Talk:Steven Hassan

BITE model

@AndresTorrico09 Me and @Cambial Yellowing have both reverted you, but you have repeatedly added this without discussion. There is no question that the BITE model is a well known creation of Hassan's, but the way to do it is not to add a largely unsourced and undue weight section with references that do not support the content to this BLP article! PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Transphobia

I think that the article should address disparaging statements Hassan has made about the transgender community; even just a sentence or two would be an improvement over the current article never mentioning them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.19.40.75 (talk) 01:48, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Are they covered by reliable sources? PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:49, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

After a search... no. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Disputed content needs a sidecheck/verification

Two days ago, Theobvioushero removed a sentence while claiming in the edit summary: Updated in accordance with the discussion that was had in Feb 2024, since this section was reverted back to the language that was rejected in that discussion.

I read that 'discussion' @ Talk:Steven Hassan/Archive 3 § Bromley and Shupe criticisms and I don't see a consensus there.

However, the more I dug through the article edit history, the more complicated it got. I see that the sentence or concept was restored, moved and otherwise modified by users such as Harold the Sheep and PARAKANYAA . Since I cannot decipher the full picture in the morass of edits, I am tagging them to look at the recent change as they seemed familiar with the content, changes and/or dispute. If the new version seems okay, then great. If not, then a discussion until consensus might be in order.

Also, Theobvioushero's second edit on the same topic should also be sidechecked since it appears to be an amplification of his strong opinions about Hassan.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 14:38, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree, there is definitely no consensus on the archived "discussion".

The book that that was referring to I believe is the 1994 book Anti-Cult Movements in Cross-Cultural Perspective edited by Anson Shupe and David Bromley, and it does include a chapter by Hassan. But I am not sure where the idea that Bromley and Shupe consider Hassan the "best in the field" comes from, so I invite anyone to cite a source where they say they believe that. Otherwise, I think that specific part should be removed/stay removed from the article. Personally, I think that that would be a misinterpretation of why Bromley and Shupe included Hassan in that book, unless, of course, I'm mistaken. In the introduction to the book, they say that "Alternately, Priscilla Coates and Steven A. Hassan, both visible nonacademic activists at the national level of the American ACM, present their personal views of their goals and activities as persons 'in the trenches' of this conflict" (xii).

Upon checking @Theobvioushero's second recent edit, I checked the source, Shupe and Darnell's 2006 book Agents of Discord, and the citations check out. Though, the quotation about maturation is quoted incorrectly. The full quotation is: "Mr. Hassan represents a maturation of the ACM in several ways: toward professionalization and away from coercive vigilantism; a relative rejection of the extreme positions of Drs. West and Singer; and moderation in how to balance the complications of the NRM involvement for families" (152). I also think adding the specific details of why Hassan contradicted himself, according to Shupe and Darnell, is also a bit more detail than necessary, though not necessarily incorrect. --Jacquesparker0 (talk) 18:10, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

I wrote the removed sentence and at the time I argued against Theobvioushero's alteration of it, but I don't have a problem with its removal, so in that sense there was a kind of consensus since no-one else participated in the discussion. With regard to their second edit, it's quite mild and minimalist compared to what could be written about this episode based on the source, which includes written material from both Roselle and Hassan. Harold the Sheep (talk) 00:25, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello everyone! The reason I cited the Feb 2024 discussion was to highlight that this sentence has already been discussed, so any further edits should take that discussion into account. As this present discussion and the previous one show, multiple people approve the removal of this sentence. So, if someone believes the sentence should not be removed, they should discuss their position on the talk page before making the change.

Regarding Hasan's forcible deprogrammings, my edit has recently been reverted by Cambial Yellowing, who wrote "not a neutral representation of source content." Cambial Yellowing, could you explain why you believe the edit was not a neutral representation?

It seems to me that the previous (and current) version of this paragraph inaccurately represents the source by giving the impression that Hassan was not involved in involuntary deprogrammings, even though the source suggests the opposite. So, I edited it to more accurately reflect the information and context in the provided source. Theobvioushero (talk) 21:03, 21 July 2025 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppeteer, see investigation)

The earlier section that discusses this consists only of two lengthy comments by you and one three-sentence reply refuting what you claim. The framing in your proposed version positions the claims of former cult/NRM members as true, but adds unsourced editorialisation about Hassan's statement contesting those claims. Cambial — foliar❧ 22:28, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

As noted above, I perhaps "refuted" Theobvioushero's alterations to the sentence, but I made no objection to their removal of it, and neither did anyone else. Harold the Sheep (talk) 04:40, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Harold the Sheep for your clarification! That was my understanding as well and it settles the question of if a consensus had been reached.

Cambial, could you be more specific about what parts of my edit you believe are not supported by the source? Considering how the authors of the book write that Hassan's statement "contradicts those of several 'clients'" (p. 150), and gives Roselle and Kelly as examples, I still don't see any discontinuity between the source and my edit. Theobvioushero (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2025 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppeteer, see investigation)

The problems with your proposal are numerous. Firstly it needs stating that highly derogatory material for a BLP needs better sourcing than a single book. The authors accept as fact the claims of one individual and offer no supporting citations beyond that person's testimony. The editorialising is your proposed opening phrase "Although Hassan has claimed that". As well as editorialising it runs counter to the manual of style guidelines at MOS:CLAIM. The unsourced material you inserted in this biography of a living person are that R. "described in a sworn testimony how Hassan kidnapped and imprisoned him for days" which is not in the cited source (the quotation from R. does not mention article subject by name), and that "Claire Kelly also had a similar testimony of being imprisoned by Hassan for three days" which is not in the cited source. Thin sourcing; a source that itself is poorly documented (at least insofar as the pages cited); a lack of close adherence to what the single source says; and editorialising framing: not appropriate content for a BLP. Your belief that the above "settles" the notion that two comments by you mean "a consensus had been reached" is incorrect, as two other editors have already pointed out. See WP:CONSENSUS for more on the topic. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:16, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

It's arguable that a consensus has not been reached, but two other editors have indeed supported the removal of the sentence, myself because I see nothing wrong with removing it, and Jacquesparker0 who makes largely the same argument as Theobvioushero.

The authors accept as fact the claims of one individual and offer no supporting citations beyond that person's testimony. They also cite a letter from Hassan himself that "corroborates" the details in Roselle's affidavit.

(the quotation from R. does not mention article subject by name), and that "Claire Kelly also had a similar testimony of being imprisoned by Hassan for three days" which is not in the cited source. Both Roselle in the quoted affidavit and the authors in their commentary clearly identify Hassan by name (p. 150, 151); the cited source does in fact describe Claire Kelly being imprisoned for three days (p. 151). In a footnote it says that Hassan acknowledges his role in these attempted deprogrammings. Are there different editions of the book? These details are all in the book I'm looking at. Harold the Sheep (talk) 00:51, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Schupe and Darnell on Hassan's deprogramming activities

In response to recent edits by Theobvioushero (since reverted by Cambial Yellowing), Grorp above requested a check of the source used for the disputed content. This source is Agents of Discord: Deprogramming, Pseudoscience, and the American Anticult Movement by Schupe and Darnell. Our article's current summary of this source is:

According to Hassan he has not kidnapped anyone, nor tortured, deprived anyone of food or sleep or been disrespectful towards the clients. An affidavit from one subject, and Hassan's own written description of the same deprogramming, indicate that the subject was restrained by his former teammates.

It was first added here with the edit summary "gross misrepresentation of source". The "gross misrepresentation" the edit removed was:

According to Hassan, he never abducted, restrained, threatened or disrespected anyone in any deprogrammings in which he participated. However, this is contradicted by affidavits from victims, and also by Hassan's own written description of a deprogramming he conducted.

The following is a detailed look at what the source actually says.

On his website Hassan admits to "about a dozen" deprogrammings, an unspecified number of which were "not legal". Schupe and Darnell discuss two cases (Arthur Roselle and Claire Kelley) and allude to others. The book states: "There are affidavits from the victims to document these details" and "Hassan himself acknowledges his role in these attempted deprogrammings". In reference to Hassan's statement denying wrongdoing, it says that "this statement contradicts those of several previous "clients"" (p. 149-51, bold added). The source consistently uses the plural when mentioning affidavits or statements from victims or "clients". (The authors routinely put Hassan’s word "client" in quotation marks since the person being "deprogrammed" is not in any sense of the word a "client".)

In the source, Hassan is quoted as saying: "I have never kidnapped anyone, nor have I ever tortured, deprived anyone of food or sleep or was in any way disrespectful to any of my clients." On his website he says: "Never did I ever abduct, restrain, hit or threaten anybody". In relation to the Roselle intervention he states "I was never involved in violence of any kind".

According to the source, however, Arthur Roselle was "abducted by Hassan to be convinced to leave his faith" (p.150). Roselle, in the affidavit quoted in the book, uses the words "kidnapping" and "imprisonment". Also quoted is a letter from Hassan himself to CAN members which unambiguously indicates that his client was violently restrained and forcibly detained for an extended period against his will (p.151).

The extract from Arthur Roselle's sworn affidavit (p. 150) begins:

when I first tried to escape from my kidnappers, they seized my arms and threw me down to the floor. This caused me to hit the tile floor with my chin and cheek… My hands and feet were tied and I was carried into a small room and placed on a cot.

Note that the assailants are not described as "former teammates"; they are described as "kidnappers". It is only the extract from Hassan's letter (p.151) that talks about "teammates" – no fewer than six of them in fact:

...He was restrained. He had been a football player and there were at least six of his former teammates who were present to help and it took all of them to hold him down.

Hassan indicates in his letter that his client is handcuffed, and restrained on a bed. He tells Roselle that if he doesn't calm down he will not be released from his bonds; when Roselle refused to eat Hassan's food for "a couple of days", Hassan tells him that he will be injected with glucose if he continues to do so. The details of Hassan's letter are described by Schupe and Darnell as "corroborating" Roselle's account. They note that Hassan, working in shifts with another deprogrammer, harangues the restrained Roselle about his religion over a period of several days (p.151). This is the "deprogramming", and they quote further from Roselle's account of it:

During the first three days of my kidnapping and false imprisonment I was tied up, and I was not allowed to sleep. When the deprogramming started I decided not to speak or eat. After two days of not speaking or eating Steven Hassan threatened to subject me to a series of shots. He insulted me and humiliated me as a person. I felt like a captured animal in a zoo. The circulation in my hands was cut off, because my hands had been tightly tied behind my back for the entire time. Both my hands were badly swollen and the color of a bruise. During the first three days I was always escorted to the bathroom while my hands were still bound and tied. I was not washed or shaved. With help I was able to urinate into a pot. Due to the embarrassment of being watched at all times, I did not allow myself to defecate.

The source's detailed coverage of the Roselle deprogramming—Roselle's affidavit, Hassan's letter, analysis and commentary by the authors—is reduced, in our article, to "the subject was restrained by his former teammates". That’s it. As if it were some sort of innocuous pseudo-medical procedure carried out by experts and friends, and not the protracted and degrading farce performed by rank amateurs that is actually discussed. Hassan, like all deprogrammers of the 1970s, was not in any sense a qualified professional. The authors' endorsement of his shift towards professionalization refers to specific aspects of his later exit counselling philosophy. In our article this endorsement is mentioned immediately after the sanitization of his deprogramming activities, giving a completely false impression of the authors' intent.

The recent changes were perhaps not ideal, but I think we can do better than what is currently there. Harold the Sheep (talk) 00:28, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, Harold the Sheep, for providing some of the text from the cited source. Though an affidavit may corroborate something, it seems the published source does not mention specifically which details were performed by Hassan and which were performed by others who were present. As such, I think we cannot definitively say in Wikivoice who did what. I suggest changing the paragraph to this:

Hassan took part in a number of "deprogrammings" in the late 1970s, but has been critical of them since 1980 and has instead advocated exit counseling. According to Hassan, he has not personally kidnapped or tortured anyone, nor deprived them of food or sleep, though he admits to having participated in deprogrammings where such did occur. According to sociologists Anson D. Shupe and Darnell, Hassan represents "a maturation of the anti-cult movement toward professionalisation and away from coercive vigilantism".

  ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 02:56, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

WP:SOCKSTRIKE Cambial — foliar❧ 09:37, 28 July 2025 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The book directly says that Roselle claims to have been "abducted by Hassan to be convinced to leave his faith" (p. 150), and also describes a similar situation for Kelley (p. 151). It is clear from the context that these events were orchestrated by Hassan.

Given the seriousness of these allegations that involve kidnapping, false imprisonment, and deprivation of liberty, I would say that it is worth mentioning this in the article. So, I support Theobvioushero's edit. Everything in it is relevant and fully supported by the provided source.

I would also agree with Theobvioushero that the sentence "According to sociologists Anson D. Shupe and Darnell, Hassan represents 'a maturation of the anti-cult movement toward professionalisation and away from coercive vigilantism'." should be moved to the next paragraph (if it's included at all). It currently sounds like this is referring to his involuntary deprogrammings, when it actually refers to his exit counseling discussed in the next paragraph. OrangeOyster (talk) 21:31, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

I found Roselle's full testimony. He testifies that "Steven Hassan, aided, abetted, and conspired in my kidnapping and in my subsequent false imprisonment" and is "guilty of all the acts of the other co-conspirators." He also says that Hassan "physically held me captive," made it so that he "was not allowed to sleep," threatened to subject him to shots (which Hassan confirms in his own testimony), and tried to get Roselle to write a false affidavit about the events. OrangeOyster (talk) 23:08, 25 July 2025 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppet of Theobvioushero, see investigation)

@OrangeOyster: Your opinion that since the allegations are "serious" suggests we "should" include them in the article contradicts Wikipedia policy that an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim "requires multiple high-quality sources". A repetition in a single book of a single victim's claims fails to reach that standard. My offered version fits the surrounding concepts about Hassan "took part in" then "has been critical of [deprogrammings] since 1980" and then Shupe and Darnell mentioning the change in Hassan's style of participation. This supports a generalized statement, such as the one I drafted, and not an insertion of a victim's narrative.

I'm no expert on deprogrammings of the sort that might have required kidnapping and restraint, but I'll bet every one of them involved more than just a single man to accomplish, and likely all involved the family members who wanted their kin removed from what they considered a cult, even if Hassan might have been the one leading the actions. I see the introduction of such details of a single deprogramming to be WP:UNDUE detail, but I think the WP:EXCEPTIONAL policy takes precedence.

Cesnur.org is not a reliable source, and that document would be considered a primary source; see WP:BLPPRIMARY.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 23:15, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

This isn't an "exceptional claim," since this testimony isn't particularly fringe or surprising, but is consistent with the deprogramming that Hassan, and the people he has worked with, have already admitted to doing.

I'm also not sure why you don't consider CENSUR to be a reliable source, but this document comes from an academic paper that was presented at the 2000 meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion. So, we have a signed and notarized affidavit that is referenced by two academic sources, which passes the threshold for extraordinary claims, even if it were one. In fact, we have more support for Roselle's testimony than we do for Hassan's denial of it. OrangeOyster (talk) 01:36, 26 July 2025 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppet of Theobvioushero, see investigation)

None of what you've written or asserted, OrangeOyster, clears the hurdle of WP:BLPPRIMARY.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 02:25, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

I only gave the primary source since you said that it "may corroborate something." I'm not trying to say that it should be used as a source for the article (unless it is used to augment the secondary source, in accordance with the guidelines, although I don't think this is necessary). I would say that the secondary academic source that is currently cited is sufficient for this section of the article, as it does a good job at describing Hassan's work at this point in his career, taking into account the different testimonies of people who were involved.

The source points out that there are two contradictory accounts of Hassan's activity at the start of his career: Hassan's testimony, and the testimony of multiple clients. I would say that it would show a clear bias to only present one side, but not the other. Instead, to keep this article neutral and consistent with the source, both sides should be addressed, even if it's just a sentence or two. OrangeOyster (talk) 03:18, 26 July 2025 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppet of Theobvioushero, see investigation)

There is no requirement to cover both of two contradictory accounts of Hassan's activity at the start of his career. Read WP:UNDUE. It is part of the NPOV policy. For a "new" editor who had made just 3 edits prior to getting involved in this conversation , you seem unexpectedly familiar with some Wikipedia lingo and policies. Have you had another Wikipedia account in the past?   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 04:19, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm just going off of what is written in the pages you are citing. Your citation for undue weight says that the article must "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources." But in your proposed version, only one of the viewpoints published by a reliable source is mentioned. Both sides would have to be addressed to give this section due weight. OrangeOyster (talk) 12:25, 26 July 2025 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppet of Theobvioushero, see investigation)

This is not a significant viewpoint. Thus there is no reason to mention it at all. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:11, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

I also came here to point out the key word "significant".   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 13:17, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

"The protracted and degrading farce performed by rank amateurs that is actually" alleged by a gullible member of a cult without corroboration, but nevertheless accepted as fact by ideologue authors/occasional paid apologists with no notion of scholarly detachment from their subject. Grorp's proposed text is appropriate. Cambial — foliar❧ 08:33, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Should they emulate the kind of "scholarly detachment" on display in your comment then?

alleged by a gullible cult member In 1991, when he wrote his second affidavit, Roselle was a middle-aged banking professional and hadn’t been "a gullible cult member" for over 10 years.

without corroboration Except there is corroboration – from Hassan himself, as is discussed above and below and in the source. Harold the Sheep (talk) 10:51, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

This discussion has gone very far off the rails and it is time to rein it in. Look, the Roselle incident (1976) occurred 50 years ago, when Hassan was just 22. Deprogrammings, which were in vogue at the time, were ultimately rejected by him. Since that time, he has worked continuously in the same professional field without similar allegations. This decades-old, weakly sourced claim—concerning conduct that reportedly ceased shortly after it began—does not meet the threshold for inclusion in this BLP. Spending valuable editor time parsing the minutiae of an unsubstantiated event from the distant past is already giving it UNDUE WEIGHT; including it in the article would misrepresent the broader trajectory of Hassan's career. Hassan himself was successfully 'deprogrammed' in 1976, and deprogramming was the method of the day to help get family members out of cults. It is no wonder he started his post-Moonie career as a deprogrammer, but according to this article he rejected deprogramming by 1980. However, despite how this article presents him a deprogrammer first and foremost, that isn't his career and should not define him in this BLP. The earliest four years out of a 49 year career? Anyone not understanding WP:UNDUE should re-read it over and over until they actually understand it!   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 02:33, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

I wasn't expecting this to start such a discussion, but it looks like some people are passionate about this topic.

Reading through everything that has been said, I would agree that we should not give it undue weight, and that my initial edit perhaps gave more detail than was necessary, although this is still an important part of his career. Let me try suggesting a modified version of your proposed edit as a possible compromise:

"Hassan took part in a number of deprogrammings in the late 1970s, but has been critical of them since 1980 and has instead advocated exit counseling. According to Hassan, he has not personally kidnapped or tortured anyone, nor deprived them of food or sleep, although sociologists Anson Shupe and Susan E. Darnell write that this statement is contradicted by those of several clients."

This edit does not put any more weight on his deprogrammings than the edit you proposed, and is actually shorter than what is currently written in the article. At the same time, it addresses the concerns that have been raised regarding the lack of a neutral point of view by acknowledging the different narratives addressed in the source. Theobvioushero (talk) 15:28, 27 July 2025 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppeteer, see investigation)

How about simply "Hassan took part in some deprogrammings of others in the late 1970s, but has been critical of them since 1980 and has instead advocated exit counseling" because I'm not even sure "a number of" (a vague measure but implying "many") is sourced. I recommend leaving out the defensive and allegation sentences altogether. Also:

• Change subheading "Deprogramming and exit counseling" to "Exit counseling"
• Change article's lead paragraph sentence from "He worked as a deprogrammer in the late 1970s, but since then has advocated a non-coercive form of exit counseling." to "In the late 1970s, he participated in deprogramming in his early career, but since then has advocated non-coercive exit counseling."

Sorry for the extra suggestions at this late point in the discussion, but it wasn't until yesterday when I looked at how "deprogramming" was prominently presented that these issues came to my mind. Might as well settle this now while we're all here.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 16:22, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

"A number of" was sourced to Hassan's own website. It's vague because Hassan himself is vague about the matter. He admits to "about a dozen" deprogrammings, an unspecified number of which were "not legal". We could simply say that, instead of “a number of”. Harold the Sheep (talk) 07:44, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

We're obviously not going to include unsourced and inaccurate content. Susan Darnell is not a sociologist. She has no known academic credentials in any discipline. +1 to Grorp's proposal. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:26, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm reluctant about this, but would be willing to agree to theobvioushero's new edit for the sake of compromise.

As I said, the fact that several people accused Hassan of these activities is significant. Even back then, this was never a mainstream practice. People were commonly getting charged and sentenced for these same activities even before Hassan started doing them (see Ted Patrick, for example). Kidnapping and false imprisonment have always been illegal, and several people testifying to this is significant.

So, I still prefer Theobvioushero's original edit, but would be open to their new one if it will help move things forward. OrangeOyster (talk) 17:02, 27 July 2025 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppet of Theobvioushero, see investigation)

As the notion that several people accused Hassan of this is fictional, it's not significant. Fictional reasons for including content carry no weight here. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:25, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

@OrangeOyster: The word "significant" in the UNDUE policy is about amount/volume of coverage, not whether some accusation is serious in a potentially-criminal-charges sense. Stop trying to use Wikipedia, and this BLP in particular, for your personal crusade against deprogramming.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 17:44, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Can we wrap this up?

With the surprising (or maybe not so surprising) indef'ing of Theobvioushero and OrangeOyster, maybe we can wrap this up fairly quickly. Pinging the last remaining participants: Jacquesparker0, Harold the Sheep, and Cambial Yellowing.

My last copy-edit recommendation is a little above here, or more easily found at this diff. What say you all? Should I make those changes?   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 04:37, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for working to wrap this up @Grorp, and sorry I couldn't contribute for the past few days. Rereading what is currently under the "Deprogramming and exit counseling" header, I think it would be fine to reduce down the first paragraph of that section to your suggestion of "Hassan took part in some deprogrammings of others in the late 1970s, but has been critical of them since 1980 and has instead advocated exit counseling." Shupe and Darnell's book makes plenty of claims, much of which is sourced with documents that we cannot readily access. That doesn't necessarily make their claims wrong or not important, but because -- as far as I know -- they haven't been sourced independently anywhere else in secondary literature, then they may not qualify as notable (WP:N). As such, I think it is best to leave out their claims, since this is a BLP (WP:BLP). Your other suggested changes seem fine as well. --Jacquesparker0 (talk) 21:37, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Jacquesparker0 The two principal documents used by Shupe and Darnell in this section of their book are Roselle's sworn affidavit and a mass mailing letter sent by Hassan to CAN members, both of which they quote, so we can certainly "readily access" them in that sense. A 'mass mailing letter' would be a pretty idiotic thing to fabricate; I think we can assume it's legit. Roselle's second affidavit is readily accessible online. Shupe is a well-known academic in the field and the book is a secondary source discussing and analyzing primary sources, quite ok as a source for wikipedia. WP:N is a test to decide whether a topic warrants its own article, so I don't think it's relevant here. Harold the Sheep (talk) 07:58, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Right, but I am not saying that they are fabricating evidence nor that they are wrong. You're right, I was wrong about the affidavit not being "readily accessible" -- upon looking a bit harder I found it without too much effort (https://www.cesnur.org/2001/CAN/33/01.htm). The same is probably true about the CAN letter. Though, I know that primary source work is generally disagreeable on WP (WP:NOR). I can believe that what they are saying is true and still have a healthy amount of skepticism about their sources. I still think it's legit. I never said it wasn't. I suggested that those details not be added because they are the only secondary, independent source that is making such a claim that I know of (perhaps I am wrong though). You're right about WP:N, though, and that's my bad. Upon reading WP:BLP a bit closer, I've changed my mind about the inclusion of the details. I remembered reading that contentious material required/strongly recommended multiple secondary, independent sources for claims like those about Hassan, but the text of WP:BLPRS and WP:BLPPRIMARY made me think otherwise. If you, @Harold the Sheep, and/or others think that the details should be included, then I think that's fine, so long as Shupe and Darnell's book is clearly cited. Sorry for the mix-up on this. Jacquesparker0 (talk) 22:29, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

@Jacquesparker0: The policy you are thinking about is WP:EXCEPTIONAL. See also the article Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 23:22, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

There is no exceptional or extraordinary claim here. Hassan himself provides corroborating evidence of the nature of his involvement in the events. That isn't a "claim", it's direct, documentary evidence from the subject themselves, commented on by the secondary source. Perhaps there are specific details in Roselle's affidavit that Hassan doesn’t corroborate. But I'm not even suggesting the details that Hassan does confirm should be included. I would just like to see a brief, accurate summary of what the source says, rather than a whitewash. Harold the Sheep (talk) 11:05, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

The Fort Wayne college sociologist and the secretary claim Hassan corroborates Roselle. The text they state is from a letter from Hassan only corroborates some details, but does not corroborate most of what Roselle claims. Hassan has specifically denied the salacious and poorly-sourced material you want to include. A notarised affidavit from Roselle's mother denies the salacious material you want to include. It is an exceptional claim, being as it is an allegation of a criminal activity that lacks any criminal complaint, any civil complaint, nothing. The sourcing - one book written by one academic and one nobody - is abysmal. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:34, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

It's odd. You appear to be responding to my comments and yet you appear to have not actually read them. What "salacious" material do I want to include? I just said, and said in other comments below, that I'm not seeking to include even the details that Hassan does corroborate. (Incidentally, those details are listed below, if you'd care to discuss them, I'm guessing you'd rather not though). Those details are easily verifiable details of Hassan's involvement in the deprogramming, directly provided by Hassan himself, but I'm not asking for them to be included in our article, I'm just seeking a brief, accurate summary of what the source says about Hassan's participation as a "deprogrammer".

You are trying very hard to diminish the authors, but Anson Shupe is a respected academic and author in the field of sociology of religion. He collaborated with Susan Darnell on this book because of her experience with financial records, something useful for wading through the opaque mass of financial documents from CAN and elsewhere. Harold the Sheep (talk) 02:14, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't need to try hard, I'm merely stating the facts. One of the facts is that the co-author has no academic background and no stated credentials in forensic accounting nor any other relevant discipline. Grorp has summarised the known facts about the article subject at an appropriate level of detail. You evidently want to include more detail - "I'm just seeking a brief, accurate summary of what the source says about Hassan's participation" - one naturally infers you wish to include more text beyond Grorp's neutral summary. You claim above that the criminal activity alleged, but never reported to authorities, is no exceptional or extraordinary claim, which is the text to which I respond in my post immediately below yours.

Reliable sources determine not merely the facts, but how noteworthy particular facts are. We can determine how noteworthy a fact is by how prominent and widespread it is in reliable sources. The fact that Roselle made allegations of criminal behaviour by Hassan, which have never been reported to authorities nor tested in a civil trial and which Hassan and Roselle's mother deny, is covered by exactly one academic author and his credit union co-author. It evidently is not regarded as very noteworthy: no author other than Shupe sees fit to mention it. This is a BLP, and the standard of sourcing required to include contentious material is much higher. The "details [that] are easily verifiable details" are in fact contested allegations of criminality - the most contentious kind of material there is. You argue above that the article ought to include the protracted and degrading farce performed by rank amateurs that is actually discussed. The criminal allegations which might give force to such a description are "discussed" by one academic with poor documentation. That is not BLP contentious-material sourcing. Cambial — foliar❧ 10:10, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

covered by exactly one academic author Aren't you forgetting someone? A certain Mr Steven Hassan, amusingly referred to in our article Academic study of new religious movements as an academic in the field of psychiatry, gives a quite detailed account of his own involvement in this deprogramming. This is discussed below: I invite you once again to address it. Admittedly, he wasn't an academic when he was standing around lecturing a violently restrained man for several days—he had no qualifications of any kind whatsoever and no medical, legal or moral authority to participate in the way he describes—but still, I would say his own words count for something. Harold the Sheep (talk) 22:22, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Where has Hassan published something about this? Oh that's right, he hasn't. You're talking about the same crappy source written by a low-rent lecturer in some backwater college, ostensibly quoting Hassan. That does not demonstrate this allegation to be noteworthy. Hassan and Roselle's mother deny the criminal allegations elsewhere. Cambial — foliar❧ 22:29, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

ostensibly Are you seriously suggesting that Shupe fabricated Hassan's mass mailing letter to CAN members? allegation If Hassan is describing his own activities, it is not allegation, it is admission. Unintentional perhaps, but legitimate corroborating evidence nonetheless, as the source affirms. Harold the Sheep (talk) 04:05, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I've no idea, as no other source discusses it. It's not relevant anyway. A quotation in a source, real or contrived, is not a second RS giving further evidence that something is noteworthy. It's part of the one source. It's amazing that it's necessary to actually type those words. Hassan and Roselle's mother have denied Roselle's claims. That is the direct opposite of admission. So your "legitimate corroborating evidence" is contested by the person who ostensibly wrote it. Contested and unreported criminal allegations described by one secondary author and a secretary do not go in BLPs. Cambial — foliar❧ 04:24, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Harold: It is time to stop beating a dead horse. You have no support for your viewpoint on this now-3-week-old thread (except for the pair of now-blocked socks). The remaining three particpants—Jacquesparker0, Cambial Yellowing, and I (Grorp)—have each expressed that the deprogramming content needed to be toned down as UNDUE, and that details as alleged by Roselle do not have sufficient reliable sourcing to be included in a BLP (mainly because of its contentious and challenged nature). I don't see how further discussion will result in swinging consensus 180 degrees.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 23:33, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Grorp: Unless I’m misreading him, Jacquesparker0 changed his mind here about inclusion of details from the source. If so, there is not a consensus and no reason to not continue discussing it, apart from your health problems of course. Perhaps Jacquesparker0 could clarify their position on this matter. I also thought you might want to discuss my comment below, since it was a good faith response to your pre-derailment comment. Apparently you’d prefer not to. There's also the question of the removed sentence that Cambial Yellowing restored. I believe Jacquesparker0 argued in some depth that the sentence should be removed, and I tacitly supported that as well, so there was no consensus there either. Harold the Sheep (talk) 03:55, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Harold: I tagged Jacquesparker0, so they are notified and can respond for themselves.

As to your suggestion "I also thought you might want to discuss my comment below", sure I'll comment on it right now. I didn't see your earlier "comment" as good faith at all, but instead started out so inappropriately flippant as to be disrespectful and insulting. I'm quite sure that your intention was to be offensive and that I was not misreading it.

What then followed was yet more pushing of your POV. Nothing of what you wrote was worthy of any effort to respond. The way I see it, your Herculean effort on this talk page fits neatly into the ADVOCACY essay. Despite you being shot down numerous times on how you really want this BLP to read, you are ignoring usual and typical Wikipedia guidelines (as pointed out numerous times), as well as ignoring consensus on this issue. You are wasting all of our time and you are being disruptive.

At this point, it wouldn't even matter if the Roselle accusations are true facts; you have failed to present multiple high-quality sources, and without it you're just not going to change minds.

I point you to ONUS (verifiability does not guarantee inclusion): "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and other policies may indicate that the material is inappropriate. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." (emphasis is mine)

That is your BURDEN, not anyone else's. I am under no obligation to further engage with your POVPUSHING, especially while you are ignoring advice and suggestions by other editors, and ignoring Wikipedia guidelines. I feel strongly about following Wikipedia guidelines on this, and your lack of respect for the guidelines—and your fellow editors—is off-putting.

Berating others is not going to get someone to turn 180 degrees, and this 'discussion' is unconstructively and futilely going in circles; hence my suggestion to DROPTHESTICK.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 05:27, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea to clarify my position, since it seems to be a bit more fluid than others'. I, nor anyone else I believe, am not disputing the validity of the claims made by Roselle/Hassan/Shupe & Darnell. I think that is very much real and has primary source evidence to back it up. However, I was initially weakly supporting the removal of the material on those claims (and I am saying "claims" in the general sense -- I am not saying it to undermine them) because I believed the amount of detail was a bit unnecessary to include. At most, I would be okay with a sentence or two about Roselle's deprogramming, not an entire paragraph's worth of writing. Shupe and Darnell's book is about the only secondary, independent source on the subject that anyone has brought up, so I think it would be worth at most a sentence or two to be mentioned. Originally, I had believed it shouldn't be there entirely because of WP:EXCEPTIONAL.

However, depending on how we word it here, I don't think the claim that Hassan deprogrammed Roselle and Roselle wrote an affidavit about that experience is a particularly exceptional claim. We know those things happened, and there's an secondary, independent source to point to in our citation. There's only one source, sure, but that's enough, in my opinion. Anson Shupe was a highly regarded sociologist of religion when he was alive -- I personally have used his work in my own. I don't know who Susan Darnell is, but having done some light Googling, I agree that Shupe probably worked with her because of financial expertise -- many of the CAN files at UCSB are financial documents (speaking from personal experience here). She may be a "nobody" but that doesn't make her wrong nor the source relevant here. Because there's only one source we all know of that talks about this specific aspect of Hassan's career, I think about a sentence or two (maximum) can be warranted.

Grorp is correct, though, that the onus is on Harold the Sheep or anyone else who actively wants to add that material. I think the article is fine either way, with or without it. To reiterate, a sentence or two is probably the most necessary on this aspect of Hassan's career, if we choose to include it at all. I know that sounds a bit on the fence about things, but at the very least one could see that as a decent compromise. Though, what is currently there in the article reads just fine, and I don't think adding material on Roselle's deprogramming and affidavit are in any way necessary for this article, though adding a sentence about it wouldn't be adding unnecessary fluff either. Hopefully that makes sense; I'm writing this pretty late at night for me. --Jacquesparker0 (talk) 08:42, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done! May this chaos never stir again. (*collapses exhaustedly*)   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 22:04, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

OMG Grorp! are you ok? (*splashes water on Grorp's face*) I'm so sorry, I had no idea you were in such a fragile state. But it's all right, the evil cult-promoting socks have been despatched with righteous force to wiki-oblivion, and all evidence of their chaotic ravings erased from this page. Unfortunately, my own chaotic ravings remain, and they haven’t really been addressed, and I must warn you, for your own safety, that I am feeling inclined to add to the discussion, because in all honesty this seems to me like a whitewash. Rest assured, I accept that your changes have been made and that I'm outnumbered, so I won't be reverting them. There's no necessity for you to trouble yourself with a response: your health is far more important than this nonsense. However, please feel free to respond if you're up to it.

As you so aptly observed, the discussion went right off the rails, in more ways than one, so I'm going to return to the point: the source and what our article says about it. That was what the OP was about. Your pre-derailment response to my summary of the source was: Though an affidavit may corroborate something, it seems the published source does not mention specifically which details were performed by Hassan and which were performed by others who were present. As such, I think we cannot definitively say in Wikivoice who did what. That's entirely fair, but the authors are not talking about who did what, and they are not talking about Roselle's affidavit corroborating anything. They are talking about Hassan in his role as deprogrammer, and about Hassan's own account corroborating Roselle's account. Based only on the extract from it, this includes confirmation of:

• an initial violent restraint. There is no accusation from anyone that Hassan was physically involved in the assault. In Hassan's account, he addresses his client only after complete incapacitation has been violently enforced by others. He then proceeds to advise an enraged but paralyzed man to calm down or he won't be released.
• Roselle being handcuffed and restrained on a bed. Again, no suggestion that Hassan personally did the dirty work, but he confirms that it definitely happened. Once his client is totally restrained he leaves him in that state, and lets him know the conditions for his release; this implies that he is complicit in the abduction and detention. Saying "I was never involved in violence of any kind" just because he didn't personally administer the violence is disingenuous. He was right there, a "deprogrammer" with a violently restrained "client", with every intention of leaving him in that condition until he did as he was told. Hassan's own words make it clear that it took seven football players to hold Roselle down, that he is handcuffed, that he is restrained on a bed, and that he is showing unmistakable signs of being really, really angry about it.
• the forced detention extending over at least "a couple of days" since that is how long Hassan says Roselle refused to eat.
• a threat by Hassan to have him injected with intravenous glucose because he "refused to eat my food".

It's not about who did what; it's about Hassan's role as a professional, paid "deprogrammer". He was there, giving instructions and lectures to an angry, humiliated, and completely immobilized man for several days, fully aware of what was going on. This is evidenced not only by Roselle's affidavits, but by Hassan's own account, which the authors describe as corroborating Roselle's account. I'm not suggesting that the above details should be included in the article, only that the book is a legitimate source making a legitimate, evidence-based point about Hassan's involvement with deprogramming. As I said, I won't be trying to alter the article, unless there is some sort of agreement to do so. Harold the Sheep (talk) 07:38, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

References

FTN request

I just stumbled on this article and posted to FTN to get some help, as I don't have time for another article of this type that seems to need a great deal of work. - Hipal (talk) 21:36, 22 July 2025 (UTC)