| Revision as of 17:27, 2 June 2015 editFiachraByrne (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers10,643 edits →WP: Due and WP:Undue need to be restored to this page← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:16, 2 June 2015 edit undoScottperry (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers13,571 edits →WP: Due and WP:Undue need to be restored to this page: upgradingNext edit → | ||
| Line 83: | Line 83: | ||
| :::That version is from three years ago. It's a big change. You should probably ping the major contributors over that period (probably many are not active now) and possibly also bring the suggestion to ] and elsewhere, maybe also ]. Psychiatry has been the most controversial of the medical disciplines but I don't think controversy sections generally work very well or correspond to neutral point of view. Regardless, before such a big change you should get as much input as possible. Misplaced Pages rarely does a good job of these kind of top-level articles (they are admittedly difficult articles to write). ] (]) 17:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC) | :::That version is from three years ago. It's a big change. You should probably ping the major contributors over that period (probably many are not active now) and possibly also bring the suggestion to ] and elsewhere, maybe also ]. Psychiatry has been the most controversial of the medical disciplines but I don't think controversy sections generally work very well or correspond to neutral point of view. Regardless, before such a big change you should get as much input as possible. Misplaced Pages rarely does a good job of these kind of top-level articles (they are admittedly difficult articles to write). ] (]) 17:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC) | ||
| ::::True, it is three years old, but the field of psychiatry has changed relatively little in the interim. I will naturally re-edit the older draft to incorporate any significant changes made since the older revision. Compliance with WP:Due/ Undue takes precedence over individual editorial preferences, don't you agree? If any of the interim editors might wish to provide a persuasive case here on the talk page in a timely manner that the current article is in compliance with WP:Due/ Undue then that would be a different matter. If not, then I plan on upgrading the article by returning it to compliance with WP:Due/ Undue.<br>Thanks, <br>] (]) 18:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:16, 2 June 2015
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Psychiatry article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | Any comments posted here related to a general discussion of psychiatry will be removed. These include comments protesting, challenging or questioning the validity, reliability, or existence of psychiatry. For more information please see Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines, Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox, and/or Misplaced Pages:No original research |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Archives |
Index
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Controversy section:
I think some of this section falls under WP:UNDUE, especially the "Mental illness myth". How important for instance is Thomas Szasz? Is he a fringe figure? The section seems to give too much credence to his position.
and gay rights activists criticised the APA's listing of homosexuality as a mental disorder.
This simply does not belong in the section at all, as it is not about claiming mental illness is a myth.
A widely-publicised study by Rosenhan in Science was viewed as an attack on the efficacy of psychiatric diagnosis.
This seems to be over stating it a bit. This should be covered but
Similarly there's a quote by Stuart A. Kirk. Who is he? Is he a WP:RS? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:31, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- I think you may start removing controversial points from all political wikiarticles at first. They have a lot of controversial points to remove. Psychiatrick (talk) 07:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Neutrality may be difficult to archive on a topic this controversial. The entire controversy section probably needs to be rewritten or reorganized. There must be some way to condense all this stuff into a smaller number of topics.
- Criticism of "Mental illness" was indeed not started by Thomas Szasz. Criticism primarily began from Neurology's administrative organizations just after the mid 1800's, which fought psychiatry in the court system. Thomas Szazs's legacy was exposing long hidden forced medical experimentation to wide public view. He sacrificed his career to do this, so his reputation is a bit confusing. He was a dissident psychiatrist and 'human rights activist' who brought back old criticisms at a particularity vulnerable time.
- The gist is that laws were passed in the 1800's though europe and the US to make psychiatric commitment "mandatory", and physicians working in Psychiatry started to leave. As they did, it created the conditions for psychology to take a foot hold. By the late 1800's, physicians (like neurologists) whose professions used to work within psychiatry became angry about Psychiatry's ideological beliefs and increasing isolation from medicine, which lead to fierce criticism of "mental illness" theories and psychiatry's administration. The argument was over depriving the sick of access to medical care. The "myth of Mental illness" had more play for Szasz a century later, who was just in time for psychoanalysis to finally collapse.
- The Gay Liberation Front's history webpage dictates that anti-psychiatry was clearly involved by-name in their movement, but does not mention Thomas Szasz. However, they did indeed politically oppose "mental illness" as 'fiction', and that is important history. They believed Psychiatry was religiously motivated. It probably belongs, although perhaps it could be moved to the "psychiatric survivors" section.
- I've never read Rosenhan's paper and don't know much about it.
- Stuart A. Kirk has his own wikipage. He should probably be entered similar to Thomas Szas.
- It is not surprising how many of these interesting events took place in the USA. The US has always been a world leader in science and advocacy. It's an interesting note how localized organized criticism of psychiatry and also funding of psychiatric research is to the US. Here is often the place to look for most scientific and political substance on these issues. Flyingducks (talk) 14:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- "How important for instance is Thomas Szasz?" Szasz IMO is very important. Szasz wrote many books on the subject . .He did not call himself "anti-psychiatry" and wrote the book The_Myth_of_Mental_Illness. A "fringe figure?" is ridiculous question.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 13:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
History
In the history section I would like to place the former diagnosis of drapetomania , “masturbational insanity” http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/pdf_extract/108/452/1 , epilepsy and homosexuality. The dates of the "discovery" as a disease and the removal from psychiatry.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 12:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- I forgot another psychiatric diagnosis called "hysteria" AKA "conversion reaction" or "somatization disorder".--Mark v1.0 (talk) 13:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Citizens Commission on Human Rights
Citizens Commission on Human Rights is a Scientology front group and their website is NOT a WP:RS at all. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC) I am curious as to where the CCHR reference was used in the article? You need to be specific Harizoth. --Mark v1.0 (talk) 13:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Psychiatrist's couch
I was thinking of starting the article. Anyone know where we can find a good image? There are a few at the commonscat link at the right. Any thoughts on sources? Google books is blocked here in China, so I am having trouble in that regard. Also, is it notable? There is Sigmund's famous couch, the presence in cartoons, an interesting history, the similarity to the chaise longue, pop culture, term "the couch", etc. I thought of making it a section in Couch, but it is not really a couch. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- ? Sorry to be such a couch potato. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC) ... of course, one can't always fit a couch in the studio.
- Wow, thank you. That discusses the chair quite a bit. So, do you think the subject "Psychiatrist's couch" is notable? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
WP: Due and WP:Undue need to be restored to this page
This page is currently at least 20% negative regarding the profession of psychiatry. The page's "Controversy" section consumes over 20% of the page, and is replete with non-stop negativity regarding the profession. This seems to me to be contrary to both the current WP:Due policy and the current WP:Undue policy which requires that sources should always represent, and be "weighted towards" the majority view, and should not unduly represent minority views. According to current WP:Due/ Undue policy, each of the criticisms ought to be logically and specifically "balanced" against the majority-view on each of these points, so that the article might not mistakenly mislead the public into misunderstanding the "majority view" on any of these points. Otherwise the controversial points should be removed all-together. I propose that this article be generally reverted back to a time prior to its current violation of WP:Due and WP:Undue. Scott P. (talk) 18:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- Could you clarify by indicating what version of the page you would like to revert to? FiachraByrne (talk) 21:44, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- I would propose a upgrading/ reverting the article to This edition, as that edition was from the last month I could find before the sizeable "Controversy" section was inserted. Also, since the addition of that "controversy" section, I've noticed some general degradation of wording and phrasing throughout the rest of the article. It is my estimation that in order for the article to comply with WP:Due/ Undue, and to accurately reflect the proportion of true criticism from the academic community, perhaps one small paragraph on controversies would be warranted, but not the 20% sized section that it now has. Scott P. (talk) 16:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- That version is from three years ago. It's a big change. You should probably ping the major contributors over that period (probably many are not active now) and possibly also bring the suggestion to WP:MED and elsewhere, maybe also WP:RFC. Psychiatry has been the most controversial of the medical disciplines but I don't think controversy sections generally work very well or correspond to neutral point of view. Regardless, before such a big change you should get as much input as possible. Misplaced Pages rarely does a good job of these kind of top-level articles (they are admittedly difficult articles to write). FiachraByrne (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- True, it is three years old, but the field of psychiatry has changed relatively little in the interim. I will naturally re-edit the older draft to incorporate any significant changes made since the older revision. Compliance with WP:Due/ Undue takes precedence over individual editorial preferences, don't you agree? If any of the interim editors might wish to provide a persuasive case here on the talk page in a timely manner that the current article is in compliance with WP:Due/ Undue then that would be a different matter. If not, then I plan on upgrading the article by returning it to compliance with WP:Due/ Undue.
Thanks,
Scott P. (talk) 18:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- True, it is three years old, but the field of psychiatry has changed relatively little in the interim. I will naturally re-edit the older draft to incorporate any significant changes made since the older revision. Compliance with WP:Due/ Undue takes precedence over individual editorial preferences, don't you agree? If any of the interim editors might wish to provide a persuasive case here on the talk page in a timely manner that the current article is in compliance with WP:Due/ Undue then that would be a different matter. If not, then I plan on upgrading the article by returning it to compliance with WP:Due/ Undue.
- That version is from three years ago. It's a big change. You should probably ping the major contributors over that period (probably many are not active now) and possibly also bring the suggestion to WP:MED and elsewhere, maybe also WP:RFC. Psychiatry has been the most controversial of the medical disciplines but I don't think controversy sections generally work very well or correspond to neutral point of view. Regardless, before such a big change you should get as much input as possible. Misplaced Pages rarely does a good job of these kind of top-level articles (they are admittedly difficult articles to write). FiachraByrne (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class medicine articles
- Mid-importance medicine articles
- B-Class psychiatry articles
- Top-importance psychiatry articles
- Psychiatry task force articles
- All WikiProject Medicine pages
- B-Class psychology articles
- Top-importance psychology articles
- WikiProject Psychology articles
- B-Class neuroscience articles
- Top-importance neuroscience articles
- B-Class pharmacology articles
- Top-importance pharmacology articles
- WikiProject Pharmacology articles
- B-Class Disability articles
- WikiProject Disability articles