From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Dual dx
I just ran into Dual diagnosis which is orphaned. It is a pretty significant topic in psychiatry and I found no mention of it here either. Shouldn't it be? JoeSmack Talk 16:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- It is no longer orphaned, but it could probably still stand to be mentioned in several other articles, including this one. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) • I'm watching this page so just reply to me right here! 20:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] antipsychiatry picture
Hello all, I really don't like the fact that the antipsychiatry part is illustrated with a picture of scientologist activists. Scientology uses psychotests that are 1. in the field of psychiatry and 2.far worse in its material effect than psychiatry itself. I will therefore delete the picture from the article if no one has a claim for it. Karibou (talk) 02:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- I understand your concern and am aware that those in the anti-psychiatry movement and scientologists are two very different camps. The picture was originally included because, simply, it was a good illustration of a group of people protesting psychiatry. Rather than just removing it though, please replace it with another free image. Chupper (talk) 00:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
It's a good idea, I'll look for another picture :). Karibou (talk) 15:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I couldn't find any other picture.. I think it would be better to delete this picture anyway, as the scientology has a practice of psychiatry in itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karibou (talk • contribs) 12:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest that the introduction could be more of a general summary of each section of the main article, as per Wiki guidelines I believe, and not incorporate so many cited points (which I believe should be within each section instead). I could make such changes if no objections. EverSince (talk) 23:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Citations in the lead is an ongoing headache. I personally don't like them, adhering to the idea that anything in the lead should be in the body of the article and hence cited there instead. However, the current guidelines note that material likely to be challenged should be cited in the lead as well. Given this is such a contentious topic, my gut feeling would be to leave them there. As far as I can see, the lead is a summary of each section, though streamlined so it is seamless. What are yoy proposing to add or remove? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Only the points likely to be challenged need be cited in the intro. Based on past debates here over certain introductory claims, I can see that one or two key citations might be needed. It shouldn't be filled up with them so that no other intro appears possible, when in fact the intro is meant to reflect the article as it evolves. EverSince (talk) 02:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- O-kay...which do you think need to go and which to remain then? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- ...i'm not trying to specify in advance what exactly should be there, I can't, just saying that there's currently too many & many not in the main article, and I'd like to just see how it goes trying to merge the sources into the right point in the article and resummarising that and see what people may want to revert or revise in the usual wiki way. EverSince (talk) 03:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry guys to jump in here, I just thought I would make a quick comment. I used to be one of those people who didn't cite in the lead. It is a summary, right? So why cite a summary when its cited in detail below? But I've gone through two GA noms now and a couple of peer revies and both times the reviewers made a big deal out of citing the lead. So now I've made it a habit to cite stuff in the lead. Unless things are changing, if this article goes to GA nomination or FA nomination, reviewers are going to want the lead cited. For the record, I feel like it shouldn't be, but I've wasted too much time thus far to go back and find the citations for everything. Chupper (talk) 14:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, and one more thing in terms of "summarization" - The first paragraph of the lead should be a summary. You'll find all these points in the article. The second paragraph has turned into a summary of the history section. Eversince, you should be able to find the cited points throughout the article. They should not just exist in the lead. The lead might need to be reorganized though. The first paragraph should probably be expanded to include more points from the article. Chupper (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- I agree about reorganising the 1st para a little to include more of the points from the article. And perhaps in turn the history summary could become a bit briefer. I take your point about reviewers possibly wanting certain cites and as I say I can see that certain ones may be necessary (and wouldn't be difficult to copy more over if necessary). An extremely contested article like evolution which is FA class doesn't have any cites in the 1st paragraph though, and only half as many as this one in the rest - and a lot of those are covering very technical claims rather than general description of a profession as is the case here. I for one appreciate the effort you put into sourcing this article more and I see that the majority are also in the article so it shouldn't be too bad to reorganise a bit without losing anything you did. EverSince (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
This article has an assessment summary page.
