Talk:Drapetomania

message: While undoubtedly a spectacular example of bad science, the article does not state how influential the theory was.  How many doctors actually make a diagnosis of drapetomania?  How quickly did serious rebuttals begin to be published?  How late did anyone believe this nonsense?  If the answers are (say) "lots", "decades later" and "1927", this is an important article.  If the answers are "just Dr Cartwright", "the following week" and "the following week" then it's just a piece of trivia.  jnestorius(talk) 04:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it would be really good to get a reliable idea of how widespread/longlasting the diagnosis was, how many black people affected by it etc. One unreliable source says "many". Not sure if the above link covers it. EverSince (talk) 10:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm uncomfortable with the current statement that "The contemporary southern intelligentsia regarded Cartwright as a fringe figure." Todd Carmody, in the source cited for this claim attributes its own claim to Stephen Jay Gould, does in fact claim that "Cartwright was a fringe figure to whom 'intelligent Southerners' paid little heed." However, tracing this claim back to Gould himself in The Mismeasure of Man on Page 70, Gould's claim is far less assertive. He says, "Among nonpolygenist, 'scientific' defenses of slavery, no arguments ever matched in absurdity the doctrines of S. A. Cartwright, a prominent Southern physician. (I do not cite these as typical and I doubt that many intelligent Southerners paid them much attention; I merely wish to illustrate an extreme within the range of "scientific" argument.)" Carmody's claim that Cartwright was fringe derives from a parenthetical statement prefaced with the enormous red flag of "I doubt." Gould used Cartwright as an illustration of the most absurd "scientific" defenses of slavery he could find from the time and identifies him as "a prominent Southern physician" before expressing doubt that the intelligentsia paid him much heed and identifying him as extreme within the contemporary window of scientific debate rather than as outside the era's academic Overton window. The current wording erases all of this nuance and takes as rote Carmody's interpretation of Gould's parenthetical clarification while failing to carry through his description of Cartwright as "a prominent Southern physician" at the time. Mirmalchik (talk) 06:58, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Significance 

message: I've added the dubious tag to the toe claim because:
* Given Cartwright's paternalistic attitude it seems implausible he would prescribe it.
* Szasz is not unbiased; besides, almost everyone is somewhat biased against racists.  Szasz is, anyway, not a primary source.
* It seems like all sources regarding drapetomania are actually secondary to one paper published by Cartwright.
My guess is that toes of runaway slaves were amputated, perhaps as "treatment" for drapetomania, but that Cartwright himself never prescribed this.  Anyway, perhaps I will check local libraries for the Szasz book, and try to find his source.  No promises though. –Αναρχία 22:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the sentence. Another possibility was that Cartwright mentioned this in his book, with the point being that it was sometimes done but if slaveowers were to use his "medical" procedures they would not have to do that. Anyway the sentence in the article did not even assert any relationship with toe-cutting to Cartwright. Steve Dufour 13:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious toe claim 

message: Please try to learn what psychiatry is. The only time the word "psychiatry is used in your reference is in the following quote:
:I fear that does not support anything about the connection of Drapetomania with modern day diagnostic classification, which was the issue. But thanks for trying.  --Mattisse 04:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Incorrect. And Malik, please read this. I added a reference to the beginning sentence which mentioned the subject was a psychiatric diagnosis, which it indeed was. Mattisse, you're referring to a different reference that I added. Psychiatry is the branch of medicine dealing with the mind and mental illness. While certainly saying it is a medical diagnosis makes sense, "psychiatric" is more specific and since another user added it in the first place, I am inclined to agree with him/her. I am possibly going to revert this, but would like Malik's opinion first. I agree with the deletion of the Oppositional Defiant, but not this. - Cyborg Ninja 04:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be helpful if you identified the source a little more specifically than "the reference just added", since 7 references have been added today. I have restored "psychiatric" (in place of "medical") because psychiatry is the "branch of medicine dealing with the ... mind", and drapetomania was "a disease of the mind" (Cartwright). — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 05:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The reference just added, while I comend anyone for trying, is not to psychiatry 

message: Although I withdrew the AFD because of the instant harassment and attacking, Drapetomania has been brought to the attention of the Medical deletion project cleaning up false and misleading articles placed under a medical category as this one was. It will be monitored, and returned to AFD if false and misleading material purporting to be medical, psychiatric or psychological is returned to the article.
I might be helpful if, not only did you learn something about psychology and psychiatry before you start adding terms,  you learned something about the history of psychiatry and psychology. Psychology as a formal field distinct from psychiatry did not exist until World War II. Psychiatry in the 1800's was philosophically based and not scientifically based, with few exceptions such as Wilhelm Wundt. So you are mixing apples and oranges. Regards,  --Mattisse 13:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop your personal crusade. You are clearly assuming bad faith among other Wikipedia users and stirring up problems. I don't mind you bringing this to the attention of the Medicine deletion project (though you are pretending the project is something it is not), but you are causing countless problems related to this article by trying to provide a point about pseudoscience. What's funny is that Drapetomania is included in the Anti-Psychiatry article itself. Are you going to crusade about that as well? - Cyborg Ninja 14:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drapetomania has been brought to the attention of the Medicine deletion project 

message: Citing a cancer website does not prove anything about psychiatry. Please try to maintain a professional standard.  --Mattisse 14:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently you think a prestigious medical university is not a reliable source, Mattisse? If this keeps up, I'll need to call a review. - Cyborg Ninja 15:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A cancer institute is not a reliable psychiatric source.  --Mattisse 15:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please do not remove questionable source tags without correcting the problem as you have just done 

message: You are setting up a very unfortunate atmosphere here. My original AFD statement was not even a recommendation to delete. It was open ended. Yet you choose to attack me rather than focus on the article. --Mattisse 15:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never "attacked" you -- merely refuted your false statements and tried to improve this article. AfD stands for Articles for Deletion -- you know very well that it is only used to nominate articles for deletion. You cannot use it as a "cleanup" tag would be used. That is against Wikipedia policy. - Cyborg Ninja 23:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thank you for adding another reference to questionable statement - please stop referring to my edits as bad faith edits [[User:Cyborg Ninja]] 

message: You have link a nonexistent article under See also. You have also categorized the article in a nonexistent category. Perhaps it would help if you read through the AFD on the recently deleted Psychiatric abuse to understand why this is inappropriate. It is important for you to have an overview of the issues on Wikipedia before you start creating articles and categories.  --Mattisse 15:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Political abuses of psychiatry]] - nonexistent article & nonexistent category 

message: I removed the tag as another editor has provided an appropriate introduction that adds some context. The article, in my opinion, still gives undue weight to the opinions of a long discredited diagnosis proposed by one man in the form of long, unanalyzed quotes. 
This article with the long quotes is long than Samuel A. Cartwright's  biography. Perhaps this article should be merged with his biography.  --Mattisse 15:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's very white of you. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 17:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Humm. Does that mean I must become white?  --Mattisse 00:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I removed the POV tag  

message: I believe Dysaethesia aethiopica should be merged with Cartwright's article, per Wikipedia standards. Dysaethesia aethiopica is a separate entity from Drapetomania, though they are both evidence of scientific racism by the same "scientist." If we stick with this merge/redirect for dys. aethiopica, you would have to add "Drapetomania and Dysaesthesia aethiopica" at the top, which doesn't make much sense. If you want to redirect it to Cartwright's article, I'd be for it, since dys. aethiopica doesn't seem to be as well-known as Drapetomania. I will edit Cartwright's article to include information on Dysaethesia aethiopica. - Cyborg Ninja 01:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a redirect to Cartwright would do. It seems to be mentioned only as a sidenote to drapetomania, and doesn't have the contemporary references. Thomjakobsen 02:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Granted, Dysaethesia aethiopica isn't as widely-known as drapetomania, but there are more than 300 non-Wikipedia Google hits. I haven't had a chance to go through them at length. I'd like to add to Dysaethesia Aethiopica Cartwright's prescription for preventing and treating the disease. Please give me a little time (it's dinner time), see what I come up with, and consider the merger then. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 02:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, there's no hurry. Things are moving too fast as it is: the AfD lasted a couple of hours, the last merge proposal was withdrawn after 20 minutes, so I can understand if you're paranoid it'll get zapped while you get some food... suggest we give this a few days while things cool down? Thomjakobsen 02:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I would vote for 3 articles, or merging Dysaethesia with Cartwright.  I don't think merging the 2 "disorders" together makes much sense. In that case you might as well merge them both into Cartwright since he is the common element that brings them together. I learned a lot about the topics during this discussion. Thanks everyone. Steve Dufour 04:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging Dysaethesia aethiopica with Drapetomania 

message: Did the artist, Eastman Johnson, according to the caption, say that the topic of his picture was African Americans fleeing slavery as a the result of drapetomania? Does this imply that Eastman Johnson believed the only reason African Americans would flee slavery was drapetomania? I believe this needs to be clarified and referenced.  --Mattisse 20:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I edited the caption, your highness. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 20:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry. I thought it was implied that it was Cartwright who was saying so.  With you guys' help I hope this is now clear. Steve Dufour 20:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

text: This problem, a year later, remains. I can't see what this painting has to do with the topic.--WaldoJ (talk) 02:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Drapetomania was purported to be the reason why black slaves fled captivity. The painting illustrates slaves fleeing captivity. It seems like a fairly straightforward connection.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the caption could be modified to indicate that? Perhaps something like "Eastman Johnson's 1862 painting, A Ride for Liberty — The Fugitive Slaves, depicts an enslaved family escaping on horseback." I know no more about slavery or pseudoscience than your average American—I came to this entry after watching "C.S.A.: Confederate States of America" on Friday, looking to find out more about "drapetomania" as referred to in the movie. It was within that context that I scratched my head at this painting, wondering what it had to do with Cartwright. That simple contextual note may be something that would allow the image to remain, as I gather you desire, without confusing readers. --WaldoJ (talk) 18:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture caption 

message: I'm using Phrenology as an example here. The phrenology article has various categories at the bottom that I think could be similarly applied to this drapetomania article. An "Obsolete psychiatric theories" category would be good. If one of you could argue it with the Psychiatry project (I assume there is one), that would work. BTW, I don't think this should be merged with Samuel A. Cartwright. I did put his picture on this article, but if anything, drapetomania gained more notoriety than Cartwright himself and drapetomania is more important. And I do think Cartwright deserves his own article too. - Cyborg Ninja 22:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another idea from Phrenology is :Category:History of neuroscience. I notice the page for that category includes psychiatry, but I assume it's intended for areas of overlap and this wouldn't fit. :Category:History of psychiatry would be nice, alongside all the similar subcats in :Category:History of science. Thomjakobsen 22:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Neuroscience" fits the concepts upon which Phrenology is based better than the concepts behind this article's topic, so I don't think neuroscience quite fits here.  (SEWilco 04:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think that's what I said in the second sentence there ("this wouldn't fit"). Following the example of Phrenology, we put it in a historical category to distinguish it from current practice. In this case, that would be :Category:History of psychiatry rather than :Category:Psychiatry. Thomjakobsen 14:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The "History of psychiatry" category sounds like a good idea too. Maybe that is the best since it can cover obsolete theories, too. I asked Mattisse to consider adding the category but she threw a tantrum and has in essence stopped talking to anyone on Wikipedia. - Cyborg Ninja 12:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obsolete psychiatric theories 

message: You should stop.   --Mattisse 02:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Give it a rest. I moved comments regarding the merger you proposed to the section to which you linked. So what's the problem? — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 02:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages This is the problems. This is not the time to cause even more confusion and  without consensus, and when there is confusion already.  --Mattisse 02:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I have no problem with merging the two sections. I am the creator of one of them, remember. Malik's move in no way was a violation. Please stop hounding him, Mattisse. Let it go, and recognize that he is a significant and great contributor to this article. All you have done is complain about other users' edits because they didn't fit your viewpoint. - Cyborg Ninja 02:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, is this why my Oppose comment got moved above the discussion to which I was referring in my comment?  Whoever did that messed up the context of all the following comments in addition to taking my comment out of context.  I object.  (SEWilco 04:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea what you're referring to, but I didn't have anything to do with it. Cyborg Ninja and Thomjakobsen made comments about the merger at the bottom of the page, and I moved them to the bottom of the merger section. I kept the heading they used. Here's the diff. I didn't disrupt the flow of the discussion. I kept all the comments in chrono order. Among rational people, this wouldn't be an issue at all. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 05:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, I was thinking about something else, not that shuffle down here.  Never mind.  (SEWilco 05:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides, what are you talking about? Your oppose comment was the first comment made, so of course it appears before the discussion. Here's the diff. Also, take a look at the time next to your name and the preceding and following comments. Sheesh. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 05:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad practice to refactor talk page without concensus - it causes confusion 

message: I don't know about you guys, but trying to "trivialize" historical topics does not bode well with Wikipedia I believe. More on the Dys. aethiopica talk page. Everyone, please see Talk:Dysaethesia_Aethiopica. I'd like to know what you think about the "trivializing the three articles" agenda. I have a feeling that the article or comment might get erased, so I'll post it here:
Propose merge. Three small articles on essentially same topic prevents a clear picture. Articles are split off from main preventing a whole picture from emerging:
* Dysaethesia Aethiopica (this article) +
* Drapetomania +
* Samuel A. Cartwright.
The effect is to trivialize all three articles. --Mattisse 02:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I presume she means "having three small articles has the effect of trivializing them", rather than "my intention is to trivialize them". I disagree, because I think there's enough for three good separate articles, but I assume the comment was made in good faith rather than any "agenda to trivialize". Thomjakobsen 15:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it appears the comment was misunderstood.  --Mattisse 21:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agenda to "trivialize" all three articles 

message: Google Books has digitized copies of the collected "volumes" of this publication. Vol XI, covering Jul. 1851—Jan. 1852, has a full copy of Cartwright's paper to the Medical Convention of Louisiana. The volume itself is about 760 pages, so links to the relevant bits:
* p.64, "Diseases and Peculiarities of the Negro Race", part 1.
* p.184, "How to Save the Republic, and the Position of the South in the Union", an article by Cartwright in which he argues against abolition. The first few paragraphs are interesting, he says he hopes his medical paper can be used to assist in saving the Union by raising awareness of scientific discoveries of differences between whites and blacks.
* p.331, "Diseases and Peculiarities of the Negro Race", part 2. This section deals in particular with Drapetomania and Dysaethesia Aethiopica.
* p.504, "Diseases and …", part 3 (final).
Thomjakobsen 15:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Caplan et al. also reprints Cartwright's paper in full, and can be read at Amazon.com. (I find Amazon more user-friendly than Google Books because it's easier to search for words and phrases.) To give a little context, which I'm going to add to Cartwright's biography soon, the results of the 1840 census were manipulated and found high concentrations of "madness" among free Blacks in the northern US. Cartwright's paper was, in part, an explanation of this madness. His section on dysaethesia aethiopica refers to the fact that northern doctors were familiar with the symptoms of the disease but "they ignorantly attribute the symptoms to the debasing influence of slavery on the mind". — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 21:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the importance of "scientific" arguments for slavery leading up to the civil war would be an excellent "context" expansion in all three articles, and could probably make for an article of its own. The existing section at Scientific racism#Justification of slavery in the nineteenth century is pretty short with no mention of the census, and John C. Calhoun's article has no mention of it either, nor his famous "Here is proof of the necessity of slavery" address to Congress. United States Census, 1840 is pretty much a stub too. Thomjakobsen 23:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I didn't realize that Scientific racism had a section that specifically referred to slavery. When I get some more sources together, I'll add some information there and to the census article. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 23:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DeBow's Review 

message: All mental illness have been and are conjectural. None has been or can be validated by any anatomical or biological test. If such a test existed, the diseases would not be "mental," it would be neurological. Nicmart (talk) 00:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, you're using a circular definition which has been set up by you to exclude what you want it to exclude.  Plenty of diseases with mental effects which did not have any known biological correlates in the past now do have such correlates, and the number of diseases known to have such correlates will continue to expand in the future. AnonMoos (talk) 04:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conjectural 

message: I think the information in this article is generally fine, but the article itself is written very badly and in a way that's inconsistent with the acceptable tone for a Wikipedia article. Edits made around the time this topic was posted will attempt to clean things up a bit. 2600:1700:8DF0:B150:1114:6138:961B:932F (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone