Talk:Glore Psychiatric Museum

O'Halloran's Swing
It seems that the Brooklyn Museum also has an item relating to the "O'Halloran's Swing and Hammock for the Insane": Martinevans123 (talk) 23:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC) *****Despite Gary L. Lisman's description, the illustration in that source looks little like a "hammock" to me. More like a scaffold, in fact. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, I wish they had a photo of that. It sounds bizarre enough that a photo would be handy.  I haven't found one but will keep looking.  I found a non-free one  for comparison.  Thanks for the tip. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  01:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "... up to 100 revolutions per minute", gosh, kinda puts modern day devotees into perspective, doesn't it? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC) .... maybe a link to this article would be appropriate somewhere?
 * Not sure that would fit, since that is about primarily militaristic use of medical device to extract information. The stuff in this article was "state of the art" to actually treat and cure people.  Nutty as a fruit cake, but it was with good intentions.  Even Quackery doesn't qualify, as the motives are different than here.  That said, I would hate to have been mentally ill 100+ years ago. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  13:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it was seeing "electroconvulsive therapy and prefrontal lobotomies" over there that prompted the suggestion. But not sure about your use of the word "cure" there. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It is canvas like and suspended by flexible cables or chains, while scaffolds are rigid. Or at least that is what I am thinking their reasoning is.  Neither description is likely ideal, it might be a matter of picking the closest analogy on their part.  I'm not sure how much the canvas bottom bows when fully loaded.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  22:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Not quite here, are we. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, it isn't the word I would have used. Using only the description to go on, when I found that picture, it wasn't instantly obvious that this was even the same thing except for the fact that it was a dunking machine.  I wondered how a "hammock" was going to work anyway.  I'm not stuck on the word, but I can't think of a better one that isn't more generic, such as "rig" or "device".  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  22:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "Hammock" is what the source used. Maybe the analogy was more like a ship's hammock - where sailors are stacked three or four high in a tiny little cabin - not exactly Tahiti! 0;-D I'm done adding stuff for a while, so feel free to edit the article without fear of edit conflict. Somebody may have to clean up after me. --MelanieN (talk) 22:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You are exactly right. I've visited the USS North Carolina and the hammock frames are the same, some had springs and some canvas with a thin mattress on top, but suspended by chains.  A modified hammock, but a hammock nonetheless.  I should have figured that out myself.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  22:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Rectal dilators
Its difficult to read all of that small print on the exhibit, but the label clearly says "Piles and Constipation." So one wonders what they are doing at a museum of psychiatry? Is there some provenance to show where and by whom they were used? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It is in the museum but used for physical health rather than mental health. My guess is that catatonic and otherwise people not in control of their facilities (which often means physical to at least some degree) get constipated more often, or are less able to deal with it without "intervention".  As it is part of their overall medical treatment (and something that was likely not used very often outside institution) I think it adds by letting readers understand the total medical picture.  The prose under it probably needs work, however.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  13:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "Patients also received state of the art physical care, using the most advanced technology available" just wouldn't seem right under it. ;) Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; WER  13:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, of course, patients who are located in a psychiatric hospital will also have other physical illnesses that may need to be treated at the same location. It seems a strange item to have in an article with this title - but if this is an exhibit, then it deserves it's place, I suppose. The reflection on the cabinet glass doesn't help. I see that the original flickr poster refers to it as the "St. Joseph Glore Psychiatric Museum".Martinevans123 (talk) 14:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a shortage of high quality, free images for the article, if something better comes along, I'm not opposed to replacing it, but it does convey some information. If I thought the image only gave "shock" or "giggle" value, I wouldn't have included it. I think it does show how far medicine has come, in a way that people are able to empathize with.  That is the entire point of the museum itself.  As far as being "extreme", it really isn't when you compare with the other two images.  In fact, it is probably the lesser of the three evils shown.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  18:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I did add a photo showing the "gerbil wheel". That seems like plenty of photos now.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  01:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

You guys are kidding, right? EEng (talk) 00:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Not kidding. Check the original source on Flickr, from user:cometstarmoon "I never thought I would have a need for a rectal dilators tag on Flickr. These were at the St. Joseph Glore Psychiatric Museum." demonstrating they are a legitimate item on display.  While not for mental health, they offer a window into the many challenges that the doctors had when dealing with the physical needs of the patients.  While I wouldn't include this for it being original research, one would imagine that a respectable number of the patients were near catatonic or with some physical challenges or inactivity due solely to their deteriorated mental health.  As such, it is reasonable to expect a higher percentage of physical problems such as constipation and piles (hemorrhoids).  It demonstrates that the doctors were also responsible for not only the mental health, but the physical health of the patients.  The devices were considered state of the art in the time period in which they were used, and the fact that they differ so greatly from modern treatments is what makes them unique and valuable as information.  To exclude them out of fear of a "giggle factor", censorship or prudishness would be denying readers one aspect of the health care provided. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  01:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, now, seriously. No joking. No putting on. Do you seriously not see that Dr. Whatshisname's Rectal Dilators were sex toys sold under the guise of medical devices? EEng (talk) 02:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * They are in the museum, indicating they were really used for medical purposes in that facility. I trust the curator knows what he is doing.  Perhaps later in time they were used as sexual devices, I'm not sure of the chronology, but that would be original research without sources.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  14:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * What it indicates is that the management either has a very naïve understanding of the history of medicine, or has a mischievous sense of humor. (I note that the museum's webpage warns that some exhibits are inappropriate for children -- presumably these are in the "Adults only" section.) As mentioned elsewhere, this Glore sounds like a well-meaning guy with a worthwhile mission, but there's a difference between quality curatorship and collecting of bunch of stuff. This museum seems to be trying but I wouldn't read any particular conclusion into the fact that this, um, relic is in there. That's OR (or maybe WP:SYNTH). I an not, and never was, asking for anything about this to be changed in the article because... well, in context it's relatively minor, but I was interested to see whether people will actually deny the obvious with a straight face on a sustained basis. Apparently they will. EEng (talk) 15:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * One wonders if the museum has any interactive displays. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, there's one that wonders, anyway. EEng (talk) 16:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "One flew east, one flew west ..." Martinevans123 (talk) 16:16, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I can assure you that I never play games or do jokes when it comes to actually adding article content. That would be bordering on vandalism: I'm more likely to block for it, not participate in it. It is fine for us all to have varying degree of "snicker" factor, and I'm not above the occasional off color remark, but you seemed to be questioning the authenticity of it as part of your review, which is what I was arguing against. As weird as it is, it adds to the article, even if it does cause a snicker or two. And yes, I snickered at the interactive comments. But I was very sincere when uploading the image and adding it to the article.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  16:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * First of all, I'm not the reviewer, I saw the nom and raised what I thought was a serious issue.
 * I wasn't suggesting that you added the image as a joke.
 * I wasn't going to engage this issue but since you seem to want to, I'll bite. Right now the caption reads Rectal dilators, for physical health treatment. On what, I wonder, is that description based? AFAIK the sum total of what we know about this image is what's on the flickr page from which you took it:
 * I never thought I would have a need for a rectal dilators tag on Flickr. These were at the St. Joseph Glore Psychiatric Museum
 * That's it. You're simply assuming that since it's in the museum it must have been used for treatment at the old hospital. One part of the Glore website says
 * Surgical tools, treatment equipment, furnishings, nurse uniforms, personal notes, and other items from the hospital are on display.
 * and from this perhaps you infer that everything in the Museum is from the hospital. But elsewhere we find
 * The National Park Service donated a little over 1,600 items to the Glore Psychiatric Museum; the Menninger Foundation Archives in Topeka, Kansas, donated nearly 200 items; the daughter of a former superintendent donated her father’s papers and other items; a St. Louis doctor donated his personal collection; and the donations have continued from all over the United States.
 * So, in fact, we have no idea from where this artifact came and what it's doing in the museum. It might be displayed in the "Quack devices" section or, indeed, in the "Sex toys sold under the guise of medical devices" section -- there's no way to know. So the caption "for physical health treatment" is just guesswork and WP:SYNTH, and given that we have no idea in what context it's displayed in the museum, I'm not sure the image belongs in the article at all. If it stays, the caption should be
 * "Dr. Young's Ideal Rectal Dilators"
 * i.e. the artifact's own labeling, letting the reader infer what he will. EEng (talk) 17:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * ..."for the intelligent treatment of Piles and Consitipation". So, I'm not sure it's WP:SYNTH to re-phrase as "for physical health treatment". Will Dr .Young sue for copyvio? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is that a device's labeling isn't reliable on what it's really intended for. (Remember when condoms were called "Prophylactics -- For the prevention of disease only"?) In fact Dr. Young was banned by the FDA in the 30s or 40s exactly because it's labeling was misleading -- came across that last night but can't find the cite now. What the label says it's for, versus what it was really intended for, versus what it was actually used for (and again, we don't even know this was used at the hospital -- all that donated material, remember?) are three different things we have no way of untangling. EEng (talk) 18:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe Dr Young needs his own article for DYK? But you're right - we have no way of knowing if they were used at all, for any purpose. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It isn't our job to know what or how they are used, it is only to document that they exist within the walls of the museum. We are NOT writing about the old hospital, we are writing about the museum, and these are in the museum.  Saying it was used for physical health doesn't imply it was used in the old asylum, just that this is the advertised purpose of them was.  I added "physical" health only due to a tag for clarification being added.  If you check the history, it was previously captioned only as "Rectal Dilators" without any further comment. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  20:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Huh? A few posts back you said, "They are in the museum, indicating they were really used for medical purposes in that facility." Now you say "Saying it was used for physical health doesn't imply it was used in the old asylum." -- make up your mind. If, as you say, it was previously captioned simply "Rectal Dilators", then it should have stayed that way. We're only having this discussion because you went out of your way to insist the "for physical treatment" caption actually made sense, which it doesn't, and instead of just recognize that, gave a series of contradictory justifications. EEng (talk) 18:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * EEng, please calm down; your input here is not being productive or helpful. Dennis added the "physical health treatment" to the caption because of a comment above, in this very discussion, from Martinevans. Dennis was responding to a point of discussion, trying to clarify. Discussing and responding to comments is the way of Wikipedia; heaven knows I did plenty of that in response to you at the DYK. --MelanieN (talk) 19:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Huh? The caption for physical health was added by Dennis Brown before this discussion was even opened., and the acconpanying edit summary Catatonic people are more likely to need those is typical of let's-just-speculate/ let's-just-parrot-silly-things-said-by-some-kids'-guidebook nature of so much that was in this article. (It's much better now.) EEng (talk) 20:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * (For which you can thank Martin.) --MelanieN (talk) 20:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes go on, thank me. lol. (but not for the edit summary!). And that's a a fine guidebook, by the way - deserves its own article. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:53, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * (Actually the edit summary was the best part!) --MelanieN (talk) 20:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Glancing at the edit history suggests you both did substantial cleanup. Thanks to you both for that. I don't understand what we're even talking about, except that D. Brown keeps saying how someone's picture on flickr tells us... oh, never mind. I removed the caption, BTW, which is what I should have done long ago. EEng (talk) 21:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

As it turns out, BTW, Dr. Young's Ideal Rectal Dilators were, in fact, hawked as a cure for (among many other things) insanity. See Dr._Young%27s_Ideal_Rectal_Dilators. EEng 21:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you
I often talk about the parable Stone Soup, as I believe deeply in the principle that we all benefit when we each add something to the pot. I want to say thanks to Skr15081997, Martinevans123 and MelanieN as well as everyone else that made an edit. I just love these unusual articles and I'm very grateful that everyone pitched in and turned a stub into something interesting and worth reading. I agree with DGG's philosophy that when people search Wikipedia for a notable topic, we should make sure they find something. Thanks to you, it is something worth reading. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; WER  22:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Dennis! If it wasn't for you then I, like perhaps thousands of others, would probably never have even heard of this amazing museum. Wholly agree - when you start something of interest, the reward is for others to contribute, Martinevans123 (talk) 22:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me help with this - it was fun! Any time you have another quirky article in need of tweaking, give me a holler. --MelanieN (talk) 01:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * All this is part of our great Wikipedia. Thanks a lot for starting an article about an interesting museum. It is one of the 50 most interesting museums in America as Legends of America calls it. We should have articles about all of those 50.--Skr15081997 (talk) 03:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Death and burial
According to this site, the former cemetery at the prison is not maintained except for a single memorial stone, and has no markers for the individual graves. They don't know if the bodies are still there or not. The cemetery is on the grounds of the prison and not visitable.

This is the NRHP nomination for another mental hospital cemetery (hospital #4) and contains quite a lot of information about the four mental hospitals: death rate and causes at the hospitals (tuberculosis was a biggie), what was done with the bodies. Their research turned up little or nothing about the St. Joseph hospital, which was hospital #2. They did say that "gravestones have been removed or buried at two of the cemeteries (State Hospitals #2 and #3)". (page 20)

I'm not suggesting any of this go into the article; just offering it for interest since we did have (and removed) some information about graves. What we had (from the Haunted Missouri book) doesn't seem to jibe well with the information from these two sites. --MelanieN (talk) 03:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * How desperately sad. A similar situation existed at the Magdalene asylums in Europe, of course. And a similar workhouse-type story was recently in the news. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:30, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was reminded of that incident too. Crazy people or unwanted babies - regarded and treated as disposable. History isn't pretty sometimes. Actually it is RARELY pretty. --MelanieN (talk) 22:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC)