Talk:New Freedom Commission on Mental Health

message: Critics, concerned by what they see as the pharmaceutical industry's insidious front organization manipulations and invidious compromise, under color of authority, of scientific integrity, look askance at the doublespeak irony of the commission's masquerading under the banner of 'freedom', contending the effects of its recommendations will foster coercive chemical control over citizens.
This, the third paragraph of the article, asserts as fact the following POV propositions:
* that the commission is "masquerading under the banner of freedom"; and
* that there is a "doublespeak irony" in the commission "masquerading under the banner of freedom".
It also tries to promote POV with emotionally loaded words, accusing the pharmaceutical industry not just of manipulation but of "insidious manipulations", not just of compromise of scientific integrity but of "invidious compromise, under color of authority, of scientific integrity".  Since Wikipedia is not a soapbox, there is no justification for the article to be written in this style, not even when the weasel phrasing of "Critics, concerned by what they see as" is employed.  Would we allow the plan's defenders to edit the article to comment on "what they see as the paranoid, neo-Luddite ravings of the critics"?  Clearly not. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:29, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: WELL DUH! This is war. My drug was switched by the NFC from generic to Depakote and Medicare has paid 1200 dollars more in 4 months. Federal Medicare hung up on me when I reported this crime. When observed globally, this stupidity breeds terrorism, G.W. "We see the enemy and and he are us." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.71.210.136 (talk) 22:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The truth about the commission is difficult to spell out in npov terms, no doubt.  However, use of the 'mind control' terminology in the intro is inappropriate when the more neutral 'chemical behavior control' or other alternatives still make the point.  Ombudsman 07:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Despite the alleged POV in the article, I don't think that it is debatable that screening every adult and child for "emotional problems" doesn't encroach on personal freedoms, do you? It definitely does, look at the article on Liberty then look at this article, you cannot state that this bill is libertarian or protects the rights of the individual against society. In fact, it forcefully imposes the psychiatric society's views of mental health upon the peeople. Whether this is a good thing, or a bad thing -- I don't know, I've never studied pyschiatry, all that I do know is that as that, traditionally, as somebody isn't a physical danger to themselves or society they shouldn't be forced onto these medications. That's just my knowledge, however.--Mofomojo 21:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: The first paragraph on this article is terrible. It reads like something from a pamphlet endorsing the legislation, and is very poorly written. I mean, for chrissakes, "as part of his commitment to eliminate inequality for Americans with disabilities"? What the hell? Blubb3rr3ng3l 05:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In an attempt to tone down the ethusiastic rhetorical bias, passages from earlier revisions have been restored, minor copy edits have been made, including elimination of the term 'enthusiastically'.  Ombudsman 07:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: Bush’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health rhetoric is exactly what George Orwell called double plus good quackspeaker.  See doublespeak.  04:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope.  See WP:NPOV. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't be surprised if the connection has been made in some published source though. If someone else ties it in with 1984 or whatever there shouldn't be a problem with quoting them and linking it.--Eloil 11:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orwell 

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: The New Freedom Commission on Mental Health is "Recovery" oriented, it is person-centered and against the inhumane civil rights violations. The 22 members on the commission were anti-conservative, anti-psychiatry, and very pro-human rights. For people with those same views to slander the commission only demonstrates their jealously that they were not on the commission. Might I suggest you read the Commission on Mental Health Report before you criticise it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Recoverypsychology (talk • contribs) 14:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  SERIOUS POV ISSUES HERE 

message: "It would appear that the commission has done extensive research in to the stigma and overall community ignorance with regards to mental health issues. [3] This public ignorance is often demonstrated in those untreated for their mental illness."
Really? Let's see a citation for that last sentence. This statement needs to be removed. People are not mentally ill because someone perceives them as "ignorant." Without a citation provided, this just looks like an attack.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.25.232 (talk) 03:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Opinions

message: I have re-written the section on the commission's recommendations.  I also added a working link to the actual final report.  The previous version of this section did not reflect the actual recommendations of the report at all.  My writeup is a bit basic, however.  I simply listed a few of the recommendations that the report lists towards achieving its goals.  It is by no means an exhaustive summary, but as a summary I think it's a good start.  If I were going to add in more detail to some of their recommendations, these are the ones I'd have picked to do so.  I might do so in the future, but for now I hope that this is at least a good improvement over the previous version. Hyperion35 (talk) 16:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrote the section on the Commission's Recommendations 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on New Freedom Commission on Mental Health. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050213094608/http://mentalhealthcommission.gov:80/ to http://www.mentalhealthcommission.gov/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050731015355/http://www.mhreform.org:80/emergency/emergencyresponse_execsummary.htm to http://www.mhreform.org/emergency/emergencyresponse_execsummary.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified