Talk:Indoctrination

message: I have removed the link to islam on this page- I'm not islamic myself, but I reckon that this link was a bit POV.
Caveat: improve this entry. Enlarge it. Disambiguate it. Make it deeper, wiser, better. But suppressed text will soon reappear in red.
User:Andries posts "Let's make indoctrination a serious article." But he suppresses the following text:
:"But the aims and techniques of indoctrination can still be assessed."
What reading of that sentence could construe it as insufficiently neutral for Wikipedia? Why shouldn't suppressed text in the article appear in red? Who forbids this text? Who forbids this format? Wetman 21:41, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, how do you know that the above sentence is true? Do you have references for all the techniques of indoctrination? May be somebody uses a novel indoctrination technique that has not been described and that you had not thought of. Andries 06:22, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The point being that "the aims and techniques of indoctrination may not be assessed." This is not true in an open and neutral discussion. --Wetman 06:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: In regards to: "Instruction in the basic principles of science, in particular, can not properly be called indoctrination[citation needed], in the sense that the fundamental principals of science call for critical self-evaluation and skeptical scrutiny of one's own ideas." - the "[citation needed]" should be removed because this statement is /prima facie/, or self-evident - It is its' own support, it is an axiom.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.15.122.87 (talk) 21:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Self evident

message: Text moved here:
Religious indoctrination is a subject of academic interest. An upcoming volume, The Costs of Autonomy: Personal Essays on the Morality of Religious Indoctrination is planned to analyze the effects of religious indoctrination on academics.
Reason: until the book is actually published this is not encyclopedic. Once it's published let's have a link or reference.
More text moved here:
An example of the use of political indoctrination on children is seen in It's Elementary, a teacher training video by Academy Award winner Debra Chasnoff and Helen Cohen. It illustrates children undergoing political indoctrination in schools across the country showing real examples of school activities, faculty meetings, and classroom discussions.
Reason: I disagree with User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling, because to criticise the teaching of particular values as indoctrination (in the perjorative sense) is already POV. Teaching values I approve of is socialisation or parenting; teaching values I disapprove of is indoctrination. Or do you have a source for an objectively measurable definition? As such, if we want to collect examples of indoctrination we have to cite a notable or credible source who said it was indoctrination and make it clear that this is a matter of opinion. massresistance.org is neither notable nor credible; on the other hand, Jerry Falwell would do, as would the New York Times. The video you referenced is a teacher training video; who said it was indoctrination apart from massresistance.org? By contrast, the Jesus Camp documentary was an award-winning (therefore notable) programme presenting the activities of the camp as indoctrination.
I haven't checked out the single external link yet, from the name I suspect it may be very POV. We really have to be careful with the links in this article.
I have also tidied up the definitions and added some clarification of my own.
I am planning to continue working on this article, including hunting for suitable sources to cite. The criticism section still needs work and references. A section on political indoctrination is sorely needed, it should probably be the biggest section of the article. I am working on this.
Watch this space!
SociableLiberal 19:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tidying up definitions, NPOV, etc.

message: In the current version of the page, Chomsky is quoted as follows "For those who stubbornly seek freedom, there can be no more urgent task than to come to understand the mechanisms and practices of indoctrination. These are easy to perceive in the totalitarian societies, much less so in the system of 'brainwashing under freedom' to which we are subjected and which all too often we serve as willing or unwitting instruments." But the full article linked to on zpub does not include the word 'brainwashing'. The original passage reads as follows "For those who stubbornly seek freedom around the world, there can be no more urgent task than to come to understand the mechanisms and practices of indoctrination. These are easy to perceive in the totalitarian societies, much less so in the propaganda system to which we are subjected and in which all too often we serve as unwilling or unwitting instruments." However, Chomsky does use the phrase 'brainwashing under freedom' elsewhere - for example in his book The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism (p 66). --RichardVeryard (talk) 17:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chomsky on brainwashing 

message: Could someone make a section on how these techniques are used are by 12-step programs, especially AA, please? I don't know how to find sources. Thanks :) jrun (talk) 16:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: 12-Step Groups

message: I am surprised that truth is not mentioned anywhere in the article? If I "force" my child into accepting that 2+2 is 4 and only 4, before she is able to understand that, is that indoctrination? In other words, is indoctrination independent of the content, or is it not? I am honestly asking, because I was under the impressions that it is very much depending on the content and that it is only indoctrination if one is forcing someone to accept something as true, which is either proven to be false or not yet proven to be true.--StojadinovicP (talk) 09:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Indoctrination and truth

message: Move discussion to one location, see Talk:Socialization#Merger_proposal. Jonpatterns (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge discussion - Is this article really needed?

message: I think that as well as an expert on Sociology, this article might need attention from an expert in Psychology. Vorbee (talk) 21:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Expert on Psychology

message: There are two pictures at the start of this article: one depicts a crowd doing the Nazi salute and the other one depicts young children with a book authored by Mao. Such examples fit the political "common sense" in the Western Hemisphere: indoctrination = totalitarian governments. However, this way of framing the concept through pictures is biased towards a political narrative that denies the existence of political indoctrination in so called "democracies". A truly balanced, nuanced article would include examples from the "free world", such as the Pledge of Allegiance in the U.S. or any other form of state propaganda enforced through compulsory education. 181.162.21.108 (talk) 20:32, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images and biases