Talk:Psychiatric survivors movement

message: I've recently expanded this article. It overlaps with the Psychiatric survivors movement page. I suggest merging both in to one page, which can give an overview as well as covering the different origins and philosophies of each part. An umbrella term for this, that seems to be in common use (in the US at least), could be Consumer/Survivor/Ex-Patient Movement. Although this doesn't actually include any mention of psychiatry or mental health services. Any other suggestions? EverSince 17:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes on this page

message: The way it is at the mo, it seems to be case sensitive in wikilinks, not really sure why, maybe the slashes...? Would it be better maybe to just have spaces between each part? And not sure if the p in ex-patient should be capitalized, and whether movement should be, anyone know? EverSince (talk) 01:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting of title 

message: So, I deleted this line because I believe it to be editorial 
:  There is great need for further development of the recovery model whose outcome is to support people in regaining their wellness instead of a life sentence of psychiatry which has been found to cause early death. E. Fuller Torrey (1997) Taking Issue: ‘Psychiatric Survivors’ and Non-Survivors, 48:2 Psychiatric Services 143 His accusations have been described as inflammatory and completely unsubstantiated, however, and issues of self-determination and self-identity said to be more complex than that. 
and this line because it's extraneous and biased
 
: "Patients rights groups have been speaking out against psychiatric abuses for decades but have been censored and denied by the psychiatric establishment. Reading about the experiences they suffered through has been described as comparable to reading the stories of Holocaust survivors.[7] Recipients of mental health services demanded control over their own treatment and began to have an influence on the public mental health system. They often promoted a recovery model. Whether they considered themselves consumers or survivors, activists demanded a voice and a choice"
is this okay? Thanks. AJPlotnik (talk) 19:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't agree with the removal of the above. If you weren't happy with it sounding like editorialising, I believe rewording would have been the better option since it is actually based on reliable sources (which I recall I added). Am going to try reinserting now but with maybe different wording. I see someone has also tagged a statement as needing a source when actually one of those sources covered it.... EverSince (talk) 06:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: The article title is meaningless. Consumer/survivor /ex-patient of what? of psychiatry, from the contents, but the title does not indicate it in the least.  I invite suggestions.    DGG ( talk ) 02:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Probably "Psychiatric consumer/survivor/ex-patient movement". There's a [book with that in the title. Perhaps the article is editorially related to the author's work. Jojalozzo 03:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: title

message: Jojalozzo has proposed that this article be merged with Psychiatric survivors movement...
* Support. Substantial overlap. Final article should be called Psychiatric survivors movement as the title here is too cumbersome... Johnfos (talk) 02:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Pages now merged. Johnfos (talk) 23:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: According to this article, actions by psychiatrists are never actually unhelpful, abusive, harmful, or illegal.  That is only how consumers "consider" them.  Real harms, real suffering, and real crimes are conflated with opinion.
The psychiatry page does not say that "Psychiatrists consider their work to be different from the discredited balance of humors theory."  It does not say "Psychiatrists consider 'mental illness' to be a scientific (and not cultural) phenomenon."  It does not say "Psychiatrists consider involuntary psychiatry to be distinct from medical rape."  It simply says "Psychiatry is..."  "Mental illness is..."
I submit that the opening of this article was written from the perspective of the abusers, while Wikipedia should strive for neutrality and a factual basis. Chomps123 (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Opening Lacks Neutrality