the same discussion of the restitution in the Scott case being discussed by the prior 2. I believe simply wikilinking deprogramming is better than trying to characterize it in the lede. Saying it is 'to help people reintegrate' is POV and runs counter to all of the actual descriptions of how he performs an intervention that we have in our sources. The interventions we have described are more multi day ordeals or at best discussions rather than providing any long term support and reintegration. Jbh^Talk 00:08, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• Also, I notice that you have marked almost all of the 'peer reviewed' material as having a negative bias. Typically whn that occurs we call it 'mainstream academic opinion'. Yes, I am aware there are questions of 'influence by Scientology and other "cults"' But that is what has been brought up by RR not commented on in other peer reviewed RS. Jbh^Talk 00:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

In principle, I agree with PermStrump. The article reads a little more critically than most of the sources, and his proposed changes are ones I can get behind. That being said, I haven't seen any evidence of the specific bias they describe with respect to fears about the persecution of fringe religious groups. In fact, I'm quite wary of the claim that there is such a bias. It strikes me as highly unlikely to be the case that this would be the case in scholarly and scientific circles.

Scholarly and scientific circles tend to be microcosms of the wider religious demographics, with a well-document shift towards secular beliefs. New Religious Movements (or cults, or fringe religious groups, or whatever one calls such groups) tend to be heavily in the minority. I'm not aware of any specific study of the demographics of NRM adherents in scholarly and scientific fields, but I would be very surprised to find that they have any appreciable representation at all, let alone that they have a greater impact on academic thought than mainstream religions. This includes Scientology. While Scientology certainly has a much larger social footprint than other NRMs, it's still a minority religions. Furthermore, it's a minority religion with a very poor reputation among educated circles in most countries in which they operate. I imagine there are a quite a few Scientologists academics out there, but again, I seriously doubt they have a very prominent voice. It's worth admitting that I imagine they would be inclined to react the way PermStrump described.

Finally, I have to agree with Jbhunley. Even if we can identify a bias in the scholarly sources, they are still the scholarly sources. It's not within our purview to correct the experts' perceived errors. In fact, it's highly likely that if any of us disagree with the academic literature, then the literature is far more likely to be correct. They are, after all, the experts. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 02:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@Jbhunley:: "Saying it is 'to help people reintegrate' is POV and runs counter to all of the actual descriptions of how he performs an intervention that we have in our sources." Yes, it's a POV and WP:NPOV says:

Neutrality requires that each article fairly represent all significant viewpoints...In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space.

Let's pretend for a minute that I agree this article represents a minority viewpoint, we've dedicated the entire 2nd paragraph of the lead to describing the atrocities of deprogramming, but we haven't represented the other significant POV on the topic—i.e., Rick Ross's. One's own POV is inherently significant in one's own BLP. Not only do I not think it's not UNDUE to dedicate half of one sentence to describing Ross's intention behind deprogramming relative to an entire paragraph on the other POV that is highly critical of the subject of this BLP, but I'd argue it's a violation of NPOV and BLP not to, especially given the intense negativity in the opposing view. I updated the wording in my 2nd draft to make the attribution more clear: "...deprogramming interventions that are intended to facilitate the transition back to mainstream society for individuals involved in cults." Then the next sentence says he's a controversial figure because of his deprogramming methods and the entire next paragraph is about those methods as described by the opposing POV.

On the other hand, here's why I don't think we should be treating Ross's POV as the minority view and the other POV as the 'mainstream academic opinion': As I mentioned above, Ross shares a POV with the mainstream view in the field of psychology. I’ll go into that more in a new comment a little later, but I do have academic sources written by scholars of psychology as well as scholars of religion and "sociology" that support this. I put sociology in scare quotes because they associate themselves with sociology vs religious studies depending on what suits their needs at the moment. All of the academics we’ve cited publish primarily, if not exclusively, on topics related to defending NRMs and other minority and fundamentalist religions, which IMHO, puts them in a minority view category, either in contrast—or in addition—to Ross. Either way, they should not be considered representative of any mainstream academic view. We either have 2 opposing minority views or Ross is actually closer to representing the mainstream scholarly and popular opinion than the academics we've been heavily citing in this article thus far. MjolnirPants, my next comment will also have more citations to works by scholars who have published on “the problem of collaboration, including a) financial arrangements between certain sociologists of religion and the New Religious Movements they studied, and/or b) the production of shoddy ‘research’ papers that might as well have been made-to-order Public Relations efforts for such religious movements.”[15][16] —PermStrump(talk) 04:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

That is eloquently argued however you are arguing to represent deprogramming differetly from what it is. Here is the lede from our deprogramming article

Deprogramming refers to coercive measures to force[1] a person in a controversial belief system to change those beliefs and abandon allegiance to the religious, political, economic, or social group associated with the belief system.[2][3] Methods and practices of self-identified "deprogrammers" have involved kidnapping, false imprisonment, and coercion,[4] and sometimes resulted in criminal convictions of the deprogrammers.[5][6] Classic deprogramming regimens are designed for individuals taken against their will, which has led to controversies over freedom of religion, kidnapping, and civil rights, as well as the violence which is sometimes involved.[7]

Not a word about helping people reintegrate with society. It is a negative thing. There is not a word of this positive View of deprogramming you say exists among psychologists and sociologists. Jbh^Talk 08:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

No. Deprogramming beginning in the 1970s was both voluntary and involuntary. That is, many adults cooperated and voluntarily participated in deprogramming at their family's request. Some adults did not and involuntary cult interventions in the 1970s were often done by court order, until a court ruling against what was called "conservatorship" ended legally mandated involuntary interventions. In their book "Snapping" Flo Conway and Jim Siegelman, communications experts, researched deprogramming and provided recovery results. Many of those deprogrammed were deeply grateful that their families took action to remove them from a destructive cult. [17] Psychologist Margaret Singer who interviewed more than 1,000 former cult members stated in her book, "Cults In Our Midst," "Deprogramming--that is, providing members with information about the cult and showing them how their own decision-making power had been taken away from them." [18] Psychologist Steve K. Dubrow-Eichel, Ph.D. wrote in "Deprogramming A Case Study" [19] "In general, I was surprised at how rarely the deprogrammers engaged in personal confrontations of [the cult member]. Some of the anecdotal literature, including the more critical reviews (e.g., Barker, 1984; Beckford, 1985; Bromley, 1979; Bromley & Richardson, 1983; Levine, 1994) as well as friendly reports (e.g., Patrick & Dulack, 1976), suggested that confrontation played a central role in successful deprogrammings. Like the previous ones I had observed, Ken's deprogramming lacked su-mg personal confrontations." [20].There have also been many testimonials published by former cult members who were deprogrammed offering anecdotal accounts of the process and how it helped them recover their independent thinking. Conway and Siegelman also found through their research that that recovery after leaving a destructive cult was effectively enhanced by deprogramming. That is, those cult members that were deprogrammed shed the negative effects of their cult experience more rapidly if they had been deprogrammed.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 13:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I have no objection to trying to improve NPOV in the deprogramming article - say adding the psychologist/sociologist viewpoint mentioned here which is not there - based on good sources. My objection is saying something here that is strikingly different from what is there. So, my opinion is if we can get good sources to make a DUE 'help reintegrate' claim in deprogramming then we can say it here otherwise not. Jbh^Talk 14:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• @Rick Alan Ross: If you could find a good selection of academic sources (beyond those you just linked, which look fine to me at first glance) which describe deprogramming in less negative terms, you might want to put them up both here and at Deprogramming. Also, I noticed you don't have a user page (just a user talk page). You might want to declare your COI with this article and with NRMs/deprogramming in general, just to be open. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Correction I just took a bit of a closer look at your first source, and I have to say that it appears to be self-published by non-notable authors. The claim on their bio page says that the authors are "... two of America’s foremost experts on the mind-altering communication practices of destructive cults, fundamentalist sects, and extremist political movements." yet I can find no indication of this being true. In fact, searching the internet for their names yields nothing but information about the three books they published through Stillpoint Press, which compromises that publisher's entire line. Furthermore, the credentials they claim on that bio page do not compromise expertise in sociology or psychology. I'm sorry, but that source is just not usable here. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The second edition of "Snapping" is self-published. But the first edition was published by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins;(1978) and reprinted in 1979 by Dell Publishing. [21]Rick Alan Ross (talk) 16:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

That will settle some of the problems with that source, provided you can show that the quoted bit existed in the first edition. But there's still the issue of that being a popular (as opposed to scholarly) book, so the author's credentials matter (as opposed to peer-reviewed works, which generally stand on the merits of the peer-review process). A graduate degree in journalism (or philosophy) doesn't add much weight to one's views on applied psychology. I still strongly suggest you find better sources. More formally academic ones, especially peer-reviewed ones would be ideal. What you are, in essence, proposing is that the WP article Deprogramming is factually inaccurate from the lead on down, and to make that case, you're going to need a lot of unimpeachable sources. Otherwise, any source currently used in that article is fair game to counter any claims contrary to it which you make here. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

MjolnirPants:Deprogramming feels like it was written by a scientologist (or by a well-meaning editor who did a search for "cult deprogramming" and found seemingly legitimate academic sources and this unsuspecting editor didn't recognize or know to look into whether the authors or publishing companies were somehow affiliated with Scientology. Not that I know much of anything about deprogramming, but that was my gut reaction to skimming the article. In the past few days that I've been looking for sources for this article, I've come across several that had more positive spins on deprogramming, but I must not have bookmarked them, because I'm having trouble finding them again. I'm pretty sure they were all popular press articles though, but I did want to at least link to a few on the talkpage, so it didn't seem like I was talking out of my ass.

Rick Alan Ross, maybe you can help me think of this one I have in mind... There was an article about I think your work with a woman, maybe in NYC. The detail I remember was that she had been referred to a mental health facility and she talked about doing a lot of cognitive behavioral therapy there. I don't know if that will be as meaningful to other editors as it was to me, but what I took from it was that you/the "deprogrammer" were encouraging and facilitating follow-up care for mental health treatment and the treatment center she was referred to was using evidence-based practices. People affiliated with Fringe don't that. They recommend things like reiki. —PermStrump(talk) 06:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

That aligns pretty well with my impressions, as well. There is one thing worth noting, however. The methods of deprogramming do often involve kidnapping and forcing individuals to undergo therapeutic procedures against their will. This is a fact that will make finding works which neutrally look at the practice difficult. Any work which is not focused purely on the effectiveness of deprogramming is going to, by necessity, address the methods in a broader sense, and as such contain much criticism. As a result of this a large number of works by deprogrammers or those sympathetic to them is going to be defensive, a sort of applied-science apologetics.

In short, this means re-writing that article is going to take a lot of time and effort, and it could be that my (our?) impression is wrong, and deprogramming really is more trouble than it's worth, a possibility that anyone working on that needs to be open to. So it may be that the goal of re-writing that article to be more neutral is a futile one: the level of criticism there may be well balanced. As I mentioned before, I think that article would need to be re-written before re-balancing the criticism in this article, otherwise, the sources in that article become overwhelming evidence for keeping all the criticism in this one. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Deprogramming is not therapy or counseling, it's education through the sharing of information and research material. It's also done within the context of a family intervention, much like a drug or alcohol abuse intervention. No one does involuntary interventions with adults now. Such involuntary interventions were once done at the request of families because those families could not otherwise have access to their adult children to discuss their concerns. In my book "Cults Inside Out" I discuss this in a chapter titled "History of Cult Intervention Work." There are many chapter research footnotes. The Jason Scott case and other deprogramming cases that went to court are discussed. I have pointed out research done about cult deprogramming by authors Conway, Siegelman, Singer and Eichel. Psychologist Steven Eichel attended a deprogramming intervention in progress. [22] Psychologist Singer interviewed more than a thousand former cult members and wrote extensively about recovery issues. [23]. In their book "Snapping" (1978) Conway and Siegelman cited research. The authors disseminated one thousand questionnaires to former cult members throughout the United States and Canada. They received four hundred responses from people who had spent time in forty-eight different groups called "cults." A substantial portion reported "ongoing problems with confusion, disorientation and dissociation." ("Snapping" p. 187). Conway and Siegelman found that deprogramming was beneficial to the cult recovery process. About 73 percent of the former cult members surveyed had been deprogrammed, half on a voluntary basis and the other half on an involuntary basis through interventions. "As a group, they reported a third less, and in many cases only half as many, post-cult effects than those that weren't deprogrammed," the authors said. ("Snapping" p. 197). The American Family Foundation (now known as the International Cultic Studies Association) did a study that yielded similar results about the difficulties former cult members experienced in recovery. This study included 308 former members. 67% of th former cult members experienced depression, 76% were angry with their former leaders, and 83% had lower self confidence. These results were published in a paper titled "Post-Cult Symptoms as Measured by the MCMI." [24] Psychologist Paul Martin, who founded the licensed mental health facility Wellspring Retreat to help recoverying former cult members wrote, "Much of the early segment of the treatment program is geared to increasing ex-members' understnding about the dynamics of thought reform [as established by the writings of Robert Jay Lifton] and how the throught reform program [25] affected their personality and theier relationship to the world outside the cult." [26]. Dr. Martin treated former cult members for decades. Explaining how thought reform works within the context of a destructive cult is a pivotal point within the deprogramming intervention process. I discuss this in detail in my book "Cults Inside Out" (2015) within the chapter "The Intervention Process" (pp.275-310). There is much research cited within my book, which includes more than 1,200 footnotes and an 18-page bibliography. Most of the academics that criticize deprogramming do little to support their opinions with research. Having said this I agree with you that it is doubtful that the Wikipedia deprogramming article could be balanced to reflect these facts and history. IMO certain Wikipedia sections can become dominated by a POV and cherry picking may occur regarding certain chosen academic sources, which are IMO given undue weight. My purpose now at this bio Talk page is that my work and professional history be accurately reflected at this bio based upon the historical facts. For example, my Occupation and the lead in this bio should reflect what I do and why I am notable and not be so narrowly focused.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 13:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Rick, I used 'therapeutic' in the general sense; in the sense that it helps the individual. Notice I didn't call it therapy, but 'therapeutic procedures'. Unless you're arguing that what you do doesn't actually help people, we're not disagreeing on this point. Now, at least the first of those sources you linked looked good. We might be able to use it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes. The purpose of an intervention is to help someone. But as you say it is not therapy. It's important to make that distinction.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 15:30, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Regarding sources, I think we need to leave out Conway and Siegelman on pragmatic grounds: It's too easy to argue that they're not reliable, a fact which (apparently circularly, but certainly obviously) indicates that in fact, they're not. The usual heuristic is "if a source is of debatable reliability, and better sources exist, the first source can be considered unreliable." MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

MjolnirPants can you remind me why Conway and Siegelman are potentially unreliable? I can't find that part of the discussion as these threads are getting long fast. I thought it was an issue of self-pub but then it turned out that the first edition wasn't self-published, but I can't find other reason it might be unreliable after that. —PermStrump(talk) 03:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it was the source I was commenting on with these two posts: first and second. Basically, neither of the authors have degrees in relevant subjects, and we don't know if what they said was in the first edition (published independently) or the second (self-published) of their book. We could find out the latter, and mitigate the former by showing that they're respected by those with relevant expertise. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Random break

MjolnirPants "Futile"... Yeah, the deprogramming article looked like a lot of work on top of that I was anticipating pushback from the same people who spammed the internet and literature with a million versions of the same stories using almost identical wording (even in the "academic" articles) that all backlink to each other, making it next to impossible to find anything else. So I figured I'd focus on this one since it's a BLP.

This article is a popular press piece about the Jason Scott case that's it's already cited in the article, but it gets less WEIGHT than the other sources since they're "academic". I question if in this case those are actually "better" (more sources on that to follow), but there was a confidentiality agreement so I imagine that there was never much more information than this published anyway, so it might be hard to incorporate more of this side into the article without OR anyway, but IMHO it's pretty significant that after everything, Jason Scott fired his Scientology lawyer, left the cult and agreed to a settlement with Ross for just a few thousand dollars plus X hours of professional services, i.e., deprogramming. Which makes one think that however bad it might have been the first time, once he had wits about him again, apparently he decided it wasn't worse than the alternative. Rick Alan Ross, another article I'm trying to find again was about a man who contacted you asking to help get him out. I think it was related to Waco. Maybe his name was Block? —PermStrump(talk) 14:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

" once he had wits about him again" Sorry, but what source suggests this? --Ronz (talk) 14:44, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I think the source in the link above rather strongly suggests that. It's not stated outright, but Perm isn't suggesting we include the phrase "once he had wits about him again" in the article. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

There are also other sources which say essentially 'once the other side got a hold of him' unfortionatly there is no way to say why Scott accepted the settlement only that he did. We do, however, have multiple good sources saying the case was so egregious that the award was justified including the appellant judge's statement

Finally, the court notes each of the defendants’ seeming incapability of appreciating the maliciousness of their conduct towards Mr. Scott. Rather, throughout the entire course of this litigation, they have attempted to portray themselves as victims of Mr. Scott’s counsel’s alleged agenda. Thus, the large award given by the jury against both CAN and Mr. Ross seems reasonably necessary to enforce the jury’s determination on the oppressiveness of the defendants’ actions and deter similar conduct in the future (Scott v. Ross, 1995).

and from our own article on the Jason Scott case

"...the jury held that Ross and his associates (but not CAN) "intentionally or recklessly acted in a way so outrageous in character and so extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community."

In my opinion this is not the case to hang one's hat on for the kinder, gentler side of deprogramming. Jbh^Talk 15:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I can certainly agree with that. The Truth (capitalization intended) seems to be that Scott came to distrust Scientology and accept that Ross was trying to help him, but that comes to us indirectly, from filtered sources. It's difficult to know with certainty that this was the case, and even more difficult to make that case with reliable sources. As noted above by Ronz, the sources doesn't actually say anything to the effect of "Scott came to his senses and made peace with Ross." MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Yep, proper sourcing has been a stumbling block on this article for, as near as I can tell, as long as it has been around. Tight sourcing limits us to what solid academic sources have to say, loose sourcing lets in the Scientology loonies as well as the more positive stuff, loose sourcing plus keeping out the loonies gives a very POV article. I have found the only real option is hold to strong sourcing. Jbh^Talk 15:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it certainly seems to be a bit of a conundrum. I believe that both articles are a little too critical, but it looks like there's nothing we can really do except wait for better sources. Rick Alan Ross seems to be working on that, but the problems with sourcing are evident in his new sources, as well. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

It's important to put the Jason Scott in historical context. Kendrick Moxon "is an American Scientology official and an attorney with the law firm Moxon & Kobrin. He practices in Los Angeles, California, and is a lead counsel for the Church of Scientology." He was fired by Jason Scott. After being fired "Moxon filed unsuccessful emergency motions alleging that Scott must have been coerced, but admitted he had no proof of this." [27]. Jason Scott did have a change of heart as reported by American Lawyer "Scott says he feels stupid about the way he claims he was used. 'It wasn’t really me that was suing CAN—it was Scientology,' Scott contends. 'I was naive. I just kind of rode the waves of what they wanted me to do.' Of course, Scott’s change of heart is a little late to help out the former CAN." [28] Scott also told CBS "60 Minutes" that he was solicited to file the lawsuit by Moxon's firm and explained that Cult Awareness Network (CAN) was the primary target. Scientology was after CAN especially since the cult awareness organization had assisted Time Magazine with its widely read report "Scientology: The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power" [29]. Moxon wanted to destroy CAN because it was high on Scientology's enemies list. As Scott told CBS regarding Moxon's legal strategy, "Oh Yes that was the kicker CAN, We gotta get CAN involved." [30] see video 5:07 FYI -- the 200 hours included in the settlement were to deprogram Jason's wife. He was married to a woman in the "cult" and wanted me to deprogram her. That intervention never happened and the couple divorced. Jason was then estranged from his two daughters who were raised in the group he left. Over the years we have been in touch and Jason deeply regrets his involvement in the group that caused his mother concern.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 16:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

While we are contextualizing the Scott case and your POV allow me to emphasize the quote from the appellate judge above: "...the court notes each of the defendants’ seeming incapability of appreciating the maliciousness of their conduct towards Mr. Scott. Rather, throughout the entire course of this litigation, they have attempted to portray themselves as victims of Mr. Scott’s counsel’s alleged agenda." Please understand that absent independent third party sources everything you have to say on that case, its context and outcome, will be filtered through the independent opinion of the judge who was in possession of many more facts and better detail than any of the editors here. Jbh^Talk 16:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Not my POV as the reliable sources support fully the stated historical facts. The judge didn't rule regarding Scientology's involvement and agenda. Judge Coughenour did rule that the jury could not hear anything regarding Scientology or its involvement in the Scott case. The jury had no idea what was going on concerning CAN and Moxon/Scientology. BTW judges have repeatedly ruled regarding my status as a court expert witness. A large part of my work includes my time as a qualified and accepted court expert. This should be in the lead and under occupation. Occupation should also include author. These are objective facts.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Rick Alan Ross: are you sure you wanted to make public the details of the settlement? I understand it to be subject to a confidentiality agreement. If you did not intend to make that information public you can contact WP:OVERSIGHT and have them remove it from the database. Jbh^Talk 16:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

No. I don't recall any agreement that would in any way affect my statement of the facts surrounding the Scott settlement. I signed no confidentiality agreement.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

OK. My mistake. Jbh^Talk 17:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

My mistake. I struck it out. I thought I read there was a confidentiality agreement, but re-reading the Ortega article, it never actually said the word confidentiality or non-disclosure, and the word "agreement" refers to the settlement agreement. It says, Ross...acknowledges that his own carelessness with the settlement has produced problems. "I shared the agreement with a friend who apparently leaked it, and it ended up in the hands of the Washington Post," he says. The premature announcement of the settlement, Berry [Scott's lawyer] 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.[31] I just assumed they were talking about or that there was an NDA, but the article never actually said that. *This doesn't have to do with the article content per se, but if there really were an NDA, like Jbh pointed out, it would affect some of the comments on this talkpage, so I wanted to correct my error. —PermStrump(talk) 18:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Expert witness to lede

In my experience, adding mention of being an expert witness to the first sentence of a BLP almost never happens, and usually because it wasn't held to any scrutiny.

In this case, the sources don't support the addition, and I don't see how "expert witness" deserves mention in the lede at all given the current treatment and sources. --Ronz (talk) 15:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

That's fine by me. I approve of the version as worded here. leaving that bit in the "other activities" section provides enough coverage, and as we have both said, that is not an profession. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I can support the first sentence in the lede as it now stands. permalink Jbh^Talk 16:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

My expert witness work is notable. Including James Arthur Ray ("sweat lodge guru") homicide conviction,[32][33] Noyes v. Kelly Services religious discrimination lawsuit $6 million judgement for plaintiff.[34] [35] I have testified in 10 states as an expert witness including US Federal Court after being approved by a federal judge through a Daubert standard hearing.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

The stuff mentioned in the first sentence of lead should be WP:DEFINING, not just notable, meaning it should "commonly and consistently" be used to define the topic in independent, reliable sources. I'm not saying "expert witness" is or isn't defining, because I haven't looked at too many sources specifically looking for that information yet. I'm just clarifying what the standard is. I'm starting a tally and comment again if it seems like there's a clear answer in either direction. —PermStrump(talk) 16:08, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I accidentally linked to a policy about categorization, but I'm looking for the one that says something similar about the lead. —PermStrump(talk) 16:10, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

The man was a expert witness. That stature is notable. It should be in the lede. He has worked as "an expert court witness in cases relating to controversial groups."[36] I would argue that this is who he is. It is a defining characteristic. This edit should be reverted. Bus stop (talk) 16:25, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I haven't found the policy yet that says DEFINING (or something like it) applies to the lead, so I might have been wrong about that anyway unless someone else knows what I was thinking of? —PermStrump(talk) 16:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

FWIW I figured out what I was thinking of. WP:DEFINING says that one way to decide if a certain category is defining of the subject is, if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining. So that doesn't really help us here. Sorry for the red herring. —PermStrump(talk) 16:33, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

With or without a policy applying to this we know that "expert witness" tends to validate the general contention that the life's work of the subject of the biography relates to the negative effects of certain cults deemed harmful, at least in certain instances. Court representation bolsters that for which he is notable. The lede is where we present the subject of the biography in a light that makes clear why this person is notable. Is it just anyone's claim that he skilled in this area? No. In the opinion of courts of law he is capable of discerning instances in which the harmful effects of cult-like organizations have been found. Bus stop (talk) 16:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

• I still stand by what I said earlier: I believe that listing his occupations/professions is defining enough for the lead. Experts in a wide variety of subjects are routinely called to court. It would be cumbersome for us to make a point of noting that the subject of every article about an expert in any subject that intersects with criminal behavior in any way is an "expert witness" in addition to listing their expertise. Besides, that information is already in the article. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 02:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Of course the information is already in the article, or else it would not be in the lede. And we are not talking about standard criminal behavior. Cult activity straddles a grey area. The recognition by a court of law that a "deprogrammer" is doing valid and legitimate work is an important point that should be made in the lede of this article. "Deprogramming" is not a popularly understood occupation. The recognition of the legitimacy of his work by proper courts of law warrants bolstering in the lede. This is accomplished by pointing out that he has served as an expert witness and this is supported by good quality sources. Bus stop (talk) 04:35, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

At some point sources will need to be provided validating all these claims, such as "recognition of the legitimacy of his work". It would be best to start with sources so we aren't wasting our time.

Note the full paragraph in the Guardian article, "Looking over his career, his moral credentials seem shaky at best. But then, taking into account his claimed 75 per cent success rate for interventions (he has worked on more than 350 cases, at a typical cost of $5,000, everywhere from the US to the UK, Israel to Italy), he has rescued many people from harmful situations and has worked as an expert court witness in cases relating to controversial groups." --Ronz (talk) 16:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, he "has worked as an expert court witness in cases relating to controversial groups."[37] You do not have to agree that the status of "expert witness" provides recognition of the legitimacy of his work. You are entitled to your opinion. We provide the information and the reader forms their own conclusions. Bus stop (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Here is an introduction to an article on Ross provided by the Gothamist, emphasis added by me: "Rick Ross, 52, is an internationally known expert regarding destructive cults, controversial groups and movements. He has performed interventions, lectured, consulted, assisted local and national law enforcement, and testified as an expert witness on the subject."[38] Bus stop (talk) 19:43, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

This is a blog so right there is a problem. The primary issue I have is almost all, if not all, of the references which bring up expert witness are things like media appearences and where he being asked to comment on something. In these cases the consultant often, ie almost always, provided the biographical material for their introduction to the reporter/interviewer rather than the other way around. Comments from independent third party sources do not give the same weight to 'expert witness'.

As to your idea that being an expert witness somehow acts as an independent validation of his work... well... no it does not. Depending on the standard used all being an expert witness means is that, essentially, they use the scientific method, see Daubert standard wherein not even acceptance by mainstream practitioners is required. Being an expert witness simply means that a judge is convinced that a person has enough of a background in a subject to provide a meaningful opinion. Note meaningful not valid. Valid is up to the trier of fact to determine. Jbh^Talk 20:43, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

PS Possibly @Newyorkbrad: can shed some light on this in case I have it completely wrong. Jbh^Talk 20:47, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

The Guardian is a reliable source. It tells us "he has rescued many people from harmful situations and has worked as an expert court witness in cases relating to controversial groups."[39] (Emphasis added by me.) There is no reason to chisel away at his credentials as this lends credence to what he has accomplished. He is notable not because he is a failure who has lurked in the shadows. He is notable because he has involved himself in causes that others have deemed worthy. He is notable because he has worked in the spotlight of the very public court of law. He has received recognition for this. You can try to minimize the significance of "expert witness" but in the context of "deprogrammer" we want to know that others have granted recognition to the accomplishments in this area. What is a "deprogrammer"? If a court of law recognizes the legitimacy of a deprogrammer then our reader should at least keep an open mind about this. We are writing a biography and we should try to bolster the basic case for the notability of the person portrayed in our biography. Bus stop (talk) 22:14, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm... yeah in that the expert witness is well after Scott, Waco, Rick Ross Institute and current deprogramming work, I would say it is not really defining in that article. Really, you are not going to change my mind until there are some good sources commenting on his work as an expert witness like they comment on his work as a deprogrammer ie some analysis of the significance of his work as an expert witness not just "...and he is an expert witness." type mentions. If something is a biographically significant occupation then some RS will say something about it rather than just mention it. Jbh^Talk 23:05, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

You say "I would say it is not really defining in that article." We are writing our own article. Our article is a biography and we structure it accordingly. It seems normal to me to provide credentials in the lede. You say "Really, you are not going to change my mind until there are some good sources commenting on his work as an expert witness like they comment on his work as a deprogrammer ie some analysis of the significance of his work as an expert witness". Nowhere in our article do we claim significance for his work as an expert witness. I don't think his role as "expert witness" is unrelated to his role as "deprogrammer". I think they are very closely related. He is of value as an expert witness in a court of law due to the insights he brings as a deprogrammer. Bus stop (talk) 23:44, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

You seem to have made my point. The term should be discussed in the body of the article, as it is. It is UNDUE to discuss it in the lede. If as you say "[n]owhere in our article do we claim significance for his work as an expert witness" it does not belong in the lede. A trivial mention in the body of the article does not merit a mention in the lede it is UNDUE -- QED Jbh^Talk 04:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

To be clear the only discussion of him being an expert witness in the main body of the article is in Section 6 Other activities where we say "...and testified as an expert witness in several court cases." There is nothing to summarize we are simply repeating and that repetition is, by definition, UNDUE. Jbh^Talk 04:43, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

In 1989 I began being called upon professionally to offer expert testimony in court cases as a qualified and accepted court expert. This was before either the Jason Scott case or Waco Davidian standoff. This is a substantial part of my work and should be noted in both the lead and at Occupation to reflect the historical facts.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 13:46, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As many here keep saying sources, sources, sources. I have no doubt you are an expert witness nor do I have any personal doubt that you are quite good at what you do. My issue, my editorial judgement, is based on what I have said - nothing really talks about your work as an expert witness - nothing on the significance of your testimony, or why you are called on in particular, whether you are called on more than others, whether anyone thought your testimony especially significant in a case or cases, etc. The most detailed sources we have simply talk about you being qualified for a particular case or whether the other side can bring up elements of your past as impeachment material. Jbh^Talk 14:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

The area of expertise coincides with our reason for notability: he "has worked as an expert court witness in cases relating to controversial groups."[40] We are writing a biography of someone whose expertise is in explaining cults and their sometimes harmful hold on people. Obviously we mention, at the same time that we mention that he is a "deprogrammer" that he has served as an expert witness in a court of law in that capacity. We are not saying that he is a self-styled deprogrammer. We are saying the opposite. We are saying that courts of law have recognized his expertise specifically in this area. This belongs in the lede in proximity to the assertion that he is a deprogrammer and cult expert because it is verifiable by a good quality source and it bolsters the credentials precisely for which he is notable. There is not a popular grasp of the term "deprogrammer". The notion of cult intervention represents an esoteric area the reader may not be familiar with. We are writing an article for readability and we want the reader to go on to read the whole article rather than dismiss the occupation of deprogrammer as unlikely and unsubstantiated. From the outset we should be presenting the evidence to the reader that indeed courts of law have been recognizing the subject of this biography for being knowledgeable and evenhanded in his approach to the possible harmful effects of some cult activity. Bus stop (talk) 14:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I do understand what you are saying however you are putting significance on what being an expert witness means that the sources are not. That is precicely what we are not suposed to do. I understand your reasoning, I just disagree with it and I believe, firmly, that Wikipedia's editorial policies and guidelines do not support your position. Jbh^Talk 14:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree. The significance is not coming from sources, and the actual context of the Guardian article is being ignored. --Ronz (talk) 15:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

We don't omit some information because some readers may find it insignificant. This is for the simple reason that other readers may find it significant. The question is whether it is relevant. His called-upon expertise in a court of law coincides precisely with his reason for notability in our article. You are arguing to omit relevant information. The reader can decide for themselves how much significance to assign to this fact. But we are here to supply the facts. The placement of information matters. In proximity to our assertion that Ross is a "deprogrammer", we should note that he is an "expert witness", because this bolsters the case for him being a deprogrammer. What is a deprogrammer? Many readers may not know. But after being told that Ross serves in this capacity in a court of law, the reader is ready to read on, because the function of deprogrammer tends to be legitimized by its applicability to legal cases in legitimate courts of law. It matters that these two facts are kept together in the lede. We are saying in the lede that he is a deprogrammer and a cult specialist. Of closely related significance is that he is an expert witness. It is pointless to try to erode that for which he is notable. This discussion involves whether or not we should chisel away at the notability that instead should be established for the subject of the biography in the lede. Reliable sources tell us not merely that he fancies himself a cult expert, but rather that legally standing courts of law in the United States recognize his capacity in this area, and probably his evenhandedness too in this area. I don't think it is likely that he would be called upon to provide input in a court case if his views were entirely slanted in favor of, or against anything cult-like. We are establishing credibility and reliability for the subject of the biography. This should be accomplished in the lede, in proximity to our assertion of his role as cult expert/deprogrammer. These related facts should be stated in proximity to one another because they bolster one another. Bus stop (talk) 16:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, proximity makes a difference, so does placing something in the lede. What you are suggesting is both an POV, in that it makeing something more significnt than the sources and therefore changing the character of what those sources have to say about the subject and UNDUE for the reasons I have stated. We have been through 2 or three repatitions of the same arguments in this excahnge. Repetition will change no one's mind. Sources however will and addressing specifically my concerns about POV and UNDUE might. As may input from some other editors who do the same. Jbh^Talk 16:29, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

My "POV" is that the subject of the biography is notable. Notability has been established. Having established notability for the subject we then endeavor to bring relevant information to bear, whether or not that information would pass our notability requirements on their own. No one is arguing that his role as an expert witness would be significant enough to establish notability for the purpose of writing an article on Ross. But having established notability for Ross, we owe it to the reader to bring to bear relevant information relating to his primary reason for notability. Thus, in juxtaposition to our assertion in the lede that he is a "deprogrammer", we should note that he has served as an expert witness in this capacity. We are trying to write a compelling article. We are trying to write an article that the reader will feel compelled to go on and read. I'm trying to fathom why relevant information should be omitted at the beginning of the article. Bus stop (talk) 16:43, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear I am not accusing you of pushing a POV simply that the edit you propose, in my opinion, lacks neutrality becuase it gives undue prominance to the expert witness role - maybe OR would be a better ways to have put it,,, Anyway, the argument you are making has an additional issue. No source says he is being called in as an expert witness as a deprogrammer so that juxtaposition would be entirely unsupported - that is why we do not put things which have no context to summarize in the lede. Jbh^Talk 17:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

You doubt that "controversial groups" is a reference to cults? The Guardian is writing "[he] has worked as an expert court witness in cases relating to controversial groups."[41] The whole Guardian article is about cults and Rick Ross. Bus stop (talk) 21:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Not at all. There is however a difference between cult specialist and deprogrammer which you appear to be missing. He has been, as near as I can tell, asked to testify about the character of destructive cults and the methods they use not on his methods of "deprogramming". These are two different things. Jbh^Talk 22:29, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

His notability concerns his being a cult specialist. Our article says that he is an "American deprogrammer [and] cult specialist"[42]. He is thus an expert witness in an area for which he is notable. Bus stop (talk) 01:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Above I was asked to comment on this thread (probably because I'm a litigation attorney in RL, in addition to having commented on this page). If Mr. Ross has been recognized as a qualified expert witness by courts, that is a fact worthy of mentioning in his article. Whether anyone thinks that Mr. Ross should have been recognized as an expert is neither here nor there. With regard to whether "expert witness" belongs in the lead of the article (or the infobox), the question is whether (1) Mr. Ross has been allowed to testify as an expert witness, and (2) whether this has happened sufficiently often that it's not just a part of his career, but a substantial one. If testimony and related activities represent 1/10 of 1% of his professional time, that's very different from if they represent half of his time, to posit two extremes in terms of ledeworthiness. There is a difference between having the article say something along the lines of "Ross has testified as an expert witness in several court cases", versus having it say that "Ross is an ... expert witness." (As an analogy, I have published several articles on topics unrelated to my law practice, and if I had a Wikipedia article it would be quite legitimate to mention those articles, maybe even in the lede ... but that doesn't mean the article would describe me as a "lawyer and author.") Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting. Right now the article mentions 350 (he now says 500) deprogrammings and "testified as an expert witness in several court cases". I have seen sources which mention less than a half dozen cases which he has testified in. There are many, many instances of sources where he has been a media consultant/talking head. I would be much more comfortable describing him as a "media consultant" in the lede, as this seems to be a large part of what he does (although no source comments on that either so many of the same reservations apply and I am not advocating for that change) while we have no evidence of the significance of his work as an expert witness. Jbh^Talk 22:29, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

The Guardian article that states, "350" was published 12 years ago. I have done 6 interventions so far this year. 500 deprogramming cases total has been reported. [43] [44] [45] [46] [47]Rick Alan Ross (talk) 15:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• I notice that a number of sources have been provided which mention that he has been called as an expert witness. However no sources have been provided indicating that this is one of his primary defining traits, indicating that it was the reason for his notability, or even discussing it in any way more than giving it a passing mention. I don't think anyone has suggested that he's not been called as an expert witness, just that it's not something which needs to be mentioned in the lead sentence. So this is not a discussion that requires sources, only policy. Also, the issue of being called as an expert witness being somehow 'validating' is something of a red herring. I fail to see anything in WP policy or in any accepted essay written about policy that calls for the inclusion of material which somehow 'validates' anything which is supported by sources in the article. The sources (ideally) validate everything in the article. There's no reason to validate anything any further than that. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 02:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

It is a verifiable fact that Ross "has worked as an expert court witness in cases relating to controversial groups."[48] The reader attributes as much or as little weight to that as they wish. You may not feel that this fact tends to validate his qualifications as a deprogrammer or a cult specialist. You are entitled to your opinion. But we are here to provide relevant information for the reader. Ross is an expert witness in courts of law in "cases relating to controversial groups."[49] This is information that belongs in the lede in proximity to our assertion that he is "an American deprogrammer [and] cult specialist"[50]. These are related pieces of information. This edit should be reverted. The reader should be able to gather from the lede that the subject of the biography has been an expert witness. This, despite the fact that you may not feel that this fact tends to validate his roles as deprogrammer and/or a cult specialist. Bus stop (talk) 03:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

It is a verifiable fact that Ross "has worked as an expert court witness in cases relating to controversial groups."[51] I don't see how that contradicts anything I said, nor makes a case for including it in the lead.

The reader attributes as much or as little weight to that as they wish. No, according to WP:WEIGHT and WP:IINFO, the contributors attribute weight.

You may not feel that this fact tends to validate his qualifications as a deprogrammer or a cult specialist. Are you even reading my comments before responding to them? I never suggested such a thing.

But we are here to provide relevant information for the reader. Again, I don't see how this makes any argument towards including it in the lead. It argues to include it in the article, but that's already done.

This is information that belongs in the lede in proximity to our assertion that he is "an American deprogrammer [and] cult specialist"[52]. These are related pieces of information. That is a non-sequitur. There's no need for a deprogrammer or cult specialist to ever be called as an expert witness, there's no reason to believe being called as an expert witness conclusively establishes one's credentials as a deprogrammer or cult specialist, and the 'validation' you keep referencing is done by sourcing the claims that he is a deprogrammer and cult specialist.

The reader should be able to gather from the lede that the subject of the biography has been an expert witness. Restating your conclusion doesn't make for an argument.

This, despite the fact that you may not feel that this fact tends to validate his roles as deprogrammer and/or a cult specialist. If you cannot even accurately reflect what I'm saying (let alone respond to it), then maybe it should occur to you that you're not making a very good case for your position. I'm open to having my mind changed on this (I was the one who added "expert witness" in the first place!), but you're just failing horribly so far. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:48, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

His involvement in legal proceedings is part and parcel of what he does. His expertise in one area spills over into another area. But that other area is closely related to his area of expertise. I don't know that he is a lawyer or a legal expert or that he works in any other capacity involved with the law. His primary connection to the courtroom is his knowledgeability pertaining to the sometimes harmful effects of cults. If you are writing an introduction to an article on someone whose primary connection to the courtroom is his knowledgeability pertaining to the sometimes harmful effects of cults, you mention that along with descriptions of his reasons for notability such as that he is a "cult specialist" and a "deprogrammer". If you are trying to write an article on a person whose reason for notability is his facility with "cults", you enumerate the most substantial involvements he has with this particular area of study. You don't lop off one such involvement and place it farther down in the article. For what reason would you do that? The man's intersection with a court of law surely has some substance, does it not? He is called upon by parties involved in legal disputes because he is knowledgeable of "cults". Knowledgeability of "cults" is not unrelated to reason for notability. It would be closer to the truth to say that knowledgeability with "cults" is synonymous with this man's reason for notability. Bus stop (talk) 18:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

His involvement in legal proceedings is part and parcel of what he does. Again, that is not in dispute. If it was, we'd be talking about whether or not it belongs in the article at all.

If you are writing an introduction to an article on someone whose primary connection to the courtroom is his knowledgeability pertaining to the sometimes harmful effects of cults, you mention that along with descriptions of his reasons for notability such as that he is a "cult specialist" and a "deprogrammer". That presumes that the primary focus of WP is on court matters. It's not.

You don't lop off one such involvement and place it farther down in the article. For what reason would you do that? Because it's not a big enough part of what defines him as a public figure. That's the position I and Ronz and -I believe- a few others have taken here. Arguing from your own incredulity might seem compelling to you, but to those of us for whom this is a natural conclusion of what we know about WP and this person, it is not.

I'm not trying to sound insulting, but you don't seem to have a lot of capacity with informal logic, and you seem to be using a lot of arguments that rely more on rhetoric than logic. (I apologize if it does sound insulting, but I assure you I am being critical only to try to be helpful.) So to try and cut out some unnecessary back-and-forth, please allow me to ask you a few questions:

1. Are there any WP policies which you can cite which might suggest we should include "expert witness" in the lead sentence?
2. Can you find any precedence for doing so in articles about other notable figures of established expertise (in any subject except law, of course)?
3. Can you explain to me why you feel that his expertise is as defining of him as -or more defining of him than- the other vocations listed?

You don't have to have a really good answer for all of them to convince me, just one or two. If you have a really good answer for just the last one, that would be quite compelling. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

His expertise is part and parcel of everything for which he is notable. His expertise supports his successes in deprogramming. It is even his expertise that helps him distinguish between harmful cults and harmless cults. I don't think he intervenes in harmless cults. From the perspective of a biographer his expertise is exceedingly important. Is there any reason that he is an "expert witness" other than the expertise that he is in possession of and that he brings to bear on legal cases? Why should we not mention in the lede that he serves in courts of law as an "expert witness" on cult activity? Bus stop (talk) 20:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

None of what you said addresses the concerns which have been expressed with the idea of including that information in the lead.

Why should we not mention in the lede that he serves in courts of law as an "expert witness" on cult activity? I've directly answered this question several times, including in the very first post in which I agreed with Ronz's removal. Could you please at least attempt to answer my questions to you? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:54, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Forgive me for backtracking to your post before this post but you say "Arguing from your own incredulity might seem compelling to you, but to those of us for whom this is a natural conclusion of what we know about WP and this person, it is not."[53] I'm curious about the last part of that statement. You seem to be referring to what you know about "this person". Please tell me—what do you know about "this person", the subject of this biography? Is there something that you feel that you know that I need to know? Bus stop (talk) 22:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I think that pretty well answers the question "do you have anything resembling a real argument?" in the negative. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

You said "Arguing from your own incredulity might seem compelling to you, but to those of us for whom this is a natural conclusion of what we know about WP and this person, it is not."[54] Do you know something about this person that I do not? Bus stop (talk) 02:10, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• I’ve been torn because every time someone makes an argument, I think I agree with it until the next person makes a new argument and then I think I agree with that one, and so on. My current position is that “expert witness” may very well belong in the lead, but its treatment in the body needs to be expanded first in order to justify it. If we can find sufficient coverage in reliable sources describing his role as an expert witness and/or the impact it’s had, that would allow us to say something more substantial about it in the body than what has already been said: "By 2004, Ross had handled more than 350 deprogramming cases in various countries and testified as an expert witness in several court cases". After expanding that, we can re-address whether it belongs in the lead.

Somewhat related, I started making a list of sources in excel with a column for how each source describes RR. I’ll post it here or on a subpage after I refresh my memory on how to combine cells with text, so I don’t have to create a table manually. To be continued… —PermStrump(talk) 03:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I have testified in about 20 court proceedings in 10 states including US Federal Court. This has included criminal, personal injury and custody cases. I am almost always under retainer on more than one case simultaneously at any given time and this accounts for a substantial amount of my work. There is often a settlement, which means there is no court proceeding wherein I could testify. Custody cases are not typically mentioned in the media, though some have been. One such case I testified in was in Wisconsin.[55] I have previously cited and linked other notable cases that received press attention.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Convenience break

If he "makes a living as a consultant, expert witness and speaker" then I think that can be mentioned in the lede. Bus stop (talk) 08:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, it's no biggie and has been reliably reported as such. Govindaharihari (talk) 08:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I've made this edit. Bus stop (talk) 09:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

...and I rv'd. Having an editor show up at the end of a major discussion and say "no biggie" does not invalidate the concerns of the several editors who oppose nor does it form a new consensus. You know better than that. Being 'reliably reported' gets something mentioned in the article not in the lede. Being a major part of his notability and work is needed for the lede and that has not been established. RR's statement means nothing only sources matter. Jbh^Talk 09:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Sources support that Ross makes a part of his living serving as an expert witness in court cases involving cults. This is part and parcel of the expertise that he brings to bear in his work outside the courtroom. "Cults are Jersey man's bread and butter". Bus stop (talk) 13:44, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Sources support that Will Smith makes part of his living from the cosmetics industry. <sarcasm>I suppose we should then edit his article to state that in the lead</sarcasm>. Look, this has been explained to you multiple times by multiple people in multiple ways. It's time for you to drop the subject and learn to live with the lead the way it is. You've had plenty of chances to convince us, and you've not just failed, you've dodged the questions that we needed answered in order to agree with you. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Consensus here is that this belongs in the lede. A source is telling us that "Cults are Jersey man's bread and butter". The referred-to man is Rick Ross. This is the support in sources that we need to write the article, including mentioning in the lede that the subject of this biography serves as an "expert witness" in legal cases involving cults. This belongs in the lede due to the coincidence of the skills involved. We are trying to describe his area of expertise, are we not? He is not serving as a court witness in some other, unrelated area. The subject of this article is an expert on cults. That of course can be defined broadly because this is a biography—it is a given that notability has already been established. The subject of this biography is not only an exit counselor. He also serves as an expert witness. Bus stop (talk) 15:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Really?!? You got that out of this discussion? Jbh^Talk 15:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Consensus here is that this belongs in the lede. That is categorically false. Not only are there more editors opposed to in than in favor of it, but I have posed several questions to you, indicating that a satisfactory answer to one of them would be all that it takes to make your case to me. You have dodged answering those questions and put together an argument which consists entirely of rhetorical devices and logical fallacies. Now you are stating absolute falsehoods. I really think you need to read Consensus and Negotiation, because if I assume you are not being intentionally obtuse and dishonest, I must conclude that you don't understand what consensus is or how it works. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Let us try to have a conversation, MjolnirPants. You refer to "several questions" you have posed to me. Let us try to have a conversation. Please feel free to ask a question. That is my understanding of that which constitutes collaborative editing. What is your question? If I don't get back to you immediately please bear with me. I have other things to do. Bus stop (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Ignoring for the moment the fact that your comment seems somewhat unhinged in its repetition and in your (feigned?) ignorance of the questions I've previously posed to you and repeatedly referred to since, they are here. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

What is your question? Ask one question. We will proceed from there. That is what a conversation is. Please keep it friendly. We are trying to write an article, but we are trying to do so collaboratively. Do you have one simple, concise question that perhaps you would like to pose to me? Otherwise I have no time (or inclination) to engage in interpersonal conflict. I am here to write an article. That is fun. And it helps the reader. I am not here to engage in a personality-oriented mud-slinging contest. Bus stop (talk) 16:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

MjolnirPants has asked you three cler and simple questions in an attempt to elicit a policy based argument from you. I will restate them for clarity:

1. Are there any WP policies which you can cite which might suggest we should include "expert witness" in the lead sentence?
2. Can you find any precedence for doing so in articles about other notable figures of established expertise (in any subject except law, of course)?
3. Can you explain to me why you feel that his expertise is as defining of him as -or more defining of him than- the other vocations listed?

If you can address those we have something to discuss otherwise your argument seems to be based solely on repeated rhetoric. If you insist on addressing these one at a time please start with #1 as without some basis in policy the other two do not matter. Jbh^Talk 17:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm concerned that anyone would declare consensus given the discussion above. The repeated unsourced assertions about the importance of anyone being an expert witness, and the application of those assertions to Ross are not the basis for any policy-based consensus. --Ronz (talk) 17:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The subject of this article is not only an exit counselor but he also functions as a source of expert opinion in a court of law on issues involving cults. I hope Rick Ross weighs in here, especially to correct me if I misstate this in any way. The expertise practiced outside of the court of law is practiced inside the court of law. I do not see these functions as separate but part and parcel of the same thing. The person (Rick Ross) has developed a facility with the peculiarities of cults that the average person may not possess. He applies these talents inside and outside the courtroom. You don't just lop off a part of his activities in the lede if you are trying to sum up in the lede his various activities pertaining to cults. The reader should be apprised of a well-rounded description of the activities of the subject of this biography. Bus stop (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

In my case, I look at three things:

1. The majority of editors have either expressed agreement that it should be left out (you, me and Jbhunley) or said that it should only be added if we can establish that it's important enough to help define him (PermStrump). Compare that to only two editors who have expressed that it should be included (Bus Stop and Govindaharihari, the latter of whom has only made the one comment expressing agreement with including it).
2. The case advanced by the 'exclusion' side is rooted in Wikipedia policy and normal practices. The case advanced by the 'inclusion' side is based on ideas about 'validation' which are not clearly expressed, red herrings (suggesting that not including it in the lead is tantamount to not including it at all) and a poor understanding of WP norms (suggesting that the only criterion for inclusion in the lead is that it is verifiable).
3. Excluding it from the lead does not exclude the information from the article, while including it in the lead not only creates an exception to precedent in other, similar articles, but may (In my view, will) give undue weight to the subject's work as an expert witness. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

It appears to me that you don't want to have a conversation. I am open to conversation. I promise you that if you ask a question, or even make a concise point, I will respond to it. The ball is on your side of the court. My aim is to have a conversation. Please assume good faith. Engage me in conversation in a simple and straightforward way, and I promise you that I will reward you with a considered response, to which, of course, you can provide a counter-response. And so on and so forth. That, to my mind, should be the essence of the behind-the-scenes to collaborative editing. Through mutual respect we move the conversation forward. You insist that you have questions for me. Please begin with one simply-composed and concise question. Bus stop (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I am beginning to think we have wandered into WP:IDHT territory. The issues with your arguement have been well pointed out. It is now your responsibility to address them. The onus is on the one who desires inclusion. Jbh^Talk 17:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I am open to conversation. Then why have you been dodging my questions? Why did you respond to Ronz, who posed an extremely simple and concise question ("How did you conclude that there is a consensus?") by ignoring his question and repeating your claims? Those are simple and concise questions. But then, the questions I posed above (which I subsequently asked you to answer after the first time you dodged them, then linked you back to after the fourth time you dodged them, then watched Jbhunley repeat explicitly for you after the fifth time you dodged them, and to which you have still have not provided even a hint of an answer to) were simple and concise questions, as well. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I suggest editors WP:FOC and remember that the content stays out until there's clear consensus for inclusion per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. --Ronz (talk) 17:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Break discussing character of sources

I haven't read everything that people said since my last comment yet, so this might seem a little random, but I had been writing it and looking for the sources and didn't realize there had been so much more discussion. I'll read it now and then respond to any loose ends.

Here's a highly respected textbook written by a clinical psychologist, The Handbook of Child Custody, that's already cited in the article, but I think people should read the parts of the chapter that I linked and keep them in mind when evaluating a source written by a sociologist of religion whose main focus is on the civil rights/freedom of religion violation that they attribute to a very stereotyped image of deprogramming and completely ignores (a)that there are, and seem to have always been, several types of deprogramming and (b)the gross human rights violations that were being committed by the cult necessitating the deprogramming. Here are the relevant highlights:

In addition to the usual expectation of expertise in child and family psychology and general psychopathology, the [child custody] evaluator in these situations needs to be grounded in the social psychology of influence (especially undue influence) and totalistic group dynamics when investigating specific groups for the possibility of cultic processes. There are several independent and reliable online sources, including: Rick Ross Cult Education Institute, culteducation.com...Ross maintains an extensive database of groups as well as a collection of cult-related news items.

Here are 2 other academic sources, a peer-reviewed article by Zablocki (1997)[56] and a chapter by Beit-Hallahmi[57] in a book made up of essays written scholars in the field on both sides of the debate. They don't mention Ross, so I'm not suggesting them for the article, but I'm pointing them out to show outside support from experts in the field for the argument that Ross and I have made that the majority of the "academic" sources we've been considering the "mainstream scholarly view" are tainted by their affiliation with or funding from NRMs. Anyone can email me for the PDF of the full text of Zablocki, but I think the abstract should be good enough for the sake of discussion. I want us get on the same page about that, because right now we're assuming so much authority in these sources that represent the POV of a closed circle of sociologists of religion who hold FRINGE views on the subject. It's a combination of (1)people who are either affiliated with an NRM (either as members of one or bankrolled by one) or (2)people who are genuine, as in... genuinely incapable of seeing past their own FRINGE view that the main threat in all of this is the threat of the slippery slope—that all religions will become targets of cult accusations—as opposed to the mainstream view that the biggest threat is the threat to individuals and society from the continued existence of actual cults. Don't get me wrong, I think their POV is noteworthy to the article, but they should be weighted as a single unit representing a minority view and framed more like, 'This is the rhetoric expressed by people who oppose Ross, a small group that holds fringe views but makes the loudest noise/has a huge internet presence, including insider academic journals', instead of, 'here's the mainstream scholarly POV and here's Ross's FRINGE POV'.

Once we can all get on the same page that most of the academic sources aren't the best sources we have, the vast majority of the in depth coverage on Ross comes popular press articles, which is perfectly fine for a BLP as long as they're not the articles that he consulted on. And it's fairly easy to tell the difference because the articles he constulted on are about cults, and the articles we'd want to use for the most are the ones that are about Ross, of which there are several really long ones that are already cited, but they have a lot more good information in them that should make it's way into the article. —PermStrump(talk) 16:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

"Once we can all get on the same page that most of the academic sources aren't the best sources we have" - From my perspective that is not going to happen. We, as Wikipedia editors, do not say whether mainstream academia has been "tainted by its funding from NRM's". That is pure WP:OR. Jbh^Talk 16:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm extremely concerned that we're even considering POV changes based upon OR and efforts to discredit sources. --Ronz (talk) 17:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

No one has suggested POV changes based upon OR. Any changes suggested have been supported by reliable sources, often multiple reliable sources.Rick Alan Ross (talk)

17:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

What is "mainstream academia" and how is that determined as opposed to fringe? It's important to avoid cherry picking POV sources isn't it?Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Peer reviewed articles and books from academic publishers. Jbh^Talk 18:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

There is disagreement in academia on the issue of "cults." And peer-reviewed articles and books on both sides in the United States, Europe and Asia reflect that fact. Should Wikipedia's voice be balanced or preferentially reflect one side?Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

This is why I said this is a difficult problem. Right now, I don't think there's anything we can do. With better sources, we might be able to correct this perceived (and I really want to emphasize that we don't know there's a problem, we think there is one) POV problem, but without better sources, we can only leave the current POV alone. If you are right that there is no consensus as to the effectiveness, utility and ethics of deprogramming, then finding 'better' sources will be a major problem. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:30, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Is it Wikipedia policy that only books by academic publishers are reliable sources and that other publishers are not? So far I believe one book released by an academic publisher turned out to be unreliable regarding this bio. The book misstated the facts regarding the verdict in my criminal trial, which was acquittal. Some academic sources cited for this bio are biased.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

No, that is not policy. WP:IRS is the policy, and it is a rather complex thing. The basic rule of thumb is that if the source is trustworthy for the claim, it's reliable. So for example, news sources are okay for citing newsworthy events, but not for citing medical claims, or detailed scientific claims. For statements about the psychological effectiveness of deprogramming, we need psychologists. Furthermore, we need psychologists who are not advancing their own view, but that of the scientific consensus. If there is no consensus, then we can only say that there is no consensus, and describe the competing theories. So some academic sources are good, others are not. It depends greatly on what they are used to say. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Jbhunley and Ronz:: I'm confused about accustions of OR. Did you not see the 3 academic sources that I linked to? Here they are again:

1. A textbook published by Springer, a well-respected academic publisher, and authored by a clinical psychologist with a doctoral degree in psychology, Mark L. Goldstein, who is completely uninvolved with either side of the academic debate about cults/NRMs. Goldstein is just minding his business, writing a textbook about child custody evaluations. One chapter is about what to do when you're evaluating a case where the parents and/or child are involved in a cult. It talks about how to recognize when a family may be under the "undue influence" of the "totalistic group dynamics" of a cult environment. And then Goldstein, an objective outsider and an authority on the topic, provides several "independent and reliable online sources" when looking for more information pertaining to a child custody evaluation, and Ross's website is one of only 5 mentioned. It includes a blurb about his nonprofit organization and what they do. I'm mentioned it in this discussion as an example of the POV of an academic who is solidly indepedent of the academics involved in the "cult wars" (which by the way I never knew existed until I started researching for this article).
2. An article published in a peer-reviewed journal, Nova Religio, (the same journal that almost all of the other peer-reviewed articles on this topic were published in), written by a sociologist of religion, Benjamin Zablocki, who accuses others in his field of being coopted by NRMs
3. A chapter in a book published University of Toronto Press written by PhD-level psychologist, Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, who says, Something like a party line has developed among NRM scholars, and much of the discourse in NRM research over the past twenty years has been characterized by a happy consensus on the question of the relations between NRMs and their social environment, especially in situations of overt conflict. This consensus is responsible for a new conformity which must put strict limits on researchers' curiosity. The level of conformity to the reigning consensus has been remarkable. This is not problematic in itself, and does occur in various fields, but it has also led to advocacy...which is a public expression of support for an NRM and its vested interests, in any conflict with its social environment...If there had been only some isolated incidents, the only need to discuss them would have been as rare exceptions to the prevailing norms, but what we have observed is a clear pattern expressed in a total mobilization for the cause. The problem with the party line is not just that it has undermined scholarly credibility, but that it has crippled our main effort, which should be to understand and explain, rather than defend, the phenomenon under study.

The last 2 sources don't mention Ross and I'm not suggesting that they should be cited in the article. I mentioned them because when editors on this talkpage argue that WP:UNDUE weight is being given to scholars who represent an extremely biased and unified POV that doesn't represent the mainstream scholarly view, we're not making that accusation out of thin air. It's also important to note that the sources I mentioned above are only 3 examples. There are plenty more and I'm in the process of pulling together another list sources to have all in one place, a list of academic literature that supports Ross's positions and refutes the position of the "cult apologists". —PermStrump(talk) 19:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Permstrump: thank you for the quotation from the last source, all I get are a bunch of 'snippet views'. Those sources could be useful addressing the issues in the deprogramming article. The main problem here is of the A-->B & B-->C but we can not say A-->C type OR. Particularly they do not, in what I can see, address deprogramming specificly. These sources may be useful when making WEIGHT judgements but without some source saying a particular NRM researcher has a bias we can not use the general statements to impeach a specific source or, worse yet, all sources of a particular type which is what I understand you to be suggesting.

Often such information can be used to inform editorial judgement in narrow cases but in the case of an entire academic field the best we can do is report, per WEIGHT, the controversy in the main article. That is why, back at the beginning of this, I suggested that we simply wikilink deprogramming in the lede and not make any further statement about it in the lede. The subject is too complex for any sentence or phrase to represent it in an NPOV manner. Jbh^Talk 20:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Per source 1, the textbook, there is general consensus in the field that Ross' site is a good resource primarily, as far as I can tell, because it provides lots of link to press articles and other information about cults. I have never seen an endorsement of his site include, even tangentally, an endorsement of his methods or views. Jbh^Talk 20:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

OK. I dug up a copy of Misunderstanding Cults and will take a look at that chaper when I get some time that I can read uninterrupted. Jbh^Talk 20:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

First impression: The authors are asserting the dichotomy

We have made an assertion that perhaps will not seem immediately evident to many: that the academic study of new religious movementshas been sharply divided into two opposed camps in a way that ishighly detrimental to intellectual progress in the field. From: Misunderstanding Cults p.4

rather than providing settled opinion. I would be interested in the academic responses to this book and further comment on their work to see how the respective academic communities responded. Jbh^Talk 20:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I've actually mainly read the responses to the book and haven't read much of the actual book yet. The reviews in academic journals are kind of funny because in every single one, it's sooo obvious which side of the debate the reviewer falls on. I haven't read a single one yet that sounds like an impartial review of the book. That said, within the narrow field of NRM studies there is clearly a huge divide (i.e., not academic consensus), so there shouldn't be any information in this article that is given the WEIGHT of a POV for which there is academic consensus. —PermStrump(talk) 21:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The section which is on point to your argument is

...case, as far as reporting and analysis is concerned, is that reading Newsweek, Time, or the NewYork Times may be just as profitable, or more, as reading scholarly works. Media reporting in general is quite limited, but investigative reporting by major media, when time and effort are put in, and wire-service reports, are worth at least taking seriously. From:Misunderstanding Cults Ch.1 Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi p.63

however, again, this is discussing NRM scholarship in general and is only one source. I do not disagree there is a split but that only really comes into play when we have competing sources. Also, most of what we have on Ross is not "investigative reporting by major media" and I am offhand unaware of any such reporting which we have not included.

Please remember that the general scholarship debate belongs in the articles like deprogramming and we need specific comentary on specific sources or articles rather than 'it being obvious what side they are on'. Even more, just because there is bias does not mean a source is false. Should add that this quote refers specifically to reporting on NRM's not on anti-cult tactics, techniques and procedures so drawing direct conclusions on those would be, at best, skirting OR.Jbh^Talk 21:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC) Ammended Jbh^Talk 21:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The point I was originally intending to make before I got a little sidetracked, wasn't that Beit-Hallahmi and Zablocki prove that I'm "Right" that certain scholars were coopted by the NRM. I meant to use them to show that despite claims in the literature that there's academic consensus on this topic, there actually isn't any POV that clearly represents a "mainstream scholarly view". It doesn't matter if there are no academic sources refuting specific points that other academic sources have made about Ross's methods, because there are academic sources that call into question the credibility of essentially everything that's been published in the field of NRM studies for the last 20 years. Regardless if those accusations have merit, this is an extenuating circumstance because the credibility of essentially all of the available academic literature on this topic has been called into questions by scholars within the field. Therefore we cannot make decisions about WEIGHT regarding this BLP by assuming academic sources automatically trump popular press sources. Even though journalists writing popular press articles obviously have their own POV (in the sense that everyone always has some POV about any topic), at least they aspire to be neutral and their POV is arguably a better reflection of the mainstream lay view, as opposed to the unified view of a group of scholars who have opposition from another group of scholars with a unified view. Again, I'm not saying we should take out the academic sources completely, just that in this case, we can't use them as a gold standard for representing any kind of authoritative view. —PermStrump(talk) 22:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) One source or even several sources simply can not be used to invalidate or even call into question an entire class of sources. Wikipedia simply reports what the the sources say - it is not up to us to make blanket judgements on entire fields. If specific sources are called into question then we can use that information to counter/ballence/impeach those sources. Doing otherwise is the worst type of OR there is, substituting our inexpert view for the published views of the experts. That is not the job of Wikipedia, it is the job of independent research and publication. Then and only then do we report on it. In the case of the Ross BLP an impeachment source needs to directly address Ross. I can think of no policy compliant way to say otherwise. Jbh^Talk 23:44, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Let me re-emphasize that I'm not say they're all automatically invalid. I'm saying that they're not all automatically valid just because they're "academic", since in this rare circumstance an entire class of sources has been called into question by other sources that normally would be considered high quality. —PermStrump(talk) 01:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm bringing this up because statements like the ones below that have been made on this talkpage to argue against adding material sourced to popular press articles that either wasn't mentioned in academic sources (e.g., Ross's various professional roles) or that contradicted academic sources

• Given WP:NOTNEWS, WP:FRINGE, and all the better sources we have beyond the popular press, I think we need to take care on how much weight we give pop press sources and how we present info from them that's not supported by the better ones.
• I still strongly suggest you find better sources. More formally academic ones, especially peer-reviewed ones would be ideal

Many, many BLPs exist for subjects who have never, and will never, be discussed in a scholarly source, because that's not required to establish notability. Most celebrities will never be mentioned in a peer-reviewed journal, and their articles that are sourced entirely to mainstream media sources are well within the guidelines and policies. WP:BLP doesn't even suggest that BLPs should aspire to cite scholarly sources when possible. So there is just no reason for editors to oppose every addition to this article based on the fact that it comes from a popular press article, which is exactly what has been happening. —PermStrump(talk) 01:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

The objections in most cases are for a couple main reasons:

1. Most of the popular press sources currently under discussion are media consultant pieces where the bio information is traditionally provided by the subject and/or has an inherent bias because the media organization using his commentary want to project authority for their talking head/media consultant.
2. Take their biographical information from interviews with Ross.
3. Are passing mentions/low information ie 'Ross has been allowed to testify in X' or 'The defense can not bring up Ross' prior criminal convictions' etc.

These argument is that if something he has done is not significant enough to gather commentary in academic sources or high quality popular press (by which I mean sources written about him, non simply interviews or his commentary), of which we have no shortage, then it is probably not terribly significant in his life. Remember this discussion, although it has become wide ranging, is essentially about putting the term expert witness in the lede. The arguement for is: T

1. There are a lot of popular press articles that call him such. The arguement against is that these are essentially rote passing mentions without any detail and based on the type of sources mentioned above.
2. It is in the main body but all it says is "and testified as an expert witness in several court cases" in section 6 Other activities. That is it. No further information. Because of that mentioning, what is essentially a repetition if not an enchancment, of what is in the main body putting it in the lede is giving it UNDUE prominence. All of the other things inthe lede have their own section or, at the very least, a couple of sentences. (I also feel that author should not be in the lede becuase it is not defining but that is an old discussion)

So in these cases the whether there is a bias in the content of the academic sources is irrelevant because they are silent on the issue. It is this silence which is the issue.

That said, you have done some good work on NRM scholarship in general and it may be useful in other articles or, possibly, to impeach or provide DUE arguments for specific sources. Calling into quetion the entirety of NRM scholarship is not something we as editors are permitted to do. We report the sources and we report the sources that question/contradict those sources. We do not judge entire academic disciplines. Policy simply does not allow it.

We have goten well of on a tangent to the original purpose of the discussion. Have you found anything that addresses the objections presented above, and throughout these huge threads, to putting 'expert witness' in the lede? Jbh^Talk 11:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:RSN?

As has been suggested before on this page, by at least two editors (see Talk:Rick Alan Ross/Archive 7 for the latest invitations in this sense, one by me) I'd repeat the suggestion to take this to WP:RSN. The format for taking something to WP:RSN is this:

---

• Source. The book or web page being used as the source. For a book, include the author, title, publisher, page number, etc. For an online source, please include links. For example: [http://www.website.com/webpage.html].
• Article. The Wikipedia article(s) in which the source is being used. For example: [[Article name]].
  
• Content. The exact statement(s) in the article that the source supports. Please supply a diff, or put the content inside block quotes. For example: <blockquote>text</blockquote>. Many sources are reliable for statement "X," but unreliable for statement "Y".

---

Following that format, with a clear focus on what precisely is being asked, may avoid getting sidetracked.

In the event you're proposing something for the lead section on that noticeboard I add two more suggestions:

• use some five or six sources (those that are most reliable and clear in your opinion): something mentioned only in one or two reliable sources is no lead section material – providing more than six sources may lead to less response or too much sidetracking on the less reliable ones;
• establish that the material is more extensively covered in the body of the article, or when that is not yet the case: propose a more elaborated paragraph for the body of the article concurrently with the lead section material proposal.

I relaunch this suggestion for obvious reasons: discussions on this page getting circular, losing focus, etc. – in short: contributions on this page show that outsider opinions might be more than welcome. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

The current discussion, on 'expert witness' in the lede is already the result of bringing other editors from BLPN (RR's request at BLPN was that his requested edits be reviewed) and FTN so I believe we have a pretty good consensus formed here. Adding yet another Noticeboard discussion seems like forum shopping. I do, however, agree that if particular sources are to be challenged based on the cogent arguments put forward by Permstrump above then RSN is the place to do it. Jbh^Talk 14:20, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Jbh: From the sources on my list, these 6 articles are about Ross or about something that he was involved in as a player in the story, lawsuits, etc. These 2 articles are the most in depth.[58][59] These two are decently long.[60][61] These two are a little shorter.[62][63]←The last 2 links are to other websites that have copies of the articles, because they're not available online from the originals sources anymore. I have access to the WaPo one through work, so FWIW, I know that that's really the article. I can't remember off the top of my head if I was able to access the Palm Beach Post one, but I'll check in a little bit. I'm like, pretty sure it's legit though. So of those sources, this is how he's described:

• Cultbuster
• Deprogrammer
• America's top 'cult expert' [according to the writer's friend]
• Private consultant
• One of the nation's foremost "exit counselors"--as deprogrammers prefer to be called
• [University lecturer]
• Notoriety as an expert on Bible-based cults, New Age groups and the militia movement
• National figure
• Regular on the talk-show circuit
• Known for his facility with the Bible...his talent for untwisting the Scripture
• When Rick Ross calls a group a cult, people listen
• [BATF consultant]
• Deprogrammer
• Anticult activist
• Runs...a nonprofit Internet archive
• Makes a living as a consultant, expert witness and speaker
• Private consultant
• Intervention specialist/deprogrammer
• Exposing cults, hate groups and frauds
• Deprogrammer
• Consultant
• Lecturer
• Frequently interviewed
• Earned a high profile after assisting the FBI investigation
• Site profiles dozens of groups
• Qualified court expert who has testified in numerous cases
• Deprogrammer

• "Expert consultant and intervention specialist," according to the confidential settlement agreement

I don't have super specific things that I think it should say, more of a general feeling that it should seem less negative and talk more about what he does other than deprogramming because he does a lot. That stuff probably needs to be expanded in the body first. I'm trying to go through and clean up the sources and stuff first, but that's kind of slow going. —PermStrump(talk) 17:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the long list.. I'm in a little bit of a rush and couldn't remember off the top of my head how to do a flat list. I'll try to fix it later so it's not taking up so much space. Also, I didn't mean to respond down here. I meant to respond in the thread above. IDK what happened. :-P —PermStrump(talk) 17:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Here are some additional sources. Regarding my work as court cult expert in 10 states. [64] Also I was consulted by the Sate of Israel regarding cults. [65] My occupation is cult intervention specialist, court expert and author. My book has been published in Chinese and Italian. It should also be noted that scholars like Nancy Ammerman have a cozy relationship with groups called "cults." Scientology's "Freedom Magazine" has featured remarks by Ammerman. I wanted to include links to the "Freedom Magazine" articles, but the site is registered on a Wikipedia blacklist. It should also be noted that my designation as an expert by media sources is not due to my self-promotion or marketing. News reporters confirm their sources and engage in fact checking. They don't simply report whatever a sources says as fact.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

@Permstrump: I can confirm the Palm Beach Post article. It's legit. Or rather, a story with that name, by that author was published in the PB Post on that date. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

@Permstrump: As near as I can remember these sources have been used in the article - I at least remember reading most of them. Much of the information about Ross' early life was removed because it was "too negative". What do you want the article to say? What changes are you proposing? A 'general feeling' is not something we can address. You may also want to read through some of the older versions of the article. Here are some where major changes were made based on the delta in character count; [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76]. This is where the article was when I first responded to RR's BLPN request [77] and just for interest here is a diff between then and now [78]. As you can see, the article has been both a lot more positive and a lot more negative. We have been down many roads but without concrete suggestions there is nothing to be done. Jbh^Talk 18:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC) Ammended Jbh^Talk 18:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. If you look back my work at Jewish Family Service and the Bureau of Jewish Education as a paid professional staff member was cut for some reason by someone. [79] This should be added back as it is an important part of my work history. Very specific suggestions were recently made by one editor concerning changes to the lead and Occupation. Historically it should be noted that this bio was edited by members of groups called "cults." One sock puppet was banned. Jbhunley has repeatedly quoted US Federal Judge John Coughenour regarding the Jason Scott case. Jbhunley gives great weight to the findings of this judge, despite the ultimate outcome of the Scott case, which resulted in a humiliating settlement after the plaintiff's lawyer and Scientology official Kendrick Moxon was fired. My bio does not include Scott's subsequent comments to the media (American Lawyer, CBS "60 Minutes") explaining how he was used by Scientology.

I would like to quote another US Federal District Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr. who stated the following after a Daubert standard hearing (Noeyes v. Kelly Services) concerning my recognized expertise. Judge GArland stated the following:

"Expert testimony must rest on a 'reliable foundation....' Daubert, 509 U.S. at 597. Defendant supports its argument that Mr. Ross is unqualified by citing United States v. Miller, 874 F.2d 1255, 1268 (9th Cir.1989), in which the court held that an expert was unqualified to testify about KGB recruitment practices because he 'lacked significant practical experience in the field and had not made any special study of the subject.' However, Mr. Ross has made a 'special study of the subject' of cults, including the Fellowship of Friends.FN3 He has studied and researched controversial organizations and cults since 1982. In 1996, he founded the Ross Institute of New Jersey, an 'organization devoted to public education and research regarding destructive cults, controversial groups and movements.'(Expert Report at 1.) As the executive director of the Ross Institute, Mr. Ross monitors news stories, court documents and reports about controversial groups on a daily basis and archives such materials on the Ross Institute web site. He responds to phone calls and emails from concerned family members and former and current members of groups catalogued in his archive. Mr. Ross has been a consultant for law enforcement at the local and federal level and has lectured by invitation at several universities. He has been 'gathering information about the Fellowship of Friends specifically since 1996, archiving reports and articles at the Ross Institute database and additionally receiving and handling repeated complaints from families, former members and others concerned about the cult's activities.'(Id. at 2.) This experience and knowledge is sufficient to allow Mr. Ross to give the testimony Plaintiff proffers subject to Rule 403 considerations. See Viera, 35 Cal.4th at 307, 25 Cal.Rptr.3d 337, 106 P.3d 990 (discussing trial court's finding that retired deputy sheriff was qualified to testify as expert on cults). FN3. The following summary is taken from Mr. Ross' expert witness report (Decl. of Robert Burch in Opp'n to Def.'s In Limine Mot. No. 1, Ex. 1 ('Expert Report')) and his sworn testimony at the Daubert hearing on March 17, 2008." [80]

I was qualified, accepted and testified as an expert in Noyes v. Kelly Services. My client Ms. Noyes was awarded $6 million dollars.[81] [82] [83]Rick Alan Ross (talk) 20:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Involuntary deprogramming

@Permstrump: Re this edit [84] at the very least he performed involuntary deprogramming of Jason Scott's minor siblings see Jason Scott case. The reference there is Shupe, Anson; Darnell, Susan E. (2006). Agents of Discord. New Brunswick (U.S.A.), London (U.K.): Transaction Publishers. pp. 180–184. I'm not re-adding it right now, I do not have a copy of the reference. There should be ample support for the statement in sources. He has never denied doing involuntary deprogramming on children and has only said he no longer does involuntary deprogramming on adults. Jbh^Talk 12:20, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Here is an ABOUTSELF statement for the practice in general - "Only a small fraction of the hundreds of interventions I have done since 1982 were involuntary and a concerned family initiated each of those cases. Some of them were court ordered or involved minor children under custodial parent supervision." [85] Probably the best place to look for specific instances is in material discussing the Scott case. The meat of it was that he was the only person that was not a minor so his mother did not have the legal right to hire Ross for an involuntary deprogramming but she did for her minor children so there were not charges for that. Jbh^Talk 12:32, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Before I decided to remove it, I considered other ways to re-word it that would be more reflective of the sources. I looked for things I could paraphrase without OR/SYNTH in my bookmarks and did some googling, and in the end, when I took into consideration all of the sources I'd just looked through, I decided that there was nothing to say that would be of value and DUE weight in the lead. Ross's statement on his self-published website says that a small fraction were involuntary, some of which were court ordered and some of which were minor children. So a small fraction of an unspecified small fraction were minors whose parents consented on their behalf. First, that's so vague it's hardly meaningful. Second, the only place it appears is on his self-published website, so it doesn't belong in the lead. Hypothetically there might be an argument for directly quoting it in the body, depending on the context. I don't see anything in the google preview of Agents of Discord to support the material I removed, but in any case, it's a primary source, which we have to be extra careful about in BLPs (WP:BLPPRIMARY). Pretending we knew for a fact that Agents of Discord actually says something that would support the half of a sentence that I removed (which it may or may not), we'd still only have 2 primary sources talking about it out of over 50 reliable sources, so it's UNDUE for the lead. —PermStrump(talk) 19:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes it seems undue in the lede. Why remove it completely rather than integrate it elsewhere given the weight due to the Scott case? --Ronz (talk) 20:11, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it should not be removed entirely. There is specific mention in material discussing the Scott case and Ross does not dispute that this is something he did/does. It provides context to the Scott case and also to the statement about him no longer doing involuntary interventions on adults. We should also mention that involuntary deprogramming of minors is legal so long as a someone acting in loco parentis has authorized it. Jbh^Talk 20:42, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Because I thought the lead was a summary of the body, so I assumed it must already be in there in some form. I'm going one section at a time and my brain is still in the 1980s. —PermStrump(talk) 20:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

It likely was. The article has gone through so many rewrites and editors have spent so much time dealing with "requests" that the last clean up to rationalize lede/body was several months ago. Jbh^Talk 20:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

As of now I've only gone through the lead the verify some of the sources and remove stuff that was unsourced/unsupported, but I decided that I didn't even want to think about what to add/change in the lead until there's consensus that the rest of the article was more balanced. —PermStrump(talk) 21:08, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

#Background

I changed the layout from this to this, because the "Early life" section in the previous version was only 2 sentences and it made sense to me to combine that with all of the stuff leading up to the point where Ross went into business for himself. I think the current version of the "Background" section is a little wordy though and probably too detailed with all of the lengthy names of the different agencies and committees. I'm also not sure if some of it is redundant or if it's correct chronologically... Rick Alan Ross, comments? —PermStrump(talk) 21:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

It looks fine to me the way you changed it. I don't think it's too much info or too long. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I re-added the part about Ross working at Jewish Family and Children's Services (JFCS) at his request and because it made sense (i.e., it's covered in multiple secondary sources and it gives context to his interest in cults). Then I noticed that a few sentences later, it already said he worked for the Jewish Federation of Greater Phoenix and I wondered if those were actually two separate positions or if JFCS is under the umbrella of the Federation, and maybe some sources called it by one name and other sources called it another name, but they were actually referring to the same position. I had a similar question about the "two national committees" that he was appointed to by the Union of American Hebrew Congregations. Are they named in the following sentence as separate committees by accident? Rick Ross might be the only one who can answer. —PermStrump(talk) 00:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Legal issues

I didn't want to re-insert stuff about Ross's legal history without trying to understand why it was removed in the first place. It's in this version, but disappeared at some point later. Presumably Ross was OK with it being public, because it's on his website and he's talked about it in a number of interviews. I'm not trying to drag anyone's name through the mud, but it seems like it has come up enough times in secondary sources[86][87][88] that it's weirder not to mention at all. Thoughts? —PermStrump(talk) 01:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Now that there are several sources, even at least one which shows that it was brought up in an attempt to discredit his expert witness work, it may be time to discuss it again. I do not remember why it was removed last time, but I have a memory of a memory that it was one of the early clean ups and it was seen as UNDUE because it was just mentioned in passing in some, maybe biased, source. Jbh^Talk 01:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

• Re. "...trying to understand why it was removed in the first place": the last discussion about this, as far as I can remember, is here: Talk:Rick Alan Ross/Archive 5#New request for edit re: Criminal Record. The ultimate reason for removal was, as far as I can remember, that Ross wanted a rather detailed explanation (using the technical term "vacated" an the like), while others (maybe I was the only one) wanted a short, easily understandable, formulation ("civil rights restored") – or, if the detailed explanation wasn't possible, Ross rather wanted nothing, which ultimately won the day.

Now that was a very brief summary of what I can remember, sorry if I skipped some of the details. My stance now: brief mentioning, non-technical, for the reasons given above, and for reasons I gave long ago (but can't find back currently), e.g. it shows Ross getting experience with the American legal system, so also relevant from that angle. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:45, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

• I'm OK with the long version introduced here, seems excellently sourced. Still a thing to get sorted (I suppose): Ross' civil rights were restored (I think 1983), which as far as I can remember marks the start of the "expert witness" part of his career (correct me if I'm wrong, just writing down from memory here). I'd try to find a formulation the subject can live with, so no rush as far as I'm concerned. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't see this until after I wrote something. Does having the guilty verdicts vacated imply that his civil rights were restored or do you think that needs to be articulated separately? —PermStrump(talk) 08:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

This is a web-copy of the relevant primary source material:

• Rick Ross Application for Restoration of Civil Rights at culteducation.com

I'd still avoid the technical term "vacated": legally correct, but the important point, as far as I can remember, is that he needed his civil rights restored to be able to appear as a court witness. That last part (why the subject applied for a restoration of his civil rights at that particular point in time) is not directly covered by the primary source, but I seem to remember some of the secondary sources explain the connection between the date of the restoration of civil rights and his starting to appear as court witness). --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:21, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

My civil rights were restored and the guilty verdicts vacated six years before I began to do expert witness work in 1989. This court ruling was sought due to my work as program coordinator of the Jewish Prisoner Program for Jewish Family Service and also tied to my work on the Religious Advisory Committee for the Arizona Department of Corrections. It was necessary to vacate my criminal record for a security clearance level to enter all areas of the prisons and jails of Arizona. Short of an official pardon by the Governor of Arizona this ruling is the most that can be done to erase or mitigate a criminal record in Arizona. As I recall there was resistance by some editors to correctly stating the nature of my criminal record and its final outcome through subsequent court rulings. Also, I recall other editors commenting, consistent with later court rulings, that the age of my criminal record (more than 40 years ago) made its weight and relevance questionable. That is, judges have repeatedly ruled to exclude mention of my 1975 criminal record when opposing counsel wanted to use it to discredit me and my expert testimony on the grounds of age and relevance.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I agree with the judges that it's irrelevant at this point, but it seems that certain individuals thought it was still relevant enough within the last few years to call journalists about or to try to bring up in court, so I thought maybe it should be addressed in the article. Do people think it's appropriate to include as long as the wording is accurate or should we just scrap it? Rick Alan Ross is the current wording accurate? In 1974, he pleaded guilty to trespassing after being charged for the attempted burglary of a vacant show house with a friend,[4][5] and was sentenced to probation.[1] In 1975, he was charged with grand theft of a jewelry shop, again with a friend.[5][6] He returned everything, pleaded guilty,[7] and was sentenced to 4 more years of probation,[4] which was terminated early.[7] While he was on probation, he worked for a cousin's car salvage business.[1] During an interview with the New York Daily News in 2004, Ross said, "I was young and foolish and made mistakes that I deeply regret. I did whatever the court required, completed my probation in 1979, and the guilty verdicts were vacated in 1983. I have gone on with my life and never again got in that kind of trouble."[6] —PermStrump(talk) 19:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes it's accurate. Perhaps model home is a better description than "show home." Perhaps it should be made clear that the jewelry store crime was an embezzlement not an armed robbery. My friend worked for the store and faked a robbery. The charge was grand theft by embezzlement. Full restitution was made to the satisfaction of the store and the police did no oppose probation. That's about it.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 20:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh the sources do say embezzlement. I wasn't thinking of the fact that the alternative would be armed robbery. I changed it to say "...charged with grand theft for embezzling from a jewelry store..." —PermStrump(talk) 23:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

But should this be in the article? Isn't it a bunch of irrelevant old stuff? Should we be wasting time on youthful peccadillos? Bus stop (talk) 03:21, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't normally be the first to suggest adding legal charges to anyone's BLP, but I felt like it showed up in enough recent secondary sources that it would be weird not to. People might read about it somewhere and then come to wikipedia looking for an accurate explanation, and if there's nothing about it here, who knows what they'll read on another website. —PermStrump(talk) 03:43, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Hollywood Interrupted

The book "Hollywood Interrupted" was written by Andrew Breitbart and Mark Ebner. Ebner is not given credit in this bio mention of his book. "Content from the website and Ross' opinion surrounding it has been cited in books such as Andrew Breitbart's Hollywood, Interrupted." This should be changed to -- Content from the website and Ross' opinion surrounding it has been cited in books such as Andrew Breitbart and Mark Ebner's Hollywood, Interrupted Rick Alan Ross (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:12, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Book published in Italian

The book "Cults Inside Out" has also been published in Italian by Antio Edizioni in Italy. [89]. I suggest changing -- "In 2014 Ross self-published the book Cults Inside Out.[32] The book was also published in China in 2015 by a Hong Kong publisher." To --In 2014 Ross self-published the book Cults Inside Out.[32] The book was also published in China by a Hong Kong publisher and in Italy by Antio Edizioni in 2015.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:02, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done Jbh^Talk 14:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)