Talk:Brainwashing

Weasel words
There is now a tag about weasel words on the top of the article. How can this be corrected? Eastbayguy (talk) 20:50, 14 October 2023 (UTC)


 * here is the insertion diff. Looks like an editor tagged several sentences for clarification but did not feel like doing the work themselves. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:56, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Most of the tagged paragraphs had already been resolved and tags removed, save for one, which wasn't an accurate assessment. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Not accepted a scientific fact?
I am removing from the article the sentence: The concept of brainwashing is generally not accepted as a scientific fact.

The original addition of this line (diff), long before it morphed into this version, was: However, in the view of many scholars, the theory cults and new religious movements use mind control on their members is still (as of 2012) not accepted as scientific fact.

I have just read Usarski and indeed it is covering the subject of coercion from cults as relates to legal cases—not scientific evidence—where he is discussing the dearth of availability of expert witness testimony that can be supplied in a courtroom.

I then obtained a searchable PDF copy of DSM-V and there is no such statement that brainwashing isn't recognized. On the contrary, the word "brainwashing" occurs twice in the book, including: The residual category of other specified dissociative disorder has seven examples: chronic or recurrent mixed dissociative symptoms that approach, but fall short of, the diagnostic criteria for dissociative identity disorder; dissociative states secondary to brainwashing or thought reform; (page 292) and Individuals who have been subjected to intense coercive persuasion (e.g., brainwashing, thought reform, indoctrination while captive, torture, long-term political imprisonment, recruitment by sects/cults or by terror organizations) may present with prolonged changes in, or conscious questioning of, their identity (page 306).

I read the DIMPAC article and it is related to the [non]acceptance of Singer's theories on the subject of brainwashing and cults, the result of which was the non-acceptance of her theories in courtrooms and the end of her career as a paid expert witness. But the rejection of Singer's DIMPAC report does not support the definitive statement in Wikivoice of "The concept of brainwashing is generally not accepted as a scientific fact."

So the citations given for that sentence fail to verify.

Then I check the body of the article to see if it could be a summarization of concepts presented in the article. No, it doesn't. The section Brainwashing introduces a whole slew of researchers and psychiatrists showing that the concept of brainwashing is generally accepted as a scientific fact and understood as such amongst society and professionals.

Not only don't the citations given for that sentence fail to verify, but it isn't even a valid summarization of the body of the article, therefore I have removed it.

▶ I am Grorp ◀ 07:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Mind control (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Source clean up?
There are several sources (80-82,84) linked with "Recent scientific book publications in the field of the mental disorder "dissociative identity disorder" (DID) mention torture-based brainwashing by criminal networks and malevolent actors as a deliberate means to create multiple "programmable" personalities in a person to exploit this individual for sexual and financial reasons." in the Other Areas and Studies section. Are these sources up to wikipedia's standards? Two are books written by the same person, and I can't find any peer-reviewed scientific publications that are validating these books.

Technically the entry just says books have been published recently, but that does not mean the books have the rigor to hold up as sources for the article.

Source 83 is a peer reviewed article, and, while it discussing feelings of whether or not someone is in control of themselves, it is about dissociation and not mind control. Sharklunch (talk) 21:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC)