Talk:Mind control/Archive 2

message: I have made some more changes, enough that (if they stick) I believe that the article will not substantially misinform anyone. I still would like to review Lifton's book, sharpen up my memory on the conclusions he and Schein reached, and then see what can be done to improve the article. I suspect that much of the problem with the original article can be written off to vague definitions of brainwashing that allowed many relatively benign manipulations to be called brainwashing, that were followed by denials by others that amounted to saying that the relatively benign manipulatios did not meet the strict definition of "brainwashing".  I may not remember the Schein and Lifton materials well enough to be sure that the article has produced a full description of the hard-ball version of the technique as used by the CCP.  
I suppose that one ancillary problem is: does it make a difference whether one is arrested and thrown into a "commune" where brainwashing is practiced, or one enters voluntarily and with full disclosure of the likely consequences and the methodologies to be used. If somebody says that s/he will remake my mind according to his/her prescriptions by the use of classical brainwashing techniques, then if I voluntarily submit to this person because he/she has a doctor of divinity from Cambridge Theological Institution (of Cambridge, MA)  ;-) , have I removed from that person the responsibility to behave ethically according to some external standard? Or can s/he henceforth do with me as she or he desires?
Another ancillary ethical question would be whether it is o.k. to use brainwashing techniques to try to rehabilitate prisoners who have been convicted of felonies.  P0M 17:38, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed "totally disputed" notice 

message: *Chapter "8 Isolated from the world"
:"It has become clear in the course of time that the definition of reality for most people - that includes questions like, what happens with me, with others and with the rest of society - and their judgement about what is good and evil, is very sensitive to suggestion, influence and manipulation if this happens when these people are cut off from other sources of information. If there is only one interpretation available and if in addition this interpretation is also accepted by other co-believers and if even a suspicion of doubt is explained as a shortage of faith or betrayal to the cause, then, it will be clear, that investigation of reality is not easy. "
Andries 02:30, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Andries, it will be helpful if you read some of the scholars that challenge brainwashing theories (see list of citacions above), rather than reading the same scholars again and again. That will have the potential to widen your perspective on this subject. --Zappaz 16:11, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason I use Barker as a reference so often is that she is both acceptable for you and me. I have read much more on the subjects but I have to admit that I often distrust much of what I read because there is so much partisan information with regards to cults and NRMs. I even borrowed Lifton's original book from the library only for this article though I only read some chapters. Andries 17:50, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Interesting quote fom Barker's book ''An introduction to NRMs''

message: Why isn't there even a section about religious brainwashing, the most obvious large-scale organized brainwashing?
---
Oh for Heaven's Sake! The term "brainwashing" was invented in 1953 to explain away why 23 US soldiers who were captured by the Chinese or North Koreans during the Korean War of 1950 chose not to repatriate after the armistice. 
What happened to them is what is now termed more fashionably as the "Stockholm Syndrome", (see the Wiki thingie on this -- there must be one), when captives bond to their captors and start seeing reality from their side of the fence. 
This is all Wiki needs to say about this lexical curiosity, the brainchild of some gifted US psychological warfare officer.
--Arthur Borges 00:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious Brainwashing 

message: I have made some more changes, enough that (if they stick) I believe that the article will not substantially misinform anyone. I still would like to review Lifton's book, sharpen up my memory on the conclusions he and Schein reached, and then see what can be done to improve the article. I suspect that much of the problem with the original article can be written off to vague definitions of brainwashing that allowed many relatively benign manipulations to be called brainwashing, that were followed by denials by others that amounted to saying that the relatively benign manipulatios did not meet the strict definition of "brainwashing".  I may not remember the Schein and Lifton materials well enough to be sure that the article has produced a full description of the hard-ball version of the technique as used by the CCP.  
I suppose that one ancillary problem is: does it make a difference whether one is arrested and thrown into a "commune" where brainwashing is practiced, or one enters voluntarily and with full disclosure of the likely consequences and the methodologies to be used. If somebody says that s/he will remake my mind according to his/her prescriptions by the use of classical brainwashing techniques, then if I voluntarily submit to this person because he/she has a doctor of divinity from Cambridge Theological Institution (of Cambridge, MA)  ;-) , have I removed from that person the responsibility to behave ethically according to some external standard? Or can s/he henceforth do with me as she or he desires?
Another ancillary ethical question would be whether it is o.k. to use brainwashing techniques to try to rehabilitate prisoners who have been convicted of felonies.  P0M 17:38, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed "totally disputed" notice 

message: ::Patrick, I will try but I need some time. I think that William James wrote that intense spiritual excercises may lead to an altered state of consciousness though that term may not have existed when he wrote the classic The varieties of religious experience. I have the book (which is also online available) but have not read it yet. I do not know how to prove the other obvious statement yet. Andries 02:13, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The James materials will be valuable. There is a great deal in Lifton's work about the differences in the ways people react to Chinese intense brainwashing. It's the "wishy-washy" ones who escaped. They "wishyed" over to the pro-PPC position and then "washeyed" back to the consentual reality of the West as soon as they got out from under information control. The "true believer" type, however, tends to switch from being an adamant "no arguments" Catholic (or whatever) to an adamant PPC believer. It's like a cube. You push it and push it and suddenly what was the bottom becomes a side, and there is no easy way to get it back into its original orientation. You have to push it just as hard to get it to go back as you did to get it to turn in the first place.  The other type is more like pushing a bean bag. You push it on one side and the top part of it will move over but the bottom part stays about where it was to begin with, and when you let go it squishes back to about where it was when you started.  I'll check out the URLs you added above. P0M 04:39, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I fail to see the relevance of James material for this article. I thought that this article was about brainwashing. I have read James and do not see what Philosophy of Religion has to do with "brainwashing". If you refer to James-Lange work on the theory of emotions, that may be OK, but I warn you that  these theories have been challenged by contemporary social scientist and physiologists (Philip Bard and Walter Cannon for example). Worth exploring, though. --Zappaz 03:15, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: William James=

message: *Chapter "8 Isolated from the world"
:"It has become clear in the course of time that the definition of reality for most people - that includes questions like, what happens with me, with others and with the rest of society - and their judgement about what is good and evil, is very sensitive to suggestion, influence and manipulation if this happens when these people are cut off from other sources of information. If there is only one interpretation available and if in addition this interpretation is also accepted by other co-believers and if even a suspicion of doubt is explained as a shortage of faith or betrayal to the cause, then, it will be clear, that investigation of reality is not easy. "
Andries 02:30, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Andries, it will be helpful if you read some of the scholars that challenge brainwashing theories (see list of citacions above), rather than reading the same scholars again and again. That will have the potential to widen your perspective on this subject. --Zappaz 16:11, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason I use Barker as a reference so often is that she is both acceptable for you and me. I have read much more on the subjects but I have to admit that I often distrust much of what I read because there is so much partisan information with regards to cults and NRMs. I even borrowed Lifton's original book from the library only for this article though I only read some chapters. Andries 17:50, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Interesting quote fom Barker's book ''An introduction to NRMs''

message: We could expand this article with these subsections, as follows:
#a section the legal implications of coercive persuasion and;
#a section on coercive persuasion as it applies to confessions extracted in interrogations;
#a section on the differences between "influence" and "persuasion" vs "coercive persuasion".
I am already be working on (1). Any takers for the others? Any other sctions that we could add? --Zappaz 03:36, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed additions

message: Zappaz, I would ask that you stop making decisions without consulting everyone else on archiving the talk page.  You may consider the discussions you are archiving to be closed subjects but that is not everyone's view.  -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:43, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I made the decision based on the fact that the page was 35K. I do not see any reason for asking "permission" when the text is available via a link to the archive. This is common practice. --Zappaz 16:51, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Archiving old, closed discussions is common practice.  Asking, when they are less than a week old, whether others besides yourself who consider them closed, is common courtesy.  "The text is available via a link to the archive" is a cheat; the talk page is where discussion takes place, and moving a discussion from the talk page to the archive is a declaration of "we are not discussing this anymore."  If you consult with no one before making that unilateral declaration, it should be obvious what the problem is. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:00, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks P0M. Will do. BTW,  did not archive as a "cheat", I was trying to keep this clean and tidy. --Zappaz 20:20, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. I've been on both sides of this issue in the past. Now I usually write something that I'm thinking of archiving a bunch of stuff in a day or to, wait a day or two, and then note on the discussion page that I have archived.  One thing that sometimes can be helpful is to archived only the parts of a discussion page that have gone cold.  P0M 21:55, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent practice. Will adopt from now on. Thanks for sharing. Maybe it will be good to add to the Help page for new editors.--Zappaz 02:39, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: Thanks Pedant17 for the excellent copyedit effort.  Could you please look again at the last sentence of Brainwashing#Brainwashing_controversy_in_new_religious_movements_and_cults, it is hard to understand as it stands. Thanks! -- Zappaz 22:48, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  cpyedit 

message: Where's the mention of MKULTRA!? How can that possibly be left out of an article on brainwashing? I'll put it in when/if I have time later on.
------
Indeed, please note the flwg from http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKcameronDE.htm: 
QUOTE
(Dr. Donald Ewen) Cameron discovered that "once a subject entered an amnesiac, somnambulistic state, they would become hypersensitive to suggestion". In other words they could be brainwashed. The CIA became aware of Cameron's research and in 1957 Cameron was recruited by Allen Dulles, Director of the CIA, to run Project MKULTRA. Documents released in 1977 show that MKULTRA was a "mind control" program. As it was illegal for the CIA to conduct operations on American soil, Cameron was forced to carry out his experiments at the Allan Memorial Institute in Canada. The CIA arranged funding via Cornell University in New York. 
UNQUOTE
--Arthur Borges 08:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  MKULTRA 

message: Does WIKIPEDIA WORK? Apparently NOT. My first time consulting it... what do I see? A section on Brainwashing which is not only wrong but fraudulent. Sucker that I am, I buy the propaganda - that the consumer of the information can correct the file. Using my own time and resources, I insert historical accuracy, balance and fresh information. The result? Within minutes some lurking buffoon has replaced the original crap word-for-word. Some self absorbed Hackademic? Some political activist? I could care less, but my suspicions are that it is one of the self promoters whose work is linked to the page. Caveat emptor. What irony... some cadre is babysitting his Brainwashing page. My students will not be consulting this "stuff". We don't phuck with other people's minds in Canada.  -- This unsigned comment by 24.87.253.152.
:You speak of having students; if you do, I hope you've taught them to think critically about what they read and what they're told, and to not blindly accept something as the truth just because someone tells them it's true.  Yet exactly what you're doing here, it seems, is to fulminate and rage and conclude "Wikipedia doesn't work!" from the fact that you came in and made major changes which we did not blindly accept as the truth despite you providing no references, no reason why of the two versions, yours is the more accurate and balanced and credible.  I do not necessarily approve of your changes all being reverted, especially with the edit summary "rv (POV)" and no talk page discussion, but I have to wonder why you think that any project like Wikipedia could work the way you seem to suggest it should, where if anyone comes along and says "No, I don't agree with what you have written there; my account of things is the facts and you must accept it as such" it actually is accepted without any question. -- Antaeus Feldspar
::Being the one to blame for the revert, I agree that an explanation was due. Sorry I did not have the time to comment on the revert, as customary. (BTW, I do not like being called a lurking buffon, when actually, yes, I am one of the main contributors to this article for several months already...)
::* I removed text as it was written as an opinion, without references provided and POVs unattributed. Provide references and attribute your additions and we will all be happy bunnies. Otherwise, read the guidelines: 'If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it. 
::* I left some of the information, as it added value to the article.
::* User:24.87.253.152, please be civil in your comments, learn the WP ropes slowly and join the edit fry as a collaborating editor a step at the time.
::Lastly, you may also want to read NPOV for information about the specifics of editing WP. Your statement about the article being "wrong and fraudulent", shows that you have yet to understand the nuances of this encyclopedia. It takes some time to understand how this works. And it does...!
::--Zappaz 06:53, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does WIKIPEDIA WORK? Apparently NOT 

message: by Michael Browning from the Palm Beach Post, March 14, 2003:
"Brainwashing" is one of the few Chinese phrases to have made its way directly into English in translation, thanks to the Korean War. Chinese Taoist temples often displayed the two characters "Xi Xin," pronounced "shee shin," meaning "Wash Heart." It was an adjuration to all those entering to purge their hearts of base thoughts [i.e. Chinese Thought Reform] and desires, and rise to a higher spiritual plane.
The Chinese communists adopted this phrase during political "struggle sessions," in which an erring comrade would be urged by the group to straighten out, fly right, get back in tune with the common goal. The very word for "comrade" in Chinese is tongzhi, meaning "share goal."
Only one slight change was made: Instead of washing the heart, one was urged to wash the brain, "Xi Nao," purify one's thoughts. 
Is it worth including? It is the only article I've found that traces the word back that far, but also I have no idea if its conclusions are valid.
:We are not to judge if the conclusions are valid. If it is a well referenced POV, and you believe it to be notable enough and of encyclopedic value, feeel free to add it. (also note that it is expected than new topics for discussion are placed at the bottom of the page. Thanks). --Zappaz 16:09, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is good content to include. It is not true, as the article (used to?) imply that "brainwashing" was a term invented by clueless Western mass media hacks. The Chinese terms was there first. I had not heard about the Daoist temple thing, but it makes good sense and could easily be confirmed. (I'll try to get around to that job shortly.) 
Was "[i.e. Chinese Thought Reform]" in the original??? It's irrelevant to Daoism or at least greatly misleading. I would replace it with four dots if I were going to quote the whole thing. Better would be to paraphrase the entry and footnote the original.P0M 17:50, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Patrick, I don't get this. The term brainwashing was invented by Western journalists, but the fact that there is a term in Chinese, that is something different, doesn't it? --Zappaz 00:55, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Thank you for the excellent explanation! --Zappaz 20:15, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What missinformation are you claiming I made? Please stop making unwarranted attacks, just because you are associated with the Ross institute and believes that anyone oppossing Ross' religious intolerance stance is an apologist. Thanks. Please also note that WP is not a place for advocacy. You have your website for that.  Some people like you think that by labelling someone or a group with a peyorative distinction makes them evil. That is one of the traits of intolerance. --Zappaz 15:03, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If Wikipedia isn't a place for advocacy, Prem RawZappaz, then what are you doing here?  =)  Don't you think there's just a bit of hypocrisy in publicly claiming that you do what you do because you are a champion of tolerance and freedom and fluffy puppies and all that is good but that .78 opposing the smear jobs against Rick Ross must mean he/she is Rick Ross?  Look, I don't really know if I should be giving you advice to keep you from humiliating yourself, Z, but ...  you're shooting yourself in the foot with this jive about "I really believe you are Rick Ross himself!  Because I cannot comprehend how anyone except Rick Ross himself or one of his personal friends could be on his side!  Despite this utter incomprehension on my part, you should actually believe that I am somehow capable of and interested in NPOV!"  -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:46, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sure you are capable of NPOV, but I have not seen you assuming your POV (I don't believe you can reach the former without first doing the latter). I strive to assume mine fully. Please try and be less cynical, it may make you feele better at the end of a long day. Yes, fluffly puppies (and cats) included, I am for religious tolerance, freedom, personal responsibility and other good stuff. What I am doing in WP? Contributing with thousands others to create an great encyclopedia devoided of bias, hate and religious intolerance. Hope you join me. (You can check Talk:Rick Ross for my reasons in speculating that anon is either Ross himself or someone related to the Ross Institute) --Zappaz 01:06, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: I was wondering about this internet article

message: Request for comment initiated by Zappaz 18:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC Summary 

message: The section Brainwashing#The_use_of_coercive_persuasion_techniques_in_China reads very much as opinions presented as facts, lacks attributions and citations and therefore inherently POV. Unless someone cares to NPOV this section and provide citations I will remove this text in a week's time. --Zappaz 02:24, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think accurately describes Lifton's book about the matter (I have only read some of it and I brought the book back to the library.) Andries 12:38, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is from Lifton's it needs clearly to say that. Now it reads as facts. --ZappaZ  12:40, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, but I do not think that there is anyone who has given a serious rebuttal to Lifton's research with regards to brainwashing in China. Please let me know if you know somebody. The psychiatrist Lifton has been criticized (by Paul Schnabel) for lack of trying to give support to people who clearly had serious emotional and adaptation problems and were very confused  Andries 12:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

text: This section still reads as fact rather than as attributed. to Lifton I would suggest you re-write this sectionif you have an interest in presenting Lifton's work on brainwashing. I am not in the mood to read that book, so if you are inclined, please attribute it and removed the NPOV warning. --ZappaZ  05:54, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But Lifton's work on the subject was never disputed and not because his research was so obscure. So his research can be stated as facts or do I miss something? Many articles in Wikipedia are stated as facts, simply because the research is undisputed. I will try to attribute it to Lifton but I am confused about this. Andries 07:27, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are confused, then ask for clarification. What I am saying is that the section needs to be re-written to show that the text (if indeed that is the case) is attributted to Lifton. At this moment it does not read as such. And if it is indeed attributed to Lifton, it needs to be better summarized as well. --ZappaZ  10:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am a bit suprized that you give the section a disputed warning in combination with your self-admitted unwillingness to read the references mentioned at the bottom of the article. May be you can explain why you think that undisputed research with many references at the bottom cannot be stated as facts but must be attributed? ~I admit that it would be better to do so, but in case the research is undisputed I do not consider it necessary and I think a NPOV warning that you inserted is inappropriate. Andries 12:59, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are in squelch mode until you retract from your personal attack. --ZappaZ  16:54, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research? 

message: O.K., as requested I have revisited this section. I can give citations if people feel that there are doubts about whether Lifton and Schein actually reported these conclusions, but such citations would answer the question of whether the section is accurate or not. The section has a "neutrality" warning on it, and that must be answered in a different way.
There actually is a POV question in regard to this section. I've tried to address it. One point of view says that it is evil to use torture and coercive measures short of torture to take a prisoner's autonomy away from him/her and cause him/her to come into compliance with the values of the state. Another point of view says that it is preferable to use brainwashing on prisoners to cause them to cease being criminals rather than to use simple imprisonment to indulge in "pay back", causing prisoners distress and leading to no other result than recidivism.  If I remember correctly, in Yablonsky's book on Synanon the founder of the Synanon organization says that he uses brainwashing and finds it preferable to letting guys OD on heroin.  Was that the point of view that someone wanted included? Or is there some other way in which point of view needs to be neutralized?P0M 02:32, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent work Patrick! I am removing the sectNPOV warning. Thank you. --ZappaZ  03:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The use of coercive persuasion -- neutrality 

message: After the excellent additions and edits by Patrick (P0M), Irmgard and anons, I feel we are getting closer to the stated aim of making this a featured article. What do editors think? Are we ready to submit this article to review via RfC as needede before submitting to be evaluated as a featured article? If fellow editors thing we are not there yet, could they please list below what does this article need to get us there? Thanks! --ZappaZ  03:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC for featured article 

message: Sorted the quotes according to date and gave the references according to reference section (standard referencing). Also collected all "See Also"s in one place  --Irmgard 22:17, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Source:  --ZappaZ  23:03, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, is in the list. --Irmgard 08:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Source:  --ZappaZ  23:03, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Like this no correct attribution (no author, no date, no title), but I managed to find it --Irmgard 08:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Disagree. The quote should stay with the corrected date. If there was a withdrawal, state it and cite it. --ZappaZ  23:03, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe better - the three APA statements within three month make the situation more clear. --Irmgard 08:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

text: BSERP thanks the Task Force on Deceptive and Indirect Methods of Persuasion and Control for Its service but Is unable to accept the report of the Task Force. In general, the report lacks the scientific rigor and evenhanded critical approach necessary for APA Imprimatur. The report was carefully reviewed by two external experts and two members of the Board. They Independently agreed on the significant deficiencies In the report. The reviews are enclosed for your Information. The Board cautions the Task Force members against using their Past appointment to Imply BSERP or APA support or approval of the positions advocated In the report. BSERP requests that Task Force members not distribute or publicize the report without Indicating that the report was unacceptable to the Board. Finally, after much consideration, BSERP does not believe that we have sufficient Information available to guide us In taking a position on this Issue.</blockquote>
I am changing the context of the quote as appropriate. --ZappaZ  01:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes 

message: That section is factually innacurate. The BSERP rejected DIMPAC findings, not the amicus curiae. Please fix or delete the new text. --ZappaZ  22:59, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed - I'll remove the tag. --Irmgard 20:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The APA and the brainwashing theories 

message: Moved an exellent and very informative quotes section to Wikiquotes. There was already a wikiquote link on the bottom. Banana04131 00:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotes

message: Is there still a reason for the merge notice? To me it seems it would  be a  bad idea. P0M 18:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussion is at Talk:Mind control#Merge with Brainwashing - overall looks rather in direction pro-merge. --Irmgard 19:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Merger notice removed. No consensus to merge. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 13:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: Please take part at the merge vote under Talk:Mind control#Merge vote --Irmgard 16:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge vote 

message: What does the Stroop effect have to do with brainwashing at all? That's merely a demonstration of our tendancy to process words pretty much automatically. It doesn't make people think green is blue and vice-versa. Please don't resort to a parlour trick in order to "demonstrate" brainwashing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.100.5.203 (talk • contribs) .
:Feel free to edit the article and improve it. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 05:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As there was no reference or even explanation why the Stroop effect is brainwashing, I moved the example to Stroop effect. If someone has a reference where the Stroop effect is linked to brainwashing, this should, of course, be mentioned here, but the example should still be in the Stroop effect article. --Irmgard 23:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  re: The "example" cited in this article 

message: This new section "Varying brainwashing concepts" seems to an excellent example of what original research is, unless you attribute these definitions to notable sources, that is. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 00:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. This section describes some ways in which data might be found to range across some continuum. It does not assert anything about the real world. It does not draw any conclusion such as "More brainwashing is done for religious purposes than for political purposes," which would require some research to back it up. P0M 01:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It's just a venn diagram in paragraph form. What could possibly be the issue with it? All it states is every possible opinion on brainwashing scope versus intent. Liu Bei 13:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research? 

message: The Germans after the war have been reeducated, but have they been brainwashed like the "Manchurian Candidate"?
:Please sign your postings.
:The Manchurian candidate was just a movie actor, and as far as I can recall the process of brainwashing was not really illustrated in the movie.  
:Brainwashing (xinao) and thought reform (sixiang gaizao) are two names for the process that was used in Communist China. We know a good bit about it.  When challenged as to whether the founder of Synanon employed brainwashing he said yes. He qualified that stateent to indicate that he used  certain methods to "wash away" bad learning so it could be replaced with something more adaptive.
:Brainwashing is a form of reeducation, but not all forms of reeducation are brainwashing. P0M 21:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is brainwashing really the same as "re-education"? 

message: Most articles have XXXX in Pop Culture. At least, all the others I've seen, and I'm sure that the list is by no means complete.
I have a few choices to add to it, but then again, maybe we should move the "Brainwashing [In Fiction/Pop Culture] into its own article? Because, I have feeling it could grow to temendous lengths. Colonel Marksman 20:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe a brief mention of the Manchurian Candidate movie in this article and then a separate article for all the other fictional treatments would be most helpful. P0M 05:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent contemporary example. CyberAnth 03:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Brainwashing in Fiction

message: Okay, as it appears in this article, what are NRM?  No acronym should be used until after the spelled out version, e.g., United Kingdom (U.K).
CyberAnth 03:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NRMs???

message: I just removed Robinson, B.A.: Glossary of Religious Terms, ca. 1996 which linked to /www.religioustolerance.org/gl_b.htm - On reading this site you'll see that it is a self published collection of personal essays and research by people with no background or reputation in the fields they comment on.  It does not satisfy our requirement for verification from a reliable source.  I looked through the article but could see for sure where the glossary might have been used. --Siobhan Hansa 13:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I added a reference to Hassan to counterpoint the Barker reference in re Unification Church recruitment.  Tanaats 21:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added counterpoint re Barker's opinion on UC recruitment 

message: Jossie, I can't find where it says "When Singer's findings were rejected by the APA for "[lacking] the scientific rigor and evenhanded critical approach necessary"" in the cited reference. What am I missing?  Thanks. Tanaats 20:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is in the previous paragraphs  "the brainwashing theory espoused lacks the scientific rigor and evenhanded critical approach necessary for APA imprimatur", and concluded Finally, after much consideration, BSERP does not believe that we have sufficient information available to guide us in taking a position on this issue." It is in the APA memo rejecting the DIMPAC findings.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The previous paragraph doesn't say anything about the lawsuit, and can't support any statement about the lawsuit.  Needlessly repeating "Singer's findings were rejected by the APA for "[lacking] the scientific rigor and evenhanded critical approach necessary" introduces a biased spin by pounding on the rejection twice.  And positing a cause-effect relationship without a citation that says there was one is OR isn't it? Isn't it enough and more proper to just state the charges stated in her lawsuit and supported by the citation? Tanaats 20:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: However I would support a compromise: "After Singer's findings were rejected by the APA Singer sued the APA in 1992 for "defamation, frauds, aiding and abetting and conspiracy" and lost in 1994."  Tanaats 21:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can't find the support for it 

message: Brainwashing and cults.
Suggestion to improve site:
A more modern example can be found in Canada, where the logic of 'we are all equal before the Law or God' has been changed to 'we are all equal', sort of remnants of communism ideology, that has been allowed to permiate general society.
References to be found;
--Caesar J. B. Squitti  :  Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 00:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brainwashing and cults. 

message: Another suggestion to verify:
It should be obvious to some of us that many forms of marketing and advertising employ form of propaganda considered to be brainwashing as likened to education.
The words are interchangeable, and in Europe, especially Italy, advertisements are referred to as 'propaganda'.
--Caesar J. B. Squitti  :  Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 00:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propaganda = Marketing 

message: BabyDweezil,
Sorry, I forgot to make an edit comment on my revert.  
There is a big difference between "OR" and "uncited material".  Please refer to WP:OR. 
There is already a "fact" tag on the uncited material, which is the appropriate way to highlight such material.  Tanaats 01:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its both. Original research is the larger issue. BabyDweezil 01:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  OR vs. uncited 

message: I notice that The Parallax View is missing in the movie list. My memory (from having watched it 20 years ago on TV) was that this was a brainwashing movie. But the b-word isn't used in the article on that movie... weird. Anyone else watched it? --Tilman 21:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, they recruit sociopathic personalities and then they Zoolander them. Tanaats 23:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[The Parallax View]] 

message: If Brainwashing is instilling beliefs against a person's will, what is it called then, when a person instill's beliefs willingly through a similarly systematic manner?
:Thought reform or brainwashing is a methodology. It's like a knife. In the hands of a bad man it can be a murder weapon, and in the hands of a surgeon it may save somebody's life.
:Sometimes people willingly join organizations like Synanon in order to try to change the underlying conditions that have made them self-medicate with heroin or other such pharmacological agents. Chuck Diedrich, the founder of Synanon, accepted the idea that his organization used brainwashing. Actually, he may not have known all the levels of control and manipulation involved, but he was aware of the use of intense encounter groups during brainwashing, and Synanon used essentially the same process.
:Another model would be the techniques used to try to reform homosexuals. They certainly would not call what they do "brainwashing," but you might examine their methods and compare them to the techniques used to change attitudes and behaviors in brainwashing.
:One of the problems with the term "brainwashing" is that it has a pretty strong negative connotation. That is one of the reasons that the CCP probably prefers the term "thought control."  Other countries have used similar methodologies for various reasons. As far as I know there is no specific positive term. P0M 02:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: I delete the whole section describing "its elementary" a educational tool on tolerance of gay and lesbian lifestyle as a example of brainwashing. Treat tolerance as "brain washing". Probably put in by a Christianist. Totally offensive section and completely NPOV. Anonymous
*It's back!*  :(  And I agree with you: "It can be said" is no basis for the entry.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.221.118 (talk) 22:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted offensive reference to Its Elementary 

message: (Note:I am a Chinese student myself and a non-english-speaker. Forgive me for grammatical mistakes please.)
I think the part which concerns on Chinese brainwashing GIs in Korean War is somehow, not so neutral
*I learnt a lot of the advantage of Communism/Socialism at school. (Though, these are from gov't and I don't really believe anything gov't says)
*Korean War, in essence, is only a civil war. But (according to the gov't propaganda) the U.S.'s interference made Chinese into some kind of "panic" (as PRC just formed, and N.Korea borders with PRC). In this circumstance, China marched into war. There is a Chinese idiom known as "If the lips are frozen, the same fate goes to the teeth". Beijing simply couldn't allow unfriendly American forces(United Nations, whatever) or any foreign forces to reach China's border. 
*Plus, U.S.'s interference should be considered as a part of its hegemony, as it launched not only Korean War, but also Vietnam War. 
*Whether mind-controlling is or not implied on GI's is not verified. 
*"Thought-Reform" is actually done and is officially public. Both in media and in public education. But declaring this as "mind-controlling", when the defination of "mind-controlling" is still not specific and accure, is obviously arbitrary.
So the conclusion:This part is not so neutral.
What do you think?
------Actually I am named BNJ representing Benjamin Jones. But that name is occupied. 06:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of this article is quite horrible, mostly speculation, etc, and mostly too long. I agree with you completely, this is one of the things that do not belong in wikipedia.--DustWolf (talk) 03:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese "brainwashing"?! 

message: more about military brainwashing in basic training  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 18:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  military brainwashing 

message: Can someone tell me what Oprah is doing in the see also section? It doesn't seem immediately obvious. 134.173.51.120 (talk) 16:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, that would be some vandal slipping in text when the good editors are not paying attention. Fixed it now. Also, Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit - please feel free to do so. Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 18:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  See Also: ? 

message: Regards this edit and this reversion - despite having the appearance of five separate references to back up this statement, in actuality it consists of two:
#Three of the references are to the extreme abuse surveys.  These references are a very dubious addition.  They are the basis of a web survey of self-identifying "ritual abuse torture" and "satanic ritual abuse" survivors; SRA is now considered a moral panic by all but an extreme fringe of most scholars, the few fringe authors that publish do not do so in mainstream venues and directly about the subject.  
#Two of the references are to Randy Noblitt.  First is to his terrible book, Cult and Ritual Abuse, is now very outdated (particularly given the SRA phenomenon has no mainstream scholarly support and several books have now been written about the explicit moral panic nature of it , ) so bad the latest incarnation could only be published via vanity press, co-written by an advocate for the existence of ritual abuse, and was heavily criticized by Joel Best in Criminal Justice Review for being self-contradictory and pseudoscientific in its ability to explain away any and all issues through special pleading.  The second, "an empirical look at the ritual abuse controversy", is from 1998, and never published in any journal.  It's posted on a website that advocates for the truth of satanic ritual abuse, and is an unreliable (really self-published) source.  
In addition, the actual statement is "Allegations have appeared of the use of brainwashing in cults using children in rituals."  This is again SRA dressed in a cheap suit.  The "cults" are never identified (because they never existed, the entire thing was sparked by Michelle Remembers and an economic downturn), not here and not in the sources used.  Noblitt throws in a couple old standards - Freemasons, The Illuminati, Santeria, Wicca, Gnostics, etc. but no proof has ever been found for SRA and its modern incarnates.  The 'evidence' is testimonials from a very small pool of extremely disturbed people who self-selected or were groomed by credulous and believing therapists (i.e. a survey of 2709 American therapists found the majority of allegations of SRA came from only sixteen therapists, suggesting that the determining factor in a patient making allegations of SRA was the therapist's predisposition.).  
Finally, the account to add this was Donrus22, who is a sockpuppet of the now-banned User:ResearchEditor (see User:Donrus22 and the RFCU case results), who was banned for the unjustified pushing of a minority, fringe POV into any and all articles related to child abuse, satanic ritual abuse, the day care sex abuse hysteria.  
This statement and the sources are undue weight on a fringe position with no mainstream support using outdated, extremely narrow, and in many cases self-publshed, unreliable sources.  I'd like to remove it.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the detailed analysis. I have no interest in pushing the claims of brainwashing in "ritual abuse", but it emerges that such claims (labeled as claims or allegations) provide a good example for a widespread and popular (but very loose) use of "brainwashing" as a put-down for ANY sort of disapproved communication from any disapproved entity. (I suspect we could nudge much of the "Brainwashing in fiction" section into such a category of usage.) Perhaps our article should at least mention and clearly exemplify this (with appropriate debunking evidence, to make the point). -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extreme abuse survey 

message: Suggestion to add  half-truths.
Having researched half-truths for some 20 years, I seriously suggest that the use of half-truths to brainwash people and their logical thinking is relatively unknown and should be included.
Half-truths, parts of the truth.   Abuse is the most corrupted area in North America in the last 30 years.
Yes some of this is my own research however until my book comes out I suggest it be included and sourced.
--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 10:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion to add  half-truths. 

message: Note that a major effort to combine mind control and brainwashing into a single article is now complete.
Note also, that "merge complete" is not intended to mean that the newly merged article is perfect. Contributors are encouraged to continue editing and improving the article. 
Just please note that "brainwashing" and "mind control" mean pretty much the same thing, so that's why there's going to be just the single article.
If anything got left out during the merge, mention it at talk:mind control or just "be bold" and put it right in! :-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge