Talk:Mind control

Cleanup

Trimmed poorly sourced quotes that were tagged as such for years. We can now begin the process of adding back better sourced quotes, with page numbers and full citations. -- Cirt (talk) 17:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

HI Cirt, It is common to move unsourced quotes to the talk page (which has now been done) to give others the opportunity to find decent sources and eventually add the quotes back. -- Mdd (talk) 17:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, sounds good, -- Cirt (talk) 22:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Poorly sourced quotes, moved to the talk page

• ACLU opposes the use of mental incompetency proceedings, temporary conservatorship, or denial of government protection as a method of depriving people of the free exercise of religion, at least with respect to people who have reached the age of majority. Mode of religious proselytizing or persuasion for a continued adherence that do not employ physical coercion or threat of same are protected by the free exercise of religion clause of the First Amendment against action of state laws or by state officials. The claim of free exercise may not be overcome by the contention that 'brainwashing' or 'mind control' has been used, in the absence of evidence that the above standards have been violated.
  • The American Civil Liberties Union, (1977)^{[specific citation needed]}

• ...the brainwashing notion implied that somehow these diverse and unconnected [religious] movements had simultaneously discovered and implemented highly intrusive behavioral modification techniques. Such serendipity and coordination was implausible given the diverse backgrounds of the groups at issue. Furthermore, the inability of highly trained professionals responsible for implementing a variety of modalities for effecting individual change, ranging from therapy to incarceration, belie claims that such rapid transformation can routinely be accomplished by neophytes against an individual's will.
  • Bromley, D.B. , Shupe, A.D. , Strange Gods: The Great American Cult Scare, Beacon Press, Boston, (1981)

• Given the problematic nature of scientific support for brainwashing based theories as they are applied to participants in new religions, it is reasonable to ask why such evidence was ever admitted [into court testimony], and why it is sometimes still admitted. The most plausible answer has to do with the operation of biases, prejudices, and misinformation in these cases that involve controversial parties and issues or, as Kassin and Wrightsman (1988) say: cases involving emotional topics over which public opinion is polarized.
  • James T. Richardson and Gerald Ginsburg^{[specific citation needed]}

• This association considers that there is insufficient research to permit informed, responsible scholars to reach consensus on the nature and effects of nonphysical coercion and control. It further asserts that one should not automatically equate the techniques involved in the process of physical coercion and control with those of nonphysical coercion and control. In addition to critical review of existing knowledge, further appropriately designed research is necessary to enable scholarly consensus about this issue.
  • Society for the Scientific Study of Religion^{[specific citation needed]}

• The systematic, scientific[,] and coercive elimination of the individuality of the mind of another.
  • Scheflin and Opton (1978)^{[specific citation needed]}

• ...[t]he methodology of Drs. [Margaret] Singer and Benson has been repudiated by the scientific community", and are "little more than uninformed speculation, based on skewed data" and that "[t]he coercive persuasion theory ... is not a meaningful scientific concept."
  • APA (11 February 1987)^{[specific citation needed]} - before the DIMPAC report had appeared

• The Board of Directors now believes it was premature, for organizational reasons, to endorse the positions taken in the amicus brief prior to completion of the task force study.
  • APA (March 27, 1987)^{[specific citation needed]}

• BSERP thanks the Task Force on Deceptive and Indirect Methods of Persuasion and Control [DIMPAC] 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.[...]Finally, after much consideration, BSERP does not believe that we have sufficient information available to guide us in taking a position on this issue. [brainwashing theories espoused by DIMPAC in their report].
  • Board of Social and Ethical Responsibility for Psychology , APA (May 11, 1987)^{[specific citation needed]}

---

Above are poorly sourced quotes, moved from main article page space to talk page, do not move back unless properly sourced to full and complete citations, thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 22:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)