Talk:Thought reform

I think the entry should digress on the differences between conversion and thought reform. Thought reform seems only a pejorative name for religious conversion.

Besides I think that the word influence should be added too. What influence is for one person is manipulation according to another person.

If it were so easy to distinguish between influence & conversion on the one side and manipulation and thought reform on the other side then people would not be subjected to the last two. Both thought reform and conversion can happen by people who are sincere so thought reform doesn't have to happen through manipulation. The difference is that the people who practice thought reform on others have been misled themselves.

Andries20 Jan 2004

References (Andries thinks that it was a good article until UninvitedCompany changed it)

And what is wrong with thought reform? It was a good article until you removed important information from it only because you don't know the subject well. Andries 22:43, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sorry. I know you were trying to improve the article, but the material you added didn't help. DJ's version gave a good, solid definition. You a blanket assertion that brainwashing and mind control are discredited theories. You can't do that (even though I largely agree that they are discredited and in any case may well reflect poor word choice) unless you present both sides and include references. Remember that this is an encyclopedia and that articles on touchy subjects like this have to be edited with extreme care. UninvitedCompany 22:51, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

DJ Clayworth did not provide a solid definiton because he didn't define the word manipulation. Besides it was incomplete. I doubt if it is possible to give solid definitions in this field. ~~I do agree that the assertion about mind control and brainwashing didn't belong there. but I didn't include it. user:Ed Poor wrote it with whom I had edit wars about these subjects.~~ I have references for what I asserted and I should have listed them i.e. Mary Garden's book "Spiritual Seduction" and Steve Hassan's testimony about his recruitment for the Unification Church There are many more testimonies but I need some time to collect them. I will copy this discussion to the talk page of thought reform. Andries 23:22, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

But okay, I will try to find the references. Andries 20:04, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As you may be aware, Ed has confessed that he is a follower of Sun Myung Moon and a member of the Unification Church. As you might imagine, he has strong feelings on many of these subjects. I too have disagreed with him from time to time. He is often right, however. In any case, I look forward to your edits after you have collected some more information. They are helpful, and we do need more edits in the area where you're working. --- UninvitedCompany 23:43, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oh, yes, you are right, it was me who wrote that brainwashing is discredited. I mixed it up with another article. This is true and discussed in that article. My version of the article also suggests that mind control is discredited but this is not entirely true. I am an ex-follower of Sathya Sai Baba. Andries 23:49, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

By the way UninvitedCompany, why don't you provide detailed criticism of what I have written instead of just deleting sentences that you doubt? The statement about brainwashing was not a blanket statement but discussed that article. Now you leave me all the work. Andries 19:35, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I can understand your point but I don't think it's fair for you to expect me to do the work for you. If you wish to contribute in controversial areas, you should expect to do some research. Wikipedia is not a mere discussion forum, it is an attempt to write an encyclopedia. The standards, therefore, are different.

If you delete in controversial subjects then expect to do some work too. I have done my research. I am a member of 9 yahoo groups on this subject. I have read at least 6 books about the subject. I have corresponded by email with David V. Barrett and a bit with Eileen Barker. I have read many, many websites and opionons on this subject. Andries 19:59, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

But okay, I will try to find the references. Andries 20:04, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Great. It sounds like you have everything you need at your fingertips. The references are all that's needed. Just list some titles and page numbers, or put in links to the relevant websites. This isn't about your qualifications, it's about the need to document the assertions in the articles. UninvitedCompany 20:06, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have to admit that there is one problem. And that is anecdotical evidence. I mean, I don't have a collection of testimonies with a statistical analysis. I just heard and read many stories about the subject. And, of course I have my own experience too. It is not difficult to find documentation for what I wrote but they are not scholarly analysises that I can refer to directly. Advice is welcome. Andries 20:16, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That's tough. Wikipedia articles are not primary research (item 10). If your views and experiences match those of others, you can probably find corroborating references in the literature and include them in what you write here. Otherwise, if your views and experiences are unique or have not been published by others, you may have a tough time here, and might be better served by more inclusive forums. Also see Wikipedia:No original research. UninvitedCompany 21:35, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. I have the strong impression that the many "scholarly" articles in this field are based on mere anecdotical evidence. It is sad but true. Much research in this field has become outdated with the advent of the internet. To be honest I only seen twice statistical analysis on these subjects. And to be honest, I don't believe one of these statistical analysises because they don't correspond with what I have heard and experienced. Andries 21:48, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi UnivitedCompany I think I will write anecdotal evidence suggests that thought reform may be induced by

alterred stated consciousness (example Mary Garden's book)
miracles, fake or real, staged or spontaneous (examples Sathya Sai Baba , Jim Jones etc....)
etc.

What do you think of this? Andries 18:04, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Big merge

I see no difference between the following terms:

Each implies that some sinister force tricks or traps the hapless dupe into doing nefarious deeds that no sane or rational person would "freely" choose to do.

Hence, we need "deprogramming" to free the "victim".

I daresay there's a conflict between camps or schools of thought who say that mind control, etc. is Possible and Bad and often accuse various new religious movements of it; and those who either say it's impossible or that opponents are just prejudiced against legitimate religious conversion.

Is this the controversy? And if so, can we re-do the articles to present accurately neutrally the various beliefs about the ability of one person to "control" another?

Sanger, Hassan, Rick Ross and others would be on one side. --Uncle Ed 21:01, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ed, I agree that it would be better to create one article that compares the differences and similarities between these three competing theories in. I believe that brainwashing, thought reform and mind control differ somewhat from each other. There are many theories on religious conversion and the above mentioned theories are just three of many. Most of the existing theories are not yet mentioned in Wikipedia. I would be happy with some help to include the most important theories in Wikipedia. Andries 21:13, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I still don't see the difference between thought reform and brainwashing. Maybe we could take a section from the latter and create a new article on coercive persuasion. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 18:02, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

This has been sitting on the shelf for quite a bit. It needs to be acted upon. We need to merge these three. ANy takers? --Zappaz 01:16, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)