::I've had quite a bit of experience at trying to resurrect articles that have gone off the rails  some of them have turned into solid articles, some of them have resulted in what amounts to controlled implosions, as there is insufficient cohesive content to sustain an article. This article has always had very much the feel of the latter. In doing so, I'm generally more interested in new ideas than what I perceive as reflexive defence of existing positions (the status quo between Biopsychiatry controversy and biological psychiatry from you, and the "original article" content from Cesar & Benjaminbruheim). I do listen to new input (though don't always draw the conclusions people may expect), and do quite often change my mind  as my sudden idea that a template would be a good idea, based on the realisation from Benjaminbruheim's article of the large number of articles already covering this area, should indicate. My modus operandi on such projects tends to be to use the chainsaw first, and smooth things over later. If you want to disagree with the specifics of what gets moved where (or anything else), then please do so  my initial suggestion was based principally on a superficial look as to what looked like it was opinion from anti-psychiatry activists, and which sounded more purely scientific research findings. A different break up, possibly even to different articles, may be useful.