Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychiatric abuse

Add links
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 was delete, with a clear majority for deletion. As several editors have pointed out, the framing of the article also raises obvious POV and OR problems. -- ChrisO 08:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Psychiatric abuse[edit]

Psychiatric abuse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Article is a list or repository of loosely associated topics (see WP:NOT). Furthermore, the collation of which may be construed as OR. 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! The correct structure would be an Ethical issues/controversies of psychiatry page and structured examples of how events arise. The whole slant and title of the page is POV and written by someone with an agenda. It has parallels with allowing a white supremacist to write articles on inferiorities of other races and presenting it as neutral. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - in parallel with Medical malpractice, Medical error and Iatrogenesis. I agree it needs work on coherence - for instance, it completely omits the historical roots (maltreatment of inmates of asylums). It also needs explicit reference to organisations with an overt agenda on psychiatry. Gordonofcartoon 14:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Not sure these are actually parallel. Medical malpractice has a clear legal definition; medical error and iatrogenesis are also well-defined and widely used in the scholarly literature and even lay press. "Psychiatric abuse"... not so much. MastCell Talk 03:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • CommentHere are two references which show the term 'psychiatric abuse' in use by psychiatrists in a fashion consistent with the definition in the article:

Psychiatric News, August 6, 2004, Dr. Abraham Halpern uses the term psychiatric abuse to describe torture and fraudulent diagnoses of Falun Gong members http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgu/content/full/39/15/2 In the article by Drs. Lu and Galli, 'Psychiatric Abuse of Falun Gong Practitioners in China' the term is used throughout the article in a manner consistent with the definition in the article. http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/reprint/30/1/126.pdf

article title is intrinsically agreeing that abuse exists (it may well do, but this title is not NPOV.) Maybe a POV fork?Merkinsmum 17:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, "intrinsically agreeing that abuse exists?" This article isn't "antipsychiatry," either. If you find me a psychiatrist that we can quote in the article who agrees that psychiatrists (human ones) are never abusive, and, of all the professions, not just the medical one, they're the one that has never had practitioners that never inflicted abuse on another human being, we should include that article in the references, and meld it into the text. But no such psychiatric authority exists. KP Botany 20:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It could be rewritten not to be one, but I agree that the title is fairly leading (and the article is going to be a magnet for antipsychiatry POV). Gordonofcartoon 17:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete due to the above reasons, both mine, and Casliber's belief the article's a bit OR.Merkinsmum 17:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, POV, OR, WP:NOT repository of items, creating POV by association. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The NPOV policy is not "No point of view." The volume of published scholarly research that specifically addresses "psychiatric abuse" is more than sufficient to satisfy WP:N and also make it a valid point of view that should be covered. The fact that the material is published in this context in RS make it specifically not OR. As far as NOT, the sources validate the context, so that does not apply either. Dhaluza 11:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keepThe article deals primarily with modern psychiatric abuse. A section could be added about historical abuse. The antipsychiatry article does not have the same or even remotely similar data as Psychiatric abuse. This article is a work in progress, and should not have been slated for deletion. Someone has wrongly removed the underconstruction template so he could slate the article for deletion. I've been editing this article every day.S. M. Sullivan 19:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment
Most of the article is simply a collection subtitles with selected stories and statistics inserted into each subsection. This is clearly WP:SYN because we are given no context...nothing is qualified or quantified for the reader. Readers are simply left to make the association between the subtitle and the contents of the subsection. All of this has been pointed out in talk. Furthermore, this information can also have no significance to the subheading and by placing several bits together the reader is given the impression that there is a serious problem. For example one subsection is entitled "Electroshock: A Concern for Women and Elderly". First, the term Electroshock is no longer used in the field. I fixed it to ECT but it was reverted. Secondly why is it a concern? These are typically two vulnerable populations within society but the title nor the text indicates that the visible minority population is vastly under represented to receive treatment. The selective association of the these two populations mixed with the words "electroshock" and "concern" creates bias in the reader. The first sentence states, "Some sources indicate that the use of electroshock treatment has been increasing as anti-depressant drugs lose their effectiveness over time". I had tagged the word "some" with "weasel word" and made a citation request for the sentence. The weasel word tag was removed and the citation request was removed and replaced with citations that clearly didn't show that when people's drugs don't work they use ECT. In fact, these people generally use another drug. ECT is mainly used for severe clinical depression. Next comes statistics from Ontario where we breathlessly learn that, "..in Canada, a Freedom of Information act request revealed", that older women get more ECT then any other population. So what? This is common knowledge, older people and women tend to be much more likely to get severe clinical depression. Next we a get a single report from a Dr. reported in the USA today that most ECT deaths are in the elderly. There is no internet link to this story and again no context. The final sentence of the first paragraph again breathlessly states, "these Ontario statistics are especially troubling in light of Sackeim's research, described below". Well what do we next learn about Sackeim? I'll let you guess...stats are again cherry picked and we have the omission of other information that gives context. This section goes on but I'll stop there.
Pragmatically, correcting the article places an undo burden on editors who seek to contribute. This has been an incredibly frustrating experience.Notwithstanding personal attacks and faulty accusations, no forward progress has been made. Editor Sullivan is too much of a roadblock to the forward movement of the article. No edit but his is left undone. This article could be good with a title change, topic focus, and a cooperative editor who wanted to do all this, but editor Sullivan has clearly demonstrated that it can't be him. I do not want to expend the energy to rework the whole article. I simply want to make sure that this article is not a springboard for fringe elements to bash all of Psychiatry.--scuro 19:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't make a point about your battle with an editor by supporting a nomination for deletion of a clearly notable and encyclopediac topic.[1],[2] KP Botany 19:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. That an article is poorly written or the subject of dispute - even intractibly so - is not reason for deletion. However, the editorial issues need tackling also: S.M. Sullivan's recent canvasssing of pro-Scientology editors suggests an affiliation and that this article as it stands may well already be a springboard for antipsychiatry POV. More varied editorship would help. Gordonofcartoon 20:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)][reply]
Then tackle the editorial issues, instead of nominating and supporting the nomination of a genuine subject with a body of research for deletion--this AfD is a monumental waste of time that could be devoted to fixing the article. I request the nominator withdraw this. KP Botany 20:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Strong delete This is the equivalent of the Rock climbing nomination. I believe that the ridiculously high rate of editing on this article without any proof reading means that this article will be impossible to have on Wikipedia as a truly enclopedic article, no matter the scholastic value of its content. The editors appear unwilling to read anything that has been written, and edit at such a high rate of speed that no troop of Wikipedia editors could keep up with them. At this stage, the article should be deleted to stop this farce.
  • Comment Changed my mind again. I voted for delete, but the deletionists clearly disagree strongly with me, so whom I to vote delete when even the deletionists don't seem to think I'm right to vote delete? KP Botany 19:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KP the whole structure and title is POV and needs to be restarted from scratch. see above. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We do not delete articles to change the title, and we also do not delete articles because the structure is poor. The GFDL license requires contributors are credited for their contributions, which means that if any of the content is useful in a rewrite, it should be credited to the original contributor, no matter how bad the title or format. Your statement that it needs to be restarted from scratch is also a POV. Dhaluza 09:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 20:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge content with relevant articles, then Delete. The content in this article has value, but the article itself is so loosely defined as to violate WP:NOT#INFO. Reports of abuse are important, but should be placed under the article in question such as Medical restraint, Electroshock, etc. Djma12 (talk) 20:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Needs some fixes and improvements, but thats another story. Definitely keep. M.V.E.i. 20:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It seems like a legitimate topic. I agree the article could be improved. Steve Dufour 21:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article has taken several references (of which I've read through) and has come to its own conclusion. This is original research. If we can get some references using the term "psychiatric abuse" and/or references talking about its actual prevalence, and not just a bunch of opinion and individual case study refs lets keep it. Until then, its a delete from me. Chupper 00:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are two references of psychiatrists using the term 'psychiatric abuse' in a manner consistent with the definition in the article. One is 'Psychiatric Abuse Of Falun Gong Practitioners in China' by Lu and Galli 2002 http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/reprint/30/1/126.pdf and the other is an article by Ken Hausman, August 6, 2004, in Psychiatric News, which quotes Dr. Abraham Halpern using the term psychiatric abuse to describe incidents of fraudulent diagnoses

,torture, involving the Falun Gong prisoners: http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/39/15/2

    • Response - Ok so we have a couple sources using it as a term... I'm still not sure that justifies an entire article on it. But this wasn't my main concern. What about references talking about its overall prevalence? Can we get more than limited demographic studies and individual case studies? Chupper 02:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom, disparagate incidents and synthesis of events in attempt to discredit psychiatry as a field of medical practice. At very least it is not psychiatry itself which is abusive (that would suggest all use of antidepressants was misguided, or that legitimate compulsory admission in psychiatric hospitals for those with psychotic illnesses who at risk of harm to themselves or others was unjustified). There have been abuses of inmates at other types of institutions with prisoners experimented upon, disabled children in paediatric wards, elderly patients in nursing homes or geriatric wards. But that does not make for Prison abuse, Paediatric abuse or Geriatric abuse as attack articles of the need for the relevant services. An article setting out Abuse of institutional inmates could legitimately cover issues of regulation, inspection, appeals pannels, Habeas corpus, respect of rights of the individual etc etc. Whilst USSR did abuse Dissidents by forced treatment, that counts as an evil act by an authoritarian regime, and is quite different from sexual abuse by staff at a Britol institution, where presumeably there were valid psychiatric reasons for the patients being admitted to the unit and also valid that they had initially required psychiatric therapy (it was rather that they were then abused whilst in care). So as per comment by M.V.E.i. above, whilst some of the topics listed are clearly notable, indeed are important, and require a mention in wikipedia (eg Soviet dissident abuse, Nazi Euthanasia and Sterilization), this all-things article is the wrong place. David Ruben Talk 01:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete or rename and stubify per Casliber. The article is written with a transparent slant ("Electroconvulsive (ECT) Therapy: A Danger to Women and Elderly" WTF?) and cleanup would just leave it lying around because few editors would want to actually rework that into something neutral. Circeus 01:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Most of this article has nothing to do with psychiatrists. This article starts off with a citation from harvestingorgans.net about behavior in China to reference the "fact" that psychiatrists regularly rape, harvest organs from their patients etc. Every reference citation is to an advocacy group (at best), lobbying group, or personal blog. Most of it has nothing to do with psychiatrists, or even medical doctors, or even mental health professions. The article does not distinguish between financial advisors, politicians, religious groups, ethnic groups (blames psychiatrists for Islamic extremism and the Unification Church), parental behavior—you name it. --Mattisse 01:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Oh, and forgot psychiatrists are responsible for Hitler, ethnic cleansing, genocide . . . --Mattisse 01:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentThis article is about psychiatric abuse, not psychiatrists in general. It does not state that they regularly do anything bad at all. You have not looked at the references if you can mischaracterise them as you have done, claiming that they are all blogs, personal websites, etc.. S. M. Sullivan 05:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and --equally strongly--a NPOV rewriting to give a suitable outline, with subsidiary articles for individual instances. Of course there is a strong anti-psychiatrry movement that uses these abuses or purported abuses for their own purposes, and the article at present seems to reflect an inordinate influence by those supporting that movement. (even so, that point of view needs to be fully covered). . But there is also real abuse that is recognized even by the most convinced supporters of psychiatric treatment as a branch of authentic medicine, and a general coverage is fully appropriate. The emphasis on individual accounts of misadventures is another matter, and should be dealt with by the rewrite. I can understand the motivation for the AfD , for the tone of most of the present article is indeed highly unencyclopedic-- but the topic is suitable. Bad writing, even prejudiced writing, is not reason for deletion but improvement. DGG (talk) 01:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, but a nonsensical heading is. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you are saying that the title is inappropriate, then the proper forum for this is Wikipedia:Requested moves. We do not delete articles because of disagreement with the title. If you were under the impression that we do, then you should withdraw your nomination. Dhaluza 09:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment why can't anything useful in this person's essay be simply placed in Psychiatry#Main_criticisms? We don't often allow a POV fork, but place criticisms of a subject or noteable instances of abuse within the article on that subject (Psychiatry). Can't people see that this 'article' is a POV rant from start to finish, editing it would require for instance changing most of the words probably, definitely those in the intro. Following on from Matisse's comments- I'm surprised this article doesn't accuse psychiatrists of human sacrifice.Merkinsmum 01:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is possibly a much better standard term: psychiatric malpractice It's enough for an article--there are multiple books on just that subject, not all from cranks. So we can propose a move, not a deletion. DGG (talk) 04:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't even like psychiatrists as I work in a profession that is at war with them, but this is such a hatchet job that even I have to rise up and defend Wikipedia standards in this case. --Mattisse 01:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - Possibly merge into another article, but there is POV stuff that should disappear. I don't think the presence of some POV material is grounds to delete an entire article. Shawn K. Quinn 01:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I was just reading the article's talk page and someone had said it is an example of WP:SOAP. I had forgotten about that one but of course it is. At least in the current form.Merkinsmum 02:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy delete - This article fits the definition of an attack page WP:ATP. An attack page fits general criteria #10 of Criteria for speedy deletion]] WP:SPEEDY.
Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject or some other entity (e.g., "John Q. Doe is an imbecile"). These are sometimes called "attack pages". This includes a biography of a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced, where there is no neutral version in the history to revert to. Administrators deleting such pages should not quote the content of the page in the deletion summary.--scuro 03:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
not speedy that's not the way G10 is meant to be applied. What entity exactly is being disparaged? All psychiatrists--that is by no means obvious. Please dont try to short-circuit the discussion. Speedy is for unquestionable deletions, not those challenged in good faith. The criteria are meant to applied narrowlyDGG (talk) 04:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - It's definitely POV, but it is on a legitimate subject, which under a new name and organisation, could be a good article. As it stands, it needs to be deleted. It's obviously biased, and despite the references, sounds a bit OR. It can also lead to a speight of new, POV articles such as those the nominator suggested. Spawn Man 06:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions. I first looked at this article to give a 3rd opinion. Two significant problems would seem to support the AfD. First, the article appears to be an original compilation of disparate items, without sufficient reliable sources that tie these items together. Hence, doesn't this article represent a synthesis of items that the author considers connected? I raised this question and, while there may be some better sourcing of discrete items, the overall article still has this rather fatal flaw. Second, the article title is not based on neutral terminology drawn from reliable sources. Instead, the title seems slanted and more likely to draw an array of controversial allegations (i.e., anything that is called or seems to be an abuse, i.e., a quote farm) rather than a coherent analysis and critique of psychiatry. Having raised this problem, I do wonder, why hasn't the article title been verified from quality sources (pref. academic)? Perhaps the title "psychiatric abuse" is mainly notable a term-of-art in Scientology. If so, then the article might be restructured and revised as an explanation of Scientology or CCHR doctrine or the like. Would the author (Sullivan) consider adding this content to Scientology and psychiatry? Or as an article growing out of that Scientology context? Thanks for hearing me out. HG | Talk 07:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC) PS I don't think the "potential" to be a better article is sufficient grounds to keep content that significantly fails on neutrality or original research grounds, sorry.[reply]
    • That is an excellent summary. Not to mention that a significant amount of the article is dedicated to abuse not by psychiatrists, but other persons involved in the process that put someone in psychiatry, so that elements like abuse by professional conservators and declaring political opponents psychically unstable (e.g. in USSR or China) are lumped together which have little reason to be. Circeus 07:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It may be an excellent summary of something, but not of reasons to delete. A simple Google scholar search turns up hundreds of scholarly works that use the exact term "psychiatric abuse". Although this article may be a more comprehensive compilation than those in the existing sources, that is a good thing, not a bad one! Collecting related items is part of building an encyclopedia. So taking source material on psychiatric abuse in the Soviet Union and merging it with material on psychiatric abuse in China is not only acceptable, it is desirable. This is not synthesis to advance a position by the editor (if the references are advancing a position, that is dealt with by including other positions, not excluding them). As far as the neutrality of the title, the term is used in the title of these scholarly works in various forms, so the title is appropriate since it is supported by reliable sources (this does not mean that further research could not find a more appropriate term that would make a better title, but it should only come from research on terms in use, not a contrived compromise neologism by WP editors). There are many articles that could attract inappropriate content, but that is reason to watch them, not delete them. The speculation on Scientology is unfounded. As far as the follow-up comment on psychiatrists vs. psychiatry the article lead sentence clarifies that it covers abuse while under psychiatric care. Dhaluza 12:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A laundry list of instances where people have come to harm while they were under psychiatric treatment. The opening sentence of the first paragraph says it all: "Since psychiatrists are medical doctors, they are, in principle, bound by the Hippocratic Oath, which states, 'never do harm to anyone.'" This is a pure anti-psychiatry diatribe. One cannot possibly compare situations in developing countries with the Western world in the 1950s; attempts to do so become WP:NOR almost instantly. If kept, needs to be renamed to allegations of abuse of psychiatric patients and drastically NPOVed. Main editor keeps using {{inuse}} to stop AFD; main editor also declares that he has an interest in dianetics/scientology. JFW | T@lk 07:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per DGG. Article has already been significantly cleaned up, which shows the assertions that this was a hopeless case clearly lack vision. The nom seems to be taking issue with the name, which is properly dealt with in requested moves, not AfD. The comparison to white supremacy in the nom is over-the-top hyperbole. I find the nom completely without merit, and this whole discussion an unnecessary distraction. Dhaluza 09:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on appropriateness of the title. A google scholar search turns up numerous journal articles on "psychiatric abuse" not only of apparent political prisoners in China, but also behind the Iron Curtain, and also in relation to sexual preditors in the U.S. It also turns up at least three books published in the 1980's with the term in their title, which shows it is not obscure or a neologism:
    • Bloch, S. (1984). Soviet Psychiatric Abuse: The Shadow Over World Psychiatry. Gollancz. ISBN 978-0813302096. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
    • Stover, E. (1985). The Breaking of Bodies and Minds: Torture, Psychiatric Abuse, and the Health Professions. Freeman. ISBN 978-0716717331. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
    • Van Voren, R. (1989). Soviet Psychiatric Abuse in the Gorbachev Era. International Association on the Political Use of Psychiatry. ISBN 978-9072657015. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

-- Dhaluza 10:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but this article reminds me more of this site [3] the shock! the horror! and this is the way in which the term is being used here.Merkinsmum 12:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And that is grounds for deletion of a legitimate topic? Just because a group co-opts a legitimate term for its purposes does not mean we cannot cover it here (in fact, that and similar groups' activities should probably be properly contextualized in this framework). Dhaluza 12:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, if a legitimate topic is presented in a slanted manner or under a one-sided rubric, then the article would need to be deleted. The material can be recovered for use in a more balanced piece. If the article synthesizes a range of topics (a concern which the above sources don't dispel), then the content should be disseminated to the article from which it is (in effect) a POV fork. Also, I would note that if the sources primarily come from Scientology-related publications (as I noticed discussed in Talk), then this only sets up notability as a Scientology doctrine. Thanks! HG | Talk 15:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is a novel interpretation of WP:DP--the actual policy is not to delete articles on encyclopedic topics, and specifically not to use AfD to settle content disputes, or as a form of punishment for perceived transgressions. The GFDL license specifically prohibits deleting an article and then re-using some content without giving proper credit, which is normally done through an edit history that is lost after deletion. The real problem here is that AfD is not the correct forum to resolve the problems here. If the problem is POV, we edit to provide NPOV. If a user's POV pushing is obstructing that, we use proper dispute resolution processes, not AfD which is not a dispute resolution process (although some try to use it as a nuclear option). An article that collects a range of related topics is acceptable, it is synthesizing pieces of material that is OR. Dhaluza 10:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about at least rename/redirect to something like psychiatric malpractice, because we have a medical malpractice article, but not a medical abuse one? Yes other authors might have used the term, but they were not required to be NPOV as wikipedia is. Like it or not, 'abuse' is a loaded word.Merkinsmum 12:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Malpractice implies inadvertent or non-intentional harm. Most of the cases here are at least alleged to be deliberate. The sources for "Psychiatric Abuse" abuse actually support splitting this article to "Political psychiatric Abuse" for dissenters and undesirables such as in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and China, and possibly treating other forms of psychiatric abuse separately. Dhaluza 12:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The term "Psychiatric abuse" when it is used in scholarly papers is used to describe oppressive federal systemic method of abuse. Once you get away from this particular grouping it is very hard to discern any difference in abuse between other populations and the Psychiatric population. For instance serious abuse has also occured with these populations under the states care: prisoners, the elderly, mentally retarded, and aboriginals. Noted Antipsychiatrists and Scientoligists such as Thomas Szasz also use the term, but again, they do so as a springboard to make a wide based attack on everything that is Psychiatry, as this article does. I could see a title such as Oppressive Regime Psychiatric Abuse existing with a significant truncating of the definition and subsequent article. Any subsection not fitting that definition could be merged into the articles which already exist on that topic.--scuro 14:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Oppressive Regime Psychiatric Abuse" gets zero Ghits, so it is a contrived title that is not advisable. It also requires a judgment that the regime is oppressive, which would encourage OR. It is best to stick to the RS and use terminology they use. Dhaluza 20:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Who is User:S. M. Sullivan? He has reverted all edits made within the last 24 hours to the body of the article. How is there a chance for the article to change if User:S. M. Sullivan controls all edits? --Mattisse 16:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly the problem and why no other editors can possibly improve the article unless he is warned or something, as he completely WP:OWNs the article.(why not, as it is not an article, but is written in the style of an essay/polemic of which he is the sole 'authorMerkinsmum 17:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then run through the various levels of vandalism warning or whatever else is appropriate until he gets blocked. Wikipedia is not his soapbox--make this clear to him via the warning templates and getting him blocked for violating Wikipedia policies. KP Botany 17:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: perhaps Divide There are really four topics here: Psychiatric malpractice in the ordinary sense of malpractice--negligence, inadequate care, etc., Psychiatric political abuse as in the Soviet Union, Psychiatric experimentation upon humans, and perhaps Anti-psychiatry movement. The present article is an unsatisfactory blend, with a decided POV bias towards the 4th, using arguments from the others. DGG (talk) 19:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-encyclopedic and inappropriately POV compilation of individually notable incidents. Are there notable instances of repression in which psychiatrists have been involved? Yes. Is there notable criticism of psychiatry as a field? Yes. Have some of the rogues' gallery of 20th century villains utilized the trappings of psychiatry? Yes. But this article selectively cherry-picks and mines a variety of disparate incidents (which, so far as I can tell, no particularly notable source has grouped as a whole) into an article which is a clear POV fork. It is exactly analagous to the problems with Allegations of Israeli apartheid (or any of the "allegations of apartheid" articles"). Collecting a bunch of potentially notable quotes or incidents and compiling them into a POV-slanted essay is original synthesis and an abuse of the encylopedic process. If the verdict is to keep this article on grounds that the incidents compiled are individually notable and someone somewhere has used the term "psychiatric abuse" in a notable context, then at the very least this article needs a complete rewrite and restraint of what appears to be a single-purpose account with a clear agenda to push. MastCell Talk 19:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment What exactly is your agenda here? Here is what a "single-purpose account is:"

      • "A single-purpose account is a user account which appears to be used for edits in one article only, or a small range of often-related articles."

    • Here is a list of the users first 500 contributions.[4] While there may be an anti-psychiatry bent, as there are a lot of edits to scientology articles, I haven't investigated this. What I did note is, in spite of your claiming this is a "single purpose account" there are dozens of edits to a huge variety of articles. Exactly why did you claim this is a single purpose account when a 20 second look shows it clearly isn't? What is your agenda? If this can't be deleted without incorrectly stating what is going on, if this can't be deleted without stating that it is being edited by a single purpose account when that is not the case, then maybe we should examine the urgency of this deletion. KP Botany 01:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While that's the case for early edits, the great majority of recent ones [5] have focused on this and related topics. Add, as I mentioned earlier, the canvassing of pro-Scientology editors when the AFD started, and I think there's sufficient reason for suspecting an agenda. Gordonofcartoon 02:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, currently the agenda seems to be edit the hell out of it and maybe it will be kept. But it just had the opposite effect as far as I am concerned. If the editors prove that it can't be accurate and neutral it simply has to be deleted. KP Botany 02:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My agenda is that this article is completely unencyclopedic, for the reasons I listed above. You're correct about the earlier contribs of User:S. M. Sullivan; however, I looked at the last 500 contribs and virtually all were dedicated to advancing a fairly strident anti-psychiatry POV. Hence the WP:SPA citation. I think the comments below about 3RR/30RR/300RR amply support my comment above, regarding the need to somehow restrain this account in the event that the article is kept. MastCell Talk 05:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I find no problem with merging similar incidents under a single title, though this one may be too broad as discussed above, but that is dealt with by normal editing. This is specifically not OR synthesis, it is encyclopedia building. If the scope is incomplete, whether from cherry picking or not, we expand the scope. If a single purpose account is trying to push a POV under an otherwise encyclopedic subject, then we deal with that accordingly--deletion is not appropriate in that case. Dhaluza 20:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What would make this encyclopedic, rather than synthesis, would be a sufficient set of reliable, independent sources that merge the incidents under a single title. (And what title do significant, esp academic sources, use?) Thanks. HG | Talk 00:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Cherry picked references for POV pushing. Some of it can be merged into exsting articles such as medical malpractice. But will need extensive mopping.--Countincr ( t@lk ) 22:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the references have been cherry picked, the proper action is to add more references to establish balance, not delete an article on a valid encyclopedic topic. AfD is not the Gong show. Dhaluza 10:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - I've changed my view in the light of discussion. I think the article is unsalvageably WP:SYNTH. Gordonofcartoon 02:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone's got to figure out the 3RR (more like 30RR) sitauation; methinks this is going to be long-term. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've asked editor Sullivan to leave the article alone for a while and this has been agreed to, so the 300RR (that was generous of you, 30RR) situation should end for a while. KP Botany 05:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
THE UGLY TRUTH is that the article is acurate. We might not like it, we might want to see it but it is still the truth. I would like to see more about the positive things that have come for mental patients human rights. The fact is that we need this article to remind us the mistakes we have made in the pass so we do not commit them again. So my vote is KEEP. Lets fix the article so it is more competorary.Bravehartbear 08:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Email to Weekly World News, I understand they appreciate this sort of POV rubbish, sourced only by questionable sources of unquestionable bias. Proceeds to be donated to the Wikipedia Foundation, of course. Note to closing Admin: this means delete, in case you were wondering. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moved Independently of its content, the name of the article is not medically or generally correct. Psychiatric abuse doesn't refer in any context to the abuse of patients. The article has been moved to Abuse of the mentally impaired which is the correct terminology in medicine and ethical conduct commissions. As for deletion or not, no comment JennyLen☤ 16:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: In general, it's really not a good idea to move an article in the midst of an AfD. It creates a huge amount of confusion, aside from the fact that moves of controversial articles should be performed after discussion rather than unilaterally. Best to suggest an alternate title, should the article be kept. MastCell Talk 17:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep: Potentially quite a valuable article, on a notable topic. Just the standard operating procedures of psychiatrists are replete with civil rights and human rights abuses (e.g., a recent study[unreliable source?] showed that psychiatric interns are routinely disinclined, 97% of the time, to bypass informed consent processes, unless prodded to comply) not to mention the systemic flaws associated with illegal --and quite abusive-- off label marketing of atypical anti-psychotics that are strongly associated with long term central nervous system damage. Ignoring the validity of this topic by purging from the Wiki namespace would be tantamount to suppression and spin doctoring. Ombudsman 17:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So to paraphrase, "Keep so that the world can recognize psychiatrists for the evildoers that they are"? An excellent illustration of the fundamentally unencyclopedic nature of this article. MastCell Talk 18:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the editor must mean inclined. What he is saying is the psychiatric interns are routinely (97% of the time) refusing to bypass the informed consent process, unless prodded to do so. I wonder who prods? --Mattisse 19:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - very notable topic, and the article has plenty of valuable content. OR is unsubstantial, and the article is hardly a list of loosely associated topics (very closely associated, notable event descriptions with plenty of more general analysis). Let's not use AfD to solve content disputes. — xDanielx T/C 20:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel (et al.), question: Even if the potential content under this Title may be substantial, how is the range of material compiled? If the title refers to the Scientology doctrine, then it would cover a broad set of non-academic ("religious") allegations of abuse. If the title refers to terms used within academic and comparable secondary sources, then the content would be quite narrow (e.g., Soviet and Chinese oppression). Because the title is so vague, the article is getting a mish-mash of compiled allegations. This is either WP:SYNTH or, by default, the Scientology approach. Even if you don't change your Keep vote, how would we get this article onto an encyclopedic track? Thanks. P.S. Note that some articles are deleted via AfDs due to original research without verifiable independent sources for the synthesis. HG | Talk 14:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Salt under current title to prevent recreation. (I think that it needs a fresh start, with a less-loaded title.) Encourage recreation of topic under the title of Psychiatric Malpractice, without the PoV-pushing and grab-bag nature of the current train wreck. Because of the nature of this topic, (notable subjects with an association), it might be more appropriate to turn it into a category, rather than an article. Horologium t-c 16:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It already is a category with plenty in it. --Mattisse 16:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and clean up. The subject deserves an article, the title is not only suggestive of POV but also incorrect, some cleanup is needed. Psychiatric Malpractice seems reasonable.ℒibrarian2 18:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is badly written and most of the text is unsourced. It reads like an essay and any relevant material should be merged with the article srespective of the subject matter. For instance Falun Gong with the Falun Gong article, if indeed need be. The article reads like Original research as well. Wikidudeman (talk) 20:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for Deletion[edit]

See also: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion Shortcut: WP:DEL#REASON Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following:

  • Advertising or other spam without relevant content (but not an article about an advertising related subject)
  • Content not suitable for an encyclopedia
  • Copyright infringement
  • Hoax articles (but not articles describing a notable hoax)
  • Images that are unused, obsolete, violate fair-use policy, or are unencyclopedic
  • Inappropriate user pages
  • Inflammatory redirects
  • Article information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources
  • All attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed
  • Newly-coined words or terms (i.e., neologisms).
  • Overcategorization
  • Patent nonsense or gibberish
  • Redundant templates
  • Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)
  • Vandalism that is not correctable

Please note if you are here to do AfDs on article, these are the criteria for deletion. If you have an issue with an article don't make a point and waste the time of the community with your complaints by making up criteria for deletion that do not exist. Tag OR as such. Warn the owner. IN this case by forcing good editors to argue for the keeping of a topic that is appropriately encyclopediac in nature and does not meet the criteria for deletion you are giving ammunition to a bad editor. Cut it out. KP Botany 17:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cut it out yourself. And it is *Content not suitable for an encyclopedia, in effect would probably not be allowed on the users own page, is an inflammatory POV fork of various articles, all of which are criteria for deletion. I cannot say how much I think it's sick, but that's by the by, there are a good few deletion criteria it overlaps besides being a loopy rant that probably somewhere in it blames psychiatrists for 9/11 and other WP:BOLLOCKS.. It blamed shrinks for organ harvesting, then had to go back on that on the talk page as being misleading, but that shows how much this article on 'psychiatric abuse' has been created as a polemic, effectively a fork from various articles created solely to push a POV. This author should be sectioned, involuntary medicated, amongst other things. Psychiatrists exist for a good reason which he is a prime example of.Merkinsmum 18:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree, content not suitable for an Encyclopedia. Not withstanding the current attack style of this article, even if it were to be "cleaned up" the term "Psychiatric abuse" is far too broad and denigrates all with one sweep of the brush. Using the definition in the article, poorly trained staff, or shortages of staff could be construed to be Psychiatric abuse. Most Psychiatric care is not noteworthy. The article topic needs to get specific exactly as the scholarly papers about Psychiatric abuse were specific.--scuro 20:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment I think this article is getting a bit more NPOV and better. Please everyone take a look at the new version. There are lots more editors working on it which is making it more NPOV and hopefully sourced a bit better, and people are getting on with each other ok too.Merkinsmum 01:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Merkinsum for the update. I'm still keeping my vote at Delete because the references themselves haven't really changed. In addition, ECT is still listed as a section and classified as abuse. It is not. I feel like I'm back in the 1960s... Chupper 02:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

commentThat must of been earlier today that you looked, it's undergone significant editing today. It's as big a mess as it ever was.--scuro 02:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see what you think has made it worse??, as far as I can see it's a lot more NPOV? (in as much as it ever can be in it's current form.) :) And other editors have put some more sources in and removed some of the more dodgy ones.Merkinsmum 11:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the work being put in, but I question whether this piece is salvageable as an encyclopedic article. It's essentially like creating an article entitled Vegeterian involvement in genocide to discuss Adolf Hitler. You could put in a lot of work and find solid sources, but the concept of the article is still fundamentally unencyclopedic. MastCell Talk 16:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article's name has been changed. Therefore the AFD appears to be at an end as the template on the article page no longer leads here. --Mattisse 16:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, the AfD template still leads here, and this discussion needs to continue and close. Still, it's pretty bad form to move an article in the midst of an AfD. MastCell Talk 16:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Because of the page move, this whole AFD has become very misleading. I do not see how it can go forth under these conditions. --Mattisse 17:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Geez, it's really not that big of deal. I just moved it back to its original title for the duration of the AfD at least. Please don't anyone move it again until the AfD is over... this is already enough of an ugly mess. MastCell Talk 17:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I put this on the talk page but will also here as that is such a wrong move and I don't want anyone to think it's good. As someone who has suffered from depression, I'm not 'mentally impaired', a term I thought might mean learning disabled or developmental delay, or special needs until now. I have a first class BA (Hons.) from a respected university. Also this article covers psych abuse of those presumably with nothing wrong with them such as political dissidents. The term 'psychiatric abuse (in as much as it might be a real term) covers psych. abuse in any form, naturally. This is one of the problems of the article title, it's vagueness, but I'm certainly not mentally impaired and I don't make random page moves without discussing it with others.:)Merkinsmum 18:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All problems cited are fixable within the context of the article. NPOV re-write. Bacchiad 20:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • BE BOLD Yes all problems are fixable. I think I fixed most of the problems with an article that more accurately accounts for how the phrase is used and whom it is used by. Here it is.

Psychiatric abuse is a phrase most often employed by Antipsychiatry and Scientology critics to categorize together all forms of real or alleged Psychiatric abuse and Psychiatric treatment. These fringe critics of Psychiatry who use the phrase, lump past and present cases of horrific abuse in with current forms of Psychiatric treatment such as Electroconvulsive therapy and the treatment of mental illness with psychoactive drugs to demonstrate that Psychiatry has, and always will be, a false and detrimental science for humanity. This controversial viewpoint clashes with the views held by virtually all mental health organizations and government agencies who deal with mental health around the world. Much more infrequently the term is used by scholars to describe horrific state sanctioned oppression and abuse by suppressive regimes against dissidents. --scuro 02:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Scuro, it now looks like the "no psychiatrist was ever less than god" camp is pushing their/your agenda far harder than the "all psychiatrists are the devil" camp ever even attempted. I am stunned at how uncylopedic, how desperate, and how creative the forces to protect psychiatrists from any mention of wrong doing are--what exactly do psychiatrists have to hide? I thought they were just like most other professions, with the caveat that they do look at the inner workings of human beings. How incredibly embarrassing for the profession, though, this attempt to cover up any mention of wrong doing--and rather silly as no one, least of all psychiatrists, believes they are gods. It is the most desperate push I have ever seen in an AfD, though, and I certainly didn't realize there was so much truth to what was being said that it had to be covered up, and any attempt to hide the truth, no matter how poorly approached and obvious, would be worth it. I now have a sudden urge to do medical library research about psychiatric abuse to see what is so damaging that it has to be hidden behind an OR compilation of opinions that every mention of psychiatric abuse by scholars or anyone is simply a conspiracy of the scientologits. At this point I smell a news article, not a Wikipedia article. KP Botany 05:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WOW KP could you be anymore judgmental and false. "Cover up"? "Hide the truth"? We are to discuss the contents of the article and not to be shrill and personal.
There was no attempt to hide anything in my edit. It is the most encyclopedic entry to date because it is the most accurate entry clearly focused on facts. All of it can be referenced with excellent citations. My edit sticks to what can be clearly referenced and that is who and how it is used and THAT IS ALL that can be said about the phrase because as MastCell clearly states about PA,..."this discussion points up the fundamental problem with this article: it's a totally arbitrary and unbounded collection of incidents. Since no reliable secondary source has defined what exactly constitutes "psychiatric abuse", you could include or exclude whatever you like". This is NOT a question of giving Psychiatrists "what they deserve".
I strongly object to it's total removal. A revert to a lesser state clearly shows bias.--scuro 11:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe your position would have been stronger if you had provided good reference citations to support your edit. As it was, your edit was unsourced and therefore OR. --Mattisse 12:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am assuming you are not a Scientologist KP:) but no-one is denying there are current present cases of abuse, if you read scuro's edit carefully. I can understand him feeling annoyed. But I thought the article was getting gradually more NPOV and the consensus between the 2 sides building. We should try to do that, if the article is to live.:)Merkinsmum 13:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing "most encylcopedic entry to date" about an entry that has no references and is a synthesis of someone's select feelings about a topic. Even a single reference might have made my statement inappropriate. As there was not even a single reference to support your feelings it doesn't belong anywhere in the encyclopedia. The article was not really getting more NPOV. If I were a Scientologist I would be supporting the mostly POV crap that the article consists of now, wouldn't I? I'm pro Wikipedia. KP Botany 15:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Psychiatric abuse is a phrase often employed by Antipsychiatry and Scientology critics to categorize together all forms of real or alleged Psychiatric abuse and Psychiatric treatment. Fringe critics of Psychiatry who use the phrase lump past and present cases of horrific abuse in with current somewhat controversial forms of Psychiatric treatment such as Electroconvulsive therapy, and the treatment of mental illness with psychoactive drugs to demonstrate that Psychiatry as practiced is false and detrimental science for humanity. More infrequently the term is used by scholars to describe horrific state sanctioned oppression and abuse by suppressive regimes against dissidents. True cases of psychiatric abuse are generally considered as psychiatric malpractice. Hows this one? I think it fairly describes the current use of the term and can act as a guide to the necessary other articles. Psychiatry like other medical treatments can be used wrongly and rightly. DGG (talk) 15:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you just provide some reference citations? If it is what you "think" fairly describes the current use, then isn't that OR? --Mattisse 15:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will reiterate, the main difficulty of the article as it now stands is, "it's a totally arbitrary and unbounded collection of incidents"...that can't be consistently organized in a meaningful way into a cohesive whole. It is a shopping list and no one knows exactly which items belong on that list and which ones don't. No secondary source can give us that information. Wikipedia does not do lists. What a huge and fatal flaw for the article. No encyclopedia would allow such an article.
While some authors may have been moving towards a consensus of what they believed AP to be, other authors were blocked from editing and/ or clearly expressed the major shortcoming. They were ignored. Do we insist that it must stay as it is because a lot of good work was done?
My second edit had three citations before it was deleted. They were excellent. DDG's version is also acceptable. The point is this, while my version may have been far from perfect...still, it was the first entry that was truly encyclopedic. --scuro 15:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that a recent ArbCom decision, and Scuro's user page User:Scuro, coupled with Scuro's editing the article entirely to an opionion piece show that Scuro should be discussing his edits on the talk page and allow someone else to make them:
===Conflict of interest===
2) Editors who have duties, allegiances, or beliefs that prevent them from making a genuine, good-faith effort to edit from a neutral point of view in certain subject areas are expected to refrain from editing in those subject areas. Instead, they may make suggestions or propose content on the talk pages of affected articles.
Passed 11 to 0 at 03:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
===Disclosure===
4) Editors who work in subject areas where a perception may arise that they have duties or allegiances that could prevent them from writing neutrally and objectively are encouraged to disclose the nature and extent of any such duties or allegiances.
Passed 11 to 0 at 03:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Scuro's user page:
"My father was BiPolar, as was my grandmother and aunt. My cousin is also BiP. As an adolescent I experienced something which perhaps no one else on this earth has ever experienced. All of the aforementioned people and I, were jammed into a sub-compact car, and by pure chance, all of them were manic on this particular day. It was at that moment in time, and at a young age if I may add, that I realized that mental disorders are very real. It may have also been the first time in my life that I realized that life is fleeting and that death can strike anyone at anytime, and for no good reason!
Much of what I will initially be doing on Wikipedia may have a kernel of motivation from that incident. I also dislike disinformation and faulty information that obscures the truth."
I wouldn't necessarily put someone's youthful realization that mental illness is real as a motivating factor to an edit of the nature that Scuro made, but someone else did and posted this information on my user page.
DGG, problematically, I didn't read any of the Scientology articles on the topic, I merely did a google scholar title search. Which of the articles are Scientology connected? Again, as pointed out, the problem with Scuro's edit is that, without tying it in to the research, it's simply a synthesis of his feelings on the topic. KP Botany 15:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
what I suggested was the lede, intended to be a summary --I assume there will be further contents with documentation. The Scientology opposition to psychiatry is well known and can be documented, but I agree that it is over-specific for the lede, & I've so marked it. I never intended such a paragraph to stand alone. I t would need to be followed , as a minimum, with a paragraph or two on each point linking to subsidiary articles. In any case, this is not an article where individual cases should be discussed in depth. There is no shortage of material. I am willing to copyedit, but not to do the writing. DGG (talk) 17:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Scientology stance against psychiatry is well known, and it's also well documented, in specific with their anti-psychiatry group that they gave a name implying it is a general human rights organization. However, for some reason, this isn't documented or discussed within the article. The part about Scientology and their anti-psychiatry claims and their claim that all psychiatry is abusive, which is what reading any of their sites give you, should be in the introductory paragraph on an article of this nature, but, I can't find outside sources or references to this with a quick net search, only Scientology pages promoting the concept, which can't be used as the sources. Yes, there is no shortage of material, and the cases should not be individually discussed in depth, they also require an outline, and the entire article requires an outline, among other things. KP Botany 17:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KP, thanks for your thoughtful point. Were the article to be kept, the brief mention of Scientology would obviously have to be expanded somewhat. However, the Scientology views against psychiatry are already developed in several free-standing articles, linked from the article (e.g. this diff) The lack of outside references indicates that the Scientology approach to "psychiatric abuse" happens to be a fringe rather than mainstream view. It doesn't make the view wrong, but it does mean it's hard to naively mix the Scientology stuff (psychiatry is intrinsically abusive) with the far more narrow mainstream view of when abuse occurs. In general, fringe theories -- when notable -- should be given separate articles, not given undue weight with mainstream analysis. For this reason, I'm inclined to believe that the article needs to be deleted, and the material put either under separate titles (e.g., "Scientology doctrine of psychiatric abuse") or merged within mainstream or Scientology articles. Thanks for hearing me out and for your own analysis. HG | Talk 00:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you're probably right about the Scientology. It should be given stronger weight in the introduction, but dealt with in its own article, as it already is. KP Botany 01:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin and whomever else it may concern: Idiosyncratic, non-encyclopedic, or agenda-driven compilations of individually notable incidents are a recipe for disaster. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid for an example of where this is headed. It's just a magnet for argumentation, soapboxing, policy violations, etc on all sides. It will make the encyclopedia measurably worse and more antagonistic. I've already !voted above, but I felt this to be worth repeating; the notable incidents here should be covered in more encyclopedic articles, and this particular editor-driven compilation of incidents should go. Otherwise I can almost guarantee it will be at ArbCom sooner or later, like the Allegations of apartheid series. MastCell Talk 17:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin and whomever else it may concern: Deal with the article and the evidence, not with threats that leaving controversial subjects on Wikipedia will cause ArbCom decisions to have to be. There are plenty of topics more controversial than this one all over Wikipedia. KP Botany 18:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • KP, it is quite obviously not a "threat". Please calm down and look just at the AFD discussion. Given the tension, it's not difficult to see how easily this can of worn could devolve into an ArbCom case (and I also honestly believe it will if it is kept). Circeus 21:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename - My first instinct was to vote weak delete as this seems to just ask for POV inclusions and generalizing from anecdotal evidence. This article reminded me of cult apologist which I was active in a while back. That article also tends toward being inherently POV. However, there is a valid subject for an article here and I do not mean "anti-psychiatry". The valid article is the systemic use of psychiatric facilities and "treatments" as a means of punishment in some regimes. That is explored in the article. I do not think the current title is appropriate to that subject, perhaps something like Psychiatry as punishment would be better. The anecdotal evidence of the nature of psychiatry in general according to critics and statistics of that nature belong in the anti-psychiatry article. --Justanother 20:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment you can see on this user's talk page that he was canvassed to join this AfD debate by User:S.M.Sullivan], a main contributor to this article, and is a fellow scientologist.Merkinsmum 20:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Laugh, I can see that you were waiting for me to comment, weren't you? And my being a Scientologist means exactly what?? Sounds like some sort of implied WP:PA to me (saw you had some trouble with attacking other editors earlier). S.M. Sullivan telling me about this is hardly WP:CANVASS. --Justanother 20:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, he was clearly canvassing Scientologists. I'm not sure he had seriously nefarious purposes or that his canvassing had much impact, but it looked pretty straight-forward. Still, I don't know that there is a ban on Scientologists editing Wikipedia articles or participating in AfDs, even this one, no matter how you got here.
I'm not keen on the title "Psychiatry as punishment," as this sounds like you're ordering the person into psychiatry or jail--I have a friend who was arrested at 17 and ordered to either enlist in the armed forces or go to jail by the judge at his trial. But I can see moving all of the information of that nature to a separate article, as I think that Psychiatric abuse as a title implies misuse of position of authority, but state-ordered is more a political crime, or the most challenge is in the behaviour of the politician and the state not the doctor, no matter how complicit. A title in the literature can probably be found quite readily. I still think there is place for an article on Psychiatric abuse or malpractice directly related to the position, that is not anti-psychiatry, nor is it torture. KP Botany 20:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't thing sci's shouldn't edit or anything, but canvassing is usually frowned upon in AfD, and those who respond to it's contributions to an AfD should be noted as due to encouragement.:)Merkinsmum 21:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, WP:CANVASS is not policy and some degree of informing others that might be interested in a debate is not inappropriate. If someone wants to point S.M. at the policy that would be fine. Merkinsmum, instead of commenting on my remarks, chose to attack my reasons for being here and marginalize me by bringing my personal beliefs into the discussion in violation of WP:PA (comment on the edit, not the editor).--Justanother 22:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, Justanother, I found your comment helpful. However, I would point out that, for me at least, the strong need to rename the article could be sufficient grounds for deletion in an AfD. Without putting words in your mouth, I'd say that the main reason for a more narrow title such as "Psychiatry as punishment" is due to the problematic scope and naming of the current article. An article worth keeping would be based on a subject matter that is verified by reliable sources and not an original synthesis. HG | Talk 23:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary Break[edit]

So since my father and other relatives were bipolar I should refrain from commenting because of possible bias but..."Oh, he was clearly canvassing Scientologists. I'm not sure he had seriously nefarious purposes or that his canvassing had much impact, but it looked pretty straight-forward. Still, I don't know that there is a ban on Scientologists editing Wikipedia articles or participating in AfDs, even this one, no matter how you got here". The irony of this vein is so rich and deep.--scuro 02:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment You're right, it is so rich and deep. I hereby thoroughly detract my apology to you to remove the irony 100% as it is clear by this comment of yours that my initial estimation of your intentions was and is correct. KP Botany 04:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your insulting personal characterization appeared not only on this page but also on the talk page of PA. While I did accept your apology on the talk page I also asked you to make a public apology on this page which you didn't do.--scuro 11:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ongoing and systemic problems with the article

  • The term/title can't be defined to even a basic majority agreement.
  • No history of citable phrase development has been given, or citable history of PA.
  • We have no citable and reliable secondary sources which states what constitutes PA.
  • No citable standard comes into play to determine when PA exists. What makes it different from regular abuse?
  • No citable standard comes into play to determine which populations are involved and also who can be considered abusive.
  • No citable standard comes into play to determine degrees of PA.
  • No citable, precise context given to the phrase and it's relationship to everyday people. Also why and how it exists.
  • Confusion between Antipsychiatry's and Scientology's use of the phrase and legitimate scholarly use of the phrase makes singular definitions impossible. Scholars use the phrase but don't define it. Also different branches of critics have different standards and I assume definitions.
  • finally, this process brought many good editors to the article. Since their introduction the article has been highly unstable with a clear lack of any sort of consensus.

--scuro 04:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All your objections except the last one seem to assume that "Psychiatric abuse" is a neologism or term of art of some sort. Admittedly the first session does seem to carry this implication somewhat ("Definitions and standards" for example), but it's not really accurate. It makes more sense to treat "Psychiatric abuse" as a general term, since that's how it's used in most of the relevant academic literature (contrasting with terms which scholars frequently define -- corporate personhood is a random example that comes to mind). We don't need to compare examples with some formal definition to see if they qualify -- we can just use common sense. And we don't really even need to worry about gray area examples, because there are enough examples which fall outside the gray area by any reasonable standards. (That's not to say that I'm necessarily opposed to including gray-area examples; I think they can be integrated as long as we make it clear that the condemnations are contentious and some wouldn't consider them instances of psychiatric abuse; but if we decide to err away from those, that's fine too.) — xDanielx T/C 05:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PA is rather obviously different from abuse in general by being perpetrated by psychiatrists or their colleagues--and this applies to all the various meanings discussed. When there are multiple definitions, we explain them all. Scientology, as I understand it, refers to anything hat might interfere with their methods. the anti=Psychiatric movement is diverse, but the Szasz libertarian element is distinct enough. So is the political movement that sees any attempt at recognizing the reality of mental disease as coddling in in separate way. there is certainly enough literature. I am prepared to give support and applause to anyone willing to sort this out from a neutral but knowledgeable perspective. But the solution to the difficulty is not to refuse to discuss the concept. My personal suggestion is to start at the definable end of what counts legally in the US at psychiatric malpractice--there are some reasonable firm standards there: sexual or business relations with patients, violation of confidence, failure to protect the patient and the public. etc. . DGG (talk) 07:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The best place to start discussing is from a neutral and well-balanced fork such as Ethical issues in psychiatry and go from there. Note that each of the components of the article has or should have its own page. These article headings and locations are distinct enough to warrant scrapping of the page as is and starting afresh. Having a page like this is equivalent to just about any other inflammatory statement you like eg racial inferiority of/cultural imperialism of...(sustitute whatever nation or ethnic group here) and work backwards.
I absolutely agree that all these issues should be discussed, just not in the inflammatory and arbitrary structure of this article. And yes I should disclose that I am a psychiatrist. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there are separate articles, this one can be written in WP:Summary style to refer to them (as it does). That is not a reason to delete an article on a comprehensive topic. As a psychiatrist I would expect that you would be appalled at PA, because it falls outside the norms of what your profession is about, but I don't see this as inflammatory, just an ugly confluence of government and medicine. And as an expert you can probably help us get to some of the literature published behind paywalls or otherwise not readily accessible (I posted a long list to the Further reading section). I've tried to step in as well, but don't feel comfortable enough with the material or my access to sources to make substantive changes. Dhaluza 11:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I just think the individual subjects are too disparate for one article to summarise and the very existence of such article implies a cohesive link where none exists. I note the article has been significantly pruned and I feel the emphasis misrepresents the role of psychiatrists in what is left. At some stage I'll develop (or assist in developing) an article pertaining to ethical issues in psychiatry but had desisted to now as editing much on mental health is like pushing a proverbial **** uphill and no fun. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment having a title such as 'ethical issues in psychiatry' as someone suggested above, would be good as it would get round the problem of defining the title, to the actual meat of the issues. Someone has put on the talk page a quote from a shrink or someone using the term 'psychiatric abuse.' The problem is dozens of people can use this phrase, that doesn't mean they all have the same thing in mind, because it's just a couple of words put together to go in a sentence. If you see what I mean.Merkinsmum 11:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine suggestion. Please note, though, that there is already a locale for both Anti-psychiatry as well as mainstream criticisms. While there may be more mainstream criticisms to add, there's no reason to add them under this fork and under a Scientology term as title. Perhaps there's a need for the Scientology view of "psychiatric abuse" itself, but if that's the remaining raison d'etre of this article, a disambiguating note and a new title would be in order. Thanks! HG | Talk 15:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HG, we already have that article Scientology and psychiatry which could cover their views of this term, and covers their view of this issue.:)Merkinsmum 00:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Psychiatric abuse is a generic term, mainly used by those who oppose psychiatry, to categorize all real and alleged mistreatment of people placed under psychiatric care. There are several highly polarized views of varying standards about what constitutes "Psychiatric abuse" in the field of psychiatry. What is categorized as mistreatment can range from simple malpractice, to human rights violations up to and including torture. It can also be used by those who oppose Psychiatry to identify proven mainstream treatments that have been shown to be clinically effective such as Electroconvulsive Therapy. In the extreme certain Antipsychiatry and Scientology critics would also include the lack of psychiatric institutions or neglect by poorly trained staff in these institutions as Psychiartic abuse. In another vein the term is also used by scholars who use it specifically as a descriptive term to describe state sanctioned oppression and abuse by suppressive regimes against dissidents. Within the field of psychiatry the term is not used. In Psychiatry "abuse" refers more narrowly to certain forms of malpractice by individual doctors and to the misuse of psychiatry by governments, such as the Soviet Union. Generally accepted forms of psychiatric care are not considered abusive by the profession itself or, in principle, within the broader field of psychology.

The above is the quoted current form of the intro and feels accurate in all the different ways the phrase is used. Whether all these different uses are best served by being put together under the same umbrella is another question.--scuro 02:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it feels good or not is irrelevant. It included too many unreferenced assertions, and needed to be cleaned up. I have put inline citations for what was supportable, and removed or replaced what was not. Dhaluza 03:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Psychiatric_abuse&oldid=1138261412"