Talk:National Alliance on Mental Illness/Archive 1

Discussion Regarding Neutrality

The NAMI page has been up since 2004 and I just found it.

You can look at the history page for NAMI and see where my comments have been.

If you do not want this NAMI page to be biased then you need to help me to merge this, so that the information I provided from my own writing of these historical events, that NAMI; the the President of the APA; and the Surgeon General of the U.S in 2003, is aware of, and partially participated in, does not go untold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Janie.lee (talk • contribs) 15:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

If anyone wants to talk about this information that I have inserted we can, this needs to be left in this article even if edited by a more seasoned writer of this site. This is especially true if they choose for this article to be non-biased, representative, and true.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Janie.lee (talk • contribs) 05:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Please spend some time reading the documents I sent you. They explain in a comprehensive and consistent manner exactly how Wikipedia functions, and what you can expect to happen when you make edits. --Vees 20:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Right a person will be cut and edited and re-edited until final consensus come to this board. --just curious 15:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I hope that "just curious"'s info is incorporated into the page. It does seem to have disappeared. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.182.49 (talk • contribs) 03:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not on the front page where it should be it is on the history of edits page for anyone to see that might want to see it, if they do not want this article to be biased they will put it back or someone besides me can undo the edits. --just curious 05:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read the Wikipedia policies, they explain everything

Please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Your edits need to comply with the principles listed there, or one of the thousands of people who happen to edit Wikipedia regularly will come and remove your edits. If you can post meaningful content to this and other articles within those guidelines, please do. Otherwise do not be surprised if your changes do not last long here. --Vees 06:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Is it not true that others can take out or add writing anytime that they want to, that is the selected method of bringing overall consensus to this board right? --just curious 15:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about formatting and all that. People will come around and correct your typing errors and annotate items that are worth keeping in Wikipedia. Worry that the actual words you write fall under the policies so that you are not wasting your time writing things that will never manage to stay here. And it's unlikely that this page will be deleted, because it is a notable organization that has had an influence on mental health policy in the United States, so I wouldn't bother. --Vees 22:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I say to this that not many will let those words I added to the NAMI page stand because the propaganda is to deep, people believe what they are taught to believe and if it is not what is currently popular then "truth" of my words or "falseness or untruths" of their words it will not stand on that board. People will take what I put there out, malicious or biased or not. I need more specificness to tell me exactly what is wrong with what I wrote there, not what you suppose sounds wrong to you? I do appreciate anyones time that has time to help with this.--just curious 15:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC) What I put there is the truth like it or not. What I had on NAMI was neither biased, untrue, or personal. So why couldn't it stand? The only reason mine can't stand and NAMI's version can is because it is the popular beliefe these days, but it is still a lie what NAMI says, and those that promote NAMI's agenda are still liars, they have no truth in them. And they don't want the truth to be told.--just curious 15:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Please put in the information about NAMI's programs but remove the exaggerations. Consumers can attend Family-to-Family class if they have a mentally ill relative. I attended a class with a bipolar consumer whose children were also bipolar. I am not aware of anyone ever court-ordered to take Peer-to-Peer. In fact, court decisions specifically prohibit forcing any treatment unless that person is judged a threat to him/herself or others or that they have been found innocent by reason of insanity. Obobfla 02:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

COI Discussion

I am contacting you from the national headquarters of the National Alliance on Mental Illness. It has been brought to our attention that there is incorrect information about our organization on your website.

As mentioned on this NAMI page, the information is not credible and needs the attention of an expert. We appreciate that you protected this page against vandalism. We would like to remove the false information and post factual, verifiable data.

Please advise as to whether I may directly edit this page or if I need to recruit a Wikipedia expert. And, please let me know if you need further information to verify my identity. Thanks in advance. --Nami national 19:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed all your edits that turned this page into a NAMI billboard, and also deleted the uncited material which have all been around plenty long for someone to research and prove. Please note that all edits must follow WP:NPOV guidelines. Material would preferrably be incorporated from respected third party authors, academic text, and news articles (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Reliable_sources is a good guideline). Press releases and glossy brochures do not an encyclopedia make. Vees 20:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I went in and added a lot of facts about our organization from our site, including some on our educational programs like Family-to-Family that another editor expressed interest in earlier this week.

Is there anyway to go back and resize the graphics/logo that I uploaded? It's huge! I have a smaller one that I could replace it with, but it seems that it will only allow me edit the text areas. Thanks! --Nami national 00:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

I tagged this because it reads like parts of it were either written by an incredibly biased person, and/or someone from Scientology's CCHR. While this certainly should not be a brochure for NAMI, the obverse is equally true. I found several statements incredibly offensive, and which go against the consensus views of the NIMH, APA, and several other organizations. I do not work for NAMI, nor am I a member. Although, in the interest of full disclosure, I have attended functions and classes provided by the organization, which I found beneficial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khirad (talk • contribs) 11:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Illegal Contributions

The link about Randall Hagar and NAMI Santa Clara County was deleted due to its relevance to "local NAMI issues," thereby not fitting for this page. But there is no page for NAMI Santa Clara County, and there is an issue on this page about NAMI accepting contributions from pharmaceutical companies, donations that NAMI has no business soliciting or accepting. Randall Hagar was one NAMI lobbyist who was caught accepting a donation of over $500,000.00 from a pharmaceutical company. Hagar was caught doing other improper acts, also, and was censored quite severely by Santa Clara NAMI.

Since there is no local NAMI page for this, isn't this page appropriate for discussing Hagar's indiscretions? There's much more to it than this, Hagar's younger brother has also had difficulty with pharmacies as he was arrested for burglarizing one in Reno in 1980. Has this had any effect on the NAMI Hagar's actions? Would knowledge of the Hagar family's indiscretions have had any effect on the pharmacy's donation? A donation that was illegal to make, anyway?

There is no Wikipedia page for the California Psychiatric Association, either. Hagar's a lobbyist for the CPA now. Has he continued with the activity that he perfected at NAMI?

Start a page for NAMI/Santa Clara County and put Hagar there. If you can't, then this information belongs here. Any attempt at passing legislation denying a citizen his freedom and his sanity using the tactics and lies that NAMI employees have need be shown to be the base and futile efforts that they really are. And deletion of this type of information sure is quackery, isn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.244.160.83 (talk) 02:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

this page needs a lot of work

I agree that most of this reads like a NAMI brochure. There's no mention of the fact that NAMI has been criticized (unfortunately, I can't remember where I read this) for not allowing the mentally ill to actually be members until it had been around for years. There's virtually nothing here about what people outside NAMI think of the organization. I complained to NAMI-CT about their denial of any link between child abuse and mental illness, and they were very defensive, giving me contradictory answers. Their literature repeatedly states that "mental illness is not caused by bad parenting," which is their way of side-stepping a touchy issue: does "bad parenting" include child abuse? Or would that be "terrible parenting"? It makes sense that NAMI is funded largely by pharm. companies, since they insist that mental illness is all genetic. This is also a tactic to get insurance companies to fund mental health care, by insisting that it's always an illness, and not the aftermath of a crime, which would complicate the matter of funding. 65.75.20.195 (talk) 14:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It should be re-written using scholarly sources (e.g. [1], [2], [3]). I have some time today, so I may do this. -- Scarpy (talk) 15:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Please look at References to fix the double references. --illonasophia 5/17/10

Agreed; I'm not sure I have the time to find citations, but I definitely encounter a number of recovery-minded clinicians who do not support NAMI, both because of their stance that mental illness is 100% congenital and not caused at all by upbringing or other life events, and their us-and-them attitude in which people in recovery from mental illness are not included in leadership positions. Putting this here so as to at least have some more voices (if only on the talk page for now) that don't read like the NAMI brochure. Triangular (talk) 15:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Nami article

This article was a cut and paste of NAMI's mission statement and webpage. The National Alliance of the Mentally Ill is a national support group for families and individuals living with mental illness. The support group is primarily geared towards helping families rather than individuals suffering from mental illness. Although they do have peer support groups, the "clients" do not run these groups. They offer a wide array of programs and informational seminars on how families can find support for their mentally ill members. These include helping families in applying for disablility benefits, finding housing, medication options, coping with mentally ill family members, and understanding the consequences and laws regarding the mentall ill. Another critival part of NAMI is the campaign to eliminate stigma from limiting the growth and welfare of individuals with mental illness.Don brax (talk) 15:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality / POV concern

Added POV concern in Sept 2012 to existing list of multiple issues. Previous concerns about this article sounding like a brochure for NAMI existed, but now the opening section clearly is written by a person or persons who have a grudge against NAMI. Contains obviously biased statements like "if the parent refuses to medicate there child with dangerous drugs" and "is a non-profit front group for the pharmaceutical companies claiming to be a grass roots organization". I'm not saying these allegations aren't true, but references to more authoritative scholarly or news articles instead of blogs and the organization's own website are probably necessary to back up such substantial allegations. I know next to nothing about NAMI and don't feel qualified to update the page; I just came to this article because a friend passed away and the family suggested donations to this organization in lieu of flowers. I was immediately struck by the non-neutral POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawaegel (talk • contribs) 13:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

This article is only about the Houston, TX affiliate of the National Alliance on Mental Illness, not the nationwide organization. It literally lists the services provided by the Houston organization. That information could go in a separate article on NAMI Houston, but is not appropriate for this article.2607:FCC8:BA82:E00:F10A:6E4:BED2:55B2 (talk) 23:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Funding

Changed Funding controversy section to Funding for less sensationalism. More context was added about the 2009 sources of funding and citations including the quarterly contributions from 2009. I kept the NYT article because it was completely misrepresented. Someone clearly misrepresented the Senators final goal, which was not to point out solely NAMI.Dominic (talk) 00:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on National Alliance on Mental Illness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121215171607/http://www.nami.org:80/Content/ContentGroups/CAAC/Sample_Anti-Mental_Health_and_Anti-Psychiatry_State_Legislation_From_Previous_Sessions_.htm to http://www.nami.org/Content/ContentGroups/CAAC/Sample_Anti-Mental_Health_and_Anti-Psychiatry_State_Legislation_From_Previous_Sessions_.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140719215820/http://www.nrepp.samhsa.gov/ViewIntervention.aspx?id=315 to http://www.nrepp.samhsa.gov/ViewIntervention.aspx?id=315
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150128041232/http://www.nami.org:80/Content/NavigationMenu/Find_Support/Education_and_Training/Education_Training_and_Peer_Support_Center/In_Our_Own_Voice/In_Our_Own_Voice.htm to http://www.nami.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Find_Support/Education_and_Training/Education_Training_and_Peer_Support_Center/In_Our_Own_Voice/In_Our_Own_Voice.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)