Jump to content

Talk:Steven Hassan/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Removed material

Gossipy material removed from article

Church members recall him as smart but self-involved. Marty Eisenberg reports :that Steve used to borrow his toothbrush without asking. Hassan styles himself a :high-level leader of the church, but church officials report that he was only the :assistant leader of one small congregation for less than a year.
I think the following sentence is relevant for his profession and should be re-added "Hassan styles himself a :high-level leader of the church, but church officials report that he was only the :assistant leader of one small congregation for less than a year." Andries 18:43, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, I had two minds about that one. May as well stay. Bacchiad 19:39, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I did a copy edit of this page, as it seemed biased against the subject; in fact, almost contemptuous. Biographical info that would normally be in the intro had been buried, and there were unreferenced claims that his methods are not supported by the APA or the courts, which I deleted. If anyone re-inserts them, please find reputable references. Apart from that, I mostly changed the order. SlimVirgin 00:50, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Hassan's position

Hi Ed, could I have a citation please for the quote from the Church, and for the statement that the remark is typical of Hassan's deceptive style of communication? Paragraph below. Many thanks, SlimVirgin 22:52, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Hassan says that he "ultimately rose to the rank of Assistant Director of the Unification Church at National Headquarters". A spokesman for the church insists that Steve was only the assistant director of the New York congregation, not of the national organization and adds that such an ambiguous remark is typical of Mr. Hassan's deceptive style of communication.

What was he an assistant director of?

The position of "assistant director" in the Unification Church has always referred to a local "center". Perhaps this breakdown will help.

  • US - led by Church President and Vice Presidents
    • US is divided into regions, usually spanning several states.
  • Region - led by Regional Director
  • State or District - led by a Director State Leader or District Leader
  • Center (a local church) - led by a Director (or Center Director)

Adding to the confusion, the church's National HQ at 4 West 43rd Street also housed the Regional HQ for New York, as well as the local New York Church. For about a month, Steve was the Assistant Director of that local church center. I doubt if he thinks that he was of regional or higher rank.

I'm quite sure that his online biography is not claiming that he was the "Assistant Director of the Unification Church of America" - for two reasons:

  1. That would have made his title "Vice President", and
  2. However deceptive Steve has been, I've never caught him telling an outright lie.

But the following words form his online biogrphay are troubling, or ambiguous at best:

  • ultimately rose to the rank of Assistant Director of the Unification Church at National Headquarters.

That certainly sounds like a claim to be a national level leader. Perhaps Steve himself will log on some day and clarify this. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 23:02, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification, Ed. However, we do need a citation for: "A spokesman for the church insists that Steve was only the assistant director of the New York congregation, not of the national organization and adds that such an ambiguous remark is typical of Mr. Hassan's deceptive style of communication." Best, SlimVirgin 23:26, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
Well, since *I* am that spokesman ... Let's just leave his quote - with no church rebuttal, until I can check with someone more quotable than myself (er, about the rank thing). And let's leave out the "typical ... deceptive" thing entirely - that's just me, speaking unofficially! -- Uncle Ed (talk) 15:05, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
I didn't realize you were with the Church, Ed. Bear in mind that anything we publish in terms of quotes or opinions has to be attributed to a publication, and if it's at all controversial, we'll need an actual quote. Best, SlimVirgin 16:23, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

I followed the link about refuting accusations of deprogramming and found this confession of deprogramming:

I was involved in about a dozen deprogrammings of members of the Moon cult in 1976-77.

I don't understand how admittiing to involvement in deprogramming constitutes a "refutation" of accusations of deprogramming. So I suggest a rewording of the link text.

How about just using the page title from Steve's web site. "Let him speak for himself", is what I always say. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 15:41, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Blurred distinctions

I found a web site that described Hassan as having been a "high-ranking leader" in the Unification Church (but then my browser crashed; I can look it later if needed). I guess it depends on what you'd call a high rank. If the church had, say, a thousand members in the US when Steve was in the church (early to mid-70s), and he had 200 of them under his command, I'd certainly call that "high-ranking".

But in 27 years of church membership I can't recall ever meeting any member who identified Steve as having been their leader. It must have been a very small group he was in charge of - or maybe I just don't get around as much as I'd like to think?

I guess he may have been temporarily in charge of 10 to 30 members during his one month of leadership - at a time when the building at 4 West 43rd Street was being established as a headquarters. The best person to ask would surely be Aidan Barry, who *was* the local church leader at the time. (When Aidan Barry became the regional leader for UC of New England, did that make him a high-ranking leader?) I'd call Steve Hassan's leadership level - relative to the American UC - "mid-level" to "low-level".

I can't for the life of me figure out why Hassan or his supporters make such a big deal of how "high" he had risen in the ranks (did you know he personally spoke with Rev. Moon once?) Could it be to prove that he "penetrated deep into the heart of the mysterious elusive organization"?

But there are no elusive mysteries to the UC. We'll tell all, to anyone who will stand still long enough to listen! Opponents (and their media allies) make it sound like there's some secret, high-power doctrine only revealed to trusted insiders. <sad half-smile> The only "secret" is that we believe Rev. Moon is the Messiah - but everyone already knows that ...

I think rather that the whole "they are keeping secrets" thing is a ploy used by opponents to trick potential inquirers from making any effort to learn about the church (other than from its dedicated enemies, of course).

The scary "don't talk to them or they'll such you in" thing generates fear and dissuades people from finding out for themselves. (Ironically, Hassans "strategic intervention" model says the church exploits phobias to retain members, while "anti-cult" propaganda rather obviously does the same thing in reverse.

Wouldn't it be nice if some objective, honest, straightforward group appeared which refused to deal in fear at all? Instead of exploiting fear to keep people from making an "informed choice"?

[Well, I obviously have a lot of unexpressed feelings about the anti-cult crusaders...] -- Uncle Ed (talk) 19:08, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Fraser Report

The Steven Hassan article links to an oddly named page concerning a document I've always called the Fraser Report. This article in turn links to an edited copy of that report at Mr. Hassan's web site. He excerpted pages 311-392 and gave it his own page header:

"Investigation of Korean-American Relations (Moonies, aka Unification Church)"

I will check my own copy of that report, or an official government web site, to confirm my suspicion that Steve tacked on the Moonies, aka Unification Church part himself.

Also, I recall that the report itself contains an important (but buried) sentence in which it in effect takes back all the accusation it makes. Quoting from memory:

(paraphrase) We were unable to find any real proof to substantiate any of these charges.

The report has been used as "evidence" that the Unification Church isn't really a church, but (variously):

  • a front for Moon's business schemes to enrich himself
  • a plot to take over the world by force and establish a dictatorship devoid of religious freedom (like Iran under Khomeini or Afghanistan under the Taliban)

Now that I'm cleaning up the Steve Hassan page, I guess I should tidy up this thing, too. It should all be connected properly, and all written from the Neutral Point of View. "This side this A, that side says B." You know. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 16:07, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Steve's bio

A lot of the material seems copied nearly verbatim from another web site:

Deceptively recruited into the Moon organization at the age of nineteen while a student at Queens College, Hassan spent twenty-seven months recruiting and indoctrinating new members, fundraising, political campaigning and personally meeting with Sun Myung Moon during numerous leadership sessions. Mr. Hassan ultimately rose to the rank of Assistant Director of the Unification Church at National Headquarters. Following a serious automobile accident, he was helped by several former members at his parent's request. Once he realized the insidious nature of the organization, he authorized police officials to take possession of his personal belongings which included a massive set of private speeches documenting Moon's secret plan to "take over the world." During the 1977-78 Congressional Subcommittee Investigation into South Korean C.I.A. activities in the United States, he consulted as an expert witness. In 1979, following the Jonestown tragedy, Mr. Hassan founded EX-MOON Inc., a non-profit educational organization composed of over four hundred former members of the Moon group. [1]

Maybe we should cite them, or even quote them. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 18:22, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, we should definitely do one or the other if that has been directly lifted. Well spotted. SlimVirgin 18:36, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Why doesn't the article start by saying that he is an anti-cult acivist? See also the article Opposition to cults and new religious movements that I created today. Andries 20:32, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I suggest adding a line about his wife's death? Something like: His wife Aureet Bar-Yam died in 1991 after falling through ice while trying to save her dog.

[2] -- Knverma

Wow, that's really sad. I'm guessing this was from The Boston Globe? Smeelgova 15:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC).
Not sure. Also the above article says "ex-husband". Because she is dead, or did they divorce? I remember Hassan talking about Aureet in Combatting Cult Mind Control. I will check. -- Knverma 15:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Secondary reputable sources for confirmation are always best. Smeelgova 15:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC).
The acknowledgments section of the book has the following paragraph:
"Special acknowledgments go to Aureet Bar-Yam, my wife, who for more than seven years put up with the incredible demands that my work has required. She died in a tragic accident trying to rescue our dog. She will be sorely missed and always remembered for her love, talent, intelligence, and willingness to help others. Her parents, Drs. Zvi and Miriam Bar-Yam, have been a source of much love, inspiration, and help in ways too numerous to recount."
Pages 32-33 have the following paragraph:
"In 1980, I attended a seminar by Richard Bandler on hypnosis that was based on a model he and John Grinder had developed, called Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP). I was impressed by what I learned, because it gave me a handle on techniques of mind control and how to combat them. I spent nearly two years studying NLP with everyone involved in its formulation and presentation. At one point I moved to Santa-Cruz, California, to undergo an apprenticeship with John Grinder. By this time, too, I had fallen in love and gotten married. I moved back to Massachusetts when my wife, Aureet, was given a scholarship to work for her Master's degree at Harvard.".
So I guess the above line I suggested can be safely added to the article, with the word "their" in place of the crossed out text. -- Knverma 20:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Done. Also, Peter S. Canellos seems to work for The Boston Globe [3] (I was unaware of newspapers with the name "The Globe", and the fact that there are more than one). -- Knverma 23:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Involvement in other deprogammings

The truth is that I was involved in about a dozen deprogrammings of members of the Moon cult in 1976-77. For one year only! With members of the Moon cult only. Some of them were legal conservatorships. Others were not. Never did I ever abduct, restrain, hit or threaten anybody. I did not and do not like the deprogramming method and stopped doing them in 1977! I have spoken out publicly against forcible deprogrammings since 1980.

He leaves out his involvement with the kidnapping of Lorne Fyvie in the early 1980s. I personally met Lorne's sister before the kidnapping and talked with Lorne afterwards. She said Steve Hassan was present. However, the deprogramming was not "successful" and they let her go on condition that she agreed not to sue them. (Not that an agreement signed under duress is binding....) -- Uncle Ed (talk) 16:11, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. Just to be fair, it's possible Steve actually mediated in this encounter and got the deprogrammers to back off. I'll have to ask him. (For now, let's leave this out of the article, of course).

Number of ex-members

Steve (and/or his supporters) like to harp on how many ex-members joined his group:

Mr. Hassan founded EX-MOON Inc., a non-profit educational organization composed of over four hundred former members of the Moon group.

A former President of the Unification Church of America estimates the US ex-member population at 90,000. This means Steve Hassan's group has about 0.5% of the ex-members - a tiny fraction.

Numbers are significant, because of the "mind control" claims of deprogrammers: you're brainwashed to keep you from leaving. Well, most ex-members left of their own accord: they simply dropped out. It is chiefly those who were "deprogrammed" who level mind contrel charges. They rest said that they simply decided it wasn't for them. (Merge this comment into mind control). -- Uncle Ed (talk) 16:16, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Deprogramming

  1. What's his real position on it?
  2. Does he still do it?
  3. Is he using the standard definition of deprogramming or his own special definition?

Steve says he stopped "deprogramming" after one year, but Unification Church lawyer Andy Bacus says he kept doing it. Has he continued to do the same thing but under a different name, or has he really changed? Perhaps this depends on various definitions of deprogramming.

Deprogramming means persuading a cult recruit that he had been a victim of mind control and getting him to agree to leave the cult.

  • involuntary deprogramming - same as above, but you kidnap the victim and (a) keep him incommunicado and (b) keep him from leaving (with locked doors and/or physical force.
  • exit counseling - same as above, without the kidnapping or imprisonment.

If I recall correctly, an "intervention" is also set up by surprise. Interventionists are cautioned not to tell the cult recruit that you're planning to "exit counsel" him, because he'll tip off his cult leaders, and they'll be sure to say "No, don't go to that!"

I'd like to straighten out the confusion or deception about the terminology here.

Also, I'd like to clarify how much force and/or deception is used, in both forcible deprogramming and "voluntary" exit counseling. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 14:14, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Ed, I only know what I read from Steve Hassan himself. Unfortunately I do not have independent verification. He states that exit counseling is voluntary. I have no personal experience, neither with deprogramming nor with exit counseling, both of which are very rare here in the Netherlands so I do not very much trust myself on this subject. Andries 15:51, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Andries. I also found out about an agreement between Dan Fefferman and Steve Hassan. Steve sent a letter voicing his opposition to forcible deprogramming to Japan; in exchange for Dan informing the Unification community that Steve only does voluntary exit counseling since 1977. (Not that this cuts any ice with Andrew Bacus, who still doesn't like Steve or what he does.)

Maybe we can set up a definitions of deprogramming or definitions of brainwashing page to distinguish between the various terms:

Frankly, they all look pretty similar to me. How about merging them into one or two articles? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:34, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Ed and Adries, could you show me how I can get a transcipt or primary documentation of his voicing opposition to the deprogramming problem in Japan? I was doing some independent research on this when I found comments about this issue. Thanks

Bias

I don't think this is NPOV. This looks more like personal attacks. I'm not making any arguments for or against his use of deprogramming methods, I'm just stating that this is a biased paper. Druminor, April 18, 2005

Explanation for my revert of User:Petrus4

Petrus, I reverted your edits because they weren't encyclopedic or written in the usual WP style. For example, we don't start articles with an "overview" header. More importantly, in your criticism section, you inserted quotes with no citations. If you're a new editor, it might be helpful if you'd read our core policies: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Cite sources. Citing independent, credible sources for your edits is particularly important for a controversial figure, and should always be done when quoting. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 08:15, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Petrus, it looks like the criticism section was written by someone else. My apologies - I didn't look carefully enough. I've done a copy edit and created some headers. Let me know if you disagree with the layout. I'm also taking the POV tag off the page, as there doesn't seem to have been any recent editing or discussion. If anyone disagrees, by all means replace it. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:53, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Two paragraphs removed

I removed the paragraphs below: the first one because it's unclear what it means, or why Engler is someone we should be quoting (who is he, and what's his expertise?), and there's no citation; and the second one, because it talk about what Brown says Hassan says (which is awkward) and again, there's no citation. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:38, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Another critic is John Engler of the Barnabas Ministry in Denver, Colorado. Engler was formerly a member of the International Churches of Christ (ICC), which has been accused of being a cult by several sources, but in May 2004, he withdrew his ministry from affiliation with the ICC. [4] Previously, in 2000, while still a member of the Unification Church, Engler disputed Hassan's statements that the Lifton criteria applied to the ICC and alleges instead that these criteria would be applicable to the exit counseling methods he describes in his first book "Combatting Cult Mind Control".

Human rights activist and former anti-cult activist Rev. J. B. Brown II states that even if Hassan does not perform deprogrammings, he does suggest that a "forcible intervention" be held as a last resort according to his 1988 book Comabtting Cult Mind Control (Hassan, Combatting ,114). Brown also stated that it is odd that Hassan would suggest such a thing when he says on his web site that he has spoken out against deprogrammings since 1980 (www.freedomofmind.org).

Add Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP)

Greetings, I just added a paragraph regarding Hassan's early involvement with NLP. Hassan studied NLP with Bandler and Grinder in 1980. He actually started an apprenticeship with John Grinder to become an NLP trainer, but ended this early to do his own study of the NLP founding models (Milton H. Erickson, Gregory Bateson, Virgnia Satir). NLP (and the models that NLP was based on) allowed Hassan to, "analyze and create a model for the process of change that occurs when a person goes into a cult group and then successfully leaves it." (p.33, Hassan, 1990). --Comaze 03:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Spokesman for the church

I erred in my edit comment for this edit [5]:

I do not speak for my church officially. I was quoting the Pastor of the Unification Church of Manhattan, Bruce Grodner. I should have used his name. Sorry for the confusion. Uncle Ed 04:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I think you're misremembering. You admitted you were the spokesman [6] and after discussion agreed to delete the edit for that reason. [7] It's no big deal for me. I was just responding to your request for one diff where you'd inserted your own opinion into an article. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Wow, that's right. You should be an attorney! What I remembered last night was a conversation I had with Pastor Bruce Grodner. If this info should be in the article, then Grodner should be the source. And the reference should be "personal conversation with Ed Poor".
But it's still not an example of POV-pushing, is it? I didn't make the article say that Hassan is a bad guy. The article cites a UC source for that evaluation. Uncle Ed 14:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't want to harp on about it, but as you've asked, I would say it's an example of POV pushing, yes. You wrote of someone you personally don't like that he has a "deceptive style of communication," and had never held a position he claimed to have held. You then used yourself as the source, even though you're not a published source, and called yourself a spokesman. You also failed to add any balancing statement from Hassan about the allegation of deception. That makes the edit a violation of WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV, our three content policies, which is why I remember it. It was a triple whammy. ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Hassan's reputation and use of his website

As a casual but sometimes intensive observer of cults and the way they are represented on the web, I've often noticed that Steve Hassan's website is widely referred to as a source of authority, eg, if an organisation or movement is listed on his website, it's officially a cult. I don't know for sure, but am sceptical that he deserves this level of authority, partly at least because as reflected on the Wikipedia page on cults there is considerable disagreement about what a cult actually is, and you could for example say that the roman catholic church is a cult with some justification. In addition, as far as I can tell Hassan refuses all external dialogue on loading a movement or organisation onto his site, and once it's there it never gets removed. He also doesn't allow any open discussion on his site about the statements he makes. Given this, would people think it worth pointing out on this page that Hassan is not neccessarily the fount of all wisdom on cult definitions? I would like to add something to the effect that whilst his website is frequently used as a dictionary of cults, it should be approached with caution. I am not I hasten to add a member of more than 3 cults at any one time. :-) MarkThomas 10:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

If you look at his site again you'll see that he labels fews groups as cults outright. He does have a long list of "Cults, and Other Groups of Interest", with this disclaimer: The fact that these groups appear on this list does not necessarily mean they are a destructive mind control cult. They appear because we have received inquiries and have established a file on the group. So I think he encourages people to keep an open mind. -Will Beback 18:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
But still, he seems to set himself up as an authority figure.
I've just tried to discuss this topic a little bit in the page with some referenced material and had it covered in cite tags, whilst the rest of the (largely uncited) page is apparently fine. Can we at least open the door to a little bit of criticism of Hassan? I think the above is true, casual users of the web often see links to a "cult" ref'd on FoM as being definitive, whereas in fact it's all just at his whim that he adds something there. I quote more academic alternatives and have not attempted to de-POV the rest of the page. However, given that maybe this is a campaign of some sort to not allow critiques, perhaps we should really analyse and reconstruct this WP:BIO? I am sure there is a lot of POV in it. Comments? MarkThomas 10:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for engaging in discussion! I've added an "unsourced" tag to the top of the article, but making assumptions about what Hassan does or does not do on his website without backing them up with sourced citations, seems like original research to me. Yours, Smeelgova 10:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC).

In some cases, such as Re-evaluation Counselling this is seen as unfair. Some have suggested that Freedom of Mind that in many cases a single complaint, or just one external reference claiming something is a cult, is enough to have a cult page. Reader updates or discussion are not generally permitted on the site. In some cases, such as that of Christian Science, Nation of Islam, Falun Gong, Gospel Assembly Church and other religious groupings, Hassan's own political and religious views appear to be at work in labelling organisations "cults"[citation needed].

Surely you must see how this entire section requires citations in order to stay in and not be original research.

  1. This is seen as unfair. - By whom? When? How?
  2. Some have suggested that Freedom of Mind that in many cases a single complaint, or just one external reference claiming something is a cult, is enough to have a cult page. - Who has suggested this? Who is some? Are there citations that backup that one reference is all that's required on his site? Or are these personal observations?
  3. Reader updates or discussion are not generally permitted on the site. - How so? How can we back this up with citations? Is this from personal experience, or has this been officially reported on in secondary sources?
  4. In some cases, such as that of Christian Science, Nation of Islam, Falun Gong, Gospel Assembly Church and other religious groupings, Hassan's own political and religious views appear to be at work in labelling organisations "cults"[citation needed]. - In this part, there are 2 problems. First, what are Hassan's "political and religious views" ? Do we have secondary sources to back this up? And second, Hassan's "political and religious views" shouldn't really play into this section, that almost seems like a personal attack on Hassan, unless worded drastically differently.

Yours, Smeelgova 10:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC).

IMO, the whole segment after the macro should be deleted. This is clearly original "research". --Tilman 16:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Given the widespread casual citation of Hassan's site both within and outside Wikipedia, it does merit some discussion; the points I make are fair, objective and referenced in the latest version. Please do not auto-revert them without further discussion. Thanks. MarkThomas 16:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I also agree that the part in the segment "website" is original research and should be deleted. Alternatively, one should find a reliable source specifically pointing at Steve Hassan and criticizing his website. The comments made (sect vs. cult) are not new, and they are treated elsewhere; but they haven't been made specificly at his website, so its not really relevant there. --Tilman 18:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments User:Tilman, For a while there I thought I was the only one with the above POV. Glad to find out I chose the right "header" of "no original research" on that one. Yours, Smeelgova 18:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC).
For some reason, I didn't take much attention at the definition before. I saw your edits in many definitions I watch, they cleaned up everything a bit, so I took a closer look :) --Tilman 19:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

How can it be "not relevant" to his site or this page what the definition of a "cult" is exactly and how his website defines it? That's what he's famous for! I wonder if you are misconstruing motives possibly here though - I am certainly not out to defend any particular "cult". The comments in my section are very easy to check simply by going to his (referenced) site, so it seems a stretch to classify a small piece of cited comment like this as "original research". In fact I LOL'ed when I saw your comments above! :-) MarkThomas 18:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello Mark. You are welcome to provide a description of the website, as well as critiques of the website (there are many out there). What is original research is the way that it is written, i.e. attempting to explain why the site should not be considered reliable, etc. I am sure that if you apply yourself to do some research, you can find similar explanations described by reliable sources. That material would be most welcome. There is plenty of material out there that criticises Hassan and his website. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
The controversy about the word "cult" is explained in the definition of the word "cult". There is no need to discuss it in every cult related definition (e.g. in Rick Ross, Margaret Singer, whoever).
The second problem is the "original research", i.e. that a wikipedia writer (maybe you) made an analysis of his website and wrote down the result. If you didn't before, read WP:NOR, the concept isn't trivial, but it makes sense after some time. --Tilman 19:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifications guys, I will do some research and come back with hopefully a more citable page. Tilman, I've enjoyed reading your stuff critiquing Scientology over the years. MarkThomas 19:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Note that

and

Link to the same page. The second one redirects to the first one. I have attempted to delete the second one severa times, but it keeps being added. I would suggest to keep the wikiling to the main article and not to the redirect. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Combatting Cult Mind Control

  • I have created an article on Steven Hassan's best-selling book, Combatting Cult Mind Control, published in 7 languages and in print for almost the last 20 years. If those of you are interested, further commentary on how you think the article looks would be appreciated on its talk page. Also, any edits or suggestions you might have would also be most appreciated. Thank you for your time. Yours, Smeelgova 00:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC).
The following off-topic text was removed by me from Hassan's book Combatting Cult Mind Control. The text was there off-topic because it made no relation to the book. I think if the text belongs somewhere then it is in this article.
"Hassan's critics argue that Steve Hassan uses the term "mind control" (for what they see as essentially a strong form of influence) only to justify the forcible extraction of believers from religious groups. They argue that Hassan does not merely say that fraudulent salesmanship persuaded the believers; he claims that these groups literally take away a victim's freedom of mind. For this reason an involuntary procedure must operate in order to "rescue" a "victim" from a "destructive cult", for "victims" may not realize their victimhood status and may resist rescuing."
Feel free to add it to this article if there are good sources. Andries 10:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The comment "Twelve years after the last publication of Combatting Cult Mind Control..." is vague. It could be interpreted to mean the Combatting mind control is not published anymore. It is still published. I found it on Amazon. I recommend the statement be reworded to 'Twelve years after the last edition of Combatting Cult Mind Control..."

Website and critiques of Hassan

I find it troubling that any attempt to even suggest that there might be some critical approaches to Hassan's work appears to be speedily removed from this page. The most recent example (and there have been other ones previously) is the Website section, which contained cited and referenced material on the limitations of Hassan's website - this is of note, because very many other websites, including many sources used on Wikipedia, use Hassan's original referencing of a given organisation as a cult to continue that definition. However, on close examination, it does appear that his placement of a given body on the site as a "cult" is entirely at his personal discretion. He may well have a good claim to be a cult expert, but surely Wikipedia should attempt to explore this analytically? I am not, by the way, a member of any group such as Scientology that is commonly identified as a cult, so I am not raising this as part of an attempt to undermine Hassan's work, which is obviously in general valuable, just discussing this aspect of this article. I propose to re-instate the recently deleted Website section, which was properly referenced. Thanks. MarkThomas 18:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

They were off-topic. The biography of Hassan is the right place to mention criticism of Hassan and his work, but not to digress on general issues regarding the cult controversy. Andries 18:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what you are implying here Andries - are you saying that Hassan is so central to cult studies that we cannot discuss his criteria for labelling cults on the page about him, but instead it must be described elsewhere? This is quite a strained view I think. Once again, I am not proposing this be re-inserted because I am motivated to attack Hassan as a result of some cult policy. Actually, I admire the guy. But objectively his views on what constitutes a cult must be absolutely central to this page surely. MarkThomas 18:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that his views on what constitutes a cult should be in the article but this is not in the article nor was it removed by me. Feel free to add. Andries 18:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It was. His website is precisely the main location for his identification of what constitutes a cult - it is also globally noteworthy, since it is widely picked up and referenced elsewhere as immediate "evidence" that such-and-such NRM is a "cult" and to boot - it is also a trusted source on many Wikipedia pages! Therefore deleting the Website section is doing a dis-service to other Wikipedia users who might want to read objective and referenced material on how Hassan decides on such identifications. References to other sources for comparison were given in the article. Unless anyone with slightly more objective arguments than the above objects, I will restore the deletion. Thanks. MarkThomas 18:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Where was it? I did not find it. See also Destructive cult that does give such a view voiced by Hassan. I prefer you copy information from that article instead of restoring off-topic information. Andries 19:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

To be quite honest, reading this latest comment from you, and the discussion on our talk pages, I am beginning to wonder if we are even discussing the same thing. There were a bunch of references in the website section that you removed. Do you disagree with those references being used as sources? Let's start with that. MarkThomas 19:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

A webpage that does not mention Hassan cannot be used as source for this article. Andries 19:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, if that's the source of your discomfort with the Website section, they we are really talking about 2 different things - (1) should there be some discussion of how Hassan determines what is a cult and (2) should there be some referencing of that from non-Hassan related sources. I would argue that on the latter point you hold rather an extreme interpretation of what is permitted on Wikipedia. Plenty of well-known people bios include references which discuss their views as well as them as an individual. MarkThomas 19:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Reg. 1. Of course Hassan's view on what is a cult should be treated, but comparisons of Hassan's views not made by reputable sources have no place here. This article is about Hassan, not about the general cult NRM, anti-cult controversy. Andries 19:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest Andries, your latter point is absurd - how can there possibly be a description of Hassan's activities without entering into such territory. Anyway, thank you for your recent edits which I accept. MarkThomas 19:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The territory is linked to extensively. Andries 19:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
My stance on the principle of staying on topic in articles is the same in all articles, regardless of POV. See e.g. talk:The Making of a Moonie. Andries 19:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I corrected your incorrect tag Andries. The material is relevant - I tried to replace this with a more appropriate tag. If you revert it again you will be breaking WP:3RR. I also looked up your article talk on the Moonies and as far as I can see it has no relevance whatever to this discussion. MarkThomas 19:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I will wait until tomorrow with reverting. I would be very suprized if the Moonies had not given a rebuttal to Hassan and his works. Andries 19:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

What? I don't understand this last comment Andries. Once again, what motive do you suspect I have? I am simply trying to bring some objectivity to this page. You on the other hand appear to have some sort of POV agenda which you are not revealing, instead repeating irrelevant comments and illogical remarks. If you revert again, you may do so, but can you at least attempt to have an open and honest discussion about why? Thanks. MarkThomas 20:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Untrue. I do not have an unrevealed agenda on this matter. Again, I support including on-topic well-sourced criticism. I will file a RFC. I really try ot be open for evidence of being wrong and may be I am illogical. Andries 20:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
What I meant to show by referring to the talk:The Making of a Moonie is that it has been my consistent habit of trying to keep articles on topic, regardless of POV. I tried to take away your unfounded suspicion about my unrevealed agenda that I would have by referring to this example. I can give many more examples. Andries 23:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
MarkThomas, I understand that you want to put Hassan's views on cults in perspective, but I think that you are doing that in the wrong way. Andries 17:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
this may be a good source for expansion Andries 17:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Steven Hassan as a "psychologist"

The American Psychological Association has issued a guideline that only those who hold a Ph.D. or Psy.D. degree in psychology or a closely related field should call themselves "psychologists". See note at the top of "Category:Psychologists". -DoctorW 21:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Steven Hassan, but I wanted to comment on the use of the term "Psychologist." The proper restrictive guideline is for "licensed psychologist" - that ties the occupational decription to the license. And it is in the American licensing where the restriction is legally enforced. "Psychologist" is NOT a restricted term (although some of the APA literature might be less than clear on that). "Psychologist" has a legitimate meaning in broader arena - a meaning not limited by law, history, geography or the English language. Steve 21:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Steven Hassan is American. The issue does not depend on licencing, as I have told you before. From the APA web site:

Definition of "psychologist"

"Psychologists have a doctoral degree in psychology from an organized, sequential program in a regionally accredited university or professional school." APA is not responsible for the specific title or wording of any particular position opening, but it is general pattern to refer to master's-level positions as counselors, specialists, clinicians, and so forth (rather than as "psychologists").

-DoctorW 21:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


I understand that the APA would like to restrict the word "psychologist" but they are a private organization with a vested interest in pushing their agenda. They are a lobbying force for their members. They are not a government agency and can only make recommendations. Like I said before, "psychologist" is a term that was in force before the APA existed. It is a term with a legitimate meaning across all political boundaries. No matter what the APA says, the only term that is restricted (and properly so) is "Licensed Psychologist." Steve 21:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Eileen Barker opines about Hassan

I just added a quote from Eileen Barker which is favorable toward Hassan's CMC book. Tanaats 02:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate some more expansion, because she also wrote that Hassan generalizes too much from his own experience and that mind control has not been scientifically proven. Andries 06:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I can certainly believe that she wrote such things, but I can't find that in the article I cited. Which passages are you referring to? Tanaats 20:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
No, that is my interpretation of what Barker meant, but she was very diplomatic in her wording. Andries 20:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
"I had several misgivings while reading this book, many of which could be met by qualifications that appear in the text. I hope that readers will note that Hassan describes "mind control" as a process which is more or less present in a number of different situations, and that it is, moreover, a process that can be resisted and overcome. I hope readers will note that, although Hassan believes it will soon be scientifically possible to tell whether someone's brainwave patterns have been changed by mind control, this has certainly not yet been done. And I hope readers will recognise that many characteristics of the movements which he describes may have changed or apply only in certain instances -- for example, I know several ex-Moonies who keep in touch with friends still in the movement."
Andries 20:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
You're right, my selection wasn't NPOV. Thanks. But if we quote that entire text, I'd want to quote the part where she tacitly admits to the existence of "deceptive manipulation, and we'd end up quoting just about the entire article. Instead, how about making a new subsequent paragraph stating simply: Sociologist and scholar of new religious movements Eileen Barker has commented on the book[1]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tanaats (talk • contribs) 21:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC).
Yes, Barker wrote that deception in the American branch of the Unification Church existed in her 1984 book The Making of a Moonie. It seemed to be a self-reinforcing phenomenon because it was fuelled by the bad reputation that the UC had. And the UC's reputation got worse because of the deception. Andries 21:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
We could make a short comment in this article, like "the sociologist Barker who has studied the UC commented on the book." And then leave a longer excerpt in the article about the book. Andries 21:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

How about this?: The sociologist Eileen Barker, who has studied the Unification Church has commented on the book[2]:

Hassan recounts how, through his deprogramming experience, he came to recognise the mind-control techniques which had lured him, and by which he subsequently lured others, into the Unification Church...

I had several misgivings while reading this book, many of which could be met by qualifications that appear in the text. I hope that readers will note that Hassan describes "mind control" as a process which is more or less present in a number of different situations, and that it is, moreover, a process that can be resisted and overcome. I hope readers will note that, although Hassan believes it will soon be scientifically possible to tell whether someone's brainwave patterns have been changed by mind control, this has certainly not yet been done. And I hope readers will recognise that many characteristics of the movements which he describes may have changed or apply only in certain instances -- for example, I know several ex-Moonies who keep in touch with friends still in the movement.

Deceptive manipulation, whenever and wherever it occurs, is clearly wrong; people should have as much accurate information as possible, and they should not be physically disoriented or emotionally blackmailed. Readers should, however, be aware not only that well informed, professional trained counsellors do not as yet abound in Britain, but also that self-styled experts may do more harm than good.

This is undoubtedly the best book by a campaigning "anti-cultist" that I have read. Much of the practical advice that Hassan offers is eminently sane and helpful, and for this reason I shall be recommending his book to clergy, counsellors and parents.

Sounds a bit too long for me. Maybe summarize it somehow, that she is somewhat critical of him, but nevertheless recommends the book. (This surprised even me, because I consider EB as one of the worst cult apologists!). --Tilman 21:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
How about this:
The sociologist Eileen Barker, who has studied the Unification Church, has commented on the book[3]. She expressed several criticisms but nevertheless recommended the book. Tanaats
I would say "concerns" instead of "criticisms". Andries 22:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I made the change. Thanks to everyone for the feedback! Tanaats 22:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Major changes to "Deprogramming" section

I made some rather major changes to the "Deprogramming" section" that I think make it more comprehensible...

  • There were two separate references to p. 114 of Combatting Cult Mind Control, rather widely separated from each other. I put them toegher together and removed some duplicate working wording without, I think, losing any of the impact or any information. (Actually, I think that having them one after the other has more impact.)
  • I added "non-coercive" as an adjective to "exit counseling" in order to clarify the distinction from "deprogramming".
  • I put "He is one of the major proponents of exit counseling as a form of intervention therapy, and he refers to his method as "strategic intervention therapy."" in the same paragraph as " "Hassan says he spent one year assisting with deprogrammings before turning to less controversial methods. (See exit counseling.)" because they both discuss the same concept.
  • I gave the Bacus quote its own paragraph. I think that Hassan's statements and Bacus' statements each deserve their own paragraph. Tanaats

Vulnerability to AfD

Hassan is notable because he is an anti-cult activist. Someone deleted that wording from the introduction, which could make the article vulnerable to AfD. I've restored the original wording. The view has been expressed that some of the anti-cultists who heavily edit cult-related articles on Wikipedia are, in fact, cult members who are trying to discredit the anti-cult position by making those articles appear obviously biased or by acting in other ways to undermine the anti-cult point of view. Let me publicly state for the record that I believe this rumor to be false (especially in this case). -DoctorW 17:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Hassan is notable because he is an Anti-cult activist. No generally accepted definition of the anti-cult movement exists nor is there any verifiable proof of being an ant-cult activist in the form of a membership card or something like that. Nevertheless there seems to be concensus or near-consensus in the case of Hassan that he belongs to the anti-cult movement. Andries 18:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
There is not consensus because the very existence of an ACM is disputed. :)
I should have commented here on the Talk page, but (belatedly commenting here) I changed to "anti-cult activist" wikilink to point to "Opposition to cults and new religous movements".

Tanaats 18:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The article is not at all "vulnerable to an AfD". Sure, anybody could submit one, but there's no way it would be successful. --Tilman 18:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Notability

DrW: Hassan is quite quite notable just as I have described him. Calling him an "anti-cult activist" is like calling you an "anti-mental-illness activist". You wouldn't want to be described as an "anti-something" as your primary career designation, and cult critics don't like it either. Let's leave it as-is please. Tanaats 06:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Hassan has defined himself as a cult opponent. He has a good sense for how to stir up controversy, and it gets him on TV shows. I remember seeing him years ago on Niteline claiming, of members of the Unification Church: "When you're not allowed to think...". These are not the words of a researcher trying to get at the nuanced, objective truth. He is a polemicist. Perhaps you would like to change the entry for Ann Coulter to read: "expert on the Democratic party". I'm sure that's what she would "like". I wouldn't mind "cult opponent" or "cult critic" or something similar that is true to the reason that he has a modicum of fame. But "cult expert" is simply misleading. It is not why he's well-known. By the way, my comments above about AfD were facetious. I just think his primary role is the one that should be indicated at the head of the article. -DoctorW 14:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree, "anti-cult activist" is the best description. Whether he likes the term or not isn't really relevant. I'm sure the many groups and people he calls cults and cultists don't like it either. In my researching I've been unable to find any peer-reviewed academic papers published by him in the field of "cults" or "NRM" that would qualify him as "expert". I have found him described as an "expert witness" on cults for a Congressional inquiry, but further research indicated the source for this description is himself, that he was only 24 or so and recently departed the Unification Church and spoke about his experience there - not as a "cult expert" but as an "expert" on his own experience with the Unification Church. We're all experts on ourselves, or at least I hope so! I see he claims a M.Ed in Counselling Psychology from Cambridge College in 1985 . The Cambridge College website indicates that at that time Cambridge was a non-accredited distance education school, so he appears to have no accredited formal education relevant to the field either. Being good at self-promoting one self as an expert does not make one an expert. Furthermore the models he uses are based on theories that have been discredited by the mainstream academic community. So what we have a person of questionable qualifications who wrote a book, setup a website, and charges people for his "expertise". --Insider201283 15:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Re "cult expert", please see my reply to DrW below.
Re "expert witness", someone has already recently hung a "fact" tag on that. If I can't find a cite in a week or so, we can take it out.
Dr W, please cite where Hassan has defined himself exclusively as a "cult opponent".
Hassan is an early pioneer in the development of non-coercive intervention techniques. He is the author of two books on the subject of cults, on their unethical use of psychological influence methods, on how to intervene non-coercively to help members out of cults, and on recovering from the cult experience once out. These books have both received very positive reviews from many notable people. These include a very positive review on CCMC from Philip Zimbardo, the former president of the APA. (See Combatting Cult Mind Control and Releasing the Bonds for material on the reviews).
Just the one very positive review from someone with the scholarship and notability of Zimbardo qualifies Hassan as an "expert". Hassan is not just an "opponent". He is not just an "activist". He is widely recognized by many notable persons as an "expert", and must be represented as such in the article for NPOV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tanaats (talk • contribs) 18:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC).
Shouldn't this list of "many notable people" be incorporated somehow? As it is 24 of the 30 references for this article are from Steven Hassan's website. I'm aware of Zimbardo's review ("a" former president, not "the" former president. I believe some other former presidents don't consider Hassan an expert. --Insider201283 19:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
The "many notable people" are quoted in the individual articles on each book. I could positively flood this article by copying the quotes here, but I doubt that anyone other than you and I would approve.
I have a lot of material supporting "expert". If you have material supporting "not an expert" then let's discuss it. Tanaats 19:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I've only started looking at Hassan's credentials etc this past day or so and reading criticism from folk like Hadden and Bromley, who seem to be better credentialled. I think the article definitely needs to be rewritten with some 3rd party sourcing if you have them. At the moment 24 of 30 citations are from his site, that really raises a red flag to me. I'm a former academic and anyone who submitted an article for evaluation or publication which pretty much only cited themselves would be crucified. So if you have other sources, please use them where appropriate. Self-published sources in an article about an individual have their place, but right now this does seem very unbalanced. --Insider201283 20:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

DrW, I can't at all understand your edit comment on switching back to "anti-cult activist". What do you mean by "clear"? Clear to you and Insider, perhaps? But AFAIK, in WP terms, the "verdict" is not at clear when there is an active dispute occuring on the Talk page. I'll go ahead and open an RfC. Tanaats 20:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Why not simply get some more 3rd party references into the article? My position is based purely on the fact there doesn't seem to be many actual "experts" calling him an "expert". You say you have references, so put them in! The article is far too unbalanced re referencing now, so should be done anyway. --Insider201283 20:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Re mention of M.Ed.

DrW, I apologize for not making an edit comment on my revert.

I honestly don't know about the accreditation. However, no claim is made in the article that the degree came from an accredited institution. I know of no WP guideline that says that only degrees from accredited institutions can be mentioned in articles. If you wish to make a point of the accreditation issue, then I suggest that you make a mention in the Criticism section. Thank you. Tanaats 20:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I've emailed Cambridge College and asked for some info on their courses back in 1985. I actually expect that since it's more than 20years ago nobody there would know! The factbook certainly seems to make it clear they were not accredited then, and that is certainly something that should be noted somewhere. --Insider201283 20:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Tanaats, it is not appropriate for you to revert the addition of appropriately placed, pertinent, sourced information. -DoctorW 20:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

DrW, you are right about my reversion and I do owe you an apology. My only excuse is that I misread the diff and though you had deleted the entire M.Ed mention. Pretty silly but perhaps better than deleting souced material.

The only mentions of "accreditation" that I can find in that PDF are "Cambridge College is accredited by the New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC) through its Commission on Institutions of Higher Education. All Cambridge College degree programs are authorized by the Massachusetts Board of Higher Education" and "Accredited -- Yes (New England Association of Schools and Colleges)". Would you mind quoting the exact sentence that you are citing? Thanks, and again, my apologies. I'll think twice about knee-jerking next time. Tanaats 20:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, hold back a little here. NEASC says Cambridge College was first accredited in 1981. However, the CC PDF says they weren't accredited for BA in Pysch until 1994. I don't think you can have an accredited Masters Program without an Undergrad program can you? I'm not an American, perhaps Dr.W. can clarify. It appears to me the college was accredited but the particlar degree probably was not. Hopefully they'll reply and let me know. :-) --Insider201283 20:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I made the same assumption that the accreditation for the Masters Program would have come at the same time or after the Undergrad program. It seems clear from the reference, but I'll go ahead and take it out for now until we have confirmation. -DoctorW 00:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Should Hassan be described as an "anti-cult activist", or instead as a "cult expert"?

This is a dispute about whether the subject of this article, Steven Hassan, is best described as an "anti-cult activist" or is best described as a "cult expert".

Statements by partisans in the debate
  • DoctorW and Insider insist that the subject of this article, Steven Hassan, should be described in the article as an "anti-cult activist. I in turn insist that he be described as a "cult expert". My reasons are:
  • Calling Hassan an "anti-cult activist" Is quite distorting and POV. We wouldn't, as an example, refer to DoctorW as an "anti-mental-illness activist" because it would be obviously quite distorting. Both Hassan and DoctorW have made contributions to society that extend far beyond mere "activism". Such contributions by Hassan are well documented and well sourced in the article.
  • On the other hand, calling Hassan a "cult expert" is both accurate and NPOV. Hassan is an early pioneer in the development of non-coercive techniques for assisting people in leaving cults. He is the author of two books on the subject of cults, on their unethical use of psychological influence methods, on how to intervene non-coercively to help members out of cults, and on recovering from the cult experience once a person is out. Both of these books have received very positive reviews from many notable people. These include a very positive review on Combatting Cult Mind Control from Dr. Philip Zimbardo, a professor of Psychology at Stanford and a former president of the American Psychological Society. (Please see Combatting Cult Mind Control and Releasing the Bonds for the actual reviews)
  • To call Hassan an "anti-cult activist" is introducing "biased or malicious content" as defined by WP:BLP. Tanaats 21:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


1. Your analogy is amusing, but has no relevance. I am not an activist; Steven Hassan clearly is (that's the main reason he has a degree of fame). Hassan's own actions have defined him as anti-cult. Thus his main identity is anti-cult activist.

2. His choice of language, polemics, and style of self-promotion are that of an activist, not of a researcher who is interested in the nuanced accuracy of objective findings.

3. Hassan has made important contributions beyond his activism, and we should applaud the work he is doing as well as his renunciation of deprogramming. He is not best known, however, for his sociological or psychological knowledge, or even for the content of his counselling methods, but for his anti-cult stance in the media.

4. He has had no formal training in research methods. His techniques have not been evaluated scientifically by himself or by any other qualified researcher. No efficacy studies have been done. We don't know whether his methods actually work. (This is true of many therapies.)

5. Insider201283 mentions above that he has not been able to find even a single article published by Hassan in a peer-reviewed journal!! If this is true, he certainly cannot be called an "expert". If the defendant confesses on the witness stand, the trial is pretty much over; that's what I meant by "the verdict is clear".

6. Zimbardo is certainly notable, but a positive review of one's book does not make one an expert on the subject matter of the book. As a developmental psychologist, I might write a positive review of Bill Cosby's book "Fatherhood". This does not make Bill Cosby an expert on fatherhood. More to the point, it does not make Bill Cosby's primary identity that of "expert on fatherhood".

7. Your reference to "biased or malicious content" as defined by WP:BLP is ludicrous and ironic. It is only because of the consistently biased nature of the edits of cult critics on this and other cult pages, and your collective refusal to allow even small corrections or tempering of that bias, that I have become annoyed with you and become inclined to "take the other side". Don't you realize that by overstating your case you undermine the gospel you are trying so fervently to promote? -DoctorW 00:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


  • Response to DoctorW...
  • No one, including Hassan, has to be a "researcher" in order to be an "expert". This is the very first time that I've ever heard of such a completely arbitrary restriction. And "experts" are not excluded from using any particular style of "language, polemics, and style of self-promotion".
An "expert" is normally thoroughly familiar with the professional literature in that area. In this case we are (presumably) talking about psychology research (therapeutic techniques for recovering cult victims). -DoctorW 03:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Once again, you've made up a definition of "expert" out of thin air.
(DrW, would you mind not chopping up my comments by interleaving your own? It's actually considered poor Wikipedia etiquette. I got called on it myself by a very experienced and knowledgable Admin. I have subsequently seen why it is poor etiquette. For example, my paragraph just above now has no signature on it. If everyone starts interleaving their comments like you did, very very soon no one will know who said what to whom. Thanks.) Tanaats 00:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • We do not necessarily define a person in a Wikipedia biography by what they are "best known" to the public at large for. We should define the subject of a biography according to what we can find in RSs. And all of the RS material presented thus far clearly documents Hassan's expertise in the areas of cults and cult psychology.
For those who don't know the Wikipedia abbreviation, "RS" stands for "Reliable sources". -DoctorW 03:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • As you very aptly point out, many therapists (probably nearly all of them) do not meet the completely arbitrary criteria that you have laid out. Does this mean that no such therapist can ever be described as an "expert"?
  • I know of no Wikipedia guideline that requires that a person must have been published in a peer-reviewed journal before they can be described as an "expert" in their biography. This is another completely arbitrary restriction that I doubt any of us reading your words have ever heard of before. And again, for example, you are implicitly saying that only a relatively tiny subset of "therapists" can possibly be considered to be "experts".
  • I don't find your Cosby analogy apt. For example, I strongly doubt that Cosby's book was very positively reviewed in the American Journal of Psychiatry by someone who, among other accomplishments, was at one time head the of department and the director of the Neuropsychiatry Institute at UCLA:[4]

"One is impressed by Hassan's candor in describing his experiences both within the Unification Church and after his departure from it, especially his work as an exit counselor. Beyond its value as an illuminating personal account, this book is an informative and practical guide to cult-related issues. It is recommended both to lay persons who wish to become better informed on this topic and to professionals in health-related fields, clergy, attorneys, judges, and others whose responsibilities bring them into contact with cults, their members, and the families whose lives are affected. - (Louis Jolyon West, American Journal of Psychiatry)."

  • I'll ignore your ad hominism.
I don't know what you're talking about. Are you calling my reference to the bias in some of your contributions to cult-related articles ad hominem? -DoctorW 03:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Comments by Sfacets

On the freedomofmind.com website's about page it is written:

"As a cult expert, cult counselor, and mental health professional, Steve (...)"

On the other hand, it is true that while he is a cult expert he is also an Ant-Cult Activist - the two do not cancel each other out. If we take the example of DoctorW, He could be a doctor and also an activist to raise awareness of mental illness. Couldn't we place both terms in the article, like "Steven Alan Hassan (1954 - ) is a prominent cult expert and known anti-cult activist"? Sfacets 16:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You cannot cite Steve Hassan's own opinion in support of him being an expert. --Insider201283 17:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Works for me. Tanaats 19:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC) (edited Tanaats 21:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC))
It was a good thought Sfacets, but on further reflection I've changed my mind. Please see my "pro-freedom-of-mind activist" comment. Tanaats 21:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Comments by Sethie

Came here via the RfC. Ummm my first thought is "What do others call him?", i.e. what do WP:RS sources have to say about him? If neither of these titles are used by others, maybe we should drop both?

If there are no clear titles, provided via RS what is the most neutral description of him? My hunch is it would be a speaker and writer who is critical of cults?

A number of people above have asserted that he is "an activist." I don't agree or disagree with this. And this is wikipedia.... saying a thing does not matter, finding a SOURCE that says a thing does. :)

The same applies to "expert." We need sources, not arguements! Sethie 19:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Well this is part of the problem, there may be disagreement among WP:RS acceptable sources too. The late Professor Hadden at the University of Virginina and his coauthor Professor David Bromley referred to Steve Hassan as "a Unification Church apostate and entrepreneur" and member of the "anti-cult movement" [8]. At a 2005 conference by CESNUR, the Center for Study in New Religions, an academic group, he was again referred to by John Brown as a member of the "anti-cult movement" and as "mental health counselor and an exit counselor".[9].
--Insider201283 19:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Sethie, actually I've seen a number of bios where a subjedt's profession is stated in the intro without being supported by a direct quote from an RS in which someone actually explicitly labels the subject with that profession. Tanaats 19:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
argumentum ad numerum - doesn't mean it's right. In this case the description has been challenged, so sourcing is needed. "Anti-cult author and exit counsellor" would seem to be one accurate description? "activist" is a bit of a fuzzy term I think. --Insider201283 20:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
It is not "agrumentum ad numerum" in that I did not draw a conclusion. It is an observation which is most certainly relevant to this discussion. Regardless, to again repeat my position, the term "anti-cult activist" is a complete distortion of the sum of Hassan's activies over the years, and of the sum of writings. It is highly POV because "anti" means that he is "against" something. The contrasting POV is that he is "pro-freedom-of-mind". I'm sure that you and DrW would fight to keep that out of the article, and for very good reason. "Anti-cult activist" is extremely POV for exactly the same reason. Tanaats 21:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree. I'm anti-religion (all of them, not just ones someone might call a cult, which in my opinion is entirely a POV description), it's an accurate view of my position. "pro-freedom of mind" would also be an accurate view of my position. Hassan certainly isn't ambivalent or pro-"cult", so that only leaves "anti-cult" and as I provided, "scholarly sources" have referred to him as part of the anti-cult movement. If you want to call him "pro-freedom of mind" and with WP:RS valid sources to back it up and there was no disputing WP:RS sources, go for it. --Insider201283 21:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Nice find Tanaats, I think his website is called "Freedom of Mind."
Yeah- I have seen lots of bios like that as well.... uncited statements of proffesion. I am guessing this is so because the proffesion- and what the proffesion is called, doesn't have a lot of controvery.
I propose that for the intro we change anti-cult activist to "critic of cults" and deal with the "is he a member of the "anti-cult movement" issue somewhere OTHER then the intro. Since the sources listed are just two individuals, I think it violates WP:NPOV to just write "he IS a member of the anti-cult movement." For me it needs a "according to some" or something like that. Sethie 21:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, his contributions are not just limited to "criticizing" cults either.  :)
Of course! :) My suggestion is to leave everything as it is, and change the words "anti-cult activist" to "critic of cults" and deal with the "anit-cult activist" in a paragraph down below. Sethie 00:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Compromise offer by Tanaats

I offer the following compromise:

  • Completely avoid the use of terms that convey an evalutation. Don't use "anti-cult activist." Don't use "cult expert."
  • Expand the intro to provide more evidence of notability. (This was the main reason that DrW wanted "anti-cult activist" in the article.)
  • To implement this, I propose the following intro:

Hassan was an early advocate of exit counseling, and is the author of two books on the subject of cults and their use of mind control, thought reform, and the psychology of influence. He has developed his own non-coercive methods for helping cult members to leave their groups, and has also developed therapeutic approaches for counseling former members in order to help them overcome the effects of their cult memberships. He has testified as an expert witness during the 1977-1978 United States Congressional investigation of the Unification Church,[citation needed] and he has appeared on 60 Minutes, Nightline, Dateline, Larry King Live, and The O'Reilly Factor. He has over thirty years of experience with counseling both current and former members of cults.

In his first book, Combatting Cult Mind Control, he describes his experiences as a member the Unification Church, and describes the exit counseling methods that he developed based on those experiences, and based on his subsequent studies of psychological influence techniques.

In his latest book Releasing the Bonds, which was published twelve years after Combatting Mind Control, he describes the evolution of his exit counseling procedures into a more advanced procedure that he calls the "Strategic Interaction Approach."

Tanaats 05:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

This avoids expressing evaluations in the intro and firmly establishes his notability. Tanaats 05:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


I like it. I think maybe the last sentence about the book could be put down lower under the deprograming? otherwise that looks good to me.Sethie 05:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I think you're right. I was trying to achieve overkill on the "notability" issue because DrW has been so concerned about that. But I think Hassan is pretty damned notable without having book summaries in the intro. Tanaats 05:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Much better, but two issues. I think the "expert witness" part needs to be left out unless I proper citation can be found. The circumstantial evidence indicates that it's not true, at least as it relates to "cults" in general. Also there's some POV wording there eg "cults and their use of mind control". This assumes "mind control" exists, mainstream academic thought say it doesn't, and also begs the question of what a cult is. --Insider201283 12:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I see that Smeelgova has implemented my compromise proposal. Please see my own edits made in an attempt to address your concerns. I took out the testimony mention until a cite can be found. I put "cults" in quotes and wikilinked to the article on cults where readers can read in detail on the debate over the term. I feel that this adequately qualifies the use of the term in the rest of the intro. The reader will remember that it was qualified by being in quotes. I don't think it would either look good or be necessary to quote the term in the rest of the intro. We can put a larger mention of the controversy over the term farther down in the article headed by a "see also" to the main Cult article.
Upon seeing how it actually looks in "print", I now think that mention of his two books in the intro is appropriate. It doesn't bloat the intro and helps nail down "notability" so that I think any AfD won't have the chance of a snowball. Tanaats 15:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME! Someone wanted to AfD this article? Sethie 17:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope. No one has tried that. But DrW was so concerned about the possibility of a successful AfD that he insisted on putting "anti-cult activist" in the info, asserting that we had to include what really gave Hassan his notability. Tanaats 17:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Ummmmmm that it is totally and utterly ridiculous that Hassan could be succefully AfD'd and even moreso that putting those few words in the intro would prevent it? Sethie 17:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I do recall thinking that it was completely unnecessary to be concerned about that. Tanaats 17:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I've cancelled the RfC. Tanaats 15:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments by neutral third parties

Expert

It seems to me this all comes down to the definition of "expert". WP:RS is used to determine whether a source of information should be considered "reliable" or not. I think it's a reasonable to consider someone an expert in a field if they could be considered a reliable source of information on the topic. Let's evaluate -
  • Aspects of reliability
Scholarship
* The material has been thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community. This means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals.
* Items that are recommended in scholarly bibliographies are preferred.
* In articles on religions and religious practices, religious scholars (recognized authorities on the religion) are considered reliable sources for the religion's practices and beliefs, and traditional religious and academic views of religious practices should generally both be cited and attributed as such when they differ.

I think we can agree that Steven Hassan does not pass this criteria. While some in the scholarly community accept his work, many do not, and he does not appear to have any peer-reviewed publications. So we look to -

Non-scholarly sources
* Attributability

I'd say we know quite a lot, but it's not all supportive of him as a reliable source.

* Expertise

He is not an "academic" expert, so whether this is his area of academic expertise isn't relevant

* Bias

We know from his own work that he definitely has biases in the field, which raises questions as to his reliability

* Editorial oversight

Little to no expert editorial oversight of his website or publications

* Replicability

Critics of the whole Hassan/Singer/Lifton Model point to it's complete lack in this area.

* Declaration of sources

I haven't read his books, so someone else will have to comment here. From what I understand his "quoted" sources are primarily Singer/Lifton, whom I believe have generally had their theories discredited in the "scholarly" community.

* Confidentiality

not relevant?

* Corroboration

I'm unaware of any scholarly corroborative work for Hassan's theories. Tanaats, can you provide?

* Recognition by other reliable sources—A source may be considered more reliable if another source which is generally considered reliable cites or recommends it. Sources which have been attacked, or have rarely or never been cited, may be more suspect.

He has been recognized by some "reliable sources" but has also been attacked by others.

* Age of the source and rate of change of the subject

I don't think this appears relevant

* Persistence

Overall I think persistance applies

So, it appears Hassan's position as a "reliable source" pretty much relies entirely on the fact he's relatively consistent in his message and has recognition from some "reliable sources". Countering this are other reliable sources explictly disavowing his expertise and his known bias in the area.

--Insider201283 17:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Insider, he is indeed a "non-scholary source. Per WP:RS:
  • Scholarship -- This is a criterion for scholarly sources. It does not apply.
  • Attributability -- The more we know about the originator, either organisation or individual, of source material, the better. This helps us measure the authority of the content.
We know an incredible amount about Hassan.
  • Expertise of the originator about the subject -- An academic expert in one subject is more reliable when writing about that subject than when writing about another. For example, a biologist is more reliable when writing about biology than when writing about nuclear physics.
It explicitly refers to "academic experts", which Hassan is most admittedly not. The criterion does not apply
  • Bias of the originator about the subject -- If an author has some reason to be biased, or admits to being biased, this should be taken into account when reporting his or her opinion. This is not to say that the material is not worthy of inclusion, but please take a look at our policy on Neutral point of view.
He definitely has a bias, which is trumpeted in his article. Note that "This is not to say that the material is not worthy of inclusion, but please take a look at our policy on Neutral point of view", therefore material from a biased source is not ipso facto excluded. Regarding "please take a look at our policy on Neutral point of view": to assert that a biased person's opinion can never be reported in a WP article means asserting that half of the articles in WP should be deleted. Instead, on articles about contentious subjects we achieve NPOV by adding well-sourced counterpoints. If you can find further well-sourced criticism of Hassan, please do add it to the article.
  • Replicability -- The conclusions of the source can be reached using the information available and there is no indication of gaps in the thinking or process of derivation. Essentially, this criterion asks if there are any leaps of faith in the source.
Hassan's position is logically extremely internally consistent. This criterion does not exclude him.
  • Declaration of sources -- A source which is explicit about the data from which it derives its conclusions is more reliable than one which does not. Ideally, a source should describe the collection process and analysis method.
  • It says "ideally" and "is more reliable". It does not provide a criterion for exclusion.
  • Confidentiality -- Sources which are considered confidential by the originating publisher may hold uncertain authority. Given that the original cannot be used to validate the reference, these should be treated with caution.
Not relevant indeed.
  • Corroboration -- The conclusions match with other sources in the field which have been derived independently. If two or more independent originators agree, in a reliable manner, then the conclusions become more reliable. Care must be taken to establish that corroboration is indeed independent, to avoid an invalid conclusion based on uncredited origination.
It says "care must be taken." It is not a criterion for exclusion.
  • Recognition by other reliable sources -- A source may be considered more reliable if another source which is generally considered reliable cites or recommends it. Sources which have been attacked, or have rarely or never been cited, may be more suspect.
Similarly, this is not a criterion for exclusion.
  • Age of the source and rate of change of the subject -- Where a subject has evolved or changed over time, a long standing source may not be accurate with respect to the current situation. To interpret utility one must appreciate how the subject has changed and if that change has impacted any of the salient points of the source information. Historical or out-of-date sources may be used to demonstrate evolution of the subject but should be treated with caution where used to illustrate the subject. If no newer sources are available, it is reasonable to caveat use of sources with an indication of the age and the resulting reduction in reliability.
Hassan is most definitely a current source. Regardless, this is not a criterion for exclusion.
  • Persistence -- If a reader goes to the cited source to validate a statement, or to gain further understanding of the topic, the form cited should remain stable, continuing to contain the information used by the editor to support the words. In this sense a book or journal citation is superior to an online source where the link may become broken. Some web resources have editorial policies which lead to a lack of persistence; therefore, web citations should be treated with caution.
Hassan's works are indeed a "stable source". Regardless, this is not a criterion for exclusion.
Absolutely none of these criteria make Hassan an un-reliable non-scholarly source. Tanaats 20:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Just to be clear here, it seems you are saying since he can't be absolutely *excluded* based on these criteria, then he should be included? I'm reminded of the Ann Coulter example given earlier. I don't think she could be "excluded" as an expert on cults based on your reasoning either. In fact, since she has no known bias against "cults" wouldn't that make her more of an expert? These are not criteria to "fail" in order to be excluded - these are criteria to evaluate whether a source is reliable or not. It would seem to me you agree with the assessment that he does not seem to match the criteria of a reliable source, either scholarly or non-scholarly. --Insider201283 21:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Tanaats, what specifically do you claim that Hassan is an expert on? I gave you the benefit of the doubt before, assuming that you meant his therapeutic techniques for recovering cult victims. But are you claiming that he is also an expert in the sociology of religion, specifically NRMs, or some subset of it? Would you claim that he is not an expert on all NRMs, just the Unification Church (about which he testified to the Congressional Subcommittee)? Are you claiming that he is an expert in the psychological techniques that cults employ in the recruitment of members? Experts in the modern world are experts in a very specific and delineated area or areas; they are not experts in some general area like "life" (unless they are messianic figures). -DoctorW 21:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I've stated many times what his expertise is in, and you are more than intelligent enough to have remembered. I can only consider this another effort (see below) to obfuscate the discussion.
He is an expert on the general subject of cults. This includes, but is not limited to, expertise on the unethical use of powerful psychological influence techniques, on non-coercive intervention methods to assist people in overcoming the grip of these techniques so that they can leave their cult (he is an early pioneer in this area), and counseling former members of cults in order to help them heal from the psychological damage inflicted via the application of these techniques by their former group . Tanaats 00:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
You are not allowed to make moral judgements on Wikipedia. Anything Wikipedia allows you to do here, I can do elsewhere, on as many articles as I like, on any articles that I like. Tanaats 23:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Moved from "Expert" section

Clarification: The discussion below is not meant to be part of the RfC discussion

[Re: "Experts in the modern world are experts in a very specific and delineated area or areas; they are not experts in some general area like 'life' (unless they are messianic figures)."] I'd have to disagree with that last part. After many years of successful practice and no failure(s) as yet (ignoring any concepts of reincarnation), I think I'm quite the expert at this "living" thing. ;-) --Insider201283 21:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you are a messianic figure but simply never realized your special calling. Have you ever considered starting your own cult? As a former academic, you would have a certain respectability that you could exaggerate further. You might need to develop your entrepreneurship...maybe you could learn a thing or two from Hassan. -DoctorW 21:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Ahh, believe me, I'm trying. But I'm still struggling a little with exactly how to do this "cult" thing. I'm trying my damndest to conform to the BITE model but every time I feel I have it working my "cult" just ends up looking like pretty much the same as any major corporation or school .... Maybe I'm just too stupid or ignorant to be able to understand it's power to discriminate between the really mundane and the mildly mundane.;-) --Insider201283 23:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

DrW, Insider, this is an RfC. The discussion about the dispute is complex enough to follow for anyone responding to the RfC . Unless your intention is to sabotage the RfC by filling the discussion with nonsense, please continue the nonsense in it's own section. Tanaats 00:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually this *is* in a separate section to the RfC. Something I think I was writing about the same time you were doing the RfC and it got submitted after but has overlapping information, so I understand the confusion. Given I have quals in Psychology and DrW. also has quals in psychology I actually think our commentary on the validity of the BITE model is quite relevant to the discussion, even if made in a humorous way. Nevertheless, my apologies if it was offensive or otherwise out of line from your perspective. --Insider201283 01:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Then I'm quite sorry that I took the time to compose my massive reply. When you place "Comments by neutral third parties" at the bottom of the section it sure looks look you are breaking a part of the already very tangled RfC discussion off into its own section to try to restore some clarity. I actually thought it was an excellent idea. In order to prevent others from misunderstanding as I did I've put a clarifying note at the top of this section. Tanaats 01:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
My mistake re the "comments by neutral third parties". Still, it would appear this section ["Expert" section] is relevant to the RfC anyway, well apart from me being the messiah. ;-) --Insider201283 14:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I certainly thought it was quite relevant. But let's please suspend this discussion until everyone has time to consider my compromise offer and respond? Tanaats 14:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Even more sure..

DrW, regarding your edit comment:

I'm sure you didn't mean to exclude other partisans, and I'm even more sure that you didn't want to encourage them to "deceptively" pretend that they are neutral. :-))

I'm glad that you are so sure that I didn't in fact want to encourage partisans to "deceptively" pretend that they are neutral. Because you are correct in your certainty. I got the line that you have just edited verbatim from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Article RfC example. Tanaats 01:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

At first I didn't know what you were talking about. I meant my comment in the edit summary that you've quoted here as a lighthearted joke (just to be sure I added a smiley - very uncharacteristic of me) referring to the fact that cult members are often criticized for being deceptive. I'm sure you didn't mean to exclude other non-neutral partisans who regularly edit cult-related pages (or imply that they are neutral). -DoctorW 03:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the elaboration. Tanaats 04:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Qualfiy the bio?

Dang, I hit the wrong revert button again.

BD, no, no, no. You are making up guidelines out of thin air again. Tanaats 01:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if its not verifiable

Tanaats, rather than continually accusing me of making things up, please refer to this discussion about the shortcomings of autobiographical material, where its noted with respect to such material:

  • They are often biased, usually positively (see puffery). People have a tendency towards self-aggrandizement when talking about themselves, and for presenting opinions as facts. Wikipedia does not present opinions as facts. Muhammad Ali writing "I am the greatest" in a Wikipedia article about himself is not acceptable, for example. Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view (which does not mean simply writing in the third person).
  • They can be unverifiable. If the only source for a particular fact about you is you yourself, then readers cannot verify it. (One common area where this is the case is with hopes, dreams, thoughts, and aspirations. There is no way for readers to verify what you think.) However true something may be, if readers cannot verify it, it does not belong here. Everything in Wikipedia articles must be verifiable.
  • They can contain original research. People often include in autobiographies information that has never been published before, or which is the result of firsthand knowledge. This type of information would require readers to perform primary research in order to verify it. (For example: Unless your shoe size is, for some extraordinary reason, already a matter of widespread public knowledge, including your shoe size in an article about yourself is original research, since verifying it would require readers to come to you and measure your feet for themselves.) Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance, and as such, original research is not permitted in Wikipedia.

That is the rationale for noting in the article that the extended biographical section comes entirely from Hassan himself. It is unverifiable or only with great difficulty, since Hassan is an extremely minor public figure and reliable independent information on his life is barely extant. I'm not sure why this worries you so much. BabyDweezil 04:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's wait to see what Bishonen has to contribute. Tanaats 04:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I'm feeling more energetic today so let's take a run at this. Let's work backwards from today.
  • Re this edit. If I were to go through every biography in Wikipedia and insert that sort of statement every time the biographee was a primary source for the article, I'd get my butt kicked. I'd get my butt kicked every time I did it. I can't do that on other bios, and you can't do it here. It's completely unneccesary and breaks the flow of the article. It's unneccessary because the cite makes it perfectly clear where the material came from. And it is verifiable. See WP:V again. What "verifiable" means in this context is that someone can verify that Hassan actually said these things about himself. It emphatically does not mean that the reader should be able to verify these things as true. No biography is asked to meet that criterion, and this one can't be asked to do that either. And it is completely ok for extended biographical information to come from the subject himself.
  • Re this edit. You took out well sourced material. You didn't give an edit summary, but I assume it was because you didn't like what you felt that these statements implied. We are not allowed to make editing decisions based on our opinions as to what a source is implying. If we could do that, I would make a rampage through a huge number of articles, such as Anti-cult movement and Margaret Singer and DIMPAC, to give just three examples out of many, removing all the statements whose implications I felt were in any way misleading. I can't do that sort of thing. You can't either.
  • This edit is a good one. Tanaats 21:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
The argument to the effect of "if we did that here we would have to do it everywhere" really doesn't seem like a valid justification for doing or not doing something. Please focus at the article at hand, and the issues with the article at hand. Other articles can take care of themselves. BabyDweezil 22:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
The rules are the same for all articles. Any edit that is legal on this article would also be legal on all of the other thousands of articles in Wikipedia. In turn, any edit that isn't legal on other articles isn't legal on this one either. You can't have it both ways. If you can do it here. then I can do it elsewhere. Tanaats 22:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. Edits to an article are either justifiable or they aren't. That's precisely my point--the argumentation about "If I were to go through every biography in Wikipedia..." is irrelevant to the discussion. We don't argue against murdering people by worrying that if I were to allow you to murder someone, they everyone can murder everyone. BabyDweezil 22:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
??????
BabyDweezil, that's precisely why murder isn't allowed!!! Tanaats 22:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I thought it was because we agree its wrong, and a violation of our agreed upon code of conduct, not because "if I let you do it then I have to let everyone do it." But we digress. BabyDweezil 22:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
You are not allowed to make edits on Wikipedia based on your personal moral judgements. And anything Wikipedia lets you do here, I can do elsewhere, on as many articles as I like. Tanaats 23:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
All my edits are based on attempts to faithfully follow wikipedia guidelines. To the extent that I have brought a tiny bit of NPOV to some of these ridiculously biased, POV and moralistic "cult" related entries, feel free to do act as a disciple of neutrality elsewhere! I'm all for spreading the gospel of fairness and eliminating bias. BabyDweezil 23:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, no one can say I didn't try. Tanaats 23:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The external links currently has seven different links all from hassan's personal website. Bit excessive, eh? BabyDweezil 06:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:EL, only one is per site allowed. I'll try to move some of them within the article as references, if they aren't there already. --Tilman 21:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

--Tilman 21:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

John B. Brown

Thank you EmmDee for putting the quote in the correct context. My problem is that I have only the german version of the book, and I couldn't find the quote.

With your data, my suggestion would be to remove the segment completely. John B. Brown is not a reliable source, he is not a cult expert, not a journalist. Anyone can bring up a paper at CESNUR. Even me. Massimo told me this once.

Alternatively, simply use the whole segment without John. I haven't said anything in the past because I believe that criticism, even against people whom I DO like, should be accepted. --Tilman 21:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

With all due repect Tilman, I think your statement is unjustified. I have my bachelor degree, and now am studying my master's degree. I am a professional. Also I do not think that that CESNUR would tell you that anyone could bring up a paper at their conferenes. My reason for questioning this is simple: CESNUR requires a C.V., abstract, and that the research paper be of academic caliber. That is what I was told by CESNUR before I presented my first research paper. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by John196920022001 (talk • contribs).
Your paper isn't of academic caliber (hint: footnotes alone are not what makes a paper of high quality), and no CV is attached. And it seems you quoted the book out of context. --Tilman 18:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I did not quote the book out of context. The immediate context makes it clear despite what someone says in an earlier paragraph. "The non-coercive approach I have developed attempts to accomplish with finesse what deprogramming does with force. Family members and friends have to work together as a team and plan their strategy to influence the cult member. Although the non-coercive approach will not work in every case, it has proved to be the option most families prefer. Forcible intervention can be kept as a last resort if all other attempts fail (Hassan, 1990)" John196920022001 08:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The full text of the two paragraphs in question reads:

'I decided not to participate in forcible interventions, believing it was imperative to find another approach. Legal and voluntary access to the cult member had to be found; family and friends were the key. But they needed to become knowledgeable about cults and mind control, and they needed to be coached in how to communicate with a cultist effectively.
'NON-COERCIVE EXIT COUNSELING: THREE CASE HISTORIES
'The non-coercive approach I have developed attempts to accomplish with finesse what deprogramming does with force. Family members and friends have to work together as a team and plan their strategy to influence the cult member. Although the non-coercive approach will not work in every case, it has proved to be the option most families prefer. Forcible intervention can be kept as a last resort if all other attempts fail.'

(Combatting Cult Mind Control, p114, 1990 edition, ISBN 1-85538-025-0)

It is only possible to interpret the sentence "Forcible intervention can be kept as a last resort if all other attempts fail." as "indicating that Hassan might resort to a forcible intervention if all other attempts fail." if the sentence is read in isolation from the first sentence of the preceeding paragraph ('I decided not to participate in forcible interventions, ...')

It seem the same questionable interpretation also features in the article about Hassan's book 'Combatting Cult Mind Control' at:: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combatting_Cult_Mind_Control#Critical_viewpoints EmmDee 22:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Criticism Section

I would like to know why someone in the 'Criticism'section called that criticism unjustified. This defense should be put in another section. I recommend a section called something like 'Proponents.' In addition, the author has included his/her personal commentary by referring to the criticism as unjustified. If that person has done some research and would like to cite that research pertaining to that criticism that would be more appropriate

The research I did included reading the preceeding paragraph on page 114 of 'Combatting Cult Mind Control', and I cited that. It seems self-evident that it pertains to Brown's interpretation of one sentence in the succeding paragraph. EmmDee 22:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I finally found it in the german version of CCMC, it is on page 200.
I suggest the removal of the Brown section in both articles. His criticism is out of context, the previous para makes it clear that Hassan won't do involuntary deprogramming anymore. Plus, as explained before, this John Brown isn't a reliable source per WP:RS. His only qualification is a rather poorly written paper for CESNUR (explaining why the Jehovah Witnesses are human right champions, and that Steve Hassan is potentially dangerous).
I'd remove it tonight. Anyone (except John) wishes to keep it? --Tilman 07:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Removed. Any other parts w/ non-reputable sources? Smee 07:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

That is not true. I have a Bachelor's in human services, and am currently in a master's program. On Hassan's own yahoo group this subject comes up and it was acknowledged that CESNUR is a reliable source. It was acknowledged that the comments were acceptable (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/freedomofmind/message/28895). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.228.42.10 (talk • contribs).

1) Link doesn't work 2) No idea what "human services" is - is this the PC word for "clerk" (like "office manager" is the PC word for "secretary", or is it a social worker job, or is it a new word for Anthropology?) 3) what makes you a recognised expert - have your work or opinions been quoted by the media, or by scholars? (real ones, not part time copyright attorneys with cult lobbying as a hobby :-)) 4) forum postings are not reliable sources. 5) sign your posts with --~~~~. --Tilman 21:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
We have no idea if this is even all the same individual posting... Smee 21:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

.

Tilman, see http://www.universities.com/Distance_Learning/Degrees_Bachelor_Degrees_Human_Services.html. And your mocking of the editor above is rude and in violation of WP:NPA. Please desist. And you are quite mistaken, CESNUR is a reliable source. And the editor is clearly pointing out that Hassan considered it a reliable source in comments he made in a Yahoo group, not that the Yahoo group was a source. So please stop the nasty commentary. BabyDweezil 21:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
CESNUR is not a reliable source, this is just one copyright attorney guy with a huge library and tons of money.
That is not true also. Massimo Introvigne is part-time professor at the Regina Apostolorum Rome, Italy, and a member of the "Sociology of Religion" group of the Italian Association of Sociology. He is a social scientist John196920022001 20:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
contribs) 20:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC).
I don't know what John pointed out, since the link didn't work.
I have not mocked that editor. I was wondering what "human services" is, since the US language has created a lot of misleading great-sounding expressions that makes tradiational jobs sound like management positions. (I have mocked the american "PC" language, that has turned a low-level assistant into an "office manager") From the link [10] it seems that "human services" is simply a "social worker". (as I suspected). So John could have said that he's a social worker and that would have been fine. However that alone doesn't make him a reliable source per WP:RS --Tilman 06:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Once again, Tilman, you are belittling a fellow editor with snide comments such as simply a "social worker". Once again, I am insisting that you stop. Your excuse that you are mocking "american "PC" language" is transparently nonsense. No one is any more interested in your opinions on "american "PC" language" than they are in your deprecating nasty comments about fellow editors, so knock it off. BabyDweezil 21:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong in being a social worker, it is a respected job. And yes, I am mocking the US "PC" language. Which also turned secretaries into "office managers", "housewives" into "homemakers" and such. It is hilarious, and has been a source of fun for me for many years. But "human services" was a new one. I suspect that social workers were upset about the quote in the "Krupke" song in "West Side Story", which may have been used by some "clients" to abuse them. --Tilman 21:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Have all the fun you want making fun of American colloquialisms (although I don't believe it was those silly Americans who gave the world such lovely phrases as "judenrein," now was it?) Just keep your nasty comments about fellow editors off the talk page. BabyDweezil 21:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Once again, real slowly for you. I did not make a "nasty comment" about a fellow editor. The problem was that he used an expression that I have never heard before.
However, your own comment suggests that I am somehow personally responsible for events that happened before I was even born. Stop that.--Tilman 23:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm just commenting oin cross cultural usage of colloquialisms, which is the subject you brought up. BabyDweezil 23:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
John, you should simply add whatever relevant, reliably sourced information you care to that would improve the article. Don't worry about editors bullying you. BabyDweezil 02:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
That is what I have also suggested to him, remember? He can even add something by Shupe and Melton. --Tilman 21:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
How am I "notorious for this kind of behavior"?
Shupe or Melton are somewhat dubious people, as you certainly know. Both are well known cult apologists, Melton has supported AUM, Shupe has supported scientology and helped them take over the cult awareness network. But feel free to make a try and add their comments. --Tilman 06:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and the kidnapper, Waco massacre abetter and convicted thug RR is Mother Theresa. BabyDweezil 19:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh yeah don't forget that famous (in his own mind) self proclaimed expert, Tilting...I mean TilmanJohn196920022001 19:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
You are libelling Rick Ross. He is not a kidnapper, he has never been convicted for kidnapping. Nor has he "abetted" the Waco "massacre". This was done by David Koresch. RR has been convicted for stealing jewels when he was 18. This is like, 30 or 40 years ago. --Tilman 21:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, you're absolutely right, Tilman, my mistake! --I forgot to add that Ross was a jewel thief too. BabyDweezil 23:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
It is the only crime he was convicted of. All the rest is propaganda. --Tilman 23:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
It's pretty comical reading how much space both Ross and Hassan need to spend on their websites with their justifications for their kidnapping and thuggery in the past. The justifications are hysterical, theey are the classic pleadings and denials of sociopaths who are trying to convince people that they are really just innocent well meaning angels who may have had some minor lapses in "judgement." In Hassan's case, its pretty ironioc and comical that he would so blatently display such classic denial symptomology given that he purports to be a mental health professional. BabyDweezil 21:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Neither Rick Ross not Steve Hassan have ever been convicted of a kidnapping. --Tilman 21:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
There's that river in Egypt again. BabyDweezil 23:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

'Dubious' is not a wikipedia term. The correct term is reliable source, Tilman. Actually, I am happy with the current editing of the reference to Steve's book. Also Shupe did not help Scientology take over CAN. He testified as a witness in the Scott Trial. He contributed to CAN's demise as a witness in tbe trial. Just because you think these people are dubious is your opinion. Both are recognized scholars with far more expereince than I am. Lastly "cult apologist" is as pejorative as using the term anticultist." So please stop using it.John196920022001 19:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Shupe "testified" for scientology, although he admitted knowing nothing about CAN except what scientology attorney Moxon fed him. Never mind, perjury is no big deal in US courts :-)
Your other expert hero, Melton, shilled for AUM in Tokyo, claimed they we innocent. Too bad that his employers will soon be hanged.
What about "social worker" - is that also pejorative this week?
Now back to Steve Hassan - I understand you accept that your "contribution" is now cut off. --Tilman 21:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Note to John: I have looked at your past edits. I see that you cut off the properly sourced item added by EmmDee, in favour of your own edit, that was exposed as being misleading. Don't do this again.

I have also reverted your last edit. It cut off, without explanation, another well-sourced item. [11] You added a CESNUR item, which is kindof the bottom of the quality scale for sources (CESNUR, for example, claims that I am a "terrorist"). The paper mentions two involuntary deprogrammings by Hassan. The Roselle case is already mentioned in the article. The second case (Claire Kelley) is not documented in that article - the link is broken [12]. Maybe contact your friends at CESNUR. Plus, it doesn't allege that Hassan was himself responsible for it, so you should make this clear. Try finding another source. And don't "forget" to mention the year that it allegely happened. --Tilman 22:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted it again. You did not support your edit on the talk page despite me having explained the problems of your edit. --Tilman 23:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

You only reason for these changes is because you think they are dubious. Shupe is a professor at a university and has a Ph.D. He definately meets the qualification as a reliable source. He is published. You are letting personal bias get in the way. You were quick to use Wikipedia policy about RSs against me. I do not see you quoting policy nowJohn196920022001 23:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

What you are doing is propaganda. The article has minor parts (about 6 lines) about two alleged deprogrammings, only one of them documented (and already mentioned in the article here), both 30 years ago. And you "forgot" to mention that they are that old. Leaving out such information is exactly what consitutes the difference between reporting and propaganda.
CESNUR isn't really a reliable source. It is the hobby of Massimo Introvigne. Shupe maybe one per WP:RS, although what he writes is propaganda, so it should be taken with care. I'd put him in the same class as Peter Duesberg. --Tilman 00:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
That is your opinion. Nevertheless he has all the rights, privledges and credentials as a scholar/RS. Your opinions are not Wikipedia policy. He is still a recognized scholar despite your opinions. Your opinions about CESNUR are again your opinion. That fact is that many scholars go to their conferences to present articles there. It looks like we have a conflict of interest here. It is a little more than a hobbyJohn196920022001 00:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, you have one CoI, since CESNUR.org is the only organisation that has published your essay. --Tilman 07:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I moved two paragraphs from the Criticism section to the Mind Control section. It does not fit well to have comments in favor of Hassan placed in the Criticism section.John196920022001 02:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You removed again the dates - so you prefer not to mention that these allegations happened 30 years ago. That is a classic propaganda technique. --Tilman 07:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

CESNUR

Various protagonists above say either that CESNUR is a reliable source, or that it is not. There does not seem to be a consensus among scholars about CESNUR. The Wikipedia article on CESNUR cites a number of criticisms from scholars:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CESNUR#Criticism_and_response

'Miguel Martinez questions CESNUR's claimed neutrality by referring to its closeness to the conservative Alleanza Cattolica [2] and alleges that CESNUR is censoring critical websites. [3]
'Scholars Stephen A. Kent and Raffaella Di Marzio consider CESNUR's representation of the brainwashing controversy one-sided, polemical and sometimes without scholarly value. [4][5]
'In an official OSCE report, Dick Marty, Swiss senator and member of the OECD Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, does not consider uncorroborated information from CESNUR reliable : ...[6]'

Given that a number of references in the Hassan article seem to stem from CESNUR or from CESNUR members or associates, would it not be more NPOV to mention somewhere in the Hassan article that CESNUR is a controversial source, and not universally admired. Either that or put a

tag at the head of the article? EmmDee 15:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The best thing to do is provide a link in the Shupe article to the wikipedia entry on Shupe John196920022001 23:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

John's problem is that he doesn't understand that Wikipedia is not the place for his campaign against Steve Hassan. His ommission, despite having been pointed to him, of the dates makes it hard to assume WP:AGF. Also, the CESNUR source doesn't add much. The Roselle case is already mentioned in the article. The other case isn't really documented at the CESNUR website. The CESNUR article isn't even about Steve Hassan. Finally, Steve Hassan has already admitted himself that he participated in involuntary deprogramming long ago - so what?
For me, CESNUR is a source that should be taken with great care. I'm not automatically excluding it, but I'm cautious. --Tilman 15:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure Hassan is not "universally admired" by some of the people who's kidnappings he partcipated in. BabyDweezil 16:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
1) I did not claim this. 2) Hassan has never been indicted or convicted of kidnapping. Thus, per WP:BLP, I ask you to stop accusing him of any crimes. --Tilman 16:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Too late, the people who's kidnappings he participated in already accused him--see the article. BabyDweezil 16:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
No, that isn't what the article tells. Second, wikipedia is not a reliable source for wikipedia. Third, an accusation is just that. Fourth, none of these people has claimed to have filed a criminal complaint. Fifth, an affidavit outside of a legal proceeding has no legal value. But I suspect you knew all this anyway. --Tilman 17:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
That is not true, Tilman. You can sign a document under penalty of perjury or have it notorized even if it does not go to court. I complained to a domain registrar a few months ago about a member's alteration of some pictures I had taken. I was required to send a letter to the domain registrar and sign it under pernalty of perjury. These documents have legal value, but were made outside of court. John196920022001 03:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I could sign a paper under penalty of perjury that I am 10 feet tall and notarize it. Still, no law enforcement would send me to jail for perjury. It is just a paper. Notarizing something is just about making sure that a statement was made at a certain time, place and by a specific person. --Tilman 20:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
The scholar mentioned publishes papers in other journals and conferences too. The paper cited on the CESNUR site was actually from a conference other than CESNUR. John196920022001 07:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
1) I don't "cover up" - this is a proven lie. Because I explained you several times already that the Roselle case IS ALREADY IN THE ARTICLE. And there are tons of negative information about him in the article already, and I never attempted to remove it, despite WP:BLP. I even let your own poor-quality CESNUR publication stay for months, until someone else pointed out that it contained a blatant falsehood (by ommission of the context). The honorable thing to do would be either to correct, or to retract your paper at CESNUR.
2) What search in which scholarly databases did you make to prove that "Hassan has never presented a research paper for scholarly peer review", or did you "just allege it"?
3) How is this relevant? Most people portrayed in wikipedia haven't presented a research paper for scholarly peer review.
4) I don't have to be an expert on propaganda to see when someone is lying by ommission. (That an event happened 30 years ago, or that Hassan spoke out against forcible deprogramming right before the segment you were quoting against him) --Tilman 07:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I AM NOT LYING! By the way the sholarly database that I checked is EBSCOhost John196920022001 03:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
a)John, would it be possible to answer all four points? Or should I, in the future, only make a single argument at a time? You only answered (2), and partly (4) (where you just denied, without making an argument of your own). So I am waiting for the answers to 1) and 3) and 4).
b) I am unable to access EBSCOhost. Please provide a screenshot of your search input and the result. Note also that Hassan is sometimes written Steve Hassan and sometimes Steven Hassan. (Although I don't understand how this is relevant, see 3 above) --Tilman 15:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


I have reverted your edits:

  1. You deleted the dates again, making it possibly appear that the alleged participation in _involuntary_ deprogrammings from 30 years ago are current. That, as explained to you twice already, is lying by omission and thus propaganda.
  2. You deleted him testifying for congress without explaining why;
  3. You deleted a mention of his two books without explaining why;
  4. You added several unsourced statements, e.g. "others allege he is not a reliable source" - that is not what the CESNUR article says. Your statement in the summary "Hassan is also mentioned in other court transcripts in that article other than those two deprogrammings" is not supported by any sources. How is he mentioned? Where? Is it an article or a court transcript? A transcript of what?
  5. You wrote in the edit summary "Do not touch edit!". Guess what: I _did_ touch it, because it did not satisfy several wikipedia requirements: WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:BLP, WP:V.
  6. I don't mind that you moved sections per your peer review argument that you posted below, and I will try to do so myself. But don't delete them.

As explained to you before - Wikipedia is not the place for a campaign against a person. Whatever your personal problem with Steve is, Wikipedia is not the solution.

I strongly suggest that, in the future, you propose any edits here first. "Be bold" does not apply for unsourced statements. You CAN insert negative material; however, it has to be well-sourced, and it can't be your own opinions, and must be presented in a neutral way. --Tilman 15:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review

I asked for an honest peer review a couple of days ago. Please check the the peer review section at the top of the page. It gives some good suggestions about the whole article. This bickering about one item is pointless. Just provide a link to the Wikipedia article on CESNUR. John196920022001 07:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You inserted that item, did you forget? I also suspect that you don't know what peer review is. It also means others evaluating your work. Which I did. Live with it and learn. Wikipedia is not the place for propaganda against a person whom you don't like. --Tilman 08:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
You are not a NPOV John196920022001 00:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Of course I am not a NPOV. WP:NPOV is not a word that can be applied to a person. NPOV describes a way of writing texts. --Tilman 15:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


Item 1: The Automated peer review says that the opening is too long. I recommend that much of the information in the opening me moved to one of the headings John196920022001 04:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

What "Automated peer review"?? Anyway, since this is a good idea, I moved a segment, without making changes. --Tilman 15:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

MedCab case

Hi all. I'm currently mediating a case into which this article is involved.

Every editor can see how's going the mediation and voice his opinion here.

For a successful mediation, I need to hear every position and its arguments.

In order to keep mediation-related stuff all together, I prefer if we discuss on the mediation page rather than here.

I'm at your disposal for every question.


Happy editing,

Snowolf(talk)CONCOI - 18:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

POV

John, please explain here why you put the POV tag, or I will remove it.

As I see it, both viewpoints, pro or con, are properly represented. --Tilman 06:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)d

This is based on EmmDee's comment a day or two ago John196920022001 07:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
But EmDee wanted to remove CESNUR. So you now agree it is POV to have CESNUR ?! --Tilman 17:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually EmDee said "Either that or put a" POV tag. I believe that because of the two camps present here that it is a POV issue John196920022001 06:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I was refering to a comment by John B. Brown, which was IIRC sourced from a CESNUR publication. Currently Brown's comment has been deleted from the article, so its a bit academic now. It seemed to me that Brown's comment was based on selective quotation, and was sourced from CESNUR, so I suggested that either CESNUR should be flagged as a controversial and not necessarily reliable and NPOV source (based on three critical cites from the Wiki article on CESNUR), or that the article should be given a POV tag.

But since Brown's comment has now been deleted, and because I can't currently spot any (possibly POV) comments from CESNUR, the above no longer applies, and I tend to think therefore that the POV tag is a bit overkill at present. The article is IMO not that far from a more-or-less balanced account, given the field of cults/NRMs etc. is prettty controversial anyway.

But the article still needs some tweaking IMO eg. the final sentence of the introductory paragraph reads: '... therapeutic approaches for counseling former members in order to help them overcome the purported effects of cult membership.' That 'purported' seems a bit of a weasel word, and should be replaced with 'reported'. After all, if you went to your doctor complaining of chest pains or depression or whatever, you'ld be a bit put out if the doctor referred to your 'purported' symptoms.

The account of the Roselle affidavits in the Criticism/ Deprogramming section seems ambiguously written and potentially misleading, but I don't have time to try a re-write just now.

The sentence further down in the Criticism/ Deprogramming section, which reads: 'However, in Combatting Cult Mind Control, he states that deprogrammings can be kept as a last resort if all other attempts fail.[26]', still seems a bit unbalanced to me. (Brown's comment used to follow this sentence, but has been deleted). It should read something like: 'However, in Combatting Cult Mind Control, he states that deprogrammings can be kept as a last resort if all other attempts fail, although he himself has "decided not to participate in forcible interventions."[26]' EmmDee 19:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, CESNUR is an academic organization. As long as you consider an academic organization as not an RS, I will question the neutrality of this article. I am sure there is a Wikipedia article on CESNUR. Simply link the CESNUR quote to the CESNUR Wikipedia article. I am not saying I agree with everything that CESNUR has stated or everything that has been written at a CESNUR conference, but they are still an academic community subject to academic peer review. Many of the researchers who have contributed to CESNUR have contributed articles elsewhere too. I have already discussed this with another academic, and I am also a member of the academic community as a graduate level student. By definition, I am an RS and the only credible way to call attention to me is to cite another RS that specifically mentions my research, but not to consider me an RS just because of one affiliation is biased and simply wrongJohn196920022001 05:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
After a careful refelction I agree with EmmDee that to list the whole article as a NPOV issue is "overkill" since it is only one section that being debated. I have relisted the Criticism section as a NPOV-Section John196920022001 02:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Request

I politely request that involved editors refrain from editing the "Controversy" section until informal meditation is resolved. Continuing the edit dispute that has been ongoing will not resolve the dispute. Let's work through this dispute, rather than continue to escalate it. Thank you. Vassyana 12:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Freedomofmind no longer on Yahoo

At the present date, Yahoo denies have the freedomofmind group.

Jan 25, 2009 Eucheresis75.71.97.144 (talk) 04:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. The group was deleted and no longer exists, as people can confirm by going to the former freedomofmind yahoo groups site, which is why I edited that section. His new list serv only has 4 members last I checked, but I linked to it for the record--MonicaPignotti (talk) 12:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Jewish?

Anyone who thinks that Steven's Jewish identity is important please add something cited that even says he is Jewish before catagorizing him as an "American Jew", if he is Jewish that is. Please note that Steven is not usually a Jewish name since Saint Stephen is famous for his anti-semitic statements recorded in the New Testament. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd note the category simply states "Americans of ethnic Jewish heritage", so it doesn't mean he has to be Jewish himself, or even notable as being Jewish. Having said that a quick google finds his own press release on his site says he is Jewish. --Insider201283 (talk) 03:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. I would not object to the information being included with the cite, even if it is only from his site and doesn't show that anyone else has mentioned his religion. I still think that categories should be about what the person is notable for. I don't think Steven is notable as an American Jew. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Qualifications

Cambridge College's website indicates that in 1985 their M.Ed was an unaccredited distance course. I've tried unsuccessfully to get clarification from the college on this matter. Could somebody in the US (I'm not) contact them and establish this please? If I missed this in archived talk, my apologies. --Insider201283 22:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you give the link to that comment on the college's web site? As much as I disagree with Hassan's approaches, this is something that needs to be thoroughly verified before it is published. In his favor, he is a nationally certified coumselor. Something does not add up John196920022001 03:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I reverted what the IP did. I don't see any source that the college is "mail order", or that it was unaccredited at that time. Two articles about the topic, one positive, one negative: [13][14] --Tilman 17:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

A little late back to the party on this, but the articles Tilman supplies actually seem consistent with the idea it was unaccredited. The second more friendly article refers to the earlier critical WSJ article and says - "In some cases, faculty members did not require enough, and we have made amends to that," Sharma concedes. as well as noting that "this year", ie 2006, it will be providing an accredited course and that should "bolster it's academic bonafides". This implies it was not accredited before, and certainly calls into question 1985. The current Cambridge College Fact Book says their first "site-based" classes started in 1987 and that they first were authorised to issue BAs in Psychology in 1994, so how they heck they were issuing Masters in Psychology in 1985 is an interesting question I would think?--Insider201283 (talk) 03:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I've established CC was accredited in 1981 as a distance learning college and began offering on-site components in 1987. --Insider201283 (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Not sure where this should go in the article, but it's notable that in a 2003 article Wall Street Journal criticised Cambridge College, source of Hassan's masters, for essentially being a degree mill [15][16]. The article points out - The New England Association of Schools and Colleges, which accredits Cambridge College, cited "quality control of academic achievement" in 1996 as an "issue of overriding concern which is central to the academic credibility of the college." --Insider201283 (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Seems more applicable in an article about the college itself. Cirt (talk) 00:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed poorly sourced addition to a BLP article

[17] = removed, as it is poorly sourced info in a WP:BLP article. Cirt (talk) 22:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

While an argument can be made whether the newCAN should be used or not, the point deleted is very valid. Proof of it is in the fact that Steven himself on his own site admits that it happen and feels the need to explain it to others. If he feels the need to include it in his web site, because of its significance, should it not be significance enough to include it here? [18] Perhaps you can find another source that you feel comfort with. I don't believe you are saying his site is not allowed either are you? If not why was his page deleted too? Johanneum (talk) 13:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Other than his site, the rest of it was poorly sourced negative info in a WP:BLP article, and not appropriate for inclusion. Cirt (talk) 22:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
We are going in circles. An appeal to authority or a claim that something is not appropriate does not answer the question-Why? What do you find is not appropriate? Why is it not appropriate or "negative"? Is it negative to present two sides of a story? Why did you delete Steven page? Why does Steven feel it is important to talk about you feel it is not? Johanneum (talk) 02:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
The other source is not acceptable. And especially for a page on a WP:BLP article, we should stick to better sources. Cirt (talk) 02:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Criticism

I added some properly referenced criticism from known cult experts of Hassan's work and this was deleted, due to "weight". This is not a weight issue because 1) the bulk of this article is positive and 2) the cult experts are significant ones and were properly referenced. There is no good evidence that their view of Hassan's work is a small minority as Hassan's work is quite controversial, as the referenced work indicates. Critical points of view, for balance, do need to be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MonicaPignotti (talk • contribs) 19:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

the criticism is that his approach is "standard fare" and could, if used improperly, be used to manipulate people. This is not done as an empirical analysis but rather a comparison of their own method. this is not a criticism but rather Clark et al. use Hassan's method as a foil sell their own method of cult deprogramming. hence a weight issue in that it is a criticism unique to one published piece and not widely held, in fact only held by those who are trying to elevate their own counselling methods.Coffeepusher (talk) 22:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no requirement that references in Wikipedia be empirical investigations. If that were the case, nothing of Steve Hassan's work could be included since he has never conducted a single empirical study in his life and yet he makes claims that his methods are superior to others. You are free to disagree with the critics and are entitled to your unsubstantiated opinions of their motives, but for you to delete valid references to published criticism is at odds with Wikipedia's policies. If you persist in attempting to suppress this criticism, I will request a mediation from Wikipedia. There is no valid reason not to include this properly referenced criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MonicaPignotti (talk • contribs) 01:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

  • When I google [Pignotti Hassan] I get a large number of hits.[19] It appears that Pignotti is in a real life dispute with the subject. If so, it would be better if that person were not involved in editing the biography.   Will Beback  talk  01:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I referenced and cited valid material and left my own opinions on Hassan completely out of what I added. Hence, I am not in violation of any of Wikipedia's policies. There is no rule against who can post, as long as the postings are properly done. It appears that the biased person is the one who is so bent on having this valid, cited material deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MonicaPignotti (talk • contribs)

Is it incorrect that Monica Pignotti has been critical of the subject?   Will Beback  talk  01:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

While I have criticized Hassan, I have not inserted any original research into this article, only validly referenced sources. Is there any policy against Wikipedia authors not being critics? Are there policies against people who are clearly supporters and biased in that direction being authors? The statements by "coffeepusher" such as his unsubstantiated assertions regarding the author of this critique are hardly unbiased. If his supporters biased in favor of him are allowed to post, why shouldn't a critic, as long as I abide by Wikipedia's rules, which I have? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MonicaPignotti (talk • contribs) 01:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

There is more to Wikipedia than valid sources. There is also NPOV. Specifically, Coffeepusher has referenced the clause on weight, WP:UNDUE. Articles should be balanced, without placing undue emphasis on issues. Extensive quotes from a single source give the appearance of undue weight. Given the shortness of the overall biography, few lines would appear more appropriate than 284 words.
It'd be better if neither critics nor supporters made this article into a battle ground.   Will Beback  talk  01:40, 10

February 2012 (UTC)

Again, I have to challenge that this is an issue of "weight" since the majority of this article is highly positive with only a small section on criticism. I put in the criticism, precisely to give the article some balance. I would be willing to compromise, however, and shorten the paragraph if that would satisfy your requirement. MonicaPignotti (talk) 01:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "highly positive" material there is. There's no "praise" section, just a "criticism" section. Please propose your compromise version. Ideally it should summarize rather than quote the source.   Will Beback  talk  01:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I just edited it before I read this and I basically did just that. I took out most of the quotes and summarized. As for the positive material, while it does not have the specific label "praise section" the material is clearly highly laudatory of Mr. Hassan.MonicaPignotti (talk) 02:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is the edited version, which has all quotations removed and is much shorter: Cult experts David Clark, Carol Giambalvo, Noel Giambalvo, Kevin Garvy and Michael Langone, PhD have criticized Steve Hassan's approach to exit counseling in a chapter entitled "Exit Counseling: A Practical Overview" from an edited volume "[5]. Their central criticism is that Hassan's approach is said to "effect" change without the cult-involved person's prior approval and is hence, manipulative, whereas in contrast, Clark et al's informational approach "invites" change. To date, no research exists that demonstrates the superiority of either method of exit counseling. MonicaPignotti (talk) 02:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I just looked up the source. It makes a point that it does not criticize anyone, so I've removed the "criticism" words. Also the last two sentences don't seem to be derived directly from the source, but maybe I just couldn't find it, so I've added a citation request tag.   Will Beback  talk  02:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The sentence about inviting vs. effecting change is discussed in the Clark et al article referenced. The last sentence about lack of research for either approach is a statement of fact that can be verified by searching research databases that there are no studies comparing various methods of exit counseling. This is a statement that no exit counselor, including Hassan, would challenge, but if that is not acceptable, I can delete that final sentence.MonicaPignotti (talk) 02:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a citation in the article to any Clark article. If it mentions Hassan then it could be added. If not, then it isn't relevant.   Will Beback  talk  02:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
On which page would I find the material supporting this sentence:
  • Their central comment is that Hassan's approach is said to "effect" change without the cult-involved person's prior approval and is hence, manipulative, whereas in contrast, Clark et al.'s informational approach "invites" change.
I see "manipulative" used many times in the book, but usually to refer to other things.   Will Beback  talk  02:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I have reported this issue to the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive145#Steven Hassan.Coffeepusher (talk) 03:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is the quote where they discussed their concerns about the potential of Hassan's approach to manipulate clients: "vague and rather standard fare for counseling approaches within the field of humanistic psychology. As with many humanistic counseling approaches, Hassan runs the risk of imposing clarity, however subtly, on the framework's foundational ambiguity and thereby manipulating the client." (p. 175).

Also, the authors did clearly label their writings as a "critique" of Hassan. On p. 177 they stated: "We have been able to critique Hassan in such detail because he has written so clearly about his approach". In that same paragraph is their statement about inviting vs. effecting change.

Coffeepusher: Criticism is a valid part of every biography of living persons and I do not see how this violates the guidelines. Having an article that excludes all criticism as you appear to be attempting to do, is not neutral and balanced. But fine, let's see what the moderators have to say.MonicaPignotti (talk) 03:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is a quote from that same article that shows that even Hassan interpreted these authors as accusing him of being manipulative: "Hassan...says that our critique exaggerates the manipulativeness of his approach." (p. 175) So here you can see clearly that even Steve Hassan interpreting their writings as accusing him of being manipulative. I did not invent this word. Various forms of it are used repeatedly throughout the article.MonicaPignotti (talk) 03:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I am going to remove this criticism from the article. The criticism itself is a thinly veiled "our theory is better than his" statement, it doesn't conform with WP:WEIGHT being that it is not representative of the common criticism out there, and while I do agree with Monica that we need to make this article more representative of the literature that does not mean finding any critical article and adding it in, those articles must conform to WP:WEIGHT. Being a WP:BLP I believe that we should error toward not including critical literature unless we can prove that it is representational of common themes about the person.Coffeepusher (talk) 15:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Based on discussions among exit counselors at numerous conferences I have attended, that debate is one central to the exit counseling profession and the authors of that piece are not lightweights in the profession, so I want to go on record that I strongly disagree with and protest this omission of legitimate criticism. I am of precisely the opposite opinion, that criticism of key figures is vital to the progress and development of new fields such as this and is very important for potential consumers of Steve Hassan's services to be aware of. This article right now reads like a puff piece, in my opinion. It is interesting that Wikipedia editors tend to have no problem with critical material being inserted into article on people who are considered to be "cult" leaders, yet when it is an anti-cult leader, apparently there is a double standard. I would be willing to bet that had I inserted critical material into the David Miscavige article, as long as it as properly referenced, no one would have had a problem with it and no one would have brought up the fact that I have been openly critical of Scientology in a very public way. In any case, rest assured I will keep you posted if and when other documented criticism comes up on Mr. Hassan and his practices.68.59.48.36 (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh and by the way, just FYI, it is Steve Hassan who has repeatedly claimed that his approach is superior to other people's in spite of a lack of any kind of empirical evidence and that is what has alienated him from several of his peers (I can provide citations for that if you're interested). The authors of the critique I cited did not say they were better and were even honest enough to note in the article that there was no research as to which method was better.MonicaPignotti (talk) 23:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Criticism section

The references are valid - the first shows the license number for the cult specialists practice, the second is to the Rick Ross Institute, an established anti-cult practice.

Zambelo (talk) 21:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The references are valid, but not WP:RS. The Rick Ross institute isn't a licencing institution, and therefore their opinion on other counselors doesn't have any place in a WP:BLP.Coffeepusher (talk) 02:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

It isn't contentious material, and it is a valid criticism from another anti-cult activist. It doesn't discuss Steve Hassan's lack of qualifications, it deals with the Rick Ross Association distancing itself from Steve Hassan. This passes muster under WP:BLP.

Zambelo (talk) 02:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

What section of WP:BLP and WP:RS are you referring to?Coffeepusher (talk) 02:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
because I'm talking about the part of WP:BLP which states "Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject." Coffeepusher (talk) 02:58, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm also skeptical since it appears that Rick Ross himself is in a real life dispute with Steven Hassan, judging from the amount of times Hassan is mentioned on his page in a negative light, even when addressing topics that don't involve Steve Hassan at all Rick seems to find a way to bring it up.Coffeepusher (talk) 03:08, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
I count 6 different web sites which have little or nothing to do with Hassan, yet Ross has found a way to plant barbs none the less.Coffeepusher (talk) 03:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The thing you need to understand about this conversation, Zambelo, is that Coffeepusher is a Scientology Shill. It's pointless to even try to have a discussion with him, he's drank the Kool-Aid and doing the work of L. Ron. 71.212.42.24 (talk) 02:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Johnny, you need a hobby besides trolling wikipedia. Fortunately you have given me enough now to start a sock investigation... When I have time. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 15:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Cult expert

There really needs to be an academic reference for this claim. Hassan has never testified in court as an expert, and in fact the one time he was going to, got dismissed for not having the necessary qualifications. A periodical reporting him as an expert doesn't really cut it, since all it is doing is reporting using his self-awarded honorific. Zambelo (talk) 03:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

there isn't any "cult expert" certification board, so unless you have some policy I am unaware of a WP:RS is adiquate according to WP:V and WP:NPOV.Coffeepusher (talk) 05:32, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


An expert is an authority in an area, as acknowledged by his peers in the same area. Steven Hassan's status as an 'expert' therefore should be shown using a source from a known cult research specialist. There needs no be verifiability, and come from a reliable source. In this context it is a newspaper simply mirroring the honorific. The expert claim is an extraordinary one, and therefore requires a strong source. Opinion content is not a reliable source, and there is no evidence of editorial oversight. At best the claim can be included in the article as "The New York Magazine described him as a "cult expert" ".

Zambelo (talk) 07:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I've submitted this to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to get some second opinions and consensus. Zambelo (talk) 08:04, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

As I noticed your post at WP:RSN, I went ahead and added some stronger, academic sources which have applied the "cult expert" term to Hassan. It should be easy enough for someone to do a more in-depth search and find yet more references. Whether it is very important to use this term in an infobox is an open question. Certainly there are reliable references that view him as an expert. Hassan also obviously rubs some people the wrong way, and there are references (particularly from the 1980s and 1990s when he was criticized for advocating deprogramming) out there that label him as "self-proclaimed cult expert" as you had already noted. Given that Wikipedia articles are to present all significant points of view in reliable sources, there is no reason that both positions may not be noted in the article's body or footnotes and cited to sources. • Astynax talk 12:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Most of the references are broken

Most of the references (pointing to Hassan's website) are broken because of the new site... Zambelo (talk) 11:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Rck Ross's Criticism

This is verifiable, NPOV, and neutral. Furthermore it references both Ross' website as well as Hassan's response on the Freedom of Mind website. There is no disputing that Rick Ross has made a criticism here, so what's the problem? Zambelo (talk) 23:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

as we have already discussed in an earlier conversation, Rick Ross's website isn't a WP:RS, and if you want to insert "criticism" into a biography of a living person it needs to come from reliable sources, no exceptions. Cheers!Coffeepusher (talk) 06:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
you can refer to WP:RS#Self-published sources (online and paper) which states "Self-published information should never be used as a source about a living person, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer." The biography of living persons policy goes further stating "Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject" This quote also points to the only exception to this is the Stephen Hassan site because it is a self published source by the subject of the article. The Rick Ross site is self published, and therefore isn't a reliable source for a biography of a living person. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 06:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
didn't we already go over all of this the last time you tried to put a criticism section referencing the Rick Ross website? I'm also going to point out that it seems a little suspicious that a lot of your edits on this page are attempts to insert negative information sourced to self published sources. You may want to stick closer to the WP:BLP policy in the future, because if these violations of the policy continue your edits may come under heavier scrutiny by more editors than just me.Coffeepusher (talk) 06:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

My edits before didn't include Steve Hassan's reply to the criticism. The source isn't making any unverified claims, so it is valid here. " a lot of your edits on this page are attempts to insert negative information sourced to self published sources"? Actually, you will find that this is the only edit where I'm using a self published source. And I welcome the scrutiny. Zambelo (talk) 08:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

"actually you will find that this is the only edit where I'm using a self published source"...[20], [21], [22]. And each time you were directed to WP:RS and WP:BLP [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29] . This is beginning to look like an example of I didn't hear that.Coffeepusher (talk) 15:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
You have been informed that you have to stick to WP:BLP and WP:RS on this page, you have been specifically directed to the sections of those pages which show that the sources for your edits are unacceptable. WP:IDHT states that "If the community spends more time cleaning up editors' mistakes and educating them about policies and guidelines than it considers necessary, sanctions may have to be imposed" if you continue trying to push shelf published criticisms into a WP:BLP I will consider it to be a lack of respect for the guidelines of wikipedia since you have been shown the appropriate guidelines and will take it to the appropriate noticeboards. Coffeepusher (talk) 15:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

You only seem to be linking to the same incidence of me inserting the Rick Ross criticism (except for the Mann content, which I acknowledged wasn't justified). I re-added the content, which now included Hassans' own response, because the content sticks to WP:BLP and WP:RS: it is verifiable, neutral, and there are no assertions which are not referenced here. I wrote this above^, but you don't seem to have acknowledged this. Perhaps it's more a case of YDHT.

Context is important in verifiability: the assertion here is that Rick Ross, a prominent anti-cultist, has criticised Hassan. For this a primary reference (Rick Ross's website) is used. I'm not saying "Hassan is..." I'm writing "Rick Ross says Hassan is..." and referencing this. You seem to be missing the point here, you wrote

>I'm also skeptical since it appears that Rick Ross himself is in a real life dispute with Steven Hassan This is the point. Rick Ross, the prominent cult expert has a real life dispute with Steven Hassan, and I have included his criticisms in the article.

I'll take this to mediation, since you seem intent on keeping the content off the page without really giving any argument beyond vagueries about reliable sources or defending your position beyond making threats of sanctions. I will bring this to mediation, since you clearly aren't understanding the context here, and seem intent on mis-representing my intentions. Zambelo (talk) 16:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_160#Criticism_section_in_the_Steven_Hassan_article Zambelo (talk) 16:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

good, Ill respond there. Notice that the very first comment said exactly the same thing I have been telling you.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Self published sources

So, ‎Coffeepusher , now self-published sources are alright, even though just yesterday you were making a fuss about the Rick Ross criticisms, which were referenced using Hassan's website? You should make up your mind. Or does WIkipedia policy only apply for edits you agree with? If you look at WP:SELFPUB, it mentions

Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if:
the article is not based primarily on such sources.

The article *is* based primarily on such sources, hence the templates. Zambelo (talk) 04:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

why don't you try that again, but this time let me know you have read the policy and know the difference between the discussion regarding Rick Ross sites and using Steven Hassan's publications, because frankly I'm sick of repeating the exact same policies to you again and again.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

And I'm sick of repeating them to you. I'm putting the template back, based on WP:SELFPUB, the article is primarily based on self published material, and also - the links to most of this material are dead links. Zambelo (talk) 22:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Repeating what to me? What have you repeated to me over and over? You are the one who keeps on violating WP:BLP, you are the one who keeps on using self published sources from someone other than the subject to criticize Hassan, [30], [31], [32], [33]. You were the one who claimed that certain edits on this page were not subject to BLP guidelines which shows that you didn't understand the basics of BLP policy which states "This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages." and you did this after being asked to read BLP and RS policies 6 times on the edit summaries [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], and 4 times on talk pages [40], [41], [42], [43] several of which link to the same text within the policies over and over. And yet in your comment above it is obvious that you still don't understand the difference between using Rick Ross's self published site, and using Hassan's site (even after this quote has been given to you "Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject." So please, what exactly are you repeating to me over and over.
Now I don't have a problem with a tag at the top to highlight that the use of Hassan's website should be scrutinized, but I had a problem with the blanket tagging of every single use without any discrimination on if it was a violation of policy or not, or distinguishing which policies certain uses may be violating.Coffeepusher (talk) 02:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I've already explained why I thought the criticism belonged in the article, you didn't even address it. I repeated these arguments in the moderation pagr, and again, nothing doing. I agreed with the original removal of the criticism, because I only had the Ross reference, but then I came back and put it in again because I used the Hassan reference to supplement the Ross reference. According to WP:Primary; "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.". You said that this wasn't acceptable, and removed the content. Fair enough. Self published content seems to be an issue for you, and also according to WP:SELFPUB : The vast majority of the article is based on self-published references, which isn't permitted per WP:SELFPUB - furthermore hence the template. Zambelo (talk) 14:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I think I see where we are getting things crossed. I do understand you are new on Wikipedia and it feels like you are being held responsible for things which you may not have been informed of. Let me say it like this, Biographies of living person's have the most potential for harm on a living subject, and as such are subject to the most scrutiny when it comes to WP:RS. So any reasons on why certain statements should be included aren't even up for consideration if the sourcing is dubious. The WP:RS and WP:BLP guidelines are very specific when it comes to what sourcing is available, and traditionally WP:BLP trumps other guidelines on wikipedia. That was why I didn't really address your arguments and kept asking you for reliable sourcing, because without the right sources the content or reasons for inclusion doesn't really matter, it just can't be included. This interpretation is supported by reading the WP:BLP guidelines, and you can also go to the biography of living person's noticeboard and see that BLP editors rarely deviate from this principle. Now the sourcing guidelines does allow for self published information about a subject BY the subject, and you have correctly stated that there are a lot of self published references within the article. I don't mind the template on top, but tagging every single reference within the article is less useful unless there are specific instances where you want us to look at X use particularly. I'm hoping this clarifies my position. Coffeepusher (talk) 15:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Formerly removed criticism

This was removed a while back:

Criticism from Other Cult Experts

Cult experts David Clark, Carol Giambalvo, Noel Giambalvo, Kevin Garvy and Michael Langone, PhD have criticized Steve Hassan’s approach to exit counseling in a chapter entitled “Exit Counseling: A Practical Overview” from an edited volume “[26]. These authors stated that Hassan’s four core beliefs are “vague and rather standard fare for counseling approaches within the field of humanistic psychology. As with many humanistic counseling approaches, Hassan runs the risk of imposing clarity, however subtly, on the framework’s foundational ambiguity and thereby manipulating the client.” (p. 175). The authors gave Hassan an opportunity to respond. Hassan’s response was that the critique “exaggerates the manipulativeness of his approach” and offered clarification that he tries to “minimize the danger by taking a step-by-step approach to help the cultist ‘grow'”. Clark et al.’s reply is “Despite these clarifications of Hassan’s approach, we still have several concerns.” Their concerns were first, that Hassan did not clearly communicate this sensitivity in his writings, second, that other professionals who rely on Hassan’s writings might not be sensitive enough to the potential of his approach to become manipulative, third, that Hassan’s approach “even when practiced in its most pure form, strategic intervention therapy is still overtly intrusive” (p. 176). Their fourth objection is that “subordinating exit counseling to a family counseling structure is usually not necessary for a successful exit counseling.” Their central criticism is that Hassan’s approach is said to “effect” change without the cult-involved person’s prior approval and is hence, manipulative, whereas in contrast, Clark et al’s informational approach “invites” change. To date, no research exists that demonstrates the superiority of either method of exit counseling.

^Recovery from Cults, Michael Langone (ed), 1993, New York: W.W. Norton and Company, ISBN 0-393-70164-6, p. 173-177


Why was it removed, since it appears to be valid, referenced material? Was there any discussion regarding this? Zambelo; talk 21:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Because it either violates WP:COI or WP:COPY. This material, word for word, was inserted into the article by a renowned critic of Hassan's in 2012. It has since been posted on several of her websites (a google search will confirm that). So either it is being stolen from her, in which case it is a copyright violation, or it has been placed here by her instructions, hence a conflict of interest through meatpuppettry since she has been told she can not edit this page. Cheers.Coffeepusher (talk) 01:14, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
you can find the discussion in the archives, she used her real name so you will be able to find the discussion easily. the archives provide links to the BLPN page which determined that there was a severe conflict of interest.Coffeepusher (talk) 01:52, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe that is where I found the passage - do you think the content merits inclusion though? Zambelo; talk 01:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

no I don't. From a wikipedian standpoint it violates WP:WEIGHT in that it is neither a sample or representative of a larger body of criticism, nor is it a foundational piece which developed into a larger body of work. It is simply a vague criticism which is used to springboard into their own work. Additionally, it became apparent that the wording and choice of passages violated WP:NPOV in that it over-represented the criticism in language and tone. I hope this clarifies my position. Cheers!Coffeepusher (talk) 03:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Cult vs NRM

I'm loathe to even attempt to broach this issue, but there is no getting around it. The article obviously is written mostly from the perspective of the subject and thus uses the term "cult" extensively and avoiding use of the term "new religious movement," which is actually the more neutral term preferred by academics. The "cult vs NRM" arguments do not often turn out very productively because there are clashing ideologies and agendas at play here, but this dualistic narrative is toxic and not conducive to encyclopedic neutrality. Just two cents. Laval (talk) 07:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Violations of Wikipedia policies in the editing of this bio

WP: Other stuff exists "'Other stuff exists' arguments can be valid or invalid." "The encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." For example, "Non-fiction literature, such as encyclopedias, is expected to be internally consistent. As such, arguing in favor of consistency among Wikipedia articles is not inherently wrong--it is to be preferred. Only when the precedent is itself in conflict with policy, guidelines or common sense is it wrong to argue that it should be followed elsewhere."

The bio of Steve Alan Hassan, a professional, specializing in cults, is not consistent with Wikipedia guidelines. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Hassan Hassan's Wikipedia bio states that he is "the author of three books on the subject of destructive cults." WP:Biographies of living personal "never use self-published sources -- including but not limited to books, zines websites, blogs, and tweets -- as sources of material about a living person." All three of Hassan's books are self-published, including the new edition of his book "Combating Cult Mind Control." All of these books are published by "Freedom of Mind Press," owned and operated by Steve Hassan. Hassan is listed as an "author," but his books are self-published.

Under "Background" Wikipedia includes that Hassan "ultimately rose to the rank of Assistant Director of the Unification Church at its National Headquarters. In that capacity he met personally with Sun Myung Moon." This statement is supported by " Biography of Steven Hassan, Freedom of Mind Center" see https://freedomofmind.com//Media/biography.php There is nothing else to support this claim. This is not a reliable source. WP: Verifiability "Please remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced immediately." Questionable sources are defined as those that have "an apparent conflict of interest...as in articles about themselves." Specifically, such sources are not to be used when the material 'unduly self-serving," "promotional" and there is "doubt as to its authenticity."The Hassan Wikipedia bio also states, "according to his biography, "During the 1977-78 Congressional Subcommittee Investigation into South Korean CIA activities in the United States, he consulted as an expert on the Moon organization." The only source cited is again unreliable and represents a conflict of interest. Hassan may have testified as a former member of the Unification Church, but there is no record that he did so "as an expert." WP: Identifying reliable sources "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field."

Under the heading "Career" Wikipedia allows Hassan's unverifiable and self-promotional peacock claims about his intervention methodology such as "a much more refined method" and "far better than deprogramming and even exit-counseling." But these peacock claims can only be substantiated by Hassan's self-published books. The Wikipedia bio goes on to posit other claims by Hassan, which are sourced to his writings and website such as that he is "'an activist who fights to protect people's right to believe what they want to believe.'" And yet another peacock claim "that 'man unorthodox religions have expressed their gratitude to me for my books because it clearly shows them NOT to be a destructive cult." There is no secondary or reliable source to confirm these promotional claims. Hassan claims "that he spent one year assisting with deprogrammings before tuning to less controversial methods." This implies that Hassan only did involuntary interventions with adults for one year. The footnote indicates that the source for this statement is Hassan's personal website. It's unclear why there is a section on

Steve Hassan's "Personal life" as he is not a celebrity and little known to the general public. This seems like puffery and unnecessary though. In this subsection Wikipedia states, "Hassan married psychologist and conselor Aureet Bar-Yam in 1981. Bar-Yam died at age of 33 after falling through ice while trying to save the family dog. This statement is misleading and incomplete. It would have Wikipedia readers beleive that Hassan was widower who remarried. In fact. He and his first wife divorced. See http://bar-yam.org/aureet/AboutAureet/timeline.html Hassan divorced Bar-Yam in 1989. T

here has been very significant and serious criticism of the methodology of Steve Hassan by other professionals involved in cultic studies, intervention and recovery work regarding cult members and this is well-documented by a very reliable source. Hassan claims that because he is a professional counselor and former cult member he has melded a methodology that includes elements of counseling and aspects of the educational approach called "exit-counseling." However, no less than one of the most prominent cultic studies professionals, psychologist and International Cultic Studies Association Executive Director Michael Langone has questioned Hassan's approach. Langone says, "that although [Hassan] tries to communicate a body of information to cultists and to help them think independently, he also does formatl counseling. As with many humanistic approached Hassan's runs the risk of imposing clarity, however subtly, on the framework's foundational ambiguity and thereby manipulating the subject>' (M. D. Langone, ed., "Recovery from Cults, 2nd ed. New York: W.W. Norton, 1996, p. 174-175). It is my understanding that this criticism has been proposed, but repeatedly blocked from Steve Hassan's Wikipedia bio, despite that fact that is very reliably sourced and relevant. WP:Biogaphies of living persons "Crticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." The Langone analysis of Steve Hassan's methodology fits well within these parameters and the source is certainly reliable. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recovery_from_Cults Nevertheless it has been excluded despite Wikipedia policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick Alan Ross (talk • contribs) 18:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this article looks to be a mess. The articles on his books Combatting Cult Mind Control and Releasing the Bonds look bad as well. Releasing the Bonds might be a candidate for WP:AFD as well. As I have time I will look into it. What may be a good exercise would be for you to try to edit a draft copy of the article to meet Wikipedia policies and guidelines. You probably should not directly edit the article since you are both in the same profession and worked with CAN so WP:COI would apply but I will make a copy of the article for you to work on at User:Jbhunley/sandbox/Stephen Hassan. I will be happy to work with you there. JbhTalk 18:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. OKRick Alan Ross (talk) 19:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Done.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
I will take a look at in the next day or so. Cheers. JbhTalk 14:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I think consistency is a good thing. I wonder why there is so much interest in my bio by editors historically and so little policing concerning Wikipedia policies or interest in this bio.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 15:09, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
The interest in your bio is because you have been posting requests at noticeboards and, before that, I presume, editing your article as an IP when it was on the watch list of editors after the Scientology Arbcom case. Most people keep the majority of articles they make edits on on their watch list and when activity starts up they see it and check out what is going on. The subject of this biography nor anyone else is making edits here or bringing issues to noticeboards so no attention is drawn to it. There are 5,000,000+ articles here and about 3000 editors who make over 100 edits a month. About half of those work on cleaning up articles. JbhTalk 17:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
I hope your assessment is correct. You certainly know more about Wikipedia than I do. My concern is that people have used and may use my bio as a soapbox. Have a great New Year celebration.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:35, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Steven Hassan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Divorced not widowed

I don't know that this bio should include a Personal Life section, but the history in that section is misleading and incorrect. Steve Hassan and his first wife divorced in 1989 [44]. Hassan's former wife then died accidently two years later.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

@Rick Alan Ross: Thanks for that. I'll see if I can find a reliable source for this, but I see no need to include the section at all. --Tgeairn (talk) 20:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
On second thought, there's not really much to go on (other than local, routine reporting) without running afoul of WP:BLPNAME. Hassan's wife may have played a role in his work during their relationship, in which case that role could get expanded in the relevant portion. Otherwise, there's no need for inclusion here. I'm removing it and the section. --Tgeairn (talk) 20:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
What about the issue of self-published books?Rick Alan Ross (talk) 13:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

The Publication of Hassan's book

There was a statement in the article about "the last publication" of Hassan's Combatting Cult Mind Control. The book is till being published. Check Amazon. I think a more accurate rendering would be edition rather than publication.— Preceding unsigned comment added by John196920022001 (talk • contribs) 10:00, 28 February 2007

Wikipedia:Notability (books) Hassan's three books are now all self-published, including his 25th Anniversary publication of Combating Cult Mind Control. The other two books were never published, but only self-published. Yet the bio does not reflect this fact and instead misleads the reader.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 16:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Books should be described as self-published

Wikipedia:Indentifying reliable sources All of Steve Hassan's books are self-published and do not meet the definition of published, with the exception of the original edition of "Combatting Cult Mind Control," though the "25th Anniversary Edition" of this book is self-published. This fact should be noted at the bio. The lead should read -- "He has self-published three books on the subject of destructive cults..." Also under Career it should read -- "In his self-published book, Freedom of Mind: Helping Loved Ones Leave Controlling People, Cults, and Beliefs..."Rick Alan Ross (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Is something going be done about this? Right now the reader is mislead and Hassan's self-published books are not correctly cited as self-published. Wikipedia:Notability (books) This is not according to Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Self-publication and/or publication by a vanity press do not correlate with notability. in a BLP.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Unproven claims not supported by reliable sources

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources Hassan claims that he " ultimately rose to the rank of Assistant Director of the Unification Church at its National Headquarters. In that capacity he met personally with Sun Myung Moon.[6]" Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources The only source cited to support these claims is a self-published bio at Hassan's website. Wikipedia: Biographies of living persons This is a "Peacock" claim without a reliable source and should be edited out.

Hassan also claims that he testified before Congress "as an expert." This is yet another Peacock claim without anything other than a self-published source to support it, which is not considered a reliable source. This should be edited out of this bio.

Wikipeida: No original research Claims in Wikipedia bios must be supported by reliable sources not original research or self-published sources. Wikipedia: What Wikipedia is not A Wikipedia bio is not a vehicle for self-promotion to be used by someone to embellish or exaggerate their personal and/or professional history. Without reliable sources these unsubstantiated claims at this bio should be removed.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 16:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I've checked the official report of the Investigation of Korean-American Relations and it makes no mention of Steven Hassan testifying. It does source one sentence (p.319)[45] to his testimony before the New York City Tax Commission, Jan.5, 1977 as a "former member". Given the lack of supporting evidence (indeed the lack of mention in the official report would appear to contradict the claim) I agree that it should be removed. Similarly I can find no independent support of his claims regarding his position in the UC. All such references appear to be sourced to Hassan himself. The Unification Church itself has explicitly denied his claim [46][47]. Given it's self-serving nature, lack of third party support and denial by the church itself, it too should be removed. --Icerat (talk) 13:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
When can these unsupported claims be edited out?Rick Alan Ross (talk) 13:47, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Anti-cult Trade War

I know that talk pages are supposed to be about the article not the editors, however this must be pointed out because it is affecting wikipedia. Rick Ross has spent months and months cajoling editors into removing unfavorable content in his article but now he is here arguing to add unfavorable content to one of his competitors articles. See long standing feud. If you ask me it crosses a line. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

  1. I have added a {{Connected contributor}} box to this page (see above), listing at this time only Rick Alan Ross
  2. Contrary to Jbhunley's assertions elsewhere I could find no edits to the Steven Hassan article by user:Rick Alan Ross, nor by any of the familiar former aliases of this editor, thus the parameter indicating whether or not Rick Alan Ross has edited the present article (U1-EH=...) is set at "no" for the time being, please update if this template should have the parameter set at "yes" for this editor.
  3. The parameter for whether or not Rick Alan Ross declared his WP:COI regarding Steven Hassan (U1-declared = ...) is currently set at "no", because I didn't see this editor declaring their COI regarding the subject of this article (I also don't think the cultnews article mentioned by Elmmapleoakpine is a declaration of COI in this sense, although it is an unmistakable proof of that COI). Please set this parameter to "yes" if I overlooked a COI declaration, or if R. A. Ross procedes with giving such COI declaration. I mentioned the cultnews article in the "U1-otherlinks = ..." parameter, until such link could be replaced by a link to an in-wiki COI declaration. Note that I have been suggesting to Mr. Ross to declare his COI wrt Mr. Hassan some time ago.
  4. I have no knowledge of R. A. Ross being formally banned from editing the article, so I set the last parameter for this editor (U1-banned = ...) at "no".
  5. If (and I honestly have no clue whatsoever whether anything of the kind is the case) Mr. Ross is correct in his Cultnews blog, other editors to this article (or talk page) may need to declare their COI and/or add themselves to the "connected contributor" box above (see {{Connected contributor}} for instructions).
  6. For the time being I suppose edits to the Steven Hassan article proposed by Rick Alan Ross should go through the WP:COIN noticeboard before being implemented. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:21, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
@Francis Schonken: Please read and understand what I write before you claim I have made "assertions" that I have not. What I said was I had recomended RR edit a copy of this article, which I made for him, to see how he thought policies should apply when he brought up this article as an OTHERSTUFF example. That copy along with his edits, is here [48] - he has not edited this article, has not done anything improper here nor have I claimed he has. Nor have I complained about him editing this talk page. I do think it would be a bad idea for him to edit the article itself since they were both CAN deprogrammers but that seems to be a non-issue because he has not done so. Thank you for your attention to this and your work on the RR BLP in general. Have a plesant weekend. JbhTalk 12:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, should have been more careful. My bad. Thanks for clarifying that. Struck what I said about it above. I'll have a look at the sandbox. But for the connected contributor box on this talk page there's no change needed to the parameters I suppose? Nor anything wrong with my suggestion to pass this through WP:COIN before implementing? --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. The connected contributor you did looks OK to me. If Rick Alan Ross wants the edits and no one here wants to deal with addressing them then, as you suggest, the {{requested edit}} process at COIN would be a good way to go although with the connected contributor notice up I would not object to him going to one of the other boards based on the nature of the particular edit he wants. JbhTalk 12:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
I have posted at the WP:COIN board previously mentioned. No response. What other boards would you suggest?Rick Alan Ross (talk) 13:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
In this case you can use {{requested edit}}. To do this create a new section and place {{request edit}}. Below that write the precise edit you would like to make, like this;
  • Revove this text add this text. Using <s>text to remove</s> <u>text to add</u>
Under that place the reason for the change and point to the talk page discussion, if any, where it was discussed. JbhTalk 15:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
The issues I have raised at this BLP talk page are not an "Anti-cult Trade War," but rather basic Wikipedia issues such as self-published books not identified as self-published. And claims made without reliable sources cited.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Steven Hassan/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

*1 image, 37 citations. Ongoing informal mediation. Smee 07:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

Last edited at 07:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 15:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Requested edit regarding self-published books

Change first sentence of lead --Steven Alan Hassan (born 1954) is an American licensed mental health counselor who has written on the subject of cults, including three books.

Change to -- Steven Alan Hassan (born 1954) is an American licensed mental health counselor who has written on the subject of cults, including three self-published books.

Later in the bio there is a sentence that states, In his third book, Freedom of Mind: Helping Loved Ones Leave Controlling People, Cults, and Beliefs (2012), Hassan says his approach has evolved over the last 13 years and offers a more extensive bibliography.

Change to -- In his self-published book, Freedom of Mind: Helping Loved Ones Leave Controlling People, Cults, and Beliefs (2012), Hassan says his approach has evolved over the last 13 years and offers a more extensive bibliography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick Alan Ross (talk • contribs) 14:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Hassan's books titled "Freedom of Mind" [[49]] and his "25th Anniversary Combating Cult Mind Control" [[50]] are self-published through his Freedom of Mind Press. His third book Releasing the Bonds is published by Aitan Publishing Company, which appears to be a vanity press [[51]]. Only the original version of "Combating Mind Cotnrol" was not self-published.[[52]].Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, should self-published books appropriately be listed at the BLP under Books?Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Noted that books were published by his Freedom of Mind Press. These sources are also already tagged self-published in the references section. JbhTalk 17:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
  • ☒N Stale: the issue has been discussed, no clear consensus was reached, and the discussion appears stale by now. Feel free to reopen the request on the talk page if needed. Sam Sailor Talk! 09:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Claim without reliable source

Under Background the bio states -- He spent over two years recruiting and indoctrinating new members, as well as fundraising and campaigning, and became Assistant Director of the Unification Church at its National Headquarters.

Change to -- He spent over two years recruiting and indoctrinating new members, fundraising and campaigning for the Unification Church before leaving the religious organization.

There is no independent reliable source to support Steve Hassan's claim regarding his position in the Unification Church. This claim is exclusively referenced to Hassan's self-published bio. The Unification Church has explicitly denied this claim [53][54]. Given it's self-serving nature, lack of third party support and denial by the church itself, this claim should be removed.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree.  Done JbhTalk 17:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Closing. This request was answered with an edit. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 23:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Steven Hassan. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Criticism of Steve Hassan's intervention approach

Steve Hassan's intervention approach has been criticized in a prominent book published by W. W. Norton & Company, New York, edited by Michael Langone, a psychologist and the Executive Director of the International Cultic Studies Association. The book titled "Recovery from Cults" (Second Edition New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1996 pp.174-175) states, "Calling his approach 'strategic intervention therapy,' Hassan stresses that, although he too tries to communicate a body of information to cultists and to help them think independently, he also does formal counseling. As with many humanistic counseling approaches, Hassan's runs the risk of imposing clarity, however subtly, on the framework's foundational ambiguity and thereby manipulating the client." [55] This criticism should be included to provide balance at the bio.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 13:58, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

The source cited above is a peer review edited by a psychologist who specializes in the issue of cults and counseling former cult members and is featured within a book distributed by a highly respected publisher. Why isn't this critique included for meaningful balance within the bio? Rick Alan Ross (talk) 12:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

The quotation from the book has been here for months and has not been included in the bio. Why is that?Rick Alan Ross (talk) 19:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Steve Hassan's licensing board (Redacted)

(Redacted) Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

This would fall under WP:BLPCRIME which basicly says that we do not report unproven allegations under most circumstances. This would also fall under controversial claims against a living person which are unsourced or poorly sourced, something which is not allowed. I have redacted both links above since they are copies of primary sources hosted on your own web site. Please do not attempt to re-insert the material or claim unless you have high quality, independent, reliably source which considers these events publishable and noteworthy.

Someone else has already posted a new discretionary sanctions notice on your talk page since the last one was stale (over a year old). Please re-read Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons and refrain from posting contravercial material about individuals with whom you have a conflict of interest. Thank you. Jbh Talk 17:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I have read the guidelines/rules that you have cited. My entry was proven and not controversial. I simply summarized the court record, which is based upon PDF court documents linked online. Redacting my entry doesn't change important and relevant historical facts, which are not included within this bio.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 19:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Primary sources are completely unacceptable, per policy, for contravercial assertions like this - more so when you have a COI, even more so when the primary sources are hosted on your own web site. If the issue is biographically important an independent reliable source will comment on it and then can be cited. Please do not push this unless you have third party sourcing.

'Heads up' to Bishonen, who has discussed BLP discretionary sanctions with you previously. Jbh Talk 20:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Why isn't criticism of Steve Hassan's methodology from a published book not included in is bio? The quoted critique and supporting reliable source has been sitting on this Talk page for months. It fits well within Wikipedia guidelines. W.W. Northon is a well recognized publisher and the quote is a peer review edited by a psychologist known for his work concerning cultic studies.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:55, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Likely because none of the 50 people who have this page on their watch list [56] are interested in adding it. Possibly because they do not feel comfortable proxying for an individual with a blatant conflict of interest who seems primarily interested in inserting negative information into the biography of a colleague/rival. I know that is my reason. Jbh Talk 19:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
So I have, though in a very different context. Thank you, Jbhunley. I think I'd better take this to Rick Alan Ross's user talkpage. Bishonen | talk 21:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC).
The same Wikipedia standards should be applied to all BLPs. For some reason this BLP is an exception.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 15:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Lack of balance

This bio has no balance. There is no criticism. And criticism has been removed. For example, references to Steve Hassan's work as a cult deprogrammer who participated in involuntary deprogramming has been removed. Peer reviewed criticism within the book "Recovery from Cults" published by W. W. Norton & Company properly noted and sourced on this Talk page has been ignored. And a very large portion of this BLP (i.e. Career) is single sourced to self-published material by the subject. Wikipedia:Verifiability #Self-published sources Rick Alan Ross (talk) 13:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Why are Wikipedia standards regarding BLP being selectively ignored at this BLP? Don't the same Wikipedia rules and guidelines apply to all BLPs? Or are some BLPs treated differently by some editors than others?Rick Alan Ross (talk) 13:42, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

See WP:Verifiability #Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves:

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

  1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
  2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
  3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
  4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
  5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.
The self-published sources used in the article don't seem to me to be unduly self-serving, nor making claims about third parties, nor about unrelated events. Surely you are not suggesting that there is a reasonable doubt about their authenticity?
That leaves the degree to which the content is based on those sources, and I believe you have a point there. The normal solution is to propose further sources and extended content to re-balance the article.
I see you have attempted without success to introduce material from the book "Recovery from Cults" (ISBN 978-0393313215). Perhaps if you were to suggest text that summarises the 23 mentions of Hassan in the book, you might be met with more enthusiasm. You might try something along the lines of:
  • Michael D. Langone considers Hassan as "the most prominent exit counsellor with whose approach we disagree in some ways". Langone believes that Hassan's techniques may, by clarifing the cult's framework, inadvertently manipulate the subject.
I'm sure you can write more knowledgeably than I on the topic, but please try to summarise Langone neutrally – you mustn't cherry-pick a few words simply because they reinforce your own view of Hassan. --RexxS (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I cannot edit this BLP. Only offer suggestions and point out issues here at the Talk page. Under Career Hassan says he "attended a seminar on hypnosis with Richard Bandler, which was based on the work that he and transformational grammarian John Grinder had done in developing Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP)." Hassan then claims "that this seminar gave him 'a handle on techniques of mind control, and how to combat them.'" Hassan then claims he "spent 'nearly two years studying NLP with everyone involved in its formulation and presentation.'" And that he had "an apprenticeship with Grinder." This narrative has no sources cited other than the self-published writings of Hassan and they are self-serving. It seems to me that the critique by Langone might read something like -- Steve Hassan is mentioned prominently within the book Recovery from Cults concerning his cult intervention work, but there is some criticism concerning his approach. Psychologist Michael Langone writes, "Hassan stresses that, although he too tries to communicate a body of information to cultists and to help them think independently, he also does formal counseling. As with many humanistic counseling approaches, Hassan's runs the risk of imposing clarity, however subtly, on the framework's foundational ambiguity and thereby manipulating the client." This seems to provide proper context. It is a valid criticism from someone well recognized within the field of cultic studies. Langone is the executive director of the International Cultic Studies Association, which is largely composed of academics. And the book is published by a well known and reliable publishing house.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 19:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
@Rick Alan Ross: I know you cannot edit this BLP. But you'll find that suggesting exact text with the source(s) to support it is far more likely to attract other editors willing to make an edit. My only problem with the text you suggest is that I strongly dislike over-long quotes, particularly when they are as opaque as that one (for example, what is "the framework's foundational ambiguity"?). Assuming that you have the source book to hand, it would be far better to re-read the passage in question and summarise it in your own words, bearing in mind that we are writing for a general audience. Do you think you could do that? --RexxS (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
OK. How is this? "Psychologist and cultic studies researcher Michael Langone has questioned Hassan's "humanistic counseling approach." Langone notes that Hassan's intervention method "runs the risk imposing clarity, however subtly" and "thereby manipulating the client." [57] Rick Alan Ross (talk) 12:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Looks very reasonable to me. It actually should be enough to wikilink Michael Langone, rather than giving him an introduction, as he has an article and anyone interested in his background can simply read it. Also I'd prefer "Langone suggests" to "Langone notes", as he seems to be proffering his own expert opinion, rather than stating a proven fact. Could you live with:
  • Michael Langone has questioned Hassan's "humanistic counseling approach." Langone suggests that Hassan's intervention method "runs the risk imposing clarity, however subtly" and "thereby manipulating the client."[6]

References

  1. ^ Church Times (UK) 23rd November, 1990 p. 13]
  2. ^ Church Times (UK) 23rd November, 1990 p. 13]
  3. ^ Church Times (UK) 23rd November, 1990 p. 13]
  4. ^ Louis Jolyon West, M.D. American Journal of Psychiatry. 147:7 July 1990.
  5. ^ Recovery from Cults, Michael Langone (ed), 1993, New York: W.W. Norton and Company, ISBN 0-393-70164-6, p. 173-177
  6. ^ Langone, Michael D, ed. (1995). Recovery from cults : help for victims of psychological and spiritual abuse (Norton paperback ed.). New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 9780393313215.
If so, where would you suggest it be inserted into the article text? Perhaps as the penultimate paragraph of the Career section? --RexxS (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes. The quote you suggest is concise and well referenced. Perhaps best placed as the next to the last paragraph before Boston bombers in the Career section.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 15:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
@Rick Alan Ross: I've made the edit, although I can't guarantee it will stick – I'm not sufficiently familiar with the literature on this topic to be sure it is WP:DUE, but no doubt others will chime in if they feel that is the case. I know it's only one piece of criticism, but does it go some way to addressing your concerns over the lack of criticism in the article? --RexxS (talk) 19:46, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
The edit is well within the guidelines of WP:DUE. Though some may not want any critical balance within this BLP. What do you think of the single sourced claims supported by self-published sources that I previously cited?Rick Alan Ross (talk)
My opinion remains that the claims supported by self-published sources are each individually acceptable, but en masse rather overwhelm the other sources. My opinion is also unchanged that I believe the proper way to redress the balance is to add other reliable sources, not remove the sources already used. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 21:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I searched for other reliable sources to add regarding Steve Hassan's claim that he had "an apprenticeship with Grinder," but could find nothing. Hassan's claim is only supported by his self published book. Without any reliable sources to corroborate his claim it appears to be puffery [[58]]. IMO the sentence "During this period, Hassan moved to Santa Cruz, California for an apprenticeship with Grinder" should be removed. And also the corresponding claim that Hassan "left his association with Grinder." An additional example of unsupported puffery is the claim without other reliable sources that -- Hassan "spent 'nearly two years studying NLP with everyone involved in its formulation and presentation.'" IMO "studying with everyone involved in its formulation and presentation" is unsupported puffery too and should be removed. Rick Alan Ross (talk) 16:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
I believe you have a reasonable case for removing unsupported material. It's annoying that multiple direct quotations are only cited to a chapter of a book, where we would normally expect a page number. However, I'm not convinced that all of the text you criticise is unsupportable by a self-published source. For example, if Hassan claims to have moved to Santa Cruz to seek an apprenticeship with Grinder, then an SPS would be sufficient to report his intent. I agree that if there is a claim that Hassan became an apprentice of Grinder (as the current text implies), then stronger sourcing would be needed. Similarly, the "everyone involved" is unsupported hyperbole, but I wouldn't quibble with his book as a source for "spent nearly two years studying NLP". The best way to deal with these sort of issues when you can't find other sources is to add {{citation needed|reason=}} immediately after the text you dispute, so that you give other editors an opportunity to bring forward sources that you may not have found. If no better sources arise in a reasonable period – say a few weeks – then you're justified in removing the disputed text, although I'd recommend making a note on the talk page of what was removed or changed, so that the actions are as transparent as possible. As you're best advised not to edit the article yourself, I've added {{citation needed}} at the points you have shown concern with. Please feel free to ping me in a few week's time if no better sources have appeared and we can take it from there. --RexxS (talk) 17:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes. I will get back with you as you suggest.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

BTW--Here is a suggested version for the Career second paragraph:

Around 1980, Hassan began investigating methods of persuasion and approaches to therapy. He studied the thought reform theories of Robert Jay Lifton, and concluded that he was "able to see clearly that the Moon organization uses all eight" characteristics of thought reform as described by Lifton.[7] Hassan also studied the work of Richard Bandler and John Grinder who developed Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP), the works of Milton Erickson, Virginia Satir, and Gregory Bateson. Hassan's study of such sources helped him to develop his theories on mind control, counseling and intervention.[8]Rick Alan Ross (talk) 15:15, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@Rick Alan Ross: OK, Rick, it's been a good month since I added the "citation needed" tags, and nobody has come forward with any sourcing for much of the paragraph that we've been discussing; neither has anyone commented here, so I've gone ahead and used your suggested text above to replace the second paragraph. If it gets reverted, at least there's a discussion here that others can join in with. How does that look to you now? --RexxS (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for paying attention to this BLP. It reads better now. Just an account of Hassan's studies according to his writings without any unsubstantiated claims.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 11:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Michael Langone quote "citation needed"?

There is a quote from the book "Recovery from Cults" attributed to Michael Langone. Someone has inserted "citation needed." Citation as follows: M. D. Langone, ed., Reocovery from Cults 2nd ed. (New York: W. W. Norton 1996), 174-175.

Hope that is helpful.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Not really, as I don't have a copy and the Google books verion online does not give access to those pages. Also it is not a citation needed tag, it is a clarification needed request. The quote does not make sense as it stands. Please check whether it is word for word as printed in the book and there is not a word missing. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 03:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I have a copy of the book. The full quote reads exactly as follows -- "Calling his approach 'strategic intervention [sic] therapy,' Hassan (1988) stresses that, although he too tries to communicate a body of information to cultists and to help them think independently, he also does formal counseling. As with many humanistic counseling approaches, Hassan's runs the risk of imposing clarity, however subtly, on the framework's foundational ambiguity and thereby manipulating the client."Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, that confirms my suspicion that there was a word missing from the quote, I will correct it. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Slight revision in one sentence to reflect NPOV

The last sentence under "Career" states, "After the Boston Marathon bombing, Steven was interviewed by some reporters to explain his view of the bombers' mind state and how mind control was involved." IMO "Steven" should correctly be changed to Hassan and "how mind control was involved" should be changed to reflect NPOV. Sentence could read as follows -- After the Boston Marathon bombing Hassan was interviewed by some reporters to explain his view of the bombers and how he believed mind control was involved.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 12:53, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would have a problem with that, so I've gone ahead and made that change (although I prefer "state of mind" to "mind state" as being more idiomatic English). Does that work for you? --RexxS (talk) 16:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes. State of mind does read better.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 13:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Slight revision in wording of sentence

Bio states -- "Hassan continued to study hypnosis and is a member of the American Society for Clinical Hypnosis[9] and the International Society of Hypnosis.[10]"

IMO should be changed to read -- Hassan has studied hypnosis and is a member of the American Society for Clinical Hypnosis[9] and the International Society of Hypnosis.[10]

This seems to read better.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 12:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

As there is no previous reference to him studying hypnosis, I agree and will make the edit • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Recent changes in bio not within Wikipedia guidelines

There have been recent changes made in this bio without any discussion on this Talk page. The lead now reads more like a promotional press release rather than an encyclopedia entry.

Steven Alan Hassan (born 1954) is an American licensed mental health counselor who has written on the subject of mind control and how to help people who have been harmed by the experience. He has been helping people exit destructive cults since 1976. Hassan has appeared on the TV news programs 60 Minutes, Nightline, and Dateline, and is a published author and lecturer.

Should be reverted to -- Steven Alan Hassan (born 1954) is an American licensed mental health counselor[citation needed] who has written on the subject of cults and published three books through his Freedom of Mind Press.[citation needed]

Under Books a self-promotional claim has been added -- *Combatting Cult Mind Control: The #1 Best-selling Guide to Protection, Rescue, and Recovery from Destructive Cults,

This should be reverted to -- *Combatting Cult Mind Control: 25th Anniversary Volume, 2015. ISBN 978-0967068824.

Puffery and self-promotion should be cut to make this bio fit within Wikipedia guidelines.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 13:17, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Steven_Hassan/Archive_1&oldid=1188594623"