Talk:Anti-psychiatry/Archive 2

Origins

I have just spent a few hours going through the "origins of anti-psychiatry" and made some significant changes. Firstly, i referenced as many statements of claims as best i could. Despite much googling and academic literature searches there was some claims that i simply couldn't find evidence for including a claim on behalf of "anti-realists" that was in quotes. I have no idea where that came from, of course, if anyone can source it please feel free to put it back. Other sources are not great, but they were the best i could find and i figured it would be better to add them and keep the statement than wholesale delete and risk being accused of having an agenda. If other editors can improve them, that would be great. I also removed some sentences that, i believe, simply repeated the same claims using different adjectives.

I also went ahead and removed the subsection on the history of psychiatry. I do not believe that needs to be in what is already an overlong article, a reader can go to the appropriate article for that. If the anti-psychiatry is a truly notable movement, it should be able to justify its own existance without the need for a lengthy preamble. Finally, i did some rearranging to try and keep a roughly chronological narrative flow. Its not perfect by any means (infact, its not even very good), but i think its a start in getting the key facts across in a managable, coherent, NPOV manner. Rockpocket

Firstly, I agree that the section could be more concise, as I have already suggested above. I agreed that it needed sourcing.

However, I disagree with the culling you have done. I recently spent hours rejigging and trying to improve that section. You stated above that you do not really know this area. You also stated that you would not start culling if there were attempts to source. As you can see above, and as I clarified to you personally, I am attempting to source and you can see that I have been doing so. A lot of your sourcing, although useful in some ways and I recognise the time and work involved, appears to be to fairly random and personal websites.

You say that 'if antipsychiatry is a truly notable movement, it should be able to justify its own existance', and have deleted everything pre-1960s (although mentioned in passing later, out of order). I feel this shows you have little awareness of the issues involved. While, as I say, I agree it can be more concise and asked for opinions on this above (which you did not offer), the rise of the theory and practice of psychiatry is fundamental to the rise of antipsychiatry. I am not aware of where this is covered elsewhere as you suggest - for instance the psychiatry page has a scant and basically unsourced section, and can not be assumed to address the same issues in any case.

Some of your edits are incorrect, e.g. that social psychiatry is a form of intervention (it is an important branch of psychiatry, both theoretical and practical); deleted mention of CBT which is crucial and not the same as cognitive therapy; changed 'antipsychiatry also faced...financial and professional gain for psychiatry' to 'they suggest this was motivated by a financial and professional gain' which is not the same and distorts the antipsychiatry position.

Regarding new cults or religions advancing some antipsychiatry views, you deleted 'as had more traditional religions for a long time'. This appears factual, why?

You deleted this whole bit: "Schemes to assist or encourage people with mental health issues....alongside challenging stigma and discrimination....Collaborative models of mental health services were promoted...service users as experts alongside professionals." These are not particularly controversial or rare things within mental health and are easily sourced, as I was going to do when I decided where best in the article.

You also changed this: "[antipsychiatry] remained relatively marginalised within psychiatry, and to a lesser extent within the wider mental health community. Anti-psychiatry arguments remain prevalent, however, and [antipsychiatry]...prominent both within..." To this: "...remain relatively marginalised within psychiatry and the wider mental health community. Anti-psychiatry arguments remain a significant minority view...remain active within...". It appears that you do not have an NPOV attitude in regard to this subject, and do not feel you need to source in order to edit more in line with your POV. I'm not making an argument here but suggesting apparent double standards regarding sourcing.

This feels like it's creating more work and ignoring or hindering those already putting in effort to make a really good and well sourced page.

Franzio 10:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

My mistake, you did ask for any objections to your culling the first paragraphs, and then started doing so about an hour later it looks like... Franzio 10:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

César Tort writes: Perhaps the article ought to be shortened to 60 per cent of its current size? I do not want to make any changes until consensus is arrived among my fellow editors if you agree with such a radical edition.

For the moment I merely suggest the following modifications:

1. Laing’s “The Divided Self” does not advance the idea that, as the main article says, “madness can be a sane response to a sick society”. “The Divided Self” is rather a study of schizoids and schizophrenics from what now is called the trauma model of mental disorders. (Laing’s “The politics of experience” did say that madness can be a sane response to a sick society. But this should not be mentioned in the main article because some of Laing’s colleagues, those who in the 1970s also worked in the trauma model such as psychiatrists Theodore Lidz and Silvano Arieti, disagreed with him on this point.)

2. I have with me a biography of Solzhenitsyn and will have to check and see if he was in fact diagnosed with schizophrenia (though I know that this stigmatizing was done in the former Soviet Union with other political dissenters).

3. I would suggest to remove the phrase that Ken Kesley used “hallucinogen drugs” to write “One flew over the cuckoo’s nest” and that he saw “sane individuals” in the ward, since the movie produced by Michael Douglas shows the inmates as actually insane.

4. Also, I would suggest to change the phrase “Scientology began challenging non-spiritual or materialistic approaches”. The reason behind the CoS stance against psychiatry is that Hubbard’s second wife intended to commit him (remember by the way that I am not a scientologist).

5. I suggest to change the phrase “emphasis on genetics” to “emphasis in the medical model of mental disorders”.

6. Also, I suggest that the section “Psychiatry, a pseudoscience” should be placed before the section “Biochemical factors” since the former is general and the later is going into the details.

7. With regard to the citations needed in the section “Biochemical factors” I may add references to psychiatrist Colin Ross’s work, but I wish the thorough rewriting should be done first.

8. Also, I believe the following phrase should be deleted altogether: “Anti-psychiatrists also claim psychiatrists focus on understanding and, in the future, potentially altering the genetics of those individuals with mental health problems, and not on understanding and potentially altering the genetics of individuals who may influence the wider environment, to worsen or cause mental health problems for others [citation needed

9. In the next section it is written: “It is true that a highly active child is more likely to cause damage...” Two things must be noted here. First, there are perfectly healthy and sane children being diagnosed with AHDD and drugged into brain damage (I can post a Peter Breggin reference here). Second, the genuinely disturbed kids are being abused at home (I can post an Alice Miller reference here). The parental abuse itself, not a putative biological condition, is causing the child’s misconduct.

There are a lot more changes that occur to me in the rest of the article. But I would like to know first whether or not my fellow editors will rewrite the entire article. 16 March 2006.

Cesar, they seem reasonable to me. My only caution would be be careful of saying things like kids are being "drugged into brain damage". This is highly POV. You need to say, X believes that, then put it in quotes followed by the citation. Rockpocket 23:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi César Tort,

These all sound OK to me. The article clearly needs to be cut down a lot in size and I agree that we need to decide how to do this, by consensus. I think the version of the 'origins' section that I started should be restored so it can be worked on and reduced properly with less bias and less unilaterally (no doubt re-applying some of Rockpocket's useful sources and edits) otherwise there is just too much missing and it has also been watered down a great deal - for example no longer properly addressing the various shock procedures and lobotomies and only in relation to a fictional book; glossing over the impact of the introduction of psychiatric medication and issues of adverse effects and compliance; deleting mention of the development and expansion of clinical psychology as opposed by psychiatry; not even mentioning the non-medical alternatives to psychiaric care and asylums that developed or collaborative ways of delivering services. I will do this unless objections.

I think The Divided Self example was only there as one example of Laing's work, but you're right it does suggest that. The point about the psychiatric focus on genetics linked to mental illness has been edited by someone (Rockpocket I think) and is poorer and less clear now; it was trying to make the point that psychiatrists target genes linked to mental illness within individuals, but which may also be linked to positives (e.g. sensitivity, caring) and also that psychiatry doesn't really talk about genes which may be a factor in the negative behaviours of 'healthy' individuals which may harm the mental health of others (e.g. selfishness, insensitivity), a bias which is alleged to have numerous bad consequences for understanding and addressing mental health in a proper social context.

I would like to know what Rockpocket or other admin are planning to do to this article before I consider doing any more work on it, if I do anyway. The article was sitting here for weeks without them doing anything about it yet when work starts being done to reorganise, source and improve it (whilst respecting the work already done by others) they suddenly wade in and take over as if no one else had started to raise or address the issues they are (rightly) concered with. Franzio 16:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

OK I've partially reverted to the 'full' origins of antipsychiatry, revised it again, and I don't personally feel it is overly long now, given everything that I feel needs covering. You may want to reinsert some of the sources you found Rockpocket, I have some but not sure all. I don't feel that section is particularly controversial or POV and most of it is widely known and similar to other pages. However, please obviously raise or tag or source anything you personally feel requires a source, I can do so for anything there. I'll go and quickly source one now actually that you tagged and deleted before.

Regarding the rest of the article, I think a useful first step would be to boil down the elaborate arguments that are there into sets of single, clearer statements - in order to lose the POV style and length but not the good underlying points that someone worked hard to try to get across. And as Cesar Tort said then it should be easier to sort out the organisation and sourcing. Franzio 03:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel personally offended by my edits. I stand by some of them which you reverted back and justify why below, but i also note that you have kept quite a few and rejigged it again yourself, Franzio. As it happens i think it does read better now (with a few caveats) and that is the whole point of collaborative editing. I also spent hours rejigging it, but am not going to get angry at your reverts. The article doesn't belong to anyone, remember, and we all have the equal priviledge to edit it. Firstly, let me address you criticisms of me and my edits.

Hi Rockpocket, please don't ignore the point that you said you were not going to start just culling stuff, and then when you did only gave an hours warning for objections. This is why I was angry. It was you who was not being collaborative. I was not personally offended by your edits, but the way in which you went about it. I apologise if I came across as critical of what you had done, but it was, as a I say, the manner.

• My awareness of the issues involved are not important, what is is that i know how to do research and write in a NPOV manner. The reason for some of my edits were i could not accurately source them. Let me give you an example. You suggest I "do not have an NPOV attitude in regard to this subject, and do not feel you need to source in order to edit more in line with your POV." Irrespective of your lack of good faith), i changed "Anti-psychiatry arguments remain prevalent... in the United Nations" to "Anti-psychiatry arguments remain a significant minority view...in the United Nations" for a very good reason. I tried very hard to find what could be called a "prevalance" of anti-psychiatry influence in UN literature. What i did find was a lot of criticism of anti-psychiatry dogma and the best i could find in terms of influence was the two references i added [1] [2] (so i'm not quite sure what you mean by claiming i didn't source it). Now i think calling that sort of influence a "significant minority" is being very generous. I think i could easly justified removing that claim altogether, but i didn't so i wouldn't be accused of pushing an agenda - it appears that happened anyway. So, if you want to claim there is a "prevalence" then you simply must provide justification of that with sources, as i did (and you deleted). I draw your attention to WP:V: The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

The section you refer to did not say that antipsychiatry arguments were prevalent in the UN and EU. It said that antipsychiatry organisations had also become prominent in mental health services, including in political bodies such as those. Now I don't have a problem with suggestions about the word 'prominent', for example, but it was the way you went about watering down that whole paragraph, marginalising antipsychiatry in a way that went beyond your sources. In addition, you are still not getting the point that if you work with the people already involved in this area it will be easier. You did not need to try very hard to source this stuff, I could have provided sources and named the organisations it referred to, if you had given a proper chance, including WNUSP and ENUSP which you didn't manage to find. Please do not bold quote wiki policies at me when I am not suggesting anything in opposition to them, but was questioning your wording which you hadn't sourced.

It said "anti-psychiatry individuals and organisations ... have become prominent both within mental health services and regional and international political bodies such as the European Union and United Nations" My point is simply that they are far from "prominant" in those bodies and are a significant minority elsewhere in mental health (do you know how i know that? look at how many anti-psychiatrists there are in your yellow pages, then look up psychiatrists or any other mental health practitioners? Which is the majority and which is the minority? I gave you "significant" based on the fact it is notable enough for an article) I added the references i found of individuals or groups who claimed influence with the UN. So i edited an unsourced gandiose claims to refect reality, which i justified, and sourced. That is, by the letter, good editing according to Wikipedia policy. The reason i quoted it to that is i have yet to see any justification for any of you edits in any policy, they appear instead to be based on your beliefs. How many times do i have to say this: if you don't like it and disagree, then change it with sources and justifications to make it better. I will not be offended. Rockpocket 22:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• With the above policy in mind, i am going to replace a few {{Fact}} tags in that section around material i tried to source and couldn't. If no-one else can source these i will deleted them again. An example - you say "you deleted 'as had more traditional religions for a long time'. This appears factual, why?" Because i couldn't find a reliable source. "Appears factual" is not good enough. If it is factual source it, otherwise it goes. This isn't my POV - its Wikipedia policy.

My point was that it is generally accepted and obvious that religions often oppose non-spirtualist practices including those of psychiatry. These statements are found a million times throughout wikipedia pages, without constant sourcing. I do not know how you couldn't find a source if you really felt one was essential. You seem to be applying some exacting ideal to these pages that isn't applied to others, which is unfair and just creating more work.

As i, and another editor said before, controversial articles are highly referenced (as we gave examples). Besides, policy says everything should be sourced and the obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it. You say you are aware of this policy, but then in the next paragraph completely dismiss it. I'm applying Wikipedia policy to this article in an attempt to improve it. If you think that is unfair, then i suggest you try and chgange the policy. If it is generally accepted then give a sourced example. I for one, would like to know which traditional religions oppose pshychaitry with more than your word for it.

• Other edits i made to try and improve flow, grammer and ease of reading. I may have unintentionally changed the meaning, in that case its good that someone who appreciates that is here to correct those errors. Again, that is the whole point of having multiple editors. In the same vein, the reason i changed the text of the section on genetics is that some innaccurate language misrepresented it. I didn't accuse the author of purposely trying to mislead, i just assumed that, when writing about a complex subject, the didn't quite grasp the inference.

Again I obviously don't object to consensual edits helping each other to improve, it is the way you went about it. I raised specific concerns regarding your genetics edits above, to which you have not responded. You didn't just change the bit that was wrong, you deleted the bit that was correct and very important. It is important on a page like this to try and understand the points people were trying to make, and help that become better and more accurate rather than hinder it.

I'm sorry, i somehow missed the specific concerns you raised (as is obvious from my lengthy justification below). Rockpocket 22:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Quite a few of my minor edits were to add a "claimed" or "proponents suggest". Stating that the anti-psychiatry movement drove the development of some psychiatry alternatives and the demise of others is hubristic and idealist. Its like saying an anti-medicine movement drove the advance from dilling random holes in peoples skulls to modern surgery. Its completely ignoring the fact the disciplines evolve and develop themselves along with lots of outside influence. Indeed, there is a big difference between those that are anti-psychiatry and those that wish to improve psychiatry and many would argue that this section reads more about the latter group than the former. So a lot of my edits were to try and get away from a general survey of the evolution of psychiatry and focus more on the specifics of the movement itself. The Anti-Psychiatry movement may believe their influence was paramount, but unless there is independant sources (WP:RS) backing this up, and i don't see any, we have to write is as a claim. I notice you have kept most of these however.

Again you misrepresent what that section said, and it's very frustrating. It did not say that the antipsychiatry movement drove the development of all alternatives, it said and continues to say that the antipsychiatry movement was also being driven by individuals who felt they had suffered as a result of psychiatric services. It separately said that other professions developed in opposition to psychiatry. You cannot explain antipsychiatry without reference to those professions which are often and generally critical of, opposed to, and represent alternatives to, psychiatric theories or practices.

Yet only anti-psychaitrists would insist those "professions developed in opposition to psychiatry". The only discipline in direct "opposition" to psychiatry is anti-psychiatry. Plenty of professionals in those disciplines work together with psychiatrists. Thus they are alternatives, yes, but sometimes are complemetary also. This is a perfect example of a perspective completely colouring a view on a subject. Rockpocket 22:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• I still believe it is ridiculous to have a four paragraph introduction before the subject of the article is even mentioned, especially when the article is way to long already. Your argument that "the psychiatry page has a scant and basically unsourced section, and can not be assumed to address the same issues" is genuinely bizarre. The obvious response is to take that information and add it to the psychiatry page then where it would be useful and highly relevent! The origins of anti-psychiatry starts exactly where i edited it to, everything prior to that is the origins of psychiatry and should be under a section (and article) named as such. Anti-psychiatry is notable as a movement, not as the antithesis of psychiatry (otherwise we would have articles on anti-dentistry and simply list the evolution of that discipline from a critical POV). There is precedent on this - the article on the ALF, for example, does not contain the origins of animal testing. Can you justify why this page should be different? However, if you disagree we can get other opinion to try and reach a consensus. Until then i'll leave it.

You talk as if I hadn't already suggested that section was too long, but I had above and was asking for feedback - and you did not offer any except to say you were going to start culling. And now you say it was ridiculous. It isn't helpful. The section now has just two paragraphs and it may be your opinion that nothing prior to the 1960s relates to the origins of antipsychiatry, and please go ahead and try and justify this. For a start, the main features of psychiatry that the movement came to challenge originated prior to the 1960s in ways that are important and help explain the origins of antipsychiatry. Secondly, the antipsychiatry movement was about negative issues coming to the fore, not about their springing into existance from nothing, an idea which would be historically innacurate to convey. My point about the psychiatry page history section is not bizarre and you mispresent it - this page is about the origins of opposition to psychiatry, something which is unlikely to be highlighted on the psychiatry page (and I could say the same, why didn't you move the stuff on lobotomies etc over on to that page rather than just deleting it?).

Because i was not complaining that the psychaitry page was poor, you were. My point was the article, as it was, didn't mention anti-psychaitry until the 4th paragraph. That is not my opinion, it was what the article said. I did not think that was appropriate and thus changed it. Its getting tedious now, but let me repeat again, if you can make the intro relevent to the origins of anti-psychiatry (rather than psychiatry itself) then change it again. Unlike you, i do not mind others being bold.

I'm going to readdress those points in the article and provide other editors the opportunity to address them before i act again as per policy, WP:V. Finally, although you may fail to see it, the process of us each editing and re-editing each other is the exact process that will improve this article. As long as we don't get into edit warring, it is this iterative process that makes Wikipedia work. Please do not get angry - and avoid personal attacks - when people edit according to policy, even if it makes you feel like you wasted your time. If you really don't like it, just revert and justify why. If you can justify as per WP:POL, then there should be no problem. Rockpocket 06:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

These comments are so frustrating. I think what's bugging me is that you don't seem to reply to suggestions and discussions already started by those already working on the page, and to existing attempts to improve the page. You have done this again here - by not engaging with the suggestion about boiling down the more elaborate statements, but then starting your own section below on just that issue, in a critical manner as if no one else thinks it. I have not attacked you as you suggest, I have criticised your actions here. You seem to want to just take your own line, with others following. I worry that you are getting carried away with citing wikipedia policies and referring to administrators [correction to my previous mention that you are yourself an admin, gather you are not, must have misread something) and are not working properly with existing efforts, or properly checking who else is involved and what they're trying to do with what resources, and are creating more work than is necessary, and it no longer feels as collaborative, which was something I was valuing about Wikipedia. And I do worry if you feel, as you have said, that the whole anti-psychiatry thing is probably just 'counter-productive' and basically about criticising attempts to tackle things. There are a lot of different, complex, subtle issues involved and it takes a lot to understand this area from all angles and to be NPOV, so we need to work together to achieve it. Franzio 11:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Be bold, they say. We could - and it appears we have - spent all day debating back and forth our opinions on the talk page. But it doesn't get the article improved. Like it or not, the article has changed for the better yesterday. Clearly our opinions differ on a lot of things, you might think you are correct, as might I. At the end of the day what is important is that we edit according to, and the spirit of, Wikipedia policy. That is what Wikipedia is about and that is why i keep referring to it. It is tedious and pointless debating "what you value" or "what you think" when it is not justifiable in policy. As, to be frank, i don't care - it just sounds like POV pushing otherwise. If you can justify and source anything put it in. If you can't it risks being deleted. As will I. It doesn't matter whether the other likes it or not. Rockpocket 22:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree with me that this is a waste of time. Incidentally you misrepresent me yet again in a number of ways. I never said the psychiatry page was poor, I said the history section was, and basically unsourced, which it patently is or was at the time of writing I haven't checked it since. You misunderstand the point about other professions developing in opposition to psychiatry - the point is that in initially developing and expanding, they generally had to challenge and oppose the psychiatric establishment, who for example thought clinical psychology should be restricted to psychometric testing and fought for this; these professions still often conflict, and of course this is not to deny that they also often work alongside each other. Your assumption that 'only anti-psychaitrists would insist' on this is a clear POV and again suggests a negative stance towards this area. Again you talk is if I do not believe in sourcing, when I have been repeatedly talking about this aim and was before you got here, and have added about 10 high quality references. I can add about 100 more when the page is sufficiently organised and I get a chance. When you say "At the end of the day what is important is that we edit according to, and the spirit of, Wikipedia policy" - can I suggest strongly that it also important to work with fellow editors, and to listen and understand properly where they are coming from and what they are trying to do. Franzio 15:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

What's with all the citations needed?

It's true that everything in Wikipedia should be citable, but this is not the same as saying that every sentence in Wikipedia should be cited. The way "citation needed" is sprinkled throughout this article seems ridiculous. I'm sure some of the statements are probably non-obvious and maybe should be cited. But if something is common knowledge or is easy to verify, then a citation is clutter really. Neurodivergent 18:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. It's ignorance and prejudice against anything which isn't mainstream psychiatry. Franzio 18:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The “citations needed” issue could be simplified if we start to significantly cut down the article in size. César Tort 16 March 2006

True, although Rockpocket seems to feel that anything he isn't personally fully aware of or totally in agreement with requires a source. And cutting it down properly - and fairly to those who have previously worked on it - takes a bit of time and discussion. And requires people who actually know about antipsychiatry and who aren't going to misleadingly water it down, or actually edit to make the case for psychiatry rather than describe and explain antipsychiatry, because they're so unable to get out of their own pro-psychiatry POV. Franzio 19:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Have you noticed how I rewrote the antipsychiatry section in the main Psychiatry article? My sources were so sound that the orthodox psychiatrists who edit that page didn’t delete my phrases.

And in the section “Improvements and criticisms” of the main Psychiatry article I also added the phrase: “In a 1984-2000 study, Australia and New Zeeland ranked third in total psycho-stimulant use after the United States and Canada [3]”, and thus I deleted two “citation needed” demands in that paragraph. César Tort 16 March 2006

I think it's good you've tried to supply the sources that were requested on the psychiatry page. There seems to be some confusion about what people want that page to cover. That article on psycho-stimulants is very useful and could partially source the ADHD issues mentioned in this article. I think we can work together to find the most neutral and evidence-based sources. I'm annoyed at myself for wasting time defending things on here that I could have spent organising and sourcing the article.

I know Rockpocket does appreciate a lot of the issues here, and was just very concerned about accuracy and length. I just got pretty angry today because I thought we had reached an understanding and hadn't expected what happened. It takes a lot to be NPOV in this area. Franzio 00:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Rockpocket:

I presume you can now appreciate our efforts, Franzio’s and mine, to rewrite a shorter, truly NPOV article. As you can see, my antipsychiatry contribution to the main Psychiatry article did not rise objections from the orthodox psychiatrists. All of this is a misunderstanding. When a couple of days ago I wrote about “impassioned, searing exposé” I was not talking about my proposed Wiki-style, but to “The Gulag Archipelago”. César Tort 17 March 2006

I have a talk page you can use to address me directly. I have no concern with your contribution to the psychiatry article - as i said before, i have not read it. I simply ask that you follow WP:RULES, do not remove without justification tags others add, and do not self cite here. Your previous comments above, appeared to me to explicitly acknowledge that you intended to enforce POV material even though you know it was such because it read better. If that is not the case, then of course, i welcome your contribution. Rockpocket 05:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I followed your advise and already wrote to your address. César Tort 17 March 2006