Talk:Community psychology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Commentary to make reader aware of cultural limitations of present definition[edit]

The definition below should be read as particular to a US-American reading of community psychology. More specifically, it is probably a US-American reading of community psychology from a clinical psychological perspective. There are a number of other ways of defining community psychology which, as more community psychologists access this page, will hopefully be offered in the future. Presently, there are networks of community psychologists in Africa, Asia, Australasia, North and South America, for example. Each network, in each continent, and in each country in each of those continents have particular historical, political and cultural interpretations of where community psychology originated, how it has developed, how it is presently constituted and how it might develop in the future. Indeed versions of what constitutes the course and content of community psychology are contested between as well as within countries, reflecting differing professional and political perspectives, socio-political histories and personal biographies. -User posted to main page at 20:28, 4 January 2006

I moved the long discussion above from the beginning of the article page (where it didn't belong). Editors are most welcome to enrich the definition to include global perspectives wherever those endeavors actually use the phrase "Community Psychology," even if it has no direct connection to the research and work of American Community Psychologists. Those affirmative additions might take the form of separate sections in the latter case. Someone who actually knows what Community Psychology is in other countries needs to address this issue; I don't really think it's appropriate to critique the present definition (especially at such length, and undeniably before the definition) on the main page without such an affirmative approach. -DoctorW 00:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I re-inserted the 'long discussion' because the wikipedia entry is for 'community psychology' not 'American [sic] Community Psychology' If Dr W. would like to have his/her entry for American Community Psychology (more accurately United States of American Community Psychology) then I feel s/he should have his/her definition as a separate section. Would Dr W. like to work with me and others to provide a less culturally mypoic entry for community psychology for the opening page and invite cross-cultural contributions to that definition? Or, would Dr W prefer to have the USA definition hold the hegemony? At the very least, I would hope Dr W. redefines the entry as specific to American Community Psychogy as to suggest this is a generic definition of Community Psychology is highly misleading and deeply flawed. From a Community Psychologist in the UK

I'm very happy to see someone highly qualified to make quality edits here. While there are quite a few experts on Wikipedia, there are also a lot of college students and others who may not have much expertise in specific content areas. Unfortunately, some of those who would be excellent editors are not sufficiently bold, while others should be more restrained and recognize when an expert might know better. I'm just going to assume you (the Community Psychologist in the UK above) are relatively new to Wikipedia, so forgive me if I say anything that sounds condescending. Please go ahead and edit the definition! Normally the title of the article appears in the first few words of the first sentence, and there seems to be a preference for it being the very first word(s). You may want to find some common ground between the "American" (U.S.) definition and that of other places with which you're familiar, followed by aspects which are unique to each locale. Editors don't normally place dissenting commentary above this introduction; they either just change the introduction, or if it seems to them that discussion is needed, they use the talk page. BTW, I'm not a clinical psychologist, and didn't write any part of the definition. My moving your comments had more to do with conforming to the way things are normally done at Wikipedia, which in this case makes sense because most visitors are just looking for information, not for a protracted debate by insiders. I'm a developmental psychologist who wrote his dissertation on "Sense of Community" (which has international interest among researchers in Community Psychology), and I was familiar with all the published psychology material related directly to Sense of Community a decade ago (and more generally with the main Community Psychology journals), but in recent years I haven't kept current. At no time was I familiar with what "Community Psychology" meant in other countries (except as regards Sense of Community in schools in Australia and Canada), so I'm not qualified to revise the definition to make it more generic. Please go right ahead and edit it yourself; there is nothing sacrosanct about what is there. If you still feel after doing so that the "American" definition needs a critique, please place it afterward, possibly in a section near the bottom of the page. And please feel free also to add as much content as you think is appropriate to the page beyond the definition! -DoctorW 05:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I've recently been accepted to a Community psych master's program here in Canada, so in theory I should have some idea what the field is about. Then again, many professors in the area who I've met for interviews are hard-pressed to give a solid definition of the area themselves! In any case, I hope to have some time in the next week to take a crack at editing this article. HighApostle 15:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
The beauty of Wikipedia is how articles form and change from disorganized fragments of truth from various perspectives (stubs) toward quality articles that readers from all walks of life can derive benefit from (Featured articles). The irony of the whole topic of "community" is that the very concepts presented in the texts are at play during the processes that produce the articles themselves.General readers (myself included) depend upon expert opinions from those (such as the ones conversing above) who are well-versed in the academic languages of specialized fields. Please take a look at the page history of the main article in this set, Community to see how the collaboration process works. • CQ 21:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Moved from article page[edit]

I've moved the following (again) from the article page. It is highly inappropriate and unprofessional for an encyclopedia article to present a definition and then critique itself. The problems should be worked out here, and content added to the article or modified in the article in the process. I have attempted to provide some neutral introductory remarks for the article in the meantime. Anyone is encouraged to change those comments to reflect a worldwide perspective more accurately, or to critique it here on the talk page. But lets keep our arguments out of the article itself. Add something constructive to the article or change something in the article that needs it; don't complain about the article within the article. The inset below is what was moved:

Community Psychology lies at the intersection of Social Psychology, Political Science, and Community development. It is the study of how to use the principles of psychology to create communities of all sizes that promote mental health of their members.
The basic tenets of Community Psychology are:
  1. Any non-biological mental illness can either be caused by or aggravated by a mismatch between a person's personality and the community environment in which he or she exists.
  2. It is often cheaper and more effective to change the environment than to treat multiple patients within it.
  3. Primary interventions (those aimed at preventing problems before they start) are much more effective than secondary or tertiary interventions (those that treat patients or incipient patients).
The above definition can be read as particular to an American reading of community psychology. More specifically, it is probably an American reading of community psychology from a clinical psychological perspective. There are a number of other ways of defining community psychology. Presently, there are networks of community psychologists in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North and South America, for example. Each network, in each continent, and in each country in each of those continents have particular historical, political and cultural interpretations of community psychology, how it has developed, how it is presently constituted and how it might develop in the future. Versions of what constitutes the course and content of community psychology are contested between as well as within countries, reflecting differing professional and political perspectives, socio-political histories and personal biographies.

-DoctorW 14:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Stub class[edit]

I've reduced the status of this article to "Stub" class per the discussion above, however I'm leaving its importance as "High". The Community WikiProject has compiled a List of community topics and is using it to organize sets of articles like this one into a logically arraged list. This list will be used to build an infobox, Community topics. Aticles will be sorted and assessed by both importance and quality. Please see WikiProject_Community/Organization for more information. All are welcome to participate in the effort. • CQ 21:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Community and Sociology Project templates and "Community" NAV box[edit]

I cannot fathom the reason for putting these two templates at the top of this page and the {{Community}} navigation box in the article. The templates do not seem to belong on this page. The navigation box seems totally out of place in the article. I will remove the latter and would like to hear others' views about this. Sunray 20:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

That's deep. Think tractor beam. Maybe delving into WikiPedia:List of WikiProjects and into the history of the redirect, Wikipedia:WikiProjectCentral can put some lights on your submarine. Wikipedia:WikiProject Elvis should cover both Costello and Presley, eh Moonbeam? • CQ • 01:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps I was too hasty in my remarks about this. Community psychology is all about community, so perhaps the {{Community}} tag does apply here. I'm not so sure that the WikiProject Sociology templeate does, though. Community psychology seems to me the lens through which psychologists view community, not sociologists. Hence the name. Anyone else care to comment? Sunray 16:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I think that there are a couple of ways that the relation between Community psychology and mainstream psych (on one hand) and sociology can be viewed. From a historical perspective, Community psych as a discipline arose as an offshoot from clinical psychology, while some of its current topics of study and research methods may share more in common with sociology or even social work (I'll be starting a Masters' program in Community Psych this fall, and one of my classmates is coming in with a Masters degree in Social Work). Like other disciplines that stand at the intersection of two or more fields, there is no easy classification. I don't see anything wrong with including it under sociology, as long as its also included under any psychology project. HighApostle 20:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I've added the Psychology template. -Doct

orW 14:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest that the "community" label and title from this section should NOT be dropped. A major section that could be added here would be on the origins and history of the "Community Mental Health Movement" as discussed in Grob, Bloom, Mechanic and others. I would be glad to offer a contribution to that area which would trace the origins of the focus on community treatment and de-institutionalization from Beer's book in 1908 to the formation of the National Mental Health Association and the beginings of the "Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry" that was started by William Menninger in 1946. Grob and others argue that they played a major role in shaping the philosophy and the implementation of community-based treatment to the present day.I am working on that right now so stay tuned. What you have written so far is fantsastic ! I just feel we need to help readers understand the philosophy behind community based treatment and its implementation through CMHCs and up to the present day. (Stoddard)

Commentary on the definition in the article (see also above)[edit]

Commentary about the contents of the article belongs on this page, not in the article. If anyone is unhappy with the contents of the article, he or she should edit the article. Anyone can do so. Please have at it. -DoctorW 09:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Peer-review journals[edit]

Craigtalbert has made no comment here, which would seem to be the appropriate place, but put the following commands on my personal talk page:

This information is all ready on the site linked. Remove the external link, remove the list of journals, or integrate all the information in to the page. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 05:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Although I could be put off by his style, I'd be happy to work with him. I don't understand, however, what his objection is to listing the main journals in the field on the page, and providing a link to a more comprehensive list. The site is down at the moment, so I can't check it, but apparently some editor thought there was information there about other, secondary journals that would be of value to readers. Even though I can't see the specifics at the moment, I'm inclined to agree in principle. -DoctorW 17:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for putting you off. Please see WP:EL. External links with information that can be integrated in to the article should be (e.g. a list of journals). Otherwise, it's really just promotion, and should be removed. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 20:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
It is hardly a promotion to list the relevant journals in the field. I can't see anything in WP:EL that suggests these should not be listed. But perhaps I've missed something, so please quote chapter and verse. In the meantime, I am restoring this information (minus the dead link to "other" journals). Sunray (talk) 03:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
If it's not promotion, what is it? Why choose these three journals out of the many that may discuss community psychology? They're obviously not the only three. On top of featuring these particular journals over others, it's original research. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 04:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
You are changing horses, I see. I asked you to cite what aspect of WP:EL this breached. Now you say it is original research. That seems a bit of a stretch. I cannot see the problem in starting a list of journals. Anyone is free to add journals that they feel should be included. Usually in lists of this type a few guidelines are given for inclusion. I cannot see the problem. Sunray (talk) 06:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I mentioned WP:EL because it used to contain an external link. It is original research, as there's nothing to show there's something notable about these particular three journals, or even that they exist -- not that I'm doubt it, but the article is poorly cited all ready. I'll ask you again, what makes these three journals so special? -- Craigtalbert (talk) 06:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
An editor with expertise in the field chose to include them. They are major journals. I doubt that there are other journals as well-recognized, however, if any editors believe that significant journals have been omitted, they are equally entitled to add them. You haven't given an adequate reason for their exclusion. Please do not continue to revert. Sunray (talk) 07:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
When you throw something up on wikipedia and expect people to take your word that whatever it is is true, and you refuse to cite sources supporting your claims, you're doing original research, which wikipedia has a policy against, and advocates removing. It's not about justifying deletions, it's about justifying additions. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 20:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who is not aware that the Journal of Community Psychology and the American Journal of Community Psychology are leading journals in the field should probably refrain from making significant content edits (as opposed to minor grammar/spelling and format edits) to this article. Wikipedia guidelines encourage editors to list entries on disambiguation pages according to frequency of use; is doing so also WP:OR?

Rather than deleting helpful external links and saying their content should be integrated into the article, I believe it is incumbent on that particular editor to undertake such a task (and see whether others agree with the changes). On the other hand, my previous comment about restraint when knowledge of a particular area is lacking would seem to apply.

If enough Wikipedia editors substitute their judgment for those of the occasional experts who take the time to edit Wikipedia, those experts will likely spend far less time doing so. -DoctorW 14:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. If the expert who added them is actually an expert, then they should be able to cite reliable sources justifying their inclusion. and the exclusion of others. Wikipedia is about verifiability not saying "I'm an expert so I know better than everyone else." If you're not willing to follow wikipedia guidelines, then you shouldn't be editing.
I'm not going to break WP:3RR, but I will put in an RfC unless you can cite sources justifying the inclusion of these particular journals listed. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 20:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
So far you have thrown out a wide variety of policies, but failed to adequately demonstrate how they relate. Now you bring up "verifiability." One doesn't need a citation to verify that these journals exist or to determine notability. Just do a google search. You state that you are not an expert. I certainly agree. Apparently you have are also learning about the how Wikipedia policies work. That is good. Now, please, learn from this, stop the Wikilawyering, and move on. Sunray (talk) 22:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Being condescending isn't going to help your case any. I will put in the RfC, and escalate until you can be a little more WP:CIVIL. In the meantime, let me "throw out" another policy for you to read: WP:OWNERSHIP. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 23:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, you may want to look at the ArbCom rulings on these subjects: Experts are subject to the no original research rule and Experts required to cite sources. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 03:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Craigtalbert: Perhaps I've missed something, but I don't see any justification for removal of this information on peer-reviewed journals. Could you please quote the actual section of policy that you think applies? Also, would you please leave the information in the article until such time as there is a consensus to remove it. Sunray (talk) 07:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

What part of WP:NOR are you unclear about? -- Craigtalbert (talk) 15:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
How does the inclusion of a short list of journals (with links) relate to original research? There are no claims made in the article that these are the "best journals", or "only journals" in the field. The journals each have links, so we know they are extant and can consult them for information on Community Psychology. This seems useful to me. I cannot see why this would be original research and think that the value in listing them is considerable. Two editors have said that these should remain in the article and only one has objected — you. So until there is a WP:CON consensus that the section should be removed, it should remain. Would you please leave the links in the article pending the outcome of the RfC? Sunray (talk) 17:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Is being condescending mentioned in WP:CON? I never thought it was a good method to get consensus. Anyway, what is and isn't original research isn't a matter of consensus, it is either cited or it isn't. Craigtalbert (talk) 01:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I find your first two sentences (and thinly veiled insult), uncivil. From WP:CON: "Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making." Deciding what is original research is an editorial decision. The statement "the sky is blue" would not be original research and would not need a source; a link about covers it. A brief listing of peer-reviewed journals, with links, seems to me to fall into that category. Sunray (talk) 02:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you feel insulted, it was only my intention to inform you that reaching consensus is difficult when you're working with someone who feels like having a degree entitles them to special treatment on wikipedia -- and more so to talk down to and disrespect other people.
As to your second point, "NPOV, V, and NOR are Wikipedia's three principal content policies." While consensus is important, what is or isn't verifiable, and what is original research isn't a matter of consensus. There's either a citation, or there isn't. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 15:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Material that isn't supported by a reliable source is original research. There is an implicit assumption that there's a reason why these three journals (or anything else in an article) is included, and a reason why other material is excluded. Craigtalbert (talk) 01:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
This material is sourced. It has links to the websites of the periodicals in question. Sunray (talk) 02:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The promotional pages for journals do not establish their notability, if you were going to link anywhere, it would be better to link to their pages in worldcat. You need to provide a reliable source showing that there's a reason to include these three journals and to exclude others. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 15:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
To comply with wikipedia guidelines all you need to do is provide a reliable source establishing the notability of these journals, and/or the lack of notability of other journals. Otherwise the list is arbitrary -- this is an encyclopedia, we don't put random information in articles. Again, what makes the journals worth mentioning and others not worth mentioning? Craigtalbert (talk) 01:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Please point me to the line in policy that you are using to draw this conclusion. Why do we need to establish the notability of these journals? The link verifies that they exist and are peer-reviewed. We make no other claim. As to other journals. Have you found other journals in the field? If so please add them. Sunray (talk) 02:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
If you can't provide reliable sources, then either make it a comprehensive list (as it's implied to be) or remove it. There's no in between. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 01:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Again, please quote me the actual policy statement that governs this. Sunray (talk) 02:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, per WP:NOR, "Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position." Further, "Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. 'Original research' is a claim for which no reliable source can be found. Producing a reliable published source that advances the same claim taken in context is the only way to disprove an assertion that a claim constitutes original research."
"Producing a reliable published source that advances the same claim taken in context is the only way to disprove an assertion that a claim constitutes original research." Perhaps we are finally getting somewhere. The only claim that is being advanced is that these are peer-reviewed sources in the field of community psychology. The links support that. Do you think that there is some other claim that we need to source? Sunray (talk) 17:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
We're getting absolutely no where. You need to provide a reliable source showing that there's a reason to include them, and not to include others or the list is completely arbitrary. I'm going to ask you, for at least the third time, why include these particular journals and exclude others? -- Craigtalbert (talk) 23:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Please also take a look at numbers four and five and the section on advertising and conflict of interest in Links normally to be avoided. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 14:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with your point here. Since there is no content provided on these websites—other than a table of contents—they are really only advertising a product. I only included the links to show that they were extant peer-reviewed journals. Perhaps we should remove the links. Notability is usually determined by Internet searches, anyway. Since all of these journals show multiple hits on Google, I don't think anyone could question that they are, in fact, valid journals Do you think that we should remove the links? Sunray (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Notability is NEVER determined by the search results. Notability is determined by the number of reliable sources documenting a particular topic - and then citing them when adding material. If you can't provide sources it's original research. Find reliable sources showing that these journals are worth listing and other journals are not. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 23:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

You seem so sure of your interpretation of policy. You know what original research is and anyone who disagrees with you is just plain wrong. However, you seem unable to grasp that that Wikipedia is written collaboratively, editorial decisions are made by consensus and that there is no letter of policy that governs every situation. Further discussion seems pointless. Sunray (talk) 01:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is written collaboratively, I would like to collaborate with you, and I have went out of my way to do so. But, you dodge very simple questions, e.g. what makes these journals you'd like to list so special that they deserve to be included and others do not, and can you provide a reliable source to support your opinion?
That is enormously frustrating! I try and try and try and try, but you don't won't give me one iota of cooperation. It makes me very sad. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 05:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, alright. Honestly it didn't seem to me that you were trying to collaborate. So if I've misjudged that, perhaps we could take it one step at a time, since we seem to have been missing each other's points. I did try to respond to your question about what makes these journals so special. There simply aren't many journals of Community Psychology. It is a pretty new field. I can only find one other paper journal The Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, and an e-journal, The Journal of Rural Community Psychology. Other than that, there are some community health journals, but they are interdisciplinary, rather than purely community psychology. Sunray (talk) 07:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for adding the citation.  :) -- Craigtalbert (talk) 03:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment: Necessary requirements for adding list of links to journals related to article[edit]

If an expert added a list of peer-reviewed journals to an article based on their opinion that those particular journals were notable and others were not, providing no reliable sources, does WP:NOR, WP:EL, and relevant arbcom rulings [1] [2] provide enough justification for removal of the list until reliable sources are produced?

Comments on Request for Comment[edit]

As I have said above, I do not see this as original research. The journals are contained in a section titled: "Peer-reviewed journals." Here's my take on this:
  1. No claims are made other than that the journals are peer-reviewed.
  2. There are links so that the reader can check that they are indeed peer-reviewed.
  3. There is value in having a sample of the major journals in the field. It is a relatively new field. It overlaps with social psychology, and readers may be interested in checking the kind of subjects that are covered.
  4. As the article expands, it could be that all of the journals will be incorporated into other sections; for now it works.
In sum, I think this brief section adds value to the article. BTW I am not the expert that originally placed the information in the article. That was DoctorW, who is a psychologist. But I will declare my interest/bias. I am a sociologist. So far three people have spoken and only one —Craigalbert—objects to the journals being listed in the article. Sunray (talk) 18:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying they're not important, I'm not saying they don't add value to the article. I'm in agreement with you on these issues. What I'm saying is that those aren't excuses for poor scholarship. All I'm asking you to do is provide reliable sources for information added to this all ready poorly-cited article. Your time would be better spent doing that than putting me down, or flaunting your academia. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 01:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok I'm probably not the least biased source here (I study psychology) but on the other hand this is the first time I have seen this article but Cragtalbert I can't really see what you're complining about. Are you saying that you want a source stating that those journals cover community psychology or do you want a source saying they are peer reviewed? Do you feel that inclusion in this article is promoting these journals above other scientific journals? Do you want a source to establish the notability of the journal? I have read the relevant section of the talk and I cannot really work out what your complaint is.
You don't need a source to establish that something is a reliable source. If this was necessary we would be left with a never ending spiral where another reliable source is always needed to support the reliability of the previous source. WP:RS states this "Wikipedia relies heavily upon the established literature created by scientists, scholars and researchers around the world. Items that fit this criterion are usually considered reliable" and this, "The material has been thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community. This means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals." so unless you are debating whether or not these articles are peer reviewed or if they are written by scientists, I fail to see the issue. So I do not really think the WP:OR claims are valid. Also, the social psychology page likewise seems to give a list of journals. So in sum, Craigtalbert you really need to specify your complaints before this discussion will go anywhere.
Also, I think everyone's time would be better spent focusing on other aspects of the article. Honestly the article could use a lot more info differentiating community psychology from other fields (particularly social) and giving a more precise description of what community psychologists do. JamesStewart7 (talk) 12:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
The discussion has been resolved. But just to clarify, this wasn't about establishing whether or not the journals are reliable sources, which they obviously are, but whether or not the opinion of an expert should be the sole source for their appearance in the article.
For instance, I've read some great articles in The Australian Community Psychologist (formerly Network)[3]. Is there a reason why we should be including American journals and excluding Australian journals? I don't know.
This is why information added to an article has to be supported with reliable sources, and not just the opinions of experts. The source Sunray provided pretty weak, but I'm glad she agreed to work with me instead of relying on her academia as the reason why she didn't need to justify her edits. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 18:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
In answer to your question about Australian Journals I feel it is very important to either EXCLUDE or place in a separate section any material referring to other countries. ( Perhaps identifying the information as particularly relevant to the United States may be important. The United States has a specific implementation of community psychiatry through Community Mental Health Centers which no other country has developed. This policy hs defoned and shaped the philosophy and implementation of community services in a way that is unique to the U.S. As I said above, an important addition to this section would be on the Community Mental Health Movement, especially as it : prior to the 1963 Coimmunity Mental Health Centers Act. I will put that together shortly and post it for comment. --[[Stoddard 9 April 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stoddardp (talkcontribs) 12:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Structural abuse[edit]

Structural abuse and structural violence would both have something in common with CP based on my understanding, and both are also in dire need of attention. Any takers? WLU (talk) 16:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)