# Talk:Lafargue Clinic

Etzedek24, I was going through your references and I saw "ibid"--my instinct, that this was discouraged on Wikipedia, was confirmed when I looked at WP:IBID. The moment a new reference is inserted between the ibid and the previous one, the ibid goes nowhere, really. Most editors I know use named references for the purpose, which I think looks less elegant in a reflist but has greater clarity for the reader. (Use of "ibid" will probably hinder GA status, for instance.) Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies: Yeah, I thought about that too. Easily fixed, though. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 15:18, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
The more I look at this the more I love it. Thanks for writing it up. Drmies (talk) 15:26, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I still have more to do, mostly with regard to adding in a legacy section to discuss more in depth the impact of the clinic on lifting segregation laws, as well as how Wertham used his case studies here for Seduction of the Innocent (which is interesting since only 30% of the patients were children!). I also need to actually read Mendes' book, I just used it for the clinic's closure since the articles didn't seem to cover it well, so that will give some more meat to the article as well. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 15:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Dropping a few links:

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/556711/pdf
https://www.jstor.org/stable/24631987?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
And there's more. I also think that Mendes's book may be independently notable, given the amount of coverage (peer-reviewed, academic reviews) I found, including this one:

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/672345/summary
Drmies (talk) 14:57, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Is the 'universalism' mentioned ~4 times in article "Moral universalism".? Would that be worth a link to clarify? Shenme (talk) 22:55, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I didn't make the connection, but it seems logical. It's been added. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 23:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lafargue Clinic/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Renata3 (talk · contribs) 03:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Images:
Add church's pic? Or the parish house?
Added from St. Philip's page. There was an image of the clinic with indeterminate copyright that was removed.
I don't think there is enough FUR justification for Wertham's portrait
You're right. I've removed it.
WerthamLafargueKids.jpg: I assume you were going for {{PD-US-not renewed}}?
Yes. I have amended the description page.
Other
Article overuses long direct quotes (they make the article read as a magazine story, not encyclopedia entry). Of 2500 words of readable prose, more than 1000 words are long quotations. Please consider rephrasing and summarizing the quotes. In particular I found these on the too-much side: "Weston's health inititiave....", "In the hands of children and adolescents at Lafargue...", "had convinced several of his fellow lawyers", "We would like you to testify..." (just plain asked to testify is sufficient), "...for the important assistance which you gave...", "the product of a complex interaction among psychiatrists," "Fredric Wertham and his colleagues at Lafargue".
I have truncated many of these sentences. I left the first one you selected as-is because it was shorter than the others and offers a contextual comment for the clinic's closing.
While the ratio of prose to quotes has improved, I don't think this is adequately addressed. Two sections - comic books and response from historians - are particularly unsatisfying. Wikipedia editors should summarize source material in their own words. Quotes are ok when the exact words in the source are relevant to the article, not just the facts or ideas given by the source. Quotation should not, however, be treated as an alternative to extracting facts and presenting them in plain language (from Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing). Removal of content from comic book section left it stuby; the section now makes only a tangent connection with the clinic. Response from historians needs to be summarized in your own words; using quotes for such purposes is not acceptable. The quote from Thurgood Marshall left a generic 'thank you' but missed the key "the Chancellor in Delaware came to his conclusions concerning the effects of segregation largely upon the basis of your testimony and the work done in your clinic".
Added some more content to the comic book section, namely references to Wertham's clinic work in a notable article. Retooled responses from historians, and re-inserted the part of the Marshall quote you highlighted.
Other quotes that are used for facts and need to be reworded and paraphrased (does not mean removed and deleted altogether):
The clinic was staffed "by an interracial cadre of volunteers, most of them professionally accredited".[9]
Reworded.
The volunteers that worked at Lafargue over its existence included "three accredited psychiatrists, two psychiatric nurses, and three psychiatric social workers, as well as a team of psychologists, general social workers, psychology students, lay case workers, and educators".[9]
Reworded.
Can made a marginal case for keeping either "Lafargue fit the model perfectly of locally based outpatient mental health services imagined under the 1954 act..." or Said Mendes, "Weston's health initiative was not a slight directed at Wertham and the Lafargue Clinic..." as direct quotes, bot not both
I reworded the first sentence but don't see a reason why the Mendes quote should go. It's succinct and offers a good point of view.
"had convinced several of his fellow lawyers at the...
Reworded.
Also "— Jack Greenberg, Crusaders in the Courts[25]" is misleading attribution - makes it seem like it was said/written by Jack, when it is just a source of Wertham's quote. Just need to leave the in-line ref.
Changed box to say Wertham.
The two color boxes for quotes need inline refs.
Done.
IMHO, Ralph Ellison box better belong in "operations" section
Moved.
What's the purpose of the Fredric Wertham box?
To illustrate the connection between Wertham and Wright, as well as to highlight Wertham's dedication to the hospital.
The box should be moved up to "background" section (where it talks about the meeting in 1942). Also suggest wikilinks - Freud, Id, Wright
Moved and links inserted.
Don't think separate "Discrimination in New York hospitals" section is needed -- text should be integrated into the general background section or removed (it goes a little off topic)
Removed as the Wright quote illustrates the thrust of this section.
The two cases specifically mentioned (Rachel and Chris) have nothing to do with mental health -- it might show the variety of cases handled, but in the absence of mental health cases they look weird.
This was included to demonstrate that the clinic served as a pathway for blacks to receive proper medical care.
Ok, but I think to balance out, some actual mental health cases should be included.
This is easier said than done. From working in Wertham's papers myself, many of the specific mental health cases are confidential and thus do not appear in sources. I added some more statistics regarding the type of treatment provided and the percentage of psychosis-diagnosed patients.
More info needed
Brown v. Board of Education - in lead, introduce what this case is about and why important (not everyone knows)
Done.
when Fredric Wertham agreed to see author Ralph Ellison - in which year?
1942. Added.
The 47 volunteers - need time frame, I would assume this is the total number of volunteers during the entire 12 yrs of service
The 47 number was not in the linked source so I removed it, the sentence now reflects the general makeup of the staffing.
opened a facility called the Northside Center - when, where?
1946, also in Harlem. Added.
ended their sessions at Lafargue due to the pain of the procedure - I read this to imply that the boy was getting spinal tap at Lafargue, is that right? But that is outside the scope of mental health?
The sentence reads that the boy was referred to a local medical clinic, but I have clarified it further to show that the actual procedure was done outside of Lafargue.
received $72,000 in funding - can use {{inflation}} to give a sense of the amount in today's dollars
Added.
[The Brown v. Board decision] was not based on primitive insignificant dolls play - whose quote is that? and is it needed?
It is Wertham, and I think it befits the legacy section because his research is much less well-known than the Clark doll tests.
lead mentions "Wertham and Mosse's published research from this time" but the article body says nothing about publications (just trial testimonies)
Reworded.
any info on number of patients served?
Added.
any info on funding sources? it just says it did not get gov's money in 1954.
Added.
This addition "with the loss of their primary funding (outside donations)" begs the question - what caused the loss of the donations?
The source implies that the departure of Rev. Bishop, who was very active in fundraising within the church and community, caused this drop-off. I have added information to that end.
Prose
Named for French Marxist physician Paul Lafargue... in lead is a run-on sentence, please break up into two.
This sentence has been fixed.
clinic only operated for 12 years - I think it should be clinic operated only for 12 years, no?
I'm not convinced it needs to be changed.
1954 work Seduction of the Innocent - work title should be in italics
Done.
article in Free World - work title should be in italics
Done.
who at that time was chief psychiatrist at Queens General Hospital - should probably move to the first time he is introduced in the section
Fixed.
antiblack discrimination - just sounds awkward, there are better ways to say it (e.g. discrimination of the blacks)
I think the proposed change sounds much more awkward than what exists in the prose.
as was common at the time - as it was common at the time?
Changed to "as was common practice at the time."
Plessy v. Ferguson - needs italics
Done.
Jim Crow - not wikilinked
Done.
Overall, an interesting article, just needs some work. Renata (talk) 03:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I have placed the article on hold. That starts the 7-day period. The major concern is the over-use of quotations. Renata (talk) 16:05, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Renata, I have gone through and made the changes you specified. Please let me know if you have any concerns. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 00:36, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
I see the edits, and I will review & get back to you in a day or two (in the middle of another wiki project). Thanks, Renata (talk) 21:33, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I have struck out resolved issues. By my count, 4 are still open with direct quotes being the key. Renata (talk) 23:57, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Etzedek24, any updates? I think I will have to fail the GA unless issues are addressed by Sat, Dec 1. Renata (talk) 04:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
@Renata3: I am in the midst of a very busy concert weekend and have not had much time in front of my computer. If we can agree on a deadline sometime in the later part of the upcoming week I will strive to made the necessary edits. If you don't want to, I understand. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 21:03, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I am away myself until Dec 11. So let's set deadline for Dec 15? I'd rather have this done properly and not rushed just to get GA thru. Renata (talk) 03:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
That works for me. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 20:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I think major things are addressed, though the comic book and historian response sections still need work and fleshing out. I am going to pass the GA review. Congrats! Renata (talk) 22:20, 15 December 2018 (UTC)