Talk:Psychiatry/Archive 4

message: I'm going to be posting this around at a few of the affected articles, but I was thinking of creating a separate article comparing psychiatry and psychology and counseling in general.  I think there is a lot of confusion in the world as to the differences and similarities and Wikipedia could be a great resource to come to for those who aren't professionals in these related fields.
Kind of an example, psychiatrists carry a MD doctorate whereas psychologists & clinical psychologists carry a PhD doctorate.  Perhaps we could explain differences in training and specialties. (ie you'll find more psychologists counseling marriages then psychiatrists, but you'll find more psychiatrists treating mental illnesses then psychologists.)
Anyway, I wanted to create this article and perhaps link to it on many of the related articles.  Thoughts??? Chupper 20:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is something started on the Mental Health Professional page.Cas Liber 11:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now why's that link still red??? Will try to find the pageCas Liber 11:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  Casliber - yea, I know :) I created the Mental health professional article.  For reference it is Mental health professional smaller case after the first capitalization.  Thanks for spreading the word on the MHP article.  It's growing rapidly.  Chupper 01:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psychiatry vs. psychology article? 

message: I suspect this may be a page that would be better with a semiprotected status. There seems to be alot of reversion going on and it isn't even Featured.....Cas Liber 01:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semiprotected status? 

message: I edited this article today, shifting a lot of text around; it took me two hours. Now, I'm a psychiatrist and a professional editor; I included almost all the context, shifted some to another article, and expanded, streamlined, etc. I also spent a lot of time making the distinction between the field of psychiatry and the professions in psychiatry, as well as introducing some information from an international perspective. Then I was told by 'Jossi' on the editing team that I was a vandal (that is, a person making a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia). That's for editing it. I rather thought that was what Wikipedia was about. Now, I have asked for an explanation and an apology, but nothing has come through. Also, all my work has disappeared. I would appreciate it if someone could prod Jossi before I ask for arbitration. This is very irritating and destructive. User:BillBadger
:Bill, it was possibly automated. I had just put a note about semi-protection due to alot of (predictable) antipsychiatry vandalism. I will leave a note on Jossi's page. Cas Liber 21:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bill. Welcome to Wikipedia. Note that your massive edit was not discussed, and as such I reverted it. The article, before you edited it, was the results of thousands  of contributions by hundreds of editors. If you want to make massive changes to Wikipedia articles, it is expected that you engage current editors in article's talk pages and explain your reasons for such changes. I am placing some pointers in your talk page, so that you can learn a bit more about how Wikipedia works. Happy editing. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Also note that your edit was not "lost". It is all there in the article history (Click on the history tab ayt the top of the article's page". I would also encourage you to tone down your comments. I can understand that you are upset, but maybe you could consider that it was done in good faith and out of respect for editors that worked on this article before you. Wikipedia is a collaborative environment. Bill, and your writing (as well as the writing of enyone else) will be mercilessly edited, deleted, moved, copied, etc. That is the nature of this project. I invite you to learn more about how Wikipedia works, before you get to upset and upset others in the process. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trouble with editors? 

message: First off, to whoever contributed to this section thus far - thank you.  There are some great things added that were missing in this article.
How psychiatrists:
-may be researches or work in an academic setting, sometimes holding a research degree and/or medical doctorate
-bringing up what you can specialize in i.e. psychopharmacology
-The fact that psychiatrists can perform psychotherapy, etc., etc.
However some of the information in the article is unreferenced and/or incorrect.  I will be making a major update to this section and will be citing references.
What I'm doing:
-I'm leaving as much as I can.  I want to try to keep the theme here the same.
-Removing superfluous information on psychologists.  I'll keep as little information as I can on psychologists here as psychology and psychologists have their own articles.  This article is psychiatry.
-Psychiatrists and psychologists are both mental health professionals but they are NOT each other.  Psychiatrists are not psychologists and psychologists are not psychiatrists.  Let's not forget that psychiatrists are MEDICAL DOCTORS trained in the biomedical approach to treating mental illness with supplemental training (where applicable) in psychotherapy.  Psychologists, Clinical psychologists are SCIENTISTS trained specifically in psychology (conducting research and therapy).  
(true, though both can do research and therapy. Historically and in current practice in Australia, psychologists are more trained in structured therapies such as CBT and, more lately IPT and DBT, whereas psychiatrists will do more long-term therapy, generally with laxer rules. However there are plenty of psychiatrists doing CBT and psychologists doing long-term psychotherapy as well. One theory is that psychiatrists come from a patient/longitudinal type focus from their training while psychologists come from a psychometric and outcome-focussed approach. I don't have a reference for this though, itis what I have seen. Tehre are strengths and weaknesses for both however.)  
-If we call psychology a specific subset of psychiatry (I didn't realise anyone was...)
, we're going to make psychiatrists and psychologists mad. (Psychiatry as a medical field involves clinicians from a variety of professions, including physicians, nurses, psychologists, occupational and rehabilitation therapists, etc; each of these has specialist training in the field of psychiatry.)  <-- a very false sentence.  That's like trying to group together apples and oranges.
So I'd like to stay positive on this - again, thanks to everyone who has contributed thus far.  I'm keeping your stuff as much as my references and knowledge lets me.  Most of this stuff is verifiable via the references I'll post, by talking to a these mental health professionals, or simply by googling (i.e. search term "psychology vs. psychiatry).  Chupper 02:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  09.20.2006 - Major Edit of "Psychiatry in professional practice" section 

message: I've deleted a reference to Ross & his Trauma model. Just browsing mental health pages and seems to have been inserted on multiple pages, including Schizophrenia & anti-psychiatry and here, I do'nt know what other pages. As far as I know, this is one particular model by one particular professional, among hundreds, but is being presented as if a generic kind of theory and alternative to biopsychiatry.
There are a couple of footnote links for this for pages advertising a book and an institute. But when I click on the edit button of the 'footnotes' section, the links don't appear in the box for editing? (same situation on antipsychiatry page regarding the initial section, first two footnotes. The 2nd might be OK if linked to the homepage of the journal rather than a publisher selling page). Can anyone help? EverSince 09:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The actual footnote text is embedded with the main text where the reference appears. For example, to edit the the first footnote, find the [1] in the text and edit that section, which in this case is "Diagnostic systems of psychiatric disorders". The note will be bracketed between  ...  tags. The accepted way of listing a book here is to give the usual author, date, title and publisher followed by the ISBN number. When the letters "ISBN" are followed immediately by the ISBN number, a link is automatically created by the wiki software, avoiding the need to link to a particular retailer. If this needs more clarification, ask! JonHarder 20:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you JonHarder, appreciate your time. I've re-inserted the journal ref link in to the antipsychiatry intro section, since it does seem to be the main homepage. It's already included elsewhere in the psychiatry page. EverSince 11:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnotes section 

message: Sure there is some newer edition in english language, too. Austerlitz 88.72.30.66 20:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A must-read 

message: Just a note to say I've rejigged the history section and added a new section on the main theoretical tenets of psychiatry. EverSince 11:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I you want to include the links, the better place might be the antipsychiatry article. ―Cesar Tort 21:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It can and should be changed.  But that means a lot of work converting plain references to < ref> mode! —Cesar Tort 20:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History & Theory 

message: The hate against the judes was Hitlers own, however, the concept for the mass killing has been invented and made possible by Psychiatry. The story begins a bit sooner, before the Nazi’s came to power with the Psychiatric science called Eugenetics that also today has many support from psychiatrists.
Eugenetics does research about “good” or “bad” genes in rases. Using this science they have tried to show that African-americans (black people) are inferior to Caucasian people (white people). During the slavery they thought up multiple “mental illnesses” such as when a slave tried to escape then the slave was mental ill and needed punishment as treatment.
Far before the Nazi’s came to power, a professor in psychiatry from Berlin and other well recomended psychiatrists wrote about the killing of people with mental problems on behalf of science and public health and to help them. He wrote that these people proposed a threat for public health. Hitler read his books before he wrote Mein Kampf. Hitler maintained contact with a lot of psychiatrists from America and England.
The psychiatrists began with the killing. Before they started with the killing they started with the sterilisation of people with mental problems and continued with forced euthanasia. Psychiatrists have developed and managed the first death camps and killed the first judes. Later they trained the SS to continue the killing on a wide scale.
Reference Peter R. Breggin
The first book that advocated the systematic, scientific extermination of a class of people for racial, "hygienic" purposes was published before Hitler put pen to paper and wrote Mein Kampf. It was The Destruction of Life Devoid of Value, co-authored by psychiatrist Alfred Hoche and lawyer Karl Binding in 1920. Hoche was one of Germany's most prestigious professors of psychiatry, and his book supported the view that many psychiatric patients were "mentally dead" and only "partial" Germans in their existence. He called for medical murder to relieve their suffering, to purify the race, and to save the state money. Not only did Hitler read Hoche, but also, after he took power, he lent his name to advertisements for Hoche's books.
 
Let's talk about this. Meespierson 19:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: More discussion here: Hitler? Meespierson 00:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Psychiatry behind the Holocaust

message: or about this book 
:Austerlitz -- 88.72.28.102 18:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Have you ever heard about that psychiatrist?

message: I've added the template to the article page just as a visible reminder that some sections really are mostly just about how psychiatry is organised or practised within the USA. Section 1, in particular, bar a few "heads up" edits I made a few days ago, seems to be mostly about Psychiatry in Professional Practice within the USA. Although not a psychiatrist myself, I worked professionally with them for 16 years in an academic department of psychiatry in the UK, so I know that there are differences between the UK and the USA here, but feel that any major contributions I would make there would only make the bias a little less specific to one country. I hope poeple do not object strongly to the addition of this template. It was done for the reasons I mentioned at the start of this comment.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Addition of template concerning the USA bias of this article

message: Can someone, please, substitute the image in the right top box. This image is good for a topic about diagnostic image, not for psychiatry! -- 87.0.36.161 10:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: I'm moving this section here so someone can incorporate it into anti-psychitary.
The wording really nees to be cleaned up before this happens.  Currently it's nothing more than a referenced opinion.  Chupper 01:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of redundant section