Talk:Anti-psychiatry/Archive 7

archived

OK: I better archived the whole thing. Feel to retrieve a specific discussion if you think it was prematurely archived. —Cesar Tort 19:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Can we now discuss whether RD Laing's famuly should open up a medicinal brand, e.g RD Laing and sons. They would be professional and have a good reputation.

Non neutral point of view.

I think the expression As psychiatry became more professionally established (and thus more aggressive), can't be considered neutral point of view since there's an implicit judgement there, the use of the adjective aggresive without an explanation about how the subject became more aggressive. 200.83.237.79 03:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I've attempted address this issue by rewording the text using the term "intensive", which lacks the negative connotation of "aggressive". Neitherday 19:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I've attempted to address this by changing "intensive" to "invasive" which is, I believe, what is meant. Of course a source to compare against would be nice.--Loodog 01:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The article is not accurate.

How can anti-psychiatry be described like this: "Anti-psychiatry refers to a post-1960s configuration of groups and theoretical constructs hostile to most of the fundamental assumptions and practices of psychiatry. Its igniting influences were Michel Foucault, R.D.Laing and Thomas Szasz."

This is nonsense and wrong.--Justana (talk) 11:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

What is disputed?

User:24.81.19.182, what specific text in the article do you dispute? Problems cannot be addressed if others do not know what they are. Neitherday 22:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

This might be a more appropriate template to use: {{Disputable}} This inline template is used to highlight a disputed particular statement or alleged fact. Likewise , it must have the issue explained on the talk page. --Aspro 10:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Having received no answer, I'm removing the POV template. If an explanation is later offered, it can always be readded. Neitherday 18:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

i think it is free to swear and launch attacks on Soviet Union axiomatically as the quote "The Soviet state in the twentieth century devised suitable psychiatric diagnoses for any who opposed its will with sufficiently persistent vigor but who, whether by dint of ingenuity or mere social eminence, proved difficult to criminalize. They were duly hospitalized instead." has no references at all! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Habiskurus (talk • contribs) 06:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Where is the advertisement?

"This article or section is written like an advertisement. Please help rewrite this article from a neutral point of view." Fine I would do if I could work out what was being advertised. This looks like a fine article to me about a really important topic - I can see it needs more work but it falls well within the top 1% of wikipedia articles and deserves better treatment than the three disclaimers - one would be quite enough. POV? well, maybe three boxes is a bit POV too, someone clearly doesnt like the fact that this article even exists Excalibur 19:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Too many editors see templating as a way of saying "I generally don't like this article", but are not willing to exctually explain why. If there are no specific critiques of why this article has problems, what those problems are and how the person would like to see them remedied, then then templates can be removed in a reasonable period of time. Rockpocket 23:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see this before or I would have commented. The article did read like an advertisement to me, largely for Szasz and his books. In my recent cleanup edit I thought the article had progressed far enough that it didn't need the tag any more so I removed it -- but it's my opinion that the article is still dangerously close.

Of course, anything you can do to help would be appreciated. I'm working on the POV issues now; I'd like to get an idea of what the psychiatry advocates say in response. I added a comment tag with a reference to such a paper -- but I won't add it to the article text until I can find a copy and put something in. Having not read the article I can't say how strictly relevant or good it is, but the title seems spot on. I'm soliciting other suggestions.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 12:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, on the issue of three boxes at the top -- they did seem like too much to me. I worked on making the article clearer, but I wasn't quite happy enough with my own work to remove the tag. I think the article is close on that front -- just a bit more work and the clarity tag can be removed -- although it still has a long way to go on the POV. That's going to require edits to every section and almost every paragraph. CRGreathouse (t | c) 12:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I've got to say that I totally disagree with CRGreathouse about this article reading like an advertisement. It's essential to include references to Szaz and his books when discussing this issue. That shouldn't be taken as an endorsement of Szaz's books any more than the page about communism should be taken as an endorsement for the Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engels. Szaz was a person who studied psychiatry, became a psychiatrist, and said that there are problems with the practise. He's obviously done enough research to speak intelligently about the subject, so he shouldn't be silenced, except by superior research, which I haven't seen in these discussions.

I think the way this page stands, it would be informative for psychiatrists, those considering entering the profession, consumers, survivors, and friends and relatives of consumers and survivors. I'm not a psychiatrist, but if somebody told me that there were ways I could improve what I do for a living, I would want to hear about them. I would think by the same token, that everybody involved in the field, especially those who earn their living by it would want to hear about Thomas Szaz. If I were receiving medical care, I would look at alternative treatments, or alternatives to treatment. That's the information that this page should provide.

This is a really important page, and I hope that soon the boxes can be dropped. My local big box book store has quite a few anti-psychiatry titles in the self help section, so this is obviously something people are interested in. Hood rap (talk) 04:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I also look forward to that time. Say, do you think you could drop some citations to those books into the article? CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

-) You've found my achilles heel. I've bought a couple of recent books on the subject, but I haven't found time to read them yet. Hood rap (talk) 04:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

No hurry. When you get around to it, the article could use the love. CRGreathouse (t | c) 21:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Drapetomania

I want editors to know that I added drapetomania to the section "Normality and illness judgments." I wikilinked it to the Wikipedian article on drapetomania. If anyone can expound upon it, please do so. Chris Dubey 13:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC).

Recent NPOV/advert edit

Scuro wrote in a recent edit summary:

Why would you eliminate praise of Szasz for the CCHR? This drives home the point that the CCHR is notable and also shows the continued association between the two

I deleted the mention because I didn't think it was particularly relevant, but more because the article had been marked as an {{advert}}. In many places the article does look like an ad for Szasz, and I thought removing mention of him when he's peripheral would be a good place to start.

I'll leave the information in for now, but the article is dangerously close to being an advertisement. Anything you can do to help in this respect would be appreciated -- there's a lot of cruft that has to go.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 12:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Simply demonstrating that Szasz helped found the CCHR, praises it, and has nurtured and continues to nurture it...doesn't mean that we are promoting Szasz, he simply has finger in this pie. These are facts which have been sourced. Szasz is a pillar of Anti-P community. His involvement and statements are noteworthy and add credibility to the subsection.

Since the ad tag will soon be removed, I wonder where you are really going with this.--scuro 16:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The article does read like Szasz is being promoted. Stating facts is one thing, stating them like an ad is another. I hope the ad tag is soon removed, and I might even remove it myself after I comb through the article a bit more.

As for where I'm going with this -- I'm trying to improve the article, as I assume you are. I want the article to be sufficiently informative and well-written that people unfamiliar with the term learn a lot (not being put off or confused by the tone, nor left wanting for facts) and that critics see enough evidence that they resist the temptation to nominate the article for deletion or pepper it with {{cn}} tags.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

If it was Breggin who helped found the CCHR, provides content, and makes noteworthy speeches...his name would appear several times in this section. He distanced himself, what can I say?--scuro 20:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Wording/NPOV

From the article, the following passage just had a {{fact}} tag removed:

As psychiatry became more professionally established during the 19th century and they developed more invasive treatments, opposition increased.

Regardless of the need for a citation, the wording on this sentence (and indeed the entire section it came from) needs work. The antecedent-less "they" is particularly unprofessional, and the assertions that more invasive treatments were developed and opposition increased should be supported -- not so much with citations as concrete examples.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there any use at all

with an article like this? It's so POV that I almost feel it must have been hijacked as a soapbox. Which raises general questions about Wikipedia quality control methods in me at least, because it's not the first instance I have seen on a subject of some importance. /83.253.58.192 (talk) 18:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean the factual content. Relevant facts are never excessive (if properly structured). I mean the facts omitted and the presentation. /83.253.58.192 (talk) 18:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I hope you phrased your question in a bad way. If you disapprove of the way the object of discussion is being described, it would be best to re-write the article. Questioning if there is an use for it can be interpreted as a personal dislike for the article, which, given its controversial topic, may be a consequence of an attempt of censorship. (2007, December 5) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.15.180.79 (talk) 02:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

General Effectiveness of the Psychiatric Approach

I've come across a pretty good book lately. It's called Your Drug May Be Your Problem: How and Why to Stop Taking Psychiatric Drugs by Peter Breggin. I highly recommend this book, especially the first few chapters. He raises many points mentioned in this article but also brings into question the actual efficacy of using psychiatric drugs as a therapy. Not only do many major drugs including prozac have very little added benefit beyond placebos but also that there have been no studies that show psychiatric drugs to have any long-term benefit.

One marked problem with psychiatric treatment is that discontinuation of any psychiatric medication (especially when abrupt) has the potential for great withdrawal symptoms that are usually blamed on a patient's original "illness" and which are taken as evidence for the need of medication. However, such is simply not the case. In the case of neuroleptics or antipsychotics, a sudden withdrawal has three times the potential to cause a psychotic episode than if one stays on the medication. however, tapering off of this medication gives the same rate of symptoms as staying on the drug. thus the question is raised: is there any real effect of this drug in the long term?

There are even studies that show that taking neuroleptic drugs causes for a worse outcome for the patient. Check this out here. Other than that, I don't have many references. You can find a lot of articles by Breggin on Pubmed however.

Do you think this is a good idea for an addition to the article? Narcissus (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC) No! Please, this is a serious book on the harms drugs promotes. Don't put Peter Breggin under the label anti-psychiatry again. This article is a total nonsense. It must be reedited. I don't write it all over again because the "fairies" will delete it all and tomorrow I'm sure it will go back the way it is. --Justana (talk) 20:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Still, another NPOV dispute...

The article is not POV: it describes, not sells, a notable movement that deserves an article on its own.

If some editors think that Tom Szasz's views are overemphasized here, just cut and paste those sections into the Szasz article. It’s that simple.

If no valid arguments are given to retain the tag, I see no reason for other editors to remove it in the near future.

Cesar Tort 18:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Postscript:

If I understand WP policy accurately, POV tags cannot stand without active discussion here. Any objections if I remove the tag? As to the Szasz issue, rather than moving content to that page I would recommend to add more content here about the other classic "antipsychiatrists" like R.D. Laing or Michel Foucault. In either case I don't see a valid reason for the tag. —Cesar Tort 18:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Why are you saying Michel Foucault is a classic "antipsychiatrist". His is everything but antipsychiatrist. You are putting words on other people mouths. This is a total lack of comprehension on the work of people like Foucault, Freud, Deleuze, Guatarri, Laing, and institutions like mindfreedom and others.

The article must be deleted.

This is outrageous!

Followers of those who are dead will come here to see this horrendous imposture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justana (talk • contribs) 10:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I never said that Foucault, Freud, Deluze or Guatarri called themselves antipsychiatrists. But it's fairly obvious that people in the 1960s and '70s called Foucault an "antipsychiatrist" as you yourself have said. (I've read the Foucault thick book about psychiatry, BTW.) 99% of the people critical of psychiatry I know hate the word Anti-psychiatry. However, the word was so popular that, for convenience, it's editorially advisable for the title of an article about the movement against coercive psychiatry. And please sign your posts. —Cesar Tort 15:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Why are you raising your voice?

There's no need for that. Where have I said that people in the 1960s and '70's called Foucault an "antipsychiatrist"? It's not "fairly obvious". But yes, you are right. People who didn't know his work, specially those who were not in France, misunderstood his approach. In his own words:

"One day I was invited to a congress on psychiatry in Montreal. I was not a psychiatrist even having a little experience on this subject, a very short experience as I've been saying repeatedly; I declined the invitation. But the organizers assured me that they were inviting me only and exclusively as a historian of psychiatry to make the opening speech. As I love Quebec I went. Once there I was really surprised because the president introduced me as the great French representative of anti-psychiatry. Naturally there was very kind persons there that had never read a single line of what I had written and they were sure I was an anti-psychiatry. I just had wrote the psychiatry history till the beginning of the 19 century. Why on earth so many people, psychiatrists included, see me as an anti-psychiatrist? For the single reason that they are not capable of accepting the real history of their institutions." 1978 Michel Foucault

But there has been so much attention on his work lately that it's an imposture to call him anti-psychiatrist. Same to Deleuze, Guatarri, Freud and others. "I never said that Foucault, Freud, Deluze or Guatarri called themselves antipsychiatrists." I didn't say you said that. Calling themselves is totally different from other call you what you're not.

When you say that the word "was so popular that for convenience, it's editorially advisable for the title of an article about the movement against coercive psychiatry" you make a huge misunderstanding. You are mixing different approaches. Those who are against coercive psychiatry are not necessarily linked to anti-psychiatry movement. As an example you have www.power2u.org/ and many others. French philosophers that have studied with Foucault, Deleuze and Guattari are appalled by seeing their names in this article. You said that "99% of the people critical of psychiatry I know hate the word Anti-psychiatry." This is exactly the point.

Criticizing psychiatry has nothing to do with the real antipsychiatry movement from the 60's and the Szasz's point of view. Once again you're mixing and putting serious thinkers under the label "anti-psychiatry" against their will.

As you said you've "read the Foucault thick book about psychiatry, BTW". So you must be aware that he has nothing to do whith anti-psychiatry. I have not signed because I did not know that we have to sign. I'll try to sign this time. But you can keep your way of contributing to Wikipedia "for convenience, it's editorially advisable for the title of an article about the movement against coercive psychiatry." Even though I do not understand what you mean by "convenience" either "editorially advice". But after reading this: "http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Main_Page" I have an idea.

I don't know why I'm wasting my time. I'll try to sing now.--Justana (talk) 06:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Nor I want to wast it. As I stated way below, I really want to unwatch the article. I think I already addressed the issues in yesterday's post. —Cesar Tort 15:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

When I said I was not going to waste my time I was saying that I'm not going to reedit the article for I know that it's useless. But I'll not unwatch. Let's see till when all this nonsense will be on Wikipedia. I would only ask you all to inform when will the the first time that someone will hear something like: "-I've learned on Wikipedia that Freud was the Austrian Tom Cruise of his time.":) --Justana (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Above I meant that *I* want to unwatch the article: never asked you to unwatch it. Also, I've not read the article for many months. Does it really said that Freud was an antipsychiatrist? I don't think so. Anyway I've just removed the paragraph on Freud. As to Breggin, I've read four books by him and lots of his journal and internet articles. Have you get the point? People like Breggin and me don't like to be labeled "antipsychiatrists". It's a pretty handy label for the media (hence for an encyclopedic entry). There's even a book, Laing and antipsychiatry,[1] even though he didn't like the label that his colleague David Cooper invented: antispychiatry. It's pointless to discuss a subject that has already been decided by the media's lax use of terms and epithets. —Cesar Tort 21:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

And please: post comments of your new ideas at the bottom of the page. Otherwise the December 2007 reply by the below poster doesn't make much sense. —Cesar Tort 22:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Can't you see that this article gives more reliability to the media say nonsenses? Pointless to discuss because the media has declared the use of the term?

Dear Lord! It's worth than I thought! This article is being used by psychiatrists to put in disbelief the work of all critics. And it's working.

I'm new at Wikipedia and still trying to understand how to use it. I would like to open a new topic but still haven't found out how to do it.

I'll put new comments, not of my "new ideas" because what I'm saying here is common knowledge among many serious critics, at the end.

Now I'll have to bring people from France and UK to claim that this article is nonsense.

As far as all French philosophers are concerned I assure you that their names will have to be removed from this article.--Justana (talk) 14:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Of the French I've only read Foucault, and, yes, lots of people called him an antipsych even if this is a silly word.

• "This article is being used by psychiatrists to put in disbelief the work of all critics."

I don't think this is accurate. But I do agree, as I've said, that critics of psychiatry dislike the word.

Since I don't want to spend more time in this discussion, I'll now unwatch the article. So I hope other editors will continue to discuss with you.

—Cesar Tort 17:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the movement deserves an article, but the article in its current form is very POV. Just glancing at the comments above makes it clear that most people here agree, and I suspect that the mainstream view would agree yet more readily. We should get editors from the various projects attached to this article to look this article over and add their insights, either here on Talk or in the article directly.

I do think that Szasz's views are overrepresented in the article, which is a lesser issue than the general POV. The POV makes the article read like an attack rather than a neutral encyclopedia; the overemphasis makes anti-psychiatry seem more like a one-man show than the broad unorganized movement that it is.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. Maybe other editors will disagree? This is the article that hits as #1 in my page of number of wiki edits. However, I have been so busy in real world that from now on I would leave further discussion to other editors.

Good luck watching over this article :)

—Cesar Tort 20:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

After two weeks, discussion is dead and pov tags should remain only in active discussions. Why don't you place an Template:RFCsci list to get editors from the various projects to look over this article? —Cesar Tort 05:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with what Hood rap has just posted way above. This article is not selling anything and the pov tag should be removed. —Cesar Tort 05:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

1. The POV tag should remain while the article is POV, regardless of discussion. Even if there was no discussion at all a tag would be appropriate -- though in that case it should be {{POV-check}}. The tag *should* be removed if I'm mistaken, though.

2. Toward that end, as well as to the end of improving the article, I've left messages on the Talk pages of three of the WikiProjects above. I asked for references, review, and for someone to remove the POV tag if (as a neutral observer) they felt the article was NPOV. (I did tailor the messages for each project, since the respective members will have different perspectives on it.)

CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

"It's pointless to discuss a subject that has already been decided by the media's lax use of terms and epithets."

Great explanation of how the editors of Wikipedia is done. I'll quote it. Thank you. --187.67.198.216 (talk) 09:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

RfC on Talk:Biopsychiatry controversy

An RfC has been created on Talk:Biopsychiatry controversy on the subject: "Is the majority viewpoint of the psychiatric profession, and particularly of the psychiatric research community, that the biopsychiatric model of psychiatry is, by and large, accepted or rejected?" Comments from editors involved in this article/project may prove useful. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Lobotomy were NOT used to produce seizures but to make them cease. By the way, i think the article would be more NPOV if the name was "Anti-psychiatry movement" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxygenetik (talk • contribs) 10:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Why this page? (I)

Why does this page is even there? I'm not contesting that some people may in fact believe in anti-psychiatry (as certain people believe in flat-earth), I'm asking what is the relevence of this in what is (supposed to be) an "encyclopedia". Isn't Wikipedia supposed to aim for the most scientific content? (Or most mainstream one anyway)

The fact is "anti-psychiatry" is not recognized by scientific, medical, legal, institutional etc authorities. It has no place in what's supposed to be encyclopedic material. Wikipedia should be about knowledge, not misinformation, pseudo-science or revisionism...

Viewpoints that are extremely marginals should be given extremely marginal spaces. Certainly not an entire article that's as big as the psychiatry one. It gives the false impression to those who don't know any better that "anti-psychiatry" is a valid and popular alternative model. It's not: it's a ridiculously fringe pov that's getting more and more marginal as more people becomes aware that mental illnesses really is another term for physical illnesses that affect the brain. Anti-psychiatry doesn't have any scientific validity or mainstream credibility and should be treated as such. At best, perhaps a link in the main psychiatry article.

I propose this article for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.79.51 (talk) 02:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I've replied above. You cannot simply "propose" for deletion any article you don't like. Wikipedia has its rules. The article is about the movement critical of coercive, involuntary psychiatry. You may not like the movement but, as a subject, it was fairly notable a few decades ago. Presently critics of psychiatry don't use the word. But some newspapers still use it. It's handy to use it in spite of the fact that it's a terrible word. —Cesar Tort 16:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Undid revision by spacepotato. No reason given except for quote: "We should certainly have an article discussing the anti-psychiatry movement" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.88.94 (talk) 15:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

We're an encyclopedia. As the anti-psychiatry movement exists and is notable, we should have an article on it. Whether it's true, false, mainstream, non-mainstream, scientific, endorsed by authority figures, etc., has no bearing on this. We have many articles on beliefs and belief systems which are wholly unscientific. Spacepotato (talk) 20:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand that. But at the very least, the article should be written in a no-POV manner. Making sure the reader understand anti-psychiatry is considered to be pseudo-science (which is exactly what's it's considered). Presenting it as neutral is just dishonesty, bordering on the obscurantism.

I disagree it's in any way "notable". It's not. Not much more than flat-earth anyway. In fact, I think the flat earth article should be a good template (and no, I've no intention of rewriting the entire article myself.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.73.242 (talk) 21:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Anti-psychiatry is certainly notable by Wikipedia standards. I think your characterization of anti-psychiatry as "pseudo-science" misses the mark. The questions driving the anti-psychiatric movement, such as the ethics of involuntary commitment, the construction or definition of mental illness, and the funding of medical research by pharmaceutical companies, involve judgments that are outside the scope of science. Spacepotato (talk) 22:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I've yet to witness any solid evidences that anti-psychiatry is more than a fringe POV or that it's in any way notable. Wikipedia standards or otherwise.

"the ethics of involuntary commitment, the construction or definition of mental illness, and the funding of medical research by pharmaceutical companies, involve judgments that are outside the scope of science"

Fine. Simply add these critics to the relevant involuntary commitment etc articles. If I start my own religion of Zawejuu and then say that Zawejuu concerns itself with C++ and Marilyn Monroe (notable subjects)...well that still doesn't make Zawejuu notable in any way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.74.208 (talk) 16:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, watch the CCHR DVD "Psychiatry: Industry of Death". Many psychiatrists freely admit themselves, they have no objective or scientific tests to determine whether a person satisfies or not satisfies a specific psychiatric diagnose, they cannot cure any of their patients, they don't know what causes mental illness. Even the Director of research at APA does not know what causes mental illness. All the new diagnoses in DSM are voted (yes, like "raise your hands, please") into existence. And now the recent media-avalance on the Hull University research findings that antidepressants, that have been heavily pushed by psychiatry for 20 years, do not work any better than sugar-pills. So how much of science is psychiatry -- REALLY? ZERO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiiinfo (talk • contribs) 00:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

lead sentence

Take a look at this old version of a WP article: Biopsychiatry controversy —Cesar Tort 01:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

After reading that article you may see why I take issue with the lead sentence—:

The major psychiatric bodies and medical associations of the world claim that mental disorders exist, anti-psychiatry advocates claim that there are no scientific tests that can prove the existence of current psychiatric diagnoses of mental disorders -- they believe that these definitions are too vague and/or arbitrary and leave too much room for opinions and interpretations, to satisfy basic scientific standards. They further claim that psychiatry has no valid cures for any disorders and that their treatments are long-term far more damaging than helpful to the patients.

—which strikes me as un-encyclopedic and even erroneous. For example:

• "The major psychiatric bodies and medical associations of the world claim that mental disorders exist"

In fact, presently most critics of psychiatry accept the existence of mental disorders.

• "anti-psychiatry advocates claim that there are no scientific tests "

Psychiatrists do recognize this as well —see the DSM-IV-RT.

• "they believe that these definitions are too vague and/or arbitrary and leave too much room for opinions and interpretations"

This may apply to some sane children labeled with ADHD, but not to clear cases of mental disturbance among adults.

I'd recommend reading the above-linked article and thoroughly change this paragraph in the lead.

—Cesar Tort 17:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your first and second points, and think the lead needs to be changed. On your third point: while agreeing that anti-psychiatrists would say that in the case of minor disorders like AD(H)D the definitions are vague/arbitrary, I think that they would say the same about major disorders. Even if a psychiatrist and anti-psychiatrist were to agree that a given person was seriously disturbed (per your first point, most psychiatry critics admit to the existence of disorders), the anti-psychiatrist would argue that the DSM allows many characterizations of the behavior. (Actually, as an aside, this seems an eminently testable hypothesis. I wonder if it's been tested and if we could cite the results, whichever way it went.) CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Difficult to test since psychiatric diagnoses are clinical, not physical: hence the problem of comorbidity in the profession. And yes: beside the major disorders there are some ridiculous DSM "disorders" such as mathematical performance or quarreling among brothers. Believe it or not...

Feel free to change the lead :)

—Cesar Tort 18:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

bot help wanted

Does anyone know how to run a bot to convert so many bare endnotes in this article?

—Cesar Tort 16:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

What makes anti-psych...A-P

I agree with CT...

• "The major psychiatric bodies and medical associations of the world claim that mental disorders exist" In fact, presently most critics of psychiatry accept the existence of mental disorders.

• "anti-psychiatry advocates claim that there are no 100% foolproof scientific tests "Psychiatrists do recognize this as well —see the DSM-IV-RT.

These points are in the intro. What makes an Anti-P unique?--scuro (talk) 03:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, mainly they're against involuntary drugging and involuntary commitment. I guess nobody wants, say, to be electroshocked against his/her will. —Cesar Tort 03:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Gee...what about the whole hog denial of mental illness? Has there been a sea change in the movement?--scuro (talk) 05:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

In times of Michael Foucault, people were concerned of the psychiatric view of say, homosexuality as mental illness (that's why some activists said there was no such thing). Nowadays the best book I know which advances the current approach is Mad in America. It reads like a novel: very entertaining. —Cesar Tort 06:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The article doesn't reflect the change in attitude, perhaps I missed it. I'm sure other readers may not know what you stated either. --scuro (talk) 13:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The word "antipsychiatry" was mainly used in the 1960s and '70s. Today's critics do not use the word. But I guess it has become a catchword to refer to any critic of psychiatry. —Cesar Tort 16:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Cesar, this is a catchword to put in disbelief the work of people like Michel Foucault, Freud and others. You are right saying that antipsychiatry is a term for the sixties but in the seventies Michel Foucault already saw this movement as historical and went really anger because he was invited to make a speech in Montreal and he was presented as an "anti-psychiatrists" instead of a historian of the psychiatry which he really is. All this article is a totally equivocated. It must be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justana (talk • contribs) 11:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC) --Justana (talk) 06:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

No notable subject can be deleted in Wikipedia. As I just wrote above, virtually all people who fight human right violations in psychiatry (some of them psychiatrists themselves) hate the word antipsychiatry. The word is a necessary evil, used only for editorial purposes. —Cesar Tort 16:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Necessary evil for editorial purposes? I didn't know that distorting other people works is "necessary evil".

Wwere can I find the Wikipedia editorial purposes? I have a total different understanding on "editorial".--Justana (talk) 14:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

As I just wrote above, I am unwatching this article. Good luck in your discussion with other editors (if any) in this talk page. I do recommend however that you read the Wikipedia policies more closely because you seem to be misunderstanding some things. For example, in a previous incarnation of this article (I don't know if it's still in the present one; as I said, I've not read the whole article for months) and editor wrote in the lead paragraph that the word may have pejorative connotations, and that many critics avoid it. Such a statement in the very lead addresses your concerns (which incidentally are my concerns as well, since I also dislike the word). I would recommend again to read some of the the archived discussions, or even the ArbCom case on psychiatry. I am not sure but perhaps in this page there's some discussion on the accuracy, or lack thereof, of the word "antipsychiatry" (take note that you should not post anything in the archived pages; they're old discussions and new comments should be placed in this very page). —Cesar Tort 17:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Tone and wording

The article suffers from many sentences with inappropriate and argumentative language such as allegedly, claimed. Also it seems to suffer from issues of synthesis and advancement of points of view. The issue appears to be one that some believe that psychiatry has been inappropriately used for social control purposes; which is a theory and not appropriate for wikipedia. I am going to tag the article. I already tagged one section with a "tone" banner. Fremte (talk) 23:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI psychiatry has in fact been used as social control. I think nobody would deny that the Soviets used it in that way (the Cubans still do it). And in times of Defoe the word psychiatry was not even used. France's asylums were replete of liberated women, rebellious adolescents, "sodomites" and the homeless. It goes without saying that most of them were sane. Foucault wrote a thousand-page book on this very subject, Madness and Civilization: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason: a classic in understanding the roots of the mental health movement. —Cesar Tort 01:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I very much agree, the tone of the article is often inappropriate. I don't think the article is original research, but I concede that there is perhaps a degree of synthesis in the choice of sources for the article. Certainly it could use a broader range of sources. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes: that's why I didn't remove the tone tag. And I do agree with you that, besides Szasz's, we need other sources. However, if you read all of them —Foucault, Szasz, Laing as well as Breggin and today's critics (as I have)— you will see that the article is on its first stages to reach a good status.

But we must correct the lead as I pointed out above. (BTW, I have requested help in WP:BOTREQ to fix the bare URL footnotes.)

—Cesar Tort 03:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the above comment "which is a theory and not appropriate for Wikipedia". There is no reason why theories cannot be presented on wiki provided they are properly sourced and are not presented as proven facts when they are not. Would it be suggested there should not be an article on string theory? Fainites ^barley 09:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I am having second thoughts about the tone tag. Maybe it should be removed? —Cesar Tort 09:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is totally wrong. It should be removed. Criticizing psychiatry does not mean that a philosopher, a psychiatry or an institution is anti-psychiatrist. This article mix different critics under the label "anti-psychiatry". Foucault has nothing to do with this label. Neither does Freud, R.D. Laing - yes Laing was a psychiatrist and he claimed he was not linked to this label -, Deleuze, Guatarri and many others who are on this article. This is a total lack of ethics. There's much misinformation on all these article. Please take it away for this is a way of putting in discredit and disbelief the work of many people and organization. They will be informed that their work are being considered as anti-psychiatry. For those who are dead, like Foucault, Freud and others we have his followers to advocate that it's wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justana (talk • contribs) 10:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I have replied to this rant in another post by Justana way above. Not necessary to iterate it here. —Cesar Tort 16:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You have not replied with arguments. Once again: it's wrong to associate mindfreedom,Peter Bregguin, and all critics to psychiatry under the label Anti-psychiatry.--Justana (talk) 11:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

What strikes me the most about your posts, Justana, is that I've tried to advance arguments. On the other hand, you merely repeat, over and over again, that it's wrong to use the umbrella term "antipsychiatry" to refer to psychiatry critics. I didn't start this article. I found it as it stands today in the sense that a title had to be chosen for the WP article of professionals and users who have complained about psychiatry. I think you haven't understood how WP works. If the term was so popular a few decades ago, discussion is over. The article merely reflects that, not our opinions or phobias. If you don't like the term antipsychiatry you'd have to find another one as popular to refer to the critics of psychiatry. But we perfectly know that such term does not exists. I also dislike the term but my feelings are irrelevant to the WP rules. I'd recommend your reading of wp:or. —Cesar Tort 17:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It was not me who first wanted the article to be deleted. You are not advancing arguments. You are repeating over and over again that the term "anti-psychiatry" is appropriate to people who are not anti-psychiatrist only because people with dubious and questionable intentions want it. So, according to your point of view, if the media and popularity of the term claims that it's so even when it's wrong we must keep on with the error. What media are you referring to? You claim that there's only one media that has the truth? Look at this : http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4263314,00.html "Criticism of psychiatric knowledge and practices has receded in recent decades, even as the numbers of those receiving treatments soared.

Today there are signs of change, even renewed struggles. They reflect consolidating links between psychiatric user groups, magazines working for democratic psychiatry alongside radical mental health workers and critical psychologists who have listened sensitively to the needs of users. These affiliations accompany the appearance of centres for psychosocial studies in universities in Britain, with Manchester Metropolitan, UEL, West of England and Birkbeck in the vanguard."

Perhaps you are paying attention in only one part of the media. There are medias and you cannot rely on most of what is in some of them. It's very dangerous and harmful when media is being used to construct a source of database. It's not a question of feeling. It's a question of historical impartiality, ethics, respect for peoples work. I've even left a text where Michel Foucault complains in the seventies of being called anti-psychiatrist. Now the US media will help putting his work:

"Anti-psychiatry refers to a post-1960s configuration of groups and theoretical constructs hostile to most of the fundamental assumptions and practices of psychiatry. Its igniting influences were Michel Foucault, R.D.Laing and Thomas Szasz."

This is the most absurd approach of anti-psychiatry.

I'll say nothing more. Now it's time for those who are inscribed on WP rule:

"While Biographies of living persons policies do not apply directly to the subject of this article, this article may have content that directly relates to other living persons, such as friends and family. Controversial material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see the biographies of living persons noticeboard."

to take part on the discussion. I'll just translate from English into French and from French into English in order the discussion can be done.--Justana (talk) 15:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You are lecturing me as if I was not familiar with the field. FYI, I spent a whole year in Manchester for a mental health course in the Open University. The course was fairly critical of psychiatry if compared to a standard academic course. Also, your quotation of WP living person policies could only apply to Szasz (I've read ten books by him BTW), not to Foucault or Laing. As I wrote above in a couple of comments I just posted, I am un-watching this article —now. I guess this will be my last post for a while. Again, good luck with your efforts to improve this article. In a sense we maintain the same position. The word is awful and both of us seem to like the critics (my personal views on psychiatry can be read here). However, I believe that practicality, editorial matters, and the fact that the word became so popular, override our concerns. Bye right now. —Cesar Tort 17:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI: Foucault died in 1984, Guatarri in 1992 and Deleuze 1995. Perhaps you should read again the quotation of WP that is on top of MF's article and should be also on Guatarri and Deleuze for these articles may have content that directly relates to other living persons, such as friends and family."

Dear Lord! You spend a lot of time taking care of this article! You have answered one by one people who came here to try to put things in their real place. Thanks the Lord Maurice de Gandillac has not an article on this American approach of French philosophers. Do you receive any all money or is it just for fun? Is it funny to disgrace and dishonor peoples work? Now it's time for me to unwatch. Bye--Justana (talk) 00:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

merge in lead section

I suggest to reduce and merge these two paragraphs into one:

1. The classification of various human behaviour patterns and mental phenomena as "mental illnesses" is arbitrary and does not satisfy basic scientific standards.[citation needed]
2. The specific definitions of or criteria for thousands of current psychiatric diagnoses or disorders, are vague and arbitrary, leaving too much room for opinions and interpretations to meet basic scientific standards.[citation needed]

They are redundant in its present form —something improper for a lead section. Also, there are no "thousands of current psychiatric diagnoses", only 374 in DSM-IV.

—Cesar Tort 04:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

While we're at it, the fourth paragraph doesn't belong here but in some section for religious objections, as it's only Scientologists who subscribe to this conspiracy theory. CRGreathouse (t | c) 22:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

If that paragraph is not sourced soon (non CCHR sources) we can remove it. —Cesar Tort 22:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory

Since AP passes the criteria of being a conspiracy theory, should we link to it in the main article page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.67.18 (talk) 05:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Unlike the often paranoid CCHR critique to psychiatry, Antipsychiatry has nothing to do with conspiracy theory whatsoever. This has even been discussed in a page of a June 2006 WP:RFAR process about anti-psychiatry. If you are interested, I can do some digging and find it the exact page. —Cesar Tort 06:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

CoS

The Church of Scientology NEEDS to be mentioned in the opening. The vast majority of anti-psychiatry sentiments stem from the CoS or groups such as the CCHR which are Scientology fronts.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.121.95 (talk • contribs)

Nop! As you can see in the archived talk pages, I for one researched critical literature of psychiatry and for years I didn't hear in Europe or Mexico of the existence of CCHR. Secular "antipsychiatry" is as old as 18th century literature, long before even Hubbard was born, the founder or the CoS. Besides, there are no less than three articles of CoS and psychiatry in Wikipedia. Take a close look at those articles. And please sign your posts. —Cesar Tort 01:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Why this page? (II)

I also propose this article for deletion because it displays anti-psychiatry in a wrong way. Many philosophers and organizations that are listed under the label "anti-psychiatry" has nothing to do with this cause. This is unethical and a total equivocated way of approaching anti-psychiatry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justana (talk • contribs) 10:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

If this is true should the coatrack WP:COATRACK be added to the article?--scuro (talk) 10:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• "more and more marginal as more people becomes aware that mental illnesses really is another term for physical illnesses that affect the brain" —way above

You got info backwards. Take a look at the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) instead of swallowing Big Pharma propaganda. Wikipedia is based on Reliable Sources such as the DSM, which does not claim that mental disorders "really are another term for physical illnesses that affect the brain".

• "Anti-psychiatry doesn't have any scientific validity" —way above

Missing the point. What the critics of psychiatry have said is that psychiatry doesn't have any scientific validity. A minority and perhaps fringe view, yes. But since it is notable it must have a place in this encyclopedia.

your opinion is utterly irrelevant. and you admit that it is a fringe view yet says it's notable? should we include every such fringe views then?

• "Making sure the reader understand anti-psychiatry is considered to be pseudo-science" —way above

Do you have any Reliable Sources (RS) for this? If you have it add it to the article.

• "I disagree it's in any way "notable". It's not." —way above

Your opinion doesn't matter here. What's important is history. And the writings of a few critics of psychiatry have been notable enough according to WP standards. These authors even have articles of their own.

• "I've yet to witness any solid evidences that anti-psychiatry is more than a fringe POV or that it's in any way notable. Wikipedia standards or otherwise." —way above

Again, if you have a WP:RS that states this, add it to the article. Thank you.

—Cesar Tort 16:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree to a point in what you say Cesar. We can examine notability by looking at that specific policy below.

WP:NNGeneral notability guideline

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable.

• "Presumed" means if there is substantive coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, then we presume the topic is notable. However, a subject that is presumed to be notable may still not be suitable for inclusion. For example, it may violate what Wikipedia is not.
• "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.
• "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
• "Sources," defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.
• "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.

A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia. Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article. --scuro (talk) 22:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• "...propose this article for deletion because it displays anti-psychiatry in a wrong way..." I have added a comment to the first cite of David Cooper in the article; mainly, that Cooper never defined his anti-psychiatry, although, along with Laing in his later books, he did imply that it was traditional psychiatry that was "anti-psychiatric," in the sense that it did not practice "soul healing." What needs to be deleted is the popular notion that anti-psychiatry was a "movement" at all: after I read Psychiatry and Anti-Psychiatry, I understood that Cooper et al. were practicing psychiatry; traditional psychiatrists were practicing anti-psychiatry, in the sense that their methods did not contribute to soul healing (the etymologic meaning of psychiatry). 98.233.253.148 (talk) 04:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Has the article turned into a coatrack?

WP:COATRACK

Justana has postulated that:

• this article ... displays anti-psychiatry in a wrong way.
• Many philosophers and organizations that are listed under the label "anti-psychiatry" has nothing to do with this cause.

--scuro (talk) 22:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Scuro. Wow: big reply above from you just before this section. Interesting. And thanks Spacepotato for correcting my mistake (the relocation of an anonymous editor).

This said, Justana is just ignorant of the movement. Take the example of R.D. Laing. According to popular opinion —I mean: Laing was a guru of the counter-culture of the 1960's and '70s— he was an "antipsychiatrist". But he, like Foucault, rejected the silly epithet for obvious reasons. What matters is the notability of the word "antipsychiatry" attached to all sort of criticism of psychiatry. Thus, according to popular opinion Laing would be the antipsychiatrist par excellence even if he rejected the term. This page could be moved of course, and invent another title. But what the hundreds if not thousands of users look after when they google "antipsychiatry" is the most common criticism of psychiatry (that is different from CCHR and the Scientology stuff of course). I see no other way to solve this dilemma than maintaining the current title. But this is only my view and other editors may see things differently. What's important though is that people doing a drastic change such as moving the page be familiar with the subject. For example, the article has been tagged as requiring third party sources. I may not be the ultimate reader on this subject (I believe that user:EverSince knows more than me), but as far as I know there's very little "third party" literature on this subject to source properly an article such as this one. I wish more knowledgeable editors than me start to edit this article —which has been in my watchlist for almost two years— so that I may, finally, unwatch it. —Cesar Tort 00:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Cesar. The above "reply" was simply a cut and pasted from the "notable" policy page. I thought it would be a good reference point for other contributors.

I know little about the AP movement. It's up to Justana to educate further and if he fails to do, so or no one else supports that position, there is no reason to change anything on that account. The notability issue by your own admission is trickier and should really be dealt with. The problem here is that are so many antipsychiatry websites that finding good secondary sources on the movement is like trying to find a needle in a haystack. I'll spend a little time tonight looking.--scuro (talk) 02:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/03/30/bib/970330.rv113448.html

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE6DA1139F937A1575BC0A96F948260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17843499

http://www.fordham.edu/student_affairs/inside_fordham/inside_fordham_archi/april_2003/in_focus_faculty__re/professor%E2%80%99s_research_17135.asp

Perhaps some of the above is useful. --scuro (talk) 03:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The article has not turned into a coatrack. It is a coatrack.

"Thus, according to popular opinion Laing would be the antipsychiatrist par excellence even if he rejected the term." If WP is based on public opinion I wonder what kind of information there must be on other articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justana (talk • contribs) 01:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC) How kind of you! Only now I've noticed that I was called ignorant. Coming from people like you it's a great compliment! Thank you very much! Get out of the Web. There's lots of nonsense. You are working for one of them. Searching knowledge on the Internet is really like searching a needle in a haystack. But you will soon receive a good and wonderful source of knowledge to end this discussion and make justice with peoples work. Thanks for removing Freud from the article. It's a beginning. It takes the bake to have Freud on all these. Gee! Two years taking care of this mess? I believe that it's a good job. Now it's time for another editor to defend it. I'm learning a lot here. --Justana (talk) 00:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

page break

The article is partial. It gives a wrong idea of serious work. The term "anti-psychiatrist" has become a way of invalidation of all criticism on psychiatry. This is manipulation, pure an simple. It's also a way of subliminar censorship. It's a shame and total lack of ethics.--Justana (talk) 07:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I am relocating this post. Please post your new ideas at the bottom of the pages, with a new heading, instead of interposting them between the posts of older discussions.

The above is your opinion and I respect it. In fact, it has already been discussed in the previous talk pages and even in an arbcom process. I'd recommend you to read both the Wikipedia policies I called you attention to in your talk page and the archived talk pages of this article (click on the Archives at the top of this page). It's totally unnecessary and time-wasting to discuss things twice.

—Cesar Tort 15:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't notice it. As I've already said these are not my ideas. You'll know whose ideas we are talking about.--Justana (talk) 00:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

AgainstPsychiatry.com?

Does this site meet the standards for an external link? It appears to be along the lines of a self-published blog with no editorial oversight, though its formatting is more akin to a "homepage" of a decade or so ago rather than a blog's template. That aside, the content is really what raises concern. The overwhelming majority of what I looked at and read would definitely appear to be original research, and none of it third-party published. What say the rest of you? 24.128.63.214 (talk) 21:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

As there seem to be no objections, I'm going to remove the link. 24.128.63.214 (talk) 18:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't object to its removal, but I will note that external links need not be third-party published. Wikipedia content needs to meet WP:V, but external content can be written unsourced by an expert. (Blogs are still not appropriate as external links, at least in usual cases.) CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. Thanks also for pointing out that bit about not needing to be third-party published. I look a closer look at WP:ELNO, and I think this link is inappropriate under terms 2 and 11, and arguably 4 because of the frequency with which one user added that site to the series of articles related to the anti-psychiatry movement. Mael-Num (talk) 12:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm that guy above, just for the sake of clear and full disclosure. :) Mael-Num (talk) 12:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

No disagreements here. CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it a blog. For me, it would be an "unreliable source" - to be considered (WP:EL). forestPIG 14:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

"Promotional Piece"

Is this a promotional piece?

The late Kevin F. McCready, founder of San Joaquin Psychotherapy Center, was critical of the use of diagnosis for people suffering from psychological and emotional overwhelm. He opened a day treatment program in Fresno, California, utilizing an integrative milieu model of psychotherapy without the use of diagnosis or psychiatric drugs. This center has served clients from all over the world who have sought this type of specialized treatment where they could gradually titrate off of their psychiatric drugs. Today there are a number of centers open around the United States based on this model.

I found it slightly odd that a reason put forwards for its removal was a lack of relevance to the scientific model (in anti-psychiatry!). forestPIG 17:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Renaming and complete rewrite of the article

Shouldn't this article have a less pov title? I agree that this article should exist but maybe a less biased name: 'Psychiatry denial' or a similar less biased term or one that is accepted by the medical community. Saying "anti psychiatry" is like having the Holocaust denial article named "anti Jew" or something. Simply because some Holocaust deniers prefer to call themselves "revisionists" or whatever other term is irrelevant. What matters is the majority and the views espoused in this article are rejected by a majority of health professionals. And so this article should be rewritten to reflect that. It goes against the scientific consensus and I thought Wikipedia worked on consensus.

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.235.205.32 (talk) 15:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC) 

http://www.theness.com/articles.asp?id=23 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.0.211.193 (talk) 16:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

From "The New England Journal of Skepticism" good article on Holocaust, Evolution and Psychiatry deniers. I'm going to add a link on the main article.

I've gone ahead and removed most material within the article. In an archive past discussion, "loodog" wrote:

"Regardless of where you put it, if it hasn't gone through publishing and peer review, it is original research"

Well, there you have it. Most of the article does not contain material that has been peer-reviewed by researchers, mental health professionals or any adequate credible sources (which wouldn't include scientologists)

And while I sympathize that some Wikipedia users have spend a great of their life editing this article (up to 1/8 of their entire life in some cases perhaps) and recognize that it is indeed sad, it's not a reason to keep invalid wikipedia material.

The article fail to provide links to valid sources of what it says. The article fail to go with the consensus of experts The article fail to show there is actually valid scientific literature on the subject The article fail to show any serious peer review research...

FAIL... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.235.205.134 (talk) 13:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You fail at life.Although I'm sure you have something meaningful to contribute to society maybe in the form of entertainment.I was going to revert the vandalism you made but someone else did it anyway.Please stop vandalizing this page.Thank you -ReSnake June 9 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.245.34.51 (talk) 14:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Please sign your posts so we know who you are. We often have trolls making posts similar to yours; signing your name properly is a good way to avoid any such suspicion. Wingspeed (talk) 14:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a Wikipedia account so there's no username to use...unless you consider non-registered user as trolls.This is simply the username I usually use -ReSnake —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.245.34.51 (talk) 18:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Different rates of schizophreny in different peoples

At one point the article mentions as a possible "prejudice" (or whatever) of psychiatry that more African-Americans are diagnosed with schizophrenia than European-Americans. Not only it would not be wrong per se, as it wouldn't be for conventional medicine to state that people of fair skin have more risk of skin cancer and sunburn (or some other psychiatric disorder), but I think that may be interesting to note that it's not that clear cut. Apparently schizophrenia rates have something to do with rates of family disintegration between immigrant or "immigrantoid" communities. Which undermines, somewhat, the critique that it could be due to some sort of racism in the psychiatric community. I'll see if can I find references for that. --Extremophile (talk) 18:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Artaud manray.jpg

The image File:Artaud manray.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --13:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The Law 180

There are no longer the mental hospitals and involuntary hospitalizations in Italy after implementation of the Law 180 had been accomplished in 1998. Please help yourselves, see section Further reading in the article Franco Basaglia. Involuntary hospitalizations are provided by the Law 180 for law-breakers and criminals only. If they are mentally ill. Psychiatrick (talk) 21:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

3 points

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

Moved here from the article. Please add a justification before adding it back.

• Toxic Psychiatry: Why therapy, empathy, and love must replace the drugs, electroshock, and biochemical theories of the new psychiatry.&#148

heall.com 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

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

• Oppose -- History of anti-psychiatry is too lengthy to include into anti-psychiatry without making the article way too long. I think we should leave the article as it is, with a section containing the most important points from history of anti-psychiatry with a hatnote linking to the main article. Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose -- Would be too long. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 21:43, 2 March 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

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.208.93.233.170 (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. 121.91.57.110 (talk) 04:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Sensational photo

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. --70.167.14.194 (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Cargo cult science

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

what other crack pot cults could we add to the list to give them the appearance of legitimacy? nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (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 99.38.208.30 (talk) 22:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

have you guys read the Thomas Szasz page?

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 76.183.68.48 (talk) 02:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Better title needed

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

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

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 (talk • contribs) 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

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 (2002). "Selling sickness: the pharmaceutical industry and disease mongering". BMJ. 324(7342): 886–891. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) 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)

Collapse disruptive addition by indef blocked editor
Wikipedia is a propaganda sight for a cult. Yobol is one of its higher up lieutenants. Don't expect to be able to reason with him. His job is to keep his boss out of jail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.249.106 (talk) 04:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC) That would quality as a personal attack. Consider this a warning. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Bold text

Tribunals

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

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 them...it 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

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

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)

NPOV issue

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. http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/bipolar-disorder/content/article/10168/2095514.

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 (talk • contribs) 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. http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/bipolar-disorder/content/article/10168/2095514. But also of interest would be http://www.acnp.org/resources/articlediscussionDetail.aspx?cid=66d1c1bf-7c40-4af9-b4f5-a3856fe1b5ba and http://www.currentpsychiatry.com/pdf/1012/1012CP_Editorial.pdf and http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/547497_5 and http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/ppp/summary/v002/2.1.matthews.html. 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 (talk • contribs) 09:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The editorial by Nasralla caught my eye [2]. 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... 76.10.128.192 (talk) 23:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Tag bombing

Article has been tag bombed with {{tl:citation needed}} tags [3]. I removed such tags from the lead as inappropriate [4] - 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-

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 142.243.254.224 on the Duplessis Orphans

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

• 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. --73.190.93.254 (talk) 06:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)