Talk:Anti-psychiatry/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

AlfieNet writes: A previous poster asked about the link

between psychiatry and the eugenics movement, especially in regards to the Holocaust in Nazi Germany. For those who want to learn more, the following four books are a good start:

• Müller-Hill, Benno. Murderous Science: Elimination by Scientific Selection of Jews, Gypsies, and Others in Germany, 1933-1945. Plainview, N.Y.: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, c1998.
• Proctor, Robert N. Racial Hygiene: Medicine under the Nazis. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1988.
• Lerner, Richard M. Final Solutions: Biology, Prejudice, and Genocide. University Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University Press, c1992.
• Lifton, Robert Jay. The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide. New York: Basic Books, c1986.

Michael Voytinsky writes:

Were psychiatrists especially prominent in this, or were they simply expressing the generally existing sentiments of the societies in which they lived?

AlfieNet writes:

The short answer is: yes. Highly educated leaders in the fields of anthropology and psychiatry led the way in the development of the eugenics movement in the early 1900's. This was true in both the United States and in Nazi Germany. I can give more details if you are interested, but it will involve some typing on my part as there is not a lot of information about this on the web to which I could easily link.

Also, if you want a book which focuses on abuses in the history of psychiatric treatment, you might want to look at Robert Whitaker's Mad in America.

• Whitaker, Robert. Mad in America: Bad Science, Bad Medicine, and the Enduring Mistreatment of the Mentally Ill. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Pub., 2003.

Tristano writes:

Here you can find reviews of a vast litterature on the role of psychaitry in the holocaust:

http://www.ecosyn.us/Bush-Hitler/Blogspot/eugenics/Bush_Family_Eugenics.html

---

Should mention recent hunger strikes demanding proof of a biological basis, the APA response and the (alleged) limits of this response. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:52, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I wonder if anyone would like to have a try at introducing the homosexuality issue to this page? Until the early 1970's, homosexuality was defined as a mental illness - (as was tobacco addiction!) When the American psychiatric association decided to strike it off the diagnostic list, about 10 Million Americans were suddenly cured! I think this is a useful example of the extent to which mental illness is culturally defined. Excalibur

The article might benefit from a Controversies about conditions section that includes Homosexuality, Left-handedness, Autism, Schizophrenia, and ADHD. Neurodivergent 19:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Older talk is in Archive 1.

Until the early 1970s, most Americans thought that homosexuality is morally wrong. This may still be the case today, according to some opinion surveys. In the early 1970s, homosexuality was criminal is most states in the US - and it was only a recently Supreme Court decision that made it legal everywhere. Sounds to me like the psychiatrists are aheard of public opinion and the justice system on that one. - Michael Voytinsky 17:11, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Is this paragraph:

Anthropological studies have claimed that roughly equivalent percentages of people in a variety of cultures, some very different to modern Western culture, develop a disease recognised by that culture as such, with similar symptoms to schizophrenia, and subsequent medical examination of afflicted individuals show similar physical abnormalities as schizophrenics. However, the lower rates of diagnosis for the forms of schizophrenia accepted in the West in Western Europe than in the United States of America, has led some to question the criteria for diagnosis, and even that in some cases schizophrenia is deliberately misdiagnosed in the United States as a means of political or philosophical repression. DSM-IV-TR also notes that there is "a far higher incidence [of schizophrenia] for second generation African Caribbeans living in the United Kingdom." The form of treatment also may vary according to suspect criteria; young black males in the United States are disproportionately prescribed high doses of "anti-psychotic" medication, and blacks are disproportionately subjected to involuntary commitment.

Supposed to be in the "Arguments against anti-psychiatry" section?

Contents 1 Action against "coercive psychiatry" 2 Asylums? 3 NPOV Fix 4 Two Questions 5 Should Rosenhan's study be discussed? 6 Origins of anti-psychiatry 7 Just a thought 8 A few comments 9 Tom Cruise 10 Autism 11 Arguments against anti-psychiatry 12 scientology versus anti-psychiatry 13 Soly Hucking Fhit 14 Comment on neurobiological basis 15 violence 16 Cause of Mental Illness 17 Significant tidying and revision 18 NPOV issues 19 A Pseudoscience 20 NPOV and citations

Action against "coercive psychiatry"

Where should information about such actions as one man's causing hundreds of thousands of dollars in damage to downstate Michigan mental hospitals be included? --Daniel C. Boyer 14:30, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If you are interpreting my POV as being that he was "mentally ill" because he did this, or that his behaviour (as being characteristic of, or along with the behaviour of other "lunatics") thereby justifies existent, or would justify proposed new "mental health" legislation you are badly mistaken. I am strongly opposed to this kind of legislation and have written extesnively against it in a number of ways and from a number of perspectives.[1] (Far from condemning this "violence" I personally regard him as a hero and, inter alia, cited this (these?) incident(s) in my article "Are You Crazy? Mental Illness & Whiteness" in No. 9 of the journal "Race Traitor".) The purpose of my bringing it up wasn't in any sense what you seem to imply; I'm interested in including it as an example of resistance to coercive psychiatry, a resistance which, while generally conducted on the principles of non-violence, or at least non-violently, has also included sabotage and violent resistance. Whether or not one agrees with these methods, in my view they should be included in the article to show the scope and variety of approaches opposing psychiatric coercion. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Asylums?

I changed the first line from:

Beginning in the 1960s, a movement called anti-psychiatry claimed that psychiatric patients are not ill but are individuals that do not share the same consensus reality as most people in society, and therefore need to be put into asylums.

to

Beginning in the 1960s, a movement called anti-psychiatry claimed that psychiatric patients are not ill but are individuals that do not share the same consensus reality as most people in society.

The text of the article in no way indicates that the anti-psychiatry movement seeks to have those currently defined as "mentally ill" committed; to the contrary, it advocates against this for all but the most extreme patients:

Some who are active in anti-psychiatry have not gone so far as to challenge the illness of psychiatric patients but merely challenged the practice of involuntary commitment from a legal or civil liberties perspective. Many people argue that even if it is sometimes necessary to detain a few people with extreme mental illnesses behind bars, that society is far too eager to lock up people with minor mental illnesses.

- Korpios 16:49, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

NPOV Fix

I am 67.162.157.198, forgot to log in. Anyway looking at the history it seems that the line "till, in the modern therapeutic culture with pharmaceuticals promising relief from all that ails" was changed by Michael Voytinsky way back in september 2003 to read "Still, in the modern therapeutic culture that often relies on pharmaceuticals as an important part of psychotherapy" which I agree is closer to NPOV, so I restored that change. protohiro 04:55, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Two Questions

AlfieNet writes: There are two questions to ask oneself when considering how to deal with a case of so-called mental illness. First, one must ask if the patient has a medical illness. Second, one must ask if the set of actions proscribed by doctors is a medical treatment for that illness.

Notice that the answer to the first question is helpful when answering the second question: The more one knows about the cause of an illness the better one can judge proposed treatments.

Also notice that we have institutions in our society to correct behavior patterns which are deemed unacceptable, and these institutions are known as the judicial system and the prison system. When dealing with these institutions, one has the right to a jury trial as well as a codified set of laws by which we may all judge a person's guilt or innocence.

Also notice that a medical doctor can administer treatment when a patient is unable to give consent, such as is the case when, for example, a person is brought to a hosptial unconscious from a car accident and suffers from broken bones and bleeding. These acts of non-consensual treatment are justified by the fact that the doctor is acting in the patient's best interest and by the fact that the doctor is relying upon known good practices (that is, he or she is not experimenting with new treatments which may or may not be effective).

Should Rosenhan's study be discussed?

Does anyone think a brief synopsis of the Rosenhan study ("Being Sane in Insane Places") be discussed in relation to anti-psychiatry.

See, http://web.cocc.edu/lminorevans/on_being_sane_in_insane_places.htm

MichaelH

Origins of anti-psychiatry

The link density in paragraph "Origins of anti-psychiatry" should be IMO reduced, it looks really strange when half of the words are hypertext links.

-

Agreed. For starters, I think the following two sentences should be removed or significantly changed: 1) Some libertarians has opposed psychiatry or abuses of psychiatry on constitutional or other legal grounds. 2) The United States Libertarian Party can also be associated with anti-psychiatry as it has opposed involuntary commitment in its platform. First of all, neither of these statements show that Libertarians or the Libertarian Party opposes the practice of psychiatry. (Some libertarians may indeed oppose it, but so also may some Republicans, some Democrats, some atheists, and some redheads may as well.) Secondly, opposing involuntary commitment is not the same as opposing the practice of psychiatry. Those who oppose the practice of psychiatry will certainly oppose involuntary commitment, but the reverse is not necessarily true. Edwardian 3 July 2005 08:41 (UTC)

Just a thought

<DSM-IV-TR also notes that there is "a far higher incidence [of schizophrenia] for second generation African Caribbeans living in the United Kingdom.">

Well, umm, yes. There's also evidence for a higher rate of depression in some south asian communities in the UK. I'm not sure that this is evidence for - or relevant to - the "anti-psychiatry" topic, however - academic psychiatrists who I work with would suggest that the research evidence is increasingly that the aetiology of psychotic illnesses (and in particular schizophrenia/schizotypic disorders)is linked to communication difficulties/alienation in adolescence - which might be expected to be exacerbated in children of immigrants experiencing the full force of racism. (It will be interesing to see whether third generation populations show the same effects - I believe that studies in Liverpool and Bristol [UK cities with very long standing african/carribean populations] hint that they might not?) So, a higher perceived incidence of schizophrenia in particular ethnic groups is not actually necessarily proof that psychiatry per se is institutionally racist or otherwise corrupt!

(Have you noticed that a lot of people writing on the "Myth of mental illness" line tend to ignore General Paralysis of the Insane? Somehow, when an organic cause was found, it ceased to be a "mental illness" - despite having contributed considerably to the asylum population of the world for several decades or more...)

GraemeE17 22:46, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

A few comments

1. Recently I made a change to this sentence (current edition): "Dr. Breggin and other prominent figures and organizations in the anti-psychiatry movement have emphatically denounced efforts to associate them with Scientology, from which they are completely independent and, often as not, vehemently opposed." , which was reverted with "apologies in advance." However, I assert that the current version is itself POV and inaccurate, although to what degree will depend on who you ask. Yes the modern "anti-psychiatrists" all say nasty things about scientology in public. But many anti-psychiatrists have relied and do rely to one degree or another, at times heavily, on Scientologist-supported testimonials and data for their research, and some anti-psychiatrists have had a personal link to or even membership in Scientology (which they've later renounced). The person who reverted my change effectively conceded both of these facts on the talk page for Breggin, and Breggin is by no means the only one who this is true about. There are also strong similarities in some anti-psychiatrist and scientologist writings regarding psychiatry, although I suppose this doesn't prove a connection. But at a minimum, the situation is considerably more nuanced than "completely independent" and "vehemently opposed".

2. Perhaps move the current section 2 to section 4 and move up the other two, to make the ordering parallel other articles?

3. I think the current section 4 could use a better name, although I'm not sure what.

--Ithacagorges 05:42, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

this sentence:

"...but opponents of the practice allege that ECT causes brain damage and has killed several patients on whom it was used, some without their consent."

strikes me as hilarious. "killed without their consent"!? maybe someone should rephrase that. 147.154.235.53 15:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Tom Cruise

Just linking him without any discussion of his criticisms is confusing. Either remove link or go into this a little. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the best way is to remove the link to Tom Cruise, as he's not significant enough to the subject as a whole. My second choice, though, would be to include information on him (on Today, for example), because otherwise people aren't going to know what the point of the link is. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Autism

Should be discussed more thoroughly in context of this article. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:28, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

There's now a reference to the autism rights movement, which is notably similar in its views to anti-psychiatry. Did you have in mind a different angle? Neurodivergent 16:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Arguments against anti-psychiatry

I shored up the section labeled "arguments against anti-psychiatry" that had been watered down by anti-psychiatry supporters. I placed info that was supporting anti-psychiatry in new sections. Anti-psychiatry is definitely not a mainstream movement. It should be made clear in the article that this view is a fringe view and not held by the vast majority of the medical community.--24.55.228.56 12:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't even have to read your changes to know what you did. Nobody said anti-psychiatry was mainstream but we're far from a fringe movement and your POV is blatant and obvious. Why is the mere concept of people questioning psychiatry so threatening to you? What's your stake in this argument? Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 03:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I am glad that we both agree that anti-psychiatry is not mainstream. The term "fringe" is exactly how critics of anti-psychiatry refer to it. [2] Other words that critics use are "extremist," "anti-science," "backwards," and "flat earth theory." If this article is to be balanced, it needs to have a section devoted to antipsychiatry critics. If there is a less volatile but accurate word to describe critics' views other than "fringe," let's use it. --24.55.228.56 15:11, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

It's hardly surprising that psychiatry refers to it as "fringe." That's how they attempt to discredit it. But the fact is, we have more science on our side than biomedical psychiatry does. Absolutely, every article needs a critics section. As for a new word, "fringe" sounds like "flat-earthers." How about "minority of researchers" or some such? Let's not forget that the germ theory was once a fringe idea. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 15:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Intelligent design is a good example of a fringe movement. It questions a scientific theory. Anti-psychiatry, on the other hand, questions a pseudo-science. Very different. What are the arguments in favor of considering psychiatry a science? Are its hypothesis falsifiable for example? Are the classifications listed in the DSM simply arbitrary conventions or can they be shown to be based on testable hypothesis? Neurodivergent 17:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I should point out that the "arguments against anti-psychiatry" section is pretty pathetic. I feel it should be stronger to make the article better and not seem so POV. Is that all the arguments there are? (1) There is a biological basis -- big deal; there's a biological basis for giftedness, homosexuality, left-handedness, short stature, eye color, etc. (2) Some diagnosed individuals and their relatives do believe their diagnosis; well, there are ex-gays, you know; in some cases people do have a problem they truly desire to get rid of not just "to be normal", but this does not apply to all psychiatric disorders by any means. Is there nothing better than that? In medicine, for example, you'd say "cancer causes death" and it would be tough to argue with that. Neurodivergent 22:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

scientology versus anti-psychiatry

I really don't know why pro-psychiatry editors feel the need to smear anti-psychiatry like this. "Once an ally of" is hardly a ringing endorsement. I have nothing whatsoever to do with the Church of Scientology yet I believe the CCHR puts out valuable information. Does that mean that I'm an "ally"? This is really lame mud-slinging. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 15:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I second that. Anyone with an anti-psychiatry view here an "agent of Scientology"? I'm not even religious, btw. Neurodivergent 17:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm a member of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Scientology, but I am not a CoS member. The problem, I think is that CoS is vehemently opposed to certain *forms* of psychiatry, but at the same time, has blatantly adopted other modern methods of psychiatry. See Scientology_and_psychiatry for an overview. Ronabop 01:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Much of what CoS does (as do other cult-like organizations) resembles cognitive-behavioral therapy or approaches close to it, and they are often criticized for simply trying to promote an alternative. They should admit, as do I, that not everything in psychiatry is horribly wrong. Neurodivergent 16:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, the belief that all anti-psychiatry adherents are really agents of Scientology in disguise is another good example of an unfalsifiable assertion. These are remarkably common in the pro-psychiatry camp, which is why I'm beginning to think psychiatry is inherently unscientific. Note that pseudo-science does not mean false or wrong. Religion defines moral/immoral and the law defines legal/illegal in much the same way psychiatry defines normal/abnormal, and even though this is not scientific, it's arguably useful to have. BTW, it is true that Scientology has a pseudo-science as well, called Dianetics. If someone cares about that, they can mention it. In any case, I doubt that Dianetics has more or less merit than psychiatry. Neurodivergent 18:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Soly Hucking Fhit

This article is getting huge. oneismany 09:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The article is not that big. I did something to reduce the size of the TOC though. Neurodivergent 17:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

This might be a good approach, but I think that the "arguments against anti-psychiatry" should be presented after the arguments against psychiatry, which should of course be presented after some notes about the arguments of psychiatry itself. This would be much more straightforward. oneismany 11:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. That could be the last section. BTW, I think the "insanity defense" is part of "arguments against anti-psychiatry" and should go in that section. Neurodivergent 15:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be an "argumens for" section, separate from the miscellaneous sections, like Quotes. Neurodivergent 15:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment on neurobiological basis

It seems that a common practice in the anti-psychiatry movement is denying that neurobiological characteristics are associated with disorder phenotypes. There is some scientific merit to this questioning, as it's a very complex thing to determine. It's kind of like trying to find the neurological differences between men and women. You might find some differences in average, but you'll also find you can't make generalizations. This questioning misses the point, though. Neurobiological and neuroanatomical differences don't imply pathology any more than skin color, height or sexual preference imply pathology. Being black is not a 'melanin imbalance'. I feel that focusing on questioning that neurobiological, neuroanatomical or genetic differences exist at all undermines the credibility of the anti-psychiatry movement. It should be expected that real neurological science will find that these differences are to some extent related to behavioral differences. Neurodivergent 15:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Neurodivergent. From what I've read, anti-psychiatry doesn't appear to deny such differences. The questions are, though, what is the source of any difference and what is its significance. Your example of a "melanin imbalance" is a great one! The biggest problem from psychiatry's point of view is that they keep insisting that these are neurological disorders yet neurology, the real field of medicine that would deal with such matters, won't touch mental illness. There's a good reason for that and I think psychiatrists waste most of their time trying to legitimize their work. Merely saying over and over "it's a brain disease" doesn't make it so. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 18:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Right, I think that's what the arguments against the organic basis are meant to convey. I'm just saying that they often sound as if they were saying "No, all brains are identical" and the pro-psychiatry camp is scratching their heads going, "Wait, but what about the PET scans?" It's fine to point out that those studies are inconclusive and unreplicated, but I don't believe that's what the argument is about. Neurodivergent 18:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe you but I just haven't personally run across such an argument yet. If I ever got filthy, filthy rich, I'd create an organization that studied studies. I'd hire people like Levitt (author of Freakonomics) to critically examine psychiatric research. There is so much misinformation out there right now. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 18:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm specifically referring to arguments to the effect that Ritalin is causing the brain differences observed, such as [3]. There could very well be some merit to those arguments. But they are setting themselves up. It's as if they were saying this: If undrugged patients are shown to have brain differences in controlled studies, then yes, ADHD is a true disorder. Of course, this is not what they are saying, but it certainly sounds that way. Neurodivergent 19:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

violence

I took out the reference to violence because it has no cite and cannot be verified.

Also please clarify what is meant by "Psychiatric Survivors Movement". No organization exists with this name. Who is meant by this? If organizations, please cite specifically, with web sites or contact info.

Doogs

Cause of Mental Illness

The anti-psychiatrist movement and Tom Cruise are correct in some aspects and wrong in others. Mental Illness is real but spontaneous recoveries are evidence that it is not what mental health professionls believe it is. In the early 1800's most cases of schizophrenia recovered in about one year.

The DSM makes a mistake in using culture to limit the definition of psychosis and mental illness. Beliefs that you can levitate, dematerialize, walk through solid objects and read-minds-control-actions of others through mental telepathy is psychotic even though it is accepted in some cultures.

A little known conflict of physiology, related to the vision startle reflex, allows exposure to Visual Subliminal Distraction in far peripheral vision. The subliminal detection of threat movement creates efforts to cause a peripheral vision reflex. If the brain understands the repeating subliminal input as reinforcement for contemporaneous actions and beliefs Accidental Operant Conditioning happens. Those strange beliefs are one result of performing both Qi Gong and Kundalini Yoga. Both exercises produce first psychotic episodes and long term fixed psychotic beliefs. But those so effected seem to function normally within their groups of common cultural belief set.

A model to explain mental illness has existed for over 3000 years. An incident on the Belgian Polar Expedition demonstrates that Subliminal Distraction can cause a variety of psychiatric symptoms. Only one of the men involved became permenantly insane. There have been other incidents in polar scientific stations. Mental breaks have happened on Russian space missions.

http://visionandpsychosis.net/Astronauts_Insanity.htm

http://visionandpsychosis.net/Psychotic_Mental_Illness_Cause.htm

L K Tucker 68.219.142.250 18:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

"Beliefs that you can levitate, dematerialize, walk through solid objects and read-minds-control-actions of others through mental telepathy is psychotic"? What then of beliefs in ghosts, gods, souls, and spirits? Is 'normal' distinguished from 'psychotic' merely by the percentage of people who believe in the same things? oneismany 23:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

"..spontaneous recoveries are evidence that it is not what mental health professionls believe it is." If you knew anything at all about the plasticity of the brain, you would realize why this is possible. This whole article is full of biased information, and does not give fair treatment to both sides. Fuzzform 20:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Significant tidying and revision

Hi I'm trying to tidy and organise this article in a clearer way and add to or improve some of the lines of argument. If I'm doing anything objectionable to anyone please let me know, for now I'm just going for it in a hopefully balanced way. This is bloody hard because there's so much stuff there making such good points to keep but so chaotic! Franzio 13:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I've done as much as I can for now. The subject heading organisation don't seem quite right still, if anyone can improve. It still seems quite dense and repeating itself, despite major points still needing to be included, but I didn't want to alter too much of the wording already in place. Incidentally the points that were in 'arguments against anti-psychiatry' (which wasn't exactly comphrensive) I've tried to reflect throughout the article but a long road still to NPOV and no doubt more counter-arguments acknowleged Franzio 18:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. Someone once complained that "arguments against anti-psychiatry" should not be "watered down", and that's why a different section for refutations was created. But I think the current organization is better. I did like the list of examples of unfalsifiable psychiatric hypothesis - but it's fine as it stands too. Neurodivergent 12:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

As this article stands, it is severely biased in favor of anti-psychiatry. Please look at the way opposing views are set up on Existence of God; it is a far better system than what is used here. It gives significant weight to both sides of the controversy - something this article does not do. Fuzzform 20:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I liked the list of unfalsifiable hypotheses too. I felt some examples could be stronger and intended for the issues still to be covered...perhaps as a list again [I've put them all back now Franzio 18:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)]

I agree that the article often adopts a POV stance. But I completely disagree that an article about a particular approach should be like one on a particular issue like that, the analogous pages in your example would seem to be atheism or actually anti-theism.

I think that's a good analogy. To be honest, I think this page as it currently stands is a big disorganized pile of miscellaneous anti-psychiatry screeds, and desperately needs organization and lots of editing. I'll look at the atheism page and see if any organizational insights lurk there. --Dcfleck 02:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm determined that this article can give a comprehensive and NPOV account to clearly explain antipsychiatry, giving a fair representation of psychiatry in the process, and I'll try to help towards this when I can. Franzio 15:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering if the origins/history section might be too long now, or other objections or things to change back, I've changed it quite a lot... May be factual mistakes, perhaps some that the pro-psychiatrically-minded would be best placed to address.

I think the section at the end could more clearly highlight the main umbrella organisations that are primarily anti-psychiatry, incl. the main user/survivor orgs internationally and nationally. And perhaps a separate section for links to religious or other movements not originating in or exclusively centred on mental health? Could try do this if no objections.

Would it be feasible and NPOV to list somewhere the more prominent examples of pharmaceutical funding that antipsychiatry opposes if stats are available?

Needs citations throughout, I'll start a reference list now.

Franzio 14:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I propose we delete the first 4 paragraphs of the "origins" section. They are all about psychiatry (which is not the subject of this article), and do not even mention anti-psychiatry. We can kick of with the next paragraph. Any objections? Rockpocket 04:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Well thanks for all the time to object. For one thing not everyone's time zone is the same so you should probably leave at least a few hours. While they could be more concise (it was a FIRST DRAFT to be edited and improved) it is not true that those first paragraphs were just about psychiatry, they delineated the origins of opposition to psychiatry as the latter developed. Franzio 14:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV issues

Someone has marked this page as NPOV disputed. The guidelines say that when you do this you make a new section on the talk page and clearly and exactly explain which parts and why, and make some suggestions as to how to improve it. I can't see this anywhere, so, well I thought I'd start it, as I think this does need helpful work.

The only section that seems to have been significantly edited in line with NPOV dispute are the points about unfalsifiable psychiatric axioms. Comments added are e.g.: "Many psychiatrists, however, would also deny such a notion." "Many psychiatrists would only cite this notion as an ideal.", "Either point of view may be criticised for begging the question."

This seems more like adding POV comments than improving the statements themselves, which as was noted above could be worked on (as with anything). I would also say that, whether or not some psychiatrists would deny these axioms when explictly stated, this isn't really the point because the argument is that these are assumptions inherent to, or necessarily implied by, psychiatric theory and diagnosis. Franzio 16:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

A Pseudoscience

I keep reverting the addition: "For some philosophers of science this is the sure-fire sign of a pseudoscience." because:

• It is not sourced
• "sure-fire sign" is not encyclopaedic language
• The section is called "Psychiatry, a pseudo-science", and the examples are justification for this. There is no need to make the same point twice.

Rockpocket 18:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I reverted again because it still isn't sourced, still repeats the same information and quotes what psychiatrists (apparently) do without attribution of the quote. The very first sentence in the section says essentially the same thing as you added, why the need to repeat it? Rockpocket 02:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia Etiquete, “Remove or summarize resolved disputes that you initiated” [4], I am removing a long and tedious dispute that I initiated with Rockpocket because I was ignorant about Wikipedia’s policies. For the record, it was a lengthy exchange about the old version of the Anti-psychiatry page. I was absolutely new to Wikipedia and had not even read the article! To boot, I mistook Rockpocket for a zealous psychiatrist and argued about his deletion of a paragraph I just posted. Later, in his own talk page I apologized. After that misunderstanding our discussion has been very civil. César Tort 03:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV and citations

I'm very concerned about the neutrality of this article. Large swathes of text read like personal opinion hidden behind "some believe" qualifiers, other times it just reads like original research:

This point helps to illustrate a primary concern of anti-psychiatry: in a community that places a high degree of value on material possessions, a person that disregards this intensity of material value runs the risk of being diagnosed as mentally ill. Herein lies the considerable danger that an individuals degree of adherence to communally held values may be used to determine that persons level of mental health. Using this logic it could be argued that in a communal display of violence (as in a public stoning) the person who abstains from violence could be diagnosed mentally ill and should, subsequently, be treated.

There is a great number of unsourced claims like this made and, as this is not an area of my expertise, i cannot verify them. However, the section i do have expertise in make a lot of POV assertions held by a tiny minority. Thus i fear that may be the case throughout. I have added a lot of requests for citations (^{[citation needed]}), if these are not sourced - or no-one makes any attempts to source them, i will start culling per WP:V. I'm also going to draw the attention of some admins to this page. Rockpocket 06:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia Etiquette, “Remove or summarize resolved disputes that you initiated” [5], I continue to remove the dispute initiated in the section “A Pseudoscience”. César Tort 04:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

To RockPocket, I really object to your attitude to this page. As you can see from the brief discussions above on revisions and NPOV, there are ongoing attempts to achieve what you are complaining about. There's a lot of good stuff there but it does need revising, balancing and sourcing. I don't see how just sticking dozens of 'citations needed' throughout the text helps. I don't see that degree of citation on other pages or anything like it. I don't know what you mean by you're going to start culling, but I think editing and balancing would be more helpful. Franzio 10:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

"I don't see that degree of citation on other pages or anything like it." --- check Tooth enamel, Saffron, Prostate cancer, and / or Hugo Chavez. These may be atypical now, but the use of reputable sources is becoming a bigger deal on Wikipedia all the time. --Dcfleck 14:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying such pages don't exist, and I completely support the aim of sourcing, I just mean anyone could go and scatter 70-odd 'citation needed' tags all over a lot of pages. A number of those added to this page are in regard to innocuous general statements usual to Wikipedia, which doesn't really seem to help target the most specific or controversial points, which might be more helpful. It was also done without any advance discussion, even though attempted revision/sourcing of the article was being addressed here. Franzio 15:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I was also in the process of adding citations and references, several in the last few days, which I'm still trying to do. Franzio 15:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Franzio, i'm sorry if my intervention has offended you, that was not my intention. Most Wikipedia articles about contentious or controversial issues are highly sourced (see animal testing for example). Reading this article, it struck me that there was very little referencing, a lot of generalising and some highly POV language. Those combined are usually clear signals that the article is the platform of one or a group of individuals to push their POV. I have no opinion to push on this matter except for the fact that it does not read like an encyclopaedia. My area of expertise overlaps with this subject only a little, but in that area there are some ridiculous statements. For example:

However, compared to gene-coding for traits such as gender, hair color, skin color or eye color, to date few specific connections have been evidenced, despite numerous high-profile claims that have been discredited after acknowledged failure to replicate.

This statement is misleading in so many ways. Firstly, does the author of this sentence know how many genes have be identified that are responsible for human "gene-coding traits" such as eye, hair or skin colour? Obviously not, as if they did they would know the number is far smaller than genes with psychiatric phenotypes. Moreover, as well as not making grammatical sense, the next sentence demands references. My fear is that every single one of the citation requests i added have the same problems.

I don't agree that a number of those citation tags are towards general points. If editors wish to claim what psychiatrists or anti-psychiatrsts believe then they should provide a source for that, otherwise that could simply be their POV. Admittedly there are more tags than anyone would like, but that simply reflects the fact that the article makes a large number of claims without any backup whatsoever. One of the reasons i added those tags was, as i mentioned above, so i could go through them one by one and edit/delete/source them as best i could. If anyone else is in the process of doing that, so much the better and i'm not sure what harm has been done. If during that process an editor explaions why there is need for a citation on a case for case basis, then i will accept those. By requesting citation i am not disputing that there is much of this article that is good, simply that we should have it properly sourced which should weed out the fact from the fiction. Moreover, from Cesar Tort's response above, its clear at least some of the editors on this page have mistaken the purpose of a Wikipedia article, its not about defending or promoting any opinion, but establishing the facts. Which is what i'm trying to do. Rockpocket 18:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia Etiquette, “Remove or summarize resolved disputes that you initiated” [6], I continue to remove the dispute initiated in the section “A Pseudoscience”. César Tort 04:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

OK. I think César Tort got your point. Perhaps he mistook you for an overzealous psychiatrist? At any event, since English is not his native language he has only contributed very very few words for the main Anti-psychiatry article, just before his referent [7] a friend 14 March 2006.

Perhaps he did. And i admit i overestimated the level of his contribution to the article. I also notice this is your first contribution to Wikipedia, anonymous friend, so let me be the first to welcome you. Rockpocket 22:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Rockpocket, thank you for clarifying your intentions. As you can see from a couple of the subsections above, I recently came to this article and decided to try and tidy and NPOV and source it more, which I have been doing. I do not in any way dispute that a lot of statements in this article can be revised to be more scientifically precise and accurate, and need sourcing (as on many other pages), but it takes time. I want, and I understand the aim is, to build on and adapt to what is there, which in this case is often strongly felt and reflecting a reality of negative and traumatic experiences which official documents usually neglect or dismiss - fortunately Wikipedia is brilliantly better than those. I want this to be a very good article and so just feel that tagging and criticism needs to be as constructive as possible. Franzio 08:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I concur with much of that, Franzio. I would just add that another reason for tagging is, by doing so and adding the article to the appropriate catagory, we increase the number of other non partisan editors that will come and help the clean up. With an article like this that requires quite an overhaul, the more contributors the better. I'm a bit busy at the moment, so my contributions will be minimal for a while, but i'm hoping to work through section by section (as i did for the psychiatric genetics section) and source. Once that is done we can reorganise and edit it a bit, as i feel the article is overlong and repetitous. Rockpocket 18:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I do agree that the article can be a lot more concise and tidy. As I say, I've been trying to start on this myself but am trying not to walk all over what's already there, even though this makes it more difficult and time-consuming. I am glad that you aim to help with the reworking and sourcing, although I would ask you also to be aware of your possible bias. For example, your amendments to the genetics section read a bit more like advancing the achievements of psychiatry than describing the concerns and findings highlighted by antipsychiatry which is the topic of the article. I would also suggest that modern antipsychiatry doesn't usually argue that there is no connection between these issues and genetics, but highlights the complexity and caveats, the importance of interpretation and context, and the often exaggerated claims. I would suggest that you have made some strong statements in this regard and gone beyond the sources you provided in doing so. I guess you also deleted the bit about acknowleged failures to replicate claims. But sources for this are not hard to find. For example, this 2003 article Molecular genetics of schizophrenia: a critical review seems quite balanced and obviously looks favourably on the prospects of genetic research but still says:

"Linkage analysis has been extremely successful for finding the genetic basis of diseases with well-defined modes of inheritance, with the exception of Alzheimer’s disease; it has not yet identified genes for psychiatric disorders, hence certain researchers have turned to association studies."

"After the initial enthusiasm regarding a potential link with chromosome 5 suggested by Bassett,7 subsequent studies have given mixed results."

"The issue still remains as to whether these linkages are “real” or false positives."

"Several linkage and association studies have produced positive results, mostly at a suggestive level, for chromosomal regions 1q, 5p, 5q, 6p, 6q, 8p, 10p, 13q, 15q and 22q, but in each case there are reports that were either negative or researchers were unable to replicate the original findings."

I'm not putting forward a particular argument here, or mitigating against any success in the genetic work, I'm just trying to highlight the issues. I'm not sure what you mean by you plan to work through it section by section, then we can reorganise and edit it a bit. I thought the idea was that we can all reorganise and edit, discussing major changes as we go. Or is there something different now being applied to this page? Franzio 13:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

So you think that is justification for "numerous high-profile claims that have been discredited after acknowledged failure to replicate"?. You cannot discredit any genetic study that proposes a "suggestive link" - unless you show that there was scietific fraud (i.e. lying and making up data). A suggestive link is just that - it provides a potential area for others to study to try and see if they can identify anything concrete. Does "initial enthusiasm" which was then tempered when future studies failed to back them up qualify as "high-profile claims" that were "discredited". Of course not.

The very nature of studying humans makes in near impossible to conduct research any other way than described in that paper - that is how things progress in genetics. No-one makes "high profile" claims based on association sudies and its very name explains why it impossible to "discredit" it with failure to replicate. A statistical association remains even if one cannot prove there is a real genetic element there. As i said, the only way that one discredit such work is by proving fraud or a calculation error.

If you disagree, find a relable source that says so, because this paper doesn't. Instead i stated the facts as they were - there are a few specific genes and a lot of associations - and i don't see how that review says anything different. If you feel the need to point out a lot of the associations may not prove to develop into real disease genes, then go ahead. Its speculative, but if you can source it then i have no problem as its probably true. And another thing, that paper wass written in 2003. That is a long time in such a fast moving field, note a few breakthroughs in the last 6 months alone that make that review out of date [8]. Rockpocket 23:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally Rockpocket, you said above that you "have no real views on psychiatry vs anti-psychiatry, i am defending or promoting neither". This is clearly not true. Franzio 17:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for you opinion on that. I'll take it under consideration. If you check my contribution record, you will notice i have no history of any contribution to anything relating to psychiatry prior to my involvment in this page (which i came to through a vandal watch). I do have an interest in accurately representing genetics, however, and that is what i'm doing in this section. You, i note, have only contributed to articles on psychiatry and mental illness. So i really don't think you are in any position to judge other people's agendas on this page. Rockpocket 23:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

My beef was with you just deleting any mention of any controversy or any issues relating to the over-hyping of suggestive and unreplicated studies, usually touted in the media as a discovery of 'the' gene for this or that disorder, which was particularly common in the 90s. I just expressed my impression that your edits appeared to be in line with defending what genetic findings there have been and highlighting the advances that have been made, rather than to try and better explain the antipsychiatry position with regard to the findings. I have not judged your agenda, and I'm not sure what you're tryign to say by mentioning that so far I have contributed to mental health, including a bit on the psychiatry page and a lot lately on here arguing with you. But you have persistantly claimed you are simple just acting in a purely NPOV way according to wiki policies etc but I just think we all have views and assumptions and have to be aware of our own possible biases. Franzio 16:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)