Talk:Anti-psychiatry/Archive 6

message: Anti-psychiatry - big, sprawling, completely unsourced, reads like personal essay rather than encyclopedia article. --Dcfleck 14:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note Dc's comments were from over a month ago, the article has undergone substantial reworking since then and the general consensus is that it no longer needs to be cleaned up. If there are no objections, i'll remove the tag in a day or two. Rockpocket 05:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the current article is looking pretty good. Ande B 05:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup needs

message: Unlike the other references, I deleted the following one since it has no connection with the text:
* Caplan, Paula J., They say you're crazy: how the world's most powerful psychiatrists decide who's normal, Addison-Wesley, 1995. An inside look at the politics of the DSM from a former consultant. 
—Cesar Tort 04:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted reference 

message: I mean no offense to whoever may have included it, but I do not see how this necessarily endorses what could be considered an "anti-psychiatry" viewpoint.  If proof can be provided that this was Dr. King's intent when saying this, then by all means it should stay.  Otherwise, I feel it should be removed.  FVZA_Colonel 13:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I have no idea why that is in there, or whether there is any psychiatric context to the quote. Rockpocket (talk) 21:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should the MLK Jr. quote be deleted? 

message: I'd like to read about him, whether in this article on in his own. I only know his books in Hungarian but he's been living and working in Vancouver, Canada, for several decades and I suppose he should have a wider bibliography in English. See also his page at the website of the R. D. Laing Society:  (cache). Adam78 20:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  András / Andrew Feldmár 

message: Once reworked, the Antipsychiatry article will deal with politics in the mental health movement.  On the other hand, Biopsychiatry controversy will explain the scientific side.  As Bookish has explained in my talk page:
:"As this is a major controversy in psychiatry I think it's very important to restrict supporting references and citations to bona fide medical journals and high-profile campaigners who are medically qualified. Because of the slurs that have been directed against survivor groups I don't think it's particularly helpful to link to articles on the websites of marginalized campaigning organizations. Likewise media reports. Mainstream medical literature will provide more than enough". 
For the moment the distinction is blurred.  Once both articles are thoroughly reworked the reason for two articles will become clear.  Momentarily Biopsychiatry controversy includes part of a paragraph which was copied and pasted from the old article: 
:Some also believe that the media has distorted information promoting the idea that autism is a physical disorder. Leo Kanner views autism as a psychological disorder resulting from bad parenting (despite occurences of one twin being autistic while the other is not). Psychiatrists who do not accept the medical model of mental disorders, such as Peter Breggin, maintain that the labeling of children inflicts additional humiliation and injury to the self-esteem of an already traumatized child. Since 1971 Breggin is director of the International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology. Originally the center was founded to oppose the revival of lobotomy, and today it opposes the inclination to diagnose and medicate children and adolescents. Since 1999 the center publishes a journal critical of biopsychiatry theories [8].
Since it deals about psychiatric politics, this paragraph belongs to the Antipsychiatry article.  However, to avoid confusion I’ll leave it there and only will move it when the Biopsychiatry controversy article is basically completed.  —Cesar Tort 23:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two distinct articles  

message: Changed from single quotation marks to double according to WP:MoS advice . —Cesar Tort 18:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  quotation marks 

message: Retrieved from Cswrye and  Cesar Tort’s talk pages:
I have noted that in Talk Anti-psychiatry article you inserted the phrase: "This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale." (Doesn’t the fact that 200,000 people are being electro-shocked each year and that millions of healthy children are drugged with psychiatric drugs is remarkable?)
I wonder if this is your opinion or if the rating has been consensual? —Cesar Tort 17:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was just my assessment. You can feel free to change it if you want; it won't bother me. I'm just trying to place assessments on all the psychology articles, and most people either don't pay attention to or don't care how most articles are assessed. I know that some of my assessments will be challenged, and that's fine. Just start a discussion about it on the article's talk page, or if you're feeling bold, just change the assessment and see if anyone else challenges it. I will point out two things. First, this assessment is only for WikiProject Psychology, not for Wikipedia as a whole. It is possible for an article to be rated high importance in one WikiProject and low importance in another. Second, the assessment is relative to other articles in the WikiProject. There are many topics that may be important but are not necessarily crucial to gaining an understanding of the field of psychology. You can see the assessment scale at Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology/Assessment. —Cswrye 18:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: You can find a better explanation of importance at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Criteria#Importance of topic. Some WikiProjects use the term "priority" rather than "importance", but in practical terms, they mean the same thing. I do want to make the point that a "Low" assessment doesn't mean that the article isn't important, only that it's not a topic that one would expect to find in a psychology encyclopedia. —Cswrye 21:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Low-importance? 

message: http://www.taxglosses.com/Showc-to-Tecno/Anti-psychiatry.html
The webpage at first glance appears to be identical to the Wikipedia anti-psychiatry page. Insights anyone?
--Scuro 23:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its a mirror of our article. I notice they do not abide by the terms of the GFDL licence nor do they link back to this article, thus they are infringing on the copyright of the major contributors. If you could find an email address from the site owner you could always send them a notice like this, for example. Rockpocket 00:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: copyrighted material?

message: Psykhosis placed a Neutrality and fact tag with no reason whatsoever or discussion on talk page! 
I am removing it. Tito58 19:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  tag by Psykhosis 

message: Re the citations requests in the CCHR section, in edit summary Rockpocket wrote:
rv - other WP articles - or directions to refs therein - do not count as reliable sources, If they are there, then copy them to here.
I am overwhelmed with work right now.  After a few months I will try to source them —unless someone else does the job! Cesar Tort 21:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lots of citation requests 

message: It would be appreciated —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scuro (talk • contribs) 
:Your edits reintroduced statements that could never be correctly sourced, such as "Not a single member of the secular psychiatric survivor movement or professional critic holds such views" and pointlessly removed references from the article.  Those are far more serious violations of Wikipedia policy than the editing you complain of. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: please follow wikipedia policy - do not unilaterally delete material or grossly alter it without also posting in the discussion area

message: Just wondering if I could put on the anti-psychiatry page that psychiatry is discrimination as stated in blue-eyed, a video about discrimination and prejudice, and that the insanity defense is thus degrading to people and not an appropriate medical terminology given that there are no tests. Because I am only using original research in a different way, similarly to the way engineers use scientific studies to design and build new things. That is why I put it on the discussion page
If the above constitutes original research could I put the research by blue-eyed about kids with ADHD and ADD and how they progress given different treatment, either discriminated against or not. Just for your information Blue-eyed was given an award by the National Alliance of Mental Illness(NAMI). So I am putting this all on the discussion first before making changes to the main page so everyone can agree with the research first. I don't want to go on sprouting stuff without research to back up my claims, nor be in hysterics. So please if there are disagreements I do want to hear them. I'll give a few days and if there is no response then put my evidence on the anti-psychiatry main page.
Drugged monkey 09:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does using blue-eyed in a different context constitute original research? 

message: The following seems random to me and needs citing, especially since the implication is that no one before Defoe in the history of the world had ever even dreamed that husbands might appeal to medical-profession representatives to condone & support locking up disorderly wives.  
Daniel Defoe, the author of Robinson Crusoe, revealed, in the 18th century, that husbands used asylum hospitals to incarcerate their disobedient, but sane wives.
While I'd much rather see this sourced, because it's interesting and would enrich the article, I'm enclined to delete it if no one can cite its origin.
Sugarbat 21:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I second the above.  Also, the first section of the 'origins' section seems tacked on, starting with the Defoe.  While I agree that this sentence - "In the 1800s abolitionists first encountered Drapetomania, the psychiatric rationale for why slaves ran away from their masters." provides evidence for the corrupting influence of politics and culture on the field of psychiatry, I'm not sure how it provides evidence for the origins of the anti-psychiatry movement.
this maybe should be the start of the section, if some references are included? "In the 1920s surrealist opposition to psychiatry was expressed in a number of surrealist publications."--Murmur74 02:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defoe "revelation" needs citation 

message: Dshsfca recently added this to the psychiatry page.  Since anti-psychiatry is the "subarticle" of Psychiatry's "Controversy" section, it would be better integrated here.  If this content is considered NPOV, it would also need inline cites. Chupper 01:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dshsfca's contribution to [[Psychiatry]] 

message: I find the above narrative almost impossible to read, aside from the fact that, mechanically, it hurts my brain.  Who wrote it?  Why is it here?  Look:
Those costs may be too great for society to bear, and since the psyche-industry cannot determine its truths, At least astrologers can point to the stars and astronomy to explain their predictions; what does the psyche-industry point to?
Just this "sentence" alone reads as though it were concocted by some kind of pseudo-science-tract bot.  Also, what's "the psyche-[sic] industry"??  Is it the industry where I used to offer my kid sister some candy and then snatch my hand away before she could take it?
A short (incomplete!) list of some gems that will make copy editors break out in hives and boils (given literally, w/punctuation, capitalization, spelling, and grammar intact, in relative order in which each appears in the text above [bold mine]):
-----
The Metaphysics of Mind The Cult of the Therapeutic The Excluded Middle
B. F. Skinner’s behaviorism, and his legatees “cognitive scientists.” 
[gold-medal run-on!!!] Social constructionism would validate the problem from linguistic, cultural, sociological, ontological, epistemic, and causal variables so immense that no “observer” or “observed” could infer any valid conclusion from any of the highly-variable premises, which premises to include or exclude in the inferential (e.g., “diagnostic” process, and a descriptive metaphysics scheme, known as the Diagnostics Standards Manual (DSM - I-IV) with variable multiple choice descriptions, exclusionary rules, and subjective “global assessments” by individuals already immersed in a “conceptual pluralism” of “models” that beg belief.
the psyche-industry
From the Freudian-James Divide, any number of gurus posited any number of theories  [How about 8 gurus?  47 gurus?  1,24239,922,00001 gurus?]
These researchers continue, “conceptual pluralism is plagued by yet other problems. 
accululation [what? if this is a word, it's my new uber favorite]
Psychoananlytic [come on.]
the same datum can be explained differently [we know you're smart because of "accululation," but here's a great example of when we might want to stick with the plural, "data."]
it is not difficult to preict the consequence [I'm finding it difficult, indeed.]
For example, in 1973, the American Psychological Association meeting in Hawaii [I'm only adding this because it's funny.]
the American Psychological Association meeting in Hawaii was confronted with demands by biologists, philosophers, and gays and lesbians for proof that “homosexuality was a pathology and curable.” [comma circus]
in which practioners attached electrodes
into their anuses [why not "ani"?  Ok I'm just kidding.  Or ami?]
“zapped” them with painful electrical currents [inappropriate use of "]
a practice so barbaric it is barred under the Geneva Conventions, but continues to be practiced under the “color” of the free-exercise of religion, behavioral “science,” and reparative therapy. [Huh?  Is this a Kesey quote?  Haha get it?  "Color"? "religion"?  the "color" of "religion"?  ok nevermind.  I don't get it either.]
Ken Kesey’s employment with Menlo Park, California’s Veterans Hospital led to his 1962 novel One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, which released as a film in 1975 won all top five Academy Awards. [can you find all 4 errors?]
decertification of the Cult of Therapeutic.  [I have never heard of this cult! Sounds...not scary.]
Eminent Harvard Sociobiologist Edward O. Wilson  [which of these capitals is not like the other?]
He writes, “nowhere
protesting, “in parts of the United States
Dr. Wilson continues, “there
The Cult of Therapeutic withdrew [did they go back to their home planet? to clone more cult members?]
Philosophers of Mind [Is "Mind" a planet, like "Therapeutic"?]
Perhaps none has been more vociferously than University of California at Berkeley’s John Searle,
The double entendre is based on Aristotle’s Categorical Syllogism in which the “middle term” evaporates in the inference (e.g, If A then B. If B then C. If A then C. “B” is the “excluded middle.) [Weird!  I thought the double entendre was based on nooky.]
by behaviorist, psychoanalyst, biomedical, and sociocultural, and operant conditionalists [watch those serial commas! not to mention their little brother, And!]
by our own minds as a reference [single/plural]
The “last” philosopher/psychologist
“middle excluded:”
Despite the notion of soul being a Greek, Judeo-Christian-Islamic metaphysical concept abandoned by modern science since English scientist Robert Boyle’s A Free Inquiry into the Vulgar Received Notion of Nation, 1686, and reiterated in David Hume’s Treatise on Human Nature in 1740. [perhaps the longest incomplete sentence in Wikipedia]
While Marx considered religion the “opiate of the masses” and Freud wrote of the Future of an Illusion, in which his psychoanalysts would replace rabbis, priests, and ministers, we learn that the Triumph of the Therapeutic is costing lives, fragmenting psyches, and profiting pharmaceutical companies in massive doses (psychotropics are second only to cardiovascular prescriptions), but nothing like the psychiatrists whose “consultation” for the pharmaceutical companies take top honors. [WTF?]
We learn from the 27 Jun 07 New York Times, “psychiatrists
$45,692 each from $20,835
Given that no theory “holds” [bad "]
Metaphysicans of Mind  [again with that pesky planet, Mind!]
many individual have come to the conclusion that the use of the Metaphysicans of Mind could be hazardous to your mind and your pocketbook, all to numb and dumb in the therapeutic process. [scientific-sentence bot!]
Those costs may be too great for society to bear, and since the psyche-industry cannot determine its truths, At least astrologers can point to the stars and astronomy to explain their predictions; what does the psyche-industry point to? [and the circle is complete.]
----
I have not yet gone hunting to see exactly in which article this narrative appears (if it still does), but be sure the chances are very high that, if I find it unedited as above, I will remove it.
Sugarbat 17:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found the edit. It was reverted within an hour. However, I fail to see it's relevance to this talk page. Dshsfca has never edited Anti-psychiatry nor have they ever participated in a discussion on this talk page. Neitherday 17:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RE:  ''Dshsfca's contribution to [[Psychiatry]]'', above