This article was nominated for deletion on 16 October 2020. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Psychology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Religion: New religious movements Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as Mid-importance). Scientology Low‑importance This article is supported by WikiProject Scientology, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scientology. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on Scientology-related topics. See WikiProject Scientology and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.ScientologyWikipedia:WikiProject ScientologyTemplate:WikiProject ScientologyScientology articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2021 and 30 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yayaggies.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 13:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Category:Psychological abuse - see the other articles already listed within this category:

1. Psychological abuse
2. Brainwashing
3. Coercion
4. Coercive persuasion
5. Emotional abuse
6. Gaslighting
7. Group psychological abuse
8. Humiliation
9. Intimidation

• Indeed, this task force was actually formed to address many of these issues. Smeelgova 01:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC). reply

I respectfully disagree. What would you say if these categories are also added?

• Category:Religious persecution
• Category:Human rights abuses
• Category:Conspiracy theories

etc.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC) reply

The task force was formed to investigate "brainwashing and coercion", forms of psychological abuse. How is this not directly relevant? In any event, as it is a psychological report, surely it should be contained within one of the psychological categories. I will offer a compromise and put it in a more general psychological category for the time being. Smeelgova 02:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC). reply

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) reply

No... Redlinks are a useful device to encourage the creation of new articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I was subjected to a bad influence on another article. :) Sorry about that again. Tanaats 03:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC) reply

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) reply

http://www.csj.org/infoserv_articles/zimbardo_philip_mindcontrol.htm Tanaats 02:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC) reply

The requestors were former group members who had given a presentation at the conference. Tanaats 03:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC) reply

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) reply

Same question for "Press Release, Aug 12, 1992 from Michael Flomenhaf" Tanaats 04:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Court summons are public records in California. The press release I found on a database. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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) reply

The BSERP is an APA board. It commissioned the report, and rejected its findings. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC) reply

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.

The Board appreciates the difficulty In producing a report In this complex and controversial area, and again thanks the members of the Task Force for their efforts.

That is a letter of rejection. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC) reply

The word "reject" or "rejected" is not mentioned anywhere in the finding, nor anywhere in any other citation. This is simply your own POV spin, and is not acceptable. Smeelgova 17:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC). reply

Besides "not accepted" is a reasonable, NPOV wording of what the citations actually say. Show me a citation that uses the word "rejection" (aside from something from CESNUR), and I will try to listed to reason. Otherwise, this seems to be your own POV characterization. Smeelgova 17:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC). reply

The report was rejected and that is a fact. Nevertheless, we can use "not accepted" as per their memo, but on the other hand, the section naming is inconsistent and misleading. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC) reply

And please do not try to diminish the impact of the rejection by omitting the fact that the BSERP is a board of the APA. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I am concerned about the attempts to diminish the impact of the APA rejection of the report. I will ask other involved editors to comment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC) reply

And I am concerned about the attempts to spin the nature of the BSERP decision. As stated in citations in other parts of the article already, researchers on both sides of the aisle still debate the true nature of the decision itself. I am glad that you feel that "not accepted" is a fair compromise. How is the section naming inconsistent and misleading? We are stating exactly the wording that the BSERP used. Is this not NPOV? Smeelgova 17:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC). reply

I agree that objective reporting requires that we use the language of the Board, They chose to use "does not accept" rather than the far more pejorative term "rejects". I'm sure they thought carefully about how they worded the memo, and that therefore they in fact deliberately chose to use the less pejorative term. As for the BSERP question, I've tried to follow the edits but I'm still not sure what that controversy is. Could someone be specific in explaining it to me? Tanaats 20:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Smeelgova, read articles about the DIMPAC controversy. No one uses BSERP and no one uses "not accepted". All sources I found speak of a rejection by the APA. For example:

For Singer and Ofshe, the negative decision in the Fishman case set a precedent that meant the end of their lucrative sideline in providing expert testimony in criminal court. But that wasn’t their last word. Outraged, they were determined to retaliate. Alleging that Richardson and other cult-friendly scholars had manipulated the APA and the ASA into taking positions against the brainwashing theory, Singer and Ofshe filed a federal civil suit in New York City under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act in 1992. The suit named as defendants the APA and the ASA, as well as numerous individuals connected with writing the Molko-Leal briefs. Treating those staid, scholarly organizations as though they were the Mafia (which was the original target of the RICO law), the suit alleged a complex conspiracy involving the APA and the ASA’s statements in the Molko-Leal case; various pieces of correspondence among the parties that reflected negatively on Ofshe and Singer; and a 1987 rejection by the APA of a task force report authored by Singer and critical of the Unification Church.

Even Singer supporters such as Amitrani and Di Marzio say "The main point of the document is this: the Memorandum expresses no official rejection of mind control theories, but only rejects a report drawn up buy a committee on the issue of mental manipulation theories as applied to New Religious Movements. This rejection was due to a lack of proper methods."

The Maryland Cult Task force documentation includes text such as "Contrary to what Mr. Loomis told the Task Force, this document is unequivocal in its rejection of a draft report submitted by Margaret Singer on behalf of the DIMPAC committee she chaired.

So, the report was rejected, and that is not POV pushing, is a fact and we should refer to it is as such. Also, you keep referring to the BSERP as it was not the APA, and that is incorrect. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I don't think that we are bound by those who choose the more pejorative term instead of BSERP's actual, probably carefully chosen, wording. As an encylopedia we should objectively report the facts, and the fact is that BSERP used "can not accept". Tanaats 20:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I expect you to restore the original section titles and edits. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Please provide the links for these citations so that I may check them. And as far as the BSERP - it is clearly stated many, many times within the article that this is a division of the APA. No need to keep repeating it ad nauseam. Smeelgova 17:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC). reply

BSERP is not a "division" of the APA. BSERP is the board that commissioned and rejected the report. Do a search for "DIMPAC reject" in Google and any newspaper archive, Lexis Nexis, etc. There are many sources that describes is as it is: a rejection of the report by the APA. Note that the dispute is if the DIMPAC rejection means a rejection of Singer's theories or not. But no one, even Singer's supporters dispute that the report was rejected. I am asking you again, to consider restoring the edits. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC) reply

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) reply

The use of the term "malicious" is not supported by the quote. It is probably an interpretation by CESNUR. I ask that it be removed again to restore objective reporting. Tanaats 20:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Singer and Ofshe claimed malicious intent on the part of APA and named defendants. That was the basis of the lawssuit. If no malicious intent was alleged, then there was not basis to the suit, was it? I am finding other secondary sources about the lawsuit that I will add shortly. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Unless "malicious" was the exact language that appeared in the summons, we shouldn't use it. Tanaats 22:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I am trying to get my hand on full copies of the summons, but I must warn you that it would be not pretty. I have some excerpts and the allegations that they leveled at the APA and the ASA, are more outrageous than that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I can believe it. I greatly respect Singer's work. I think that she pursued her expert witness activities out of a sense of compassion and activism rather than out of monetary motives. I think that she wanted to re-establish her expert witness status out those higher motives. However, also I think that she was a much better psychologist then she was a "legal mind". I think that she was extremely, even extraordinarily, ill advised to pursue that lawsuit; it was probably doomed from the beginning, and it just made things much much worse. She should have just taken her beating and moved on. Tanaats 23:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC) It's easy to have 20/20 hindsight though. Tanaats 23:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I would prefer not to get too much into expressing opinions in talk pages, but I would say just this: The extreme position she took in the DIMPAC report, the lack of scientific research and the sensationalist, scaremongering tone of the report all contributed to a total dismissal of any validity related to the concerns about coercive persuasion as they apply to practices in some destructive cults (which are most probably correct). The DIMPAC report and the subsequent lawsuit, all contributed to the lack of solid research on the subject, as no scholar would touch the subject given the negative connotations that perspired during these years. The unfortunate result of the controversy regarding the DIMPAC, fueled by Singer's "conspiracy theories", is the extraordinary polarization of the subject since then and the little or no scientific research that would help clarify the subject. This polarization, IMO, is exacerbated by the use (and abuse) of the term "cult", "brainwashing", "mind control"as applied to groups that have none of these traits, as used by people as a political weapon in their fight against groups they oppose. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC) reply

The report very accurately represents the "cult critic" position and IMO it is accurate. However, it was too much of a "leap", and way too much for professional collegues who hadn't lots of experience in the trenches on the subject to swallow. Being merely a "report" it couldn't go into the extreme detail that would have been required to support the arguments made. I can easily see why it was treated as being extreme and not "even-handed". In 20/20 hindsight it was too much to feed to the scientific community at one time. And the lawsuit just put nails in the coffin. So I agree that it must have had a chilling effect on any further research into the topic. The whole thing was a disaster.

And I'm sure that terms like "cult" are often misused. One extreme is to use such terms without careful consideration and intellectual rigor, the other extreme is not to use them at all. My big example is Scientology, which IMO is so extraordinarily dangers that it deserves label like "cult", because "new religious movement" doesn't at all convey the truth of the situation. I'll leave the thread now but if you have another comment please do make it. Tanaats 00:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I would agree with your statement that "one extreme is to use such terms without careful consideration and intellectual rigor, the other extreme is not to use them at all", unfortunately the former is the case in most situations. Let's leave it at that... and thanks for your candid response. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC) reply

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) reply

Sounds like a good idea, I'll try to dig something up. Tanaats 00:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Do we need to replace "reject" by "failed to accept" or "dismissed"? All the secondary and sources quoted refer to it as a rejection, even her supporters and even Singer and Ofshe themselves. Is there a need to mitigate that fact? Why? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Pondering... Tanaats 01:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Yeah, what the hell ( http://www.csj.org/infoserv_articles/amitrani_alberto_apaandmindcontrol.htm). I'll start putting it back. Tanaats 01:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Ok, I put it back. Thanks for being patient about it. I'll go do the same on DIMPAC. Tanaats 01:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Dang, I am on DIMPAC. I'll go do the same on Singer.

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) reply

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) reply

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). reply

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) reply

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) reply

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

I guess I won't! Tanaats 23:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply

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) reply

Removed until it's shown that this group's opinion is notable. AndroidCat ( talk) 07:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Almost all of the references are primary sources and are referenced to the APA and to this document in particular. A substantial part of the article is regarding various court cases rather than the document itself. The article is overall pretty absymal and should be nuked. Bueller 007 ( talk) 14:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Bueller 007: As a test, I made a sandbox copy of this article and 'struck out' the content cited by CESNUR (citations 3, 12, 13, 14, 17) and citations 10 (STAND) and 11 (FACTnet, 'contributor believed to be David Miscavige'). There's not much left of the article. A previous AfD was prematurely withdrawn by nominator. I'm curious what you think of my test version and where we should go from here.

Cambial Yellowing might also have an opinion since they seem familiar with CESNUR as a misused source. I'm kind of going off things they wrote earlier about CESNUR, but I don't really have much experience with CESNUR yet. Grorp ( talk) 06:59, 23 March 2023 (UTC) reply