Jump to content

Talk:Margaret Singer/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Cult expert

"cult expert" "expert Brainwashing" are value judgements that have to be attributed to a reliable source. An obituary is not a reliable source. If there are reliable sources that call her an expert on anything, we can add it. We can also add at the same time, the controvery and critique that she withstood during her life. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: First of all, as you are a Wikipedia Administrator, I will acquiesce to your decree. I will NOT go past 3RR. However, a search of "cult expert" and "margaret singer" on Google yields 1,100 hits. Surely you must see from a simple perusal of these hits that Dr. Singer is widely regarded as such. However, I have duly changed the infobox to simply read Author, Cults in Our Midst. As you wish, User:Jossi... Yours, Smeelgova 00:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC).
A question, why are obituaries not considered reliable sources? Yours, Smeelgova 00:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC).
Me too. An obituary is usually a good friendly summary of a person's life. Margaret Singer was indeed a cult expert. --Tilman 16:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Google is a search engine, and not used in Wikipedia for these purposes. Sometime we use Google to ascertain notability of a subject, but that is all. We need reliable sources that call her an expert. Then we can add it to the article. Let's keep the infobox just to provide facts, rather than opinions. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Use of titles

Please see WP:STYLE for guidelines on how to use titles and honorifics. Also note that the same apply to article names. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Duly noted. Why are nationally published obituaries not reliable sources, just out of curiosity? Yours, Smeelgova 00:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC).
Because obituaries tend to be hagiographic in nature, for obvious reasons. Singer was quite prominent during the 70's and the 80's, some considered her an expert, some considered her just about the opposite. That is why it is better to keep the infobox as simple as possible with just facts, and leave the opinions to be descibed in the body of the article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
This may be so, but then you might say that WP:BLP also calls for a slightly hagiographic language. --Tilman 16:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

APA director

Was Singer an APA director? Which year? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Took out "controversial"

I took out the adjective "controversial" at the very top of the article. It is just someone's opinion, and it would be better to let the readers read the article and come to their own conclusions. If we have "controversial" here, we might as well have it on a zillion other articles, including Eileen Barker's for example. Tanaats 02:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jossi, we meet again! It is only an opinion that she was controversial. Regardless, Eileen Barker is also controversial, can I add "controversial" to her article as well? Tanaats 02:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
She was controversial as per the description in the article. If the article about Eileen Barker has material that relates to notable controversies she was involved with, by all means add that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
And will you be the one to define what is or is not a "notable" controversy? Is "Other have criticized her travels paid by the Unification Church, and her appearance as an expert witness for an array of cults in Moscow in 1997" not enough?
Anyway, again that is merely your own opinion about the article. Are you absolutely opposed to letting me take out "criticism"? Will it do any good to discuss it further? Tanaats 03:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
IMO, both are controversial. --Tilman 08:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh yes, IMO they're both controversial as hell -- but that is a personal opinion. It would be only fair to also put "controversial" in the first sentence of the Barker article, but I doubt it would stay there long. And I'd really prefer that it not appear in either article. I think that not only does it represent an opinion, but I also think that it makes the article lead off with a "spin" placed upon it. As I said above, the reader can be trusted to come to their own conclusions without being "guided" by the spin in the initial sentence. But, once again, I'm not going to get into an edit war. I'm going to go off and get a WP "Advocate" to help me present my case in a dispute resolution process, not only here but on ACM. The worst thing that can happen is that I lose. :) Tanaats 20:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Singer was controversial as stated in the article, in particular regarding the repudiated theories of brainwashing and mind control she advocated (See the APA and DIMPAC controversies section.) That is very different than having being criticized of being a "cult apologist" by a couple of anti-cult advocates as in the case of Baker. A very significant distinction, IMO. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Unbalanced?

Why is there a tag about this article being "unbalanced"? Does the article have any material that is not relevant/significant about this person? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It may all be relevant, but it reads like an attack page on Dr. Margaret Singer. Try comparing it to the hundreds of obituaries written about her - and you will see that as an encyclopedia article it does not have enough weight to all the good she did in her life. Smeelgova 20:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC).
This is not a matter of opinion, but of factual and verifiable information. Obituaries could be used, with caution, as it often times these lionizes the person. There are also obituaries such as this one, that IMO is very accurate:

Margaret Singer, Mother of Anti-Cult Brainwashing Theory, Dies in Berkeley. Margaret Singer, 82, died on November 23, 2003 after a long illness at Alta Bates Medical Center in Berkeley, California. A clinical psychologist who had collaborated in the past with Edgar Schein, even co-authoring some articles with him, and was adjunct professor emeritus at the University of California, Berkeley, she often appeared in court as an expert witness testifying against the «cults.» In a sense, she invented a new profession as a psychologist in the service, practically full-time, of anti-cult lawsuits and initiatives. Margaret Singer made frequent use of terms such as Schein's «coercive persuasion» and Robert J. Lifton's «thought reform,» treating them as synonyms for «brainwashing.» This employment of the same words that Schein and Lifton used, but with very different meanings, is at the very heart of the confusion that arose in the 1970s and 1980s and that still continues, though it was partially cleared up by criticism offered by Dick Anthony. Singer's decline started with the rejection of a report of a commission she had chaired by the American Psychological Association in 1987, and with the ruling in the Fishman case in 1990 excluding her testimony on brainwashing as not part of mainline science. Still lionized by the anti-cult movement and by some media, she was increasingly criticized even by "moderate" anti-cultists, and appeared increasingly irrelevant to the "new" cult wars of the late 1990s. [1]

In any case, please add more material if you wish, but do not place an unbalanced tag just because we are describing the APA controversies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I am referring to any obituary on the woman from any reputable journal, newspaper, or magazine - not an alleged cult-apologist site. In any event - until more material is added, as you suggest, I am still of the opinion that the article is unbalanced. Smeelgova 20:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC).
The unbalanced tag, is a call for action, not a statement of opinion. So, If you do not want to work on the article, then remove the tag. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I most definitely will work on the article and I support the tag. So consider the tag to be mine. Tanaats 21:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
"Unbalanced" does not mean to me that the current content is of necessity not relevant. It means that other relevant material that casts her in a positive light has not been introduced yet. Tanaats 21:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
And I as well will work on the article, and leave the "unbalanced" tag on. Smeelgova 21:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC).
Sure. I will remove the tag in a couple of days if you have not done so by then. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
It's not just Smeelgova's contributions that count. I "sponsor" the tag also. Tanaats 21:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

This is becoming ridiculous

Please do not delete my edits! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You posted verbatim in duplicate what was already listed below. Don't see the need to have the exact same information in two sections. Thanks for using "please", but please don't use the exclamation point, assume good faith at first. Smeelgova 21:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC).
Why do you see the need to have the exact same info in 2 sections of the article? Just say to the reader, "this is discussed in detail below at...". Smeelgova 21:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC).
Why do you keep reverting my edits STOP! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Smeelgova, you make it very difficult, if not impossible, to assume good faith. I had to stop editing other articles because I got exhausted in dealing with your editing style. Please do not delete material without asking first. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Why do you keep yelling at me like that and not assuming good faith first STOP! Smeelgova 22:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC).
User:Jossi, the EXACT SAME INFORMATION was in two sections. Because I will not revert you three times, I hope you noticed that I removed it from the bottom section [2] and not the contentious top section. Couldn't you see that the info about that Judge's decision was duplicated in two spots? Smeelgova 22:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC).
I hope you can at least admit that you had erroneously duplicated the exact same information in two sections of the article. Smeelgova 22:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC).
The material was not duplicated. I provided a new source. You could have asked before reverting. Couldn't you? In any case, I have more material to add to the article, specifically info about Kropinsky v. World Plan Executive Council and Robin George v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness of California in which Singer provided testimony that was also dismissed by the court citing the lack of acceptance of her theories. These cases took place before the United States v. Fishman case. But I will wait until you and Tanaats get a chance to add other material that is not negative, if you find any, that is. I will add the new material in the weekend. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
And you could have questioned my edits here on the talk page, without an exclamation point, bold, AND CAPS YELLING AT ME. As stated before, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The nicer you are to others on Wikipedia, the kinder they will be to you - and the more likely they will be to incorporate some of your suggestions. And I have taken many of your suggestions to heart in the past, believe it or not. Thanks. Smeelgova 22:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC).
No. That is no the way it works. I added material that was well sourced and you revert it without even asking. Then you proceed to delete or change each one of my edits. That lack of respect for a fellow editor's work is unacceptable.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that is how it works. You treat others with respect, and they will treat you with respect. If you continue to use EXCLAMATION POINTS, BOLD AND CAPS then I will not respond that well to your future suggestions. If you have more patience and use more kind words - then I most certainly well. It is that simple. Thanks. Smeelgova 01:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC).
You are the reverter, the burden is in you to behave. Yes, I should not react as I did, but that does not mean that you are entitled to skirt your responsibility in the matter. Had you not reverted almost all the edits I made today, this whole thing would not have happened. And you continue doing it. Assume good faith, you say? Yes, we assume the good faith of new editors, but after that you need to earn it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Suffice it to say that you will find me quite difficult to work with if you do not act kindly and in a manner of politeness as you would want others to act towards you. If you continue to yell at me and reprimand me in such a manner when I have not violated 3RR, and use bold, caps and exclamation points to try to get your point - there is very, very little chance that I or any other editor for that matter will want to take heed to your suggestions. But if you use reason and politeness, I most certainly will listen and do my best to engage you in polite discussion on the talk pages. And I am insulted by your insinuation that I am "joking". Yes, it is most hurtful to be dealt with in this manner. Smeelgova 03:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC).
I will resume editing this article on Sunday. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I see that the Robin George case was discussed, but then not added. I think it should be added; but I recommend to also add well known cases where she did testify. --Tilman 12:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

DIMPAC

You may need to read BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF THE AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION. It may be an eye opener for editors not familiar with the amicus curiae. There is no such text in it that says what was added to the article by Tanaats [3]. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

What it says:

  1. The Theory of Coercive Persuasion Plaintiffs Advance Is Not Accepted in the Scientific Community.
  2. The Conclusions of Drs. Singer and Benson Are Not Recognized As Scientitic Conclusions in the Relevant Professional Communities
  3. Plaintiffs' Theory of Coercive Persuasion Is Not Generally Accepted in the Relevant Professional Literature.
  4. The Methodology of Drs. Singer and Benson Has Been Repudiated by the Scientific Community.
  5. The data on Which Drs. Singer and Benson Rely Is Undocumented and Unverifiable.
  6. The Sources of Information on Which Drs. Singer and Benson Rely Are Not Impartial.
  7. Plaintiffs' Theory of Coercive Persuasion Cannot Be Reconciled With Basic Assumptions Of The Legal System.

... and more. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Jossi! Regarding your "eye opener"... A show of indignation only really works when you have your facts straight! Please do have another peek at the changelog! I do take such pains with my edit summaries, and now it appears that no one is reading them. :( Tanaats 04:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

  • It should be noted here that the American Psychological Association withdrew themselves from this amicus curiae, and that all the authors are alleged cult apologists. It is possible that they all got together and wrote the brief for shall we say less than scientific reasons themselves. Smeelgova 01:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC).
Sure, ad hominem attacks against these scholars is a great argument. But what about APA Division 36 and the BSERP? Are these all cult apologists? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll let User:Tanaats repond to that one - I'm still reeling and quite frankly a bit hurt by your USE OF BOLD, CAPS AND EXCLAMATION POINTS. Thanks. Smeelgova 02:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC).
You are jocking, aren't you? Or maybe you are unable to appreciate the impact that your behavior has on others. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
As for Division 36 and the BSERP, the importance of the whole thing has been vastly exaggerated...
Amitrani and Marzio (2001) write "If a single Division of APA does not represent the whole Association, then can't we also say that four experts (the number of people reviewing the DIMPAC report), only two of whom were APA members, do not represent the views of the whole Association?"
As for the signatories of the brief, they were just pushing the partisan NRM agenda under the aegis of the APA. The brief ended up being only their own opinions:
Singer got sandbagged. Tanaats 06:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Dr. Singer did most certainly get sandbagged by four of her academic opponents, and that is putting it nicely. Not too mention all of the harassment and death threats against her and her family that she had to endure because of her positions. Yeesh. Smeelgova 06:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC).
She was fair game. Tanaats 15:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You speak of goof faith, Smeelgova, then why didn't you add the {{quotefarm}} template after Tanaats' edit as you did to mine? So, before you ask again to take your edits in good faith, show some. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

Again, I will not respond to this user, and let User:Tanaats respond, or other editors, until he has calmed down and realized the affect his hurtful use of BOLD CAPS AND EXCLAMATION POINTS has on other individuals. Thanks. Smeelgova 02:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC).
The proof is in the pudding, Smeelgova. Just check the history and appreciate the effect your continuous reverting has other editor's efforts. I will be back on Sunday to edit this article after you and Tanaats have some time to improve the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

And BTW, I did not use bold caps and exclamation points. I used bold once and and two exclamation points that were totally appropriate given your editing sytle. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

NOTHING JUSTIFIES USING BOLD CAPS AND EXCLAMATION POINTS - IT WILL ONLY SERVE TO UPSET AND/OR HURT THE PERSON YOU ARE TRYING TO REASON WITH. Golden Rule. Thanks. Smeelgova 03:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC).
Leading by example, right? Sure, revert to your heart content, delete other editor's work relentlessly and put the blame on others when your behavior is the source of the problem. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I am merely showing by example, yes, how silly it looks to use BOLD CAPS AND EXCLAMATION POINTS to try and drive home your points. It is your behaviour that is the source of the problem in this instance. If you act more nicely to myself and other editors on Wikipedia, you will instantly see how much nicer they will act to you. I suggest you try it. I reverted you once for duplicate verbatim material, then I compromised and removed it from the section below. I reverted you one more time on a simple matter of heading titles, and you instantly chose to use BOLD CAPS AND EXCLAMATION POINTS, instead of giving me a chance and asking me why I did what I did on the talk page. Try acting nicer next time - regardless of who is initially at fault. Getting pist off and acting like that on talk pages will never make the situation any easier. Thanks. Smeelgova 03:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

Psychosomatic Medicine

In regards to this: In the 1950s she was a leading researcher in the field of psychosomatic medicine.[citation needed]. She was the first psychologist elected president of the American Psychosomatic Society so it states in her book Cults in Our Midst on page 385 and during the 1950's she was working with vets suffering from psychosomatic conditions post capture. So, would this satisfy the citation or do we need another since the obituaries are out?TalkAbout 08:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, especially since that book was popular enough to be republished in 2003, and is highly cited by lots of other sources and seen as an authority on the subject by many. Smeelgova 08:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC).
That could work only if attributed to her, rather than stating it as a fact. As in "In her book so and so, Singer states that she was the first elected president of so and so." Of course, it would be better to find a third party source to avoid ambiguities. Certainly we cannot use her own words to assert that "she was a leading researcher in the field of psychosomatic medicine", as that is not acceptable use of a primary source (see WP:RS#Self-published_sources_in_articles_about_themselves. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

DIMPAC report edits

  • Reordered chronologically
  • Added sources and more details about the rejection memo

I will continue with my edits after other editors revise what I have done so far.

I have a question about the section Margaret_Singer#Use_of_the_report: How the report is cited? In which context? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


Regarding the "Harassment and death threats", it reads as a newspaper article and asserts unattributed opinions as facts. I have marked it as not NPOV section so that ir can be delalt with by those that added the material. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the section "Other rejections". I am not sure it refers to the DIMPAC report. As I do not have access to the source, I do not know of to delete or not. Please delete if you know for certain that it is not related to the DIMPAC report. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

New "Comments from professionals" section

I inserted a "Comments from professionals" section to hold comments that don't relate to DIMPAC. Tanaats 20:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Jossi, I forgot about your comment above when deleting and moving "other rejections", but don't we have to be certain that it is related to DIMPAC in order to keep it there? Tanaats 20:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the article is about Singer and about DIMPAC. So we shall not add other material that is not related to it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Needless hitting Singer twice with the same info

The passage "When her findings were rejected by the APA for "[lacking] the scientific rigor and evenhanded critical approach necessary" Singer sued the APA in 1992 for "defamation, frauds, aiding and abetting and conspiracy" and lost in 1994" needlessly duplicates information already provided above in the article, and introduces bias by pounding twice on the same negative fact. Tanaats 21:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

You are right. I will remove that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, that works for me. The only questions is whether it should say "APA's BSERP committee" rather than "APA"? Tanaats 21:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Singer's reputation as an expert witness

Jossi, if am reading the History right, you took out this...

In 1990, District Court Judge Lowell Jensen excluded her testimony in United States v. Fishman, because the Court was not convinced that the application of coercive persuasion theory to religious cults was widely accepted in the medical community and did not accept the coercive persuasion theory in the context of cults. [1]</blockquoe>

And replaced it with "Singer profile as an expert witness suffered after the rejection of her theories by the American Psychological Association."

Doesn't that amount to replacing a well cited statement with OR? Tanaats 21:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC) Tanaats 21:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I did not replaced it. I moved that to the DIMPAC section. As said in the edit summary, I am not so sure it is 100% correct, as it may be close to violating NOR. Feel free to edit that in a way that it does not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah, sorry, yes you did move it. My apologies.
But I don't see a way to salvage "Singer profile as an expert witness suffered after the rejection of her theories by the American Psychological Association." without a citation saying that. Tanaats 21:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
As I said above, feel free to edit that text in a manner that does not violate NOR. But we need to say that after the DIMPAC report was rejected, things changed for her. Don't you think? 21:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Things did change for her, but I don't see a way of putting that in without a citation. At least that's what they've told me on Transcendental Meditation. In the meantime I've put a "fact" tag on it. Tanaats 21:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

"Conspiracy"

I am reading sources that describe Singer claiming there was a "Conspiracy" against her in the lawsuits filed by Singer and Ofshe, in which they7 accused the APA and other sociologists to be a part of such conspirancy. Does any of you have any info on that?. We have sources that confirm that she lost that case, but I read that there was another case as well. Will be good to find some info about that as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe that Singer probably thought that, but I don't know if she ever said it out loud and I don't have a citation. I suspect that there actually was an ASM (Anti-Singer Movement) which was an "amalgam" of those opposed to Singer. However I don't have a citation for that either. Tanaats 21:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually Singer and Ofshe wrote extensively about this "conspiracy" on the summons of the California case against APA. That was the basis for her lawsuit: that there was a conspiracy against her led by the APA and certain scholars. Only thing is that I cannot find these summons online. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I can certainly believe that. And yes, the dismissal of the law suit does mention a charge of "conspiracy". But after a quick search on Google I couldn't find anything else. Tanaats 21:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I found the text below at the CESNUR website, but would like to find the summons and quote directly.

In fact, she filed two subsequent lawsuits against APA and the American Sociological Association, as well as a number of individual scholars, accusing them all of having organized the whole incident “fraudulently, intentionally, falsely, and/or in reckless disregard for the truth, with intent to deceive and in furtherance of the Conspiracy” (M. Singer and R. Ofshe, Summons in the California case, n. 107, p. 30). Singer claimed that APA and the leading scholars were all part of a “Conspiracy” (always written by Singer with a capital C). The aim of the “Conspiracy” apparently was to discredit brainwashing and mind control theories in order to protect some of the more controversial new religious movements (who, Singer alleged, probably financed the whole operation anyway). This conspiracy theory, even if true, would be of no help to Gandow and his friends in the present controversy. The question they have raised is not why in 1987 APA declared the brainwashing and mind control theories as applied to new religious movements as non-scientific, but rather whether APA actually took that position. Nor is it a question of APA’s present position (if any) on brainwashing or “cults”. APA has no continuing policy on the issue. APA never repudiated its 1987 actions, however, not even in the face of lawsuits filed later by Singer, when it would have been tempting to settle by repudiating its earlier actions. Instead, APA vehemently denied the accusations that its actions of 1987 were illegitimate and indeed spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees defending their legitimacy.

and

On August 9, 1993 the United States District Court, S.D. of New York, dismissed the federal case brought by Singer and anti-cult sociologist Richard Ofshe against APA, the American Sociological Association and a number of scholars, finding no conspiracy and no “racket” (as Singer had alleged). Anti-racket statutes, the plaintiffs were told, “can have no role in sanctioning conduct motivated by academic and legal differences” (1993 W.L. 307782 S.D. N.Y.). Singer and Ofshe then turned to Californian state law and produced a true “bible” on the Conspiracy. Once again the case was swiftly thrown out of court. Judge James R. Lambden ruled on June 17, 1994 that “Plaintiffs have not presented sufficient evidence to establish any reasonable probability of success on any cause of action” (Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Alameda, case n. 730012-8, order of June 17, 1994). Those who would now like to revive the spectre of the great cult apologists “Conspiracy” would do well to listen to District Judge McKenna’s counsel in the federal case. Their “best remedy”, he said, remains not with conspiracy theories “but in continuing to maintain that their theories are sound within appropriate scientific and legal fora”. It is high time, therefore, that they cease shooting the messengers (or insulting them, or invading their privacy through pointless investigations of their private lives) and focus their efforts instead on formulating their own message, if indeed they have one.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Lead to article as per style guide

The current lead does not conform to the style guide. Maybe one of the involved editors would like to write a worthy lead to this article as per the style guide at WP:LEAD?

The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and describing its notable controversies, if there are any. It should be between one and four paragraphs long, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear and accessible style so that the reader is encouraged to read the rest of the article.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Disagre with changes made

I am not happy with the changes made:

  1. There where more cases in which her testimony was rejected tah just two. Several is accurate
  2. The lawsuit that she filed against APA are directly related to th DIMPAC report rejection
  3. The recent use/citations of the DIMPAC report lacks context. We do not know if these are used to show what not to do in research, for example
  4. The harassment and alleged death threats does not use NPOV language and does makes assertions of fact ratjer than attributing these allegations to whomever made them

I will restore my last edit, with the exception of the Amitrani and Marzio critique that is a valuable addition. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

  1. Wouldn't it be better to use the exact number rather than "several"?
  2. I think you're probably right, but isn't that an inference? I think that it's enough to report the lawsuit. The nature of the allegations in the lawsuit make the nature of the lawsuit clear enough, I think, without introducing inferences, however strong.
  3. It is under the heading "Uses of the report". The report was in fact "used" as cited.
  4. Could you give a specific example of NPOV language that is used? And don't the citations make it clear who made the allegations? Should we say "The San Francisco Examiner reported that <such and so a statement>..."? I don't mind actually; I think it would give the section more weight. I'd want to hear Smeelgova's opinion first though. Thanks. Tanaats 02:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Smeelgova is under a temporary block, so out of courtesy, I will wait until he comes back before I make any edits to these sections. But in essence, the "harassment" section is asserting these as facts based on an obituary and an op-ed. Note that opinion pieces are not considered reliable sources for facts, and can only be quoted as opinions. So, we need to attribute these and also remove the POV wording such as "Due to her unwavering stance on the issues of cults and brainwashing", that is an inferred unattributed opinion. As per the citations of the report, note that the DIMPAC report is cited in many works in a rather negative manner, so I would argue that it would be better not to have such section. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
In the meantime, what, for example, would be the proper way to re-edit the sentence "According to an obituary in The New York Times, she occasionally found dead animals on her doorstep" so that it is stated as an opinion rather than a fact? Tanaats 00:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
And does the fact that the DIMPAC gets a lot of negative mention provide a reason for not introducing a few little positive mentions? Tanaats 00:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Reporting citations of the DIMPAC report on other works

The DIMPAC report is cited in many works, but it cannot be assumed that these cites are positive, as it may imply from the text in the article. I suggest either removing these cites, or alternatively, provide information about the context in which the cite were used. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Nobel price nomination?

Nobel price nominations are not made public. I don;t think that the comment by Daniel Goldstine, in that article is a reliable source to assert this as a fact. I have removed that mention unless a reliable source is found.

From Nobel price: Unlike many other awards, the names of those nominated for a Nobel Prize are never publicly announced and they are never meant to learn that they were considered for the Prize. Nomination records are sealed for fifty years.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, an individual writing on behalf of the Berkeley Alumni Association, with a Ph.D., seems highly accurate. Why remove this when it is factually accurate? Smeelgova 00:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC).
Is an uncited WP article an RS? Regardless, the Nobel Prize article also says "In practice, some nominees become known..." There is no evidence that Goldstine is a liar, he may well indeed have found out somehow. His implication that he did indeed know doesn't ipso facto make him non-RS. Tanaats 01:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

In practice, some nominees become known, or are claimed by publicists, especially in literature where there is an economic incentive.

That is the rest of the sentence. I will be providing even more citations on this in the main space shortly. Thanks. Smeelgova 01:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC).

Ja, please next time some credible sources. Thx! Fossa?! 01:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
In addition to Daniel Goldstein, Ph.D., I have added citations from The Guardian and The Los Angeles Times. Smeelgova 01:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC).

We have discussed this in the past. The burden to provide supporting material is on the person making the addition, not on the person removing it. So, the article will not suffer by having this material removed until such a time in which reliable sources are provided. The material about the purported "Nobel price" nomination is 100% unverifiable, as per the Prize Nobel rules. The material from an email exchange is also not acceptable as it is not considered a source for Wikipedia articles. These two pieces of text are now deleted.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

In addition to Daniel Goldstein, Ph.D., I have added citations from The Guardian and The Los Angeles Times. Smeelgova 01:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC).
But, but...It's not 100% unverifiable. The Nobel Prize article says that the info "in practice" can leak! You may think that this is somehow "wrong", and that it "100%" could not be true, but isn't that OR? Correct me I'm wrong of course. Tanaats 01:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


Use of obituaries as sources

I challenge the use of obituaries as sources to support a claim. These are in the same category as op-eds, and should not be used as sources for any claims. In very specific cases it can be used as sources of opinion, but not as sources to assert facts, in particular when these claims are unverifiable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps if there were only one source. But we now have three different, reputable secondary sources. Smeelgova 01:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC).
I can see that this will be contentious. I can assure you that an RfC will not go in your favor, Smeelgova. Prize nobel nominations are absolutely not verifiable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestion. Give me a moment, and I will do up the RFC section. And please try to avoid statements like "I can assure you that an RfC will not go in your favor, Smeelgova." Next time you might want to say "this might be something that would be appropriate for RFC." But using language like that comes across as intimidatory from an Administrator - just so you know. Thanks. Smeelgova 01:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC).
That was nothing to do with being an admin. I am not editing as an admin (I can't). I am editing as a fellow editor, and as such I can make comments such as that one: An RfC will simply confirm that Nobel price nominations cannot be asserted as fact because they fail WP:V. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Please educate me on wp:v. Is it "unverifiable" because you have made a personal conclusion that it is "impossible"? If so, in what way is that not OR? If not, what exactly is the guideline that makes it unverifiable? Thanks much for any clarification. Tanaats 01:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
It is an unverifiable fact, for 50 years until the Nobel committee releases that info.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
But the very Nobel Prize article that you were the first to introduce as a cite, says that in practice the info does leak. What is your response to that statement in the Nobel Prize article? Tanaats 01:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
User:Jossi you perceive that your statements do not have affects on others, but they do. Please be more careful in the future about the way your statements and warnings/threats affect other editors. Smeelgova 01:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC).
I think that you need to take a serious look at the way you interpret my statements. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Here's a strange thing: LexisNexis churns out several semi-reputable sources (The Times, San Diego Union-Tribune etc.) for that assertion. Nevertheless, I am certain that the Nobel Prize Committee does not reveal its shortlist. Now, clearly, journalists are not infallible, but where did this rumor originate? Fossa?! 01:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The current wording is somewhat acceptable, as we are not making an assertion of fact, but of opinion. Nevertheless, I will place an RfC to be sure that this is so. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I have already placed an RFC for this issue. Thanks. Smeelgova 01:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC).
In the current state, this is a no-brainer: Wikipedia does not cite any sources for its statement and the Guardian/LAT/SDUT are respectable papers. I'm gonna check, if I can find a source for the Wikipedia statement. Fossa?! 02:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
It's pretty easy [4]. IMO the question is whether this proves that leaks don't happen. The Nobel Committee is an organization of human beings, and leaks do tend to happen in organizations of human beings when their is a juicy "secret". Tanaats 02:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • According to:

Source: Contemporary Authors Online, Thomson Gale, 2005. Entry updated: 10/18/2005

AWARDS Hofheimer Prize for Research, 1966, and Stanley R. Dean Award for Research, 1976, both from American College of Psychiatrists; two- time nominee, Nobel Prize; received awards from American Psychiatric Association, American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy Association, and Mental Health Association of the United States.

As this is a very reputable source, and the Nobel Prize nominations are included there on the section for Awards, I will restore and add this as yet another citation. Smeelgova 02:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC).

Use of the report

The sources provided for "use of the report" are insufficient. Can you point me into the direction of the ISSDB symposium? Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Note that a personal email exchange is not a reliable soure for Wikipedia articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that the nominations are mentioned on this link as well as other articles[5] not included in the main article here on wikipedia. Could we add the other articles mentioned? PEACETalkAbout 03:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good. Smeelgova 03:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC).
Just found the Cults in Our Midst in Spanish in Amazon.com and I think it would be good to add it.
  • Las Sectas Entre Nosotros / Cults in Our Midst
  • Paperback: 352 pages
  • Publisher: Gedisa Editorial (June 1997)
  • Language: Spanish
  • ISBN 8474326052 ............PEACETalkAbout 03:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Margaret Singer Nobel Prize Nominations

Comment by involved editors

Smeelgova (talk · contribs)
  • According to sources currently displayed in the article, Margaret Singer was twice nominated for the nobel prize, for her work in schizophrenia. These sources include the book, They Were Giants, statements made by Daniel Goldstein, Ph.D., and obituaries in The Guardian, and The Los Angeles Times, though this mention most likely exists in other sources as well.
  • The article on Nobel Prize states that: Unlike many other awards, the names of those nominated for a Nobel Prize are never publicly announced and they are never meant to learn that they were considered for the Prize. Nomination records are sealed for fifty years. In practice, some nominees become known, or are claimed by publicists, especially in literature where there is an economic incentive. - Therefore, though not officially acknowledged by the committee, nominees have been reported in other reputable sources.
  • The issue is whether to include the fact that Singer was twice nominated for the nobel prize in the article. Smeelgova 01:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC).
Source: Biography Resource Center Online. Thomson Gale, 2004.

In addition to her high-profile work on cults, Singer was also an authority on schizophrenia, and was nominated twice for a Nobel Prize for her research.

Reputable source, clearly mentions that Nobel Prize nominations were for research on schizophrenia, specifically. Smeelgova 02:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC).

Jossi,
Although I would agree that nomination doesn’t mean an award it does mean a certain level of distinction in that one has been selected for nomination and given consideration. Often times there are situation were one is elected than goes on to a committee where a selection process happens. In the event that the selected individual doesn’t fulfill their term or is unable to the next nominee goes forward and take the oath etc. I will acknowledge that while a nomination is not the ultimate prize people will mention it as an honorable mention. In her case this article states she was nominated twice [6] that said, I think it merits mention here. PEACETalkAbout 03:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


Jossi (talk · contribs)
Fossa (talk · contribs)
  • "Univolved editors"? Who's that? Once one comments, one is involved. Here is my comment as an editor who initially doubted the statement that Singer was nominated:
  • "As tradition dictates, the Institute never reveals the identities of the candidates. However, those entitled to nominate for the prize -- including past laureates, members of parliament and cabinet ministers from around the world and some university professors -- are allowed to disclose the names they have submitted." (From: The Vancouver Province, Feb. 1, 2004.). I should have made a bet. Wikipedia is wrong. The Guardian et al. are credible sources, unless proven otherwise. Case closed. Fossa?! 02:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Please see additional source on main-page Thomson Gale. In the article on Margaret Singer for Contemporary Authors Online as of 2005, this information on the 2 nominations for nobel prize is listed in the section labeled "AWARDS". Smeelgova 02:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC).
A nomination is not an award. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Then why is it included in the section AWARDS in a biography by extremely reputable source Thomson Gale, which was written well before this Wikipedia article was even created? I will fix this and change the subsection title to reflect this, at any rate. Smeelgova 02:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC).

Outside comments

  • The Guardian and LA Times articles don't mention which prize she was purportedly nominated for - Medicine? Peace? It makes a difference. The majority of prize nominations are made by small expert panels, while any college humanities professor or any national legislator can nominate for the Peace Prize. Some time back I removed almost all of the claims of being nominated for the Peace Prize from biographies, leaving only those where the nominations themselves were widely reported. This is a trickier case. The most I think we can say is that "she was reported to have been nominated..." Since that fact is verifiable it might be worth including. -Will Beback · † · 02:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Here's my answer: Yes, the sentence can stay as long as the sources are cited properly. I elaborate on this in the discussion section below. ==Taxico 03:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

  • The Guardian and Los Angeles Times seem like semi-reliable resources, although you might want to find a link to the Los Angeles Times article. I also couldn't find the book They Were Giants. Who is the author? I think you also have the ISBN wrong. The other sources don't seem that significant. If you need help with citing sources you can paste the links here and I'll cite them for you. ==Taxico 03:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • They Were Giants, 2005, ISBN 0595347592. But more importantly:

Contemporary Authors Online, Thomson Gale, 2005. Entry updated: 10/18/2005 :

AWARDS Hofheimer Prize for Research, 1966, and Stanley R. Dean Award for Research, 1976, both from American College of Psychiatrists; two- time nominee, Nobel Prize; received awards from American Psychiatric Association, American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy Association, and Mental Health Association of the United States.

and Biography Resource Center Online. Thomson Gale, 2004.

In addition to her high-profile work on cults, Singer was also an authority on schizophrenia, and was nominated twice for a Nobel Prize for her research.

In this first quote, this award is mentioned in the "Awards" section, (which is now "Honors and awards" in the Wikipedia main article). In the second quote, it specifically mentions that the 2 nobel prize nominations were for work in schizophrenia. These are biographical entries from a highly reputable source, and are not obituaries. Smeelgova 03:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC).

A nobel prize nomination is not an award. As for the multiple sources, we only need one to assert that she was reported to have been nominated. We cannot say anything more substantial because noble prize nominations are only verifiable 50 years after the fact. Edited accordingly. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments on the DIMPAC report rejections section

This section is way too long and repeptitive. The viewpoints of Amitrani and Marzio need to be summarized. I will let these editors that added that material to do so. Otherwise I will attempt that tomorrow. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

One moment please. Let's talk a bit before you go editing. That section is no longer than is the combined negative information that preceeds it, So I don't see why it's way too long. It is just giving "equal time" to the counterpoints to the negative information above it. As for "repetitive", what precisely do you find repetitive? Tanaats 06:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
This is not about "negative" or "positive", we are describing comments about the rejection of th DIMPAC report. There are many scholars that commented on the rejection of the DIMPAC report, and we are not describing their viepoints, are we? Having three long paragraphs based on one article by Amitrani and Marzio, and two paragraphs about what Zabloki thought of the rejection, is excessive. If wedo not summarize it this section will become a main article pretty soon. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I have summarized the views of Amitrani and Marzio and the comments by Zablocki that they report. We can proceed now to find and describe additional comments about the rejection of the DIMPAC report. There are many of those. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Your "summary" loses a lot of information. And I ran across a WP guideline (I'll have to search for it again) that strongly suggests discussing the matter before removing cited material. Tanaats 21:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Anti-cult advocates

Regarding "In 2001, anti-cult advocates Alberto Amitrani and Raffaella Di Marzio..."... Can we put "advocates of NRM theory" in front of all the NRM scholars that are mentioned in the article? I really wouldn't mind at all doing that. Tanaats 21:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Adjunct professor emeritus

She never made full professor.

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/09/memoriam.shtml —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sm1969 (talk • contribs) 05:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

Well, it's not really a matter of "not making full professor" as if she tried and failed. That would be true of someone who got stuck at "Assistant Professor" and never made it past that. But all that one can infer from "adjunct" is that the professor doesn't teach at the university full time. There can be a number of reasons for that.
Be that as it may, yes now that you point it out "adjunct" is correct. AFAIK being an adjunct at Berkeley is still prestigous. They're not going to let just anyone teach there, even part-time. Tanaats 20:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Split proposal

Would editors consider creating a new article at DIMPAC (now redirecting here) to move all the content of the DIMPAC controversy there and keeping here a good summary of the controversy? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

If can we do the same over at Cult then this would definitely work for me. As it stands now we have to edit both this article and Cult regarding DIMPAC stuff. Tanaats 20:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Might be a good idea, indeed. --Tilman 20:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll wait to hear from other involved editors before I proceed. And yes, we can then add a summary to all other articles that mention DIMPAC and include a link to the DIMPAC main article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I think we've waited long enough for comment. Do you want to proceed? Or I could take a hack at it if I can get help removing the redirection of DIMPAC to this article. Tanaats 18:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I would suggest that first you attempt to write a good summary of the section, here in talk. Once we agree on that summary, it will be easy to do the split. Do you want to write a summary? You seem to be a level headed editor, and I am sure you will do just fine. Give it a go. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with this approach as it will save time and garner some thing solid. PEACETalkAbout 20:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
This does indeed sound like an amenable approach. Thanks for the suggestion, User:Jossi. Smeelgova 00:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC).

Summary of DIMPAC controversy

For details see DIMPAC

In the early 1980s, some U.S. mental health professionals became well-known figures due to their involvement as expert witnesses in court cases against what they considered to be "cults". In their testimony they presented theories of brainwashing, mind control, or coercive persuasion to support the legal positions of former group members against their former groups.

The American Psychological Association (APA) in 1983 asked Margaret Singer, who was one of the leading proponents of coercive persuasion theories, to chair a taskforce to investigate whether brainwashing or "coercive persuasion" did indeed play a role in recruitment by such groups. The task force was titled APA Task Force on Deceptive and Indirect Techniques of Persuasion and Control (DIMPAC).

The final report of the Task Force was completed in November of 1986. The APA Board of Social and Ethical Responsibility for Psychology (BSERP) rejected the DIMPAC report stating that it lacked scientific rigor and and an evenhanded critical approach, also stating that it did not have sufficient information to take a position on the issues that DIMPAC was charged with investigating.

(And thanks, sincerely, for the complement.) Tanaats 19:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a good, concise summary. Smeelgova 02:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC).

Jossi, do you agree with my summary? If so I'll go ahead and make the edits. (BTW I found out how to de-redirect the DIMPAC article.) Tanaats 19:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks good and reads well:-).PEACETalkAbout 19:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Note that we are summarizing a very large section. Your summary misses some important info, such a the amicus curiae and the impact of the rejection on Singer's capacity as an expert witness. I can attempt to add these myself, but prefer that you do it as you have pretty good start already. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Summary of DIMPAC controversy (part deux)

For details see DIMPAC

In the early 1980s, some U.S. mental health professionals became well-known figures due to their involvement as expert witnesses in court cases against what they considered to be "cults". In their testimony they presented theories of brainwashing, mind control, or coercive persuasion to support the legal positions of former group members against their former groups.

The American Psychological Association (APA) in 1983 asked Margaret Singer, who was one of the leading proponents of coercive persuasion theories, to chair a taskforce to investigate whether brainwashing or "coercive persuasion" did indeed play a role in recruitment by such groups. The task force was titled APA Task Force on Deceptive and Indirect Techniques of Persuasion and Control (DIMPAC).

Before the taskforce had submitted its final report the APA submitted an amicus curiæ brief in a case pending before the California Supreme Court which involved issues of brainwashing and coercive persuasion. The brief stated that Singer's hypotheses were uninformed speculations based on skewed data. The APA subsequently withdrew from the brief, stating that its participation was premature in that DIMPAC had not yet submitted its report. Scholars who were co-signatories to the brief did not withdraw.

The final report of the Task Force was completed in November of 1986. The APA Board of Social and Ethical Responsibility for Psychology (BSERP) rejected the DIMPAC report stating that it lacked scientific rigor and an evenhanded critical approach, also stating that it did not have sufficient information to take a position on the issues that DIMPAC was charged with investigating. Singer subsequently sued the APA in 1992 for "defamation, frauds, aiding and abetting and conspiracy" and lost in 1994. Singer was subsequently not accepted by judges as an expert witness. There is controversy about whether the rejection of the DIMPAC report constituted a rejection of Singer's theories by the APA.

(Let's discuss this one.) Tanaats 21:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Great effort. I would go with this one, if we say at the end: "Singer was subsequently not accepted by judges as an expert witness in cases alleging brainwashing and mind control", and we remove the last sentence. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, and I'm glad we're so close. Your proposal about the expert testimony is fine with me. But I would like to see the last sentence stay in because it summarizes an entire section ("Comments on the DIMPAC report rejections"). Perhaps we could move it up a bit in the summary so that the order of mention in the current article is maintained, it would logically belong right after the mention of the rejection anyway. Tanaats 22:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't mind saying "there is dispute" rather than "there is controversy". Tanaats 22:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
That will work. Go ahead and do the split, if there are no objections by others. Note that I intend to expand on the lawsuit by Singer and Ofshe as per the sources I found and listed in this page, as that is quite an important milestone related specifically to Singer, and not specific enough to be listed on the new DIMPAC article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for Part deux as "Scholars who were co-signatories to the brief did not withdraw." is telling and offers insight. This is one of the reasons I so value the book Recovery from Cults as I saw those participating were conveying a greater message as a block of "Scholars" that would other wise might have been silenced or dismissed. 110% given is appriciated!PEACETalkAbout 22:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Jossi, I'll wait until at least tomorrow.
Dunno' about whether an expansion on the lawsuit belongs here. Here we had agreed that the lawsuit was related to the DIMPAC rejection and therefore belonged in the DIMPAC section. I think that any expansion on that topic belongs in the new DIMPAC article. Any significant discussion of the lawsuit would now be out of context here. Tanaats 23:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
The way I look at this is that Singer and Ofshe claimed that a conspiracy was created against them. It is important information in her biography, as it was a milestone moment in her life when that lawsuit was rejected. Not having some text about it here would be incorrect. What I will do is as follows: (a) Expand the new DIMPAC article with material about the conspiracy theories and lawsuit; and (b) ask you (as you have done such a great job so far) to summarize that material here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Jossi, Forgive me for being dense but where is the new DIMPAC article?TalkAbout 23:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
It redirects now here. The proposal was to split the DIMPAC section to its own article. Tanaats said he/she will do the split tomorrow, to give a chance to other editors to comment on the summary proposal. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Jossi, for the compromise proposal. Let me ponder while giving others a chance to comment. In the meantime, my current thinking is that the whole DIMPAC thing was undoubtedly an earthquake for her. I'm still thinking that the lawsuit aspect shouldn't be singled out for expansion here. I think that the sentence "Singer subsequently sued the APA in 1992 for "defamation, frauds, aiding and abetting and conspiracy" and lost in 1994" adequately reveals here her opinion that there was a conspiracy. Thanks again for the compromise offer and (again) let's wait a bit for other comment.
BTW we could make the lawsuit mention in the summary more precise by including Ofshe and saying "Singer and her professional associate sociologist Richard Ofshe subsequently sued the APA in 1992 for "defamation, frauds, aiding and abetting and conspiracy" and lost in 1994."
Yes, TalkAbout, I'll wait until probably tomorrow to see if Smeelgova wants to comment, then I'll make the edits. Tanaats 23:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Let's take a step at the time, shall we? After the split is implemented, and we had a chance to expand on the lawsuit, we can revise the summary here and decide if it needs expanding or not. I would also like to express my satisfaction about how editing articles about which we have opposing POVs, can be fun and constructive when we take the right approach. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
That sounds good.
And yes, we have opposing POVs, but I accept that we each hold those POVs out of deep and sincere conviction. I've been on the other side of the fence and I know that I acted out of deep and sincere conviction then. It's good that we can both respect that. Tanaats 00:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
So far the new summary by Tanaats looks fine. Let's complete the splitting into the DIMPAC new article and after that is done, then discuss the viability of adding new material to the Margaret Singer article. Smeelgova 01:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC).
Thanks, I'll go ahead and start then. Tanaats 01:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Done, please check it out. Tanaats 01:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, I agree:"I would also like to express my satisfaction about how editing articles about which we have opposing POVs, can be fun and constructive when we take the right approach" When individuals put forth their ideas in writing rather than a poll vote it does bring about a good process. I often wonder what positions individuals have when they simply will say "Yes", and I wonder if they have read the items in question. TalkAbout 20:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The "APA Task Force" section

I have some problems with the first paragraph in the "APA Task Force" section:

  • The whole paragraph is unsourced.
  • "Controversial" has too much spin on it, and is unsourced interpretation anyway.
  • They weren't testifying against what they percieved as "new religious movements", they were testifying against what they perceived as "cults". The terms "NRM" and "cult" (as used by the ICSA for example) have quite different denotations and connotations.
  • The assertion that they testified that "branwashing" etc. were generally accepted is unsourced. I don't know, they may have done that, but it should be sourced if so.

I propose that we delete the entire paragraph, unless some of it can be sourced. The second paragraph can then end with something like "did indeed play a role in recruitment by "cults" or "new religious movements". Tanaats 00:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I would oppose such deletion, of course. If you believe it needs work, please improve upon it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I prefer to keep it and improve the sources. (I'm almost always reluctant to delete in Wikipedia) --Tilman 08:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I've made my edits. Tanaats 16:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  1. ^ Boyle,Robin A., Women, the Law, and Cults: Three Avenues of Legal Recourse--New Rape Laws, Violence Against Women Act, and Antistalking Laws, Cultic Studies Journal, 15, 1-32. (1999)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Margaret_Singer/Archive_1&oldid=1136989554"