Talk:Psychiatry/Archive 6

message: I've done the following:
#Archived the talk page, once again getting too long.
#Switched to the use of the archive box template.
#Added the multi wikiproject template
#Added the clinical medicine wikiproject banner
#Added a warning that any comments posted here not relating to improvements of this article will be removed.
I've added the caution for several reasons:
#Talk pages, including this one, are not a place to debate the existence of psychiatry.  Psychiatry exists and is supported and guided by science.  General medicine is also supported by and guided by science.  Psychiatrists are physicians.  In the US, UK, Canada, and most other developed nations they are required to attend medical school, just like any other doctor.  (Sources: (King, L.S. (1952) Is Medicine an Exact Science?.  Philosophy of Science, 19, 131-140.) (A, N.C. (1997). What is Psychiatry? The American Journal of Psychiatry, 154, 591-593.) from the web: , , , , , , )  This is the last time I'll be stating the obvious or "defending" the centuries old existence of psychiatry (whichever way you want to look at it).
#This article is not the main article dealing with those not supporting psychiatry.  Anti-psychiatry is a well written article, which could still use work, dealing with this social criticism.
#This talk page has become a magnet for comments of individuals opposed to psychiatry or elements of it.  Due to such a high amount of comments inappropriately being placed here, and the lack of comments discussing article improvements, future inappropriate edits will be removed, thus the warning.
So, just relax, be bold and edit, and enjoy Wikipedia.  "Psychiatry" can use a lot of work and any positive contributions, here or on the article page, would be appreciated. Chupper 18:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaning up of talk page 

message: Citation needed in Controversy.[] How do I add a citation? Someone help me out ? Robert Spitzer. Vol. 33 No. 4, April 1976 Archives of General Psychiatry. http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/33/4/459  .--Mark v1.0 15:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about the massive delay in response.  If a page is set up for it, it is actually kind of easy to do.  You just type in "(reference info using whatever style you prefer)".  For more info check out Wikipedia:Citing sources or feel free to leave messages here or on my talk page! Chupper 12:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed 

message: The reference to totalitarian regimes in the history section cites a Citizen's Commission on Human Rights article.  Given the Church of Scientology's established feud with psychiatry, would that not be an inappropriately biased reference? Maqusan 15:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure why the "Church of Scientology's established feud with psychiatry" biases a reference from the U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services (specifically the National Center for Biotechnology Information). Chupper 19:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality of History section? 

message: :Image:DSM-IV.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:DSM-IV.jpg

message: Please, do not remove criticism from this page. A fair description of the psychiatry, that what to describe it as it really is, should include an objective description of the problem it create and the criticism it arise..
:Content will be removed if it is inaccurate, not NPOV, not referenced, not referenced correctly, or not adhering to any other Wikipedia policy such as WP:SIZE.  If you don't agree with those policies, I recommend you create your own blog.
Since what I have written is not taken from a script of a soap opera, as has been said in my talk page from the user who removed my edit, I am going to reinsert it. Moreover I have cited sources, and what are written in these sources are based of an objective analyse On the other hands, no source are cited in many part of this article, and I do not consider fair to include sources that are not based on analyse or real facts, but based on the interest of a class of people. (see Cargo cult science and any description of how a fair scientific description should work for more information on this).
:Again, as I've mentioned on your talk page - Sounds like you are getting confused between a soap opera and soap box.  I'm referring to the latter.  If you reinsert the material, it will be removed again.  If you reinsert it again, it might not be bad to attempt to  resolve the dispute and request a mediation.
Now I cannot understand why why I have written should be removed?
:I spent a lot of time responding to your edits with a post to your user talk page.  Are you having problems locating it?  If you are, click here.
Is there anything I have written that is not true?
:Yes.  You may want to look at the references I used on this page.
And why criticism should go somewhere else?
:Again, as mentioned on your talk page twice, and assuming your added content is factual, [Criticism] information should be included in the Anti-psychiatry article and only a "short summary" should actually stay in "Psychiatry". See WP:SIZE
Now you should know that if a thing has done before in a particular way then it is not a guarantee that this is the correct way. So the point that until now criticism have been moved to Anti-psychiatry, is not enough to conclude that this is the correct way to do.
:WP:SIZE says otherwise.
If you see the page about Astrology, you will find many point where criticism are present. If the same rule should be applied, also the criticism in the astrology page should be move to Anti-astrology.
:Only if size merits the article to be split.
I think that the better way to write these article, and to give a better idea of what psychiatry really is, is to write in the Anti-psychiatry page a description of the movement that has called themselves Anti-psychiatry (if any of the exists), and to put a real description of the psychiatry.
:Your "real" description of psychiatry is not supported by the bulk of governments, academic institutions, and the medical profession.  You may want to see the references listed in the first section above.
Now if it is sure that a good description of the psychiatry should include the criticism this argument has. And this is not my fault if the psychiatry us subject to criticism.
:Oh, I'm fully aware that psychiatry is subject to much criticism.  In fact, to a point, I support the criticism.  I think it makes the profession that much more aware, and that much better.  But, this page doesn't exist for us to voice our own personal opinions.
So unless I will receive a good reason why the description of the criticism should not go here I will reinsert it here.
:Feel free to reinsert it on the talk page if you like, but as mentioned above, reinserting in the article would not be a good idea before gaining consensus.  And I'm assuming my responses on your talk page where not a "good reason"?
I can agree that it was not written in the best way it can, so I will try to reword it and to write it better.
:That might not be a bad idea, and be sure to keep a NPOV when writing it.  Remember it should be integrated into the Anti-psychiatry article.  If you wish to rewrite the summary on the psychiatry page, I don't think I would have a problem with that.
:Chupper 18:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response 

message: Where is this image derived from? The caduceus is a symbol of commerce. Axl 08:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The cadeceus is also a widely use symbol of medicine/healing hence its use in many places including the logo for the American Veterinary Medicial Association. Ratinabox 18:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psi & caduceus image 

message: Editors may wish to review Psychiatric abuse, a new article created (surprise!) by a Scientologist. -- ChrisO 08:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psychiatric abuse 

message: Greetings. I've move here some content from the deleted Psychiatric abuse article. The content deals with "Professional ethics" and "Political abuses" of psychiatry (see new subsections). Both sections should be improved, especially the former. In addition, personally, I think the "Main criticisms" subsection should be expanded into substantive subtopics, at least one of which might then merge with "Professional ethics" or the like. Good luck and best wishes. HG | Talk 22:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kudos for graciously deleting the spin-off to The Anome, who I hope will contribute to the work on this page. Thanks! HG | Talk 12:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethics and Political abuses 

message: Hello Chupper. As your version gets closer to completion simple post on talk to let us know. editors can then examine it and give you final input before it replaces the current article.--scuro 11:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gotcha.  Yea, HG persuaded me to post it here before I make any changes.  I think the bottom line is that before this article just wasn't that active and its activity levels just skyrocketed.  I've been trying to integrate changes made here into the sandbox, but haven't been able to completely keep up.  I'll work on it ASAP to get it finished.  Please remember though that my sandbox version is not the "ultimate" version and if someone else wants to rewrite it or make major changes, I won't feel like you are stepping on my toes :).  This is Wikipedia after all - we should all be bold.  Thanks for being patient with me though, Chupper 12:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked at your latest version briefly and it looked like to be a significant improvement. Simply the sandbox version looked to have some significant revisions and I just wanted to give a little input before it was switched. From my standpoint it's easier to compare your sandbox version and the article then to compare revisions in the history of the article. It's admirable that you are doing the work. The one thing that did strike me visually was that the history section was first on the article and typically the history section is placed further down an article. Is there not a set sequence for sections on articles? I have noticed that the current article has the same problem. Also what did you want to do with the controversy section. I'm not pleased with it's current state and would like it changed soon. Is the whole section a new addition?--scuro 15:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well maybe we should see what others think of the placement of the history section. I guess I'm used to seeing them first, but I know there a lot of articles where they are not.  I probably prefer it first, but either way is really OK with me.  As I mentioned above I haven't included a Controversy section for two reasons -  Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Article structure (and Jimbo himself) states that these types of sections should not exist and instead the info should be integrated into appropriate sections of the article. This is one Wikipedia policy that I fervently support.   In addition, the existence of this section, and its length make the article unbalanced.  Remember these are just my opinions.  I do feel that "psychiatric abuse" is important enough to be mentioned and have included it in the history section of the article.  I do mention that the movement is still active, in at least some form, even today.  Let me know your thoughts, and feel free to edit that sandbox article. Chupper 16:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Chupper/Sandbox04