Talk:Mind control

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Peer review This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.


Archive 1, Archive 2

Contents

[edit] Possibly speculative sentence

Hi folks... Isn't the following sentence a bit too speculative for an "encyclopedia" article?:

Some arguments in support of mind control conspiracy theories in fact stem from the belief in other conspiracy theories which, if they were true, would seem to validate such thinking. For example, if the belief in the presence of extraterrestrials were to be considered a given, this would give reason to believe that conspiring forces may possess the means of technology required to execute such actions.

It seems like a pure exercise in speculation. While interesting it seems to me that this is definitely OR. I propose that we take it out. Tanaats 04:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and took it out. It's copied below in case anyone wants to protest.

Some arguments in support of mind control conspiracy theories in fact stem from the belief in other conspiracy theories which, if they were true, would seem to validate such thinking. For example, if the belief in the presence of extraterrestrials were to be considered a given, this would give reason to believe that conspiring forces may possess the means of technology required to execute such actions.

Tanaats 22:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


Didn't you say you took out the sentence? Which sentence do you mean? The whole paragraph looks the same both times. Or are you saying you took out the entire paragraph? In which case, why didn't you copy the section in which that paragraph is now missing? Jaylectricity 02:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sheesh, the change is a whole 4 edits back, if you want the entire context there it is. I thought I was being especially courteous by even taking the trouble to copy the deleted portion here.
I misspoke when I called it a "sentence", sorry. But I followed the word "sentence" with exactly what I was referring to.
If you want to discuss the change, let's discuss that. Tanaats 04:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zimbardo vs. "reconsidering the APA position on mind control"

Regarding the sentence "In 2002 Dr. Philip Zimbardo who teaches at Stanford University a course "the psychology of mind control", commented on the request by former members of new religious movements (NRMs) to reconsider the APA's position on the possibility of mind control"...

The cited article doesn't say that NRM members asked Zimbardo to reconsider the APA position on mind control. (For one thing the APA has never taken a position on mind control, see for example the final sentence in the DIMPAC rejection memo.) To achieve maximum accuracy, I've replaced that statement with a direct quote from his article. Tanaats 23:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This discussion has the same problem as the article

This particular talk page is NOT getting anywhere and here is why. Most of you are having discussions on various events and experiments and whether or not there is proof or any indication of sources for each theory. If we want to delve into the plethora (haven't used that word in a while) of theories and events in history, the Mind Control page will be muddy forever.
More important to the cause of this so-called "online encyclopedia" is the need for organization. The top of the page needs to clearly define Mind Control with absolutely no anecdotes. You may feel the need to clean up my definition and that is why we have this talk page to get all of our heads together. Something to the effect of: "Mind control has long been the subject of controversy, paranoia, fantasy, curiosity and research. As such, mind control has been subjected to controversy, paranoia, fantasy, curiosity and research." At this point you may want to add a few things to that list, and then satisfy the reader's own curiosity as to HOW mind control has been the subject/subjected to...
Now in each of those, it needs to be divided between fiction and non-fiction. Just because you aren't sure something has been proven, or there are no sources/citations does not make it fiction. It makes it debatable. Fiction works are created by authors, directors, producers etc. as a means of a FICTIONAL story. Lots of web surfers need you to relate them to popular works because most people are sheep. But I digress. This fact means that fictional works DO have a place here, but they ought to be relegated to smaller sub-topics within a larger non-fiction topic. But to lead an entire topic on the page by mentioning the Manchurian Candidate without first having described the techniques used in the story becomes distracting. Sonic Magno-Waves (fake technique I'm using for example) need to be explored and defined before bringing a movie named "SMW From Space" into the topic.
In regards to what should be considered mind control and simple persuasion there should be a paragraph addressing that, but with most of what is considered simple persuasion put into links to other pages. Mind control is mind control and nothing else. Using techniques to cause a person to do something against their will, or to do something without realizing what they are doing, could be considered mind control. But when you start to get into things such as, "There was something about the way she talked that made me want to follow her orders" that starts to slip over to persuasion. Things such as hypnosis to quit smoking also misses the definition of mind control. One could say that my repeating the words, "I hate alcohol" over and over for 3.5 hours as a means to quit is actually me exhibiting mind control when actually it is closer to "self-control." Mind control is an entry in Wiki for very obvious reasons. Because it refers to specific actions with mostly negative connotations. Any other use of the term "Mind Control" is simply putting two words in the English language together to form a joint meaning. If we were to do that, we might as well put a definition for "Shoe Tying" and then we could argue whether the use of Velcro or snaps belong under that topic since they both can be found on shoes.
In conclusion, a lot of you use up a lot of your time writing, improving and/or changing entries within the Wikipedia. Believe me, it is much more noble than someone who spends most of their time with World of Warwhatever. You should venture out with each other and work on an outline for this page. You need to fight the urge to research each sub-topic and just stick to structuring the page. This is a fascinating topic and I came to this page only to be left totally confused and unfulfilled in my thirst for knowledge. A few others of you seem to be more passionate about getting YOUR favorite theory or idea posted here. Those of you should spend your time creating the part of the topic you are passionate about. Don't worry about anything but writing out your particular section, then post it here or elsewhere for the organizers to review it. Still there are a few of you that prefer to nit-pick over proof, sources and citations. That is not a bad thing, so grab a beer, a joint, a cup of tea or whatever you like and start researching. In the quest for one reputable source you should be able to use the major (and don't forget the minor) search engines and find what you need in an hour or two. So hop to it friends!

Pre-signature post-script -- You have no idea how look it took me to get this post to look like this without dividing it into all these weird boxes and screwed up paragraph breaks. I couldn't indent for you so I'm sorry if you have to weed through the paragraph breaks. I must have been using code symbols on accident. Jaylectricity 02:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for the comments. I for one like all the weird boxes and screwed up paragraph breaks as it makes it easier to find information on any given subject for the reader. Some one recently went into an article I contribute to and removed the whole shebang! Take a look:Steve Poizner. Now if I were a child or just some one trying to find out information I just might get lost here without all the granny fussing we do so well here:-). As to the citations, well they serve their purpose and most recently I learned to plug in those little references because if one doesn't the work will be removed without fore thought or consideration. Then one thinks, heck, I could have planted flowers in the garden instead. Oh, I take Earl Gray w/cream, don't drink and don't do pot! PEACETalkAbout 05:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
On the topic of weird boxes and screwed up paragraph breaks, I meant that in the middle of a sentence, it would switch. Also, in one of the boxes there would be 275 words in one line of text. So you'd have to go to the bottom of the window and slowly scroll to the right while reading...It would NOT have made it easier to find anything. One Earl Grey with cream, coming up! Jaylectricity 01:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Planning to delete unsourced statements

I've hung "fact" tags on the following:

  • "Hassan's critics argue that Hassan does not merely say that fraudulent salesmanship persuaded the believers; he states that these groups literally take away a victim's freedom of mind."
  • "...which was usually illegal when applied to an adult,[7] and which eventually became completely illegal except in the case of minors."

I'll wait about a week and then delete them. Tanaats 22:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Overblown, uncritical, fringe theories with scant acceptance?

BabyDweezil,

  • As for "overblown", this is an article on Mind Control. It is the very article in which a theory on Mind Control is supposed to be well represented.
  • As for "uncritical", you are free to put in well-sourced, verifiable, counterpoints.
  • As for "fringe theories", these are among the most prominent theories pertaining to the subject of the article.
  • As for "scant acceptance", outside of the world of NRM theorists these theories have wide respect, even if not universal acceptance. (Don't believe what they tell your about DIMPAC and the APA.) Tanaats 00:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your opinions. However, for the purposes of Wikipedia, could you please supply reliable sources demonstrating the "wide respect" for these theories? And to make your 3rd point more precise and accurate, you should say these are the most prominent exponents of this fringe theory. BabyDweezil 01:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't need RSs for the Talk page. Tanaats 01:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Then we're agreed that you are stating your opinions, not verifiable facts. BabyDweezil 15:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
BD, I'm not saying in the article that these theories enjoy wide respect. It's ok to express OR in the Talk page. In fact, that's mostly what any Talk page will consist of. Tanaats 20:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Her theories were not rejected

Dweezil,

Sorry, I forgot to make an edit comment again.

Singer's theories were not rejected by the APA. The report was rejected. Read it again. Tanaats 01:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

That amounts to very much the same, IMO. But we should stay close to the sources rather than insert our opinions in the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Clarified. BabyDweezil 02:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Good. You might want to go over it one more time. The report wasn't presented to DIMPAC, it was presented to BSERP. Tanaats 02:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Presented to the APA, rejected by the APA BSERP, to be exact. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

[edit] The Girard mention

User:130.91.119.173 says that he is Harlan Girard, and that the material about him in the article is inaccurate. Quoting him:

I am Harlan Girard and the person who made the insertion about the subject article insofar as it concerns me clearly had not read it, or wantonly misquoted and misrepresented what was said about me in it and what I believe to be true about the subject of mind control. I suggest interested persons read the article above, if they are interested in this subject.

He has deleted what he finds to be the offending material. Per WP:BLP it shouldn't go back in unless someone can establish that it doesn't violate WP:BLP.

I have removed the rest of the section which is now either meaningless or uncited. Tanaats 23:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Planning to delete some material

I've placed tags on material that is uncited, poorly cited, or OR. Unless there is an objection, I plan to wait a couple of weeks and then delete the material around 15 Feb. Tanaats 20:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Steven Hassan's BITE model--waaaaaay to much space here

Hassan's model is a fringe construct with scant (probably more like "no") support in the scientific community. For it to take up such a huge amount of space, in fact more space than the work of actual scientists, doesnt make any sense, and basically amount to using Wikipedia as advertising and promotion. I plan to edit it down to a brief paragraph, summarizing his views, but would appreciate comments. BabyDweezil 16:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't do it. The scholar "mantra" is not a justification for removal of well-sourced material. Furthermore Hassan is quite a notable figure in the arena of mind control, and his theory is also notable in that same arena. What you should do instead of deleting well-sourced material is to add material from the "work of actual scientists." Tanaats 17:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Tanaats, cutting and pasting huge chunks of Hassan's writing isn't really what "well sourced" means. Could you provide sources that show that "Hassan is quite a notable figure in the arena of mind control, and his theory is also notable in that same arena"? BabyDweezil 18:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Such as, perhaps, having his own article based on his notability in the arena of mind control?
And you are again making up your own guidelines, this time as regards "cut and paste." Tanaats 19:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. Really, do you have any independent sources from academia that show that "Hassan is quite a notable figure in the arena of mind control, and his theory is also notable in that same arena"? If not, I'll probably make the same argument in his own article for cutting it down. I can't find a single scholarly article by Hassan, or one that discusses his BITE model. BabyDweezil 19:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Even cult apologist Eileen Barker recommends his book. --Tilman 19:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
It is indeed quite relevant that he is granted "notable" status by Wikipedia.
And no matter how many times you repeat the "scholar" mantra it won't work. Tanaats 20:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
So I take it that neither of you has any independent sources from academia that show that "Hassan is quite a notable figure in the arena of mind control, and his theory is also notable in that same arena"? If not, I'll proceed to edit the section down to a reasonable size congruent with its noteworthiness. BabyDweezil 20:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
You're in no position of setting up new "rules" here, and you have no position to request research. Do you research yourself, start with google for Steve Hassan BITE. --Tilman 21:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
No matter how many times you repeat the scholar mantra it won't work. All you will achieve is to get this page protected, yourself probably blocked, and eventually the material will get back in anyway. It may take painfully grinding our way through DR up to Arbcom, but it will get back in. Tanaats 21:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Btw, the whole concept of mind control has only mixed support in the scientific community anyway. So the "BD-Rule" falls flat anyway, and sounds like an excuse to shorten the segment. --Tilman 21:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Tilman, once again you have verified my very point. If the "whole concept of mind control has only mixed support in the scientific community" as you say, then we should simply show both sides in the scientific community. Hassan is not a member of the scientific community (not even in the neighborhood), he is a guy who occasionally gets quoted on talk shows and in tabloid newspaper, and nowhere else. Any suggestions as to which parts of all the extraneous material on Hassan to remove from the article? BabyDweezil 21:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Showing both sides is not done by deleting one. About his respect in the community, look here: [1][2] --Tilman 21:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
BD, don't do it. You have not achieved consensus. Tanaats 23:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Promotional book material culled from the guy's website is not a scholarly assessment. Where are the scholarly assessments and validations of the BITE model that warrant giving it a huge section in the article? Can you point me to a single scholarly article by Hassan or anyone else that discusses it? BabyDweezil 23:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely unnecessary. Tanaats 00:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I stumbled upon this article that was linked from another and noticed this section seems way overblown. It reads like a commercial for his "theories" (I'm being generous here). Perhaps it should be added to the Steve Hassan article itself? And Hassan is a crack pot to many people. An overzealous crack pot who personally greased the wheels of human slaughter for his "contribution" to the Branch Davidian massacre. Mr Christopher 15:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Does the Lifton section sound like a commercial, perhaps for his book?
Does the Singer section sound like a commercial, perhaps for her book?
Hassan's theory is notable, he is extremely widely known as both an author and practioner in the area, and he even has his own Wikipedia article. His mind control theory absolutely belongs in an article on mind control, and it should be fully laid out here.
Rather than expunging a theory that you apparently disagree with, what you need to do in order to fairly represnt your POV in the article is to add counterpointing information from an RS that documents your assertion that some people think that he is a "crackpot." Tanaats 19:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually yes, all of those sections are overblown, but particularly Hassan's which is completely fringe in the scientific community, even more so than the largely discredited Singer. The problem, Tanaats, in finding "counterpointing" information is that no one in the scientific community seems to take Hassan seriously enough to "counterpoint" it! What to do? And as Mr Christopher points out, not only is Hassan's ineptness apparent, such bogus, self-serving "expertise has contributed to deadly consequences. BabyDweezil 19:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
His presentation here should be in proportion to his appearance in RS; obviously not some fixed formula, but an agreeable treatment. How much RS is there on the individual and on his work in the complete body of RS on similar work or on the topic of the article? That is the index of how he should be presented here. --Justanother 19:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
This another innovative rule. Tanaats 19:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Looks like "somebody" needs to bone up on the rules around here. Here is your assignment. Figure out where this comes from:

"the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each."

--Justanother 19:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
What is innovative is your theory that "prominence" must of necessity be measured according to the number of mentions in secondary sources. You wouldn't get to first base in DR with this theory either. Tanaats 19:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I said it was an index, not a formula. I never mentioned "necessity". "Prominence" is a fuzzy term. But, tell you what. Please tell me how YOU would determine relative prominence. Here is some material to get you started:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is or likely may be challenged, or it may be removed.

--Justanother 20:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
It is completely verifiable that this is Hassan's theory. In merely presenting a theory without comment we do not have to "verify" that it is true. There is no assertion of "truth" being made in the article. Tanaats 05:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

<reduce indent>

  • Does the Lifton section sound like a commercial, perhaps for his book?

Almost, but his work is seminal (ground zero and far more authorative and credible than any other person mentioned in this article) so it makes sense this section is as long and detailed as it is.

  • Does the Singer section sound like a commercial, perhaps for her book

I'm not sure about a "commercial" Yeah that one is wayyy tooo much information as well. Mr Christopher 20:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

If you want to boil down Singer's theory as well then I rest my case. Tanaats 20:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/i/n/Talk%7EMind_control_3a4c.html"