Talk:Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act article.
Article policies
Featured article star Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 16, 2008, and in the Did you know? column on February 23, 2007.

Contents

[edit] Major or minor?

Antaeus and BabyDweezil have suggested that the description "major controversy" should be downgraded to "minor" or have the adjective dropped completely. I have to say that's incorrect - contemporary sources say explicitly that it was a huge controversy. Senators reported receiving more correspondence about it than they'd had about any piece of legislation in the previous 15 years, and the Congressional Quarterly Almanac of 1957 called it "One of the most controversial pieces of legislation tackled by Congress in 1956." I've added the latter citation to the article.

BD's assertion that it was "barely a blip in history" is rather a non-sequitur, I'm afraid; just because it's not well known now, that doesn't mean that it wasn't a big deal at the time. -- ChrisO 20:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, BabyDweezil's suggestion that without a citation confirming that it was major, we should change the description to claim it as minor still without citation, clearly makes no sense. However, with an appropriate citation such as the one you've added, the adjective "major" is clearly justified. (though oddly, the New York Times, which called it the "Alaska Mental Aid Bill", seems to have barely noticed it. I wonder why?) -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Miscavige on Nightline

Transcript and video available at Nightline: A Conversation with David Miscavige, February 14, 1992, interviewed by Ted Koppel

Mr. MISCAVIGE: Well, okay. And if we're talking about the misuse, fine. In any event, I think any use that ends up killing people is a misuse, and I think that's a hell of a record to have. But let me get back to where I was, because it does tie in. You say the misuse, but I don't know if you're aware that there was a plan in 1955 in this country, Ted, to repeat what was done in Russia. There was going to be a Siberia, U.S.A. set up on a million acres in Alaska to send mental patients. They were going to lessen the commitment laws, you could basically get into an argument with somebody and be sent up there. This sounds very odd. Nobody's ever heard about it. That's in no small part thanks to the Church of Scientology. I must say, though, that when that bill was killed in Congress, the war was on with psychiatry where they declared war on us, and I want you to understand something-

This very odd moment should somehow make its way into the article - in addition to some sort of clarification/refutation of what actually happened... Smee 22:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

Heh, nice find. :-) I'll see what I can do... -- ChrisO 23:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Read the rest of the transcript or watch the interview, there is a bit more to that discussion. Shows how a certain group may have a distorted take on the facts of the matter... Smee 23:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] "Mythology"

I'm no fan of Scientology, but I wonder if the term "mythology" might be replaced with a less seemingly POV term. I know that "mythology" can have several meanings, not all of them pejorative and some of them merely descriptive, but I do wonder whether the casual reader will pick up on that. The pejorative meaning, after all, is the much more common use in modern English. Any reactions to these musings? Hydriotaphia 05:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe the term might be appropriate in this case but I've changed it anyhow. What do you think of the new phrasing? -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Great change. I think it's nicely done. Hydriotaphia 15:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

Article looks very good. Well-written, good citations, provides a very good and concise overview of the topic. The only issue I really had was the scientology banner to the right of the scientology subsection, which was really unnecessary and inappropriate. Such banners should only be used at the top of articles, and this article itself is not strictly a scientology-related article, as there are other issues and other groups that were opposed to the bill. The link to the Church of Scientology article ought to suffice. Other than that, great job! Dr. Cash 22:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some interesting potential dates for Wikipedia:Today's featured article

  • July 20, 2008 - This would be a neat date, because it would be 52 years to the date since the bill's passage (1956).
  • February 14, 2008 - 16 years to the date since David Miscavige interview on Nightline, where he made the controversial comments: "There was going to be a Siberia, U.S.A. set up on a million acres (4,000 km²) in Alaska to send mental patients. They were going to lessen the commitment laws, you could basically get into an argument with somebody and be sent up there." (1992)

Anyone have other ideas, good dates for this to be "Today's featured article" ? If so, as the time gets closer, we'll have to look at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests and Wikipedia:Today's featured article and think about providing input there. Cirt 10:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC).

More interesting info here: User:Marskell/TFA considerations. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 17:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC).
More good info. Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page. Cirt 17:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC).
I'd suggest January 16, the 51st anniversary of the bill being introduced into Congress. -- ChrisO 08:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
That sounds great. We'll just have to go to Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests about a little under 4 weeks before then, I'd imagine. Cirt 08:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC).
  • It would also be nice to have a free-use Wikimedia Commons picture for the top of the article, that would go into the "Today's featured article" blurb. I'm working on trying to get an image of the first page of the Congressional bill itself, but it's slow going at the moment. Cirt 08:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC).

[edit] TFA Blurb for posterity

[edit] January 16

The Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act of 1956 was an Act of Congress passed to improve mental health care in the United States territory of Alaska. Introduced in the House of Representatives by Alaska Congressional Delegate Bob Bartlett , it became the focus of a major political controversy after opponents nicknamed it the "Siberia Bill" and denounced it as being part of a Communist plot to hospitalize and brainwash Americans. Campaigners asserted that it was part of an international Jewish, Roman Catholic or psychiatric conspiracy intended to establish United Nations-run concentration camps in the United States. It was eventually passed by the United States Senate despite the intense opposition of a variety of far-right, anti-Communist and fringe religious groups. (more…)

January 16th is the 52nd anniversary of the introduction of the AMHEA into Congress. The article has been waiting to be featured for some time, having been promoted in August 2007, and its imminent anniversary seems an opportune moment to do so. There are a few possible alternatives for the accompanying image, but the (copyright-expired) anti-mental health flyer shown in the article is probably the most immediately arresting. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I have added this TFA blurb from WP:TFA/R, for posterity. Cirt (talk) 05:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Word Usage 'skeet'

I can find no definition which would permit the use of the word 'skeet'in the opening sentence of this article. Mental health skeet? huh? If there is no objection I will remove it. Johnor (talk) 16:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Never mind

Someone removed it Johnor (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bob Bartlett

Bartlett is not, to my knowledge, the longest serving US Senator, as he was only senator from 1959-1968. Am I misinterpreting this? If not, I will remove that bit. -69.127.18.205 (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] small caps

Thanks a lot to all editors for all of this info. I have edited both secular antipsychiatric articles and CCHR-related articles and was unaware of the historical backgound of this Act.

There is such amount of vandalism going on that I don't dare to edit this article today.

However, THE CAPITAL LETTERS OF THE TELEGRAM FROM L. RON HUBBARD JR. would look better if they appear smaller in the article, just as I added < small > to the capitals above.

—Cesar Tort 19:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. BTW, shouldn't "Title I" be capitalized? —Cesar Tort 04:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Title I is uncapitalized in the source document so I left it that way. Normally I would capitalize it and did so the first time I used it before I noticed what the source had. --JustaHulk (talk) 14:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Misc. OR and POV

Just a place to discuss any objections to my edits. It is OR and POV to make this "nanner nanner" point that Hubbard did not get involved in this until "almost two months after . . ." or whatever based on primary materials. Sorry coffeepusher, but that is a no-brainer and I doubt ChrisO would object to my position (or at least not much). --JustaHulk (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


What was origonaly posted was:

"Contemporary Church publications suggest that Scientology did not even become involved in the controversy until the start of March 1956, over two months after the American Public Relations Forum had first publicized the bill." Which is correct, the memo wasn't published untill march.

What you changed it to was :

"Contemporary Church publications suggest that Hubbard was tracking progress of the bill at least as early as February 1956"
Which is slightly shadier because the memo said he was first informed of the bill in february...but that was the only information he had...I am not shure beeing told a bill exists qualifys as "Tracking progress".

In order to avoid dispute I changed it to:

"Contemporary Church publications suggest that although Hubbard was tracking progress of the bill at least as early as February 1956, Scientology did not become involved in the controversy until the start of March 1956, over two months after the American Public Relations Forum had first publicized the bill."
Which shows the accurate role the church played in the bill...they didn't start action as an orgonization untill March.

Please avoid the use of inflamitory terms in your edit summary's...the use of the word "Edit Waring" should be avoided at all costs especially when no contact has been attempted. its just bad mannors. Coffeepusher (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

(EC) OK, coffeepusher put this, "Scientology did not become involved in the controversy until the start of March 1956, over two months after the American Public Relations Forum had first publicized the bill." back in. Well, it is total OR based on scant primary sources (i.e. one source) but I already removed it once or twice and I won't continue an edit-war in a featured article that would also fall under Article Probation under the COFS arb ruling. So I has to leave it but another editor is free to make the appropriate adjustments. And coffeepusher, I don't mean to be rude and I apologize for my brusqueness. I see that you are editing in good faith but I still consider that bit to be clear OR. --JustaHulk (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
seeing as this is a very active article today, I definatly think that attempting to enforce my opinion is un-neccisary. I disagree with you, but I could be wrong as well. Since we both agree to leave it up to other editors I think that either way, the correct thing will be done. Coffeepusher (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)