Talk:Steven Hassan/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: Yeah, I had two minds about that one.  May as well stay.  Bacchiad 19:39, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed material 

message: #What's his real position on it?
#Does he still do it?
#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)
thread_title:  Deprogramming 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Add Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) 

message: Note that
*Anti-Cult Movement
and
*List of anti-cult organizations and individuals
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)
thread_title:  Duplicte wikilink 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

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

text: 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)

text: The territory is linked to extensively. Andries 19:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: this may be a good source for expansion Andries 17:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Website and critiques of Hassan 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: -DoctorW 21:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steven Hassan as a "psychologist" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Tanaats, it is not appropriate for you to revert the addition of appropriately placed, pertinent, sourced information. -DoctorW 20:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Re mention of M.Ed. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Moved from "Expert" section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thank you for the elaboration.  Tanaats 04:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Even more sure.. 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  You are not a NPOV John196920022001 00:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Peer Review 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-03-06 Steven Alan Hassan|'''MedCab case''']] 

message: 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)
replies: text: This is based on EmmDee's comment a day or two ago John196920022001 07:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But EmDee wanted to remove CESNUR. So you now agree it is POV to have CESNUR ?! --Tilman 17:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  POV 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Request 

message: At the present date, Yahoo denies have the freedomofmind group.
Jan 25, 2009 Eucheresis75.71.97.144 (talk) 04:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freedomofmind no longer on Yahoo 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Jewish? 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 . 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)
replies: text: Seems more applicable in an article about the college itself. Cirt (talk) 00:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Qualifications 

message: = removed, as it is poorly sourced info in a WP:BLP article. Cirt (talk) 22:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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?  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Removed poorly sourced addition to a BLP article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: What section of WP:BLP and WP:RS are you referring to?Coffeepusher (talk) 02:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Criticism section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Cult expert 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: "actually you will find that this is the only edit where I'm using a self published source"..., , .  And each time you were directed to WP:RS and WP:BLP , , , , , ,  .  This is beginning to look like an example of I didn't hear that.Coffeepusher (talk) 15:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Rck Ross's Criticism 

message: 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, , 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Formerly removed criticism 

message: 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)
thread_title: Cult vs NRM

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thanks. OKRick Alan Ross (talk) 19:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I will take a look at in the next day or so. Cheers. JbhTalk 14:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Violations of Wikipedia policies in the editing of this bio 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Steven Hassan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061208165523/http://www.freedomofmind.com:80/resourcecenter/books/rtb3.htm to http://www.freedomofmind.com/resourcecenter/books/rtb3.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070310174556/http://www.freedomofmind.com:80/stevehassan/presskit/reviews/lancet.htm to http://www.freedomofmind.com/stevehassan/presskit/reviews/lancet.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061016184214/http://www.freedomofmind.com/resourcecenter/books/rtbpraise.htm to http://www.freedomofmind.com/resourcecenter/books/rtbpraise.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070110150434/http://www.freedomofmind.com:80/resourcecenter/books/ccmc-quotes-b.htm to http://www.freedomofmind.com/resourcecenter/books/ccmc-quotes-b.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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 . Hassan's former wife then died accidently two years later.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: What about the issue of self-published books?Rick Alan Ross (talk) 13:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Divorced not widowed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Publication of Hassan's book 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Books should be described as self-published 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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) 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 . 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)
replies: text: When can these unsupported claims be edited out?Rick Alan Ross (talk) 13:47, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unproven claims not supported by reliable sources 

message: Substituted at 15:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Requested edit regarding self-published books 

message: 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 . 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)
replies: text: Agree.  JbhTalk 17:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Closing. This request was answered with an edit. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 23:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claim without reliable source 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061017084153/http://www.freedomofmind.com:80/ to http://www.freedomofmind.com/
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061017084153/http://www.freedomofmind.com:80/ to http://www.freedomofmind.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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."  This criticism should be included to provide balance at the bio.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 13:58, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of Steve Hassan's intervention approach 

message: Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 , who has discussed BLP discretionary sanctions with you previously. Jbh Talk 20:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Likely because none of the 50 people who have this page on their watch list  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Steve Hassan's licensing board {{redacted}} 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Michael Langone quote "citation needed"? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Slight revision in wording of sentence 

message: 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 who has written on the subject of cults and published three books through his Freedom of Mind Press.
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. .
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)
thread_title:  Recent changes in bio not within Wikipedia guidelines