Talk:MindFreedom International

message: OK--given the fact that this article might be deleted, I'm turning this back into a stub to make it focus on what Mind Freedom is doing regarding mental health rights--there's plenty of space for people to argue about anti-psychiatry and chemical balances on Peter Breggin's entry so just trying to reduce it to the essentials.
-Mcm  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcm (talk • contribs) 23:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Numerous adjectives seem to contradict neutrality, such as 'dubious' in the description of 'chemical-imbalance theory.'  In this case perhaps 'disputed' would be preferable.
-Wilhelm Ritter
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.167.237.65 (talk • contribs) 
:The chemical imbalance theory is disputed *because* it is dubious.  Therefore, both adjectives are correct.  Can you give us 'more' (which is to say 'some') examples of POV that you'd like to have dealt with?  Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 02:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good recent edits, Ombudsman.  I don't know who that user was but he's obviously got a big problem with the anti-psychiatry movement in general.  Thanks for restoring this article on MindFreedom International. I'm getting really tired of repeating over and over that anti-psychiatry doesn't equal scientology.  The scientologists are but a tiny subset of the anti-psychiatry movement.  Unfortunately, they're very rich and very vocal and they get way, way more attention than they deserve.  Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 03:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is Mindfreedom in the "Anti-psychiatry" article? Same here Francesca. I'm repeating over and over again that the "Anti-psychiatry" article is a complete nonsense and put under the labe "anti-psychiatry" every single critics on psychiatry. 
I believe that "some people" are interested in putting in discredit all critics to psychiatry. 
Put it under the label "anti-psychiatry" or "scientology" and everything the Psychiatry is safe as well as all people that are part of this.--Justana (talk) 11:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: chemical-imbalance theory

message: The questionable POV has been removed and so I am removing the neutrality tag.  Note that the article contains MindFreedom's POV, which is appropriate as that is what the article is about.  The article no longer claims or implies that MF's POV is correct; readers can decide on their own. Therefore, the article is now NPOV. If further editing is deemed necessary to ensure NPOV, please do that rather than replacing the tag. Kriegman 18:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A neutral article consists of more than not exp,licitly claiming the single POV reported is true.  It requires an indication of what the otehre views are and what response has been made.  Midgley 18:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing neutrality tag 

message: This has no reliable third party sources. It's quotations are unreferenced because all the links returned a 404 page not found error message. This organization has an agenda and needs unbiased sourcing.  --Mattisse 22:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there an organization on Earth that doesn't have an agenda? 208.181.100.36 05:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Returned POV tag 

message: Many of the positions/beliefs advocated for by MFI are considered to be nonsense by mainstream psychiatry, e.g., that more often than not, standard psychiatric treatment for "madness" does as much if not more harm than good.  If a Controversy section were added to this article describing some of the reactions to MFI from mainstream mental health advocates, the NPOV could be better maintained. Kriegman (talk) 18:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good idea.  I wonder how hard it would be to find NAMI's (and any other front groups for Big Pharma) response to MindFreedom's position.  Should point out too that MFI has no problem with people using psychiatric drugs when informed consent is applied.  The issue is forced or coerced drugging and misinformation.  24.68.231.233 (talk) 10:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The need for a "controversy" section