![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The article is excessively long. Many deprogrammers served prison terms for this activity, so it is strange that their opinions are quoted in length, but the fact that deprogramming is an illegal occupation is somehow omitted. Interestingly, more recently former 'deprogrammers' later changed theit terminology and deprogramming became 'exit counselling' and (which is supposedly voluntary i.e. no kidnappings, tying to armahairs, no drugs, no threats).
Removed words like "cultist". When I have time, I will add more info. Especially interesting practices among deprogrammers were raping their "clients" and forcible injection of drugs. That is why many were indicted, not because "interventions" were "unsuccessful". CAN tried to combat it by issuing a "code of conduct" that forbade having sex with the "clients", drugging them etc and indroduced a new term "exit counselling" so that to distance itself from crimes. But some exit counselors continued to do that, that's why the CAN went bankrupt as a result. It had nothing to do with Scientology. I will add this information later.
---
while preventing the person from choosing incorrectly is a contradiction in terms.. as is the phrase you can have any color as long as it's black. who has the authority to say to someone what is an incorrect choice unless, in the opinion of the court, the person is a danger to themself and others? -- anonymous
I happened to meet Lorne Fyvie's sister when she came to Boston to deprogram Lorne. To make a long story short, Lorne eventually got away from the deprogrammers and informed me that Steve Hassan was present during some of the sessions.
If helping a kidnapper makes one an "accessory", what does this make Hassan? Anyway, I'm not sure the Wikipedia should take my word for it so if anyone reverts I won't complain. -- Uncle Ed 22:41 Feb 14, 2003 (UTC)
Can anyone repair this paragraph?
What's a "fringe organization"? What's all this about "describing the practice as forced"? And the argument about "may describe as...though usually involves a counselor" makes it sound like the person volunteered. This smacks of POV from a deprogramming advocate. -- Uncle Ed
Ed, your accusation against Steve Hassan is a very serious one -- something that probably shouldn't be brought up on Wikipedia, because of the potential trouble it could cause. There's a statement on proof which states that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof," and this statement certainly seems valid here. Being "told by someone" that he took part in a deprogramming could easily be considered hearsay, or libel. Let's not go down that road. -- Modemac 17:00 21 May 2003 (UTC)
I am not accusing Mr. Hassan of anything. He has admitted taking part in deprogrammings that took place 30 years ago. Also, Miss Fyvie told me that Hassan was present during the later incident. Anyway, the following paragraph needs revision:
I don't know about Scientology accusations, but the idea that the Unification Church "often" accuses Hassan of being a deprogrammer is incorrect. All our public pronouncements about Mr. Hassan describe him (correctly) as a former deprogrammer.
I think the issue is not a matter of who did what, but rather is deprogamming good or bad? From the mid-1970s though the 1980s, many people thought deprogrammaing was necessary to "save" people from cults, especially the UC. In the last 5 or 10 years, deprogramming has been discredited and pretty much died out as a threat to religious liberty (at least in the US).
I have a lot of legal information about deprogramming, if anyone's interested... -- Uncle Ed 14:41, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)
From the article:
The above seems designed to pre-emptively disprove the POV of "cults" and exonerate the POV of "deprogrammers". Let's find a way to describe the conflicting POVs neutrally.
(I think this is the second time I've moved the same paragraph...) -- Uncle Ed 15:41, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Proponents of deprogramming often have downplayed its coercive aspects, decribing the sessions as involving "counseling".
Opponents of deprogramming have collected 100s of sworn depositions from people who swore that they were captured by surprise and taken by force to undisclosed locations and prevented from contacting friends, lawyers or their own doctors. -- Uncle Ed 16:16, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
ExitControl, where are the references for your assertions about rape? Thanks in advance. Andries 20:31, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The term deprogramming can refer to the process (whether voluntary or not), or specifially to involuntary, forcible deprogramming.
I think Wikipedia should either develop a standard, or take pains to use unambiguous phraseology
Phrases that can't be misinterpreted:
Not the the "voluntary" process is almost always initiated by the relatives of the target person, and OFTEN involves an element of deception and/or surprise: a sudden, unexpected "intervention", or "set-up". -- Uncle Ed (talk) 04:37, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
My impression it that deprogramming rarely happened in Europe. Is this true? If so, can we write it? Also, I am not happy with non-scholarly references and quotes (Bernie) Andries 07:27, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Deprogrammers say that cults use (1) deception and (2) coercive emotional manipulation to get people to join and stay. Therefore, they argue, the only way to get people out of cults is to "fight fire with fire" and use deception and emotional manipulation. And while they're at it, why not take advantage of physical force (like kidnapping people and locking them up)?
Religious believers generally say that religious conversion does not (or need not) result from lies and tricks like that. The Unification Church in particular seeks out "prepared people", ones who are already searching and receptive. They gradually unfold the complex teachings and hope the person will recognize the truth and join.
Deprogrammers reply, "No way that it could be so simple! People don't quit jobs or careers in a matter of days, just because of some idea. There must be something fishy about it."
Parents say, "We couldn't have failed them so badly." (They would lose face if they conceded that someone else knew what was better for their kids.)
The inductee himself is given the ultimate cop out: "Just say you were a victim of mind control, and all will be forgiven. We'll all blame the cult, and you'll be welcomed back with open arms!" -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:25, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
Various parties have emphasized or glossed over the degree of force used in deprogramming. And some seek to distinguish between forcible and "voluntary" deprogramming.
Hassan and Fefferman both want to use deprogramming only for forcible interventions, preferring the term exit counseling for interventions wherein the target is not physically restrained or trapped. (Leaving aside the issue of emotional manipulation, of course - see coercive persuasion).
We need to distinguish between the competency hearings of the 1930s and conservatorships - for the "legal" deprogrammings. In a competency hearing, the target could be represented by counsel, call witnesses, etc. With a conservatorship, as far as I know a judge would grant rights to a person's family to cart him off for deprogramming but without (a) informing the person that a conservatorship had been requested or (b) giving the person any chance to defend himself against it.
Interestingly, the "non-forcible" deprogramming technique also relies on the element of suprprise. In this kind of intervention, families are cautioned not to reveal any of the plans until the day before (or even the morning of) the intervention. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:18, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
I would like to request that you post a link to my site where I have written a rebuttal to the information posted on the Wikipedi page: (Deprogramming). I would do it myself - but it seems the page is not open for edits. Contrary to the maintainer of this page, this is not 'negative' information ('negative' being Unification Church 'term' for any information that does not support the Church) - rather I would prefer that you call it 'an opposing view point'.
Here's the link:
http://deprogramming.homestead.com/index.html
thanks - Judy Powell
Cut from intro:
I'm sure this is incorrect. There have been hardly any deprogrammings done on religious converts under the age of 21.
So the first false impression given by the intro has been taken care of. In fact nearly all new converts to 'cults' who are kidnapped and coerced to abandon their new faith, have been in their 20s. Although it is true that this is done "at the request of their parents", there is also the civil rights and religious freedom issue:
I also wanted to mention in the first 100 words of the article, that the basis on which deprogramming is justified is that the target is a "victim": that according to various deprogrammers' theoretical models of conversion, they did not freely choose to join the cult.
At some point in the article, we should clarify the various cult mind control theories - even though this info is spread out into as many as 4 distinct article about anti-cult theories of conversion:
Of course, since I've been in a cult for 28 years, maybe I'm not the best one to do all this editing. I could be unconsciously biased (i.e., I don't know I'm a victim); I could be deliberately lying to you (I'm not, but how would you know that?) - or on the other hand, I might really have joined my cult on purpose, and it might not really be sa heapurious. Isn't this an exciting dilemma? Uncle Ed 21:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Cut from intro:
Which professionals? From what discipline? Private detectives? Psychiatrists?
I think it is mostly advocates of the use of force - i.e., kidnapping and detention - who want to escape the media attention and legal trouble suffered by those who do kidnapping and false imprisonment on innocent victims ... these are the ones who call deprogramming "exit counseling", because it "counseling" sounds voluntary.
The techniques of deprogramming and exit counseling are exactly the same, with the only difference being the degree of legal and physical compulsion used on the target.
Let's not endorse force against religious converts.
On the other hand, we also must guard against excessive zeal (such as mine!) so please help me to write about the "force issue" accurately and neutrally.
How much force is used in the following:
Is it simply a matter of the 1st being forced, and the 2nd being voluntary? Uncle Ed 22:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't think this is the reason. And I doubt that "formal training, certification and oversight of deprogrammers" would have improved the situation.
This sentences smacks of the POV that there's nothing wrong with breaking someone's faith by force - a viewpoint which Wikipedia:NPOV forbids any article from endorsing.
Say, rather, that Mr. X_____ advanced the view that deprogramming would have brought more consistent (better?) results had their been "formal training, certification and oversight of deprogrammers". -- Uncle Ed 13:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
"In 2002, the courts declared "deprogramming" illegal in a case involving members of Jehovah's Witnesses. However, in 2003, the Supreme Court rejected the Unification Church's appeal in a case involving charges against the victim's family and the kidnappers for kidnapping and "deprogramming." In that case, the court determined that the bases of the appeal were not matters involving a violation of the Constitution. A Unification Church spokesman estimated there were 20 deprogramming cases during the period covered by this report; however, at the families' request, none of the cases were reported to the police. "According to a spokesman for Jehovah's Witnesses, members are free to practice their religion without restriction. Other than one forced confinement in January 2005, which was reported to the police after the fact, there have been no reported deprogramming cases since 2003." U.S. Department of State, Japan, International Religious Freedom Report 2005, Section II. Status of Religious Freedom -- HResearcher 00:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
"In the late 1970s the American Civil Liberties Union issued a public statement and report on deprogramming. The report asserts that deprogramming is a civil liberty issue. Most of the first half of the report has information about Ted Patrick, the father of deprogramming, who has evoked justification laws and conservatorships in order to legalize deprogrammings. He was very successful at getting acquitted by the courts." CESNUR 2005 International Conference, June 2-5, 2005, Palermo, Sicily -- HResearcher 01:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
"Discrimination, or legal action, against religious groups because someone doesn't like them is clearly a violation of the free exercise of religion, a human right increasingly recognized around the world. But the claim of "brainwashing" shrouds the discrimination by claiming that religious groups are victimizing recruits and potential recruits by employing powerful means of manipulation that are extremely difficult to resist." Cult Group Controversies: The Brainwashing Controversy, University of Virginia, The Religious Movement Page -- HResearcher 01:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I removed a rather weak analogy that a previous author had made with Descartes and his philosophical method. I really see no similarities at all between Descartes' approach to philosophy and deprogramming, and it leads to a very misleading idea of what Cartesian philosophy is all about. I suppose that if somebody really wanted to search for early historical parallels they might be able to find some (Dominican activities in medieval France might be a good place to start), but this is really not necessary and would introduce more NPOV challenges, so I would suggest sticking to the recent history of the deprogramming movement for this article. Demmeis 03:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
The paragraph beginning with "The number of forcible deprogrammings had diminished by the end of the 1980s" is referenced from the http://bernie.cncfamily.com/ website. Are personal websites allowed as a reliable source? WP:RS seems to say otherwise. Tanaats 04:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Regarding "The existence of mind control is widely disputed, and sometimes dismissed as pseudoscience by the psychiatric establishment"...Where can the opinions of a "psychiatric establishment" be found? Who exactly has dismissed mind control as "pseudoscience". How about changing this to something like "The existence of mind control is a subject of dispute among psychiatrists, psychologists, and sociologists."? Tanaats 04:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi folks. I have a reservation about this passage: "Also, in the mid-1980s, psychologist Margaret Singer lost her status as an expert witness when the APA declined to endorse the DIMPAC report. From this point on, involuntary deprogramming's legal basis almost immediately vanished...Since that time, involuntary deprogramming has been virtually unknown in the United States."
First of all, what is meant by "lost her status as an expert witness"? Does this mean that she couldn't get any more gigs as an expert witness when the APA declined to endorse? We know this?
Secondly, did involuntary deprogramming ever have a "legal basis", much less a legal basis that "vanished"?
Thirdly, why do we think that the APA decision had anything whatsoever to do with the status of involuntary deprogramming? Singer didn't endorse involuntary deprogramming, so I don't see that there could have been any connection.
Thanks! Tanaats 04:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
The Ellen episode Oh, Sweet Rapture deals with the deprogramming of her friend Audrey, after she joins a group of "rapture" car fanatics and changes completely. Ellen deprograms Audrey by luring her into a "rapture" car, and then activates the children lock, and explains to Audrey that "these people love you only because they don't know you; those who do, consider you annoying and still love you". (Translated from german version) -- Tilman 15:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
The Roseanne episode Springtime For David has David Healy working in a rabbit suit at a fascist amusement park, where his thoughts are highly controlled. Roseanne is able to take David away from the facility without violence, after realizing that he has completely changed. After the credits roll, David is seen bound to a chair while being deprogrammed and slapped by Roseanne. The deprogramming succeeds when Roseanne tells David that rabbits don't dance and sing - they're food! [2] -- Tilman 21:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
The movies Split Image and Ticket to Heaven both deal with young people recruited into a cult and then deprogrammed. -- Tilman 15:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to return to a discussion I initiated 2 1/2 years ago. There has been some confusion about the meanings of terms such as deprogramming and exit counseling. Some attempts have been made to use "deprogramming" in a generic sense.
I can't think of any word which describes the general process of "trying to make someone leave their faith". Opponents of this practice call it "faith-breaking", but that would be a POV title; I do not suggest it. "Exit counseling" implies voluntary participation of the targeted person, so that is not generic. "Deprogramming" is typically forcible, so that's not an ideal term either.
We have a sort of content fork here, as a result of being unable to identify the common elements and place them on a properly titled page. I do not have the answer, but I don't think that means the problem should be ignored; see Elephant in the living room.
Maybe " Deconversion" would be a good, neutral term. [3]
We could then branch out to "assisted deconversion" (in which the person asks for help, or agrees to it) as well as "forced deconversion" (in which they are kidnapped and/or held against their will). -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 20:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
http://www.twelvetribes.org/ and http://www.twelvetribescult.org/
are not WP:Reliable sources. Please find a reliable source for these statements. This could be an article from a reputable, mainstream magazine or newspaper who has interviewed the author, or it could be a book reference (unless the book is self-published, as by a vanity press). Wowest ( talk) 07:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Deprogrammers claim that the voluntary participation in a group is due to mind control, a controversial theory that a person's thought processes can be changed by outside forces.
This statement is ridiculous. A theory that says a person's thought process can be changed from the outside is CONTROVERSIAL?? Where? Ever held a conversation? This needs to be reworded if at the very least. -- 89.212.75.6 ( talk) 20:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking the intro could more follow what the article says. Like a little bit on the material presented in each section. BigJim707 ( talk) 11:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Is deprogramming a form of Intervention (counseling)? If so that probably should be mentioned in the first sentence. Borock ( talk) 01:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Can somebody explain how the blocks of well-referenced information recently removed from Deprogramming violate policy? -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 14:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
This article seems to take the view that Deprogramming is uniformly wrong. In fact, the article is in Category:Human rights abuses. I think many disagree with this view and believe that some "cults" do program inductees, who then need to be deprogrammed in order to make voluntary choices about their lives. Star767 23:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
The article states that deprogramming started in the 1970s; however, we are defining deprogramming as "an attempt to force a person to abandon allegiance to a religious, political, economic, or social group". Attempts to force people to abandon religious, political, economic, or social groups have been going on since such things existed (see, for example: Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, Medieval Inquisition, etc.)
Do we mean to say that the term "deprogramming" came into popular use in the 70s? Tgeairn ( talk) 17:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Ubikwit has improved the lede of the article, but in the process changed the definition of deprogramming (which represented what is in the sources provided). If we stick with this new definition, what distinguishes deprogramming from Exit counseling? We probably need new sources for the new definition, or we will end up chasing the distinction between deprogramming and exit counseling around (again, by the looks of the article history). -- Tgeairn ( talk) 18:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
I came upon this page to glean some knowledge about deprogramming, but what I found is a page seemingly written by hyper-defensive cult members who object to any notion that anyone would even want to change cult members' beliefs. It's in extreme violation of NPOV, due to the excessive weight given to the pro-cult POV and inclusion of editorialized flourishes throughout.
Some examples and suggestions for points that should be edited:
I'm not even an editor, so I won't take on these tasks. However, if no changes are made by the next time I visit the page, I will delete the offending sections / sentences as needed. Better to have a shorter article than one full of POV violations.
185.40.4.76 ( talk) 10:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
"It took nearly 20 years for public opinion to shift". Better yet. It is unclear whether public opinion has in fact shifted, as no statistical source is provided. Dimadick ( talk) 19:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Hate to be a dick, but was this page written by fans of Scientology? 71.150.251.147 ( talk) 05:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
It sure looks like it! Wowest ( talk) 06:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I am also suspicious. I have never read a Wikipedia article that was so biased. Mersailing ( talk) 23:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree, extremely biased and pro-cults, or as they call it "minority religious groups" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.42.90.78 ( talk) 07:21, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Still reads a bit like this in 2020. Zezen ( talk) 04:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
I just happened upon it, and found it extremely one-sided: from the article itself and this discussion page, the article is clearly one person's attempt to smear and destroy the concept of 'cult' to eliminate it as a threat to their own religious beliefs. Furthermore, by linking to this from other articles, the credibility of those articles is severely compromised, nullifying the painstaking efforts of many people at presenting knowledge backed by hard facts and/or careful thought -- both of which are glaringly missing in this article. (— Preceding comment added by 17:06, 16 June 2005 198.147.225.60) (tag added by 108.83.116.234 ( talk) 00:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC))
I agree, I read this and it sounds like it was edited by a cult member in order to discourage deprogramming and even labelling cults as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.42.90.78 ( talk) 07:19, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
This article was written 21 years ago by a weird religious conservative looking to shape thought around the response to new religious movements and who regularly removed content incompatible with his perspective for 11 years, and 10 years later most of the base he set up has been maintained in essentially the same shape it was then. It's past time for an overhaul by someone with expertise on the subject. Rurfs ( talk) 09:34, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
You’re thinking “This user doesn’t know what I’m thinking.”
With that out of the way, the previous accusations of bias in this discussion thread should be preserved. The entire chain of discussion of bias is part of the topic related to deprogramming.
We must accept the fact that the media is mind control. It may not be controlling your mind but it can certainly control the mind of other people. However deprogramming can be safely achieved, that should be the common goal.
- a messenger 2600:1700:1150:84C0:F5F7:4DB9:9142:BB51 ( talk) 06:45, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The article is excessively long. Many deprogrammers served prison terms for this activity, so it is strange that their opinions are quoted in length, but the fact that deprogramming is an illegal occupation is somehow omitted. Interestingly, more recently former 'deprogrammers' later changed theit terminology and deprogramming became 'exit counselling' and (which is supposedly voluntary i.e. no kidnappings, tying to armahairs, no drugs, no threats).
Removed words like "cultist". When I have time, I will add more info. Especially interesting practices among deprogrammers were raping their "clients" and forcible injection of drugs. That is why many were indicted, not because "interventions" were "unsuccessful". CAN tried to combat it by issuing a "code of conduct" that forbade having sex with the "clients", drugging them etc and indroduced a new term "exit counselling" so that to distance itself from crimes. But some exit counselors continued to do that, that's why the CAN went bankrupt as a result. It had nothing to do with Scientology. I will add this information later.
---
while preventing the person from choosing incorrectly is a contradiction in terms.. as is the phrase you can have any color as long as it's black. who has the authority to say to someone what is an incorrect choice unless, in the opinion of the court, the person is a danger to themself and others? -- anonymous
I happened to meet Lorne Fyvie's sister when she came to Boston to deprogram Lorne. To make a long story short, Lorne eventually got away from the deprogrammers and informed me that Steve Hassan was present during some of the sessions.
If helping a kidnapper makes one an "accessory", what does this make Hassan? Anyway, I'm not sure the Wikipedia should take my word for it so if anyone reverts I won't complain. -- Uncle Ed 22:41 Feb 14, 2003 (UTC)
Can anyone repair this paragraph?
What's a "fringe organization"? What's all this about "describing the practice as forced"? And the argument about "may describe as...though usually involves a counselor" makes it sound like the person volunteered. This smacks of POV from a deprogramming advocate. -- Uncle Ed
Ed, your accusation against Steve Hassan is a very serious one -- something that probably shouldn't be brought up on Wikipedia, because of the potential trouble it could cause. There's a statement on proof which states that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof," and this statement certainly seems valid here. Being "told by someone" that he took part in a deprogramming could easily be considered hearsay, or libel. Let's not go down that road. -- Modemac 17:00 21 May 2003 (UTC)
I am not accusing Mr. Hassan of anything. He has admitted taking part in deprogrammings that took place 30 years ago. Also, Miss Fyvie told me that Hassan was present during the later incident. Anyway, the following paragraph needs revision:
I don't know about Scientology accusations, but the idea that the Unification Church "often" accuses Hassan of being a deprogrammer is incorrect. All our public pronouncements about Mr. Hassan describe him (correctly) as a former deprogrammer.
I think the issue is not a matter of who did what, but rather is deprogamming good or bad? From the mid-1970s though the 1980s, many people thought deprogrammaing was necessary to "save" people from cults, especially the UC. In the last 5 or 10 years, deprogramming has been discredited and pretty much died out as a threat to religious liberty (at least in the US).
I have a lot of legal information about deprogramming, if anyone's interested... -- Uncle Ed 14:41, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)
From the article:
The above seems designed to pre-emptively disprove the POV of "cults" and exonerate the POV of "deprogrammers". Let's find a way to describe the conflicting POVs neutrally.
(I think this is the second time I've moved the same paragraph...) -- Uncle Ed 15:41, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Proponents of deprogramming often have downplayed its coercive aspects, decribing the sessions as involving "counseling".
Opponents of deprogramming have collected 100s of sworn depositions from people who swore that they were captured by surprise and taken by force to undisclosed locations and prevented from contacting friends, lawyers or their own doctors. -- Uncle Ed 16:16, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
ExitControl, where are the references for your assertions about rape? Thanks in advance. Andries 20:31, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The term deprogramming can refer to the process (whether voluntary or not), or specifially to involuntary, forcible deprogramming.
I think Wikipedia should either develop a standard, or take pains to use unambiguous phraseology
Phrases that can't be misinterpreted:
Not the the "voluntary" process is almost always initiated by the relatives of the target person, and OFTEN involves an element of deception and/or surprise: a sudden, unexpected "intervention", or "set-up". -- Uncle Ed (talk) 04:37, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
My impression it that deprogramming rarely happened in Europe. Is this true? If so, can we write it? Also, I am not happy with non-scholarly references and quotes (Bernie) Andries 07:27, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Deprogrammers say that cults use (1) deception and (2) coercive emotional manipulation to get people to join and stay. Therefore, they argue, the only way to get people out of cults is to "fight fire with fire" and use deception and emotional manipulation. And while they're at it, why not take advantage of physical force (like kidnapping people and locking them up)?
Religious believers generally say that religious conversion does not (or need not) result from lies and tricks like that. The Unification Church in particular seeks out "prepared people", ones who are already searching and receptive. They gradually unfold the complex teachings and hope the person will recognize the truth and join.
Deprogrammers reply, "No way that it could be so simple! People don't quit jobs or careers in a matter of days, just because of some idea. There must be something fishy about it."
Parents say, "We couldn't have failed them so badly." (They would lose face if they conceded that someone else knew what was better for their kids.)
The inductee himself is given the ultimate cop out: "Just say you were a victim of mind control, and all will be forgiven. We'll all blame the cult, and you'll be welcomed back with open arms!" -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:25, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
Various parties have emphasized or glossed over the degree of force used in deprogramming. And some seek to distinguish between forcible and "voluntary" deprogramming.
Hassan and Fefferman both want to use deprogramming only for forcible interventions, preferring the term exit counseling for interventions wherein the target is not physically restrained or trapped. (Leaving aside the issue of emotional manipulation, of course - see coercive persuasion).
We need to distinguish between the competency hearings of the 1930s and conservatorships - for the "legal" deprogrammings. In a competency hearing, the target could be represented by counsel, call witnesses, etc. With a conservatorship, as far as I know a judge would grant rights to a person's family to cart him off for deprogramming but without (a) informing the person that a conservatorship had been requested or (b) giving the person any chance to defend himself against it.
Interestingly, the "non-forcible" deprogramming technique also relies on the element of suprprise. In this kind of intervention, families are cautioned not to reveal any of the plans until the day before (or even the morning of) the intervention. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:18, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
I would like to request that you post a link to my site where I have written a rebuttal to the information posted on the Wikipedi page: (Deprogramming). I would do it myself - but it seems the page is not open for edits. Contrary to the maintainer of this page, this is not 'negative' information ('negative' being Unification Church 'term' for any information that does not support the Church) - rather I would prefer that you call it 'an opposing view point'.
Here's the link:
http://deprogramming.homestead.com/index.html
thanks - Judy Powell
Cut from intro:
I'm sure this is incorrect. There have been hardly any deprogrammings done on religious converts under the age of 21.
So the first false impression given by the intro has been taken care of. In fact nearly all new converts to 'cults' who are kidnapped and coerced to abandon their new faith, have been in their 20s. Although it is true that this is done "at the request of their parents", there is also the civil rights and religious freedom issue:
I also wanted to mention in the first 100 words of the article, that the basis on which deprogramming is justified is that the target is a "victim": that according to various deprogrammers' theoretical models of conversion, they did not freely choose to join the cult.
At some point in the article, we should clarify the various cult mind control theories - even though this info is spread out into as many as 4 distinct article about anti-cult theories of conversion:
Of course, since I've been in a cult for 28 years, maybe I'm not the best one to do all this editing. I could be unconsciously biased (i.e., I don't know I'm a victim); I could be deliberately lying to you (I'm not, but how would you know that?) - or on the other hand, I might really have joined my cult on purpose, and it might not really be sa heapurious. Isn't this an exciting dilemma? Uncle Ed 21:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Cut from intro:
Which professionals? From what discipline? Private detectives? Psychiatrists?
I think it is mostly advocates of the use of force - i.e., kidnapping and detention - who want to escape the media attention and legal trouble suffered by those who do kidnapping and false imprisonment on innocent victims ... these are the ones who call deprogramming "exit counseling", because it "counseling" sounds voluntary.
The techniques of deprogramming and exit counseling are exactly the same, with the only difference being the degree of legal and physical compulsion used on the target.
Let's not endorse force against religious converts.
On the other hand, we also must guard against excessive zeal (such as mine!) so please help me to write about the "force issue" accurately and neutrally.
How much force is used in the following:
Is it simply a matter of the 1st being forced, and the 2nd being voluntary? Uncle Ed 22:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't think this is the reason. And I doubt that "formal training, certification and oversight of deprogrammers" would have improved the situation.
This sentences smacks of the POV that there's nothing wrong with breaking someone's faith by force - a viewpoint which Wikipedia:NPOV forbids any article from endorsing.
Say, rather, that Mr. X_____ advanced the view that deprogramming would have brought more consistent (better?) results had their been "formal training, certification and oversight of deprogrammers". -- Uncle Ed 13:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
"In 2002, the courts declared "deprogramming" illegal in a case involving members of Jehovah's Witnesses. However, in 2003, the Supreme Court rejected the Unification Church's appeal in a case involving charges against the victim's family and the kidnappers for kidnapping and "deprogramming." In that case, the court determined that the bases of the appeal were not matters involving a violation of the Constitution. A Unification Church spokesman estimated there were 20 deprogramming cases during the period covered by this report; however, at the families' request, none of the cases were reported to the police. "According to a spokesman for Jehovah's Witnesses, members are free to practice their religion without restriction. Other than one forced confinement in January 2005, which was reported to the police after the fact, there have been no reported deprogramming cases since 2003." U.S. Department of State, Japan, International Religious Freedom Report 2005, Section II. Status of Religious Freedom -- HResearcher 00:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
"In the late 1970s the American Civil Liberties Union issued a public statement and report on deprogramming. The report asserts that deprogramming is a civil liberty issue. Most of the first half of the report has information about Ted Patrick, the father of deprogramming, who has evoked justification laws and conservatorships in order to legalize deprogrammings. He was very successful at getting acquitted by the courts." CESNUR 2005 International Conference, June 2-5, 2005, Palermo, Sicily -- HResearcher 01:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
"Discrimination, or legal action, against religious groups because someone doesn't like them is clearly a violation of the free exercise of religion, a human right increasingly recognized around the world. But the claim of "brainwashing" shrouds the discrimination by claiming that religious groups are victimizing recruits and potential recruits by employing powerful means of manipulation that are extremely difficult to resist." Cult Group Controversies: The Brainwashing Controversy, University of Virginia, The Religious Movement Page -- HResearcher 01:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I removed a rather weak analogy that a previous author had made with Descartes and his philosophical method. I really see no similarities at all between Descartes' approach to philosophy and deprogramming, and it leads to a very misleading idea of what Cartesian philosophy is all about. I suppose that if somebody really wanted to search for early historical parallels they might be able to find some (Dominican activities in medieval France might be a good place to start), but this is really not necessary and would introduce more NPOV challenges, so I would suggest sticking to the recent history of the deprogramming movement for this article. Demmeis 03:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
The paragraph beginning with "The number of forcible deprogrammings had diminished by the end of the 1980s" is referenced from the http://bernie.cncfamily.com/ website. Are personal websites allowed as a reliable source? WP:RS seems to say otherwise. Tanaats 04:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Regarding "The existence of mind control is widely disputed, and sometimes dismissed as pseudoscience by the psychiatric establishment"...Where can the opinions of a "psychiatric establishment" be found? Who exactly has dismissed mind control as "pseudoscience". How about changing this to something like "The existence of mind control is a subject of dispute among psychiatrists, psychologists, and sociologists."? Tanaats 04:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi folks. I have a reservation about this passage: "Also, in the mid-1980s, psychologist Margaret Singer lost her status as an expert witness when the APA declined to endorse the DIMPAC report. From this point on, involuntary deprogramming's legal basis almost immediately vanished...Since that time, involuntary deprogramming has been virtually unknown in the United States."
First of all, what is meant by "lost her status as an expert witness"? Does this mean that she couldn't get any more gigs as an expert witness when the APA declined to endorse? We know this?
Secondly, did involuntary deprogramming ever have a "legal basis", much less a legal basis that "vanished"?
Thirdly, why do we think that the APA decision had anything whatsoever to do with the status of involuntary deprogramming? Singer didn't endorse involuntary deprogramming, so I don't see that there could have been any connection.
Thanks! Tanaats 04:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
The Ellen episode Oh, Sweet Rapture deals with the deprogramming of her friend Audrey, after she joins a group of "rapture" car fanatics and changes completely. Ellen deprograms Audrey by luring her into a "rapture" car, and then activates the children lock, and explains to Audrey that "these people love you only because they don't know you; those who do, consider you annoying and still love you". (Translated from german version) -- Tilman 15:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
The Roseanne episode Springtime For David has David Healy working in a rabbit suit at a fascist amusement park, where his thoughts are highly controlled. Roseanne is able to take David away from the facility without violence, after realizing that he has completely changed. After the credits roll, David is seen bound to a chair while being deprogrammed and slapped by Roseanne. The deprogramming succeeds when Roseanne tells David that rabbits don't dance and sing - they're food! [2] -- Tilman 21:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
The movies Split Image and Ticket to Heaven both deal with young people recruited into a cult and then deprogrammed. -- Tilman 15:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to return to a discussion I initiated 2 1/2 years ago. There has been some confusion about the meanings of terms such as deprogramming and exit counseling. Some attempts have been made to use "deprogramming" in a generic sense.
I can't think of any word which describes the general process of "trying to make someone leave their faith". Opponents of this practice call it "faith-breaking", but that would be a POV title; I do not suggest it. "Exit counseling" implies voluntary participation of the targeted person, so that is not generic. "Deprogramming" is typically forcible, so that's not an ideal term either.
We have a sort of content fork here, as a result of being unable to identify the common elements and place them on a properly titled page. I do not have the answer, but I don't think that means the problem should be ignored; see Elephant in the living room.
Maybe " Deconversion" would be a good, neutral term. [3]
We could then branch out to "assisted deconversion" (in which the person asks for help, or agrees to it) as well as "forced deconversion" (in which they are kidnapped and/or held against their will). -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 20:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
http://www.twelvetribes.org/ and http://www.twelvetribescult.org/
are not WP:Reliable sources. Please find a reliable source for these statements. This could be an article from a reputable, mainstream magazine or newspaper who has interviewed the author, or it could be a book reference (unless the book is self-published, as by a vanity press). Wowest ( talk) 07:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Deprogrammers claim that the voluntary participation in a group is due to mind control, a controversial theory that a person's thought processes can be changed by outside forces.
This statement is ridiculous. A theory that says a person's thought process can be changed from the outside is CONTROVERSIAL?? Where? Ever held a conversation? This needs to be reworded if at the very least. -- 89.212.75.6 ( talk) 20:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking the intro could more follow what the article says. Like a little bit on the material presented in each section. BigJim707 ( talk) 11:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Is deprogramming a form of Intervention (counseling)? If so that probably should be mentioned in the first sentence. Borock ( talk) 01:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Can somebody explain how the blocks of well-referenced information recently removed from Deprogramming violate policy? -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 14:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
This article seems to take the view that Deprogramming is uniformly wrong. In fact, the article is in Category:Human rights abuses. I think many disagree with this view and believe that some "cults" do program inductees, who then need to be deprogrammed in order to make voluntary choices about their lives. Star767 23:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
The article states that deprogramming started in the 1970s; however, we are defining deprogramming as "an attempt to force a person to abandon allegiance to a religious, political, economic, or social group". Attempts to force people to abandon religious, political, economic, or social groups have been going on since such things existed (see, for example: Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, Medieval Inquisition, etc.)
Do we mean to say that the term "deprogramming" came into popular use in the 70s? Tgeairn ( talk) 17:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Ubikwit has improved the lede of the article, but in the process changed the definition of deprogramming (which represented what is in the sources provided). If we stick with this new definition, what distinguishes deprogramming from Exit counseling? We probably need new sources for the new definition, or we will end up chasing the distinction between deprogramming and exit counseling around (again, by the looks of the article history). -- Tgeairn ( talk) 18:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
I came upon this page to glean some knowledge about deprogramming, but what I found is a page seemingly written by hyper-defensive cult members who object to any notion that anyone would even want to change cult members' beliefs. It's in extreme violation of NPOV, due to the excessive weight given to the pro-cult POV and inclusion of editorialized flourishes throughout.
Some examples and suggestions for points that should be edited:
I'm not even an editor, so I won't take on these tasks. However, if no changes are made by the next time I visit the page, I will delete the offending sections / sentences as needed. Better to have a shorter article than one full of POV violations.
185.40.4.76 ( talk) 10:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
"It took nearly 20 years for public opinion to shift". Better yet. It is unclear whether public opinion has in fact shifted, as no statistical source is provided. Dimadick ( talk) 19:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Hate to be a dick, but was this page written by fans of Scientology? 71.150.251.147 ( talk) 05:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
It sure looks like it! Wowest ( talk) 06:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I am also suspicious. I have never read a Wikipedia article that was so biased. Mersailing ( talk) 23:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree, extremely biased and pro-cults, or as they call it "minority religious groups" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.42.90.78 ( talk) 07:21, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Still reads a bit like this in 2020. Zezen ( talk) 04:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
I just happened upon it, and found it extremely one-sided: from the article itself and this discussion page, the article is clearly one person's attempt to smear and destroy the concept of 'cult' to eliminate it as a threat to their own religious beliefs. Furthermore, by linking to this from other articles, the credibility of those articles is severely compromised, nullifying the painstaking efforts of many people at presenting knowledge backed by hard facts and/or careful thought -- both of which are glaringly missing in this article. (— Preceding comment added by 17:06, 16 June 2005 198.147.225.60) (tag added by 108.83.116.234 ( talk) 00:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC))
I agree, I read this and it sounds like it was edited by a cult member in order to discourage deprogramming and even labelling cults as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.42.90.78 ( talk) 07:19, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
This article was written 21 years ago by a weird religious conservative looking to shape thought around the response to new religious movements and who regularly removed content incompatible with his perspective for 11 years, and 10 years later most of the base he set up has been maintained in essentially the same shape it was then. It's past time for an overhaul by someone with expertise on the subject. Rurfs ( talk) 09:34, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
You’re thinking “This user doesn’t know what I’m thinking.”
With that out of the way, the previous accusations of bias in this discussion thread should be preserved. The entire chain of discussion of bias is part of the topic related to deprogramming.
We must accept the fact that the media is mind control. It may not be controlling your mind but it can certainly control the mind of other people. However deprogramming can be safely achieved, that should be the common goal.
- a messenger 2600:1700:1150:84C0:F5F7:4DB9:9142:BB51 ( talk) 06:45, 14 April 2023 (UTC)