Talk:Political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

People section

What does the header refer to? Expand please. --Shandris 07:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Liberalism is a Mental Disorder

Has this book something to do with psikhushkas? Apokrif 15:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

No -- ZZ 06:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Moscow Serbsky Institute

I collected a few references about Moscow Serbsky Institute. May be a separate article about this Institute is needed.

Biophys 22:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Misatribution of information and original research

Biophys and Piotrus are using opinion of just two individuals on "tortures" as world-wide accepted and shared fact. This is violation of WP:ATTRIBUTION and WP:OR. Vlad fedorov 14:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No, Vlad. This reference satisfies the demands of our policie quite well. But if you want more - no problem. Soviet Psychiatric Abuse: The Shadow over World Psychiatry by Bloch and Reddaway is just one of the most popular academic books on that. We can also add references to their previous book, Psychiatric Terror: How Soviet Psychiatry is Used to Suppress Dissent, a book by Smith and Oleszczuk, No Asylum: State Psychiatric Repression in the Former U.S.S.R. (review), article by Spencer in Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing Lessons from history: the politics of psychiatry in the USSR (which uses the term 'crime against humanity' for that type of torture); article by Alexeyeff in The Medical Journal of Australia, Abuse of psychiatry as a tool for political repression in the Soviet Union. All of those describe in detail the torturesof psikhushka; unfortunatly they are not freely available online. But here is an academic online treatment: Adam Bruno Ulam in Understanding the Cold War simply writes: "Psikhushka [is] the name for such torture chambers". There is no denying that there was a lot of torture in Russian psychiatry, and even if the specific name of psikushka is not that often used in English literature (ex. [2] and [3] for notes of tortures in Soviet psychiatry in general) there is no denying it was torture.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Piotrus is correct. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

On April 29, 1969 the head of KGB Yuri Andropov submitted to the Central Committee of CPSU a plan for creating of a network of psikhushkas

Can anybody cite the letter? Evgenia Albatz given as source is an ultra-liberal politician. And there already was a lot of psychiatric hospitals in the USSR so creating additional ones was not necessary. All of them were administered by ministry of healthcare, not KGB.--Dojarca 12:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course, Party and KGB controlled every psychiatric hospital in the USSR, not only through ministry of healthcare, but also through their "own channels" (local Party organisation in each hospital and KGB informers in each hospital). But some measures were necessary to prepare a hospital for new "contingent". So, only certain psychiatric hospitals were used for political prisoners.Biophys 02:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Sluggishly progressing schizophrenia

Mikka, I just would like to note that Sluggishly progressing schizophrenia is non-existing disease, according to science. So, it was invented in the Soviet Union.Biophys 02:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I just would like to note that I am well-aware of this opinion, probably more and much earlier and first-hander than you. Please also make a not that sputnik was also invented in Soviet Union. In other words, the fact that it was invented in soviet union (it was not, btw. Writings of dissidents are not source of medical science, you should know) does not automatically disqualifies the thing. Soviet Union was populated by a large amount of decent people, and they deserve respect ("and you are lynching Negroes" :-). `'mikka 02:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Do you think that writing about human rights abuses shows disrespect of Soviet people? I looked Lynching in the United States - this is really impressive (looks much worse than Gulag for an average reader). Does it show disrespect of Americans? Perhaps it does, but this is more about things that should never happen again in US. People must know. Otherwise, this will be repeated. Biophys 20:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Name change needed

I was looking for the WP article on Soviet psychiatry/abuses, but there wasn't one. Except, um, actually there is one, it's just not listed under that name... because it's titled: "Psikhushka". (You saw that coming, right? :)

So, seeing as this is the English language Wikipedia -- and not the Russian language Wikipedia -- it seems to me that there's an obvious solution: Since this article is about Soviet psychiatry/abuses, and has already had a lot of work put into it, I propose that it be renamed to either Soviet psychiatry or Soviet psychiatric abuses. (Obviously, it will need a new lead sentence, and the material in the intro about Psikhushkas will probably go into another section -- whatever works). I'm okay with either of the titles I've suggested, but if other people have a preference, please share your views. Cgingold 06:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this article should stay because word "Psikhushka" can be found in English sources. It is notable, etc. On the other hand, you are right: at least one or two additional articles should be created, one of which is Punitive psychiatry and another is Soviet psychiatry (these are two different subjects).Biophys 04:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Some links

Preliminary Report on Psychiatric Violations of Human Rights in Russia, April 1999 by Citizens Commission on Human Rights (a controversial organization)

Summary of the Report On the Findings of the Investigation by the Commission on Rehabilitation of Victims of Political Repression During the Soviet Era Biophys 05:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Russia: Is Coercive Psychology Staging A Comeback?

[4] [5] Biophys 05:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

An editor at haloperidol suggested : Anna Politkovskaya (2004). Putin's Russia. Harvill Press. ISBN 9781843430506. OCLC 456111670. I won't comment further, not having seen its content. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Quotation

Maurice Carbonaro, thanks you for inserting the quotation with the author's exact words into the article Punitive psychiatry in the Soviet Union. It may actually be better to cite the derogatory term in such way as you cited it when you noted that “This does NOT endorse in ANY way the fact that I support the use of the term "Negro" at all. Because is derogatory.” However, I cited the term in the reworded phrase to avoid overquoting, since the article has too many quotations. Psychiatrick (talk) 14:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Punitive psychiatry in the Soviet Union → Political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union — The term ‘political abuse of psychiatry’ is more common and used in most sources including one with the good exact definition:

I have not managed to find any source for the first phrase of the article “In the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), psychiatry was sometimes used for punitive purposes.” That is why I decided to move the article. If and when the article is moved, its first phrase will be “Political abuse of psychiatry is the misuse of psychiatric diagnosis, detention and treatment for the purposes of obstructing the fundamental human rights of certain groups and individuals in a society”, and this phrase will be confirmed by the source cited above. Psychiatrick (talk) 08:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Agree That is a better title because it is sourced in academic writing. Perhaps you could look through the literature and see what the most common term is. TFD (talk) 04:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[16][17][18][19]:60, 77[20]:243, 252[21]:72[22]:148[23]:10, 57, 136[24]:92, 95, 98[25]:292, 293, 294[26]:226[27]:258

Did anyone contest those facts to the point that so many references are needed in the WP:LEAD? Also, I suggest moving the page numbers to footnotes. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your question. It is easy to reply to this question. In the phrase “Many authors including psychiatrists use the terms ‘Soviet political psychiatry’ and ‘punitive psychiatry’ instead”, the word “many” should be confirmed by many sources. In addition, moving the page numbers to footnotes is not a good idea since almost every source is cited many times here. Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (footnotes) in which one can read:

    However, in the case of a source that must be cited many, many times, at numerous different pages, the template {{rp}} can be used.

Psychiatrick (talk) 03:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

This needs to be fixed. Look at how the first ref of the abortion article handles 10 refs for a single sentence in the lead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality: 1) "political abuse of psychiatry took place (refs) and psychiatry was abused systematically (refs)" - couldn't it be simplified to "systematic abuse of psychiatry took place?)" 2) "and occasional in other Eastern European countries such as Romania, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia" - I think it should be occasionally; also - what about other countries like Poland? 3) In many cases, short, one-two sentence paragraphs could be merged into larger paragraphs to improve the flow of text
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 1) Disambig needed; Craig Thomas 2) I broken link ([6]), check for lesser errors (several green and blue warning signs at [7]) 3) I find the reference style distracting; I've never seen this one before. I'd prefer to see page numbers moved from body to references (footnotes). I'd also prefer to see direct google books page links instead of generic book page links; while this is not an "official" requirement for a GA, I'd implore the editors involved to go beyond what is required and make the refs more functional that way. 4) Per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarize the article, not introduce new information. This lead seems to fail at both counts, primarily by giving the "what is abuse of psychiatry" information, which should be moved to the "Background" section or somewhere similar. For example, "Psychiatrists have been involved in human rights abuses in states across the world when the definitions of mental disease were expanded to include political disobedience" and following sentence is irrelevant to this article; I can see it in the background, but not in lead, which should cover the Soviet angle. Then the lead could be re-expanded with some other content from the article. Also, certain claims in lead are not repeated later, as far as I can tell, for example "One of the first psikhushkas was the Psychiatric Prison Hospital in the city of Kazan". This, and other claims, should be duplicated in the article body (again, lead is the summary, not a place for unique info). 5) The article seems light on links, in particular, red per WP:RED. Many names and institutions are named, but are not linked. For an example: "leading neuroscientists and psychiatrists of the time (for example, Sukhareva, Gilyarovsky, Golant, Shmaryan, Gurevich)" - they need first names (or at least, initials), and of course - links). Also notable, from that para: All-Union Neurologic and Psychiatric Association, Academy of Science, several other names - for example, in "as academicians Anokhin, Speransky, Stern, Beritashvili, and Orbeli,", some are blue, some aren't. Those that aren't probably don't have articles - yet - but should have, and red links encourage filling the gaps. This is just one section, I could create a very long list (an example from last few paras - Lithuanian Psychiatric Association... another - Russian Society of Psychiatrists... or Marina Trutko and Nikolai Skachkov). I'd strongly encourage the author(s) to become more friendly with red links. 6) To many level 2 sections. Please reorganize with a proper "History" section. I find the mixture of history and features section very confusing. After early history, we have for example the "Sluggish schizophrenia" section. Please make sure that 2nd level subheadings cleary organize the lesser ones (History, Features, Cases, etc.). Cases should probably not be a part of History, but its own section, with subsections (it is a bit long). 7) "See also" should not contain any links that are used in the main body checkY
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects: Although not totally necessary, I'll note that comparing Polish Wikipedia article to this, Polish Wikipedia notes that the Soviet system has inspired the Chinese system, which is still in force. A word or two on whether this has been adopted outside the European Eastern Bloc (Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea, etc.) would be interesting.
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias: 1) While few will deny the abuse of the psychiatry in the Soviet times, I think that for more recent events, we need better sources. I found the "Although for several years, especially after the implosion of the USSR and during the first years..." paragraph, based on a single ref, to be potentially problematic, it makes very strong claims that would benefit from better sourcing. van Voren book is the only source, and Rodopi Publishers is just an "average" publisher. I can see this becoming an issue checkY
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: Please investigage: File:Podrabinek-photo.JPG ("It is free there. The author knows that it is there and here and it is ok"); File:Nekipelov.jpg (needs a better Fair Use Rationale); File:Joseph Brodsky.jpg needs fair for this article; a number of other images, mostly by User:Domitori, have explanations that would not stand up to modern (FA) scrutiny (or to that of a less-copyright paranoia minded GA reviewer). The problem is that for the most part he states he got permission - but he should fwd it to WMF for verification. Somebody should work with him to convert those into proper, WP:OTRS-era tags. checkY
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: On a side note, while it is not necessary for GA, you may want to add alt text to images like I did here recently
  7. Overall: Quite impressive.
  8. Disclaimer: This is my first GA review. I am not a psychiatrist, but a sociologist with some interest in the history of Eastern Europe and history of science. I am also a non-native speaker of English, so while the prose sounds right to me, I cannot claim it is brilliant and always sounds right. I have not verified that all material corresponds to the references cited, some are in language I don't read (Russian), some are behind pay-walls I have no access to, and I simply don't have several hours to dedicate to checking 177 references. Nothing in the article raised a red flag by looking dubious or unreliable, based on my current state of knowledge, to justify more detailed verification. Hence I am assuming good faith and proper referencing standards on the part of the author(s).
  9. Other comments: Please notify me on my talk page when responses are posted here; I'll return the same courtesy (my watchlist can get swamped).
    Pass or Fail:
 Done Thanks for your review. “...Abuse of psychiatry for political purposes was reported to be systematic in the Soviet Union and occasional in other Eastern European countries” = “It was reported that the abuse of psychiatry for political purposes was systematic in the Soviet Union and occasional in other Eastern European countries.” So the first phrase is correct. I have sipmlified the fist line of the article, substituted the broken link for working one, deleted wikilinks used in the main body from the “See also” section, made the “History” section with subsections, made subsections in the “Cases” section, transferred the fragment from the intro to the “Background” section, added wikification and the non-free media use rationales to mentioned files. Psychiatrick (talk) 23:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I am seeing much improvement, please let me know when all issues are addressed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I have addressed almost all the issues except moving page numbers from the body to references (footnotes). I don’t consider it important and reasonable and don’t know how to move them without multiplying the same references to enormous number. In the Russian Wikipedia, the template {{rp|}} is frequently used. See: [8] But if you anyway want to have page numbers moved to footnotes, you may move them by yourself. Psychiatrick (talk) 10:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
The ref change is not a formal requirement, and I will not insisit on it. However, I see that, for example. "Is it neutral?" issue has not been addressed. Please add a checkmark (Template:Tick) to each issue you've completed in the listing above. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I addressed the issue "Is it neutral?" by having attributed the claims to Robert van Voren to keep neutral point of view [9]. Psychiatrick (talk) 01:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Almost ready. 1) I'd suggest you get rid of all "Dr" and "Prof" titles; they don't seem to be used consistently (I am sure some of the mentioned names are titled, too, but they don't have their title in the article). 2) Try to make sure that each name, at least on the initial use, has a first name. 3) Few red links to be added: Pichot (with name), Kenneth Rawnsley, Zhournal Nevropatologii i Psikhiatrii Imeni S S Korsakova, Darrel A. Regier, Harold Visotsky; this is just a sample from the middle of the article - I see much improvement in linking and RED but there still remains scope for more links (those people seem notable, feel free to correct me). 4) Clarify: Chief Psychiatrist Aleksandr Churkin (Chief P. of what?). 5) Final question/suggestion: shouldn't # 1 Background # 2 Joint Session # 3 Sluggish schizophrenia # 4 Normative documents be part of the history chapter as well? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
1) Done. 2) Done. 3) Done. 4) Chief Psychiatrist means Chief Psychiatrist of country but the title is always used without word “country”. 5) Background explains the structure of mental health service in the USSR and built-in capacity of psychiatry for abuse. That is not history. Joint session is not part of history of political abuse of psychiatry but its precursor. Sluggish schizophrenia is not history but is a diagnosis still used in the Russian Federation. Normative documents is important enough to be separate section. Psychiatrick (talk) 11:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Good job, I have passed this as a GA. You may want to write an article on the Chief Psychiatrist - or on one of many red links in the article. Thank you for writing of this important phenomena, you may also want to consider a WP:FAC process. PS. Please consider reviewing another article nominee (at WP:GAN), as we have a substantial backlog to go through. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your review very much. Psychiatrick (talk) 12:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion from FAC page

As the FAC page is now closed and by custom is not substantively edited, we can continue discussions here. Regarding the lede, and Psychiatrick's query about how he gets around not having definitions in the lede when he is using technical jargon in the lede (I paraphrase). One idea would be to rewrite the lede so that it is entirely nontechnical, using common language, and only speaking generally the abuse (saying when it began, and which Soviet leaders favored it). That would also help draw readers into the article and get them to read it when they might not otherwise do it. The definitions could be in the first section following the lede.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for visiting this talk page. Let’s discuss the issue you’ve raised. When the definitions are removed from the lede, we’ll face the issue of which contents can be substituted for them. You’ve suggested “saying when it began, and which Soviet leaders favored it.” However, one cannot definitely say when the political abuse began in the Soviet Union because the abuse was very heterogeneous and included early individual cases and the later mass abuse on a vast scale. What kind of the abuse do you mean? Similarly, one cannot definitely say which Soviet leaders favored it. The degree and scope of political responsibility of each of the Soviet leaders for the abuse is debatable. All we know about it is their speeches, orders, proposals, plans, remarks in conversations. This material, which is included in the contents of the article, is also very heterogeneous and best fits for the article body. I’m afraid I won’t be able to find any sources that contain definite statements and names of all those who proposed the practice of the abuse, who started it, who promoted it, who favored it, who justified it, etc. The words printed in italics here convey different significant aspects of the issue. Psychiatrick (talk) 22:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Do you understand the principle I'm shooting for though?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I suppose I do, but I need time to think how to apply this principle without filling up the lede with irrelevant information. In any case, you and any other editors are welcome to rewrite the lede along with me, or instead of me. This task may be beyond my writing capacity. Psychiatrick (talk) 23:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
I think a person who knows the subject matter needs to write the lede. There are matters of nuance and connotation that an unfamiliar editor can easily get wrong.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree with what you’ve said above. By the way, on the nomination page you’ve given the examples of problems with prose by citing the following fragment: "Since the question was asked with ironical smile, in the debate, Morozov replied, smiling ironically as well, “You know, dear colleagues, this is a very peculiar disease: there are not delusional disorders, there are not hallucinations, but there is schizophrenia!” Regarding this fragment, anyone, who doesn’t know whether Morozov’s words were truth or joke, can’t remove the detailed description of his verbal behavior and smile from the article without facing the threat of undeliberate distortion of a meaning, because if the description are removed, Morozov’s words will look like the truth, or as though they are the truth, while they may be a joke. I think I expressed nuances and connotations in the best way by providing as many detailed descriptions as possible. That is why the example you’ve given isn’t one of problems with prose, in my humble opinion. All psychiatry and its social application are composed of similar nuances and connotations that freedom of a great multitude of people depends on. Psychiatrick (talk) 00:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I was focusing on the words "with ironical smile", which reads oddly. I'm not saying it's actually wrong, I'm saying it sounds odd. Almost certainly there would be an "an" after "with". I wasn't passing judgment on whether the content was appropriate. I couldn't decide that without looking at the article in a lot more detail.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
The omission of articles before nouns is an ordinary problem for every person who isn’t a native English speaker. It doesn’t mean that the article has been translated from a Slavic language. It means that the article has been written by a native Russian speaker. If you’d like to help me, please feel free to add the missing articles before nouns. I asked several native English speakers, my acquaintances in English-language countries, not the reviewers of the article, to have a look at it to check for any inaccuracies and missing articles before its nomination, but the persons were too busy or too inactive. I hope it is possible to construct a bot for adding articles before nouns. Psychiatrick (talk) 18:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I will. I need to really read through the article and copyedit at least the surface, but it may be a few days before I get to that, due to ongoing research on another article.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment

I think this article is informative, but it is too big, sometimes difficult to read and includes too many red links. Was it Google translation from Russian? ("The widely known sources including published and written memoirs of victims of psychiatric arbitrariness convey moral and physical sufferings experienced by victims of psychiatric arbitrariness" - this sounds like a book by Mao about "Revolutionary war in China") Biophys (talk) 05:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

See the discussions above.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree with your comments. Most important, this article is too big and some sections are completely unreadable. My very best wishes (talk) 03:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality problems

The article cannot be considered neutral until it incorporates material from Russian publications that address the allegations of punitive psychiatry. Statements like "In the Soviet Union, systematic political abuse of psychiatry took place.", "the authorities of the country quite consciously used psychiatry as a tool to suppress dissent", and others endorse a specific viewpoint when there are no counter-arguments present in the article.

Soviet dissidents, Vartanyan insisted, were not being misdiagnosed. Too much has been made of the matter in the West, he said, all of it for political purposes.'
The Soviets, who deny that psychiatry was ever systematically misused to punish and imprison dissidents...
From Professor R.A. Nadzharov, Doctor of Medical Sciences and Deputy Director of the USSR Academy of Medical Sciences' Psychiatric Institute (Current Digest of the Soviet Press. Vol. 25, No. 32. 1973. p.5): "...In the Soviet Union the decision to declare a patient incompetent is taken in judicial proceedings based on the opinions of qualified experts. Commitment of a patient to a hospital on an emergency basis is possible only if a medical commission decides that hospitalization is an urgent necessity and only after an obligatory second examination. Moreover, the organization of psychiatric assistance in the USSR provides all possible measures to avoid mistakes in the diagnosis of psychiatric illness. And finally it should be empasized that Soviet law specifically stipulates criminal penalties for those guilty of unjustified commitment of a patient to a psychiatric hospital."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.171.144 (talk) 04:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Copy-edit?

Hi Psychiatrick. Would you be open to a copy-edit of this article? I'm not well informed of the specifics of psychiatry in the USSR although I have some knowledge of the general area. Also, would you be open to some rationalisation of the citations. Perhaps using shortened and Harvard footnotes, and bundling multiple citations? Kind of like the system I use here. FiachraByrne (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I can’t mind and prevent this article from copy-editing. Sometimes I just say that the article uses Russian sources and, therefore, can be unintentionally distorted, in some of its parts, by an editor who doesn’t read Russian. No editor speaking both Russian and English was found in English Wikipedia to copy-edit this article. But you can try to copy-edit it and rationalize of its citations. --Psychiatrick (talk) 05:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
While in policy terms that is the "correct" answer there's no way I'm going to try and alter this article unless it is something that you would be happy with. In any case, it would be impossible for me to do so without the assistance of someone who could read the actual sources from which the article is derived. FiachraByrne (talk) 02:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I introduced a new referencing system that allows for the bundling of citations to reduce some of the article clutter; it uses {{sfn}} for footnotes citing a single source and {{harvnb}} for footnotes citing multiple sources. The sources those footnotes link to is defined in the Sources section of the article where the {{cite}} templates all contain a ref=harv parameter or, if they lack an author a ref={{harvid}} parameter. I've a few more sources to add to the new system and I'll get to them over the next few days. Unless you decide to revert, which is fine. FiachraByrne (talk) 02:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Also, for Russian sources I transliterated all the author names (using the article text or Google Scholar so likely to be crude in latter instances) as Cyrillic is essentially unreadable to most English speakers (Cyrillic version of authors' names is retained after transliterated version). I hope this is ok. FiachraByrne (talk) 02:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Quotation from Nadzharov’s interview

There can be no doubt that talk in the West of 'the forced commitment to psychiatric hospitals' of certain 'dissident' representatives of the intelligentsia is nothing other than a component part of the anti-Soviet propaganda campaign that certain circles are trying to stir up in pursuit of highly improper political aims.

This above cited quotation from Nadzharov’s interview of 1973 that was again added to the lede of the article by this edit of revision as of 11:22, 5 February 2013 had been previously moved to the section describing events relevant to 1973 by this edit of revision as of 19:47, 1 February 2013. So it is incorrect to write “Restored material that was arbitrarily deleted by psychiatrick” and multiply the quotation in various sections of the article. In addition, why is Nadzharov’s opinion considered so important that it is added to the lede of the article? And why is Nadzharov himself considered so important that the academic degree ("Doctor of Medical Sciences") is only added to his surname and is not added to other psychiatrists' surnames in the article? Psychiatrick (talk) 14:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Lead

In the Soviet Union, systematic political abuse of psychiatry took place.

This is supposed to be a serious topic written at the level of a good article, not broken English read by Yakov Smirnoff. Viriditas (talk) 12:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, go on, please.--Psychiatrick (talk) 12:32, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
In case the person did not agree with the specific actions of people in leading positions and criticized them by using philosophic dogmas according to the writings by Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Vladimir Lenin, the term "philosophical intoxication" was widely used to diagnose mental disorders.

Again, this reads very poorly. I'm not even sure what it is trying to say. Does it mean, that the term "philosophical intoxication" was widely used to diagnose mental disorders in cases where dissidents disagreed with people in leading positions? If so, then say just that. Did these dissidents use a specific kind of criticism that contradicted and/or challenged Marx, Engels, and Lenin? Then say just that. Viriditas (talk) 12:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

It means that the term "philosophical intoxication" was widely used to diagnose mental disorders in cases where dissidents disagreed with people in leading positions and used ideas from works by Marx, Engels, and Lenin to support dissidents’ views. --Psychiatrick (talk) 12:32, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Psychiatry of the Brezhnev period

This is a meaningless jumble of words to a reader who doesn't know the topic. Instead be very specific and say, "From 1964 to 1982". You can't just throw phrases out and expect readers to understand them. Viriditas (talk) 12:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

One can say Psychiatry that existed in the Brezhnev period instead of Psychiatry of the Brezhnev period. --Psychiatrick (talk) 12:32, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Viriditas, you are welcome to ask me any questions. I will listen to you with a lot of attention and try to reply. Psychiatrick (talk) 12:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Merge from Psikhushka

Psikhushka is a Russian slang term for "psychiatric hospital" and its relevance for English-language encyclopedia is only in the context of political abuse of psyschiatry. This page was forked after the move of the original page for reason I fail to comprehend today. - Altenmann >t 06:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Oppose because the article Psikhushka is about the lexical meaning and usage of the word psikhushka, not about the political use of psychiatry. --Psychiatrick (talk) 08:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
One sentence of lexical meaning belongs to wiktionary. We do have articles about words and phrases in wikipedia, but this is when there is enough encyclopedic content about the word. The current content of Psikhushka is no about lexical meaning, but about psych abuse. - Altenmann >t 05:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
The contents of the two above-mentioned articles show that the word psikhushka and political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union are different things with different definitions. So it seems to be impossible to begin the latter with the definition of the word psikhushka. Later on, we would be able to add to the article psikhushka an information about the types, constructions, and locations of psikhushkas. --Psychiatrick (talk) 08:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
@ "begin the latter": Why would you begin the latter with this? "Psikhuska" may be a separate section. - Altenmann >t 08:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
@ "Later on": If you start doing so, then the proper title would be Psychiatric hospitals in Russia and the Soviet Union, because we don't use the title "cunt" for the article "vulva". - Altenmann >t 08:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree. When an information is sufficient, we will start Psychiatric hospitals in Russia and the Soviet Union and create redirect from psikhuska. Psychiatrick (talk) 08:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Split proposal

This is a very impressive article. Congrats to User:Psychiatrick and other editors involved. At 270k, this article needs to be split (not merged), as the excessive length makes navigation and readability difficult. I would suggest splitting off the Cases section to a new article, leaving a summary and link to the new page here, per WP:SS. Perhaps the new article could be in List form, similar to this? Comments? Johnfos (talk) 10:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I have split up the article by having moved the Cases section to the new article Cases of political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union. It seems to me to be not very important whether the new article is a list or not. --Psychiatrick (talk) 18:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

CCHR

Psychiatrick reverted me in this dif. The paragraph I removed was sourced from documents generated by an organization called Citizens Commission on Human Rights. You have been apparently fooled by the name. If you look at the article about them, you will see that they are a front group owned and run by Scientology. Their views on psychiatry are WP:FRINGE and should not be used to source content about psychiatry in Wikipedia. We don't espouse pseudoscience in Wikipedia - that is policy. There are plenty of great, mainstream sources to support this important topic. Because this is a policy issue, I am re-reverting. Please discuss here and provide a rationale for using a FRINGE source. The burden is on you for that. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:56, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I wrote the rationale in my edit summary "The content is related to human rights issues and based on secondary sources such as the Independent Psychiatric Journal." It is not the CCHR that publishes the Independent Psychiatric Journal and other sources which were related to the content removed by you. It is also not the CCHR that has the point of view that a Russian court started the trial for extremism against the CCHR because of the CCHR tries to get the rehabilitation for former Soviet dissidents victimized by political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union. It is the point of view shared by all the Russian government agencies and publications that are not FRINGE sources.--Psychiatrick (talk) 15:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I am bringing this source to RSN. You have no leg to stand on. You have a FRINGE stance articulated by a journal in Russian. Does not even come close to complying with WP:RS. I will create the posting and provide a link here. Jytdog (talk) 16:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
OK. I think it is not a FRINGE stance when Russian judicial authorities bring an organization to a trial and submit the documentation about the trial to Russian publications such as the Independent Psychiatric Journal published by the Independent Psychiatric Association of Russia. Psychiatrick (talk) 16:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Citizens Commission on Human Rights is a fringe source. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is. But in the removed part of the content, I used other sources rather than ones published by the CCHR. Do you see me? Please read my replies above again. Psychiatrick (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I am holding off going to the drama boards since there are other participants now. Psychiatrick this is a huge article. You do not need FRINGE views to support the idea that psychiatry has been abused in Russia. The source you are using is in Russian and the fact that it is giving voice to a FRINGE group makes it very suspect and since english speakers cannot verify what this source says, you should let this paragraph go. You have plenty of other content. Please confirm you will stand down. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
English-language psychiatric publications are giving voice to Soviet dissidents, a more FRINGE group than the CCHR. As for the source, if English speakers cannot verify what the source says, it is they, not me, who need to address the issue and learn Russian the way as Russian speakers learn English to verify and understand what English-language sources say. Thanks. Psychiatrick (talk) 19:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
it is an absolutely false statement that in English Wikipedia english speakers are obligated to learn russian to verify a source. per the POLICY Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources the obligation is on the one who brings the non-English source to provide a translation. Please confirm that your statement is wrong. You should not be so strident when you do not understand policy. Wikipedia is not a wild west. Jytdog (talk) 19:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I confirm that I made the false statement that you need to learn Russian. I need to provide my translation of Russian-language sources. Please confirm that English-language psychiatric publications are giving voice to Soviet dissidents, a more FRINGE group than the CCHR. Psychiatrick (talk) 20:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
:) i don't know that soviet dissidents are a fringe group, the way we use WP:FRINGE in Wikipedia. In Wikipedia, "fringe" means pseudoscience. CCHR is pseudoscience. Soviet dissidents are heroes. Jytdog (talk) 22:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
In the post-Soviet Russia, former Soviet dissidents are considered traitors, not heroes, and are more marginalized than they were in the Soviet Union. They are often imprisoned, beaten or killed. That all takes place because they wished the same thing as the CCHR did: human rights for all persons. Psychiatrick (talk) 00:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
this is getting twisted; you are comparing apples and oranges. CCHR is a pseudoscientific front for the Church of Scientology. The political status of soviet dissidents in Russia is what it is. these are entirely separate matters. The first is about acceptable source material in WP; the second is something about reality. Please don't confuse them. Jytdog (talk) 00:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
That seems to be just the issue of the acceptance of the both groups by a government. For example, Igor Girkin and his confederates known all over the Western world as terrorists and participants in the 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine use the euphemism the fifth column for dissidents and often demand they be destroyed. Psychiatrick (talk) 01:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

no. please listen to me. the issues with using CCHR people as authoritative voices has to do with policies and guidelines internal to Wikipedia (namely the policy WP:PSCI and the guideline, WP:FRINGE); the other has to do matters in the real world. apples and oranges. Jytdog (talk) 01:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Psychiatrick is known for having very stong views against Psychiatry. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not writing wikiarticles about my views. Is not Harizotoh9 known for confusing wikiarticles and personal views of contributors to them? Psychiatrick (talk) 19:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Possible improvements

A lot of good work here, but I still have a couple of suggestions:

  1. This page is difficult to read. It seems to provide too many detail. Perhaps one could divide it to several subpages, or shorten the text?
  2. One important distinction was lost. There were two different types of Psikhuska in the Soviet Union (well described in memoirs by Novodvorskaya): (1) "ordinary" psychiatric institutions which were used for the common populations and occasionally for dissidents - they could be seen as medical institutions used for the bad purpose, and (2) the system of "special" psychiatric institutions created by Andropov and subordinated to MVD or KGB - everyone who worked in those knew (according to Novodvorskaya) that they were not medical institutions, but torture chambers. In these "clinics" special "doctors" pumped air under the skin of "patients", used chemical torture with drugs, drilled teeth of prisoners without anesthetic (that is what they did to Novodvorskaya), etc. That distinction was lost in the wall of text. My very best wishes (talk) 00:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Reply to this. Well, it is precisely the point that "special" Psikhuskas created by Andropov were not medical institutions, but torture chambers, and this was not only an opinion by survivors, but something solidly supported by numerous facts. Strangely enough, this whole article in a way whitewashes these crimes. Would you call Auschitz a "medical institution" where doctor Josef Mengele treated his patients? Would you call Mairanovsky a "doctor"? Same with "doctors" who pumped air under the skin of the prisoners (not patients!), drilled their teeth without anesthetic, and destroyed their brains by "drugs". My very best wishes (talk) 01:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
My goal, particularly in the theoretical analysis section, was not to whitewash these events but to reveal attitudes of psychiatrists in the post-Soviet era to political dissent. It is very important. Attitudes of psychiatrists in the Soviet era to political dissent are already known and related to their attempts to consider and solve the problem of political dissent as that of a mental illness requiring compulsory psychiatric treatment. Psychiatrick (talk) 23:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Sure, describing the attitudes by psychiatrists is fine. But it was only called a "compulsory psychiatric treatment" in this case, being in fact an imprisonment and deliberate torture of healthy people in the institutions governed by the KGB, just as they did in Gulag, or probably even worse. That I think was lost. My very best wishes (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Adding testimony from A Chronicle of Current Events

The online website carrying all 63 translated issues of the Chronicle (CCE) will soon go live.

It contains a considerable amount of information that could be usefully added, as notes, to this already useful and thoroughly documented entry. Those "anecdotal" accounts will also do much to counter criticism that the article views the practice too much from the side of the practitioner and not enough from the side of his or her victims.

If it's helpful I can add refs to the earlier reports in CCE. Once the website is live, of course, these can be converted to direct hyper-links.

John Crowfoot (talk) 06:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Please add them here or in cases of political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union and in struggle against political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union. Psychiatrick (talk) 06:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Translating translations

The translations of comments at the October 1951 Joint Session may well have come from a published source, Psychiatrick, but they are awful — they neither read intelligibly as English, nor do they convey what the original evidently said. So I've taken the liberty of making better sense of the words though I cannot see the original Russian.

John Crowfoot (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Here is the original in Russian to try to understand what it said. Psychiatrick (talk) 17:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:Undue

This article is much too long. I gave up in 1/3rd despite interest (editing a related article on Ukrainian nationalists in the 1980s). Zezen (talk) 09:08, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_in_the_Soviet_Union/Archive_1&oldid=1090575363"