Talk:Treatment Advocacy Center
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|A Wikipedia contributor, SMIPolicy (talk · contribs), may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant guidelines include Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Autobiography, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.|
|A Wikipedia contributor, Keaster (talk · contribs), may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant guidelines include Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Autobiography, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.|
- 1 Lack of criticism of TAC/Torrey
- 2 CENSORSHIP
- 3 Factual Statements in Dispute
- 4 Deleted plagiarized writing
- 5 Sources needed to support additional content
Lack of criticism of TAC/Torrey
I was surprised by the lack of criticism of the TAC and/or Dr. Torrey, *many* people in the recovery community find him (and his views) to be highly offensive; I read most of the old flame war here and it seemed like one woman vs. someone who posted only under an IP number, she may have been a little extreme but I actually agree with her and think her POV needs at least to be represented, surely a concise paragraph of criticism would be acceptable? (It seems the conflict was resolved by resorting to the most bland and neutral, but also mainstream, way of presenting the issues involved. If nothing else one need only look at the Wiki page for Dr. Torrey himself to see critiques (I know, I know, I could copy and rewrite them myself and insert them here, in fact I may do it when I have some more time and the mental energy.)Historian932 (talk) 04:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC) (ok i just noticed the paragraph "If you have have a strong negative view of this organization"…)
This "Treatment Advocacy Center" is nothing of the sort. All it really advocates is for the forced drugging of people who might be a bit different. They invite a debate on their website to use facebook but then they delete/hide your posts.
Really, I don't see why this is even on Wikipedia. It is nothing but propaganda and they are using Wikipedia to gain efficacy. Fact is, they separated from NAMI because NAMI is clearly big pharma financed. They don't discuss where the Stanley Blah Blah Blah Research Blah Blah comes from. Most of the time they are funding drugs. So here you have an organization that funds drugs and a spin-off "Advocacy Center" that then lobbies legislature to modify laws to force the use of these "drugs". That is CLEARLY a conflict of interest and the guy running it is in a top position for both non-profits.
Someone please remove this crap from Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 04:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC) I created an account. It was a lot easier than I had thought. I was User:126.96.36.199. JasonAJensenUSA (talk) 02:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Factual Statements in Dispute
"The Treatment Advocacy Center has been credited with the passage Kendra's Law in New York, Laura's Law in California, and similar assisted outpatient treatment laws in Florida and other states. Since the organization’s foundation, 22 states have reformed their civil commitment laws or standards at least in part as a result of the organization’s advocacy."
This statement needs a cited source. Who credits them with the passage of the said laws? How have 22 states "reformed [...] as a result of the organization's advocacy"?
"The Treatment Advocacy Center is an American nonprofit organization dedicated to eliminating legal and other barriers to the timely and effective treatment of severe mental illness. The organization promotes laws, policies and practices for the delivery of psychiatric care and supports the development of innovative treatments for and research into the causes of severe and persistent psychiatric illnesses, such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Among the organization’s principal activities are promoting the passage and implementation of assisted outpatient treatment (AOT) laws and progressive civil commitment laws and standards in individual states."
Who made this statement? How does "eliminating legal and other barriers" lead to the "timely and effective treatment of severe mental illness"? Do they really "[support] the development of innovative treatments for and research into the causes of severe and persistent psychiatric illnesses" - put another way - with their close ties to the "Stanley Medical Research Institute" which a brief search reveals that they fund a lot of drug research - Is another new drug innovative? "Among the organization’s principal activities are promoting the passage and implementation of assisted outpatient treatment (AOT) laws and progressive civil commitment laws and standards in individual states." Who made this claim? They did? Who funds them?
"Development of a Model Law for Assisted Treatment, released in 2000, the Model Law suggests a legal framework for authorizing court-ordered treatment of individuals with untreated severe mental illness who meet strict legal criteria. Used by lawmakers intent on reforming mental illness treatment laws and standards in their states, the Model Law incorporates multiple overlapping protections to safeguard those under court-ordered treatment and to ensure that only those for whom it is appropriate are placed or remain in assisted treatment." What strict legal criteria? What overlapping protections and how do they safeguard those accused? And how does it "ensure that only those for whom it is appropriate are placed or remain in assisted treatment"?
"Education of policymakers and judges regarding the nature of severe mental illnesses, advanced treatments available for those illnesses, and the necessity of court-ordered treatment for those who meet strict legal criteria" What strict legal criteria? In most states ANY adult over 18 can have a detention based psychic evaluation ordered. How is this "strict"?
"Advocacy for civil commitment laws and policies that reduce the consequences of non-treatment for mental illness, which include arrest, incarceration, homelessness, hospitalization violence toward self and others" Who says they reduce any consequences? Citation is needed here! Where are the studies and the facts?
"Data-based research and study into public policy and other issues related specific to severe mental illness. An example is More Mentally Ill Persons Are in Jails and Prisons Than Hospitals: A Survey of the States published in 2010." Wasn't this written by the TAC leader E. Fuller Torrey, M.D? This article also cites work also written by E. Fuller Torrey, M.D. It also claims inherently that anyone in jail with a so called "mental illness" is there because of their mental illness. If you rob a bank or shoot someone you should be behind bars - that is why we built them. Where is this claim that they could have been saved?
"Assistance to grassroots advocates working in the states to promote legal reform" all reform or just their kind of reform?
"Research psychiatrist E. Fuller Torrey founded the Treatment Advocacy Center in 1998 as a function of the National Association on Mental Illness (NAMI). For nearly 10 years in the decade after the widespread elimination of psychiatric hospital beds in the United States (Where is this a fact?), Torrey had been a psychiatrist at St. Elizabeth's Hospital for the treatment of serious and persistent mental illness in Washington, D.C. There, he frequently treated patients who did not consider themselves to be ill but who were nonetheless determined to be displaying symptoms of mental illness by mental health professionals. (How were they determined and by whom? If he is saying he treated people who did not think they were ill but he did this is VERY different than say a panel of people thinking they were ill. Plus if all these people go to the same school and are taught the same things - then what would it matter?) He stated that individuals who would have been hospitalized prior to the closing of state psychiatric hospitals (a trend known as “deinstitutionalization”) were increasingly being migrated into jails and prisons because of behaviors that resulted from their non-treatment. (Are there any facts here? where is a citation. And please let us not allow a citation to his own work!) With the backing of entrepreneur Theodore Stanley and his wife Vada, the Treatment Advocacy Center separated from NAMI shortly after its founding to focus entirely on removing legal barriers to involuntary treatment for those with the most severe mental illnesses. (I guess this is just fact since it is written here...) The Treatment Advocacy Center is a leading (By what measure or standard?) proponent for legal revision of laws safeguarding citizens from involuntary commitment (I thought it said above they were trying to remove barriers to involuntary commitment! Now they are safeguarding them?) and standards and posits itself as a source of authoritative research on issues arising from untreated severe mental illness. (Well at least here they say that this is their opinion but then how is the NPOV?) The organization operates independently via the support of the Stanley Medical Research Institute, the largest non-government source of funding for research into bipolar disorder and schizophrenia in the United States. (Their citation is.. wait for it.. their sister company's website!) Torrey continues to serve as a member of the Treatment Advocacy Center’s board and is executive director of the Stanley Medical Research Institute."
This is a puff piece to support TAC's opinion. Throughout this article they make outlandish claims and they basically quote one man as the source of it all. There are no facts here. This whole page should be removed or edited to meet some sort of scientific standard for claims. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 00:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I am aware I am disputing the whole article. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 00:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC) I created an account. It was a lot easier than I had thought. I was User:220.127.116.11. JasonAJensenUSA (talk) 02:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- User:JasonAJensenUSA I saw that your dispute assertion was closed before I could post a reply. So I will reply here. I'm not in dispute with you. I make changes to articles which I believe will improve the articles. I agree that this article could benefit from broader sourcing and a better look at a broader critiques of the organization but your edits are neither helpful nor do you appear to be making any effort to achieve consensus for the changes. There is a normal editing cycle (see WP:CYCLE) which you are ignoring. For instance, I would direct your attention to the recent edit where you posted citation needed templates all over the article. I fail to see how that could be helpful in improving it. It would be better to spend some time looking up references you think would be helpful.
- Since this is an article which seems to incite a lot of emotion in a number of editors I'd recommend that anyone editing it should read WP:FUCK and avoid editing it unless they can truly detach from their points of view. Regards to all. Trilobitealive (talk) 02:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Trilobitealive I agree completely. But balance seems to be skewed here or any place with psychiatry in general. You can see that in the archive section I made. So the whole page is about an organization that advocates civil commitment, which is just a clever euphemism. If you read this page it seems like a organizational brochure. That doesn't strike me as balanced. I do admit I was a bit hastily in my original edits. But some of my edit were valid. So someone put in the article "There, he frequently treated patients who did not consider themselves to be ill but who were nonetheless determined to be displaying symptoms of mental illness by mental health professionals." But this is so loaded. where those "mental health professionals" himself? Or were they his colleagues? Yet, the statement is there. Adding ",against their will," does paint a more accurate picture of what he is actually doing. How is the article "better" or "more clear" by obfuscating this fact? Then it goes on to say " the Model Law incorporates multiple overlapping protections to safeguard those under court-ordered treatment and to ensure that only those for whom it is appropriate are placed or remain in assisted treatment" but what are those protections? Are there, in fact, any protections if all that is required is for a psychiatrist to say "it's an emergency" so then they can proceed with treatment? What about the fact that these professionals knowingly and wantonly "error on the side of safety" which means they literally error on the side of going against your wishes? There is a lot more here too. The terms used should be terms understanded by all who read them. Soft euphemisms are often not understood. Like "advanced treatment" which, I assume, means ECT. I mean if you read "Advocacy for civil commitment laws and policies that reduce the consequences of non-treatment for mental illness, which include arrest, incarceration, homelessness, hospitalization violence toward self and others" from the standpoint you are looking at an encyclopedia, it isn't clear if "consequences of non-treatment for mental illness, which include arrest, incarceration, homelessness, hospitalization violence toward self and others" is their opinion or some factual statement. I know I find the statement "consequences of non-treatment for mental illness, which include [...] violence toward self and others" as dubious. I know of nothing factual that proves that people with mental illness are more likely to be violent. There are a lot of factors here too. Like if a person is constantly harassed by officials about his illness, say by detaining him for 3 days out of time and sending him a very large bill, does it not lend, to some degree, that violence would, at some point, be rational? They also control the narrative of "untreated" since in their mind that means anyone not on medication. Like I said, this page is probably better suited for deletion. As it stands now it has no value greater than that of the organization's own website. But if it must stay then I say it must be factual and balanced. If he advocates for the forced detainment of people who have committed no crime because he believe they have a brain disease then that should be what is said. Not everyone knows what civil commitment is. I know I didn't until I experienced it. Jason A. Jensen of USA (talk) 05:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Trilobitealive LOL. I read "There is a normal editing cycle (see WP:CYCLE) which you are ignoring." So I looked at the WP:CYCLE. And In fact, I was following it without even knowing it. I did have cause, by this article, to revert your reversion. Saying that I didn't have consensus first isn't valid by this article at WP:CYCLE. I quote it.. "Being bold is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. No editor is more welcome to make a positive contribution than you are. When in doubt, edit! Similarly, if you used the article's talk page because you were unsure, and it has had no response for a few days, go ahead and make your edit. Sometimes other editors are busy, or nobody is watching the article. An edit will either help get the attention of interested editors, or you will simply improve the article — either one is good." So it seems I had every right to edit the page. Then at Wikipedia:Don't_revert_due_to_"no_consensus" it says not to do EXACTLY what you did. So again, I had every right to revert back what I had done. But I did that and then reverted a 2 time back to it's original and started this talk section. I also archived the talk page of all the 2005 stuff so that it was a lot easier to follow. So, I think it is you here that is wrong. The page at Wikipedia:Don't_revert_due_to_"no_consensus" also says "Next to that, the behaviour discourages bold contributions, which are essential to building Wikipedia. Moreover, if you can't point out an underlying problem with an edit, there is no good reason to immediately revert it. Finally, there may in fact exist silent consensus to keep the change. Consensus is not unanimity, and is thus not canceled by one editor's objection." So I think you should put my changes back (at the very least) and make your own changes. Jason A. Jensen of USA (talk) 05:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Document appears to violate WP:ABOUTSELF WP:SELFPUB
Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so. Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.
Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves
Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
- the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
- it does not involve claims about third parties;
- it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
- there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
- the article is not based primarily on such sources.
- Please do note that any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources
- Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of contents. Further examples of self-published sources include press releases, material contained within company websites, advertising campaigns, material published in media by the owner(s)/publisher(s) of the media group, self-released music albums and electoral manifestos:
- The University of California, Berkeley library states: "Most pages found in general search engines for the web are self-published or published by businesses small and large with motives to get you to buy something or believe a point of view. Even within university and library web sites, there can be many pages that the institution does not try to oversee."
- Princeton University offers this understanding in its publication, Academic Integrity at Princeton (2011): "Unlike most books and journal articles, which undergo strict editorial review before publication, much of the information on the Web is self-published. To be sure, there are many websites in which you can have confidence: mainstream newspapers, refereed electronic journals, and university, library, and government collections of data. But for vast amounts of Web-based information, no impartial reviewers have evaluated the accuracy or fairness of such material before it's made instantly available across the globe."
- The Chicago Manual of Style, 16th Edition states, "any Internet site that does not have a specific publisher or sponsoring body should be treated as unpublished or self-published work."
Deleted plagiarized writing
I deleted the entire Wikipedia article as it was totally plagiarized from The Treatment Advocacy Center's website. www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/about-us 18.104.22.168 (talk) 03:46, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Sources needed to support additional content
Substantial original content has been inserted several times without appropriate sources and not following policy (WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:MOS). Challenged edits must be supported by sources and accepted by consensus here on talk. - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)