Talk:Critical Psychiatry Network

Neutrality
The neutrality of this article is in question. I have added a Tag. --BwB (talk) 12:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I dont think it is a neutrality issue per se, but rather a need for editing and writing more efficiently. Have added a  as well.  Any article about a group that is critical of generally accepted approach (ie medical psychiatry) could seem to have a WP:NPOV, but this is more related to the content.  Will suggest input at the psychiatry project.  cheers  Earlypsychosis (talk) 06:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Bigweeboy. This article has problems. In some parts, it doesn't seem to report what secondary sources say about the topic, rather what the article author(s) think about the topic, with citations added. For example: "First, the aggrandisement of biological research creates a false impression both inside and outside the profession of the credibility of the evidence used to justify drug treatments for disorders such as depression and schizophrenia." and "These developments suited the interests of a relatively small number of academic psychiatrists, many of whom have interests in the pharmaceutical industry, although so far the promised insights into psychosis and madness have not materialized."


 * It's not balanced with other views and reads more like an essay than an encyclopaedia article. It's ok to have articles on non-mainstream groups / approaches, but it shouldn't be written from that point of view. Also, the lead seems to be about a group, whereas the rest of the article seems to be about a theory. It definitely needs some attention. I wouldn't have a clue where to start, so I've added an "expert needed" tag.-- Beloved Freak  23:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support the "expert need" tag added by Beloved. I too know little on the topic, but see that it is written from a particular viewpoint. --BwB (talk) 07:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Apart from members of the CPN few laypeople will be expert on this subject and, from the time since the above edit, it seems most likely that none of these are Wiki editors.  Smokey TheCat  09:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Brochureware
The real problem with this article is that it portrays the recently arrived CPN in Britain as though it IS critical psychiatry; evaluating other critical thinkers in psychiatry (who predate their 1999 formation by three or four decades) by the standards of CPN. CPN is merely one incarnation in a longer, broader tradition of critical thinking in human behaviour. The article should at least begin with the work of Laing, Szasz et al and resist the colonialist Britification of the entire movement; it should show some awareness of critical theory, critical studies and the broader movement of critical psychology that begins in the Soviet Union in the 1920s. I am well qualified to write this article but refuse to until Wikipedia does something substantial to curtail the fascist behavior of content-neutral, cleanup editors. 41.242.132.121 (talk) 15:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.242.132.121 (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Please write more as the article can doubtless be improved and you sound knowledgeable. I don't think 'fascist' is the right word at for clean-up editors, over-zealous perhaps, but if you provide sources they will let your edits stand. Also, given that anyone can edit Wikipedia, there is nothing that can be done anyway. Assume good faith.  Smokey TheCat  09:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)