Talk:Deprogramming/Archive 1

Excessively long
The article is excessively long. Many deprogrammers served prison terms for this activity, so it is strange that their opinions are quoted in length, but the fact that deprogramming is an illegal occupation is somehow omitted. Interestingly, more recently former 'deprogrammers' later changed theit terminology and deprogramming became 'exit counselling' and (which is supposedly voluntary i.e. no kidnappings, tying to armahairs, no drugs, no threats).

Derogatory words
Removed words like "cultist". When I have time, I will add more info. Especially interesting practices among deprogrammers were raping their "clients" and forcible injection of drugs. That is why many were indicted, not because "interventions" were "unsuccessful". CAN tried to combat it by issuing a "code of conduct" that forbade having sex with the "clients", drugging them etc and indroduced a new term "exit counselling" so that to distance itself from crimes. But some exit counselors continued to do that, that's why the CAN went bankrupt as a result. It had nothing to do with Scientology. I will add this information later.

---

while preventing the person from choosing incorrectly is a contradiction in terms.. as is the phrase you can have any color as long as it's black. who has the authority to say to someone what is an incorrect choice unless, in the opinion of the court, the person is a danger to themself and others? -- anonymous

I happened to meet Lorne Fyvie's sister when she came to Boston to deprogram Lorne. To make a long story short, Lorne eventually got away from the deprogrammers and informed me that Steve Hassan was present during some of the sessions.

If helping a kidnapper makes one an "accessory", what does this make Hassan? Anyway, I'm not sure the Wikipedia should take my word for it so if anyone reverts I won't complain. --Uncle Ed 22:41 Feb 14, 2003 (UTC)

Can anyone repair this paragraph?


 * Fringe organizations (who resist the use of the term "cult") often describe the practice as "forced deprogramming." Literature put out by these organizations may describe such methods as incarceration, physical restraint, and even "shock therapy" (ECT) as common methods of deprogramming, though most deprogramming sessions usually involve lengthy sessions with one or more counselors.

What's a "fringe organization"? What's all this about "describing the practice as forced"? And the argument about "may describe as...though usually involves a counselor" makes it sound like the person volunteered. This smacks of POV from a deprogramming advocate. --Uncle Ed

Ed, your accusation against Steve Hassan is a very serious one -- something that probably shouldn't be brought up on Wikipedia, because of the potential trouble it could cause. There's a statement on proof which states that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof," and this statement certainly seems valid here. Being "told by someone" that he took part in a deprogramming could easily be considered hearsay, or libel. Let's not go down that road. --Modemac 17:00 21 May 2003 (UTC)

I am not accusing Mr. Hassan of anything. He has admitted taking part in deprogrammings that took place 30 years ago. Also, Miss Fyvie told me that Hassan was present during the later incident. Anyway, the following paragraph needs revision:


 * (Steve Hassan, author of the book Combatting Cult Mind Control, is a counselor often accused of being a "deprogrammer" by such organizations as the Unification Church and Scientology. He states that he took part in a number of deprogrammings in the late 1970s, but he no longer approves of the practice and has not participated in any deprogrammings since then. He is one of the major proponents of exit counseling as a form of intervention therapy, and he refers to his method as "strategic intervention therapy.")

I don't know about Scientology accusations, but the idea that the Unification Church "often" accuses Hassan of being a deprogrammer is incorrect. All our public pronouncements about Mr. Hassan describe him (correctly) as a former deprogrammer.

I think the issue is not a matter of who did what, but rather is deprogamming good or bad? From the mid-1970s though the 1980s, many people thought deprogrammaing was necessary to "save" people from cults, especially the UC. In the last 5 or 10 years, deprogramming has been discredited and pretty much died out as a threat to religious liberty (at least in the US).

I have a lot of legal information about deprogramming, if anyone's interested... --Uncle Ed 14:41, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

From the article:
 * Organizations accused of engaging in mind control (who resist the use of the term "cult" -- see list of purported cults) often describe the practice as "forced deprogramming." Literature put out by these organizations may describe such methods as incarceration, physical restraint, and even "shock therapy" (ECT) as common methods of deprogramming, though most deprogramming sessions usually involved lengthy sessions with one or more counselors.

The above seems designed to pre-emptively disprove the POV of "cults" and exonerate the POV of "deprogrammers". Let's find a way to describe the conflicting POVs neutrally.

(I think this is the second time I've moved the same paragraph...) --Uncle Ed 15:41, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Proponents of deprogramming often have downplayed its coercive aspects, decribing the sessions as involving "counseling".

Opponents of deprogramming have collected 100s of sworn depositions from people who swore that they were captured by surprise and taken by force to undisclosed locations and prevented from contacting friends, lawyers or their own doctors. --Uncle Ed 16:16, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

ExitControl, where are the references for your assertions about rape? Thanks in advance. Andries 20:31, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * http://bernie.cncfamily.com/rieth1.htm Sorry for not providing links in the first place, but you will surely find enough by googling: "deprogramming"+"rape". To my knowledge, there wasn't much reported facts, but take into account the CAN professional conduct code for exit counsellors that specifically forbade forcible injection of illegal drugs, alcohol intoxication and rapes. - ExitControl

deprogramming terminology

 * deprogram
 * deprogrammer
 * deprogramming - refer to getting someone to agree to leave an NRM, a process usually initiated by their parents (even when the target person is an adult)


 * forcible deprogramming
 * involuntary deprogramming - when the target person does NOT censent to the process

The term deprogramming can refer to the process (whether voluntary or not), or specifially to involuntary, forcible deprogramming.


 * Exit counseling USU. refers to voluntary sessions of this type, but not always.

I think Wikipedia should either develop a standard, or take pains to use unambiguous phraseology

Phrases that can't be misinterpreted:


 * forcible deprogramming - person is held against their will and subject to the process even though they don't want it
 * involuntary deprogramming - person is subject to the process even though they don't want it


 * voluntary exit counseling - person agrees to the process

Not the the "voluntary" process is almost always initiated by the relatives of the target person, and OFTEN involves an element of deception and/or surprise: a sudden, unexpected "intervention", or "set-up". -- Uncle Ed (talk) 04:37, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

My impression it that deprogramming rarely happened in Europe. Is this true? If so, can we write it? Also, I am not happy with non-scholarly references and quotes (Bernie)Andries 07:27, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I dunno, so excuse me if I change the subject; I just had a brain flash. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:25, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

What it all boils down to
Deprogrammers say that cults use (1) deception and (2) coercive emotional manipulation to get people to join and stay. Therefore, they argue, the only way to get people out of cults is to "fight fire with fire" and use deception and emotional manipulation. And while they're at it, why not take advantage of physical force (like kidnapping people and locking them up)?


 * Deprogrammers may say whatever. What is an 'emotional manipulation'? Kidnapping is a crime and it wouldn't become a proper behaviour due to some 'deprogramming assumptions' about how 'cults' recruit their followers. When Chinese thought police arrest people for practicing a religion, this is a human rights issue. Same with deprogramming, it doesn't become lesser crime simply because it happens in democracies.

Religious believers generally say that religious conversion does not (or need not) result from lies and tricks like that. The Unification Church in particular seeks out "prepared people", ones who are already searching and receptive. They gradually unfold the complex teachings and hope the person will recognize the truth and join.

Deprogrammers reply, "No way that it could be so simple! People don't quit jobs or careers in a matter of days, just because of some idea. There must be something fishy about it."


 * Deprogrammers are violent fools. People DO quit jobs and careers, when they see a better career option or simply from getting tired by the occupations, not at all uncommon. What's so strange about that. Besides, what a strange theory that 'cultists' are all quit jobs, spoil their careers and lives. When you grow up, you separate from your parents, that's common. Many high-profile lawyers and investment bankers don't see their spouses for weeks and that is OK, go ahead deprogram THEM. Law firms and investment banks coercively converted them into career slaves, free to leave but salary is so sweet you're getting used to fine cars so quickly... C'mon, deprogramming 'theories' are nothing more than appeal to common sense in order to make an impression of a legitimate occupation.

Parents say, "We couldn't have failed them so badly." (They would lose face if they conceded that someone else knew what was better for their kids.)


 * Adults have a right to choose. They are not 'kids' and 'children', they are all grown up adults that freely made a choice.

The inductee himself is given the ultimate cop out: "Just say you were a victim of mind control, and all will be forgiven. We'll all blame the cult, and you'll be welcomed back with open arms!" -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:25, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * It is so transparent, Ed... pity that some people don't see it that way... --Zappaz 02:22, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah. Like 'go ahead and kidnap my son cause I want him back to this house of mine'.

Degree of force (and terminology)
Various parties have emphasized or glossed over the degree of force used in deprogramming. And some seek to distinguish between forcible and "voluntary" deprogramming.

Hassan and Fefferman both want to use deprogramming only for forcible interventions, preferring the term exit counseling for interventions wherein the target is not physically restrained or trapped. (Leaving aside the issue of emotional manipulation, of course - see coercive persuasion).

Element of surprise
We need to distinguish between the competency hearings of the 1930s and conservatorships - for the "legal" deprogrammings. In a competency hearing, the target could be represented by counsel, call witnesses, etc. With a conservatorship, as far as I know a judge would grant rights to a person's family to cart him off for deprogramming but without (a) informing the person that a conservatorship had been requested or (b) giving the person any chance to defend himself against it.

Interestingly, the "non-forcible" deprogramming technique also relies on the element of suprprise. In this kind of intervention, families are cautioned not to reveal any of the plans until the day before (or even the morning of) the intervention. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:18, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yikes! --Zappaz 21:41, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I.e. the deprogrammer cannot just normally come to the house and politely talk, presenting facts and reasonable arguments. No! He needs his 'patient' (healthy adult) to be caught by surprise. All because the cults are so bad, honest.

A rebuttal to the information on the page
I would like to request that you post a link to my site where I have written a rebuttal to the information posted on the Wikipedi page: (Deprogramming). I would do it myself - but it seems the page is not open for edits. Contrary to the maintainer of this page, this is not 'negative' information ('negative' being Unification Church 'term' for any information that does not support the Church) - rather I would prefer that you call it 'an opposing view point'.

Here's the link:

http://deprogramming.homestead.com/index.html

thanks - Judy Powell


 * The page is open for editing to anyone. Go ahead and edit, but I would suggest you read first NPOV so that you can familiarize yourself with the principles upon which Wikipedia is built. BTW, there is no such a thing as "the maintainer of this page". --Zappaz 05:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

New intro
Cut from intro:
 * Commonly this is done for a child or teenager at the request of their parents.

I'm sure this is incorrect. There have been hardly any deprogrammings done on religious converts under the age of 21.

So the first false impression given by the intro has been taken care of. In fact nearly all new converts to 'cults' who are kidnapped and coerced to abandon their new faith, have been in their 20s. Although it is true that this is done "at the request of their parents", there is also the civil rights and religious freedom issue:
 * Do adults (i.e, persons 21 and older) have a right to adopt a religion which their parents dislike?
 * No. If deprogrammers say the group is a 'cult', they cannot.


 * Do these adults have the right to choose a religion which 99% or more of their fellow citizens "regard as spurious"?
 * No. It is unconceivable that someone could chosen something not approved by the majority, if he did he surely has been tricked into it.

I also wanted to mention in the first 100 words of the article, that the basis on which deprogramming is justified is that the target is a "victim": that according to various deprogrammers' theoretical models of conversion, they did not freely choose to join the cult.
 * If deprogrammer says someone is a victim he is a victim. People cannot recognize they are victims, only deprogrammer sees it. After deprogramming, if lucky, the person will understand and be grateful. If not, no witnesses - no crime. Catch him when he is alone and unsuspecting. :-)

At some point in the article, we should clarify the various cult mind control theories - even though this info is spread out into as many as 4 distinct article about anti-cult theories of conversion:
 * brainwashing
 * mind control
 * thought reform
 * coercive persuasion

Of course, since I've been in a cult for 28 years, maybe I'm not the best one to do all this editing. I could be unconsciously biased (i.e., I don't know I'm a victim); I could be deliberately lying to you (I'm not, but how would you know that?) - or on the other hand, I might really have joined my cult on purpose, and it might not really be sa heapurious. Isn't this an exciting dilemma? Uncle Ed 21:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The use of force
Cut from intro:


 * Professionals often refer to deprogramming as exit counseling.

Which professionals? From what discipline? Private detectives? Psychiatrists?

I think it is mostly advocates of the use of force - i.e., kidnapping and detention - who want to escape the media attention and legal trouble suffered by those who do kidnapping and false imprisonment on innocent victims ... these are the ones who call deprogramming "exit counseling", because it "counseling" sounds voluntary.

The techniques of deprogramming and exit counseling are exactly the same, with the only difference being the degree of legal and physical compulsion used on the target.

Let's not endorse force against religious converts.

On the other hand, we also must guard against excessive zeal (such as mine!) so please help me to write about the "force issue" accurately and neutrally.

How much force is used in the following:
 * 1) deprogramming
 * 2) exit counseling

Is it simply a matter of the 1st being forced, and the 2nd being voluntary? Uncle Ed 22:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * How about Deprogrammers don't like to reveal to the general public that they use (1) force and (2) trickery to get targets out of cults.


 * Also, ''Deprogrammers justify their use of physical force and deception on the grounds that (as they claim):
 * cults use "coercive persuasion" (emotional force, which only physical force is strong enough to counter), and
 * cults deceive people by (a) concealing unpleasant, damning facts (as they claim) from recruits
 * It's kind of a "fight fire with fire" justification - or as one contributor said, Do not condemn "dragging" merely because someone dragged an unconscious man into a burning building; you have to drag him out to save him. A wonderful metaphor which brands religious conversion as (c) a procedure performed on a person while he is helpless and unaware which (d) exposes him to mortal danger and which therefore (e) does not require his informed consent to rescue him.


 * The question is not:
 * Is deprogramming good?
 * But rather
 * How shall this encyclopedia describe the process? Uncle Ed 14:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Reasons results varied

 * Because there was no formal training, certification and oversight of deprogrammers, techniques and results varied widely.

I don't think this is the reason. And I doubt that "formal training, certification and oversight of deprogrammers" would have improved the situation.

This sentences smacks of the POV that there's nothing wrong with breaking someone's faith by force - a viewpoint which NPOV forbids any article from endorsing.

Say, rather, that Mr. X_____ advanced the view that deprogramming would have brought more consistent (better?) results had their been "formal training, certification and oversight of deprogrammers". --Uncle Ed 13:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Deprogramming in Japan
"In 2002, the courts declared "deprogramming" illegal in a case involving members of Jehovah's Witnesses. However, in 2003, the Supreme Court rejected the Unification Church's appeal in a case involving charges against the victim's family and the kidnappers for kidnapping and "deprogramming." In that case, the court determined that the bases of the appeal were not matters involving a violation of the Constitution. A Unification Church spokesman estimated there were 20 deprogramming cases during the period covered by this report; however, at the families' request, none of the cases were reported to the police. "''According to a spokesman for Jehovah's Witnesses, members are free to practice their religion without restriction. Other than one forced confinement in January 2005, which was reported to the police after the fact, there have been no reported deprogramming cases since 2003.''"U.S. Department of State, Japan, International Religious Freedom Report 2005, Section II. Status of Religious Freedom --HResearcher 00:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

ACLU / Ted Patrick
"In the late 1970s the American Civil Liberties Union issued a public statement and report on deprogramming. The report asserts that deprogramming is a civil liberty issue. Most of the first half of the report has information about Ted Patrick, the father of deprogramming, who has evoked justification laws and conservatorships in order to legalize deprogrammings. He was very successful at getting acquitted by the courts."CESNUR 2005 International Conference, June 2-5, 2005, Palermo, Sicily --HResearcher 01:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Claims of brainwashing shrouds discrimination
"Discrimination, or legal action, against religious groups because someone doesn't like them is clearly a violation of the free exercise of religion, a human right increasingly recognized around the world. But the claim of "brainwashing" shrouds the discrimination by claiming that religious groups are victimizing recruits and potential recruits by employing powerful means of manipulation that are extremely difficult to resist."Cult Group Controversies: The Brainwashing Controversy, University of Virginia, The Religious Movement Page --HResearcher 01:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

History & Background
I removed a rather weak analogy that a previous author had made with Descartes and his philosophical method. I really see no similarities at all between Descartes' approach to philosophy and deprogramming, and it leads to a very misleading idea of what Cartesian philosophy is all about. I suppose that if somebody really wanted to search for early historical parallels they might be able to find some (Dominican activities in medieval France might be a good place to start), but this is really not necessary and would introduce more NPOV challenges, so I would suggest sticking to the recent history of the deprogramming movement for this article. Demmeis 03:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Are personal websites a valid source?
The paragraph beginning with "The number of forcible deprogrammings had diminished by the end of the 1980s" is referenced from the http://bernie.cncfamily.com/ website. Are personal websites allowed as a reliable source? WP:RS seems to say otherwise. Tanaats 04:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd say that "Bernie" is never a reliable source. This is an anonymous "moderate" propaganda site. He's certainly not a researcher himself. Although I would accept it if he quotes actual researchers, even cult apologists. --Tilman 07:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Pseudoscience?
Regarding "The existence of mind control is widely disputed, and sometimes dismissed as pseudoscience by the psychiatric establishment"...Where can the opinions of a "psychiatric establishment" be found? Who exactly has dismissed mind control as "pseudoscience". How about changing this to something like "The existence of mind control is a subject of dispute among psychiatrists, psychologists, and sociologists."? Tanaats 04:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. Agreed. Btw, see this: Zimbardo was president of the APA... I couldn't find a quick mention that people consider it as a pseudoscience, but I know that some sociologists dispute its existance. And it is not endorsed by the APA. --Tilman 07:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not there anymore, and I can't find in "History" where it was changed. Puzzled am I. Oh well.  Tanaats 20:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Singer
Hi folks. I have a reservation about this passage: "Also, in the mid-1980s, psychologist Margaret Singer lost her status as an expert witness when the APA declined to endorse the DIMPAC report. From this point on, involuntary deprogramming's legal basis almost immediately vanished...Since that time, involuntary deprogramming has been virtually unknown in the United States."

First of all, what is meant by "lost her status as an expert witness"? Does this mean that she couldn't get any more gigs as an expert witness when the APA declined to endorse? We know this?

Secondly, did involuntary deprogramming ever have a "legal basis", much less a legal basis that "vanished"?

Thirdly, why do we think that the APA decision had anything whatsoever to do with the status of involuntary deprogramming? Singer didn't endorse involuntary deprogramming, so I don't see that there could have been any connection.

Thanks! Tanaats 04:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * About Singer: There is probably some truth in this. To counter this, one would have to find one single appearance as expert witness after the Fishman decision.
 * Is it up to me to disprove the statement? I thought that WP guidelines say that it is up to the person who inserted that statement to provide a verifiable source for it.  Maybe I misunderstand the guidelines.  Tanaats 19:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course, the person who inserted the statement should prove it. I usually assume that it did at the time it was inserted... I am usually reluctant to delete, even stuff I don't like. But go ahead :-) Some pro-cult editor might find the source. --Tilman 20:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but heck, almost nothing in this article is sourced. I guess that means I can slap whatever OR I want into it :).  If you think there's some truth in the statement I'll just leave it alone. (Although it no longer fits into the flow of the section IMO.) Tanaats 21:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Much might be sourced in the comments of the history section, the "ref" thing is rather recent. Of course, you might still add that "citation needed" tag . (I prefer this, than to start WW3 with cult apologists) Maybe it isn't all sourced - but most of it is probably either true, or can be found in the "scholarly" (haha) publications of cult apologists. --Tilman 21:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion. Did that. Tanaats 21:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * About involuntary deprogramming: it was legal in the beginning, parents were getting conservatorships, i.e. the "legal power" over their adult children.
 * Ok, thanks, I'd completely forgotten that. Tanaats 19:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * About APA and deprogramming: has nothing to do with each other. --Tilman 07:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I took it out. I also moved the statement "Since that time, involuntary deprogramming has been virtually unknown in the United States" after "After 10 or 15 years of this, some adult children began suing their parents or deprogrammers" because the latter is much more likely to be the actual proximate cause of the end of deprogamming. Tanaats 19:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Popular Culture (2): Ellen
The Ellen episode Oh, Sweet Rapture deals with the deprogramming of her friend Audrey, after she joins a group of "rapture" car fanatics and changes completely. Ellen deprograms Audrey by luring her into a "rapture" car, and then activates the children lock, and explains to Audrey that "these people love you only because they don't know you; those who do, consider you annoying and still love you". (Translated from german version) --Tilman 15:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Popular Culture (1): Roseanne
The Roseanne episode Springtime For David has David Healy working in a rabbit suit at a fascist amusement park, where his thoughts are highly controlled. Roseanne is able to take David away from the facility without violence, after realizing that he has completely changed. After the credits roll, David is seen bound to a chair while being deprogrammed and slapped by Roseanne. The deprogramming succeeds when Roseanne tells David that rabbits don't dance and sing - they're food! --Tilman 21:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Popular Culture (3, 4): Split Image / Ticket to Heaven
The movies Split Image and Ticket to Heaven both deal with young people recruited into a cult and then deprogrammed. --Tilman 15:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Degree of force involved
I'd like to return to a discussion I initiated 2 1/2 years ago. There has been some confusion about the meanings of terms such as deprogramming and exit counseling. Some attempts have been made to use "deprogramming" in a generic sense.

I can't think of any word which describes the general process of "trying to make someone leave their faith". Opponents of this practice call it "faith-breaking", but that would be a POV title; I do not suggest it. "Exit counseling" implies voluntary participation of the targeted person, so that is not generic. "Deprogramming" is typically forcible, so that's not an ideal term either.

We have a sort of content fork here, as a result of being unable to identify the common elements and place them on a properly titled page. I do not have the answer, but I don't think that means the problem should be ignored; see Elephant in the living room.

Maybe "Deconversion" would be a good, neutral term. 

We could then branch out to "assisted deconversion" (in which the person asks for help, or agrees to it) as well as "forced deconversion" (in which they are kidnapped and/or held against their will). --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * O.K. I was deprogrammed from Prem Rawat's cult -- Divine Light Mission -- by Ted Patrick in 1973. I was not kidnapped, restrained or forced to participate in any way. On the other hand, I was not asked whether I wanted to participate either. I had no fear of the process because I was a True Believer in Rawat's teachings. The process took less than a half-hour, most of which was devoted to showing me that I did not have all of the answers by asking me "challenging (cringe) questions." e.g. "Guru is your God, isn't he? You worship Guru instead of God."


 * According to a former deprogrammer cited somewhere as a reference, approximately thirty percent of deprogrammings involved physical restraint or abduction. Deprogramming was not usually forceful. Exit counseling is always voluntary.


 * I did not believe that I had any "faith" which was being challenged. DLM taught that the Guru's "Knowledge" gave you a direct experience of God, and that whatever you said afterward was knowledge based upon your experience. In practice, this was not true. Concentrating on the sound of your own breathing, intensely, 24/7, is an effective form of unwitting self-hypnosis. An additional technique called "Music" also disrupt's the practitioner's ability to think. When you are doing this, you are told that the mind is demonic, since it naturally resists such sustained concentration. I think that is a survival factor. If you can become lost in thought, you can be eaten by a sneaky saber-toothed cat. Some of the "knowledge" I thusly acquired by "meditating" in a communal situation was (1) I gotta keep meditating (2) uncomfortable feelings and thoughts are demonic, (3) The Guru is God, (4) I gotta give him all of my money (5) This is the Second Coming and (6) On November 8, 9 or 10 of 1973, a flying saucer will remove 144,000 of us, Astrodome and all, from the planet as a massive earthquake destroys New York City along a newly discovered fault line. When this did not happen, of course, it gave rise to uncomfortable thoughts and feelings which automatically caused me to "meditate" more until they went away.


 * I got injured at the Astrodome and sent home by the cult, because *I* now had bills, so my family had an easy opportunity to have me deprogrammed. Other people who were involved in the cult at that time have taken 20, 25 or 30 years to think their way out again. Some are still involved. Snapping lists DLM's mind control techniques -- "The Knowledge of Guru Maharaj Ji" as among the most effective cult mind control techniques. Trust me, "mind control" exists and works very well when the "facts" are presented to the cult casualty in the requisite order by the manipulators. Some "Christian" cults used internal chanting, such as the phrase "Praise you, Jesus, thank you, Jesus" used by members of the Alamo Foundation. They were taught that if they stopped thinking that phrase that God would turn them into homosexuals and "give them over unto the custody of a drag queen," making it impossible for them to enter Heaven. They actually believed that, and it gave rise to considerable fear -- enough to keep them "praising the Lord" internally, 24/7, and working at backbreaking jobs, picking crops, for which they never received a paycheck. Judge Eustace H. Bane dealt the Alamo cult a severe financial blow when he made them pay the overdue Social Security taxes for their agricultural slaves.


 * Some of what is said here in this article simply not true. Deprogramming was invariably either carried out or commissioned by the cult casualty's family. There were no deprogrammers running around loose deprogramming people at random. Most deprogrammings relied on volunteers exclusively because deprogrammers wanted so much money. Wowest (talk) 04:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Deleted website advertisement twice
http://www.twelvetribes.org/       and http://www.twelvetribescult.org/

are not WP:Reliable sources. Please find a reliable source for these statements. This could be an article from a reputable, mainstream magazine or newspaper who has interviewed the author, or it could be a book reference (unless the book is self-published, as by a vanity press). Wowest (talk) 07:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Mind control argument
"Deprogrammers claim that the voluntary participation in a group is due to mind control, a controversial theory that a person's thought processes can be changed by outside forces."

This statement is ridiculous. A theory that says a person's thought process can be changed from the outside is CONTROVERSIAL?? Where? Ever held a conversation? This needs to be reworded if at the very least. --89.212.75.6 (talk) 20:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Better intro
I'm thinking the intro could more follow what the article says. Like a little bit on the material presented in each section. BigJim707 (talk) 11:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Intervention?
Is deprogramming a form of Intervention (counseling)? If so that probably should be mentioned in the first sentence. Borock (talk) 01:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I found a couple of sources that say so and am adding to the article. Borock (talk) 20:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think rather that Exit counseling is such a form. Deprogramming is different, because it's forced (see forced conversion). There are many sources who make an ethical or legal distinction between an "intervention" (like your boss, spouse and pastor meet you coming home from work and "twist your arm" to get you into alcohol rehab), and "faith breaking". With a normal intervention, you can sign yourself out (possibly against medical advice), but they won't keep you there by force.


 * On the other hand there are also commitments and conservatorships. There are rocky legal shoals there. But typically with those, the "accused" gets his day in court before being shipped off against his will. A deprogramming typically begins with kidnapping, or at best the surprise presentation of conservatorship papers signed by a judge who never saw the defendant. --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Balance of viewpoints

 * Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.
 * WP:UNDUE discusses how to balance material that gives undue weight to a particular viewpoint, which might include removal of trivia, tiny minority viewpoints, or material that cannot be supported with high-quality sources. See Editing_policy.
 * However, it is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view. Wikipedia's NPOV policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view.

Can somebody explain how the blocks of well-referenced information recently removed from Deprogramming violate policy? --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

POV tag
This article seems to take the view that Deprogramming is uniformly wrong. In fact, the article is in Category:Human rights abuses. I think many disagree with this view and believe that some "cults" do program inductees, who then need to be deprogrammed in order to make voluntary choices about their lives. Star767 23:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That view is expressed in the article, as it has to be if readers are going to understand the topic. Kitfoxxe (talk) 21:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Origins
The article states that deprogramming started in the 1970s; however, we are defining deprogramming as "an attempt to force a person to abandon allegiance to a religious, political, economic, or social group". Attempts to force people to abandon religious, political, economic, or social groups have been going on since such things existed (see, for example: Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, Medieval Inquisition, etc.)

Do we mean to say that the term "deprogramming" came into popular use in the 70s? Tgeairn (talk) 17:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


 * What's the difference? Religious conversion was always around, but deprogramming relates to a number of factors - one being the belief in the theory of brainwashing, which wasn't around until the 50s. Deprogramming as a term and a practice has only existed since the 70s. Zambelo ; talk 05:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

has of the article, but in the process changed the definition of deprogramming (which represented what is in the sources provided). If we stick with this new definition, what distinguishes deprogramming from Exit counseling? We probably need new sources for the new definition, or we will end up chasing the distinction between deprogramming and exit counseling around (again, by the looks of the article history). --Tgeairn (talk) 18:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

One of the most editorialized, POV pages I've ever seen
I came upon this page to glean some knowledge about deprogramming, but what I found is a page seemingly written by hyper-defensive cult members who object to any notion that anyone would even want to change cult members' beliefs. It's in extreme violation of NPOV, due to the excessive weight given to the pro-cult POV and inclusion of editorialized flourishes throughout.

Some examples and suggestions for points that should be edited:


 * a long quote from the cult leader Sun Myung-Moon (not an objective voice, yet presented as such)
 * "In the United States, from the mid-1970s and throughout the 1980s mind control was a widely accepted theory in public opinion, and the vast majority of newspaper and magazine accounts of deprogrammings assumed that recruits' relatives were well justified to seek conservatorships and to hire deprogrammers. It took nearly 20 years for public opinion to shift." The latter sentence, "It took 20 years for public opinion to shift" is flat-out editorializing.
 * The entire next paragraph, which offers no citations: "One aspect that gradually became disturbing from a civil rights point of view, was that relatives would use deception or other ethically questionable methods—even kidnapping—to get the recruit into deprogrammers' hands, without allowing the person any recourse to a lawyer or psychiatrist of their own choosing. Previously, there would be a sanity hearing first, and only then a commitment to an asylum or involuntary therapy. But with deprogramming, judges routinely granted parents legal authority over their adult children without a hearing."
 * "Government agencies have at times been aware and have taken part in deprogramming to enforce official views of correct beliefs and behaviors." - This is extremely vague and extremely broad, so it cannot possibly be supported by the reference it cites.
 * The inclusion of the 'Government' heading at all, for just two sentences (including the unsupported one above), is unjustifiable.
 * The 'Effectiveness and Harm' section contains no positive information.
 * The 'Controversy' section also contains only negative information.
 * 'Referral and Kickback System' also does not warrant its own section, and along with the 'Government' section, seems meant to promote the idea of deprogrammings being some kind of a conspiracy (which would make sense if the page has been vandalized by scientologists).
 * There is a 'Victims' section but not a single mention of a successful deprogramming.
 * "It has been compared to exorcisms in both methodology and manifestation,[8] and the process sometimes has been performed with tacit support of law enforcement and judicial officials." The first part of this sentence is misleading. Being compared to exorcisms by ONE writer does not make it notable enough to be included. If it were, then every politician's page would include the line, "____ _____ has been compared to Hitler.[1]" The second part needs more specific citations. From the sources the page currently links to, the idea of "tacit support" from "law enforcement and judicial officials" is not supported. This may be referring to the case mentioned further down the page in which a deprogrammer was acquitted of kidnapping charges, but that does not support the idea of tacit, prior approval from multiple law enforcement and judicial officials.

I'm not even an editor, so I won't take on these tasks. However, if no changes are made by the next time I visit the page, I will delete the offending sections / sentences as needed. Better to have a shorter article than one full of POV violations.

185.40.4.76 (talk) 10:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

"It took nearly 20 years for public opinion to shift". Better yet. It is unclear whether public opinion has in fact shifted, as no statistical source is provided. Dimadick (talk) 19:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

So, uh, yeah
Hate to be a dick, but was this page written by fans of Scientology? 71.150.251.147 (talk) 05:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It sure looks like it! Wowest (talk) 06:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I am also suspicious. I have never read a Wikipedia article that was so biased. Mersailing (talk) 23:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree, extremely biased and pro-cults, or as they call it "minority religious groups" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.42.90.78 (talk) 07:21, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Still reads a bit like this in 2020. Zezen (talk) 04:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

This article is biased
I just happened upon it, and found it extremely one-sided: from the article itself and this discussion page, the article is clearly one person's attempt to smear and destroy the concept of 'cult' to eliminate it as a threat to their own religious beliefs. Furthermore, by linking to this from other articles, the credibility of those articles is severely compromised, nullifying the painstaking efforts of many people at presenting knowledge backed by hard facts and/or careful thought -- both of which are glaringly missing in this article. ( — Preceding comment added by 17:06, 16 June 2005‎ 198.147.225.60) (tag added by 108.83.116.234 (talk) 00:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC))
 * I agree with this editor. In reading this article, it seemed to be very strongly that the tone of this article inappropriately advocated one side of the debate (the person who feels that the label "cult" threatens their religion) over the other, and the article needs a major rewrite with respect to its tone. --Kuzaar-T-C- 13:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There is a definition for cults, the BITE model, which is a pretty nice way of encapsulating it and showing how they work, no matter the religion or beliefs, also applying to politics and other subjects. I am sure the author did it on ill intent, but since the article is still biased in 2022, I highly doubt someone will do something, perhaps the bias comes from the original author and somehow it cannot be changed. In the end, I agree with you, the person did it because they felt threatened somehow. Gabriel Gomes Almeida (talk) 23:49, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree, I read this and it sounds like it was edited by a cult member in order to discourage deprogramming and even labelling cults as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.42.90.78 (talk) 07:19, 30 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Absolutely agreed. This article is garbage, and needs to be comprehensively rewritten or removed altogeher. 125.253.30.206 (talk) 10:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This article needs corrected by credentialed professionals and replaced immediately. 75.162.179.15 (talk) 16:14, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

This article was written 21 years ago by a weird religious conservative looking to shape thought around the response to new religious movements and who regularly removed content incompatible with his perspective for 11 years, and 10 years later most of the base he set up has been maintained in essentially the same shape it was then. It's past time for an overhaul by someone with expertise on the subject. Rurfs (talk) 09:34, 16 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, but then, what defines a cult?
 * It is a central point to the debate, since if we cannot agree in a definition, what can we do?
 * I suggest using the BITE model as a base, but I would be more than happy to see your input in this. Gabriel Gomes Almeida (talk) 02:04, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * After some searching, what do you think of this paper? The observations are good and we can direct it to a more productive end;
 * https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/abs/10.1176/ajp.136.3.279 Gabriel Gomes Almeida (talk) 02:38, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I know what you’re thinking
You’re thinking “This user doesn’t know what I’m thinking.”

With that out of the way, the previous accusations of bias in this discussion thread should be preserved. The entire chain of discussion of bias is part of the topic related to deprogramming.

We must accept the fact that the media is mind control. It may not be controlling your mind but it can certainly control the mind of other people. However deprogramming can be safely achieved, that should be the common goal.

- a messenger 2600:1700:1150:84C0:F5F7:4DB9:9142:BB51 (talk) 06:45, 14 April 2023 (UTC)