Talk:Steven Hassan/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Book Section seems self-promotional

− − The books section has 5 listings 3 of which are different editions of the same book. It seems like a bit of self-promotion.Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 19:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

−

• I grouped the republications of his first book together with its first edition. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

− −

Revert the lead

− − The lead should be reverted to reflect an informational encyclopedia introduction.

− − It now reads, "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."

− − This is self promotional and has no meaningful citations. Wikipedia should not be used for the purpose of self-promotion and puffery.

− − The beginning of this bio once read as follows:

− − "Steven Alan Hassan (born 1954) is an American licensed mental health counselor who has written on the subject of cults and published three books through his Freedom of Mind Press.[2]"

− − This is a simple factual encyclopedia introduction and the bio lead should be reverted.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 15:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

−

His best-selling book seems to have been published consecutively by three different publishers (Park Street Press, Aquarian, and Freedom of Mind Resource Center Incorporated, none of them exactly "Freedom of Mind Press") — "published three books through his Freedom of Mind Press" seems unnecessarily restrictive, and too approximative for an encyclopedia. Please present a more to-the-point text if you want to see it included. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

−

Hassan's first book "Combatting Cult Mind Control" (1988) was published by Park Street Press [1]. But the latest version of that book is self-published by Steve Hassan's Freedom of Mind Press [2]. His other two books "Releasing the Bonds" [3]and "Freedom of Mind" [4] also appear to be self-published. Aitan Publishing Company, which published "Releasing the Bonds" seems to be the publishing vehicle used by Hassan previous to his Freedom of Mind Press. Freedom of Mind Resource Center is controlled by Steve Hassan [5]. The opening lead might read, "Steven Alan Hassan (born 1954) is an American licensed mental health counselor who has written three books on the subject of cults. His last two books are self-published as is the latest version of his first book "Combatting Cult Mind Control" (2016), which was first published by Park Street Press in 1988." Someone changed the lead to read more like commercial promotion making claims rather than an encyclopedia stating objective facts. This needs to be changed to be within Wikipedia guidelines.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Self Promotional lead paragraph

The lead paragraph reads like an advertisement or endorsement not an encyclopedia entry. It should be reverted to earlier version.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Suggest that lead paragraph be changed to read as follows -- Steven Alan Hassan (born 1954) is an American mental health counselor who has written three books about cults and lectured on the subject. Hassan has appeared in the news and has done numerous interviews with media outlets.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 16:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Delete puffery

The lead paragraph includes self-promotional puffery.

Suggest edit to read af follows:

Steven Alan Hassan (born 1954) is an American mental health counselor who has written on the subject of cults. Hassan has appeared on the TV news programs and is a published author and lecturer.

No need to include TV shows by name and include puffery about his work within the lead paragraph, which is not supposed to be promotional, but rather an encyclopedia entry.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Citation Problem

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Steven_Hassan&diff=next&oldid=589578679 is the revision by Zambelo, who I have attempted to contact about this source/citation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zambelo#Steve_Hassan_Citation

Until this is resolved, I would like to suspend the line of information. Twillisjr (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

The statement appears to have been added by a blocked user in violation of their block (WP:EVASION):

• Special:Diff/593076763
• https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User%3ASfacets&type=block
• https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User%3AZambelo&type=block

Furthermore, this might not be a published source, which would be required for verifiability. I am removing the statement for now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Re Margaret Thaler Singer award

@Twillisjr: I have reverted your re-addition of un-sourced reinstatement of un-sourced material. Also you did not address the concerns with respect to WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT I brought up when I removed the material about him being presented with the Margaret Thaler Singer award Seemd presented as false balance, no source and I could not find RS, no indication, searching for the award in general just turns up WP and Singer

Would you please address those concerns here before reinstating the edit. Thank you. Jbh ^Talk 16:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Re your comment on your talk page [6]. The source you provided is of the people who give the award. It is OK for the fact it was given but I did not dispute this. My issue is that there is no indication that the award is significant in the field. Nor do you address why mentioning the award as a way of lessening criticism is appropriate. It creates a false balance. If independent reliable sources mention the two issues together then it would be OK. Since there are no independent reliable sources even reporting the fact of the award... Jbh ^Talk 19:20, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I added the award to the Infobox until this dispute can be figured out.Twillisjr (talk) 16:41, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

@Twillisjr:...and I removed it because you have not addressed the issues. Next step is a noticeboard. I suggest WP:NPOVN.

Let me try to explain; Not every award a person may receive in their life is biographically significant. A minimum requirement for for the presentation of the award be noted and commented upon in an independent third party reliable source. In this case a bare mention of an award which itself is not notable still does not necessarily make it a biographically significant event. If the award itself is considered notable by Wikipedia standards then it is OK to put it in the article. Also, if there is considerable note taken of the presentation, for instance if independent reliable sources were commenting on Hassan getting this award because they had criticized him earlier may make it a biographically significant event even if the award itself is not notable.

Please ping me when you reply in case the page gets buried in my watchlist. Jbh ^Talk 07:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC) (Messed up the ping template. Re-pinging @Twillisjr: Jbh ^Talk 07:38, 23 September 2019 (UTC))

Personal material removed

I have removed personal information which was not backed by a citation. RobP (talk) 01:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Photo op addition

Is the additional photo op appropriate for this bio? Does Hassan occupy a US State Department position and contribute to US foreign policy? No. This seems like a self-promotional effort to garner attention and imply authority. IMO it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia bio.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 12:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Some time ago I commented about the use of a photo that appears on this page as inappropriate. Why is the photo of Steve Hassan with a State Department official relevant? Are selfies like this, taken at random events, somehow relevant for a bio at Wikipedia? Is one standard photo not enough for this bio? Again, the inclusion of this photo seems to be a rather naked attempt to somehow imply authority when there is none evident concerning the US State Department. What part of Mr. Hassan's bio is about his professional work participation at the US State Department? Is this photo indicative of work he has done connected officially to the State Department? Otherwise what is the purpose of featuring it here with a caption including the name of a US State Department official?Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Local Boston Ted Talk "standing ovation"

Is it really within Wikipedia guidelines to list a local Ted Talk with a dedicated paragraph at the end of this bio and that Hassan supposedly received a "standing ovation." This seems like puffery and self-promotion. Is this a bio or what?Rick Alan Ross (talk) 12:35, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

TEDx is a local licensing arrangement with TED, but is not TED.[7] Is this really noteworthy? It's hardly a seminal or historic event, but rather a small local gathering licensed through TED, but not really an actual "TED Talk." There is a photo of the small gathering that attended MR. Hassan local TEDx talk. [8]Rick Alan Ross (talk) 19:52, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Diane Benscoter, a former cult member and deprogrammer, gave a seminal TED Talk (2009) that went viral online. This is noteworthy. It has more one million views. [9]Rick Alan Ross (talk) 20:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia entry or self promotion and just a bit of plagiarism?

Mr. Hassan apparently has his busy bees editing this entry again for self promotion and puffery.

The sections promoting his book "Bite Model" and "Cult of Trump" read like advertising and self-promotion, not an encyclopedia entry. These sections must be deleted if Wikipedia is interested in maintaining its rules and guidelines.

FYI-- The "Bite Model," which Hassan and his editing helpers compare to Lifton and Singer is unoriginal and derivative. It relies on other people's work that is not always correctly credited, which preceded Hassan in publication. For example, Flo Conway and Jim Siegelman wrote "Snapping" (Chapter 9 Information pages 95-113 and chapter 12 Varieties of Information Disease pages 147-186). which was published in 1978 and they originated the premise of "Information disease." That is, that cults specifically manipulate people by controlling information. Later Conway and Siegelman wrote the book "Holy Terror" (Chapter 9 Covert Operations pages 215-222). which was published in 1982. In this book the authors examined the use of emotional control by extreme religious groups.

It must also be noted that Hassan's supposed observations about sudden personality change and the development of a "cultic personality" through a transformation due to cult indoctrination is also largely lifted from "Snapping" (Chapter 8 Beyond Brainwashing pages 85-94). Hassan is not an original thinker and must not be given credit for other people's work.

Hassan has copied the works of others often without attribution. Objectively and historically his so-called "Bite Model" is nothing more than the relabeling of previously published original research that has masqueraded as somehow new. In reality specifically, the B in BITE is the previously published research of psychologist Margaret Singer and her study of cult behavior, the I in BITE is the work of Conway and Siegelman on information control, the T (thinking) in BITE duplicates Robert Jay Lifton seminal work on Thought Reform and the E in BITE is again simply copying the original work of Contway and Siegelman concerning emotional control.

Academic plagiarism is a serious matter and must be exposed whenever possible in the interest of ethics and integrity. Hassan is using Wikipedia to promote himself, mislead people and garner unearned attention and credit for ideas and concepts he did not originate and/or properly footnote in his writings.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 22:03, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Some people like to assume things and make unfounded accusations. I added the BITE section because I volunteer with Recovering from Religion where the BITE model is often discussed with our clients, so I thought it was an appropriate addition after looking into what was on the internet regarding the subject. I also added the Cult of Trump info as I saw this reported on in the media and thought it applicable. For the record, neither I nor RfR has anything to do with this articles' subject, Hassan. That being said, I know nothing about the other accusation, but KNOWING that the part concerning who edited the article was fabricated, I am dismissing it without further thought. RobP (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. But the entry does appear to promote Hassan and it gives him credit for ideas and concepts he did not originate. I suggest sharing the original research with your support group rather than Hassan's retread. The original material he copied is much better written, more concise and carefully footnoted. Understanding where ideas come from can be quite empowering. The book "Holy Terror" is an excellent resource for people recovering from authoritarian fundamentalist religious groups. Rick Alan Ross (talk) 23:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not do research. What is published in reliable sources is what we cite. Wikipedia editors are not investigative journalists looking into claims made by someone on a talk page. Accusing editors of bowing to the wants of the target is insulting. It makes me ill that people pop into a talk page acting like they know more about Wikipedia editing who have been editing for years. Show some respect. Sgerbic (talk) 00:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but Mr. Hassan's fans are editing the page in a way that violates Wikipedia rules. A Wikipedia entry must not read like an advertisement. I have provided very specific citations for the source material that Hassan used without proper attribution. Franky, Mr. Hassan is not a reliable source. And his associates or fans editing here is also a violation of the Wikipedia rules. Not NPOV.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 00:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Can I ask you to be more specific about what changes you are proposing to the article? Which specific statements do you think need to be changed, and what are you proposing in their place? And of course, please provide the references to support your suggestions. Then we can have more productive discussions about each suggestion.--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

It seems to me the added subsections are unnecessary. Simply listing the books Mr. Hassan has written is sufficient. I also suggest removing an unrelated second photo that doesn't seem to serve a useful purpose based upon the bio. But it does seem to imply authority and/or some sort of status working with the US State Department, which is not mentioned in the bio. The one photo originally used for this bio is sufficient.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 19:26, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

That being said and done, I do think that Rick Alan Ross possibly has a point that the new additions by Rp2006 are a bit bloaty (they are also mostly referenced to primary sources). It might be a good idea to give the article a once-over in that respect. Rp2006, can you take a look at your recent additions from that perspective? Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:45, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

The material I added in the two new sections, has 4 refs, only one of which is (I think) a primary source: Freedom of Mind. The others are a book by a different author, Oprah Mag and Vanity Fair. I am perplexed at what the issue is here, except after a bit more poking around it seems obvious that Rick Alan Ross has a personal axe to grind with the subject of this article. I am also now wondering if his statements made on this Talk page (for a BLP) need to be addressed by an admin. Regarding the "bloaty" description: I do like to use longer applicable quotations than some other editors like, so feel free to cut those down if you can do so without losing the main points. Other than that, I don't find anything I added overly long. RobP (talk)

(edit conflict)Well, interviews, especially things said by the subject in an interview, are of course WP:PRIMARY sources, so the material currently based on Oprah Mag, is to all extents and purposes primary source material (it is a mere quote of what Hassan said). Also the first source of the new BITE section, an article written by S. A. Hassan (which I assume to be Steven Alan Hassan, the subject of the article) has all appearance of being a primary source. Even Luna Lindsey's book (mentioned as "amazon.com" in the current article) is hardly anything else than a primary source: it is a practical application of Hassan's BITE, hardly an independent assessment of it. In sum, as I said, the newly added material is "mostly referenced to primary sources". Unless it can be sourced more appropriately, it should be entirely removed under WP:BLP and WP:NOR rules. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:08, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

See comments in section below. I am restoring original material to allow appropriate improvements. RobP (talk) 20:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

You didn't really do much other than revert an edit. Same use of primary sources with no balance. Promotional primary puffery. No acknowledgement of criticism of book "Cult of Trump" by Michael Langone, dismissing it as "over the top." [10] No mention of Lifton and others in Psychology Today critique. [11] No mention of the origin of Hassan's BITE model from previously published writings, which demonstrate that it is derivative and based upon others work he does not properly attribute.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 16:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Rob, Rick & others interested in editing the article: please propose prose & references you think fit for inclusion in the article here: only if there is consensus (which can be formed on this talk page) that it is balanced (no puffery, no "criticism only") should such prose go to the article. Note that I particularly object to a "Criticism" section title, per the guidance at WP:CRITICISM. As this is a WP:BLP we should err on the safe side, which means anything not having a strong consensus, or not genuinely balanced per WP:NPOV principles should be removed from the article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Nothing more needs to be added regarding the BITE model, which is already cited under Career. Something about the fourth book under Career might be appropriate. For example -- In his controversial fourth book "The Cult of Trump" Hassan describes Donald Trump as a "cult leader" and suggests that his supporters need "deprogramming." [12] [13] Michael Langone, Executive Director of the International Cultic Studies Associate said in response to this notion, "I can understand why people don’t like Trump, but to jump from not liking Trump to Trump as cult leader, I think, is a bit of a leap." [14]Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The sentence regarding the BITE model under Career needs historical clarification. It can be changed to --In his third book, Freedom of Mind: Helping Loved Ones Leave Controlling People, Cults, and Beliefs (2012), [12] Hassan presents Lifton's and Singer's models alongside his own BITE model, which is based upon the previous works of Singer, [15] Lifton [16] and authors Conway and Siegelman. [17] [18]Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I have a couple of questions. Is including mention of a single TEDx talk consistent with Wikiepedia guidelines? TEDx is a local licensing arrangement with TED, but is not TED.[19] Is this really noteworthy? It's hardly a seminal or historic event, but rather a small local gathering licensed through TED, but not really an actual "TED Talk." There is a photo of the small gathering that attended MR. Hassan local TEDx talk. [20] Diane Benscoter, a former cult member and deprogrammer, gave a seminal TED Talk (2009) that went viral online. This is certainly noteworthy. It has more one million views. [21]And is the inclusion of a second photo relevant and needed? What in the bio specifically does the photo of Hassan with someone at a random event represent? Seems like self-promotion to imply authority when none exists regarding work with the US State Department.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Criticism of the "Cult of Trump" by cult experts

Interestingly Steven Hassan's book the "Cult of Trump" has been criticized and/or contradicted by long-standing experts in cultic studies and coercive persuasion.

Robert Jay Lifton, who Hassan recognizes as an authority on thought reform does not exactly agree with his blunt assessment of Trump. Psychology Today reports, "For Lifton, Trump is not totalistic like the leader of Aum Shinrikyo; he is not consistently ideological like many political leaders. Instead, he is a self-absorbed purveyor of a powerful but misleading narrative." Lifton's view of Trump is far more nuanced and complex compared to Hassan. [22]

Hassan has worked closely with Michael Langone, a counseling psychologist and the director of the International Cultic Studies Association. However, Langone told a journalist in an interview, “I can understand why people don’t like Trump,” However, Langone concluded “But to jump from not liking Trump to Trump as cult leader, I think, is a bit of a leap.” [23]

These are two well-respected mental health professionals with long-standing histories as cult critics, but they don't see things quite the way Mr. Hassan does regarding his claim that Donald Trump is a "cult leader."Rick Alan Ross (talk) 23:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Before I respond to these deletions @LuckyLouie: could you please look at this conversation and the one right above and share your wisdom? Sgerbic (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

My quick take, by no means a thorough evaluation: the lengthy quotes from Hassan were a bit bloaty and put a lot of weight on a single source (Vanity Fair, if I recall). I would recommend building a section on Hassan's Trump Cult book from a wider variety of sources [24]. It's OK to describe Hassan's views in the text by observing WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV ("according to Hassan...", "Hassan wrote...", etc.). The same goes for describing the views of his detractors and supporters. FWIW, in my brief review, I did not see anything that would indicate Hassan's views are either universally accepted or deprecated. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@LuckyLouie:Thanks. I will reinsert the two sections I added, and which were recently deleted, so that others can make tweaks based upon these recommendations. I also added some material from the search results you linked. RobP (talk) 21:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Way too much text from the Vanity Fair interview. I would ask that you trim these excerpts in the interest of avoiding WP:UNDUE weight and possible copyright violations. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Gracias Louie - now we can have a much clearer discussion about the changes Sgerbic (talk) 21:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how there could be a copyright issue as long as the text is properly cited, nor how there could ever be an WP:UNDUE issue in a subject's own bio page quoting his own words, but as a compromise I have trimmed the VF quotes to what seems the smallest excerpts that maintains the primary points being made. Feel free to add/subtract as is reasonable in your opinion. RobP (talk) 23:13, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

MOS:QUOTATIONS - 03:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, I see that the only review of The Trump of Cult on the page is negative, which seems odd as a quick search just uncovered many positive ones including from simonandschuster and psychiatrictimes. I may address this when I get some time. It really seems like some editors have an agenda regarding Hassan. RobP (talk) 23:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Re using Simon & Shuster, see WP:INDEPENDENT. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes... they are the publisher! RobP (talk) 05:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Hassan's view of Trump as a cult leader is dismissed as "over the top" by Michael Langone of the International Cultic Studies Association. [25] Also Robert Jay Lifton made the distinction that Trump is no Shoko Asahara, Japnese cult leader. [26] Your entry here is promotional and not balanced. The BITE model is derived from the work of others and not an original concept. Anyone that reads the historical literature about destructive cults knows this. Information control was first discussed by Conway and Siegelman in their seminal book "Snapping" (1978). They also discuss personality change due to cult indoctrination. "Holy Terror" (1982) discusses emotional control by extreme religious groups. The chapters and page numbers are noted previously on this page. Behavior as a factor is reflected in the works of psychologist Margaret Singer and thinking by the works of psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton. Repackaging and renaming already established work is nothing new. If Hassan's BITE model is discussed this historical information must be attributed. The BITE model is not based upon original research or work. It's just relabeling and a commercial branding effort by Hassan. Rick Alan Ross (talk) 16:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@LuckyLouie: @Sgerbic: My additions have been again removed by editors with an agenda and using original research. Opinions? RobP (talk) 02:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Put a neutrally-worded request for opinions at WP:NPOVN. I see from the archives that this article has a history of disruptions and disputes, and Arbcom discretionary sanctions may apply. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

NPOVN seems at this point more convoluted than necessary, and an RfC before proper preliminary discussion is also undesirable. Please propose text you'd like to see inserted in the article here, on this talk page, with proper references, as I already mentioned above. Some editors participating in the discussions here have *never* proposed anything positive about the subject of this article for inclusion in mainspace, others have *never* proposed anything negative about the subject for inclusion. Neither would likely lead to WP:NPOV mainspace content. So, apart from my recommendation that all parties have a fresh and thorough look at the WP:NPOV policy page, I propose to use this talk page as a workshop where positive and negative elements can be assembled into a NPOV summary, which can be transferred to mainspace if everyone agrees the summary is neutral and backed by reliable sources. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

We also need to keep in mind that the subject of this article is Hussan, not his book. Criticisms of the book should be mentioned only briefly in this article, and not given undue weight. --Gronk Oz (talk) 12:08, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The same goes of course for lengthy descriptions or extended quotes about or from these books. Although, unless if and when such book would merit a separate article, some favorable description complemented by a summary of published criticism of these works would be well in order (if balanced, well referenced, etc). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The reference to a single Tedx lecture is inappropriate in a Wikipedia bio and lacks any historical significance. The second photo does not relate to anything in the bio regarding the US State Department and is unnecessary and pointless, other than as a promotional effort to imbue authority, which is inappropriate. The sentence inserted about the book "Cult of Trump" must reflect that the book is controversial and that its premise is not universally accepted by cult experts. For example, Michael Langone, Executive Director of the International Cultic Studies Association stated, "I can understand why people don’t like Trump, but to jump from not liking Trump to Trump as cult leader, I think, is a bit of a leap." [27]Rick Alan Ross (talk) 12:52, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

"In 1977 and 1978, Hassan was consulted by the Congressional Subcommittee Investigation into South Korean CIA activities in the United States on activities the Moon and the Unification Church."

No source that meets Wikipedia guidelines is cited to support this claim. Instead, Hassan's website bio is cited, which does not meet Wikipedia standards.

Hassan may have testified before a United States Government committee, but that doesn't make him a congressional consultant.

This is a blatant attempt to conflate Hassan's bio and mislead people into assuming that he had some sort of government recognition as a consultant, which he did not.

Likewise the photo of Hassan with a US State Department official seems to suggest some sort of authority, when in fact his bio contains nothing about working with the State Department. The photo appears to be little more than a selfie, taken at an event.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 19:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

A photo... "seems to suggest some sort of authority"? Seriously? I do not think I've encountered someone so clearly out to slam the subject of a Wiki bio article. RobP (talk) 19:20, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Re the Congressional Subcommittee Investigation. On this I agree that the provided citation is insufficient for such a claim to stand here. I removed it.RobP (talk) 19:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for making that correction.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 21:36, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

" At age 16, he complete a cross country bicycle trip with American Youth Hostel."

Is this really relevant and noteworthy?

I find no such text in the article! RobP (talk) 19:25, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

It apparently was deleted.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 21:48, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

It was there, and it was sourced. Does it matter? This is a biography... It was notable enough to me mentioned in the news about his life. I see a pattern of behavior on this article that seem to be violating policy... Wikipedia:Single-purpose account —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:54, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I see a pattern of puffery and promotional editing that is not fact based and properly list sources through citations according to Wikipedia policies. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to promote someone and certainly not to mislead its readers.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 23:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Hassan doesn't live in "Newton, New Jersey"

Steven Hassan is licensed in Massachusetts and of course lives and works in Newton, Massachusetts, not "Newton, New Jersey."

Hassan has never lived in New Jersey.

What kind of editing is this? An editor that cannot even get Hassan's age or location correct?

Pretty terrible editing by someone apparently not concerned with facts or willing to do meaningful research.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:49, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors are not supposed to "do (original) research" on the pages they edit. They are supposed to use established WP:RS as published about the topic. And sometimes people get it wrong. I actually fixed the birth year issue yesterday after looking into it. The reference was misinterpreted by whoever (you?) added the birth year originally. I also just fixed teh NJ issue. RobP (talk) 19:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

How could a professional licensed in Massachusetts live in New Jersey. Please just a little common sense. I can link numerous published articles to demonstrate this fact, but is that really necessary?Rick Alan Ross (talk) 21:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes it is necessary. :) Again, please WP:ASG —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 22:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

OK. Here are some sources that state Steven Hassan lives in Newton, Massachusetts. https://slate.com/human-interest/2021/06/steven-hassan-former-moonie-trumpism-cult-theory.html https://acton.wickedlocal.com/article/20150612/NEWS/150618274 https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/12/17/lifestyle/author-cult-expert-talks-fiji-diving-future-grand-plans/ https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/steve-hassan-releases-new-book-freedom-of-mind-helping-loved-ones-leave-controlling-people-cults-and-beliefs-162852126.html http://f3magazine.unicri.it/?p=1353 https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/therapists/steven-hassan-newton-ma/108149 Rick Alan Ross (talk) 22:53, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. It is interesting you are using some of the same sources you are asking us to ignore in other sections of this page. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 22:56, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

No. But you apparently are refusing to recognize the most obvious conclusion. Remember Occam's razor? [28]Rick Alan Ross (talk) 00:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Birth date wrong

Steven Hassan was not born in 1959.

He was reportedly 67 in a Slate article. See https://slate.com/human-interest/2021/06/steven-hassan-former-moonie-trumpism-cult-theory.html

"It took two and a half years for the spell to break, and for Hassan to leave the group for good. Now 67, he has built a career for himself on trying to understand, and atone for, his past."Rick Alan Ross (talk) 15:24, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I actually corrected this yesterday adding the appropriate WP template in the infobox!RobP (talk) 19:22, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

OK. Thank you for the correction.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 00:29, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

"Hassan graduated from Cambridge University"

Another false claim. Hassan did not graduate from the prestigious "Cambridge University" in England, which is now linked through his bio.

Hassan instead graduated from Cambridge College in Massachusetts. See https://www.cambridgecollege.edu/alumni-friends/stories/steven-hassan

Why would someone editing this page attempt to mislead Wikipedia readers?

Cambridge College is largely an online school, which Hassan completed by using his life experience as a deprogrammer for partial credit towards completion. He does not have an undergraduate degree as he never completed his studies to receive a degree from Queens College in New York. He dropped out when recruited by the Unification Church. See https://slate.com/human-interest/2021/06/steven-hassan-former-moonie-trumpism-cult-theory.html Rick Alan Ross (talk) 19:29, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

The reference does say College, so I corrected this claim. I do wonder why your assumption is always that intent is behid errors such as this. Was there nefarious intent behind the statement that he lived in NJ as well? More likely people fuck up. RobP (talk) 19:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Excuse me, but the recent editing does seem to go one way. And the link was to Cambridge University. Quite a difference between an online school like Cambridge College and the prestigious Cambridge University in England. Thank you for the correction.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 21:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Simple mistakes are possible, and you are violating WP policy by not assuming good faith. :) Please keep this a healthy environment. When you say the editing is going one way, could please elaborate? Is there some information you feel should be in this article that is missing? The recent editing I did was to go through an fix all the "citation needed" tags, and I expanded a bit based on some more information I found in those articles. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes mistakes are possible. But why would those mistakes consistently be to the benefit of the subject of the bio? Seems odd. It appears people who are fans of Steven Hassan and/or perhaps somehow associated with him may be editing here. This has occurred before with other bios on Wikipedia, i.e. when editors with a bias particular bias or special interest were exposed.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 23:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

How do the mistakes benefit the subject? I have been editing on wikipedia for nearly 20 years... I never edited this article until a week ago. What are you talking about? It is my edits you are criticizing. You realize that right? —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Great. Glad to know this. Hopefully this can be discussed and worked out. There is false and/or misleading information in this bio. It's in the best interest of Wikipedia to correct this. So far all the mistakes I have found magnify Steven Hassan and embellish his accomplishments with misleading information. For example claims of him being a high ranking leader in the Unification Church who personally had face to face meetings with Rev. Moon, that he is an instructor at both Harvard Law School and Harvard Medical School, which he is not, and that he is "one of the world's foremost experts on mind control." No consensus regarding that claim proven through multiple citations. The errors repeatedly seem to enhance his bio and promote him. Of course that's not the purpose of a Wikipedia bio.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 23:29, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Please stop being dishonest. This article does not say that "hassan is the foremost expert..." it says news media said it about him, which is true. It does not say he was "a high rankng member of the unification church" it says he claimed to be. Those are totally different things than what you are saying, and as it is written it is supported by appropriate references. If those things are not true, and you have sources saying they are not true (if slate did not actually say that, and Hassan did not actually claim that), I would be glad to include the alternate point of view on those items. You are making a WP:STRAWMAN argument, you are failing to assume good faith arguing against something the article does not actually say, in an effort to get us to remove valid content. Until you are willing to discuss this in a honest way, I will be stepping away. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

No. But you seem intent upon including unsubstantiated claims a quote from a single publication that you cannot support through any consensus of media citations. "He has been described by some news media as "one of the world's foremost experts on mind control, cults and similar destructive organizations." Turns out that some media is only one source, which is Salon. Why do you want to edit this bio in a way that promotes the subject and his claims? Do you see that as your role here as an editor?Rick Alan Ross (talk) 12:21, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Request to reconsider reinstating the sections I added in March

@Charles Edward: I worked quite a bit on this article in March, and much of the material I added was removed. I've lost track of why. Perhaps it was w/o just cause? I redid the career section, adding info on the BITE model and Cult of Trump book... [See here]. As active work is once again ongoing here, I'd appreciate another opinion. RobP (talk) 21:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

There is alot of info out there on the cult of Trump book that is noteworthy for inclusion. I have not undertaken to add it because I am not able to commit the time to do the research of sources. That is a pretty charged topic, so needs done carefully and well referenced. I notice looking through the article history that this article used to be about five times longer. I have not looked through the history to see if those content removals were warranted or just what happened. From what I can tell, there is no real good comprehensive source on Hassan out there, everything has to be pieced together from alot of different news sources. That makes writing a comprehensive biography difficult. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 22:33, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

There certainly has been criticism of Hassan and blowback about his book, which is quite controversial. Cult experts like clinical psychologist Michael Langone, Executive Director of the International Cultic Studies Association and author and (he really was an instructor at Harvard University) psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton disagree with Hassan. This was all entered on this talk page previously with the proper citations. Any discussion of Hassan's book must note that his theories about Trump are controversial and have been disputed by long-standing respected cult experts. That is, if this bio is historically factual and represents a NPOV.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 23:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

"one of the world's foremost experts on mind control, cults and similar destructive organizations."[

Using a single citation from Salon as a premise for this blurb being included in the lead paragraph reeks of self-promotion.

How is this appropriate for a Wikipedia bio?

Is Wikipedia supposed to be used this way like an infomercial?

BTW--Hassan once attempted to be recognized in a court of law as an expert witness on "mind control." Under oath he admitted that no such scientifically proven expertise exists. This was in 1996 in a child custody case Kendall v. Kendall. "The judge specifically stated that she did not rely on Dr. [Note: Hassan had no doctorate in 1996] Hassan's testimony in making her ruling. See https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ma-supreme-judicial-court/1089362.html

It seems Hassan never again attempted to be qualified in a court of law as an expert witness subsequent to Kendall v. Kendall. Though he may have pretended to be an expert witness as a volunteer for a Harvard Law School program.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 19:01, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Your claims are WP:OR using non WP:RS material. The statement seems valid based on the citation. RobP (talk) 19:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

One quote cited from a single publication does not make someone "one of the world's foremost experts," but that seems to be the editor's intent, i.e. to imbue Hassan with that status. Can you offer more quotes and citations other than just one Salon article to support this claim? A court proceeding is an objective place to weigh facts. The court record linked is relevant and meaningful regarding the perceived weight of Hassan's expertise as seen by a judge, whose job is to weight the facts without bias.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 21:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

The article does not say he actually is "one of the world's foremost experts on mind control, cults and similar destructive organizations."... It says he has been called that... Which is true. It is clearly the most notable thing about him, and there are plenty of other sources that say similiar. Please do not question motives... WP:AGF —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:20, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Well the recent editing does seem to fit a pattern. And no other citations making the same claim are cited. Can you please include other citations specifically with links that make this same statement to demonstrate your point? If not, please remove the quote.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 21:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

The existing statement meets policy requirements. Can you please suggest alternate wording, or provide a source that says what is currently there is incorrect? Just google the news: [29], He is called a cult expert by about 20 news sources just in the first couple pages of results. Do you have a source that actually disputes this claim? —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 22:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

The point--Is he widely recognized as "One of the world's foremost experts on mind control"? No. There is one citation from Salon. Correct and change to -- Hassan is a notable cult critic who is quoted often by the media as an expert. This is factually correct, NPOV and not promotional.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 23:05, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

So we have a source saying he is "One of the world's foremost experts on mind control"... and zero saying he is not. Am I counting those correctly? And you would like us to remove that statement based on your own expert knowledge? Right? —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:24, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Why that blurb? There are others questioning Steven Hassan's work. But I guess you could correctly state, One media outlet, Salon, proclaimed Hassan is "one of the world's foremost experts on mind control." You should note that there is only one and specifically identify the media source. You ask me to prove a negative. But you include a blurb that can only be attributed to a single source. No consensus of citations offered. If you genuinely don't want to mislead people admit that you have only one media outlet making this claim. Don't conflate by saying "some news media" when it's just Salon. Also, this type of blurb is what authors put on a book jacket for self-promotion and it really is inappropriate at a Wikipedia bio. It's puffery.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 23:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Harvard? Only volunteer -- not paid as a teacher or instructor

Steven Hassan has never been employed or paid by Harvard as an instructor or teacher. He has conflated volunteer appearances as a drop in guest speaker for a class at a Harvard affiliated hospital, not Harvard, to claim that somehow he is an "instructor" or "teacher" at Harvard Medical School. He has never had that status. Hassan also conflates some sort of volunteer stint he once did at a program sponsored by Harvard Law School that included "expert witnesses" testimony as somehow being a "teacher" at Harvard Law School.

These claims concerning "teaching" at Harvard are grossly misleading and ultimately false and have no basis in fact.

Why does Wikipedia allow Hassan's supporters edit and post such unsubstantiated claims here?

Hassan has never been paid by Harvard to do anything. Not as a lecturer, teacher and/or instructor.

He has only Volunteered to give a free speeches to a class (not at Harvard) and/or pretended to be an expert witness or whatever for an ancillary Harvard Law School program. This does not qualify as a as a professionally recognized teaching position, not even part time or otherwise, at Harvard. Making such claims is inherently misleading and dishonest.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@Rick Alan Ross: "Why does Wikipedia allow Hassan's supporters edit and post such unsubstantiated claims here?" Do they? Where is the proof of that claim? What I wonder is why does Wikipedia allow a person with an obvious professional grudge against the subject of an article (you - if that's not clear) to edit it. (I have looked at Talk on your own article as well as other pages covering you ongoing, seemingly obsessive dispute.) Regarding your latest claim, please point out the SPECIFIC statement in this article that is false, and not backed by an accompanying valid citation, and I myself will remove or correct it. RobP (talk) 18:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

The issue is does Steven Hassan have any official status as an "instructor" or "educator" at Harvard University? Either at the Medical School or at Harvard Law School. The only citation to support this claim is linked to an article that was written by Steven Hassan, which is not otherwise supported by Harvard University. Hassan may have mislead people about this, but Harvard has not. This citation does not meet Wikipedia standards. See https://www.cambridgecollege.edu/alumni-friends/stories/steven-hassan Hassan has made these claims repeatedly and encouraged others to repeat them. Perhaps this has caused some people to believe Hassan has some sort of official status at Harvard. However, he has none. FYI -- the "Longwood Psychiatry Residency Training Program" may have an "affiliated" connection to Harvard, but it is not Harvard Medical School. Longwood is where Hassan appeared as a volunteer guest speaker for a class, apparently invited by a teacher at Longwood. Hassan spoke at Longwood not Harvard Medical School and only as a volunteer speaker, not as an instructor, with any official status at Harvard. Likewise, he has no official status at Harvard Law School as an "instructor" where he participated as a volunteer at a "workshop." None of this is noteworthy, but it is misleading. This is a very serious breach. That is, claiming to have instructor status at Harvard University when all you have done is act as a volunteer to help at a single workshop and spoken to a classroom as a volunteer, a class that is not at Harvard Medical School, but rather only at a hospital affiliated with the school. Wikipedia must not be involved in promoting such distortions and misrepresentations. Rick Alan Ross (talk) 20:50, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any sources to substantiate what you are saying here? The given source for this statement does not seem to be written by Hassan, its wrote by Cambridge college. Can you please give a source for your assetion? I dont think the article says he is a paid Harvard teachers or instructor does it? Do you have sources that says he is not paid instructor? —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Hassan is not mentioned anywhere at Harvard's website as an instructor or anything. He did some volunteer work. This may not be acceptable, but I contacted Harvard officials directly to research this for a report published at CultNews.com. See https://hls.harvard.edu/academics/curriculum/catalog/default.aspx?o=72869 Hassan is not mentioned. See also https://www.facebook.com/FOMInc/photos/a.946404765373193/2943931848953798/?type=3&eid=ARA43J23sprJ9AxahILF40grWGFPVukR9v_3A8xZBwvOCGrahMTjnpAr3g7845dsqYwGlx0ZJH7nR786&__xts__[0]=68.ARBWAp6L7vTYPIPSaW5Kgcn_U4svl6z3NgNoSMr9GKdBGJeksSmnZrLdrq-kYlrCMR2ICXk86n7Nj-MzohGW_0umkJ4CT0gdQetmrax11L8rqUplguW_ULPDAYXLv1JxX01Fq5Hn0hZ4SniyVehNJZNnVj_-NpwXUvgTXTMOLQXVx0exqzxmE1Si58qsT4Kss_1VQums8NndqrJvPXzZyyTLwwXSx7uaSFj3GhifMbTpNTP3jlYUA2Hmft5k7xO-QhyCZvrfjQ7DgUjACokk1q114KqSIornoKg0EjOeoXvBk-VRW-r2AuzXTdSnelxOMj2y2qL_tK-cPHArC2SvX35D5A It's not clear if he was a visitor or some sort of volunteer, but he had and has no official status at Harvard as an instructor of anything. See https://link.harvard.edu/ This is the faculty locator and he is not listed anywhere. Longwood Hospital, where Hassan spoke to a class, is one of five hespitals in the Boston area including "Boston Children’s Hospital, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and Joslin Diabetes Center — all share an affiliation with Harvard Medical School." But they are not part of Harvard Medical School. See https://www.statnews.com/2015/12/21/longwood-medical-area/ Hassan is attempting to conflate his CV by associating himself falsely with Harvard as an "instructor." Wikipedia is promoting this misleading and/or false information through the bio.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 22:41, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

A lack of sources and original research are not valid sources. Again you are saying Hassan is saying this, but the source is Cambridge College - so Cambridge College is saying this. I don't think the article is conflating or misleading. It is repeating what the source says, that he is an instructor at Harvard. If I understand what you are saying, your only dispute is that he is not employed by Harvard directly, but is a third party instructor, or volunteer instructor. Is that right? If that is true, than we could adjust the article to include that fact if we can find a source for it. Here is a direct quote from the source:

He has served as an educator and speaker for individuals and families; mental health and legal professionals; corporations; government agencies concerned with undue influence, violent extremism and human trafficking; and graduate students and professionals including at the Harvard Longwood Psychiatry Residency Training Program and The Program in Psychiatry and the Law, both affiliated with the Harvard Medical School. He serves as an instructor for the Harvard Law School Trial Advocacy Workshop. [30]

You have not given a good reason to discredit this source, and you have not provided a source to establish your assertions. I made a search myself, and could not find anything either. Perhaps we could reword it to say "His Cambridge College bio says...." I don't really see the existing wording as problematic though. Maybe you could suggest a way to word it? —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

No. But your are apparently refusing to recognize the facts. You offer one citation. Your citation is linked to a Cambridge College website. The page content was submitted by Hassan to promote his work and the paragraph you rely upon is otherwise unattributed. This doesn't even begin to meet Wikipedia standards to support that "He is an instructor and educator at Harvard Medical School's Psychiatry Residency Training Program and The Program in Psychiatry and the Law, and at the Harvard Law School's Trial Advocy Program." He was in fact a volunteer speaker and he spoke at Longwood Hospital not Harvard Medical School. You have not supported your edit with a meaningful citation.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC) [User:Rick Alan Ross|Rick Alan Ross]] (talk) 00:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

You have five sections on this page all based on the premise that this source is unreliable. In none of them have you given evidence to establish that Cambridge College's bio of Steve Hassan is unreliable. You are not wanting to deal with the root issue. The issue not whether you are right or wrong about these things, the issue is whether or not the source is reliable. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:03, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

No. The blurb on the Cambridge College website is not reliable. You have incorporated an outrageous claim within the bio and all you have to support that claim is a singly website blurb. And on that basis you are allowing the ridiculous claim that Hassan is or was an instructor at one of the most prestigious universities in the world. His outrageous claim is that he is both an instructor at Harvard Medical School and Harvard Law School. There is nothing on the Harvard website or anywhere credible to support this claim. That's the point. This false claim does not belong in his bio. Volunteer speaking for a class at an affiliated hospital (not Harvard Medical School) and attending and participating in a workshop sponsored by Harvard Law School don't make Hassan an instructor at Harvard. He is conflating or you could simply say knowingly lying. Wikipedia guidelines don't allow this. You really need to delete all of it. Harvard spoke on the record for the report at CultNews and Hassan knows it. Why support such nonsense?Rick Alan Ross (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

So we are at an impasse. I guess we will see if some other editors will weigh in and we can come to a consensus. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 22:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes. It will be interesting to see if Wikipedia editors care about the accuracy of this bio. Any meaningful investigation will disprove the inappropriate and false claims included. There are many good and devoted editors at Wikipedia. I found that out when they exposed the cult members editing my bio and banned them. Maybe no one really cares about this bio other than you and some Hassan fans.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 23:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

BITE model promotional paragraph

This Wikipedia entry is again becoming an infomercial site for Steven Hassan. The paragraph concerning the BITE model and link to what appears to be his essentially self published paper promotes his theories, which are not widely accepted on any scientific basis. Is a Wikipedia entry supposed to be used by individuals to promote their personal theories in this way?Rick Alan Ross (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Can you please explain why you beleive that? I find it to be worded in a neutral way. Please be so kind as to suggest alternate wording. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:58, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

This is a long rambling paragraph not properly referenced that essentially reads like a promotional for Hassan's material, rather than a bio. For the purpose of a Wikipedia bio it can more correctly read:

"Hassan presents what he calls the "BITE Model of Authoritarian Control" to evaluate cult and cult-like groups, which he published within his book "Freedom of Mind" (2021). This model is based largely upon the earlier work of Margaret Singer who studied cult behavior culminating in her book "Cults in Our Midst," Flo Conway and Jim Siegelman who first wrote about what they called "Information Disease in their book "Snapping", Robert Jay Lifton who wrote about "thought reform" in his book "Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism" and Conway and Siegelman's research regarding "emotional control" published in their book "Holy Terror."

Hassan's BITE model is derivative and not original. He simply created an acronym combining the work of others. B for behavi0r is Singer (many published papers and studies culminating in her book "Cults in Our Midst" 1995), [31] I for information is Conway and Siegelman ("Snapping" 1978),[32] T for thinking is Robert Jay Lifton ("Thought Reform and Psychology of Totalism" 1961)[33] and E for emotion is Conway and Siegelman writing about emotional control within "Holy Terror" (1982).[34]

If you are going to include a paragraph about Hassan's "BITE Model" give proper credit to the researchers/authors who provided the basis for his model through their work. His model isn't an original creation based upon his own ideas, bur rather a composite derived from the ideas and research of others.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

So let me bring the paragraph over here and lets try to dissect it. Feel free to reply inline:

Sentence 1: Hassan has spent several years developing a model to evaluate cult and cult-like groups.

This seems like a straight forward honest statement supported by the references. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Sentence 2: In his third book, Freedom of Mind: Helping Loved Ones Leave Controlling People, Cults, and Beliefs (2012), Hassan presents Lifton's and Singer's models alongside his own BITE model.

This seems like an honest description of the book, and seems to be supported by the given citation. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Sentence 3: In 2021 Hassan received his doctorate from Fielding Graduate University and published his dissertation in January 2021.

This seems factual based on the given sources. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Sentence 4: His dissertation focused on the Bite Model and was titled, "The BITE Model of Authoritarian Control: Undue Influence, Thought Reform, Brainwashing, Mind Control, Trafficking and the Law".

This seems a fair factual description. The source says "For his dissertation, he surveyed active and former members of cults (as well as nonmembers) about whether they identified with the criteria outlined in his BITE model" —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Sentence 5: In it, Hassan explains a model he developed in an effort to measure degrees of exploitative control or undue influence.

It seems like you are saying his model is based on earlier work. That is fine. If you can provide a source for that, lets include that here. Otherwise, this is fine and supported by the source. The source says "Hassan hopes to establish his BITE model as a way of evaluating undue influence in the legal system." —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Sentence 6: He designed the model to evaluate the areas of behavior, information, thought and emotional controls.

This again seems to be supported by the source. How else would you describe it? The source says "In Combating Cult Mind Control, Hassan describes what he calls his “BITE model,” an acronym for the four components of “mind control”: behavior, information, thought, and emotional control." —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Sentence 7: Describing the model, Hassan told reporters that "I talk about cults being on the continuum, from OK cults that are benign and where you have informed consent, to the unhealthy, destructive, authoritarian types.

That is a direct quote describing the model, matches the source. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Notes: it seems like this bite model is culmination of his life's work. So it seems to be quiet notable to the subject. There is nothing said here that is promotional. I don't even understand your basis for making that assertion? Every sentence there is factual. You just don't like what it says. You are again misrepresenting the article as written and making a strawman argument. If you have an academic review of his dissertation or Bite model, or some other reliably published review, we coudl include that information in the article. Do you have a source like that you could share with us? Or is you opinion just based on your own expert knowledge? This article is not offering any judgement on the validity or value of his bite model. It is simply describing the facts surrounding it, why he made it, his goal, and what he claims it is about. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

It's too long and there is no attribution regarding the origin of the work that forms the basis for his BITE model, which is actually simply copied from the work of others and then branded with a new label. Keep in mind that Singer, Lifton, Conway and Siegelman did the real research and writing long before Hassan and that this represents their life's work. You need to avoid unsupported claims, without proper attributions. Reads like Hassan wrote it to promote himself and sell his theories. Way overblown.

Again, why not make it simple, factual and properly contextualized historically with attributions, instead of misleading the reader?

How about this? -- Hassan presents what he calls the "BITE Model of Authoritarian Control" to evaluate cult and cult-like groups, which he published within his book "Freedom of Mind" (2021). This model is based largely upon the earlier work of Margaret Singer who studied cult behavior culminating in her book "Cults in Our Midst," Flo Conway and Jim Siegelman who first wrote about what they called "Information Disease in their book "Snapping", Robert Jay Lifton who wrote about "thought reform" in his book "Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism" and Conway and Siegelman's research regarding "emotional control" published in their book "Holy Terror." The same BITE model was also the focus of Hassan's doctoral dissertation.

This is still probably a bit long, but much more concise and accurate.

And of course you can use the footnotes I provided for proper support and attribution. This is the right way to do it. It's historically accurate. No puffery just the facts.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 22:30, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. I will drop here and see if any other editors want to weigh in and bring a consensus. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 22:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes we disagree. I hope some editors will come in and do some serious fact checking on this bio. Any meaningful effort will prove that the claims in question are false and that proper historical context to the work of others relied upon by Hassan must be attributed. Copying and rebranding is not much of a creative process. Footnotes are important to properly attribute who originated ideas and did the original research.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 23:53, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

References

"He also reported that he eventually rose to the rank of Assistant Director of the Unification Church at National Headquarters and personally met with Sun Myung Moon during numerous leadership sessions."

This has been disputed. That is, that Hassan was anything more than a regular member on a fund-raising team and ever met with Rev. Moon. No factual premise for these claims is cited other than Hassan's website biography and his friend Anton Hein who runs Apologetics Index. Neither source meets Wikipedia standards. These claims are not substantiated by any meaningful source.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 19:09, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Updated text to clarify that this is Hassan's claim. (Also added note requesting improved citation here.) RobP (talk) 19:49, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Are unsupported claims made by a primary source meaningful to include in that same source's bio? It seems to me that these claims are inappropriate and instead must appropriately be deleted.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 21:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Can you please cite the policy to support your assertion? —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 22:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Are you serious? Please link to the policy that allows claims in bios without citations other than the person in the bio as the primary source. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources Rick Alan Ross (talk) 23:11, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY, but again, I dispute this is a primary source. Can you please let me know how you know this was wrote by Hassan? —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:22, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

/These are claims made by Hassan published at his website as noted by the citations. No other sources are cited. Hassan controls his website as its owner and publisher. Not a reliable source.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 23:39, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

So, if I agree with you for the sake of argument, and agree it is a primary source, then we can use the source so long as it complies with WP:PRIMARY. Its a valid use. (I still disagree that it is a primary source). But the point is, whether it is a primary source or not, the current use is valid. At any rate, this has already been removed the article and is a moot point. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for that conscientious and meaningful edit.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 23:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Excuse me, but the claims are still there. I see them within the second paragraph under Personal Life. It states, "He also claims that he rose to the rank of assistant director of the Church at their National Headquarters, and personally met with Sun Myung Moon during numerous leadership sessions." Please remove this claims only supported by citations of Hassan's website.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 00:03, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Possible COI Rick_Alan_Ross

Just want to note a possible Conflict of Interest. Rick Alan Ross (Rick_Alan_Ross) seems to be a competitor of Steven Hassan. [35] [36] —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 22:26, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

This issue has been raised before. I cannot edit the bio, but am allowed to comment at the Talk page regarding mistakes, etc. The real issue is whether or not the bio meets the requirements of Wikipedia regarding factual properly sourced content. If something is misleading or just plain false, it's always in the best interest of Wikipedia to discuss it. If the facts don't support an edit and/or addition they don't, regardless of who has brought this to Wikipedia's attention. Rick Alan Ross (talk) 23:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

That is true, but that does not seem to the pattern you are following here. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Hassan is not and never has been an "instructor at Harvard Medical School" or Harvard Law School. These are false statements not supported by facts. And Hassan's claims that he was a high ranking lader in the Unification Church who met with Rev. Moon is groundless and has no place in a Wikipedia bio. I question anyone who would support not deleting this false information.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 23:36, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

If you can give some sources to support your statements, I would be glad to include that in the article. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Done. But you apparently refuse to recognize them. You have instead chosen to rely upon Hassan's claims to support your additions to this bio. This is not consistent with the requirements of Wikipedia. Since when can the subject of a bio make unsupported claims that are then included by an editor in his or her bio? These are specifically claims of being an instructor at Harvard Medical School and Harvard Law School and being a high ranking member of the Unification Church who met with its founder Rev. Moon on numerous occasions. These are grandiose claims that have no basis in fact and are instead self-promoting claims made by Steven Hassan to burnish his bio. Why would such claims be included in this bio other than to illustrate that Hassan has made false claims and is unreliable source?Rick Alan Ross (talk) 00:24, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Hassan's story about his time in the unification church is a central part of his biography - whether it is true or not - because he has built so much of his career around the story. It is absolutely worthy of inclusion because it is key to his notability - even if it is false. If it false, we should also include the sources that show it is false.Do you have a source we can use to show the claims are false? I have no connection to Hassan whatsoever, and to be honest, I personally don't agree with a number of his opinions. But that is irrelevant.

"These are grandiose claims that have no basis in fact and are instead self-promoting claims made by Steven Hassan to burnish his bio." —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Steven Hassan's self-serving claim elevates his status within the Unification Church without any corroboration. The only significance of such claims is that Hassan makes unsubstantiated claims about his past and present work and he is not a reliable source. Hassan states that he was only in the Unification Church for about two years and was a van driver for one of the group's many fundraising teams when he fell asleep at the wheel causing an accident. He was a regular members not a high ranking leader that met with Unification Church founder Moon. See https://slate.com/human-interest/2021/06/steven-hassan-former-moonie-trumpism-cult-theory.html Also see https://www.bostonmagazine.com/2007/09/01/the-other-side-of-enlightenment/ Rick Alan Ross (talk) 15:41, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Could you help me by pulling out the quotes you are referencing in those articles? I have looked them both over, and I don't see anything refuting his claims. Thanks for the boston magazine article, that is a great source. I will work to incorporate some of that material. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:06, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Both articles refer to Hassan being a van driver and part of fund raising team. This is what regular members of the Unification Church do, but not high ranking leaders. Nowhere do the articles report otherwise and Hassan has told this story many times. He was a part of a fund raising team. He was not a high ranking leader that met with Rev. Moon.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:41, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the article talks about him being a van driver, fundraising team, etc, but does not prove he was not a high ranking member, specifically "assistant director" at the national headquarters. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:59, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

No high ranking leader in the Unification Church that met with Rev. Moon was given the grunt work of driving for a mobile fund raising team. Including such a ridiculous claim without anything to support it but Hassan is not consistent with the guidelines of Wikipedia. And my examination of Hassan's CV below substantiates that he is not a reliable source. A Wikipedia bio must not be based upon the unsupported claim of the subject of that bio.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:35, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I am not saying you are wrong, I am saying we have no source saying you are right, except your own expert knowledge. Without a source, I see no reason to change what is written. Perhaps the Unification Church published saying it was made up? We could include that. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk |&nbspContribs)} 19:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

So it is your contention that Wikipedia must publish the claims of a subject within that subject's bio? Do you think that makes sense? I have demonstrated by going through his CV how he conflates and exaggerates, e.g. receiving the "Jerusalem medal." By the way I was given the same memento from the Israeli minister, it's on my shelf in my office, but not on my CV. You don't seem to be earnestly trying to edit the bio objectively based upon proven facts. And Wikipedia is not obligated to publish unsubstantiated claims.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 20:12, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:STRAWMAN. What you are saying has nothing to do with the issue. I appreciate your expertise, but we need sources to validate what you are saying. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

It is not a "strawman argument" to question the claims that are not sufficiently supported. You have not supported the claims you included in this bio properly. And the claims are false. And any meaningful investigation by Wikipedia will come to this conclusion based upon the facts. Repeating the refrain "straw man argument" doesn't change this and it is not genuine response, but rather more like a straw man argument itself to avoid the real issue, which is that claims included are false and must be deleted if the bio is to have any integrity.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 23:11, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

This is not about the validity of the claims. Wikipedia is not here to establish truth. The issue is the validity of the source. You fundamentally misunderstand Wikipedia policy, and you refuse to discuss the actual point of policy which would allow us to move forward. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. You need to reach out to Cambridge College, the Daily Beast, and The Daily Mail and inform them of their mistaken reporting. This is not the correct forum to dispute what they have published. You are welcome to reach out to the admin notice boards to initiate dispute resolution if you would like to continue. I will not be responding further. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:17, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

It's shameful that Hassan mislead those media outlets and provided them with false and/or misleading information. Apparently neither the Daily Mail or Daily Beast fact checked Hassan's claims about Harvard. That's when I first noticed his claims. I called Harvard directly to confirm my suspicion. After Cult News ran the report about these claims Hassan had surrogates contact me to request that the report be taken down. I refused. No one ever claimed the report was false or accused Cult News of defamation. They just rationalized Hassan's story telling and wanted to let it slide. I think letting things like that slide is a slippery slope. I don't know if anyone really cares if Hassan claims are true. He isn't that important. But it seems to me that his unethical distortions must be a concern. Hopefully Hassan will be held accountable for these misrepresentations.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 00:15, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

"New religious movements"

In the last paragraph "New religious movements" is used rather than groups called "cults." This is somewhat misleading. Many of the most notorious groups called "cults" such as NXIVM and Synanon are not in any way based upon religion. There are groups called "cults" based upon politics, such as as the Lyndon LaRouche EIR organization and Gino Perente's National Labor Federation and there have been therapy groups called "cults" such as the Sullivan Institute and Fred Newman's Social Therapy. Many groups called "cults" have sought tax-exemption through designation as a religious nonprofit, but quite a few have not, such as NXIVM. This why the label "new religious movements" has become increasingly less relevant and obscure.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:08, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

It would be more helpful if you used your expertise to edit and update encyclopedia articles were you don't have a conflict of interest. Have you considered becoming a contributor to the project? —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:32, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

As I stated before. I am allowed to discuss articles on Wikipedia, this one and my bio, through the Talk pages. I don't edit because I am not allowed to edit the pages. And frankly, other than Wikipedia being used to attack me and at times spread misinformation, I would not be interested. Open source platforms where anonymous editors can influence content in my opinion is not a meaningful resource for accurate and reliable information. For this reason, it seems to me, other than the footnotes, Wikipedia in not really a credible encyclopedia. Having said that, I see that "new religious movements" is part of a quote, so it cannot be changed without distorting the quote. So my suggestion regarding "new religious movements" being an outdated reference is a moot point.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't disagree, that is why most of the dedicated editing staff are not anonymous, and we edit under our real names. The majority of our content is not created by anonymous editors, the majority has been created by our core content contributors over the course of about 20 years. There are only a few of us, and millions of articles to maintain. I personally watch about 12,000 articles on a daily basis. The best thing you can do to help us maintain the quality of our articles is join the project as a contributor. In regards to quality and credibility, that is why we have a rating system on articles. This article is rated a C... We know it is not the best, and we have clearly labeled it a such. But it takes a contributor with time and access to sources to improve it. This article is a work in progress, as are the majority. There are only about 4500 articles out of millions that we endorse as complete and authoritative articles. Then about 35000 more we call good articles. This article is not one of them. This article has not had any peer reviews, etc.. If you wanted to help with our Wikipedia:Peer review backlog, I am sure another editor would be willing to return the favor and work on this one. Or perhaps you would be wiling to conduct a Wikipedia:Good articles review? That is how we collaborate here. If your article has issues, we could probably get it deleted and salted so it cannot be remade, if you want to put in that request. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I have a heavy work load as it is and don't wish to become more involved in Wikipedia. My bio seems to be static now with nothing being done, which is fine with me. Wikipedia apparently implemented some safeguards regarding editing there. And though the bio does not reflect my work in the last several years it's accurate within reason. Deletion was proposed and voted down a couple of times years ago. I recognize that most Wikipedia editors are trying to do a good job.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 13:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)