Talk:Michael Langone

Untitled

Cut from intro paragraph:

... specialises in research about cultic groups and psychological manipulation.

Removed, because the article does not mention any of his research. He has condemned cults as manipulative, citing the research of others. But where is his own research? --Uncle Ed 19:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Please give me some time and I will add his research. Thanks. Smeelgova 19:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC).

Journal

cut:

, editor of the journal Cultic Studies Review.

No evidence that this is a peer-reviewed scientific journal. It's just a blog, near as I can tell. --Uncle Ed 19:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Most certainly not a "blog", it was around long before blogs existed. Numerous academics regularly publish in it. Off the top of my head I don't know if it has peer review, but does not have to in order to be classified as a "journal". Smeelgova 19:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC).

Okay, it's an online journal. Good catch, and have a great weekend! ^_^ --Uncle Ed 19:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, you too! Smeelgova 20:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC).

Good cites

Thanks for the cites, TalkAbout. Hope you don't mind that I edited them a bit. Tanaats 22:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Tanaats, Not at all...cooperation leads to progress.PEACETalkAbout 22:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Notability

I think that one of the major players in the secular anti-cult movement qualifies as being notable... Zambelo; talk 17:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• You may well think that, but your recent edits suggest you know more about resume padding than about Wikipedia article editing. Drmies (talk) 23:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• You turned this article back into a linkfarm and a resume--while removing the "resume" tag, which you removed without addressing the issue. You can't run around policies like that, and I have posted a note on WP:BLPN asking for more eyes. Drmies (talk) 23:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I have performed a thorough clean up of the article, but I share the concern about notability as I can't find any good secondary sources that could support such a claim. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Just a note. I put on the notability tag and then removed it when 3 or 4 books were added as secondary sources. I don't know about the requirement that they have covered him in depth, or substantially, or whatever. That is often not so strictly enforced here. (A number of brief mentions in good sources usually works.) I don't now question that he is important enough for an article. BayShrimp (talk) 04:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I did not notice that the same person placed and removed the notability tag. Per your note here, I have self-reverted my re-addition of the tag. My apologies. LHM^{ask me a question} 13:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. BayShrimp (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Redirect

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To not merge due to independent notability. Klbrain (talk) 08:41, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

---

The AFD was keep but AFDs do not handle redirections. The person may be notable in the context of the association he leads, hence the redirect. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

You misunderstand AFD and the fact it closed as Keep and not redirect. The subject meets GNG and thus the article can stand alone - do not continue violate policy by blanking and redirecting. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@Cwobeel, I understand you were unhappy with the close and asked how to contest the decision [1]. But this is not the way to do it. Redirect is a possible result of an AFD. I would suggest you discuss the redirect here, take the AFD to WP:DRV, or, at some point in the future renominate the article for AFD but do not try and circumvent the process. I understand that you strongly opposed to the subject for some reason but really, work within the system please. JodyB _talk 12:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

See discussion on merge below. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I applaud your decision to seek an in-process resolution. I'll not be commenting either way but I am confident the system will allow this to work out for the best. Cheers! JodyB _talk 02:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Merge

I have placed a {{merge}} on the article, for reasons explained in the AFD, which was no consensus to delete but still had substantial comments about lack of notability due to lack of third-party sources. So the article can remain as a redirect after useful content is merged to International Cultic Studies Association. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Too bad - the subject meets GNG, the article does not need to be merged and plenty of more sources about Langone exist. Stop your disruptive editing immediately, you have repeatedly blanked and redirected the page after the AFD closed as keep and now you are actively attempting to remove it again. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you are disrupting. A merge discussion is 100% kosher. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Your argument has failed, your repeated blanking and redirecting is in violation of policy and there is no need or logical requirement that would support a benefit of a merge. You cannot explain how merging would better Wikipedia. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, that is easy: This person wrote two books and is the director of a non-profit. The content in this article can be easily merged International Cultic Studies Association, as there are just a couple of sources about this person. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Spare me your idle banter, you act as if paper is outmoded and things do not matter if they are not immediately in the article. There is something to be said about being repeatedly consulted and covered in various publications. I just don't have access to the Gale part for right now, but the dozens of instances and citations certainly establish GNG. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support merge. There is very little material about the article subject outside of his association with ICSA, and what material exists is best represented in that context (the ICSA article). --Tgeairn (talk) 00:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support merge as nom. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose noting the "citation needed" tags for him bring born, etc. Work to improve this BLP rather than engaging in the game of "tag". Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Lalich and Langone developed the definition of cults that are commonly cited and used, and that was years ago. Langone founded Cultic Studies Journal, but edits Cultic Studies Review - both of which are non-trivial. Langone's writings and influence are connected, but enough exists that a sizable article can be created and filled out. Though I'm not going to go an do any public record digging for something as trivial as a birth date... ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Were did you pull that from? I checked in multiple sources and there is very little about him from secondary sources. Very, very little. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

And look at the very poor state of Janja Lalich. Tagged since Oct 2014. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no deadline and I question how you've arrived at the "very, very little" part considering this seems to mean "Google" and Google is horrendous at that era. Not everything is online and both his roles there provide a wealth of sources upon which to draw material from on the basis of thoughts and theory as well as simple routine biographical information. As for prominence and being an expert used in the media - well... there are dozens of such citations to be made. Many minor, some better, but Langone is notable. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The guys is only notable for writing two books and for being the principal of a minor non-profit. Not notable at all. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

We know your point and your intention - but glossing over an entire person's career and work does not make it "non-existent". You are the only editor I've ever seen to repeatedly edit war clearly false information over and over again. I find your behavior reprehensible because you feign ignorance and repeatedly remove citations calling them "not notable" when that is disruptive. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Wow, what an example of how to conduct a discussion. I think you need to take a deep breath and stop edit warring yourself. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

and your use of the royal "we" We know your point and your intention is very telling. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose He got quite some articles and citations in Google Scholar. Irmgard (talk) 19:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - For reasons already mentioned. Dozens of citations, international conferences and numerous citations show that Langone is a notable figure. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sources

I spent some time digging through Google books and found just a handful of sources that comment on Langone's work. We have two books that he wrote and a couple of articles in some journals, but there is little about him, or his work written by third parties. To comply with NPOV we need secondary sources that discuss the person and his work, and we can't relay just on what this person wrote himself, or what the organization he leads writes about him. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Please do not troll. You are aware of WP:BLP and you know better then to do the edits you have been doing. Playing ignorant and making false statements to try and get this article deleted is disruptive. Langone's work is cited in over 90 different international publications and the citation and use by others shows Langone's status. Stop making false statements, deleting content and inserting unacceptable POV - this is your final warning on this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Please avoid personal attacks. You keep doing this, and it is not useful. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

And now, please explain why are you deleting the material that was added based on reliable sources. Please consider stopping edit warring as you did here [2], and here [3]. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

rejection slips

In 1936,the Physical Review rejected Einstein's paper on gravitational waves as being nonsense[4]. Many authors collect hundreds or rejection slips - Mangone is no way an Einstein, but stressing rejection slips is silly. Find a single source instead of individual rejections - I knew major scientists who had dozens of them. Collect (talk) 18:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

That is a very poor analogy comparing Albert Einstein to Langone... But in any case, in Einstein's article we report his rejected paper, see Albert_Einstein#Photons_and_energy_quanta. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It looks like we're both (see my query below) talking about the same thing (the APA Task Force on Deceptive and Indirect Methods of Persuasion and Control). What do you think is the best way to bring this in? We're not talking about a theory submitted and rejected, but rather a group of people who have created a new field and had their research methods and practices found to be unscientific and without rigor. The publications they were paid to create were discarded. Most of them (Langone included) went on to publish the theories anyway, while ignoring the serious flaws pointed out by their peers in the APA. Langone and others' only claims to notability come from this subject, so it's very relevant here. We just need to find the best way to present it. --Tgeairn (talk) 19:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

yes, agree. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Find a secondary reliable source asserting that the rejections per se were significant. Just like every other BLP. Simple. Collect (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

That is what the source provided is. Did you check the sources? - Cwobeel (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

@Collect: I added a few secondary sources in the talk section below. Take a look if you get a chance? --Tgeairn (talk) 20:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Pseudoscience, APA task force

Recent additions of material related to the fringe/pseudoscience nature of Langone's theories have been removed[5][6][7] from the article in the last days. Given that we have an entire article on the subject, and that we have notable writers who have published (in mainstream sources) public statements calling this work pseudoscience or unscientific, what is the best way in include the nature of Langone's work? The work for the APA is without a doubt a critical part of Langone's history, as his employment and associations changed following the creation of the task force, and his website continues to this day to espouse those same rejected ideas. Pinging ChrisGualtieri, Cwobeel, Collect. --Tgeairn (talk) 19:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

See related discussion at WP:BLP/N#Michael_Langone. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I removed the equivalent of "rejection slips" as being less notable than being published. Einstein's "gravitational waves" paper in 1936 was rejected by the Physical Review and almost all scientists have had rejections of papers. What is more notable is any paper which actually gets published. (I am in no way suggesting Mangone is Einstein - just that even Einstein was rejected and being "rejected" is not as significant as some would like the article to imply). Collect (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

As I said above, we report Einstein's rejections in his article, so I don't understand why it would be different here. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

See also [8]. Unless a secondary reliable source makes a claim about them, we should recall noted rejections from the past and not insert any of our own opinions abut the topics. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure I follow your argument. The sources provided was a secondary source [9], wasn't it? - Cwobeel (talk) 20:05, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

And there are many more if needed, for example [10] - Cwobeel (talk) 20:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Here are a few secondary sources to pull from. If someone else can incorporate this, great. If not, I may be able to in the next couple days. Cwobeel may be able to quickly add these cites to the work already completed.

Perhaps the most public and controvery-arousing action taken by Dr. Singer and some who shared her view was a failed attempt to get the American Psychological Association on record supporting that perspective... The end result was that for the first time in memory, the BSERP flatly rejected [emphasis in source] a report from a task force. (Richardson,, James T. (2004). Regulating religion : Case studies from around the globe. New York: Springer. p. 519. ISBN 978-0306478871.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link))

The DIMPAC committee's final draft report was examined by the Board of Social and Ethical Responsibility for Psychology (BSERP) of the APA in 1987. The draft outlined the 'critical differences between cultic and non-cultic groups', based on the mind control model... BSERP rejected the report citing 'lack of scientific rigor'... included reviews by external experts... 'lacking psychological theory'... 'resorts to sensationalism in the style of tabloids'... 'the term "brainwashing" is not a recognized theoretical concept..." (Platvoet, Jan G.; Molendijk, Arie L. (1999). The pragmatics of defining religion : contexts, concepts and contests. Leiden: Brill. pp. 54–55. ISBN 978-9004115446.)

The conflict between Singer and the great majority of her academic colleagues who studied NRMs finally led to the collapse of her work on brainwashing. Those events began in 1983 when a proposal was made to the American Psychological Association (APA) that a task force be established to examine and report of the techniques... outside reviewers and members of the Board of Social and Ethical Responsibility rejected it... lack of both "scientific rigor" and "evenhanded critical approach"... It noted that, given the evaluation of the report, members of the committee could not use their work on the committee to credential themselves in the future. The APA action affected the US v Fishman court case... Singer's testimony was thrown out... brainwashing and mind-control could no longer be used to defend deprogramming... loss of the Scott case, which bankrupted CAN... "The demise of CAN was a most significant event in the overall effort of the cult awareness movement." (Gallagher, Eugene V.; Ashcraft, W. Michael (2006). "The rise and fall of brainwashing". Introduction to new and alternative religions in America. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press. pp. 136–139. ISBN 978-0275987121.)

--Tgeairn (talk) 20:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

A task force established by the APA Board of Social etc. submitted a report on "mind control" which was rejected by the APA as lacking scientific rigour and an evenhanded critical approach. The APA stated that the report could not be used to defend deprogramming, and that it could not be used as a credential for any member of that task force. The demise of CAN was attributed to the rejection of the report.

Seems to what is actually supportable in those sources. Langone does not appear to be listed on the amicus brief in 1987, and it is unclear from these sources what parts were particularly his position. He is not directly tied to the report in ref 1 (mentioned as "influencing" Abgrall , is not even mentioned at all in ref 2 , ref 3 seems in fact to say that Langone's definition of "cult" is worded in a manner that "secular anticult" concepts could be derived from it, but says nothing about Langone's work on the rejected report at all. Is this the best sourcing out there? Collect (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I am encouraged by this source, which gives some of the clearest language yet as to what the mainstream view was of the report. It also names Langone as being a member. It would be nice to find some pieces from the period while the report was being created... those might give some additional insight. I now have print of the Cultic Studies Journal from that period, so I will do some looking. --Tgeairn (talk) 21:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that you would need more than that to ascribe any particular part of the report to him. (The fact he did not sign onto the controversial amicus brief I find of substantial importance)(forget this - our article is totally confusing on that brief) What you have so far fits into the existing article on the task force which lists Langone as a member - but very weakly into this separate BLP. Have you ever sat on a task force producing a long report and agreed with every word in it - but the procedure is to sign off on it just as others sign off on your work which they may disagree with, else no task force or commission could ever make a report. Task force reports are sometimes quite like the sausage in the adage. Collect (talk) 21:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Collect, the DIMPAC task force is a key element in his bio, so we need to mention it, and we also need to mention were the task force ended up at. Otherwise, why are we having an article on this person if we don't mention notable aspects such as this one? - Cwobeel (talk) 21:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

BTW, it seems that the report was rejected in toto, and he was part of the panel so it is relevant. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

In which case I am sure you never sat on a task force or commission, alas. Bring part of a task force does not impart one with responsibility for every word of a report, nor are Congressmen responsible for every word of a bill being passed. It is incomprehensible to assert that the report was rejected, therefore he proposed material which was so wrong that he was forbidden to say anything. Life does not work that way. The APA said the report was wrong methodologically and that it could not be used to support "deprogramming" as a practice. Collect (talk) 22:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Langone [11]: the deprogramming situation tends to exaggerate the power and malevolence of cults, Most exit counselors reject deprogramming because of ethical and practical concerns, Part of the controversial nature of deprogramming stems from actual abuses of the process all of which do not seem the wording a committed "deprogrammer would use. Rather he quite appears to favour "exit counseling" instead. Collect (talk) 22:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) to say that Yes, I agree completely with the sausage adage!

From the materials I have read so far, it appears that Langone's preferred term is "coercive influence" or similar. This fits with his selection by Singer, as she was a fan of similar terminology. As just a sample of Langone's promotion of a "coercive influence" theory, we have his presentation at the American Psychological Association's Annual Meeting in 1989 on "Coercive Psychological Influence". In his Cultic Studies Journal:

"Growing concerns about the use of coercive and other manipulative psychological techniques..." "The influence techniques used by these groups to advance their own ends cannot be adequately studied in the laboratory without violating professional canons of ethics."(Langone, Michael D. (1989). "Social Influence: Ethical Considerations". Cultic Studies Journal. 6 (1): 16–24.)

or

"...rapid personality changes that resulted from brainwashing (mind-control, thought reform, and coercive persuasion are other terms used to characterize the process). (Langone, Michael D. (1986). "Cultism and Americam Culture". Cultic Studies Journal. 3 (2): 159.)

and lastly a series of statements and charts depicting the coercive influence of some groups, which Langone says he has "adapted from unpublished ideas of Margaret T. Singer". (Langone, Michael (1985). "Cult, Evangelicals, and the Ethics of Social Influence". Cultic Studies Journal. 2 (2): 371–388.)

So, it looks to me like the Challenging Religion source is sufficient for describing the theory of coercive persuasion as fringe and/or pseudoscience. There is certainly ample evidence throughout the CSJ articles written or edited by Langone to indicate that he subscribed to that theory, but that leaves the question of whether or not the APA task force piece needs to be in this BLP article. It really seems like there should be some mention (beyond just a "see also"), but we obviously need to not state something in Wikipedia's voice that isn't solidly sourced. --Tgeairn (talk) 22:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

As an addition to the above, Langone explicitly lists the "thought reform model" of influence and control here. This is the exact model that the APA completely discredits in their review of the task force. --Tgeairn (talk) 22:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - he explicitly does not rely on that model if you read that essay - which is specifically an essay. So much for that trivia.

this essay I will apply a cultic studies perspective to the phenomena of Jihadism. I will examine the following questions:

1.Why do seemingly normal, average people join extremist or other socially deviant organizations?

2.What factors can lead group members down a pathway to violence?

3.How can a cultic studies perspective contribute to attempts to counter violent Jihadism?

He clearly regards that as the theme of the essay - the keywords you found are not a key part of his essay, alas. Collect (talk) 23:05, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's a bit of a bummer then. I was looking at the third item of his first question. "Why do seemingly normal, average people join extremist or other socially deviant organizations?", he has

Elsewhere (Langone, 1996) I have discussed three models of conversion to cultic groups: 1.The deliberative model (i.e., what a person thinks about a group; this model is often favored by sociologists, clergy, and religious studies scholars); 2.The psychodynamic model (i.e., what a group does for a person, especially in terms of meeting psychological needs about which he/she might have limited awareness; this model is often favored by psychodynamically oriented therapists); 3.The thought reform model (i.e., what a group does to a person—the social-psychological dynamics of influence and control; this model is often favored by cult critics). Although I separate these models for purposes of explanation, in practice probably all three models are relevant to varying degrees for almost all conversions.

It's not as strong as I'd love to see, but he is saying that the "thought reform model" is valid - which the APA said is not accurate. I'm going to go dig up the (Langone, 1996) source and see what he was saying about the three models there. --Tgeairn (talk) 00:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The citation leads to Langone's 1996 article in Psychiatric Times. Langone is here again with the psychological manipulation theories that the APA review found laughable.

"The manipulativeness of cults is similar to the debility-dependency-dread (DDD) syndrome explanation of how the Chinese communists were able to gain a high degree of control over American POWs during the Korean conflict"; "Contemporary cults... cannot forcibly restrain prospects... they must fool them."; "As a result of this deception and the systematic use of highly manipulative techniques of influence... recruits come to commit themselves to the group's prescribed ways of thinking, feeling and acting."; "By... denigrating independent critical thinking, the group causes members to become extremely dependent..."; "...the group's control over members' thoughts, feelings and behavior is strengthened..."

So, we have the theory clearly debunked and cited to this source. The Psychiatric Times article excerpt above appears to be a good source for Langone advocating the same "mind control" (by any name) theory a decade after the APA refusal of his and others' work on that same theory. Right now, this (and a whole series of related articles about this same group and theory) are well into WP:PROFRINGE territory. We should at the very least be calling it what it is. --Tgeairn (talk) 00:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

You appear to read more into some words than some other editors do. Either you have better eyesight, or what you read into something may not actually be there. I beg you to consider that others might actually be correct here. Collect (talk) 13:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• That is not what "fringe" means or applies to, but you are intent on labeling the task force thing as a black mark. Seriously - you are creating an issue because you do not understand the material or the context. Please stop. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it is you who does not understand? You said in a discussion in user talk that you are unfamiliar with the subject, so why challenge others when they are providing some good and serious argumentation? - Cwobeel (talk) 15:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Even a neophyte understands that your attempts are not supported by the text. Collect and I have shown it to be in error, any attempt to "argue" such a clear refutation shows an inability to comprehend the text. You are careless and you do not understand the material yet you persist anyways - doing damage in the process. I seem to recall you repeatedly perpetuating a WP:HOAX because you did not bother to read and understand that something exists. The last time you reinserted false material and edit warred to restore completely unsourced BLP content which was false and you still do not understand the problem. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

reading material

[12] (from President of APA - 2002) [13] (Cults of Hatred) etc. Collect (talk) 22:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

How is this relevant to this article? - Cwobeel (talk) 22:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

If you can not figure it out, I wonder just what you read in at those official APA links.

APA President: A body of social science evidence shows that when systematically practiced by state-sanctioned police, military or destructive cults, mind control can induce false confessions, create converts who willingly torture or kill "invented enemies," engage indoctrinated members to work tirelessly, give up their money--and even their lives--for "the cause." etc.

Noble joined other former cult members and experts at APA's 2002 Annual Convention in Chicago during the session "Cults of hatred" to speak out on the effects of mind control and destructive cults. Panelists made a plea to the association to form a task force to investigate mind control among destructive cults.

"Extreme influence [such as mind control and cults] has remained dormant in the field of psychology," Alan W. Scheflin, professor of law at Santa Clara University, told the audience.

Mind control, or "brainwashing" as it's commonly referred to by the media, is often viewed by many psychologists as science fiction. However, panelists stressed that mind control is being used by cults to recruit and maintain followers and can have dangerous and lasting psychological consequences.

All from 2002. Fifteen years after the report rejection. In 2002 Panelists at a convention session on hatred asked APA to form a task force to investigate mind control among destructive cults. and Langone was not even there. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Also - Constructing Rich False Memories of Committing Crime was a recent research subject which found 71% of participants could be compelled to remember a crime they never committed. Another 77% could be compelled with false memories of a non-crime event that never occurred. For a sample of 60 participants... this is pretty stunning research, but it wasn't addressing the controlling techniques or the age which such false memories may be implanted. Certainly implanting false memories that the subject inherently believes and can provide additional details of a fictional event is part of "mind control" is it not? The most disturbing part about it is the fact that the persons could remember in clear detail things that are entirely ficitious. There was another recent study about the technique which stated that repeated assertions (Remember that time the clown came to your class?) was enough to begin creating false memories, becoming very detailed and firmly held as factual by the persons... ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)