Talk:Margaret Singer

Prem Rawat and related articles, including their talk pages, are subject to article probation. Any editor may be banned from any or all of the articles, or other reasonably related pages, by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks and incivilty.

Archives

---

1. Talk:Margaret Singer/Archive1

Rejection of her theories by the APA?

I've changed the second paragraph of the "Expert Witness" section because:

• Her theories were never "rejected". It was the report of the DIMPAC taskforce that BSERP rejected. The rejection memo said "BSERP does not believe we have sufficient information available to guide us in taking a position on this issue."
• The rejection wasn't by the APA as a body, it was rejected by a single board of the APA. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tanaats (talk • contribs) 01:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC).

I would think that you are splitting hairs here. I would argue that any sensible person reading this:

" In general, the report lacks the scientific rigor and evenhanded critical approach necessary for APA imprimatur."

"The term "brainwashing" is not a recognized theoretical concept, and is just a sensationalist "explanation" more suitable to "cultists" and revival preachers. It should not be used by psychologists, since it does not explain anything."

"To this reader it seems to be unscientific in tone, and biased in nature. It draws conclusions, which in many cases do not mesh well with the evidence presented. At times, the reasoning seems flawed to the point of being almost ridiculous."

... would affirm that the theories espoused in the DIMPAC report were rejected, and these theories are very much the same she advocated in her books and career. It is understandable that people that advocate the same theories as Singer's, would be making efforts to diminish the fatal blow that that rejection and the subsequent rejection by the courts has had on these theories. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope no hairsplitting, just NPOV and the pursuit of accuracy in what we present to the readers of the article. To answer your points in order:

• Yes, they criticized the report, and that's the way it should be reported in the article.

• Yes, they criticized the term, and that's the way it should be reported in the article. In fact I agree with them that the term "brainwashing" is so definitionally and connotationally confused that it shouldn't be used, and cult critics in fact tend not (currently anyway) to use the term for that reason. At any rate, it was indeed the term that was criticized, not all of Singer's theories.

• The word "it" refers to the report, and that's the way it should be reported in the article.

Finally, BSERP's intention is made extremely clear in what I recall was the final sentence in the BSERP memo: "BSERP does not believe we have sufficient information available to guide us in taking a position on this issue." They very explicitly took no position one way or the other about Singer's theories, and that's the way it should be reported in the article. Tanaats 01:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

We are stating that alongside the "In general, the report lacks the scientific rigor and evenhanded critical approach necessary for APA imprimatur" statement. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

However there is still no support for any statement or implication that her theories were rejected by the APA or any body of the APA, because in fact that never happened. It is a common interpretation among proponents of NRM theory that this happened, but it is not possible to quote a statement by the APA or any of its bodies that objectively supports this interpretation. If I'm wrong and you can quote an official declaration from anywhere within the APA that directly and without interpretation supports the assertion in the article then that will be different. Tanaats 16:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course. In any case, her theories have yet to gain any type of minimal scientific support to have any type of bearing on anything. So it does not matter. It has been a long time since DIMPAC, and I have not come across anything that supports her theories as applied to NRMs, besides the rhetoric of some advocates and sensationalist articles published by yellow journalism. I think the article now is accurate and factual. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I accept that those are your opinions. However absent any verifiable RS sources to support them, any statement in the a rticle that her theories were rejected is OR. Tanaats 17:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Right. That is why I said that the article is now OK. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, if I reply I'll just have to repeat myself and that will lead us in circles. I'll wait to see if Smeelgova wants to comment, then I'll start the RfC. Tanaats 23:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Why do we need an RfC? I have said that I agree with your edit and that the current version is OK. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

OMG I forgot that I'd already made my edit and I thought you wanted to keep the old version. I apologize! Tanaats 00:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The correct language is that her theories are not endorsed by the APA, i.e. the APA does not have a position. The APA members are split in this issue. That is why the "guerilla amicus brief" was retracted. --Tilman 10:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken about the brief. The amicus brief was not "retracted", as you say. What happened is that upon the APAs co-signature of the amicus curiae, Singe, Osfshe and others complained that it was inappropriate for APA to remain co-signed as the task force had not yet submitted its final draft report to BSERP. Then, the Board of Directors of APA , reconsidered its prior decision to participate in the brief and voted, narrowly, to withdraw from the case “based on procedural as opposed to substantive concerns” and stated that it “never rejected the brief on the ground that it was inaccurate in substance”. See APA memo July 1st '89. The correct wording is that APA rejected the task force report. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what to make of this source, since I don't know who wrote it to whom, and how CESNUR (not exactly a reliable source) got this paper. And who is "Dort S. Bigg, J.D."? I rather trust what Ofshe has allegely been saying, i.e. that it was "improperly slipped through the APA’s administrative structure...and filed by the former executive director of APA despite objections by APA’s legal counsel".

Its also sort of weird that the amicus brief had non APA members on it. --Tilman 16:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The memo was written by Ray D. Fowler, Ph.D., APA Chief Executive Officer, to Dr. William D'Antonio, a sociologist of religion at the Life Cycle Institute at the Catholic University of America that requested info on the APA position on the matter. Dort S. Bigg, J.D. is an attorney that was APA's Executive Associate, Local Affairs at the time. An amicus curiae , literally translated as "friend of the court," refers to a not a party to a case, who volunteers to offer information on a point of law or some other aspect of the case to assist the court in deciding a matter before it. The APA chose initially to endorse the amicus, later removing its signature as per the reasons stated in that memo. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The chronology described in this memo, is quite simple:

1. On December 8, 1986, APA received a memo from Donald Bersoff of Ennis, Friedman, & Bersoff, APA’s legal counsel, advising APA of the Molko case on “coercive persuasion” then pending before the California Supreme Court and inquiring whether APA wished to consider entering the case as an amicus.
2. On February 5, 1987, during its winter meeting, the APA Board of Directors voted for APA to participate in the case as an amicus.
3. On February 10, 1987 APA joined with numerous behavioral and social scientists, as individual amici, in submitting a brief in the Molko case.
4. At the request of some members of the Association, the Board of Directors, in the spring of 1987, reconsidered its prior decision to participate in the brief and voted, narrowly, to withdraw. That decision was based on (1) the fact that the Board of Social and Ethical Responsibility had not yet received a report from its Task Force on Deceptive and Indirect Methods of Persuasion and Control and (2) calls and letters received by the Board of Directors on both sides of the issue suggesting that the matter would be better resolved after BSERP had acted on the anticipated Deceptive and Indirect Methods of Persuasion and Control report.
5. APA’s decision to withdraw from the case was based on procedural as opposed to substantive concerns. APA never rejected the brief on the ground that it was inaccurate in substance. APA’s brief was not, as Dr. Ofshe asserts, “improperly slipped through the APA’s administrative structure...and filed by the former executive director of APA despite objections by APA’s legal counsel.” (Ofshe letter at pg. 2). The Ofshe statement is inaccurate in that: a) APA’s amicus procedures for entry into a case were followed in the Molko case; b) APA Legal Counsel never recommended against APA involvement and; c) the APA Executive Director did not resign because a brief was filed in the case.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

That summary is the "selective" text on the CESNUR site. However I am unsatisfied, having not seen the other side of the story, for example the text of the Singer/Ofshe RICO complaint, or the Ofshe letter. The APA may also have tried to put its own role in a better light. --Tilman 17:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

They may have indeed. But the memo is not "selective text" and quite unambiguous about its rejection of the complaint by Ofshe (to say it kindly...). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

<< Here it is:

---

Source: Blim, Andrew Cult Experts Sue Lawyers, Others,, National Law Journal, August 31, 1992, Vol 33, Issue 19

Despite the bizarre nature of the racketeering case brought against the American Psychological Association and the American Sociological Association by Berkeley professors Margaret Singer and Richard Ofshe, the plaintiffs are viewed by even the lawyer-defendants as reputable scholars. Professor Ofshe shared the 1979 Pulitzer Prize for inves tig ating the Synanon Foundation, and Professor Singer has consulted on more than 250 cases involving cults or brainwashing, including a court appointment for Patty Hearst.

A colleague of defendant Bruce J. Ennis at the law firm of Jenner & Block said the suit stems from the lawyers' simply having done their jobs in briefs and interrogatories. He said the allegations are "offensive and irresponsible and will be dismissed."

The suit contends that by trying to destroy the careers of the two mind control specialists, the defendants prevented their testimony against cults and thus helped protect "from civil litigation the Unification Church, as well as recklessly run so-called new religions." The suit seeks $5 million in punitive damages plus treble damages.

The campaign against the pair allegedly began after an APA task force on Deceptive and Indirect Methods of Persuasion and Control selected Professor Singer as chairwoman in 1984. Around that time Prof. Henry [sic] Malony of Fuller Theological Seminary – another defendant – was selected as a consultant to counter testimony Professor Singer was expected to give as an expert witness. In 1986, the suit says, in furtherance of the conspiracy, Professor Malony wrote to Professor Singer threatening to bring ethical mis- conduct charges against her with the APA unless she recanted her testimony. When she refused, he filed the charges, which were rejected.

But Professors Singer and Ofshe contend that the APA later became part of the conspiracy -- with the defendant- lawyers playing an important role. According to the suit, Ennis, Bersoff & Verrilli was acting simultaneously as APA counsel while preparing an amicus brief attacking the professors on behalf of the Unification Church. They allegedly were assisted by academics paid by the church. (Mollco v. Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity, A025388, Calif. Ct. of Appeal.)

The lawyers "had been surreptitiously requested to aid the Unification Church by then-APA treasurer and current APA Executive Director Raymond Fowler," the suit says, adding that Mr. Fowler, a defendant, was "co6rdinating directly with the Unification Church in its own efforts to undermine Singer."

The suit further contends that "the lawyers perpetuated their conflict of interest by continuing to represent the amici ... in connection with the Supreme Court amicus curiae [friend of the court] brief."

Professor Ofshe, meanwhile, had heard about the controversy regarding Professor Singer and met with ASA officials to express alarm, said Michael Flomenhaft, Ofshe and Singer's lawyer. Later, after the sociologist publicly discussed the alleged conspiracy against Professor Singer, he "became a target of the conspiracy" to discredit his theories of how the Unification Church allegedly recruited and manipulated members, the suit charges.

The APA, in a statement from Dort S. Bugg, director of legal affairs, said that the case is without merit and only a "legal and academic debate" about their [Ofshe and Singer' s] qualifications, in which the APA does not currently have a position. But in the past, in an amicus brief, it has opposed their testimony. The APA said any position was taken as pan of the debate "and without any intent to harm Dr. Singer and Dr. Ofshe."

---

We can use that source to expand the article on the suit against the APA filed by Singer and Ofshe. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

And this is the press relase from Singer and Ofshe's lawyers. Note that the suit was unequivocally dismissed by the court. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Press release (Aug 12, 1992) from Michael Flomenhaf, a lawyer in the firm representing two University of California, Berkeley, academics suing the American Psychological Association and the American Sociological Association

Two University of California at Berkeley professors have filed a racketeering suit against two of America's largest social science associations, alleging that several top executives attempted to destroy the professors' careers. The professors allege th at the defendants' purpose was to prevent their testimony about cults and coercive persuasion("brainwashing") in American courtrooms. The suit seeks economic damages.

Professors Margaret T. Singer and Richard Ofshe filed a civil Racketeering Influence and Corrupt Organizations(RICO) lawsuit in Federal Court in New York against the American Psychological Association (APA), the American Sociological Association (ASA), former APA and ASA board members, and other individuals.

The RICO suit alleges that the executive officers of both organizations improperly manipulated their associations to protect controversial cults and new age transformation training programs.

The suit claims that starting in1986 and continuing until the present, the defendants resorted to improper influence of witnesses in state court litigations, filed untrue sworn affidavits, attempted to obstruct justice in connection with federal litigations, deceived federal judges, and committed wire and mail fraud.

Singer and Ofshe are internationally recognized in their fields of clinical psychology and sociology. Both are leading authorities on the subject of coercive persuasion, commonly known as brainwashing. Singer is an Adjunct Professor Emeritus and Ofshe is currently a Professor of Sociology at Berkeley. [Both are also directors of the American Family Foundation, publisher of The Cult Observer.]

Singer and Ofshe have in the past testified against organizations such as the Unification Church (Moonies), Lifespring (a psychological training program), est(Erhard Seminars Training), and others. The professors allege that the defendants conspired to destroy their careers and reputations as professionals,and as forensic experts in the fields of psychology and sociology in the area of coercive persuasion, thus preventing their testimony against cults.

The motivation for these acts was to protect groups like the Unification Church and Lifespring from losing millions of dollars in liability lawsuits filed against them by former members, according to the lawsuit.

Other defendants named in the suit include: Raymond Fowler (current APA chief executive officer); LeonardG oods tein (former APA executive director); Donald N. Bersoff(lawyer in Washington, D.C.); Bruce J. Ennis (lawyer inWashington, D.C.); Newton Malony (professor at the Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, California); James Richardson (professor at the University of Nevada, Reno);Rodney Stark (professor at the University of Washington);Joan Huber (former president of the ASA and professor at Ohio State University); William D'Antonio (former ASA president and professor at the University of Massachusetts);and Dick Anthony (resident of Albany, California [and writer on new religious movements]).

And here is the text of the court order dismissal:

Case No. 730012-8, Margaret Singer, et al., Plaintiff v. American Psychological Association, et. Al., Defendants

This matter was regularly heard in Department 81 of this court before the Honorable Judge James Lambden presiding on June 10, 1994. After consideration of moving papers and papers submitted in opposition thereof, as well as oral argument of counsel present at the hearing, this court rules as follows.

This case, which involves claims of defamation, frauds, aiding and abetting and conspiracy, clearly constitutes a dispute over the application of the First Amendment to a public debate over matters both academic and professional. The disputant may fairly be described as the opposing camps in a longstanding debate over certain theories in the field of psychology.

The speech of which the plaintiff's complain, which occurred in the context of prior litigation and allegedly involved the "fraudulent" addition of the names of certain defendants to documents filed in said prior litigation, would clearly have been protected as comment on a public issue whether or not the statements were made in the contest of legal briefs. The court need not consider whether the privilege of Civil Code 47 (b) extends to an alleged interloper in a legal proceeding.

Plaintiffs have not presented sufficient evidence to establish any reasonable probability of success on any cause of action. In particular Plaintiffs cannot establish deceit with reference to representations made to other parties in the underlying lawsuit. Thus Defendants' Special Motions to Strike each of the causes at action asserted against them, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 425.16 is granted. However, attorney's fees shall be requested by separation motion.

...that sums and wraps this up quite nicely. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Lead

The lead is not compliant with WP:LEAD. that reads:

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) 15:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll take a look at it soon. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Smeelgova 16:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC).

Will you do this soon? Otherwise I will do it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I will. Please be patient. It has only been 2 days. We are writing an encyclopedia. Smeelgova 23:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

I was just asking. We all are writing an encyclopedia.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, Thanks. Smeelgova 00:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

I have expanded the lead paragraph, to reflect the rest of the article in summary. I strived to do my best to "write for the enemy", and yet present the material in a factual, non-editorial manner. Smeelgova 08:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

Expert-witness business

We need also to add a mention here that Singer's main source of income was her work as an expert witness (she was not a full-time professor). For example:

Two of the most prominent advocates of the mind-control hypothesis were sociologist Richard Ofshe and psychologist Margaret Singer, both affiliated with UC-Berkeley at the time. The two began hiring themselves out as expert witnesses on behalf of former cult members and their parents in several lawsuits brought against religious cults and secular therapy organizations, like Lifespring. Testifying to the reality of "coercive persuasion," the two social scientists managed to snag a large portion of the expert-witness business in brainwashing cases. "In the thought-reform prisons in China, people were physically coerced into staying in that environment," says Ofshe. "I think there are other things that can stand in the place of physical coercion, for example, misrepresentation that results in their believing that the cult is something other than what it is. You have to look at what occurs in the context of the group: exploiting one’s desires, one’s weaknesses. I’ve seen groups where people who were blemish-free were manipulated into acts of violence and terrorism."[1]

This will be a good lead to throw somwe light about the motives of lawsuit and subsequent controversy ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

Seems like a spurious source to me, heavily citing CESNUR/apologist researchers throughout. Smeelgova 17:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC).

However, whatever factual statements there are could be gleaned through the article, albeit very very carefully. It is clearly an opinion piece, with tabloidesque subheadings strewn about. Smeelgova 17:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC).

Lingua Franca magazine was published by the New York Observer. And the article cites Zimbardo and others as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, inflammatory language such as "managed to snag a large portion of the expert-witness business in brainwashing cases" to me indicates an editorial bias. Tanaats 01:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Smeelgova 01:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

Calling a spade a spade

Do we need to replace "reject" by "failed to accept"? All the secondary and sources quoted refer to it as a rejection, even her supporters and even Singer and Ofshe themselves. There is no need to mitigate that fact. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Pondering... Tanaats 01:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that was a bit of a fine point, I've put it back to "rejected".

Biographies

• I am curious to know what others think of the fact that nothing at all was mentioned in biographies about Singer regarding the whole DIMPAC report at all. (Contemporary Authors Online, Thomson Gale, 2005.) and (Biography Resource Center Online., 2004.)
• However, the 2004 report stated: "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." and the 2005 report stated: two- time nominee, Nobel Prize". Both biography articles also mention the unconscionable harassment and death threats.
• In the end, I wonder which article will have more of a Neutral Point of View, regarding amount of weight/emphasis placed on the above issues - the Wikipedia article, influenced by POV pushers on both sides - or the 2004 and 2005 biographical articles - written by more professional biographers??? Smeelgova 09:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

Even though I wrote it I would like to reconsider. I think that the summary is huge. It gives undue weight to DIMPAC in relationship to the rest of her career. Also to Ofshe's career. DIMPAC is quite well represented in the DIMPAC article for anyone who wants to know all the details.

Now that I think about it further, I really don't understand why every aspect of the DIMPAC article needs to be represented in the summary. I don't see this happening in see-alsos in any other articles. I like my originally proposed short summary.

I would like to re-open the discussion on this. Tanaats 16:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Published biographies do not have the burden of NPOV, that is quite unique. The DIMPAC controversy was a tremendously important and a milestone in her career. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason why to reduce the already reduced summary. Remember that just a few days ago we had the whole DIMPAC imbroglio described here. Be happy that we have agreed to summarize it as we did. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Do some research. The databases that I have access to, shows close to 20% of mentions of Singer, related to brainwashing and DIMPAC. Not that we can use that measure, of course, but do your own research to verify this. Singer's career is one that is tied up around her theories of brainwashing and mind control, and as such, there is abundant material about the ripple effects of the DIMPAC report rejection and the subsequent lawsuits. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Databases I have access to - are these biographical sources, or articles from biased groups like CESNUR? Like I have said, all of the summary-type biographies of Singer that I have read, from very reputable sources, do not mention DIMPAC at all. And they do feature the harassment and death threats and nobel prize award prominently in the articles. I find that very interesting... Smeelgova 16:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

No, I refer to databases of scholarly articles, and others such as Lexis Nexis, Questia, etc. What are your bio sources? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I told you what my sources are above. Can you please tell me specifically which you are referring to? The biographical highly reputable sources that I have seen make absolutely no mention of DIMPAC, and feature the nobel prize, and harassment/death threats prominently in summary biographical articles about this distinguished scholar. No matter what happens on Wikipedia - that is how she will be remembered - as a psychologist who has done "groundbreaking" research, almost got the nobel prize, twice, and was bitterly harassed by her cult/brainwashed critics - and they also harassed her family. This is not my opinion - it is already written in published biographies (plural). Smeelgova 17:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

What are your bio sources? Do you mean Thomson Gale? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

(Contemporary Authors Online, Thomson Gale, 2005.) and (Biography Resource Center Online., 2004.), as stated above, highly reputable biographical summaries. No mention whatsoever of DIMPAC, highly prominent mention in summary of nobel prize, twice in both summary biographical articles, and of harassment/death threats from cultists. What are your sources, specifically (other than specific articles that came out about DIMPAC at that time, I mean biographical summary articles) ? Smeelgova 17:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

I don't like the part about the nobel prize. It has already been explained somewhere that this is unverifiable. We're not doing hagiography or Oscars. IMO, there is no such thing as a "recorded nomination" for this prize. Or rather, there are probably 100s of "nominations" each year. --Tilman 17:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the summary should not be reduced further. I also would like to point out that many new scholars cite her work while presenting information/research (books) on brainwashing etc., as not to many during her time (present too) were willing to take on such a subject head on. Jossi, can we mention that her work is still note worthy (cited) by others if we place a list of references here? PEACETalkAbout 17:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. I have compromised, and added other prizes instead of the nobel, even though the nobel nomination is mentioned in 2 biographies. Smeelgova 17:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

Sure, we can add cites of her work, with a caveat: provide context on how her work has been used. If we keep these to a few notable mentions, that will surely enhance the article. A list of cites will do the article no good. Can you imagine of we do same for other scholars? Some of them will have 150Kb of cites... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

Sounds good. At the moment the lead looks okay. You still have not mentioned what types of biographical summary sources you have that mention DIMPAC and don't mention the death/harassment and nobel prize nominations? That is what she will be remembered for. Smeelgova 17:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

This is not an eulogy or obituary, it is a biography in Wikipedia. In Wikipedia articles we describe the significant viewpoints on a subject. And the DIMPAC rejection is reported by significant sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• And yet in other more reputable biographies written years before this article was created, DIMPAC was not mentioned at all. That is not how she will be remembered. Smeelgova 23:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

Singer will be remembered in may ways, including the controversy at DIMPAC, the conspiracy theories which he raised in her lawsuit, the dismissal of the lawsuit, and other aspects as described in this article. This article is not an eulogy of Singer, but a WP article that complies with its content policies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I ask again, do you have any other biographical sources (not articles whose subject is a specific event) about Singer which mentions DIMPAC at all? Smeelgova 05:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

What is the difference? Biographies describe notable events in the life of a person. And the rejection of the DIMPAC taskforce report, which Singer chaired, is a notable (if not "the" notable) event in her life. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, very true. Biographies describe notable events in the life of a person. And in two biographies from very reputable sources, the DIMPAC report was not mentioned at all!. Clearly it was not as notable a part of her life as you think. I ask yet AGAIN - aside from specific articles that only directly address the DIMPAC case itself, what other biographical articles about Singer have you found that mention the DIMPAC case??? Smeelgova 17:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

"subsequent cases"

• We only know of four subsequent cases. Therefore we can state "four subsequent cases" in the intro. These are the fact, unless other reputable sources are provided. To imply anything else is inappropriate. Smeelgova 05:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

Show us any other courts that accepted Singer's testimony after the rejection of the DIMPAC report. In any case, there are plenty of sources that describe this specific issue. I will add them, then. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Preferably from secondary sources, and not your own potentially POV interpretation of primary sources. Smeelgova 17:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

DIMPAC "controversy"

• This is a POV characterization, and an attempt to insert POV into the Table of Contents. Let's just label it what it was, the DIMPAC Taskforce. This is an NPOV classification for the subsection. Smeelgova 15:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

DIMPAC taskforce, says nothing about the controversy (which is!). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

"Controversy" is your own POV characterization, and it is not appropriate. If you can find "controversy" as applied to Singer and DIMPAC in a reputable secondary source - that is another matter. Then it would not be your own POV characterization. Smeelgova 17:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

New Book

Accountability as the basis for evaluations of New Age therapies by Scott O. Lilienfeld (Editor), Steven Jay Lynn (Editor), Jeffrey M. Lohr (Editor) Publisher: The Guilford Press (July 26, 2004) ISBN-10: 1593850700 ISBN-13: 978-1593850708 Contributor: Margaret Thaler Singer, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley, California General Controversies in Psychotherpy Chapter 7 New Age Therapies I will add it to the book section.PEACETalkAbout 19:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

If you can find applicable quotes, we could also discuss adding them to the article. Tanaats 19:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Smeelgova 20:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

Cults and New Religious Movements: A Reader (Blackwell Readings in Religion) [ILLUSTRATED] (Paperback)

by Lorne L. Dawson (2003) ISBN-10: 1405101814 ISBN-13: 978-1405101813

The Process of Brainwashing, Pyschological Coercion and Thought Reform

Acknowledgements: Margaret Thaler Singer for use of copyright material, Cults in our Midst. Her work is in Chapter Nine. To list or not to list? Comments.TalkAbout 20:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Tanaats, I will put in my to do list.PEACETalkAbout 20:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The Anatomy of Suicide: Silence of the Heart, by Louis Everstine, With a Forward by,Margaret Thaler Singer, PhD

1998, ISBN-10: 0398068038 ISBN-13: 978-0398068035 TalkAbout 20:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Six month China Sabbatical

Noted in the book: Mirage by Don Passman, 2001. Does anyone know what she did there?TalkAbout 20:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

What does the book say? Smeelgova 20:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

Scratch that...it is some fiction where this man added her amoung others to some story.TalkAbout 20:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Weird. Smeelgova 21:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

Ageism

I am finding a lot of her work in the area of ageism and aging. Does the article have a section on this or about this?TalkAbout 20:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing in the article on this type of her research. Do you have citations and/or hyperlinks? Smeelgova 21:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

I am using a service that lets you see inside, since I have been buying heeps of books and she is within my related topic. So, yes citations are available but no hyperlinks as you have to have a membership. Will start a word doc and to compile them. PEACETalkAbout 21:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Which citations? Perhaps others might be able to look inside and/or find sources in other means as well. Smeelgova 21:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

Smeelgova, Here is one:Middle Age and Aging: A Reader in Social Psychology by Bernice L. Neugarten (1968)

The Meanings of Age: Selected Papers (Paperback) by Bernice L. Neugarten, Dail A. Neugarten (Editor)ISBN-10: 0226573842, ISBN-13: 978-0226573847 “In a subsequent study of forty-seven older men in which the same TAT card was used, Margaret Thaler Singer found essentially the same perception of the OM and OW Singer, 1963, pp.20-31.”

So essentially she was conducting studies that others are using and in age related books.

The Encyclopedia of Aging: A Comprehensive Resource in Gerontology and Geriatrics (Encyclopedia of Aging) by George L. Maddox (Editor), Robert C. Atchley (Editor), J. Grimley Evans (Editor), Robert B. Hudson (Editor), Rosalie A. Kane (Editor), Edward J. Masoro (Editor), Mathy Doval Mezey (Editor), Leonard W. Poon (Editor), Ilene C. Siegler (Editor) 2001, ISBN-10: 0826148425 , ISBN-13: 978-0826148421 Quote in the book on her research: “The elderly in a sense “collaborate” with the enemy, with stereotypes. Margaret Thaler Singer observed similarities between the Rorschach test findings in member of a sample of healthy aged volunteers in the face of aging and of a sample of American prisoners of war who collaborated with their captors in Korea. TalkAbout 21:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I will try and see if the research is listed some where and if it is accessible. Maybe Jossi could look as he seems to have access to these sort of papers. I don't see any book under her name, only her research in the books. I found another age related book, but essentially it gives the same as the first Quote. PEACETalkAbout 21:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Smeelgova Just got the book:Middle Age and Aging, Edited by Bernice L Neugarten, (citing her work on pages 68, 231-231)5th Imprepression 1975, ISBN 0-226-57381-8 The work cited is from Margaret T. Singer, Personality Measurements in the Aged., In Birren et at., ed. 1963 which includes studies she conducted that are cited in various age related books. Beyond this I couldn't find any thing else. She was a busy lady and contributed vast amounts of research for the benefit of society. It would be good to get Jossi's input as to if it is acceptable for her work entry under books or academic papers/reports.PEACETalkAbout 21:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

TalkAbout, I suggest that you go ahead and make your edits. If anyone objects you'll hear about it and then we can discuss it further. Tanaats 20:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Tanaats,

Thanks for the feedback. I will put the book in.PEACETalkAbout 00:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Lawsuit

The RICO lawsuit was initiated by Mrs. Singer. This article needs to make reference to it in detail, as it is a personal/professional matter related to Mrs Singer. Also note that the DIMPAC section needs to be a summary of the complete DIMPAC article as per Wikipedia:Content forking (my highlights):

Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork. However, the moved material must be replaced with an NPOV summary of that material. If it is not, then the "spinning out" is really a clear act of POV forking: a new article has been created so that the main article can favor some viewpoints over others.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, and the article summary is currently not NPOV. And also, as stated many, many times above - any biographical article you will find summarizing Dr. Singer's life makes little or no mention of DIMPAC at all, and none of the lawsuit. Smee 04:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

the version you reverted to is not NPOV as it misses important information related to this person's life. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I see that your last edit is almost OK. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Nobel Prize nominations

Nobel Prize nominations are not verifiable. see: [[2]] Repeating statements of Nobel Prize nominations made in the press does not meet the standard of RS. Ratagonia 05:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• This has been discussed ad nauseam. Please see prior discussions on this, as well as the actual citations that back up this information. Smee 05:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC).
  • Perhaps friend Smee would enlighten me as to where it has been discussed ad nauseam. Publicists are well-known for claiming Nobel Prize nominations. see section on nominations under Nobel prize. Ratagonia 05:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Please see Talk:Margaret Singer/Archive1. I will add more evidence mometarily. Smee 05:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC).
    • Talk:Margaret_Singer/Archive1#Request_for_Comment:_Margaret_Singer_Nobel_Prize_Nominations. Consensus was to keep' the information, with a caveat exactly as it was shown in the article, that is "Was reported to have been nominated..." It should be noted that I had wanted to keep the other multiple citations, but it was thought that one highly reputable citation such as the biography at Thomson Gale was good enough. Smee 05:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

Citations

• Twice nominated for Nobel Prize for work in Schizophrenia, according to :

1. Thomson Gale,
2. Book, They Were Giants
3. Statements made by Daniel Goldstine, Ph.D.
4. The Guardian,
5. The Los Angeles Times.

Full references and blockquotes of citations

Smee 05:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

• • • I stand corrected. My apologies. Ratagonia 05:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Thank you. Smee 05:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC).