Talk:APA Task Force on Deceptive and Indirect Methods of Persuasion and Control

message: OMG should I not be removing redlinks?  I thought it was good to do as a form of cleanup.  Sorry about that. Tanaats 02:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No... Redlinks are a useful device to encourage the creation of new articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I was subjected to a bad influence on another article. :) Sorry about that again. Tanaats 03:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redlinks 

message: Does any one has acccess to P.G. Zimbardo, Mind control: psychological reality or mindless rhetoric? APA Monitor on Psychology, where a new talsk force was asked to be formed to study the subject? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.csj.org/infoserv_articles/zimbardo_philip_mindcontrol.htm Tanaats 02:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The requestors were former group members who had given a presentation at the conference. Tanaats 03:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New APA taskforce? 

message: Jossi, does the cite "Summons of January 31, 1994, n. 110, p. 31" for the Singer summons meet WP:V?  I don't see how someone could verify with that little information.  Tanaats 04:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Court summons are public records in California. The press release I found on a database. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: There are other secondary sources to support the material I added. For example, Cultologists sue social science associations; Margaret Singer,Richard Ofshe, American Psychological Association, American Sociological Association, NCAHF Newsletter - 11/1/1992,  	CONTROVERSIAL PSYCHOLOGIST'S COMPLAINT THROWN OUT OF NEW YORK U.S. DISTRICT COURT, PR Newswire - 9/3/199, and others. I will try and get the full text of these. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The summons for the APA suit 

message: I've changed the sentence regarding the summons to "The court summons issued in the case on behalf of Singer and Ofshe stated that the the rejection of the DIMPAC report was 'described by the APA as a rejection of the scientific validity of the theory of coercive persuasion'".  
This is all that can be objectively reported.  We don't know that this is Singer's language as opposed to her attorney's language.  We don't know that Singer "acknowledged" anything.  All we objectively know is that this is the language that was found in the summons. Tanaats 07:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The summons 

message: We ought to expand on this lawsuit. Many sources I am reading describe this case as pivotal and its ruling has been widely used since then in may cases. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  United States v. Fishman 

message: We need some material from Zablocki's response to the DIMPAC report rejection. I think that Zimbardo makes a less polarized argument about the report and its rejection by APA, and may be an excellent addition to the report. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea, I'll try to dig something up. Tanaats 00:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zablocki 

message: The discussions of the contents of the report use both past tense and present tense.  Which do we want to use? Tanaats 23:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which tense? 

message: The summary of the report may not be reflective of the report's content, as the most controversial aspects of the report are not in the "Recommendations" section. I would support a removal of that summary, (as it is a primary source), or alternatively, some key passages from the report itself, rather then the recommendations. Otherwise there is a discrepancy between the report rejection memo, and the reviews written by the external experts and what we are reporting on the article about the report content. Added to to to do list. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Recommendations" are the key part of the report, as they describe the final conclusions of the Task Force.  There is no discrepancy - as the "report rejection memo" is already cited multiple times in detail.  However, I agree with you that we should also add more information summarizing the other key useful parts from earlier in the report.  Smeelgova 05:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary of report 

message: The cite "Press Release, Aug 12, 1992 from Michael Flomenhaf" doesn't give enough specifics to enable a reader to verify it.  I'm going to delete it soon for being not verifiable. Tanaats 18:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That press release is only used to list the people named in the lawsuit. The same information is in the public court records.  I do not see he need to delete it, as it is not controversial. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Found a verifiable source, and added it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Challenging a cite 

message: Who is the "Deprogramming Survivors Network" and why is their self-published opinion notable here? They don't seem to have any current net presence, and the few press hits tend to be brief mentions as a possible front group. AndroidCat (talk) 03:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed until it's shown that this group's opinion is notable. AndroidCat (talk) 07:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Deprogramming Survivors Network"