From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Medicine / Psychiatry (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that this article follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Psychiatry task force (marked as Mid-importance).
WikiProject Sociology / Social Movements  (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the social movements task force.
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Psychology (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Alternative medicine (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
WikiProject Autism (Rated Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Anti-psychiatry is within the scope of WikiProject Autism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of all aspects of autism and Autistic culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Skepticism (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article has comments here.

This article has an assessment summary page.

3 points[edit]

A) Hegel's description of Psychology, B) The use of Haldol by governments and C) Prince Philip's mother being forcibly institutionalized during the 30s. Virillustre (talk) 06:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


Non-RS used as cite[edit]

Moved here from the article. Please add a justification before adding it back. really doesn't look like any kind of third-party WP:RS, and if it is someone's opinion, why is their opinion notable? (If anyone does put it back in, please don't use Wikilinks in the title, per style.) AndroidCat (talk) 04:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

history of anti-psychiatry and anti-psychiatry ? merge seems obvious. Earlypsychosis (talk) 06:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose Agree with the above. The history article is a sub article of this one. Maybe more should be split off.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Criticisms section[edit]

In keeping with the goal of being non biased shouldn't there be a criticisms section? Roth & Kroll, (1986) published a comprehensive response to antipsychiatry book called 'The reality of mental illness'

Tantum (1991) wrote: "The anti-psychiatry movement has already been consigned to the history of psychiatry"

Also since antipsychiatry is essentially extinct as a movement (see Tantum) shouldn't there be some mention of this in the article? I'm going to be bold and edit the article. (talk) 21:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I propose that this section on criticisms be either strengthened or removed. It currently contains two points that are referenced - one of which links to Amazon, with a blurb written by a publisher not an author The other links to a questionable site that actually criticises the terminology of 'anti-psychiatry' rather than the concept itself. (talk) 04:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Sensational photo[edit]

The first photo is really nothing more than sensational propaganda. It has little to do with psychiatry other than there is a man in a straight jacket. He is lying face-down in the grass connected with chains and a padlock - it is a staged photo, not someone receiving mental health treatment. I will be bold and remove it, hoping maybe it will be replaced with a more realistic image/photo. -- (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Cargo cult science[edit]

Was Richard Feynman's description of psychiatry (along with other 'soft sciences') as Cargo cult science part of the anti-psychiatry movement, or did it pre-date it? --TraceyR (talk) 05:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

nice was of elevating scientology[edit]

what other crack pot cults could we add to the list to give them the appearance of legitimacy? nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, why not add a section for Jehovas Witnesses or other religions that eschew psychiatry and even medical treatment in favor of faith healing or psuedo-science. then you could make them look legitimate too. I'm curious to know which editors here are members of scientology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

have you guys read the Thomas Szasz page?[edit]

talk about a slanderous article. Read the inflammatory language and obvious POV. Look at the comments stricken from the talk page, like mine will be deleted here as well. Oh well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Better title needed[edit]

I would have thought that "Anti-psychiatry" was an inherently POV title, and that "Anti-psychiatry movement" would be a better title, in the same way that we have the Anti-war movement and Anti-nuclear movement. Johnfos (talk) 21:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. This article describes a movement rather than "Anti-psychiatry" as a noun.Topgunn9 (talk) 23:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually, since I wrote what I said above, I have become more comfortable with the Anti-psychiatry title, partly because we already have the Psychiatric survivors movement article. Johnfos (talk) 03:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Merge proposal[edit]

This article is dominated by a long History section, and yet we have a History of anti-psychiatry article as well. Surely we don't need both. I think we should merge the articles or, if this is not done, use WP:Summary style in the usual way. Johnfos (talk) 00:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Merge done. Johnfos (talk) 01:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


Scientology is a sect of maybe a hundred thousand people world-wide and widely regarded as a bunch of 'wackos.' Their opinion on this sensitive topic is therefore completely irrelevant, or as relevant, or even less relevant, as GW Bush's opinion on it. It therefore only reads as an ad-hominem attack on the anti-psychiatry movement, guilt by association, every anti-psychiatrists is as 'wacko' as a scientologist. I request the entire section to be removed, or moved to the scientology topic, or replaced with a topic 'religious stance on psychiatry.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco devillers (talkcontribs) 13:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

They're a part of anti-psychiatry, so they can't be left out. But if you can change the article so it doesn't tar other, more legitimate arms of the movement with wackiness, please do, within policy. I've restored the deleted content. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't like it, but I'll see whether I have the time to find some other groups' opinions on it and possibly rewrite it to a 'Unorthodox Anti-Psychiatric Views' section.Marco devillers —Preceding undated comment added 17:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC).
Make sure anything you add cites a reliable source and is significant and noteworthy. Scientology meets those criteria because it has been very actively and prominently attacking psychiatry since the 1960s. I have to say I'm surprised by your objection to its mention here. If you make a change that gives undue weight to (under- or over-emphasises) an element of this topic, it will be reverted. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Our opinions don't have a place on the pages of this project. If there is a reliable source for the content then we include it whether we agree with it or not. Scientology is a notable topic as is G. W. Bush. If Bush were a participant in the anti-psychiatry movement we'd include his position as well. Jojalozzo 14:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
The opinion of non medical people on psychiatry is of interest and is notable. Thus this should not be removed.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Scientology is certainly a notable topic, yes, but that doesn't necessarily imply that every page on the wiki needs extensive documentation of Scientologist views; that would be undue weight in the extreme, wouldn't it? It seems to me that this should be mentioned, but I'm not sure that the coverage needs to be so extensive -- in particular, the sheer wordiness of "Diverse paths" and "Scientology" sections starts to read a bit like soap-boxing. Would it be reasonable to fold that down a bit, and link to the more extensive article Scientology and psychiatry? – Luna Santin (talk) 04:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Good suggestions. But is "Diverse paths" related to Scientology? The section on Scientology is actually rather short. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
That's a fair question. Szasz seems to be prominent in both sections, but a reasonable person could argue that they're distinct. Mainly it just seems like an inordinate portion of the article, to me, but that's not to say it should be removed entirely. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

As far as I am aware their is no credible evidence that Sasze and Scientology are linked. The scientology section is short. So is it Sasze that you mean to comment on?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... I wasn't aware that comments were limited to one section only! – Luna Santin (talk) 07:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

New addition[edit]

A recent addition cited to the BMJ is inappropriate for this article, as it doesn't even use the term anti-psychiatry. This is clear synthesis. In addition, the editorial words are used in Wikipedia's voice, which is a definite no-no. We need to find a source that discusses anti-psychiatry, not try to wedge in any and all material that may have anything to do with psychiatry. Yobol (talk) 16:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

In the same way, if wikipedia editors had used the source Moynihan, Ray; Heath, Iona; Henry, David (13 April 2002). "Selling sickness: the pharmaceutical industry and disease mongering". BMJ. 324(7342): 886–891.  in the Medicine article, would you have told them “This is clear synthesis” on the ground that medicalization has nothing to do with medicine, because the term “medicine” is not even used in the article about medicalization? --Psychiatrick (talk) 04:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
No, I would have said that it would be WP:UNDUE in that article as it is clear the entire article deals with medicine, but is inappropriate for that article. You should note that I did not remove it from the Medicalization article, which is the appropriate place for that source. Yobol (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Bold text


There is some information about the two most significant events of anti-psychiatry movement: the Russell Tribunal on Human rights in Psychiatry, held in 1998 and described in the source available online Parker, Ian (2001). "Russell Tribunal on Human rights in Psychiatry & “Geist Gegen Genes”, 30 June — 2 July 2001, Berlin". Psychology in Society 27: 120–122. ISSN 1015-6046. , and the Foucault Tribunal on the State of Psychiatry, held in 2001 and described in the source available per a library Leifer, Ron (2001). "A critique of medical coercive psychiatry, and an invitation to dialogue". Ethical Human Sciences and Services 3 (3): 161–173. PMID 15278978.  --Psychiatrick (talk) 01:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Begins with false statement[edit]

Thomas Szasz was never an influence upon the short-lived anti-psychiatry movement, he has expressly repudiated the term anti-psychiatry, and he has extensively criticized those who identified themselves are part of it. The author of the reference supplied to support that statement is simply wrong, and he mistakenly conflates "anti-psychiatry" with the movement against psychiatric coercion Szasz has championed. In 2009, Szasz wrote, "My writings form no part of either psychiatry or antipsychiatry and belong to neither. They belong to conceptual analysis, social-political criticism, the defense of liberty, and common sense. This is why I rejected, and continue to reject, psychiatry and antipsychiatry with equal vigor." He has written a book called, "Antipsychiatry: Quackery Squared." How could Szasz make it any clearer? Even his Wikipedia entry notes, "Szasz has been wrongly associated with the anti-psychiatry movement of the 1960s and 1970s." Nicmart (talk) 14:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The article is quite careful not to describe Szasz as part of the main anti-psychiatry movement, and says Szasz actively rejected the term and its adherents; instead, in 1969, collaborating with Scientology to form the Citizens Commission on Human Rights. But I would have thought that saying he was not an influence on the anti-psychiatry movement was going too far. Johnfos (talk) 15:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Most everyone characterised as an antipsychiatrist rejects the term. Whether or not they entertain Szasz's, or, indeed Laing's disavowals, they are normally treated by secondary sources as central to antipsychiatry. FiachraByrne (talk) 16:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
That makes it sound like (inaccurate) labels should still be used just because secondary sources utilize wouldn't necessarily be such an issue IMO if the term anti-psychiatry weren't sometimes used as a label to caricature critics as simply oppositional (and in this context, potentially crazy themselves)Historian932 (talk) 14:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Good point. I think that that's best handled by consulting secondary sources that deconstruct the term and indicate how it has been used polemically. FiachraByrne (talk) 23:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

For others[edit]

It seems to me that there is distorted text in this version the article. That’s why I put here the exact quotation:

John Read, a psychologist, has researched socioeconomic status as a significant factor in the development and prevention of mental disorders such as schizophrenia and has noted that “approximately half of all mental health websites are funded by drug companies and that these websites present a more biological perspective about causes and treatments than websites that are free from industry sponsorship,” in relation to mental disorders. Source: Read, John (2010). "Can Poverty Drive You Mad? 'Schizophrenia', Socio-Economic Status and the Case for Primary Prevention". New Zealand Journal of Psychology 39 (2): 7–19. Retrieved 8 April 2012.  --Psychiatrick (talk) 15:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Neutral tone[edit]

It seems to me that the article is less a description of anti-psychiatry as it is an argument for anti-psychiatry. Am I way off-base with this? EricWesBrown (Talk) 02:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I have "toned down" the lead. If more is needed, please discuss specific problems, illustrating your points with quotes from the article. Thanks. Johnfos (talk) 10:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I toned it down further, mainly re-wording the statements. Hertzyscowicz (talk) 18:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Some comments[edit]

  • Moral therapy
If we can't really talk about psychiatry as a medical specialty until about the mid-19th century, it's not clear to my how relevant the section on moral therapy is or in what sense it functions as a precursor to anti-psychiatry. That some antipsychiatrists may have looked back to that era as a positive one compared to what followed is another issue (which may be worthy of article coverage). Histories of psychiatry generally see moral treatment, which was the foundation for the lunacy reform movement which led to the establishment of national systems of asylums, as the origin of the psychiatry. Kind of ironic if psychiatry and anti-psychiatry find their origins in the exact same movement and indeed adopt the same kind of narrative (barbarity of medical treatment prior to kinder, humane regimes instituted under moral treatment). FiachraByrne (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Foucault
I think someone like Foucault, who is a difficult and sometimes contradictory read, really needs to be treated as a primary source. Quote and cite him by all means, but the fundamental interpretation should be drawn from good scholarly secondary sources, of which there is no shortage. Also, and relating back to the previous section, it should be made explicit that a major part of Foucault's critique was of moral treatment. Foucault rather typically liked to turn accepted history on its head (sometimes with good justification); by characterising moral therapy as a more insidious form of behavioural control (exchanging external shackles for internal ones, etc) he attacked a significant part of psychiatry's historical self-understanding as an enlightened, benevolent and liberating discipline (exemplified in Pinel's semi-mythological unchaining of the lunatics at the Bicêtre. Also, Foucault is not reliable as a historian on empirical matters. I'm not sure this treatment really belongs in the precursor section at all. FiachraByrne (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Therapeutic communities 1950s
It might be appropriate to discuss the evolution of therapeutic communities in the 1950s and their adoption by antipsychiatrists in the 1960s.
See Fussinger, C. (2011). "'Therapeutic community', psychiatry's reformers and antipsychiatrists: Reconsidering changes in the field of psychiatry after World War II". History of Psychiatry 22 (2): 146–142. doi:10.1177/0957154X11399201.  edit (Contact me if you want a copy)
FiachraByrne (talk) 16:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Drapetomania, "mental hebitude" & "rascality"
In the Southern US, black slaves and Abolitionists encountered Drapetomania, a pseudo-scientific diagnosis for why slaves ran away from their masters.
This sentence (which in the article functions as a complete non-sequitor) is not relevant to this article and would be more usefully included in an article on psychiatry and race. Drapetomania would be relevant if it formed part of a major critique of psychiatry advanced by those identified (however, loosely) as antipsychiatrists. FiachraByrne (talk) 16:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Obviously, in no sense is drapetomania a "precursor" to antipsychiatry (a contemporary critique of it just might be).FiachraByrne (talk) 17:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • A critique of psychiatry or an encyclopedia article on antipsychiatry?
The article often seems to divert from a description and analysis of antipsychiatry to a critique of psychiatry. The subject of this article should be antipsychiatry and not psychiatry and its real or imagined failings. Critiques of psychiatry are relevant insofar as they form part of the notable attacks on psychiatry as voiced by those deemed antipsychiatrists and should be presented as such (i.e. attributed). How is focal sepsis/Henry Cotton relevant to antipsychiatry? If it is to remain in the article it should be made explicit how this 1920s treatment relates to antipsychiatry. Likewise with the introductory paragraph to the "Political abuse"; all of that needs to be put into an antipsychiatry context otherwise its irrelevant. FiachraByrne (talk) 17:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Have removed the Henry Cotton paragraph. Johnfos (talk) 09:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Antipsychiatry, definition of...
The article needs a definition of its topic. The lack of definition is leading to the inclusion of all sorts of extraneous material where any critique of psychiatry or any notably controversial psychiatric practice is seen as a potential precursor to antipsychiatry. Is antipsychiatry distinct from patient/ex-patient/survivor movements? Is it distinct from scientology? Is it properly understood as (largely) an internal psychiatric discourse? What distinguishes antipsychiatry from earlier critiques (defined in the article in fact through Crossley)? The definition should be in the lead and should organise the article. In its present state I'd be inclined to cut much of the precursor/historical material (some could be migrated to a background section). FiachraByrne (talk) 17:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
The Oxford Handbook on Psychiatry has a short section on basic info about anti-psych, from page 20. The definition there is about "more harm than help", which we talk about in the opening to this article. Johnfos (talk) 09:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
The article should probably use Dain and Crossley to define it. They disagree with each other significantly. Crossley (more recent and confined to UK) has a more narrowly defined object (excludes Scientology); Dain, along with others, says its an extremely diffuse object characterised by criticism of psychiatry and a certain emotional investment. The history section should really follow Dain, who does look at the 19th century for the US (I'm not aware of anyone else doing this for any other country; mostly they begin in the 1950s or 60s), and move Foucault's historical treatment to a section of the article devoted to Foucault. Following Dain, does not mean including any and all criticism of psychiatry; you need a source linking it to this concept of antipsychiatry. FiachraByrne (talk) 12:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Overall response to comments: If you are saying that the article needs more focus, and needs to be tightened up, I agree. Johnfos (talk) 09:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

NPOV issue[edit]

This article presents a largely uncritical discussion of 'anti-psychiatry,' and can be read as an endorsement of this controversial position. It does not present fairly or proportionately arguments for psychiatry, and against 'anti-psychiatry.' A few criticisms are buried in the "diverse paths" section. Opening statements like " Psychiatry involves an unequal power relationship between doctor and patient, and a highly subjective diagnostic process, leaving too much room for opinions and interpretations" are assertions, operating in defense of 'anti-psychiatry' positions; they are not self-evident truths, but are made without qualification and without reference to the fact that the vats majority of accredited psychiatrists would reject such claims. There is no engagement with materials that are at odds with these positions - for such an enormously controversial view point, this article does not indicate much of the controversy e.g.

In terms of taking an uncritical approach, I agree that there could be more scholarly criticism of Laing and Szasz, if available.
But I think you are over-stating the case about the whole article being unbalanced, and many scholarly sources have taken a more strident view than we have presented here. For example, Tom Burns, in Psychiatry: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford University Press, 2006, p. 93) says:
The anti-psychiatry message was that psychiatry did not so much need improving as scrapping. At its best it was confused and confusing and at its worst a truly evil instrument of oppression masquerading as a benign medical practice.
In terms of endorsement and advocacy, there is little discussion of the activities of various anti-psychiatry groups, so I don't really see that this is a problem. Johnfos (talk) 06:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

REPLY: Certainly some sources are more hostile. But that is not the issue, or even obviously relevant. The issue that there is an enormous controversy on 'anti-psychiatry,' and that is largely (not entirely, as I acknowledged in my post) absent in the framing and content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redblackwritings (talkcontribs) 10:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Are there sources you'd like to add? FiachraByrne (talk) 12:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Without WP:Reliable sources that back up what you say, your comments are largely speculation. Please provide the best and most reputable authoritative sources on the "enormous controversy surrounding anti-psychiatry". Thanks. Johnfos (talk) 09:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

REPLY: Thanks for this. I did cite in my earlier post on this e.g. e.g. But also of interest would be and and and These are just a sample of what's out there. My basic point is that this entry provides very little indication that a) anti-psychiatry has been consistently criticised and b) that psychiatry is rather more sophisticated than the simplified picture presented here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redblackwritings (talkcontribs) 09:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The editorial by Nasralla caught my eye [1]. His concluding paragraph is:
The antipsychiatry movement is regarded by some as “intellectual halitosis” and by others as a thorn in the side of mainstream psychiatry; most believe that many of its claims are unfair exaggerations based on events and primitive conditions of more than a century ago. However, although irritating and often unfair, antipsychiatry helps keep us honest and rigorous about what we do, motivating us to relentlessly seek better diagnostic models and treatment paradigms. Psychiatry is far more scientific today than it was a century ago, but misperceptions about psychiatry continue to be driven by abuses of the past. The best antidote for antipsychiatry allegations is a combination of personal integrity, scientific progress, and sound evidence-based clinical care.
Quite thoughtful, and worthy of inclusion in this article, in the Diverse paths section. Johnfos (talk) 23:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Added two paragraphs for balance, per above sources; there has also been a softening of some wording; removed POV tag. Johnfos (talk) 18:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
It's interesting because when reading this article I also had an impression that it at times seems to sink into borderline conspiracy theory, yet there is no mention of any related conspiracy theory in it... (talk) 23:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Tag bombing[edit]

Article has been tag bombed with {{tl:citation needed}} tags [2]. I removed such tags from the lead as inappropriate [3] - the lead summarises the body of the text and normally should not require supporting citations. Either the lead accurately summarises the body of the text or not - in which case it should be rewritten. FiachraByrne (talk) 12:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The remaining citation needed tags can be replaced with reference to Dain. I'll add these later. FiachraByrne (talk) 13:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Critical not anti-[edit]

My experience(s) with people and organizations involved in these efforts is that almost all of them define themselves as part of the "critical psychiatry" movement not antipsychiatry...the latter is a hangover from the days of R.D. Laing and express more of a reflexively oppositional stance...also calling someone an antipsychiatrist in my experience is sometimes a tactic used to discredit (since it's meant to imply that the person is potentially mentally ill themselves)...should the entire article be retitled therefore? (I think so.) Historian932 (talk) 14:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

P.S. and there could still be a subsection (or smaller page) about antipsychiatry in a focused and accurate way

In 2010, Thomas Szasz said: I do not know what is “critical psychiatry.” Does the term imply that there is another kind of psychiatry, properly categorized as “uncritical psychiatry”? Johnfos (talk) 12:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
One could say the same of the term of evidence-based medicine. There is loose "movement" of so-called critical psychiatrists. It's related to but distinct from anti-psychiatry. FiachraByrne (talk) 11:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Reversion of edit by on the Duplessis Orphans[edit]

Following edit reverted:

In Quebec, Canada the Duplessis Orphans story. Thousands of children were falsely certified as mentally ill for Federal government money and then confined to psychiatric institutions.

I reverted the addition of content detailed above. This story may merit inclusion but it needs to be referenced by a source which explicitly links it to the topic of anti-psychiatry. The article will become a mess of it simply iterates every excess and violation carried out by or in the name of the discipline. FiachraByrne (talk) 11:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe the Duplessis Orphans example is as significant at the rosenhan experiment example. Your request for an anti-psychiatry reference source is unreasonable. This example of hundreds of children falsely diagnosed clearly shows how money influences psychiatric diagnoses.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 17:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
You may believe so but its inclusion would require a source outlining its relationship to antipsychiatry. To request a source is not unreasonable but, rather, the cornerstone of policy on WP. The article can't simply become a catalogue of psychiatric and psychiatry related misdeeds - they have to be related to the article topic through reliable sources. FiachraByrne (talk) 18:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
"article will become a mess of it simply iterates every excess" I do agree that if every excess of psychiatry is listed, the article would become a mess. There has not yet been this listing of every excess.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 22:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe three examples of questionable Psychiatric labeling is a reasonable number. Do you not agree? Rosenhan is one. Soviet numbers of rates of schizophrenia could be another example. I do not know of any other "classic" examples of questionable diagnosis (besides the Nazi`s use). Do you? The reason I stated your request for a source in the relationship to antipsychiatry, was unreasonable is because no source can exist. It is stated in the Duplessis Orphans article that thousands of children were given false diagnosis. This is linked directly to "Psychiatric labeling" rather than antipsychiatry.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 22:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

So you believe and while the application of labeling theory to the Duplessis Orphans may seem, with some justification, self-evident to you, a secondary source is required to make that connection. As it stands, that section of this article could do with a substantial rewrite. Currently, it criticises the validity of psychiatric diagnoses but labeling theory is significantly different from that and refers to the social construction of deviance and its internalisation by those to whom such labels are applied. Nowhere does that section provide any meaningful explanation of what labeling theory actually is. Rosenhan explicitly related his own study to labeling theory; as to whether "sluggish schizophrenia" should be included in that section, I think that that's an open question until decent sources are provided. As it happens, there's a vast literature on labeling theory - some of it quite critical of the theory - and that literature should first be researched and summarised. It's original research simply to provide our own examples to illustrate the thesis. FiachraByrne (talk) 23:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Guantanamo bay[edit]

  • File:Guantanamo captive psych ward.jpg

While I understand why this image might be entirely relevant on this article, it is not referred to in the text at any point. Neither does the caption explain how this image is related to the article, which is against the MOS I understand, which tells us that picture captions should be a summary of how it is related to the article. Lesion (talk) 04:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Very interesting article btw. Lesion (talk) 04:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

This is probably the most ridiculously biased article I've read on Wikipedia (which says a lot) and the random image of Guantanamo Bay kind of just made me laugh and click away. -- (talk) 06:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The Corruptions, Conspiracies And Collapse Of Psychiatry And Psychology[edit]

Has anyone read The Corruptions, Conspiracies And Collapse Of Psychiatry And Psychology (2013)? It is available free of charge from It might be worth including a section on it here.

Hi. I haven't read it but it looks to be self-published and therefore not, in Wikipedian terms, a reliable source. FiachraByrne (talk) 01:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Fiachra, you have a point, the guidelines are there to prevent unscrupulous sources from being included hence the focus on 'reliable' sources published by reputable publishers. However being self published does not necessarily mean a source is without foundation or of low quality and so I noted that there are exceptions to the rule. The work does include a lot of high level references and extensively focuses on A.P.A. and W.H.O. publications (i.e. the highest quality national and international publications available) meaning that it does seem to be of a high quality. The difficulty in this case is that critical nature of the work is unlikely to be accepted by mainstream psychiatrists and publications hence the work might be an exception to the rule in this case, although I could be wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Witiman (talkcontribs) 03:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


Any thoughts about adding a short section/paragraph on deprogramming in this article? Zambelo; talk 23:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)