Talk:Psychiatric imprisonment

'''THIS IS AN ARCHIVE OF PAST DISCUSSIONS. ITS CONTENTS SHOULD BE PRESERVED IN THEIR CURRENT FORM. IF YOU WISH TO START A NEW DISCUSSION OR REVIVE AN OLD ONE, PLEASE DO SO ON THE CURRENT Talk:Involuntary commitment '''

-

I have a question

Is Michael Foucault cited in the article the same person than Michel Foucault ? John Stewart

Thank you for taking my opinion into account. This is late. Good night.John Stewart

Is the comment on various countries using psychiatric imprisonment to remove the "unwanted" neutral? Some source should be referenced.

Quote: some claim China, North Korea, Canada and the U.S.A., amongst others, such facilities were, or currently are, routinely used to imprison and "treat" dissidents - Who's "some"?

Needs Cleanup
After reading this article and looking at the edit history, I have come to the conclusion that many of the editors of this article have serious POV issues. Since I'm not very familiar with the intricacies of this subject, I'll add a cleanup note to this page and trust that wiser users than myself can help clean this up. Maverick 19:29, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bush's dissidents are mentally ill?
http://mparent7777.blog-city.com/read/995088.htm

“When the 109th Congress convenes in Washington in January, Senator Bill Frist, the first practicing physician elected to the Senate since 1928, plans to file a bill that would define ‘political paranoia’ as a mental disorder, paving the way for individuals who suffer from paranoid delusions regarding voter fraud, political persecution and FBI surveillance to receive Medicare reimbursement for any psychiatric treatment they receive,” writes Hermione Slatkin, Medical Correspondent for the Swift Report. “Rick Smith, a spokesman for Senator Frist, says that the measure has a good chance of passing—something that can only help a portion of the population that is suffering significant distress.”


 * I'm getting a 404 on this. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Probably because it was a hoax. http://orbis-quintus.net/blog/?p=691  Dalbury 18:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

References?
The book which is referenced seems to have nothing to do with "psychiatric imprisonment." This term seems to be a sort dysphemism created to denigrate psychiatry in general. See Scientology and Antipsychiatry.

Merging to Involuntary Commitment article
That suggestion tag has been here for 3 months without any one voicing opposition. The clean-up tag sat here for a year and no one cleaned up the article. If there is no opposition, I will merge this article with Involuntary commitment.--Ombudsperson 15:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * No opposition at all. I'm actually tempted to put it on AfD as a pretty blatant POV fork of Involuntary commitment. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Just because the article has not yet articulated the use of psych hospitals as prisons doesn't mean the distinctions justifying separate articles don't exist. First of all, such institutions have long been used to imprison the poor, a matter that would be buried in the involuntary commitment article.  Their use for confining dissidents (e.g. Zhores Medvedev), which the title of the article seems to address by inference, is a significant issue that undoubtedly deserves separation from related articles.  The involuntary commitment article rightly focuses upon psychiatric rationale for incarceration, and this article should focus upon political and socio-economic justifications for such confinement.  Ombudsman 18:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You raise a good point, that there could potentially be a good article on "Psychiatric imprisonment" which would not be a POV fork of "Involuntary commitment". I will make that part of any vote I cast on this matter, then, that I am not opposed to having an article under this title, but that since this one has existed for nine months without producing the material that would actually justify its separate existence, there is no reason to let it limp along as a clear POV fork. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the alleged lack of neutrality of this article
This article is no more biased than many of the articles supporting the official psychiatry, its pseudoscientific views, and human rights violations.

- --I do not understand what is objectionable about the neutrality of this article. Even the most hard boiled cynic would not deny that a person could be imprisoned without trial for anti-government speech in any country, even America. Cf. "enemy combatant" designation, dissemination of state secrets, "terroristic threats", etc.

Over 200 countries on this planet, and any article describing something unpleasant always uses the US as one of its examples. You figure it out.67.164.212.239 05:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge article soon
If no objections I’ll merge the article. —Cesar Tort 21:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)