Talk:Rick Alan Ross

Recent addition to background misleading with no historical context

Here we go again. Anonymous editors drop in to put something negative and/or misleading in my bio.

"A 2018 report by Human Rights Without Frontiers International includes a section on criticisms of Ross and his methodology. The report states, 'He [Rick Alan Ross] only has a high school diploma and does not have any education or credentials in religion.'"

The footnote for this addition is a dead link. There is nothing there.

This statement offers no historical context, but seems tied to anti-cult work in Israel. In fact, the Israeli Ministry of Social Affairs and Services sought my input for a policy paper titled "REPORT OF MINISTRY OF WELFARE AND SOCIAL SERVICES TEAM, AN EXAMINATION OF THE PHENOMENON OF CULTS IN ISRAEL" (March 2011) See https://culteducation.com/reference/general/AnExaminationOfThePhenomenonOfCultsInIsrael.pdf

Contained in the introduction of this report is the following:

The members of the Team wish to thank the researchers, counselors and other relevant parties who agreed to meet, who forwarded material, contributed their time and expressed their views, all in order to assist in the production of this report "from theory to practice". The following is only a partial list of the persons concerned, as, on account of the wish to maintain their privacy, we have elected not to publish the names of the families who appeared before the Committee.

• Dr. Gaby Zohar, Clinical Social Worker, Therapist and Counselor to the cult

victim families.

• Ms. Mati Lieblich, of the Hebrew University, Phd Candidate and researcher of

cult victims, a teacher in various disciplines and tutor of counseling training groups.

• Dr. David Green, Specialist in Clinical Psychology and Principal of the "Green

Institute" of Advanced Psychology in Tel Aviv.

• Dr. Uzi Shai, Psychiatrist, Ministry of Health, Tel-Aviv District.
• Ms. Rachel Lichtenstein, Director of the Israel Center for Cult Victims.
• Ms. Sharona Ben-Moshe, Legal Advisor to the Israel Center for Cult Victims.
• Ms. Noa Shalom, Director of Eastern Division, Tel-Aviv Municipality
• Ms. Noa Shaham, Director of Social Services Department, Lower Galilee.
• Steven Alan Hassan, Director of the Freedom of Mind Resource Center.
• Professor Marc Galanter, M.D. Professor of Psychiatry at NYU.
• Bill Goldberg, Social Worker and Researcher.
• Lorna Goldberg, Social Worker, Certified Psychoanalyst, Psychotherapist and

Researcher.

* Rick Ross, Executive Director of the Rick. A. Ross Institute. [now known as the Cult Education Institute]

• Arnold Markowitz, Director of the Cult Hotline and Clinic of the Jewish Board of

Family and Children's Services in New York City.

Moreover the criticism is historically inaccurate. In my bio it is noted that I have been appointed to national committees for the Union of Reform Judaism and served as the officially appointed Jewish representative on the Religious Advisory Committee to the Arizona Department of Corrections. I was also the program coordinator for Jewish Prisoner Program for Jewish Family and Childrens Service of Arizona. It seems to me that these are "credentials" regarding a major faith group/relgion.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 19:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I was a consulting expert for an Israeli government report about cults. But apparently the "Human Rights Without Frontiers International" organization took issue with this and was critical. They stated, "He [Rick Alan Ross] only has a high school diploma and does not have any education or credentials in religion."

However, I served on national committees for the Union for Reform Judaism and represented the Jewish community officially on the Religious Advisory Committee to the Arizona Department of Corrections.

Given the historical inaccuracy and lack of context I suggest that this addition be deleted or amended to reflect historical context. That is, that this criticism be preceded by the statement that I consulted Israeli Ministry of Social Welfare and followed by some historical facts, such as my interreligious work and accepted court expert testimony.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:01, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I’ve removed the dead link. I think it worked before, perhaps Path2space, who added the content, can help. Harold the Sheep (talk) 05:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for catching it. Will do. Path2space (talk) 04:25, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Some of this material should probably be restored. It is noteworthy that Ross lacks any relevant degrees or other credentials (though our article does briefly touch on this), and it is also noteworthy that despite this he has been consultant to, boardmember of, and otherwise considered an expert by various notable or at least noteworthy bodies. It's generally encyclopedically interesting. But this should be handled in a new thread and one that is not just pushing one-sided promotionalism, and which has sources.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

The link I restored is referenced #24. Thank you. Path2space (talk) 03:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

James T. Richardson quoted

The quote offered by James T. Richardson is not NPOV. Richardson was a frequent apologist for cults and he was recommended by Scientology and the "New Cult Awareness Network" (controlled by Scientology) as a resource. See https://culteducation.com/apologist42.html and also see https://www.culteducation.com/group/1073-cult-awareness-network/15149-who-the-so-called-new-can-recommends-for-factual-information-onnew-religions.html This is his view of "deprogramming," which was often on a voluntary basis. Many people leaving cults sought deprogramming.

"For purposes of legal analysis, there are three types of deprogramming. Voluntary deprogramming; forcible deprogramming; and deprogramming carried out with a court's sanction, usually in the form of an order of conservatorship." See https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2794&context=vlr I would also add involuntary deprogramming of a minor child overseen by a custodial parent or legal guardian. See https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1989-06-08-8902070806-story.html And also see https://culteducation.com/group/1260-his-community/9793-gromers-using-deprogrammer-with-boys.html

The overwhelming majority of deprogramming I have done has been voluntary. Some were sanctioned by a court, custodial parent or legal guardian. Very few would fit the category of involuntary deprogramming with an adult. Those few interventions took place primarily in the late 1980s and ended in 1990 with the Jason Scott case.

There is an attempt being made to skew this biography with biased quotes from sources that are decidedly not NPOV.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:40, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Just because someone is critical of the practice of deprogramming and the ideology behind it doesn’t mean they are a "cult member" or a "cult apologist"; those are just self-serving, reductionistic labels. James T. Richardson is a Professor of Sociology and Judicial Studies who is particularly known for his work in the area of the sociology of religion. He is not a "cult apologist", and neither are the many other academics and researchers into new religious movements and the anti-cult movement who have described deprogramming in similar or even stronger terms. Your insinuation below, that any editor who uses their work is a cult member promoting a cultish POV, is completely inappropriate. Harold the Sheep (talk) 03:16, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Richardson historically has expressed a very narrow POV in favor of groups like Scientology. And this is why he has been repeatedly recommended by that organization, often called a "cult." I don't know who your are or why you are here. You are an anonymous editor. Historically, this bio has had editors the were later exposed as cult members. Whoever you are you are certainly here to skew the bio to better represent your POV as anyone can see from edits and comments.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 21:59, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

You should avoid directly engaging with such people here Wikipedia, including its article talk pages, are not a social media platform or a debate forum. If something is wrong with the material, then you'll need to put up an edit COI request, directed at the editorial community in general, not at alleged drive-by PoV pushers, and it will need to suggest specific revisions, and have specific independent and reliable sources for making that edit.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Understood.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 16:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

POV editing

Recently there has been some POV editing here at this bio.

It must be noted that there is a history of cult members coming here and editing. Some were ultimately banned.

The quotes offered are from those specifically aligned with cults that have a very specific POV.

This is not NPOV editing.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:00, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I addressed this to some extent at User talk:Rick Alan Ross; the short version is that we're not mind readers and will need specific evidence of particular edits that need reverting or alteration and policy-based reasons why the edits are problematic.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:26, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I have offered examples, analysis with links. The recent edits represent opinions POV and are not NPOV.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 22:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Answered on user's talk page.

Anson Shupe not NPOV

Again the editing being done is specifically POV not NPOV. Anson Shupe, who is cited in a recent addition worked as an expert witness for Scientology lawyer Kendrick Moxon for a very considerable sum of money. See https://culteducation.com/group/1248-apologist/1958-when-scholars-know-sins.html

A long-time opponent of the "anti-cult movement" Shupe does not represent a NPOV. Rick Alan Ross (talk) 21:43, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, the addition of Shupe's remarks in no way adds anything to the bio, as the background section already notes nothing more than a high school education.

It's unclear if "religious credentials" means a degree or a history of work in the area of religion? If it's the later I have worked within well established religious organizations and have testified as a court expert witness concerning extreme religious groups in 11 states, including US Federal Court.

I suggest that the recent additions to this bio be deleted as they are POV and not NPOV.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 21:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

The material is factual, correct? You're just commenting on the author? --Hipal (talk) 03:38, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

NO. The recent edits are not about facts, bur rather reflect the POV of some academics closely associated with groups called "cults." They are not NPOV, but a means of skewing this bio. If the bio is supposedly a fact based encyclopedia entry it must be NPOV and not skewed with POV opinions. This is an ongoing problem with Wikipedia, i.e. anyone can come in and anonymously edit using the edit process to skew a bio of a living person they oppose, don't like and/or wish to discredit.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 12:44, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

So factual, but you don't like the POV of some authors? --Hipal (talk) 17:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

The recent edits reflect a POV. The editor is using critical comments made by people closely associated with cults who have a history of bias regarding the issue of cults. There are many others who have commented positively about my work, for example concerning NXIVM. This is cherry picking quotes for the purpose of slanting this bio.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 19:35, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Reflecting a POV isn't itself a problem. I don't see how the facts are "critical comments". --Hipal (talk) 19:44, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I think what @Hipal is trying to get at is: is there an issue with what the article itself is saying using the non-NPOV sources? --Jacquesparker0 (talk) 08:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what "non-NPOV sources" means. --Hipal (talk) 17:05, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

The source for the quotes are people closely associated with cults that have a history of defending groups called "cults." They are biased. This is not NPOV, but rather an example of cherry picking POV quotes for the purpose of slanting the bio. There are many positive quotes concerning my work that could have been used, but the editing is being done to slant the bio negatively.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 19:38, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Bias isn't itself a problem. Removing sources because they aren't "positive" is a problem. --Hipal (talk) 19:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

These sources are never positive about anyone opposing destructive cults. They have a distinct bias, which is well established due to their work history, public statements and writings. The editing here is often an example of what's wrong with Wikipedia, i.e. an anonymous editor can drop in and skew a bio about a living person to suite his or her whims and views about the subject. The bias of these sources has been exposed through published academic papers. For example see chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://skent.ualberta.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/popular-press-When-Scholars-Know-Sin.pdf And regarding the Jason Scott case civil lawsuit and its links to Scientology see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dqX3Utt2U0 Jason Scott talks about he used by Scientology. Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:07, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

The source for the quotes are people closely associated with cults that have a history of defending groups called "cults." There are no quotes, there is one sentence mentioning the fact that you have no credentials in religion and no formal training in counseling or psychology. The Shupe source does not discuss the "cults" at all. Agents of Discord is about deprogramming as a practice, starting with Ted Patrick and moving through the history of the anti-cult movement, other deprogrammers, and the rise and fall of the CAN. It usually mentions the specific group or teacher associated with the victim of a deprogramming, but does not express opinions one way or the other about them. One thing it does do, however, is examine legal documents, court transcripts etc. that provide evidence of what went on during deprogrammings. That is what you don’t like, not their cult apologies, which are entirely absent. There is a quite detailed summary, for example, of the court evidence from the Jason Scott lawsuit. I'm of the opinion that we should include some of it in the article, there is very little description in the section "Jason Scott Deprogramming" of the actual "deprogramming". Considering the violent and farcical picture that emerges from the evidence, it is little wonder that the authors note that its primary architect, recommended by CAN and hired for a considerable sum of money, was a man with no formal training in counseling or psychology. Harold the Sheep (talk) 04:14, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. You have just recited a very biased view of the Jason Scott case and deprogramming, which reflects your purpose here. I don't know who you are, but your POV is plain to see. Jasons Scott was used as a pawn by Scientology. His lawyer in the civil suit was Scientology lead counsel Kendrick Moxon. Jason said he was used by Scientology in an interview with Leslie Stahl of CBS "60 Minutes." See https://vimeo.com/687209330 Subsequently, Jason Scott fired Kendrick Moxon and sold me the $2 million dollar judgement for $5,000.00 and 200 hours of my time as a cult deprogrammer, which is ironic, because it was deprogrammng that was the basis for the lawsuit. Jason left the church that was called a "cult" by his mother and never again attended it, despite his wife's devotion to that same church, which led to their divorce.

The fact that I have no formal education beyond high school is already in this biography. If "religious credentials" include serving on national committees for a large respected religious denomination (Union for Reform Judaism) and also representing the Jewish community statewide on the Religious Advisory Committee for the Arizona Department of Corrections, and serving both as its chairman and chairman of an International Coalition of Jewish Prisoner Programs sponsored by B'nai B'rith International, then the statement about religious credentials is patently false.

Also, regarding Anson Shupe, he was paid a very substantial sum by Kendrick Moxon to testify as an expert witness at the Jason Scott civil lawsuit trial. A published academic paper explores Shupe's bias and other academics closely associated with cults historically. See chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://skent.ualberta.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/popular-press-When-Scholars-Know-Sin.pdf Will someone please take the time to read about Shupe and his cooperation with Scientology? Hardly an unbiased scholar in this regard.

It seems to me given the public disclosures about Scientology and its abuses, along with reporting about destructive cults more generally such as NXIVM and many others that are deeply harmful if not deadly, these academics who apologized for cults and often worked for them, have been largely discredited by history. Perhaps you can pretend that these facts don't exist, but they are very widely reported and accepted. And as you know my work did not end with the Scott case, but rather greatly expanded and continued, which also has been widely reported. See https://www.oxygen.com/true-crime-buzz/who-is-cult-expert-rick-ross-whats-his-connection-to-nxivm and also https://seduceddocumentary.com/theexperts/rickalanross/ And see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLoVHyuYVBY&t=47s and also https://www.nine.com.au/entertainment/viral/far-cry-5-cult-expert-rick-ross/ea820842-96f3-47dd-8b24-a5ac2f286f4f

Regarding recognition of my expertise I have been a paid guest lecturer at universities and colleges across the United States and internationally. This has included the University of Pennsylvania at Philadelphia, University of Chicago and Carnegie Mellon. And my court expert testimony has included 11 states and US Federal Court. Each time I was qualified and accepted as an expert in court opposing counsel raised the issue of my education. Despite this I was qualified.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 15:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

This is going nowhere, other than putting you at risk of being blocked for failure to work with others in good faith. See WP:TALK.

I strongly suggest you work from edit requests. --Hipal (talk) 18:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

If what you say is true then there is little hope of NPOV editing here regarding the biography of a living person. I have offered the facts, supporting documentation with links. There is no balance or historical context offered here, just quotes and citations from biased sources that were paid by cults (e.g. Scientology).Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

"at risk of being blocked for failure to work with others in good faith" is exactly correct. This article is never going to be a puff-piece about you or whitewash away all the sourceable criticism of you. And this article is never going to only quote one side/viewpoint in this general topic area, which is fraught with controversy, from defining things as cults to what "deprogramming" is, whether it is ethical, and whether you in particular have the background to do it properly. There is no requirement to quote cite "neutral" sources (there really is no such thing); rather there is a requirement to represent multiple source-attested viewpoints in a due and balanced manner (that doesn't mean "every view is equal" bothsidesism; fringe viewpoint have lower due weight). I don't say all this as some kind of cult apologist. I was EFF's full-time professional activist and webmaster all during that organization's long-term tussle with the Church of Scientology and the latter's attempts to censor massive numbers of website and online forums. You can't keep attacking everyone who disagrees with you or doesn't give you everything you want as a cultist or an apologist for cultists, or you will get blocked from even being able to post to talk pages.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Understood. In the future I will suggest balance through cited sources.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 16:03, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Edit request: education and credentials

Please either delete or amend the following:

"Despite involving himself in many coercive interventions against individuals involved in New Religious Movements, Ross has no education or credentials in religion and no formal training in counselling or psychology."

This is at best superfluous and misleading. Cult intervention work is education not counseling psychotherapy. It is simply educating the individual regarding the history of cults and cult indoctrination and influence techniques based upon historical reporting and scientific research. I have never claimed or insinuated that I am a mental health professional providing related counseling services.

Concerning "credentials in religion." As reported I have served as the Jewish community representative to the Arizona Department of Corrections Religious Advisory Committee (elected chairman), the Committee on Interreligious Affairs for the Union of Reform Judaism, program coordinator for the Jewish Prisoner Program of Jewish and Family Children's Services of Phoenix, Arizona and the chairman of the International Coalition for Jewish Prisoner Programs sponsored by B'Nai B'Rith International. I was also an instructor for the Bureau of Jewish Education (under the Jewish Federation of Greater Phoenix) teaching courses on "Cults: Conersion through Coercion" for teenage students and adult education. This can be seen as "credentials in relgion."

That is, many would consider this "credentials in religion," unless what you mean is an ordination, or a degree in religious studies.

BTW -- groups called cults are not always religious, many have little if any connection to religious beliefs, e.g. NXIVM, the Sullivanians, Synanon, National Labor Federation, Odyssey Study Group, Breatharians, MOVE, Symbionese Liberation Army, etc. A cult can be based upon almost anything. So "New Religious Movements" (NRM) is not an accurate description and a bit dated.

Another point -- My work in what the editor describes as "coercive interventions" ended 32 years ago in 1990 (Jason Scott case). Of the more than 500 interventions I have done less than 1% were ever involuntary. Of those involuntary interventions many were with minor children under the direct supervision of a legal guardian. And some were with people under conservatorship and the direct supervision of a physician.

The statement must be more precise and fact based if it is not intended to deliberately mislead readers based upon the minority opinion expressed by some biased academic.

For example -- Some academics critical of Ross and his cult intervention work have pointed out that he has no degree in religious studies and is not a mental health professional.

This is simply stating the facts without skewing the entry.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

No references offered. This appears to be WP:OR to change the WP:POV. --Hipal (talk) 19:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

This is not original research, but a statement based upon facts already cited in bio and the citation in question.

I do not have a degree beyond my high school diploma, e.g. in religious studies and am not a mental health professional. There is no dispute regarding these facts. This eliminates the POV coloring and cites only the plain facts. Rick Alan Ross (talk) 19:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Request for edit: Richardson's description

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

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

It must be amended, both for balance and context.

I suggest the following:

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

Please check and update the url. You may want to provide full citation information so it can be found in another manner. --Hipal (talk) 19:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC) That now works. Thanks! --Hipal (talk) 19:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Doing my best.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 20:52, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Won't you please make the edit including statement by Vanderbilt Law Review. This does offer needed objective factual balance from a legal perspective.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I have implemented a version of this, that avoids making unsourced claims about Richardson and about NRMs in general, like "a defender of new religious movements called 'cults'", which is just your attempt to character-assassinate him and them. That he has views supportive of NRMs is already apparent to every reader from his quotation. "Author and" was also redundant when the same sentence says "in her book". And it's not "her book", but a co-authored volume. A page number is needed for this citation. A "But" construction followed by a "However" construction is poor writing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Understood. Perhaps just the findings of Vanderbilt are meaningful. For example, Vanderbilt Law Review stated, "For purposes of legal analysis, there are three types of deprogramming. Voluntary deprogramming; forcible deprogramming; and deprogramming carried out with a court's sanction, usually in the form of an order of conservatorship."Rick Alan Ross (talk) 16:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Suggested additions -- Other Activities

I suggest updating the other activities section as there is relevant and notable work since 2014

In 2015 Ross appeared in the documentary "Deprogrammed" about the life of the first cult deprogrammer Ted Patrick. See https://www.eyesteelfilm.com/portfolio/deprogrammed

Ross appeared in the documentary "Holy Hell" released worldwide by CNN in 2016 directed and produced by a former cult member of the group "Buddhafield." See https://www.cnn.com/2016/09/01/us/holy-hell-buddhafield-searching-for-michel/index.html

Rick Ross was tapped to be part of the creative team at Ubisoft for the very popular videogame "Far Cry 5" released worldwide in 2018. 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=7eae929561a1 In 2017 Ross appeared in the ABC News documentary "Truth and Lies: The Family Manson." See https://abcnews.go.com/US/video/truth-lies-family-manson-fri-march-17-98c-45941821 and see https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6638954/

Ross testified for the prosecution at the criminal trial of NXIVM cult leader Keith Raniere in 2019. Raniere was found guilty of racketeering, human trafficking, sex offenses, and fraud and sentenced to 120 years in prison and a $1.75 million fine. See https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/founder-nxivm-purported-self-help-organization-and-five-others-charged-superseding and see https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/27/nyregion/nxivm-cult-keith-raniere-sentenced.html

In 2020 Ross appeared in the widely watched documentaries "The Vow" and "Seduced" concerning NXIVM and Raniere. See https://onezero.medium.com/cult-deprogrammer-rick-alan-ross-on-nxivm-qanon-and-what-makes-us-vulnerable-62f6c709562c and see https://seduceddocumentary.com/theexperts/rickalanross/

Ross appeared in the documentary "The Rise and Fall of LulaRoe, which examined a controversial multi-level marketing "cult-like" company in 2021. See https://www.forbes.com/sites/risasarachan/2021/12/13/the-rise-and-fall-of-lularoe-investigates-scandal-behind--marketing-company/?sh=3d30925e3615

In 2021 Ross appeared as an expert analyst to critique films about cults for Vanity Fair watched by more than 3.6 million viewers on YouTube. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLoVHyuYVBY&t=98s

Ross appeared on the "Dr. Phil Show" 2021 that first exposed cult leader Amy Carlson now the focus of a new HBO documentary "Love Has Won: The Cult of Mother God," (2023). See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpR2nKVlDYQ And see https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/amy-carlson-hbo-love-has-won-cult-colorado-documentary/ Rick Alan Ross (talk) 20:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Please review WP:IS and WP:RSP, then identify all references you think may be usable in respect to their guidance. --Hipal (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

All of the sources supporting the various historical trials, videogame, documentaries are cited with links. They all fit well within Wikipedia guidelines as reliable sources.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 20:52, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

No they do not, per WP:RSP. --Hipal (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

ABC News, Forbes, CNN, Vanity Fair, CBS News, New York Times all on WP:RSP list.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 22:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the documentary "Deprogrammed" see https://www.tvguide.com/movies/deprogrammed/2000232401/ TV Guide on WP: RSP listRick Alan Ross (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the documentary "Seduced" see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seduced:_Inside_the_NXIVM_Cult already established through notes here at Wikipedia.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the HBO documentary "The Vow" this article describes and shows my appearance on screen. https://recapulet.com/2020/12/22/episode-6-honesty-disclosure/ Recapulet is not on the list but with W also see https://www.wmagazine.com/culture/seduced-starz-documentary-india-oxenberg-nxivm can we not establish that I was in the documentary? Variety mentions my historical significance See https://variety.com/2020/tv/news/the-vow-where-are-keith-raniere-allison-mack-1234808846/ The episode that I appeared in is listed here https://www.imdb.com/title/tt12496820/ I get that there is a list, but it was widely reported that I appeared in the docuseries. Rick Alan Ross (talk) 23:02, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for checking. Forbes contributors are not to be used. --Hipal (talk) 23:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. What about all the other sources, which appear on the WP: RSP list?Rick Alan Ross (talk) 11:59, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Regarding my work on Far Cry 5 released by Ubisoft See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Seed My work is already recognized elsewhere on Wikipedia.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 12:07, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Ross appeared in the documentary "The Rise and Fall of LulaRoe https://www.tvguide.com/movies/the-rise-and-fall-of-lularoe/cast/2060041973/ My work on this documentary is reported by TV Guide.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 12:10, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Taking these requests in order:

• Deprogrammed: primary, promotional source, which just suggests an interview appearance in it (and given "frequently appears in the news and other media discussing ... cults", one interview on one show is trivia and would be WP:UNDUE to mention specifically). Independent, secondary, reliable sourcing needed of more involvement than brief interviewing in this production would be needed. TV Guide link provided later does not mention "Ross" (on any of its tabs). I would add this if an independent reliable source mentioned Ross involvement in this work (since we'd not be making any evaluative claims about the nature of the work, only Ross involvement in it).
• Holy Hell: Good source but does not confirm any involvment. Source says nothing but "The Buddhafield [cult] had caught the attention of cult-watcher Rick Ross by the early 1990s." Independent, secondary, reliable sourcing needed about non-trivial involvement in this production.
• Far Cry 5: Added to article with these sources, but without promotional language like "tapped", "very popular", "worldwide". The first source was weak (interview, i.e. primary source), but the second was better and probably sufficient by itself anyway. Someone might revert this because Forbes "contributors" are not considered reliable, though I personally think the material is reliable enough for something this minor (especially since the Ross involvement can be confirmed with primary sources about the work itself).
• Truth and Lies: The Family Manson: The ABC News "source" is simply a promo video for the docu, and it does not mention or show Ross. IMDb is WP:UGC, not a reliable source. Independent, secondary, reliable sourcing needed about non-trivial involvement in this production.
• NXIVM: Neither source contains the text "Ross", so they are not sources for any Ross involvement in that case. Involvement seems very likely and probably provable, but these are not sources for it. One source mentioned below does mention involvement in the case, but in too little detail to be useful. NXIVM stuff should be a separate edit request, suggesting particular material to add that provides a summary of the Ross involvement in that case, and multiple independent, reliable sources with in-depth coverage.
• The Vow: primary source (interview). Recapulet is WP:UGC and not a reliable source; it is probably not lying, but all it indicates anyway is a brief appearance in The Vow. The W source, a review of the show, says in passing "interviews with a bunch of 'cult experts' (including one named Rick Ross, which I just think is a great detail)". This is enough to confirm both involvement and that it was worth mentioning in a non-crap source, so added to article with that source, not the primary or UGC ones. The Variety source was useless, since the only mention of "Ross" was in connection to the background lawsuit, not the show (see above about NXIVM, though).
• Seduced: primary, promotional source. However, an Oxygen.com source in our article on this docu has Ross participation as an interview subject; source seems reasonable enough to include this as verified and having been worth mentioning in a non-junk source. Added to article with this source, not the primary one.
• The Rise and Fall of LuLaRoe: The Forbes source, which uses the word "features" in reference to Ross interview material in it, seems good enough to me, and there is a second one. Added to article with these sources. Someone might revert one source being used, because Forbes "contributors" are not considered reliable, though I personally think the material is reliable enough for something this minor and verifiable by other means (but someone might just hate using Forbes.com at all); the addition of the TV Guide source that also confirms involvement should probably be enough to retain the mention of this docu.
• Vanity Fair: That piece is significant and entirely Ross, and is self-sourcing in being available (in full, online, for free), and from a reputable publisher. Added to article. There are various other Rick Alan Ross YouTube videos, but none of them are notable channels/publishers as far as I can tell, so would be WP:UNDUE to name-drop in our article.
• Dr. Phil Show: A few moments in a 4-and-half-minute segment is trivial. Given "frequently appears in the news and other media discussing ... cults", one interview on one show is trivia and would be WP:UNDUE to mention specifically. Independent, secondary, reliable sourcing needed of more involvement than brief interviewing in this production would be needed. This is not "NameDroppingPedia". CBS News source about the underlying case does not mention "Ross".
• Not mentioned above: Cult Edu. Inst. has its own YouTube channel, and this is reasonable to mention; the channel is proof of its own existence, and this is about equivalent to mentioning that someone has an official website. Added to article with itself as primary source, which for this kind of thing is sufficient per WP:ABOUTSELF.
• The rest of the docu activity, which seems to be legit in general but not yet reliably sourceable as to specifics, has been summarized with "has been interviewed for various documentaries on cults and other allegedly exploitative organizations".

General observation: When an editor says "Please review WP:IS and WP:RSP, then identify all references you think may be usable in respect to their guidance.", and you come back with a disingenuous "All of the sources supporting the various historical trials, videogame, documentaries are cited with links. They all fit well within Wikipedia guidelines as reliable sources.", this clearly indicates that you either did not read and understand those materials, or your did and are trying to misrepresent the material to get your way, and whichever it is, it's not going to work. Antics like this mostly make people refuse to consider your requests any further, but I happened to have enough time on my hands and enough dislike of outdated material that is missing recent relevant biographical activity to have taken the time to look into these things. Don't expect this to happen again if you won't actually follow our sourcing and neutrality rules.

I'm closing this request as partially done, and partially rejected for lack of proper sourcing. This took quite a bit of time and effort, and I and other editors have very little incentive to answer CoI edit requests at all.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I will follow guidelines in the future.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 16:08, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Introduction additions

I suggest updating to the introduction to reflect current status and public descritions.

Rick Alan Ross (b. 1952) has been described as "America's leading cult expert" and "America's foremost deprogrammer." He is an internationally known cult specialist, and founder and executive director of the nonprofit Cult Education Institute. He frequently appears in the news and other media discussing groups some consider cults. Ross has intervened in more than 500 deprogramming cases in various countries. See https://www.gq.com/story/the-cult-of-trump And see https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a40105747/the-follower-staten-island-1980s-cult/ See https://gothamist.com/arts-entertainment/rick-ross-cult-expert and see https://www.courttv.com/title/7-22-20-cult-expert-rick-alan-ross-talks-failed-doomsday-prophecies/ and see https://www.trtworld.com/video/the-innerview/cult-expert-rick-alan-ross-decodes-brainwashing-tactics-or-the-innerview-15517767 and see https://www.news.com.au/technology/home-entertainment/gaming/inside-the-mind-of-a-cult-member-according-to-a-professional-deprogrammer/news-story/873d58343e1bd4108693c1258ec0d9d0

There are many more, but these are a few independent sources to confirm the descriptions to be added.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 21:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

They look rather poor overall, though none stand out as completely inappropriate like those in the previous discussion. I don't think there's anything here that suggests major POV changes to the lede. --Hipal (talk) 21:39, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I came here from the BLP Noticeboard page. Agreed that we shouldn't introduce someone as "leading" before their profession is mentioned (NPOV). --PeaceNT (talk) 03:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

OK. But given the amount of media coverage and descriptions of my work it seems to me that this might be appropriate lead.

Rick Alan Ross (b. 1952) is an American cult deprogrammer, court expert, author and founder and executive director of the nonprofit Cult Education Institute. He in an internationally known cult expert that frequently appears in the news and other media discussing groups called "cults." Ross has intervened in more than 500 deprogramming cases in various countries.

It seems to me that the Scott case (1990-1995) in the lead is misplaced. It is not what is most prominent in my bio. Probably the fact that I have appeared in 27 documentaries and was a paid guest lecturer at more than 40 universities and colleges in the United States and Asia is more relevant to the reader or at least something to be mentioned.

Most people know me through documentaries, news reports, news shows, talk shows, podcasts, lectures, my book and culteducation.com

NXIVM and the Waco Davidian standoff are the most prominent cult events in my work history. But the Jason Scott case is not how I am known by the public, its meaningful to be included, but not equally prominent when compared to NXIVM and Waco.

My book was the first book about cults to mention NXIVM. And the papers by two respected doctors published at culteducation.com was the first critical analysis by mental health professionals released about NXIVM. Raniere's 14-year legal battle with me, which he ultimately lost, was widely reported. And of course I worked with the Justice Department and FBI regarding his prosecution and testified as a fact witness at his trial. It seems to me that my battle with Raniere will be as important as Waco historically, due to legal precedents established. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NXIVM_Corp._v._Ross_Institute

I have been sued five times by groups called cults. All those lawsuits were dismissed through a motion for summary judgement. None went to trial. These were significant victories for free speech and freedom of information online through website archives like the Cult Education Institute and Wikipedia. For example see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landmark_Worldwide#:~:text=In%20June%202004%2C%20Landmark%20filed,their%20clients%20damaged%20Landmark's%20product Landmark tried to spin this loss, but this may be the only time Landmark sought to dismiss its own lawsuit. This was also significant precedent setting legal victory for the freedom of expression on public message boards.

And of course working on the massively popular Far Cry videogame series for "Far Cry 5," which grossed more than $300 million and sold more than 25 million copies, is how so many videogame enthusiasts know about me.

Rick Alan Ross (talk) 12:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Unless this bio is an effort to present me in the worst possible light through POV editing it must be more balanced and reflect my actual work history and the scope of my work. Please retract. All you're doing is pushing away the people that are working to address your concerns. --Hipal (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Deleted. Rick Alan Ross (talk) 19:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

[2] Thanks! --Hipal (talk) 20:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

News sources have a bias towards scandal, which Wikipedia should try to counter to an extent, but it's not cleared to me as an uninvolved editor exactly what sort of more mundane material would make sense to add. Sennalen (talk) 19:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I am not quite sure how "bias towards scandal" is relevant. Unless you mean cults are always involved in scandals. My work on Far Cry 5, the documentaries, NXIVM criminal trial testimony and Vanity Fair interview is notable and brings the bio up to date. Sadly it is a scandal how badly people are treated in some cults, but that is just the sad truth. My point is that my work did not cease in 2004 and in fact expanded and continued as reported.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 15:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

This is promotional writing not encyclopedic writing. Wikipedia can't call someone a "leading" or "foremost" anything unless a preponderance of highly reliable sources independent of the subject use such terminology about the person, and even then were are not required to do it, because it is a highly non-neutral claim. Look at it this way: think of everyone you can who is often called a rock "legend", then go to their articles here (Jimi Hendrix, etc.) and see how many of them have the word "legend" in their description. Also, "notable" on Wikipedia doesn't mean what you think it means. It means "having sufficient in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources as to justify a stand-alone article". None of your separate work efforts are "notable" on their own, though you as a subject (that includes some of your work that has reliable-source coverage) qualify as notable, which is why there's an article with your name as the title. You're probably trying to make an argument that coverage of this additional work would not be WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which is the policy that covers what to include within an article rather than what should have its own article.

Back to the specifics, "internationally known" is WP:PEACOCK language; almost everyone notable for something is internationally known or they would not be notable. See other biographies. Michael Jackson does not say "internationally known singer". Brian Cox (physicist) does not say "internationally known phsysicist and musician". Brian Cox (actor) does not say "internationally known actor". You need to become more familiar with encyclopedic writing style and how it differs from writing a CV or marketing material; start by actually just reading some of our WP:Featured articles that are biographies, and see also WP:NOT#CV, WP:NOT#PROMO, WP:NPOV, MOS:TONE.

"He frequently appears in the news and other media discussing groups some consider cults." This is actually quite poor for encyclopedia writing. Just about everyone in modern times who is a prominent expert in a field appears in news and other media on their subject of expertise. This really doesn't tell the reader anything useful. As for later revision suggestions, "court expert" is a meaningless, confusing phrase. I think what it is trying to convey is that you do some work as an expert witness, but what it implies is that you're a law professor with a specialty in the history and operation of courts. "Author" would not be appropriate to include because your book is self-published and you are not notable as an author. There is no reason to change from "groups some consider cults" to "groups called 'cults'", since Wikipedia does not use "scare quotes" that way, and the change implies that every such group is called a cult by everyone, which is not true. The extant wording is accurate, even if it doesn't reflect your personal viewpoint. NXIVM is already mentioned in the article. So is Waco, including in the lead, but perhaps not in a way you'd be happy with.

As for the rest of this, it's you making a bunch of generalized claims about your work history and importance but without citing sources (Wikipedia itself is not a source).

As with editor Grorp, below, I have to advise you to post concise and non-ranty edit requests that are very specific as to what extant text to change into what new text (or what entirely new text to add exactly where), with independent and actually reliable sources for each change, and written in neutral, encyclopedic language, with an awareness that Wikipedia will neither include promotional wording nor whitewash away reliably sourced material that you don't find flattering. I'm closing this spawling, vague request as partially implemented since the lead does now reflect a few of the things mentioned above, but the rest are not things we can do, or are too vague and unsourced to act on. It is probable that some of your more recent work should be mentioned in the article body (probably not the lead, unless there is a great deal of independent reliable coverage of it), but we're all volunteers here and no one seems inspired to go do all the research on this (in large part because of your combative, dismissive, and self-important attitude, I might add), so if you are certain something should be mentioned, the burden is on you to provide the sources for it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Update: per an edit-COI request higher up the page, I implemented a few of these bits based on available sourcing, and rejected others as not well sourced enough. Please don't open duplicate/overlapping requests. As for NXIVM, your involvement in that seems like something that should be covered, but we need in-depth and independent reliable sources that cover your involvement, not just passing mentions that you were somehow involved.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Is this a historically objective biography?

At this point after suggesting some edits and additions to make this bio both accurate and historically relevant I would like express some concern about recent edits that are a rather one sided effort to skew the bio for the purpose of promoting a point of view, which can be seen as little more than propaganda.

Did my work history cease in 2004?

It would seem from this bio page that for the past 20 years I have done nothing.

Is that accurate and does that represent an authentic effort to edit an objective biography?

As anyone can see from the many links regarding my documentary work, court battle with NXIVM and subsequent testimony at cult leader Keith Raniere's criminal trial and my work on the videogame "Far Cry 5" there has been considerable work reported in the past 20 years that is both relevant and notalbe.

So why isn't it in this bio?

It is reflected elsewhere on Wikipedia.

Certainly reliable and credible sources according to Wikipedia have reported it.

So what is really happening with this bio?

NXIVM, by any objective measurement, is far more noteworthy than the Jason Scott case. The decades old Scott case deserves a place in this bio, but doesn't warrant a position in the lead.

Any objective editor would put NXIVM in the lead and follow with Waco.

Also, there is undue weight given here to minority opinions regarding my work. Relatively obscure academics from years ago are quoted as if they are somehow absolute authorities. However, these same academics lost their arguments defending cults over the years due to the destructive behavior, criminal acts and media exposure of destructive cults. These same academics, like the cults they defended, claimed these so-called "new religious movements" were "persecuted" or "attacked," when their bad behavior was simply being exposed.

My hope is that this bio will reflect the historical facts without having it skewed through misleading edits.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Editing at related article: Steven Alan Hassan

Just a heads up to anyone following this talk page.

"Harold the Sheep" is also quite active editing the Steven Alan Hassan BLP.

Is it a coincidence that this editor is focused on the BLPs of two cult experts?

Is it a coincidence that this editor's edits repeatedly advance the opinions of the same group of academics regarding their defense of so-called "new religious movements" and arguments against the existence or use of cultic manipulation to gain undue influence for the purpose of exploitation?

See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steven_Hassan&action=history regarding editing at the Hassan page.

I have been critical of Steven Hassan regarding his false claims of "teaching at Harvard" and otherwise attempting to conflate his CV. But Harold's edits have been less about facts and more about a point of view.

Please take the time to review Harold's edits here and at the Hassan page and you will see that they consistently fit a pattern that expresses a particular point of view through chosen quotes and wording.

So what is the actual objective of such editing? Is it to make Wikipedia better? Or is it more about using Wikipedia as a platform to advance what can easily be seen as propaganda, rather than simply objective editing.

I don't know who Harold is, so this is NOT a "personal attack," it's simply a heads up regarding the nature and purpose of his editing.19:26, 18 November 2023 (UTC) Rick Alan Ross (talk) 19:26, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with people checking my edit history; and I have edited hundreds of articles that have nothing to do with you or Steven Hassan. By contrast, all of your 1300+ edits to Wikipedia have been to this talk page or tangential discussions, generally to either promote yourself or to attack people who are critical of you. Even your 290 edits to the Steven Hassan talk page are essentially about you, since it's unlikely you would have bothered attacking his "conflated" CV so relentlessly if he wasn't your professional rival. Do you think it might be possible that your own editing activity is "less about the facts and more about a point of view"? Harold the Sheep (talk) 05:40, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I hope that anyone here interested in your edit history will take the time to focus on what you have edited related to the issue of cults and what the net results of those edits in various places within Wikipedia.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

False statement made in recent edit

In a recent edit by Harold the Sheep my bio was changed to include a false statement. "The stolen items found in Ross's possession were returned to the store;" This was changed from "He returned everything,"

In fact the authorities did not recover the stolen items "in [my] possession. This is a false statement. I returned everything, which was not found in my possession, but rather in another unknown location.

The sources cited do not state that "stolen items were found in Ross's possession."

Specifically, the Willamette Week interview does not support this edit. See https://culteducation.com/~cultedustaging/group/1300-q-amp-a-brainwashed-rick-ross-talks-about-deprogramming-members-of-religious-cultss.html

Nor does the article by Tony Ortega state this. The article actually states, "Some of the pieces his partner had taken had been melted down, but everything in Ross' possession was returned to the store. Ross was sentenced to four years' probation."

See https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/hush-hush-sweet-charlatans-6426159

This edit must be reverted to the original text as the revision is inaccurate and not supported by any credible source.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Corrected, sorry for the assumption that the items were in your possession rather than an unknown location. It was just meant to distinguish you from your partner's items that had been melted down. In the interview, you agree that the value of the stolen goods was $100,000. Is that correct? Harold the Sheep (talk) 02:43, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Improper edit regarding work history

I worked for the Bureau of Jewish Education in the 1980s as an instructor for both its high school and adult education programs.

However, Harold the Sheep has edited out this fact from my bio.

He removed, "He also worked for Phoenix Bureau of Jewish Education, designing a curriculum and teaching about destructive cults."

This biographical fact is well established.

See https://www.salon.com/2022/07/30/rick-ross-deprogrammer-profile/

See https://seduceddocumentary.com/theexperts/rickalanross/

See https://www.upi.com/topic/Rick_Ross/

Please revert this recent edit.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I've partially restored it. It was removed because it was sourced to your own website bio and contained value-laden language. The sources you provide above are not particularly good and appear to be based on either your website or the wikipedia article. Harold the Sheep (talk) 03:05, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Edit requests

This talk page has spiraled out of control. All of the threads on this talk page are originated by the subject himself through account Rick Alan Ross. All are rather lengthy and rambling. I have marked each thread here with {{edit COI}} and have marked some as done, declined or partially done where I was able to identify if the thread had been concluded.

@Harold the Sheep, Path2space, SMcCandlish, Hipal, PeaceNT, and Sennalen: (tagging editors on this page) If you can recall whether the threads you participated in are done or not, please consider marking the COI-edit tag as done, or another appropriate parameter per Template:Edit COI/Instructions § Response options so we can close out these threads and get them archived and out of the way.

@Rick Alan Ross: I recommend that you make your requests more concise and to the point and less "venting". Whenever you make another new section, add {{edit COI}} as the first entry at the top of any new request or post. Please review the Wikipedia guidelines for WP:Edit requests and WP:NOTFORUM.

  ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 19:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I simply have pointed out that my work did not end in 2004 as can be seen by multiple sources within and without Wikipedia.

I only come to this Talk page when someone begins editing here in such a way that it seems biased.

Keep in mind that cult members were at time editing this page and later banned by Wikipedia.

Two improper edits were made here recently and then reversed.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 20:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Ancient history of this page doesn't justify creating walls of text today. If it was "simply" about 2004, or even two recent edits, then this page wouldn't be so out of control. You don't need to defend your earlier edits; I need you to make them more concise from here on out.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 20:27, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue related to this talk page.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 03:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)