Talk:Steven Hassan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive mixup[edit]

There are 3 archives for this talk page:

I don't know how 8 & 9 got created, nor how to get them back into an appropriate sequence. If anyone knows how to do this (technical-wise), please can you repair the issue? Thanks.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 03:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. And the duplicate threads in Archive 1 that were also in Archive 2 (formerly Archive 8) have been removed from Archive 1.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  12:05, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing that, SMcCandlish. I couldn't have done it (correctly). I've set the archive counter (above) from 9 to 3.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 18:09, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Question[edit]

Is it not historically relevant and important to include that in 1976 Steven Hassan was "deserted" by the Unification Church? And that he was no longer a member of the church at the time of his "deprogramming"?

The book "Prison or Paradise" records these facts historically quoting Hassan directly and the book is cited as a credible source elsewhere in this bio. Doesn't this established fact add meaningful historical context to the "deprogramming"?Rick Alan Ross (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CEI's collected material on Hassan[edit]

https://culteducation.com/group/1379-steven-alan-hassan.html Most of the material there is published by CEI (the org. founded by Hassan critic/competitor Rick Alan Ross, under one domain name or the other). But not being "neutral" source material (there really isn't any such thing) doesn't preclude all use of it within WP:DUE lines. And at very least it gives suggestions on what to look into in sources that are not connected to Hassan–Ross disputation.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  08:19, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bromley and Shupe criticisms[edit]

There was a recent disagreement regarding this quote in the criticisms section:

"Despite their criticisms, Shupe and Bromley regarded Hassan as perhaps the best in his business and invited him to contribute to their book, which was otherwise critical of the anti-cult movement."

Another editor claimed it was accurate, but it is missing important context, such as the fact that Shupe and Bromley don't agree with what Hassan wrote and do not recommend him. As a result, it gives the impression that these scholars endorse him, when they are actually outspoken critics of him.

I suggest removing this quote or replacing it with the following sentence to more accurately reflect the information in the source:

"Since Hassan is a prominent figure in the anti-cult movement, Schupe and Bromley invited him to present an opposing view in their book that was otherwise critical of the movement." Theobvioushero (talk) 16:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor was not making a claim about accuracy; they merely pointed our that it is what the cited source says. The source does not say they chose him "because he is a prominent figure", it says they chose him "because they consider him to be perhaps the best in his business." It is obvious from what precedes the sentence that Shupe and Bromley do not endorse Hassan and are critical of him, so the context you say is missing is not missing. Harold the Sheep (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The word "despite," though, implies that the information in that sentence contrasts with the criticisms listed above it, but this is not true. The book was intended to discredit the ideas of Hassan and others in the movement. They merely offered Hassan a chance to respond.
Similarly, the word "best" also suggests a value judgement in favor of Hassan, but this is false too. Shupe and Bromley are very open about the fact that they don't consider Hassan to be an authority and that they don't recommend him to anyone. It is clear from the article that the word "best" refers to his prominence in the anti-cult movement, so this should be clear in the quote as well.
The sentence, as it is currently written, falsely implies that Shupe and Bromley decided to collaborate with Hassan because they considered him to be good at what he does. Therefore, it needs greater clarity to better articulate that the book was not written "despite" their criticisms, but was written as a result of their criticisms, to further discredit Hassan and others in the movement.
It also might just be best to remove the sentence altogether, since it doesn't appear to add relevant information regarding criticisms against Hassan that has not already been explained in the preceding paragraphs. Theobvioushero (talk) 01:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]