Talk:The Gene Illusion

message: This seems a very good summary (bearing in mind that I only know Joseph's arguments from his own summary in the book Models of Madness). The only thing I'd say is that starting with the Peter Breggin quote is probably a bit NPOV as he's hardly an impartial source and the quote looks like the publisher's blurb you get on book jackets.
Otherwise, a much needed addition to Wikipedia. Thanks!
- Vaughan 22:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hi Coroebus 

message: This is a rather uncritical discussion of just one book. It does not seem appropriate for Wikipedia to devote a whole article to any single book that ever appeared. Of course, important books can and should be the subject of their own article. This is not the case for this book. I admit to my ignorance: despite working in this field (behavioral neurogenetics) and editing one of the major scientific journals in this field (Genes, Brain and Behavior), I had never heard of this book or this author until I saw it on Wikipedia.
Apart from the above, the discussion of this book in this article is very uncritical. The main theses fly in the face of much current biological and genetic research. The article reads more like a vanity article than a serious discussion of a book.
Crusio 07:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I started the article so I'm probably biased, but I'm afraid that this book is incredibly well known in the anti-psychiatry movement.  While I hadn't heard of it from working in the field it came up very quickly when I looked into the psychiatry 'survivors'/anti-psychiatry movement.  The book may well be fundamentally wrong, but that doesn't stop it from being notable. --Coroebus 12:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi there, this book has been an influential critique of psychiatric genetics and is quite widely cited by both supporters and detractors as can be seen from a Google Scholar search - Vaughan 15:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't know if it is paricularly notable or not, but it does read much like a book review to me, rather than an encyclopaedia article. It could certainly do with a bit of a prune of the chapter summaries. If you still have notability concerns, Crusio, you can always nominate it for AfD and let the community decide. Rockpocket 17:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For a book that was published in 2003, 38 references is a lot. Also look at which scientific journals have cited or reviewed it from that list: American Journal of Psychiatry, Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent, The Psychologist, Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, Human Development, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, Behavioral Genetics, British Journal of Learning Disabilities. The article as it stands is pretty poor, but I would argue it does merit a Wikipedia entry. - Vaughan 20:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Thats a pretty convincing argument. However, any other editor is permitted to remove a prod if they see fit. So you are better going to AfD now anyway. Rockpocket 21:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to delete 

message: Coroebus: which is the next step in these cases? Shall we vote here to ascertain if the article will stay? —Cesar Tort 20:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm no expert but I would think that the majority opinion here is that the POV and notability tags are unwarranted. Therefore someone can remove them (I won't as I created the article, so I'm perhaps a bit biased). If Crusio still thinks the article is not notable he can list for AfD on those grounds, if he chooses not to do that but still regards it as being POV I would recommend he edits the article to deal with this POV - think the problem there is that he just disagrees with the book (as do I to some extent) but does not have any sources to include that criticise it directly (includng his own criticisms would be OR). I understand the frustration that he perhaps thinks the reason it has not been criticised is that it is blatantly absurd (or somesuch), unfortunately that is just the way Wikipedia works, I suppose he could write an academic article criticising the book, although that does seem rather circuitous, I think we could include a reference/link to other articles on Wikipedia noting that the consensus in this or that field is contrary to Joseph's conclusions. --Coroebus 20:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, Coroebus. In fact, the psychiatry articles I started (like Joseph I belong to a minority view about bio-psychiatry) include a final paragraph explaining that it is not the majority view. —Cesar Tort 20:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, well. Thanks to Berkeley99 the article already has a critical section. What about removing the pov tag? —Cesar Tort 03:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks, Crusio. Can something be done to remove the other tag? —Cesar Tort 15:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In other words, since this article won't be deleted do you mind if I remove it? —Cesar Tort 00:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If no objections I will do it. —Cesar Tort 19:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done —Cesar Tort 20:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Next step 

message: I didn't read this book, but I read about it.Beyond doubt, anyone found the gene for schizophrenia.The ideas of this book have support, even not being popular.With the support from the The New York Times, Adolf Hitler, created an eugenics law.That nazist law sent to sterilized all germans with mental illness.More than 300,000 of these germans, with mental problems, were murdered later, under Hitler's laws.After all this massacre, German is full with more than 1,000,000 persons with mental problems. Agre22 (talk) 22:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: This book can't be only a fake

message: He seems to work at  Lincoln Memorial University as an associate prof. He's by no means a well-known researcher, but he appears to be a known critic of the medical research establishment (not just psychiatry); see . I'm not sure how much is he related to alt med, as was alleged here. He works at the DeBusk College of Osteopathic Medicine at LMU, but his degree is a PhD in anatomy from the University of Iowa, not some alt med degree. I described him as a critic of psychiatry in the article, which seems fair based on his criticism of both treatment and research into causes of mental disorders. His older position paper with Lacasse  is cited in couple of pages here, although I'm a little surprised that Psychological Medicine published this. He also published in Peter Breggin's journal . I've not seen that he promotes alt med, but I haven't looked that closely. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  J. Leo