Talk:Dysaesthesia aethiopica

merge
Propose merge. Three small articles on essentially same topic prevents a clear picture. Articles are split off from main preventing a whole picture from emerging: The effect is to trivialize all three articles. -- Mattisse 02:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Dysaethesia Aethiopica (this article) +
 * Drapetomania +
 * Samuel A. Cartwright.


 * Well, Cartwright himself is certainly important enough for his own article. Drapetomania seems to have a life of its own beyond Cartwright's writings, do it probably should have its own. I merged Dysaethesia Aethiopica with Cartwright's article, but someone else gave it its own article. That's fine with me. It is more important that lots of things on WP. The Drapetomania article should be expanded with more information on its ongoing importance.  Cartwright's article should be expanded with more information on his other contributions beyond these two "disorders."  Basic information on the "disorders" and their history should continue to be included in Cartwright's article. That's my opinion. I don't think anyone is trying to trivialize anything. Steve Dufour 16:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I still wonder what she means by "trivialize." Steve Dufour, you have to keep in mind her earlier actions with Drapetomania. She tried to have it deleted in order to, in essence, trivialize it because she didn't want it to corrupt the legacy of Psychiatry. And I'm not jumping to conclusions here; she said it. - Cyborg Ninja 21:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems clear to me that Mattisse is saying that three short articles may not be as effective as one longer article; that the shorter articles "trivialize" their subjects, but a single article would produce a "clear picture" of Cartwright and his diseases. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 22:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a pretty intelligent idea, wonder why it's not done yet. All of these articles combined certainly isn't too long. 173.180.202.22 (talk) 07:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of Vanessa Jackson and MindFreedom International as WP:RS
The following discussion is copied verbatim from User talk:Addhoc. I've inserted a line at the end of the copied material. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 23:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why you added a "check" tag to Dysaethesia Aethiopica. The sentence in question has a footnote reference to a document on the web, including a page number. Any reader can easily verify the source, so I'm not sure why the tag is there. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 21:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure whether the MindFreedom International website is a reliable source.--Addhoc 21:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a reliable source for the sentence from the woman who criticizes Cartwright, isn't it? It's not being offered as a reliable source for anything else. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 23:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No, advocacy websites aren't usually considered reliable. Addhoc 23:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * With respect to the issues about which they advocate. This is hardly an extremist position or a fringe theory. Also, this article is an external link in both this article and Drapetomania. (The external link is a reprint; my footnote is the original source.)
 * Do you mind if I copy this discussion to Talk:Dysaethesia Aethiopica, where other editors can contribute? — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 23:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yup, good idea. Fully agree this a legitimate external link, and for the avoidance of doubt concur they aren't extremist or fringe. Addhoc 23:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)