Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychiatric abuse (second nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Bishonen | talk 20:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC).


[edit] Psychiatric abuse

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Psychiatric abuse Articles for deletion/Psychiatric abuse (second nomination)
Psychiatric abuse (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article was deleted through its prior AfD. DRV determined that a relisting was warranted, so that the full range of sources and improvements added during the AfD could be properly evaluated. Consult the DRV for a list of these new sources. Concerns remain regarding whether the article constitutes OR/SYN or WP:COATRACK. Deletion is on the table, and creative solutions like renaming or merging are encouraged. Xoloz 12:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

  • delete there are about 3 articles such as antipsychiatry Scientology and psychiatry that all the content of this could be 'incorporated into or probably already is present in. Maybe create a redirect to antipsych.Merkinsmum 14:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • delete - The collation of items under this heading implies psychiatry is inherently abusive. If we keep this we may as well have Surgical abuse and Abuse by Republicans. Are the individual episodes noteworthy? absolutely. Are there controversial ethical issues in psychiatry? You bet! A much beeter structure would be an Ethical issues/controversies of psychiatry page and structured examples of how events arise. It has parallels with allowing a white supremacist to write articles on inferiorities of other races and presenting it as neutral. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Casliber. I agree that an Ethical issues/controversies format would be much more likely to be acceptable. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 15:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete; any information found in this article has better homes elsewhere (some good examples given above, as well as the * government abuse of psychiatry articles). The rest is either original research, or carefully cherry-picked snippets to push a point of view. For that matter; the very article title begs the question and is unsalvageable POV. — Coren (talk) 16:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but Move to a less-inflammatory title. I'd call it "Scientologist views concerning 'psychiatric abuse'", and incorporate that into one article. While I strongly disagree with Tom Cruise, et al., about the evils of psychiatry, I say, "Know thy enemy". I think we should be aware of this part of Scientologist propaganda. If we don't know what their argument is, how do we spot the flaws in the reasoning? One can refuse to read Mein Kampf as a matter of principle, or one can read it as a record of someone's bizarre conspiracy theory. Mandsford 17:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete After reading Scientology and psychiatry (which Merkinsmum linked above) and the article on Citizens Commission on Human Rights (linked from the first), it is apparent that this is a PoV fork and has no place in Wikipedia. Delete and salt. (This represents a change from my position in the original discussion, in which I was not opposed to recreation under a different name. After further reading, I am convinced that it should not be in Wikipedia in this format. I strongly believe that Wikipedia is not a vehicle for the propagation of Scientologist dogma.) Horologium t-c 17:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Piggybacking on ideas raised in the first AfD (by The Anome), I've proposed in article Talk that we set up a disambiguation page. As above, the DAB could be a more NPOV Ethical issues in psychiatry, or the like, with a redirect from Psychiatric abuse. Or vice versa. As you'll see from the proposal, it already lists the specific links (e.g., for professional ethics, political abuses, anti-P, CofS). If we go this route, the AfD would close with permission to redirect (or disambiguate) from the existing title. HG | Talk 17:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
The DAB is now set up as Ethical issues in psychiatry. Perhaps efforts to Rename/Move and fine tune the DAB should be discussed on its Talk page. Thanks. HG | Talk 17:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and start again under the title Psychiatric ethics or Ethics in psychiatry. To move in this direction with the present content will be too difficult. These alternate titles will provide an NPOV framework from which to begin. Marskell 17:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 18:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Article title is too general. The result the article is a collection of unrelated subjects. The lead sentence says it all: Psychiatric abuse is a generic term for real and alleged mistreatment of people under psychiatric care by doctors, middle-medical personnel or orderlies. However, the reference to that sentence specifically refers to the USSR and says: Based on the generally accepted definition, we correctly term the utilisation of psychiatry for the punishment of political dissidents as torture.??? Is it like Child abuse? Maybe Psychiatric abuse means abuse of psychiatrists. --Mattisse 20:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    • “Article title too general” is not a reasonable argument for deletion. Encyclopedias should have general articles. “abuse of psychiatrists” is not a logical interpretation of the title. In the end, your arguments are for a rename to a more narrowly defined subject, and for improvement to the article. These are arguments against deletion. --SmokeyJoe 21:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unprofessional, overbroad, vague, even self-contradictory at times. I'd suggest a redirect to medical ethics, if a redlink is deemed too tantalizing. The disambig solution proposed by HG above should be deleted as well. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 21:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • speedy keep: Encyclopedic topic; should not be deleted based on justifications that amount to little more than politically correct doublespeak. Ombudsman 22:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. A collection of cherry-picked events that are not given just treatment by being bundled into this agenda pushing mish-mash. There may be the makings of an article somewhere in here, relating to to ethics. But this article, titled as it is, isn't it. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Many editors noted the original research and synthetic aspects of this article in the original AfD. I see no reason to disagree with that. The article is unsalvageable from an NPOV perspective, given that it was evidently created with the highly POV premise of exposing the supposed evils of psychiatry (as reflected in its title). Articles that are inherently POV have no place here, and they don't become "encyclopedic" merely by virtue of serving the political agenda of a particular faction. I should add that this isn't exclusively "Scientologycruft". The original author of the article is a self-declared Scientologist, so Scientology's anti-psychiatric dogma is certainly a factor. However, the anti-psychiatric movement involves more than just Scientology - it's part of a wider fringe anti-medicine movement (anti-vaccines, anti-pharma etc). Some of the !votes here clearly reflect that agenda (check out User:Ombudsman's user page and contributions, for instance). -- ChrisO 23:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Move to new title, give it a massive rewrite, then keep. Delete (see below). While this article is a POV-laden mess, I reluctantly recognise that the concept is sufficiently notable for inclusion, albeit with a considerably less inflammatory name. I suggest Psychiatry controversy, as it could then be merged with the fairly neutral and well-sourced material at Psychiatry#Controversy to create a new article, covering these allegations from the anti-psychiatry movement together with any other controversies. Essentially, this article isn't worthy of inclusion, but there probably is room for a neutral, referenced article on allegations of malpractice in psychiatry. I don't mind if this gets deleted, but I'm just trying to provide suggestions for a more constructive alternative. Terraxos 01:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • What is the psychiatry controversy? What is the central concept you think could be salvaged? ˉˉanetode╦╩ 05:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Essentially, the various allegations made by the anti-psychiatry movement. I don't think they're remotely justified, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't cover them. On second thoughts though, that material is already covered at anti-psychiatry - so this article probably should be deleted after all. Terraxos 15:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete with a recommendation for Salting the earth so this POV-coatrack-tree can never grow again. Clear POV fork, Scientologycruft. DEVS EX MACINA pray 04:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete again. POV fork and WP:COATRACK composed of carefully mined snippets of individually notable incidents mushed together under a hopelessly arbitrary and POV umbrella. What's wrong with the handful of POV forks we already have which are dedicated to critcizing psychiatry? Do we need another? There is a bit of novel, notable material here which could be renamed to political abuse of psychiatry or merged into psikhushka; the rest should be merged into Psychiatry#controversy, Anti-psychiatry, Biopsychiatry controversy, Scientology and psychiatry, or any of the other POV forks we already enjoy. MastCell Talk 04:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, same reasoning as with the first AfD. — xDanielx T/C 04:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The Scientology viewpoint is only one aspect of the article. This article deserves a place on its own merit. Axl 08:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article is well sourced to reliable and reputable independent sources. The article title, although accused of being POV, is itself well sourced. There is a place for this article. POV issues will be a concern, but that is an editing issue. We should not deal with controversial issues by deleting them! Other articles may contain similar material. However, of the other articles offered as examples, they are in worse shape than this one. In any case, if material here should be elsewhere, then deletion is not the answer. Material can be moved. The article can become a redirect. GFDL requires that the article history remain available. There are some peculiarly vehement calls for deletion citing arguments not usually considered arguments for deletion (some original research; material exists elsewhere). There seems to be some raw nerve here with a lot of people. Perhaps I need to encounter scientology to understand. I think these people should calm down. The subject exists and is covered by suitable sources. The article is appropriate for the encyclopedia. --SmokeyJoe 09:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Original research, synthesis of loosely related topics the authors feel are related. Then there is "Psychiatric abuse is defined as human rights abuses such as torture by psychiatric scholars," which calls up images of how these scholars might go about torturing their victims. There could be separate articles about Soviet use (and more recent Russian use) of mental hospitals to silence dissidents, which has little in common with overuse of electroshock or lobotomies in other countries. Edison 15:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I ROFLed at the concept of "how these scholars might go about torturing their victims." Through interminable lectures in med school, perhaps? :-) -- ChrisO 22:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per MastCell. Any useful information should be put into one of the articles listed at the dab page Ethical issues in psychiatry created by HG. shoy 16:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
    • HG is helpfully trying to better organize material. If all of the material in this article belongs in the collection of other articles, then this article should be redirected to the dab page Ethical issues in psychiatry. Why do you want to suppress the article’s history? --SmokeyJoe 21:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words, SmokeyJoe. There are ways to restore both the article's content, history and talk page, for use elsewhere and GFDL aspects, even after deletion. Incidentally, like you, I suggest that the title serve as a redirect, though I believe this would be compatible with the underlying intent of most "delete" votes. HG | Talk 22:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Note that contrary to a common misperception, undeletion is only a temporary option. Deletion means deletion. --SmokeyJoe 00:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete a collection of rag-tag, unrelated to each other in scope or temporal occurenceevents that happen to involve psychiatry. Circeus 18:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, again, still. Per Mastcell, Casliber, Circeus and ChrisO. Anything worthy of inclusion belongs in separate articles to avoid coatrack and synthesis. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. This kind of articles cannot be built as a collection of semi-random facts and links from Wikipedia. If such a synthetic text is to stay on WP it should be of very high quality from the very beginning and needs to be based on an accepted scholar resource. Pavel Vozenilek 23:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm now convinced that the material worth keeping ought to be placed elsewhere, such as in similar existing articles or in new, more topical articles that have less chance to wander astray. The current article name is problematic. –Outriggr § 01:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Question. When voting for delete, it might help if folks clarify whether you would accept (or oppose) using "Psychiatric abuse" as a redirect, either directly to Scientology and psychiatry or to the new dab Ethical issues in psychiatry, which links to Scientology. The term is verifiable for CofS. Thanks. HG | Talk 02:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd be perfectly happy to see it remain as a redirect. Terraxos 16:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • A merge position inherently includes a redirect request. A deletion request does not. However, once the article and its history are deleted, listing it as a redirect would not violated CSD G4 - Recreation of material deleted at an XfD, so there is no reason to clarify in this AfD whether "Psychiatric abuse" is a needed redirect. Of course, if you are looking for a delete close that preserves external Wikipedia linkable access the article history while listing the article as a redirect, that's not going to happen. -- Jreferee t/c 17:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Having an interest in medical history and also having participated in Clinical Governance and other activities in the medical and mental health field in the past, I have been naturally interested to see the concept that other people have of this subject.
Historically speaking, the Maltreatment of the mentally vulnerable is of great interest and importance. It provided the fodder to start the debate on ethics. Also, the development and practice of keeping medical statistics stated in the asylums (round about 1840) long before Florence Nightingale compiled her statistic of the Crimea dead, dyeing and recovered. However 'Medical Ethics' in its modern form is only part of the picture and so, to shave bits off this subject to fit, will not do. Today, in the National Health Service of the United Kingdom, discussions about 'abuse' would be framed within the terms of SUI's ( Serious Untoward Incidents ). Then get given a cause, classified as say a 'supervisory oversights' or perhaps 'lack of appropriate training' etc. See Serious Untoward Incidents for definition.
However, even this (SUI's) covers only part of the maltreatment that the mentally vulnerable can suffer. Before I make any contribution to this article however, I am happy to wait to see if someone else would add the material on the aspects I am most aware of and thus save me the trouble ( I am naturally lazy like that). I am shocked, surprised and disappointed though in some of the other comments that are being given for deletion. Not only this it appears, articles in development are now being AfD quickly after creation (even Jimmy Wales had his first attempt on Mzoli's deleted after just 21 minutes). It prevents other editors broadening the scope, so making it sound less like 'say' a coat-hanger which some have levelled at this article even before it has really got started.
The existing title is not the best I agree, it is in my view limiting the range of abuse that the mentally impaired receive else where, both in developed and developing countries. It would be better to be more inclusive and call it something like Maltreatment suffered by the mentally vulnerable. This would help open it up to nurses, solicitors, policemen and the like, who have come across many first hand experiences of abuse (of all types) and what steps need to be taken to safeguard against it.
I can appreciate that many of the editors who are trying to vote this off are perhaps too young and inexperienced to have either experienced at close quarters or come into contact with some of the more unpleasant aspects of human nature but to AfD this article, is not only -in my opinion- to sweep such things under the carpet, but it also smacks a little of 'denial'. I would like to suggest that it be renamed Maltreatment of the mentally vulnerable and have 'Psychiatric abuse' as a 'redirect' because that is the common vernacular term. And lets not be squeamishly PC and childish about it, the phrase can be used as a subsection within the article. --Aspro 20:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
You have an interesting idea for an article, Maltreatment of the mentally vulnerable . Since you'd like to include police, nurses, etc., perhaps you can find scholarly sources that discuss this broad sweep? Meanwhile, the need for such an article would be better discussed elsewhere. The AfD focuses solely on this article under its existing title and scope. HG | Talk 20:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
What haven't you understood? As expressed else where at the Pump. It is getting harder to add new articles because of the demand for instant perfection in all aspects. The strength ( if I can express it that way) of WP was in the past that the article benefited from the sum knowledge of many editors to develop it. How can you discus scope? It is a new article. Now with most important articles covered in WP, there seems to have arisen a 'font of proof reading clerks' that don't want to do any of the hard work themselves but would rather jump on any deviation from policy by those that see gaps in coverage and try to cover it. So why the AfD before you know what the final article will be?--Aspro 21:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Because of the whole premise of the article Aspro. That is the title strongly implies that the psychiatry is inherently abusive. There are other issues too further up the list. And deleting this article is not deleting content.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Before psychiatry became a subsidiary of the psychotropic drug industry, it wasn't inherently abusive; nowadays, however, it's no longer possible to say one way or the other. For additional clues to crystalize a kernel of truth on the subject within the collective conscience of the Wiki, it would be best to hash out articles on some of the more notorious examples of psychiatric abuse (e.g., Jack Gorman[1] and Zane Parzen[2]) in order to have a better chance of ascertaining the intrinsic attributes of psychiatry. Aspro has made a remarkably poignant point about the declining strength of the Wiki's five pillars, which mandate bold editorial contributions. Just because the foundation of institutional knowledge within the Wiki is woefully lacking (thanks to a hostile editing environment fostered by enforcement of double standards favoring certain groups of pov pushers) with regard to psychiatry articles and certain other controversial subjects, doesn't mean that the article needs to be preemptively aborted to appease the politically correct pov faction. If anything, deletion of the article will only further erode the credibility of the Wiki, undermine the five pillars, while ominously contributing to the Wiki's growing trail of lies of omission. Removal of the article would not only violate the spirit and intent of the Wiki's founding philosophy, it would also inhibit the potential for providing exculpatory evidence that might absolve the pharmaceutical industry of any and all responsiblity for the systematic transformation of a healing art into, apparently, an intrinsically neurotoxic snake oil cesspool. Ombudsman 03:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
The above statement is the strongest argument I have seen for deletion of the article, although that certainly was not the intent of its writer. Its naked hostility towards psychiatry distills all of the arguments made by those urging deletion of this article as a PoV fork. There appears to be a great deal of pot/kettle here, as he has a clear agenda, while it's not clear that his opponents have the same investment in the topic. Horologium t-c 13:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Links are to articles about psychiatrists have sex with patients. Put that together with harvesting organs... --Mattisse 22:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
If it wasn't sufficiently clear before that this article was conceived and developed by anti-medicine activists as an overtly POV coatrack, that's certainly very clear now. I suppose Ombudsman should be thanked for being upfront about this. -- ChrisO 22:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
It’s not at all clear to me. Coatrack, POV fork issues are overstated. This is a real subject verified by numerous sources. Similar articles do exist, eg Anti-psychiatry, Biopsychiatry controversy, but these are not POV forks, and deletion is not the answer. Most of the arguments advocating deletion are hypersensitive responses to a difficult political/professional/historical issue. To the extent that coatrack arguments have merit, a rename should be considered. Where “information exists elsewhere” has merit, article merges should be considered. However, rename and merge ideas should be left to the editors involved. --SmokeyJoe 01:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleting this article will not (or should not) result in the deletion of many notable topics discussed, just the allusion that psychiatry is inherently abusive. Merge is irrelevant as articles are convered elsewhere. Renaming as such doesn't work as there is no title that fits all. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I do not see in the article an “allusion that psychiatry is inherently abusive” any more than Sexual abuse alludes that sex is inherently abusive. Psychiatric abuse has been documented. Sexual abuse has been documented. Both can be written about. --SmokeyJoe 02:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Umm...that's a very long bowstring you're drawing there....sexual abuse is a fairly cohesive well-defined topic - very unlike this one. 03:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Does psychiatric only include the acts of psychiatrists? And of what century and stage of medical science? And what is the definition of psychiatrist (it varies from country to country and is not the same in different time periods)? Are you counting abuse in so-called psychiatric institutions which may not even have psychiatrists (certainly did not in the 18th century or even in the first half of the 19th century)? Are you including general institutional staff, politically mandated behavior (we could have School teacher abuse in Nazi Germany), psychiatric malpractice (sex with clients)? etc. What is the definition of psychiatric abuse? --Mattisse 15:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
The article defines the term well enough, citing reliable and reputable secondary sources. Refining that definition (based on other sources) is a matter for editors involved. What is included should depend only what sources say. --SmokeyJoe 21:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
(unindent) SmokeyJoe, I disagree. The article's first sentence:

Psychiatric abuse is both one of the terms that may describe specific ethical problems in psychiatry as well as a significant term in the broader Scientology criticisms and campaigns against psychiatry.

We already have those issues covered in other articles. --Mattisse 22:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Read on to the next sentence or two. The lead makes it clear that the subject is complicated, but well sourced. There is a case for a thorough reorganisation of material here and on other problematic pages, as per HG, but the case for deletion is flawed. --SmokeyJoe 00:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as before, sufficient references are available to support the inclusion of this topic under this title, and the article should continue to be improved through normal editing with the full history and talk page discussions preserved. As Smokey Joe point out above, many of the deletion arguments are novel interpretations of policy, and personal POV. Dhaluza 01:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
The references support an article dealing with "abuse" in some manner, but the specific title seems unnecessarily slanted and, specifically, drawing upon the Scientology usage. E.g., most references would equally support Abuses of psychiatry or Ethical issues in psychiatry. Dhaluza, maybe you would accept an article that deals solely with the various elements of the Scientology view of what constitutes abuse? If so, then Psychiatry could deal with mainstream Ethical issues in psychiatry and this article could be limited to the Scientology usage. That's the opposite of the current content, but it's a plausible request, if that's what you want. HG | Talk 16:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Frankly the Scientology viewpoint is at best a minority viewpoint that should only get mentioned in some limited context. The fact that they have hijacked the term for their own purposes does not mean that we cannot cover it properly here. Special interest groups develop their own language by redefining terms--it's just something they do. Dhaluza 09:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Dhaluza and my comments in the DRV --W.marsh 20:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but move to a less inflammatory name. Voice-of-All 02:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename. VoL†ro/\/Force 06:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Because...? MastCell Talk 16:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I'd like to remind editors that they are supposed to put forward arguments for keeping or deleting articles. AfD is not a vote; the closing admin will look at the arguments and decide on which have the most weight and compatibility with policy. If there are no arguments, there's nothing for the closing admin to consider. -- ChrisO 17:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as a POV fork. It seems to be one long rant on psychiatry with lots of cites and links to Scientology articles. NPOV is the basic policy of WP, according to Jimbo Wales. Bearian 01:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment many of the delete votes seem to be focusing on OR and POV aspects, but these are not necessarily reasons to delete. We only delete articles in cases where these are irreparable, usually because of lack of RS. At bare minimum the term should be a redirect, since it is used in the title of RS works. So this would argue against delete since a merge/redirect (or disambig) would be more appropriate if the usable content really could all be merged elsewhere. Why should we delete for these reasons despite the available and incorporated sources? Dhaluza 09:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Er, because it's an obvious WP:POVFORK, we already have multiple POV forks covering the same ground, and whatever reliable sources and encyclopedic content exists should be merged there rather than spread even thinner? I think many of the delete !votes actually make these points. MastCell Talk 16:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • In situations like this where there is a significant amount of source material, the AfD issues include WP:POVFORK, WP:SOAPBOX, and/or WP:V (WP:V in the case where behaviour surrounding the article is so bad that it is unlikely the article will meet WP:V) -- Jreferee t/c 17:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - If the psychiatrist actions do not violate the laws of the local area, it is POV to include the Scientologist view that such actions still constitute abuse. If the psychiatrist actions do violate the laws of the local area, then the Scientologist view is irrelevant. The article is nothing more than a POV fork designed to elevate the Scientologist anti-psychiatry movement's views to equal to, and in some cases superior to, those of the legal definition of negligence and agreed-upon scholarly conclusions about political/human rights abuse, such as in the Soviet Union. DGG's prior AfD post was clear. This article is nothing more than a POV fork. -- Jreferee t/c 17:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC) Comment - If one does not already exist, it would be appropriate to create an article on Scientology's viewpoint on psychiatry using reliable sources that are independent of Scientology, keeping in mind WP:SOAPBOX. If you keep from making the Scientology's viewpoint into something it is not, everyone will be Wikihappy. -- Jreferee t/c 17:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Articles on Scientology and Psychiatry

Other places to look for anti-psychiatry articles

I think the anti-psychiatry or psychiatric abuse or whatever is covered by one or more of these articles that could be upgraded appropriately if needed. Mattisse 17:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete non-encyclopaedic from the title onward. Midgley 19:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.