![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
I googled the title of the DOJ source and found out that the version cited in the article is redacted. I could only find other redacted versions, so I removed this content for now until a better source can be found per WP:BLPREMOVE. It's a primary source anyway and there are several secondary sources that talk about the weico siege, so we should be using those more than the DOJ source anyway and if we're going to citing it when we find a current version, we shouldn't use anything from it to support statements that don't also have support from better sources. —PermStrump (talk) 12:11, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Ammerman's additional letter which is not in the official report is another matter. If it was published separately from the report it would be SELFPUB but it is still by a recognized expert in the field. I do not believe the article is using the letter as a source though is it? Jbh Talk 16:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
On what do you base that this report is in some way biased? Do you have sources which call into question the recitation of events as they are documented? Jbh Talk 19:37, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Just to be sure we are on the same page. This is from the current version of the report on the DOJ web site and which I linked to above:
E. "Cult Experts"The FBI did not solicit advice from any "cult experts" or "cult deprogrammers." The FBI did receive a number of unsolicited offers of assistance from former Branch Davidian member Marc Breault (who has since published a paperback book about Koresh and the Branch Davidians). The FBI also received input from two self-described cult experts, Rick Ross (who moved to a hotel in Dallas, and later to Waco, during the standoff and appeared on local television programs, as well as the CNN broadcast of March 10 that upset Dr. Dietz) and Kelli Waxman. Following are brief summaries of the input received from these three individuals: Waxman: Waxman has assisted local police agencies in Arizona in dealing with Satanist religious groups. on March 1, 1993, she called the FBI, and requested that she be interviewed regarding her knowledge of cults in general and the Branch Davidians in particular. Later that day an FBI agent interviewed Waxman. Waxman said the FBI should be cautious in dealing with Koresh, because the Branch Davidians probably had a suicide pact or procedure already in place. Waxman said that if Koresh were to permit all the children to leave, then mass suicide would be the next step. She predicted that the FBI would "have another Jonestown on its hands." Ross: Ross contacted the FBI on March 4, 1993 and requested that he be interviewed regarding his knowledge of cults in general and the Branch Davidians in particular. Ross said that he had been familiar with the Branch Davidians for several years, and had known several former Davidians. Ross provided information about Koresh to the Waco Tribune Herald for its series about the Branch Davidians. Ross also had been in contact with Steve Schneider's sister, who had asked him to help devise a strategy to "deprogram" Schneider. The ATF also contacted Ross in January 1993 for information about Koresh. Ross also telephoned the FBI on March 27 and March 28, offering advice about negotiation strategies. Ross suggested that the FBI attempt to embarrass Koresh by informing other members of the compound about Koresh's faults and failures in life, in order to convince them that Koresh was not the prophet they had been led to believe.
The FBI did not "rely" on Ross for advice whatsoever during the standoff. The FBI interviewed Ross only at Ross' request, and politely declined his unsolicited offers of assistance throughout the standoff. The FBI treated the information Ross supplied as it would any other unsolicited information received from the public: it evaluated the credibility of the information and treated it accordingly.
This material is important because it stands in contrast to what is claimed by Ross elsewhere and is a direct summary from someone who had access to all of the primary source information from DOJ. Jbh Talk 19:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC) Ammended Jbh Talk 19:47, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Scruggs's methods per the
Danforth Report
|
---|
|
The Scruggs report...
"relat[ing] or discuss[ing] information originally presented elsewhere". According to BLP, IRS, and NOR, primary sources should only be used in a BLP sparingly and only if it's supplementing material from a reliable secondary source (not the case here).
"Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source."
"Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts,(see #3 below)
lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest...Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties"(my emphasis).
"All such conflicts-of-interests make the source suspect of giving more importance to advancing interests in the topic than to advancing knowledge about the topic."
"Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred."
Going a bit further, the criticism of the report seems to be focused on the use-of-force issues rather than the sections referring to the use of outside consultants so most of the issues of bias/ass covering are not really on point.
Finally per BLPRESTORE the quote removed is not "unsourced or poorly sourced". A government report/inquiry is not the same as a blog and I firmly disagree that the summaries of use of outside consultants can be considered PRIMARY nor can I agree that the DOJ inherently lacks a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Jbh Talk 02:34, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
"This is a government report, written by people with best access to facts,"and people who have a blatant COI (as explained above).
"directly contradicts other reports..."If the only source we have that directly contradicts numerous reliable, secondary sources is a primary source with a blatant COI and a poor reputation for fact checking, that says a lot about what POV should be getting the most WP:WEIGHT.
"...which are mostly based on Ross' own reporting of his participationThe policies and guidelines consider mainstream news sources reliable sources, so as Wikipedia editors, we have to assume that journalists are doing appropriate fact-checking and aren't just basing everything they say off of Ross's statements about himself. —PermStrump (talk) 04:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Use of DOJ source in Rick Alan Ross. Jbh Talk 14:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
'This has been disputed by the FBI'would be WP:SYNTH. Regardless, Only in death, if the only issue were that it's a primary source, I would agree, but it's a questionable primary source. The larger part of the issue is that it was published by a primary source with a blatant COI that has a history poor-fact checking in the same exact document (see thread above). "Poor" as in, they didn't even engage in fact checking. There were so many doubts about the reliability of the original report (the Scruggs report; the one cited in this article) that in 2000, the government initiated a re-investigation (the Danforth report). Danforth said "Scruggs and his team did not conduct a formal investigation. They did not make efforts to determine or challenge the veracity of the statements of witnesses..." and that their failure to report certain facts that were uncovered later "was the result of initiating the investigation with the assumption that the FBI had done nothing wrong, was inconsistent with the responsibility to conduct a thorough and complete investigation, and was clearly negligent." Those statements were about unrelated facts in the investigation but it speaks to the document's and the authors' poor reputation for fact checking. It also speaks to the fact that the COI was clearly relevant and not just something I'm harping on as a hypothetical possibility. —PermStrump (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
The section in question is asserting simple statements of fact:
"Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest."So the Scruggs report is questionable on two levels, (1) by reputation and (2) COI. There's no policy that says there needs to be a clear motive for the COI to count, but for your satisfaction... A potential motive for the FBI to be dishonest about whether the they solicited Ross's advice vs Ross offered unsolicited advice would be that prior to the Scruggs report, Nancy Ammerman had written the FBI a letter criticizing their response at Waco. In short, she said that if they had listened to her unsolicited advice, the violence could have been prevented and she also heavily criticized them for "depending" on Ross for advice. When you read the Scruggs report in that context, it's clear that they were directly responding to the complaints they had already received and it's clear that it was in the FBI's self-interest to present the scenario in a way that would justify their actions. They didn't stand to benefit from admitting they reached out to Ross since they consulted 60+ other experts and were hardly going to be accused of not seeking external input from experts. On the other hand, they did run the risk of more criticism for "depending" on one specific individual who happened to not have a PhD since they'd already received some. So from the FBI's perspective, throwing Ross under the bus presented no real risk and there was potential benefit (defending themselves and avoiding more criticism). I obviously have no way of knowing whether that was their thought process, but that's not a requirement for considering it WP:QUESTIONABLE and the COI is unquestionably obvious. —PermStrump (talk) 20:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
(Current) | |
---|---|
Occupation | Deprogrammer |
(RAR proposal) | |
---|---|
Occupation(s) | Deprogrammer, Cult Specialist, Author |
(FS proposal) | |
---|---|
Occupation(s) | consultant, publisher |
("known for" intead of "occupation") | |
---|---|
Known for | deprogramming, cult-related expertise and publications |
(combined) | |
---|---|
Occupation(s) | Consultant; Publisher |
Known for | Deprogramming; Documenting and criticising cults |
The Box "Occupation" should be changed to reflect the lead. "Deprogrammer" should be changed to -- Deprogrammer, Cult Specialist, Author Rick Alan Ross ( talk) 20:47, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I added some examples of what this might look like in the infobox, and glad I did so: it made me realise that "specialist" isn't really an occupation in the sense of the "Occupation" infobox field. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 07:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
The most I am comfortable with is adding "media consultant" to the infobox occupation parameter as that is demonstratively a major part of what he does. He has published one book and "author" is no more descriptive of his primary occupation than "expert witness" all arguments against adding that term apply equally to "author" to the extent that it probably should not even be in the lede. The "known for" is simply not appropriate. Also, he simply is not a publisher. Jbh Talk 11:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I believe we have had this discussion several times before.Yep. One book does not make one's occupation "author". "Consultant" is meaningless without specifics. I'm not very familiar with the general consensus on the use of the "occupation" field vs others, but it seems to me that highlighting what he's known for is much more important than his occupation, which should be reflected in the infobox. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I am most known today for my work as a cult specialist, expert witness and as the founder and executive director of the Cult Education Institute database, which has been online since 1996.Having read literally every source cited in this article, this seems accurate to me, at least "cult specialist" and founder/executive director. I don't have a problem with the "expert witness" but, but I know that's a sensitive topic for whatever reason, so I'd almost rather discuss it separately. It seems odd that we don't give more attention to the Cult Education institute IMO. —PermStrump (talk) 21:56, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GG reports "Rick Alan Ross, America’s leading cult expert" [11] and Raw Story ran report identifying Rick Alan Ross as "America's foremost cult expert." [12] Rick Alan Ross ( talk) 15:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I appear within the CNN documentary "Holy Hell" about the Buddhafield cult now available through Netflix [ [13]] [ [14]] Rick Alan Ross ( talk) 12:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
NXIVM v. Ross was dismissed in December 2016 [26] [27] Rick Alan Ross ( talk) 13:14, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Rick Alan Ross. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
NXIVM v. Ross has become an important cult ruling. See https://www.google.com/search?q=nxivm+v.+Ross&oq=nxivm+v.+Ross&aqs=chrome..69i57j33i160l4.4048j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 Also see https://en-academic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/11789319
This was a major victory not only for the defendants, but also for freedom of speech.
The court noted that defendants’ misconduct in obtaining unauthorized material is one of several relevant factors in a fair use defense as set forth by the Supreme Court in Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises, but that obtaining the manuscript in bad faith does not preclude a fair use defense.[9]
The court weighed the four fair use factors to determine if Ross’s use was fair, and made the following findings:[2]
The purpose and character of the use was transformative as criticism and favored the defendants even if the defendants’ bad faith in obtaining the manual favored the plaintiffs. The nature of the copyrighted work was unpublished and favored the plaintiffs. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole did not favor the plaintiffs as (1) it was reasonable for the defendants to quote liberally from the manual in order to critically comment on it and (2) there was no identifiable "heart" of the manual. The market inquiry heavily favored the defendants because, "as a general matter, criticisms of a seminar or organization cannot substitute for the seminar or organization itself or hijack its market." The court ruled in favor of the defendants and affirmed the denial of the preliminary injunction, stating,
If criticisms on defendants' websites kill the demand for plaintiffs' service, that is the price that, under the First Amendment, must be paid in the open marketplace for ideas...Certainly, no critic should need an author's permission to make such criticism, regardless of how he came by the original; nor should publication be inhibited by a publisher's anxiety or uncertainty about an author's ethics if his secondary work is transformative.[1]
See Wikipedia /info/en/?search=NXIVM_Corp._v._Ross_Institute#Opinion_of_the_court Rick Alan Ross ( talk) 14:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
The Cult Education Institute was historically the first organization to expose Keith Raniere and his cult. The Cult Education Institute database published three papers by two doctors examining and analyzing ESP/NXIVM training. As a direct result, the doctors (John Hochman and Paul Martin), the Ross Institute (now known as the Cult Education Institute) Rick Alan Ross and others were sued. This lawsuit went on for 14 years, until not long before Keith Raniere's arrest, the lawsuit was dismissed in NJ Federal Court.
I was the first cult expert to expose Keith Raniere and the first cult deprogrammer to work with his victims.
My book "Cults Inside Out" is also the first book about cults to include NXIVM.
These historical points are noteworthy in this biography as Raniere is mentioned within the bio and is now one of most widely known cult leaders in modern history. Rick Alan Ross ( talk) 14:42, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
In the years since this bio was last meaningfully updated, quite a bit has happened.
The lawsuit filed against me by NXIVM was dismissed. Subsequent to that Keith Raniere was arrested and ultimately convicted of multiple crimes and sentenced to more than 100 years in prison. I assisted the prosecution team and testified for the prosecution at Keith Raniere's criminal trial. I also worked closely with Catherine Oxenberg to rescue her daughter India, a victim of Keith Raniere. This is reflected in the HBO series "The Vow" and later my work with India on the Starz series "Seduced." See https://www.oxygen.com/true-crime-buzz/who-is-cult-expert-rick-ross-whats-his-connection-to-nxivm And see https://www.timesunion.com/nxivm/article/Cult-expert-testifies-about-his-dealings-with-13972283.php Also see https://onezero.medium.com/cult-deprogrammer-rick-alan-ross-on-nxivm-qanon-and-what-makes-us-vulnerable-62f6c709562c
Also significant was my work with Ubisoft on the 5th installment of the popular videogame "Far Cry." My work was on "Far Cry 5." See https://www.nine.com.au/entertainment/viral/far-cry-5-cult-expert-rick-ross/ea820842-96f3-47dd-8b24-a5ac2f286f4f And see https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2017/10/26/an-exclusive-behind-the-scenes-look-at-the-making-of-far-cry-5s-cult/?sh=7f8b354161a1
Rolling Stone Magazine listed my book on a short list of "5 Books About Cults and Why People Join Them" See https://www.rollingstone.com/product-recommendations/books/best-books-about-cults-1097491/ And says in part -- "Rick Alan Ross is one of the leading experts out there on destructive cults. His career spans over three decades and boasts some serious credibility (along with getting plenty of lawsuits and death threats). Ross has worked as an analyst for CBS and the CBC, lecturing at colleges and universities, consulting with the FBI, and testifying as an expert in US Federal Court."
I was also chosen by Vanity Fair as an expert to review films about cults, the YouTube video release has now reached 1.8 million views. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLoVHyuYVBY&t=51s
A recent article published by Esquire Magazine identified me as "America’s foremost cult deprogrammer, Rick Alan Ross." See https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a40105747/the-follower-staten-island-1980s-cult/ Esqurie also asked me to do a sidebar video specifically devoted to defining a destructive cult. See the same article and scroll down to video sidebar. Rick Alan Ross ( talk) 20:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
KHOU-11 News in Houston, Texas specifically describes me "Rick Alan Ross is a world renowned cult expert." in a news report about the murder of a young couple and disappearance of their baby tied to a cult. See https://www.khou.com/video/news/local/texas/cult-expert-gives-insight-into-the-religious-group-he-suspects-to-have-given-baby-holly-marie-away/285-b45acd8f-5850-4911-aeed-eb4ca63df4ed Rick Alan Ross ( talk) 14:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
It seems to me that a bio of a living person at Wikipedia can be historically accurate or woefully incomplete , out of date and inaccurate depending upon who is interested in editing.
For example, this bio is quite a bit historically out of date, but if you look up Steven Hassan, another "cult expert," his bio is completely current and arguably somewhat inflated and promotional.
This illustrates how Wikepedia often works.
That is, if someone has a "cult following" that will edit his or her bio at Wikipedia, it will be enhanced and updated. And this editing will largely reflect what the subject of that bio wants to appear at Wikipedia.
In this sense the issue isn't what is historically relevant and noteworthy, but rather who has fans that are willing to spend time on Wikepedia helping to promote them through their bio. Rick Alan Ross ( talk) 15:04, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
This bio is not up to date.
Here are some relevant sources that can be used to update the bio.
See https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a40105747/the-follower-staten-island-1980s-cult/ "America’s foremost cult deprogrammer, Rick Alan Ross" Esquire Magazine 2022
See https://www.salon.com/2022/07/30/rick-ross-deprogrammer-profile/ "Ross is the preeminent cult deprogrammer in the United States" Salon 2022
See https://www.oxygen.com/true-crime-buzz/who-is-cult-expert-rick-ross-whats-his-connection-to-nxivm
See https://www.oxygen.com/true-crime-buzz/who-is-cult-expert-rick-ross-whats-his-connection-to-nxivm "Who Is Rick Ross, The Cult Expert That NXIVM Spent Millions Suing And Allegedly Surveilling?"
See https://www.timesunion.com/nxivm/article/Cult-expert-testifies-about-his-dealings-with-13972283.php "Longtime cult expert and NXIVM foe Rick Ross told jurors Wednesday he quickly identified the secretive self-help organization as a "destructive program" trying to create clones of spiritual leader Keith Raniere."
See https://www.nine.com.au/entertainment/viral/far-cry-5-cult-expert-rick-ross/ea820842-96f3-47dd-8b24-a5ac2f286f4f ""We have a pedigree of building these unique characters in Far Cry," the game's creative director Dan Hay told 9Pickle, "so when it came time to build The Father, (the cult leader) we wanted to do our homework". That homework came in the form of destructive cult expert Rick Ross, who was enlisted to consult with the creative team during the game's development."
See https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2017/10/26/an-exclusive-behind-the-scenes-look-at-the-making-of-far-cry-5s-cult/?sh=7b47dacd61a1 "Ross, the founder and executive director of the nonprofit Cult Education Institute, is working with the team behind Far Cry 5, Ubisoft Montreal, as a consultant on cults, helping the developers craft the real deal."
These are well-known and credible sources that report more recent work that is not mentioned in the bio. Rick Alan Ross ( talk) 21:20, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
I googled the title of the DOJ source and found out that the version cited in the article is redacted. I could only find other redacted versions, so I removed this content for now until a better source can be found per WP:BLPREMOVE. It's a primary source anyway and there are several secondary sources that talk about the weico siege, so we should be using those more than the DOJ source anyway and if we're going to citing it when we find a current version, we shouldn't use anything from it to support statements that don't also have support from better sources. —PermStrump (talk) 12:11, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Ammerman's additional letter which is not in the official report is another matter. If it was published separately from the report it would be SELFPUB but it is still by a recognized expert in the field. I do not believe the article is using the letter as a source though is it? Jbh Talk 16:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
On what do you base that this report is in some way biased? Do you have sources which call into question the recitation of events as they are documented? Jbh Talk 19:37, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Just to be sure we are on the same page. This is from the current version of the report on the DOJ web site and which I linked to above:
E. "Cult Experts"The FBI did not solicit advice from any "cult experts" or "cult deprogrammers." The FBI did receive a number of unsolicited offers of assistance from former Branch Davidian member Marc Breault (who has since published a paperback book about Koresh and the Branch Davidians). The FBI also received input from two self-described cult experts, Rick Ross (who moved to a hotel in Dallas, and later to Waco, during the standoff and appeared on local television programs, as well as the CNN broadcast of March 10 that upset Dr. Dietz) and Kelli Waxman. Following are brief summaries of the input received from these three individuals: Waxman: Waxman has assisted local police agencies in Arizona in dealing with Satanist religious groups. on March 1, 1993, she called the FBI, and requested that she be interviewed regarding her knowledge of cults in general and the Branch Davidians in particular. Later that day an FBI agent interviewed Waxman. Waxman said the FBI should be cautious in dealing with Koresh, because the Branch Davidians probably had a suicide pact or procedure already in place. Waxman said that if Koresh were to permit all the children to leave, then mass suicide would be the next step. She predicted that the FBI would "have another Jonestown on its hands." Ross: Ross contacted the FBI on March 4, 1993 and requested that he be interviewed regarding his knowledge of cults in general and the Branch Davidians in particular. Ross said that he had been familiar with the Branch Davidians for several years, and had known several former Davidians. Ross provided information about Koresh to the Waco Tribune Herald for its series about the Branch Davidians. Ross also had been in contact with Steve Schneider's sister, who had asked him to help devise a strategy to "deprogram" Schneider. The ATF also contacted Ross in January 1993 for information about Koresh. Ross also telephoned the FBI on March 27 and March 28, offering advice about negotiation strategies. Ross suggested that the FBI attempt to embarrass Koresh by informing other members of the compound about Koresh's faults and failures in life, in order to convince them that Koresh was not the prophet they had been led to believe.
The FBI did not "rely" on Ross for advice whatsoever during the standoff. The FBI interviewed Ross only at Ross' request, and politely declined his unsolicited offers of assistance throughout the standoff. The FBI treated the information Ross supplied as it would any other unsolicited information received from the public: it evaluated the credibility of the information and treated it accordingly.
This material is important because it stands in contrast to what is claimed by Ross elsewhere and is a direct summary from someone who had access to all of the primary source information from DOJ. Jbh Talk 19:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC) Ammended Jbh Talk 19:47, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Scruggs's methods per the
Danforth Report
|
---|
|
The Scruggs report...
"relat[ing] or discuss[ing] information originally presented elsewhere". According to BLP, IRS, and NOR, primary sources should only be used in a BLP sparingly and only if it's supplementing material from a reliable secondary source (not the case here).
"Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source."
"Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts,(see #3 below)
lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest...Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties"(my emphasis).
"All such conflicts-of-interests make the source suspect of giving more importance to advancing interests in the topic than to advancing knowledge about the topic."
"Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred."
Going a bit further, the criticism of the report seems to be focused on the use-of-force issues rather than the sections referring to the use of outside consultants so most of the issues of bias/ass covering are not really on point.
Finally per BLPRESTORE the quote removed is not "unsourced or poorly sourced". A government report/inquiry is not the same as a blog and I firmly disagree that the summaries of use of outside consultants can be considered PRIMARY nor can I agree that the DOJ inherently lacks a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Jbh Talk 02:34, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
"This is a government report, written by people with best access to facts,"and people who have a blatant COI (as explained above).
"directly contradicts other reports..."If the only source we have that directly contradicts numerous reliable, secondary sources is a primary source with a blatant COI and a poor reputation for fact checking, that says a lot about what POV should be getting the most WP:WEIGHT.
"...which are mostly based on Ross' own reporting of his participationThe policies and guidelines consider mainstream news sources reliable sources, so as Wikipedia editors, we have to assume that journalists are doing appropriate fact-checking and aren't just basing everything they say off of Ross's statements about himself. —PermStrump (talk) 04:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Use of DOJ source in Rick Alan Ross. Jbh Talk 14:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
'This has been disputed by the FBI'would be WP:SYNTH. Regardless, Only in death, if the only issue were that it's a primary source, I would agree, but it's a questionable primary source. The larger part of the issue is that it was published by a primary source with a blatant COI that has a history poor-fact checking in the same exact document (see thread above). "Poor" as in, they didn't even engage in fact checking. There were so many doubts about the reliability of the original report (the Scruggs report; the one cited in this article) that in 2000, the government initiated a re-investigation (the Danforth report). Danforth said "Scruggs and his team did not conduct a formal investigation. They did not make efforts to determine or challenge the veracity of the statements of witnesses..." and that their failure to report certain facts that were uncovered later "was the result of initiating the investigation with the assumption that the FBI had done nothing wrong, was inconsistent with the responsibility to conduct a thorough and complete investigation, and was clearly negligent." Those statements were about unrelated facts in the investigation but it speaks to the document's and the authors' poor reputation for fact checking. It also speaks to the fact that the COI was clearly relevant and not just something I'm harping on as a hypothetical possibility. —PermStrump (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
The section in question is asserting simple statements of fact:
"Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest."So the Scruggs report is questionable on two levels, (1) by reputation and (2) COI. There's no policy that says there needs to be a clear motive for the COI to count, but for your satisfaction... A potential motive for the FBI to be dishonest about whether the they solicited Ross's advice vs Ross offered unsolicited advice would be that prior to the Scruggs report, Nancy Ammerman had written the FBI a letter criticizing their response at Waco. In short, she said that if they had listened to her unsolicited advice, the violence could have been prevented and she also heavily criticized them for "depending" on Ross for advice. When you read the Scruggs report in that context, it's clear that they were directly responding to the complaints they had already received and it's clear that it was in the FBI's self-interest to present the scenario in a way that would justify their actions. They didn't stand to benefit from admitting they reached out to Ross since they consulted 60+ other experts and were hardly going to be accused of not seeking external input from experts. On the other hand, they did run the risk of more criticism for "depending" on one specific individual who happened to not have a PhD since they'd already received some. So from the FBI's perspective, throwing Ross under the bus presented no real risk and there was potential benefit (defending themselves and avoiding more criticism). I obviously have no way of knowing whether that was their thought process, but that's not a requirement for considering it WP:QUESTIONABLE and the COI is unquestionably obvious. —PermStrump (talk) 20:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
(Current) | |
---|---|
Occupation | Deprogrammer |
(RAR proposal) | |
---|---|
Occupation(s) | Deprogrammer, Cult Specialist, Author |
(FS proposal) | |
---|---|
Occupation(s) | consultant, publisher |
("known for" intead of "occupation") | |
---|---|
Known for | deprogramming, cult-related expertise and publications |
(combined) | |
---|---|
Occupation(s) | Consultant; Publisher |
Known for | Deprogramming; Documenting and criticising cults |
The Box "Occupation" should be changed to reflect the lead. "Deprogrammer" should be changed to -- Deprogrammer, Cult Specialist, Author Rick Alan Ross ( talk) 20:47, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I added some examples of what this might look like in the infobox, and glad I did so: it made me realise that "specialist" isn't really an occupation in the sense of the "Occupation" infobox field. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 07:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
The most I am comfortable with is adding "media consultant" to the infobox occupation parameter as that is demonstratively a major part of what he does. He has published one book and "author" is no more descriptive of his primary occupation than "expert witness" all arguments against adding that term apply equally to "author" to the extent that it probably should not even be in the lede. The "known for" is simply not appropriate. Also, he simply is not a publisher. Jbh Talk 11:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I believe we have had this discussion several times before.Yep. One book does not make one's occupation "author". "Consultant" is meaningless without specifics. I'm not very familiar with the general consensus on the use of the "occupation" field vs others, but it seems to me that highlighting what he's known for is much more important than his occupation, which should be reflected in the infobox. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I am most known today for my work as a cult specialist, expert witness and as the founder and executive director of the Cult Education Institute database, which has been online since 1996.Having read literally every source cited in this article, this seems accurate to me, at least "cult specialist" and founder/executive director. I don't have a problem with the "expert witness" but, but I know that's a sensitive topic for whatever reason, so I'd almost rather discuss it separately. It seems odd that we don't give more attention to the Cult Education institute IMO. —PermStrump (talk) 21:56, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GG reports "Rick Alan Ross, America’s leading cult expert" [11] and Raw Story ran report identifying Rick Alan Ross as "America's foremost cult expert." [12] Rick Alan Ross ( talk) 15:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I appear within the CNN documentary "Holy Hell" about the Buddhafield cult now available through Netflix [ [13]] [ [14]] Rick Alan Ross ( talk) 12:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
NXIVM v. Ross was dismissed in December 2016 [26] [27] Rick Alan Ross ( talk) 13:14, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Rick Alan Ross. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
NXIVM v. Ross has become an important cult ruling. See https://www.google.com/search?q=nxivm+v.+Ross&oq=nxivm+v.+Ross&aqs=chrome..69i57j33i160l4.4048j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 Also see https://en-academic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/11789319
This was a major victory not only for the defendants, but also for freedom of speech.
The court noted that defendants’ misconduct in obtaining unauthorized material is one of several relevant factors in a fair use defense as set forth by the Supreme Court in Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises, but that obtaining the manuscript in bad faith does not preclude a fair use defense.[9]
The court weighed the four fair use factors to determine if Ross’s use was fair, and made the following findings:[2]
The purpose and character of the use was transformative as criticism and favored the defendants even if the defendants’ bad faith in obtaining the manual favored the plaintiffs. The nature of the copyrighted work was unpublished and favored the plaintiffs. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole did not favor the plaintiffs as (1) it was reasonable for the defendants to quote liberally from the manual in order to critically comment on it and (2) there was no identifiable "heart" of the manual. The market inquiry heavily favored the defendants because, "as a general matter, criticisms of a seminar or organization cannot substitute for the seminar or organization itself or hijack its market." The court ruled in favor of the defendants and affirmed the denial of the preliminary injunction, stating,
If criticisms on defendants' websites kill the demand for plaintiffs' service, that is the price that, under the First Amendment, must be paid in the open marketplace for ideas...Certainly, no critic should need an author's permission to make such criticism, regardless of how he came by the original; nor should publication be inhibited by a publisher's anxiety or uncertainty about an author's ethics if his secondary work is transformative.[1]
See Wikipedia /info/en/?search=NXIVM_Corp._v._Ross_Institute#Opinion_of_the_court Rick Alan Ross ( talk) 14:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
The Cult Education Institute was historically the first organization to expose Keith Raniere and his cult. The Cult Education Institute database published three papers by two doctors examining and analyzing ESP/NXIVM training. As a direct result, the doctors (John Hochman and Paul Martin), the Ross Institute (now known as the Cult Education Institute) Rick Alan Ross and others were sued. This lawsuit went on for 14 years, until not long before Keith Raniere's arrest, the lawsuit was dismissed in NJ Federal Court.
I was the first cult expert to expose Keith Raniere and the first cult deprogrammer to work with his victims.
My book "Cults Inside Out" is also the first book about cults to include NXIVM.
These historical points are noteworthy in this biography as Raniere is mentioned within the bio and is now one of most widely known cult leaders in modern history. Rick Alan Ross ( talk) 14:42, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
In the years since this bio was last meaningfully updated, quite a bit has happened.
The lawsuit filed against me by NXIVM was dismissed. Subsequent to that Keith Raniere was arrested and ultimately convicted of multiple crimes and sentenced to more than 100 years in prison. I assisted the prosecution team and testified for the prosecution at Keith Raniere's criminal trial. I also worked closely with Catherine Oxenberg to rescue her daughter India, a victim of Keith Raniere. This is reflected in the HBO series "The Vow" and later my work with India on the Starz series "Seduced." See https://www.oxygen.com/true-crime-buzz/who-is-cult-expert-rick-ross-whats-his-connection-to-nxivm And see https://www.timesunion.com/nxivm/article/Cult-expert-testifies-about-his-dealings-with-13972283.php Also see https://onezero.medium.com/cult-deprogrammer-rick-alan-ross-on-nxivm-qanon-and-what-makes-us-vulnerable-62f6c709562c
Also significant was my work with Ubisoft on the 5th installment of the popular videogame "Far Cry." My work was on "Far Cry 5." See https://www.nine.com.au/entertainment/viral/far-cry-5-cult-expert-rick-ross/ea820842-96f3-47dd-8b24-a5ac2f286f4f And see https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2017/10/26/an-exclusive-behind-the-scenes-look-at-the-making-of-far-cry-5s-cult/?sh=7f8b354161a1
Rolling Stone Magazine listed my book on a short list of "5 Books About Cults and Why People Join Them" See https://www.rollingstone.com/product-recommendations/books/best-books-about-cults-1097491/ And says in part -- "Rick Alan Ross is one of the leading experts out there on destructive cults. His career spans over three decades and boasts some serious credibility (along with getting plenty of lawsuits and death threats). Ross has worked as an analyst for CBS and the CBC, lecturing at colleges and universities, consulting with the FBI, and testifying as an expert in US Federal Court."
I was also chosen by Vanity Fair as an expert to review films about cults, the YouTube video release has now reached 1.8 million views. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLoVHyuYVBY&t=51s
A recent article published by Esquire Magazine identified me as "America’s foremost cult deprogrammer, Rick Alan Ross." See https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a40105747/the-follower-staten-island-1980s-cult/ Esqurie also asked me to do a sidebar video specifically devoted to defining a destructive cult. See the same article and scroll down to video sidebar. Rick Alan Ross ( talk) 20:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
KHOU-11 News in Houston, Texas specifically describes me "Rick Alan Ross is a world renowned cult expert." in a news report about the murder of a young couple and disappearance of their baby tied to a cult. See https://www.khou.com/video/news/local/texas/cult-expert-gives-insight-into-the-religious-group-he-suspects-to-have-given-baby-holly-marie-away/285-b45acd8f-5850-4911-aeed-eb4ca63df4ed Rick Alan Ross ( talk) 14:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
It seems to me that a bio of a living person at Wikipedia can be historically accurate or woefully incomplete , out of date and inaccurate depending upon who is interested in editing.
For example, this bio is quite a bit historically out of date, but if you look up Steven Hassan, another "cult expert," his bio is completely current and arguably somewhat inflated and promotional.
This illustrates how Wikepedia often works.
That is, if someone has a "cult following" that will edit his or her bio at Wikipedia, it will be enhanced and updated. And this editing will largely reflect what the subject of that bio wants to appear at Wikipedia.
In this sense the issue isn't what is historically relevant and noteworthy, but rather who has fans that are willing to spend time on Wikepedia helping to promote them through their bio. Rick Alan Ross ( talk) 15:04, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
This bio is not up to date.
Here are some relevant sources that can be used to update the bio.
See https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a40105747/the-follower-staten-island-1980s-cult/ "America’s foremost cult deprogrammer, Rick Alan Ross" Esquire Magazine 2022
See https://www.salon.com/2022/07/30/rick-ross-deprogrammer-profile/ "Ross is the preeminent cult deprogrammer in the United States" Salon 2022
See https://www.oxygen.com/true-crime-buzz/who-is-cult-expert-rick-ross-whats-his-connection-to-nxivm
See https://www.oxygen.com/true-crime-buzz/who-is-cult-expert-rick-ross-whats-his-connection-to-nxivm "Who Is Rick Ross, The Cult Expert That NXIVM Spent Millions Suing And Allegedly Surveilling?"
See https://www.timesunion.com/nxivm/article/Cult-expert-testifies-about-his-dealings-with-13972283.php "Longtime cult expert and NXIVM foe Rick Ross told jurors Wednesday he quickly identified the secretive self-help organization as a "destructive program" trying to create clones of spiritual leader Keith Raniere."
See https://www.nine.com.au/entertainment/viral/far-cry-5-cult-expert-rick-ross/ea820842-96f3-47dd-8b24-a5ac2f286f4f ""We have a pedigree of building these unique characters in Far Cry," the game's creative director Dan Hay told 9Pickle, "so when it came time to build The Father, (the cult leader) we wanted to do our homework". That homework came in the form of destructive cult expert Rick Ross, who was enlisted to consult with the creative team during the game's development."
See https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2017/10/26/an-exclusive-behind-the-scenes-look-at-the-making-of-far-cry-5s-cult/?sh=7b47dacd61a1 "Ross, the founder and executive director of the nonprofit Cult Education Institute, is working with the team behind Far Cry 5, Ubisoft Montreal, as a consultant on cults, helping the developers craft the real deal."
These are well-known and credible sources that report more recent work that is not mentioned in the bio. Rick Alan Ross ( talk) 21:20, 30 July 2022 (UTC)