Talk:Psychiatry/Archive 4

Who has deleted the following link and why?
http://www.antipsiquiatria.org/english/why-p-is-a-false-science.html Austerlitz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.72.2.6 (talk • contribs)


 * I deleted it, because it is not a relevent link for this article. Perhaps it might be appropriate for Anti-psychiatry, but seeing it is the personal, non scholarly, activist webpage of a regular contributor to these articles, it probably violates WP:VANITY and possibly WP:SPAM. Furthermore, i would encourage you to sign your posts with four tildes ( ~ ) instead of using a name that links to a disambiguation page. Thanks.  Rockpock e  t  20:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

It is relevant for this article. It is about psychiatry and part of its history, and not about Anti-Psychiatry whatever that maybe. It is not a webpage, it is an article of research, neither 'vanity' nor 'spam'. An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous. Austerlitz 88.72.3.215 18:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC) ****


 * A closer look at the web address should reveal to you exactly why it is anti-psychiatry propaganda and why, if anywhere, Anti-psychiatry should be where it resides. If you can't read Spanish, ask your collaborator, anti-psychiatry activist, and author of the webpage, Cesar, to translate. Moreover, i don't believe it is a published work (do correct me if i'm wrong, but i understand Cesar was recently bemoaning his failure to get it published in Breggin's journal). Therefore it is not a relaible source and is no more relevent to this article than your or my opinion on psychiatry.  Rockpock e  t  21:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please quote some opinion statement from this article. I'm interested in your opinion, too. Austerlitz


 * While the article does synthesize some points from research and is certainly written with headings and quoted references it is very emotion laden. It does not come across as objective. However it does have some significant points but the the whole paper is written in such a way that the good points get lost in the emotion.Cas Liber 22:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * What does objective mean? Does it mean without emotion? According to my judgement the whole paper is truthbound, it only has some minor faults. Austerlitz 88.72.1.138 14:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not suggesting it isn't well referenced, or that Cesar doesn't know what he is talking about. However, the article it is clearly written from an emotive, anti-psychiatry activist's POV.
 * For example, the very first sentence: "Since the 1950s many parents and physicians are giving children and teenagers a variety of psychiatric drugs to control and even torment them" (my italics). That is most certainly an opinion. The opposing view might be "Since the 1950s many parents and physicians are giving children and teenagers a variety of psychiatric drugs to treat and help them". A completely NPOV writer would write "Since the 1950s many parents and physicians are giving children and teenagers a variety of psychiatric drugs."
 * Now there is nothing wrong with linking to opinions if they are notable (i.e. published and of an authority, of which this is neither) and relevent (this is clearly an anti-psychiatry opinion, and therefore relevent to anti-psychiatry).
 * I don't know enough about psychiatry to hold an informed opinion, Austerlitz. However, my opinion doesn't matter. We are here to report on notable and expert opinion, not share our own.  Rockpock e  t  01:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * What do you think about the following sentence: Since the 1950s many parents and physicians are giving children and teenagers a variety of psychiatric drugs to control them. Anybody who has ever entered a psychiatric hospital cannot refrain from seeing and feeling that those patients are tormented by that kind of drugs. Still most of physicians and psychatrist-physicians hold to the belief that those drugs are necessary to help'' the persons being drugged."


 * Rockpoet, I am not sure whether you are joking or not as far as your last phrases are concerned. I think this must be irony. Am I wrong?? Austerlitz 88.72.3.55 14:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC) ****


 * I was being perfectly serious. You should read WP:NOT:
 * "Wikipedia is first and foremost an online encyclopedia and, as a means to that end, an online community of people interested in building a high-quality encyclopedia in a spirit of mutual respect. Please avoid the temptation to use Wikipedia for other purposes, or to treat it as something it is not."
 * More specifically:
 * "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda ... you might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views."
 * Discussing the merits of a point of view or opinion is not relevent to reporting facts, which is why we are here. This is a common misunderstanding. Talk pages are not for discussing the positions on a subject, they are for discussing how to improve the content of the subject.
 * Your quote is an interesting case in point. I have never entered a psychiatric hospital, so cannot make an educated comment on what happens therein. However the leading phrase "Anybody who has ever entered a psychiatric hospital cannot refrain from seeing..." smacks of advocacy and hyperbole and is a good example of why this webpage is not a scholarly critique, but a opinion piece.  Rockpock e  t  17:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "Anybody who has ever entered…" I didn’t write that. ―Cesar Tort 21:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Rockpocket, do you think there is truth? How can you come to know truth or what a fact is or the facts are when you never enter(ed) a psychiatric hospital? you don't have to go there as patient. Sometimes a film can make you understand, too. But if you just don't want to know, and from this ignorance you want to gain objectivity that does not work. Can you please put in words a scholarly critique of yours? As far as my scholarly opinion is concerned, I would think it an improvement of the article mainpage if people could find the link to Cesar's article there. Well, you don't, I've got you so far. Austerlitz 88.72.3.251 19:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC) ****


 * Perhaps i have not made myself clear. This isn't my opinion of how things should work, it is Wikipedia policy. I have explained to you why Cesar's webpage is not suitable according to policy and guideline, specifically, WP:RS and WP:EL. Whether i agree or disagree with his sentiments regarding psychiatry is beside the point. Also, whether this reflects the "truth" or not is also beside the point, remember the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. If you wish this to be included you must quote the policy and/or guidline by which it merits inclusion. Specifically, i'd like to know how it qualifies as a reliable, factual, neutral source that deserves to be linked to per External links.
 * I don't pretend to have a written scholarly critique of this subject, personally, but i've written enough on other subjects to know one when i see it (having your work published is usually a good start). If you are so keen on linking to Cesar's page, why don't you simply link it in the anti-psychiatry article? Strictly speaking, there is a good argument that it isn't even appropriate for that, but at least the content would be relevent.  Rockpock e  t  01:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "A completely NPOV writer would write "Since the 1950s many parents and physicians are giving children and teenagers a variety of psychiatric drugs."
 * " Since the 1950s some parents and physicians are giving children and teenagers a variety of psychiatric drugs. Until now there has not been a scientifical research about their motivations." Austerlitz 88.72.3.251 19:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC) *****


 * I'm afraid i don't understand the relevence of this. I wasn't suggesting this content be added to the article, simply giving an example of how one would write in a neutral tone.  Rockpock e  t  01:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe:It's the content of Cesar's article disturbing you, not the tone?. Cesar's sentence seems to say that all parents and all physicians do the drugging with bad intent,but this -most probably- is not true and not verifiable. Some might do it because of caring.
 * I tried to keep this topic with my example sentence. not just delete it, because it is very important to find out why people do what they do. Austerlitz 88.72.1.115 05:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC) ****

While the article makes some good points, it fails on many more. It is too vitriolic. Unfortunately, many psych drugs have side effects, which people do suffer from (in the course of getting better). To describe them as 'tormented' is emotional, misleading and suggests there is a tormentor (i.e. mental health staff, the vast majority of whom would strongly object to the use of the word). Cesar is obviously able to write in a measured way -I think the biological psychaitry controversy has come out OK- and I do worry about overperscription of meds, but quoting history and getting it mushed up wth present practice doesn't help the article at all and I don't think it is worth a link from the front page of this topic.Cas Liber 06:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Cesar is a psychiatrist, i think, and a very intelligent chap from my interactions with him. He is certainly knowledgable in the field of anti-psychiatry. However, his reasoning fails when he starts discussing the biological basis of disease, because he doesn't fully understand genetics and his source of information on the subject is other advocates (who equally don't understand genetics). That is my educated opinion (as a geneticist by profession). That is the only content that disturbs me. Other than that, its difficult for me to comment on the content, as i'm not a historian or a psychiatrist. I agree it seems unlikely there is a giant conspiracy between psychiatrists and parents to control children. It seems much more likely that people's motives are good, even if the treatments do not always work. That is just my opinion, though, for what it is worth.


 * The reason i have a problem with including is not on content (i have included links to plenty of sites i disagree with e.g SHAC and PETA) but simply because it is an unplublished, work, written by a non-notable advocate, that is critical of a scholarly subject. It simply doesn't belong here, especially when there is a sub-article that addresses such criticism directly. Three different editors are now in agreement in that.  Rockpock e  t  06:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, I don't think Cesar is a psychiatrist actually. Some statement of what an author is and where s/he works is usually containted in a article for potential peer review.Cas Liber 21:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps not, he claims to be a "writer on child abuse", but, for some reason, in discussion's i have had with his previously, i got the impression he had been trained in psychiatry. I'm sure he'll appear soon enough to clarify.  Rockpock e  t  04:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Is this a neutral source? http://www.psych.org/ I don't think so. If they were willing to set a link to Cesar's article, it would be beautiful, because it doesn't help labeling critical facts about history and present practice of psychiatry as 'anti', thus allowing psychiatrists to close their eyes from unpleasant knowledge. Austerlitz 88.72.3.202 18:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC) *****


 * You are trying to compare a link to a professional body representing 36,000 psychiatrists (on an article about psychiatry, remember) with an unpublished critique from a single, non-notable anti-psychiatry activist. The two simply do not bear comparison. That notwithstanding, the relevence is the most important factor. I've lost count of how many times i have repeated this: The section on psychiatric criticism was expanded into an entire article (Anti-psychiatry), any source the deals with that field specifically (like for example, http://www.antipsiquiatria.org/) should be linked there. That was the whole point of expanding it.
 * I don't know how to make that any clearer and really don't see the point of continuing this discussion. Despite the fact that the others who commented on this topic disagreed with you, and you have not quoted a single policy that would argue for inclusion, you appear to continue to insist this link be included. I'll wager Cesar himself would accept his article does not merit inclusion here, per policy. Perhaps you should ask him. I suggest if you are still not happy with this page not being linked, post a request for comment to see if we can get a consensus.  Rockpock e  t  19:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you know that psychatrists have judged Adolf Eichmann to be 'normal', the same with Jeffrey Dahmer?? though in the case of Dahmer one has to admitt that there has been a quarrel between different psychatrist, some of them having judged Dahmer to be insane. Austerlitz 88.72.3.202 18:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC) *****


 * Fascinating. Did you know Einstein's teacher told his parents: "It doesn't matter what he does, he will never amount to anything"? Or that in 1995 Alan Hansen said of Manchester United, at the start of a season where they eventually won both the league and cup, "You'll never win anything with kids".  Rockpock e  t  19:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Sociopathy or antisocial personality is a hotly debated topic. In any case, there are many points between 'normal', 'lacking a DSM diagnosis' and 'pathological'.Cas Liber 21:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Who has got the power? in this field? Austerlitz 88.72.1.249 06:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC) ****


 * How is the concept of normality usually built? Do you think we could agree about what is 'normal' and what is not? It depends on the concept of human nature different people have. Austerlitz 88.72.1.95 07:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Lots of people really, when more people involved then things can get very political. I am sure there are plenty of essays about this online Cas Liber 21:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The following news I have taken from Cesar's article: (to be continued) 1. His biggest surprise was the discovery that, since its origins, psychiatry has sided parents during conflicts with their children and husbands against their wives. Austerlitz 88.72.3.137 10:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC) *****


 * There is literature about various aspects of the politics of DSM and the pathologization of behaviours and demographic groups away from the white middle class male. Appropriate comments under the respective diagnoses would be best - similarly the story of Freud, Hysteria and the Oedipus complex Cas Liber 11:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Having read the Loony Bin Trip and Mother Millet by Kate Millet I have come to the conclusion that in her case it have been white middle class females of her family (mainly) who have been responsible for hospitalizing Kate Millet. Austerlitz 88.72.2.103 07:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

“Why should people who have been abused in their childhoods not be able to feel empathy toward another victim?” you have asked me in User talk:Cesar Tort/discussion.

Good question. Unfortunately I am behind schedule to finish my 10-book project and cannot discuss the details (I’m editing in wikipedia only on Sundays). If German is your native language I suggest you purchase either Das verbannte Wissen or Abbruch der Schweigemauer by Alice Miller. Alternatively, you can read for free another of her books here.


 * I've read the books of Alice Miller. And I don't remember her giving an answer to this question. Actually, she didn't even make that statement. Austerlitz 88.72.2.103 07:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

If you want to delve deeper into it you have to read another book, Lloyd deMause’s The Emotional Life of Nations. You can start with a section, “The seven stages of historical personality” that explains the evolution of psyche and society re child abuse from gross Neanderthalism to overman.

I won’t discuss these works with other editors because the way disagreements are handled in Wikiland is a colossal energy sink.

But I can state that, unlike you, many wikipedians promote mechanistic views of human nature. They were Vulcan-trained at home and in the academia to kill their own emotions. Trying to argue with them is like trying to make Mr. Spock behave like your high school sweetheart. Tort’s law: No matter how persuasively the arguments are presented; in subjects about emotions, Spocks —i.e., the majority of wikipedians— will always miss the point.

For instance, the fact that parents give their kids psychiatric drugs to control them cannot be grasped by emotionally handicapped humans. As an outsider acutely observed, you can tell what kind of people become wikipediholics by the quantity of articles in certain subject areas. Lots and lots of Star Trek, Star Wars, science and software engineering and 70 articles about autism. What does that tell you? Autistic Spocks badly handicapped in real life are Wikiland’s masters. But you have to have developed empathy to a high degree to see the colors of life and feel the tragedy of child abuse. If you want proof that the intention of administering Ritalin is to control rather than help the kid you are advised to read still another book, Thomas Szasz’s Cruel Compassion. And you must understand psychohistorians’ critique of socializing modes of childrearing which includes compulsory schooling. The point is that even without Ritalin compulsory schooling is abuse and parents who practice this form of childrearing are still Neanderthals. To boot, since the child cannot know s/he is being abused by schooling s/he cannot feel empathy toward other victims and will repeat the same abusing pattern in the future: an evil introject that metamorphoses a loving child into just another adult without empathy or compassion: a Neanderthal.

This is very strong meat, Austerlitz. It runs against everything we have been taught. But some human beings have unplugged themselves out of The Matrix and discussed it at length. Take a look at the psychogenic mode table where physical and sexual parental abuse is rampant. These are parents more primitive than our socializing-mode parents; they even practice mutilation and infanticide. For example the Muslim world where, among many other abuses, girls are genitally mutilated belongs to a much inferior psychoclass than ours (“psychoclass” means the level of child abuse in a given family or culture). This explains why they, not the Americans, are killing innocent civilians in the Iraq bombings right now. Many native Indians also belong to an inferior psychoclass —as the Germans were inferior during the Third Reich too. There are 32 million women “missing” in India. According to sociological studies this can only mean massive filicide (I’ve seen a National Geographic photo of a Western man rescuing an Indian baby girl thrown to the public garbage). About this unheard of holocaust I urge you to read the flaming discussion in Talk:Early infanticidal childrearing/Archive. As Daniel Mackler, one of the very few overmen I know, wrote (and I am paraphrasing him a bit):


 * In our Neanderthal society, the West included, telling the truth about who one’s parents really are and what they really did is the greatest crime of all. We murder criminals who did similar things to that which we can’t accept our parents did to us.  And we psychiatrically medicate and numb children with upwelling symptoms of their traumas to keep ourselves, like the autistic wikipediaholics, emotionally deft to the screaming child inside us.

Taking a neutral stance in the face of such universal crime is simply fiddling while Rome burns. If you embark on the serious project of reading those authors and feel your emotions you will understand my letter to Jimbo and the utter idiocy of the NPOV policy.

This is my ultimate response, Austerlitz, and cannot argue it any further because of editorial pressure in real world. I can only hope that unlike our fellow editors you will swallow my red pill and become unplugged from the Matrix. —Cesar Tort 00:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please review WP:NOT, WP:NOR and particularly WP:TALK and WP:TPG - "Wikipedia is not a soapbox; it's an encyclopedia. In other words, talk about the article, not about the subject." She you feel unable to refrain from offering personal criticism, then please at least restrict it to personal talkpages - there is no justification whatsoever for transposing your conversation with Austerlitz here. Moreover, if you have a problem with Wikipedia policy, either go to namespace and work to change it, or leave. Criticising other editors, calling them "emotionally handicapped" and "autistic", for simply adhering to policy is a borderline attack, even the the absence of naming specific individuals. Should such unhelpful and irrelevent (in terms of improving the article) soapboxing continue in article talk namespace, i will remove them.  Rockpock  e  t  02:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

What for, Cesar? and No, thank you. And please read Dummheit ist lernbar written by Jürg Jegge, which I highly recommend. I don't know whether it is available in English language or in Spanish. He is from Switzerland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.72.1.95 (talk • contribs)

Quotation only, no questions: There are some utterances of yours, Cesar, I disagree with and which are to be thought over by yourself. Given the fact that you are so busy otherwise I don't explain in detail. Austerlitz ***** 09:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This explains why they, not the Americans, are killing innocent civilians in the Iraq bombings right now.
 * Taking a neutral stance in the face of such universal crime is simply fiddling while Rome burns.

Given the fact that it is still Sunday, I've decided to put another questions to you, Cesar: where is the beginning of all those abusive and emotionally handicapped parents? And where will be the end? What do you/we have to learn in order to bring about some change? Austerlitz 88.72.2.212 13:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * We may discuss it in User talk:Cesar Tort/discussion or even better thru the email that appears in my talk page. —Cesar Tort 16:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Psychiatry vs. psychology article?
I'm going to be posting this around at a few of the affected articles, but I was thinking of creating a separate article comparing psychiatry and psychology and counseling in general. I think there is a lot of confusion in the world as to the differences and similarities and Wikipedia could be a great resource to come to for those who aren't professionals in these related fields.

Kind of an example, psychiatrists carry a MD doctorate whereas psychologists & clinical psychologists carry a PhD doctorate. Perhaps we could explain differences in training and specialties. (ie you'll find more psychologists counseling marriages then psychiatrists, but you'll find more psychiatrists treating mental illnesses then psychologists.)

Anyway, I wanted to create this article and perhaps link to it on many of the related articles. Thoughts??? Chupper 20:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that is a very good idea. I looked up psychiatry and psychology on Wikipedia for this very reason - I have never understood or been given a clear explanation of exactly why there needs to be a distinction between the two. And I still don't get it, having read the articles. I expected at least a short note about the difference visavi the other discipline in each of the articles, and I was surprised there was none.

If someone decides to create an article on the difference between psychiatry and psychology, I hope that person really knows their stuff and can explain it to laymen.


 * There is something started on the Mental Health Professional page.Cas Liber 11:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Now why's that link still red??? Will try to find the pageCas Liber 11:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Casliber - yea, I know :) I created the Mental health professional article. For reference it is Mental health professional smaller case after the first capitalization.  Thanks for spreading the word on the MHP article.  It's growing rapidly.  Chupper 01:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Semiprotected status?
I suspect this may be a page that would be better with a semiprotected status. There seems to be alot of reversion going on and it isn't even Featured.....Cas Liber 01:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Trouble with editors?
I edited this article today, shifting a lot of text around; it took me two hours. Now, I'm a psychiatrist and a professional editor; I included almost all the context, shifted some to another article, and expanded, streamlined, etc. I also spent a lot of time making the distinction between the field of psychiatry and the professions in psychiatry, as well as introducing some information from an international perspective. Then I was told by 'Jossi' on the editing team that I was a vandal (that is, a person making a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia). That's for editing it. I rather thought that was what Wikipedia was about. Now, I have asked for an explanation and an apology, but nothing has come through. Also, all my work has disappeared. I would appreciate it if someone could prod Jossi before I ask for arbitration. This is very irritating and destructive. User:BillBadger
 * Bill, it was possibly automated. I had just put a note about semi-protection due to alot of (predictable) antipsychiatry vandalism. I will leave a note on Jossi's page. Cas Liber 21:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Bill. Welcome to Wikipedia. Note that your massive edit was not discussed, and as such I reverted it. The article, before you edited it, was the results of thousands of contributions by hundreds of editors. If you want to make massive changes to Wikipedia articles, it is expected that you engage current editors in article's talk pages and explain your reasons for such changes. I am placing some pointers in your talk page, so that you can learn a bit more about how Wikipedia works. Happy editing. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 14:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Also note that your edit was not "lost". It is all there in the article history (Click on the history tab ayt the top of the article's page". I would also encourage you to tone down your comments. I can understand that you are upset, but maybe you could consider that it was done in good faith and out of respect for editors that worked on this article before you. Wikipedia is a collaborative environment. Bill, and your writing (as well as the writing of enyone else) will be mercilessly edited, deleted, moved, copied, etc. That is the nature of this project. I invite you to learn more about how Wikipedia works, before you get to upset and upset others in the process. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 14:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

09.20.2006 - Major Edit of "Psychiatry in professional practice" section
First off, to whoever contributed to this section thus far - thank you. There are some great things added that were missing in this article.

How psychiatrists:

-may be researches or work in an academic setting, sometimes holding a research degree and/or medical doctorate

-bringing up what you can specialize in i.e. psychopharmacology

-The fact that psychiatrists can perform psychotherapy, etc., etc.

However some of the information in the article is unreferenced and/or incorrect. I will be making a major update to this section and will be citing references.

What I'm doing: -I'm leaving as much as I can. I want to try to keep the theme here the same.

-Removing superfluous information on psychologists. I'll keep as little information as I can on psychologists here as psychology and psychologists have their own articles. This article is psychiatry.

-Psychiatrists and psychologists are both mental health professionals but they are NOT each other. Psychiatrists are not psychologists and psychologists are not psychiatrists. Let's not forget that psychiatrists are MEDICAL DOCTORS trained in the biomedical approach to treating mental illness with supplemental training (where applicable) in psychotherapy. Psychologists, Clinical psychologists are SCIENTISTS trained specifically in psychology (conducting research and therapy).

(true, though both can do research and therapy. Historically and in current practice in Australia, psychologists are more trained in structured therapies such as CBT and, more lately IPT and DBT, whereas psychiatrists will do more long-term therapy, generally with laxer rules. However there are plenty of psychiatrists doing CBT and psychologists doing long-term psychotherapy as well. One theory is that psychiatrists come from a patient/longitudinal type focus from their training while psychologists come from a psychometric and outcome-focussed approach. I don't have a reference for this though, itis what I have seen. Tehre are strengths and weaknesses for both however.)

-If we call psychology a specific subset of psychiatry (I didn't realise anyone was...) , we're going to make psychiatrists and psychologists mad. (Psychiatry as a medical field involves clinicians from a variety of professions, including physicians, nurses, psychologists, occupational and rehabilitation therapists, etc; each of these has specialist training in the field of psychiatry.) <-- a very false sentence. That's like trying to group together apples and oranges.

So I'd like to stay positive on this - again, thanks to everyone who has contributed thus far. I'm keeping your stuff as much as my references and knowledge lets me. Most of this stuff is verifiable via the references I'll post, by talking to a these mental health professionals, or simply by googling (i.e. search term "psychology vs. psychiatry). Chupper 02:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

''(refs are good, was going to get a few meself..) cheers. Cas Liber 04:33, 21 September 2006

How can a person be a psychiatrist and only hold a research degree? In order to be a board certified psychiatrist, at least in the US, you must have an MD or DO degree, both of which are professional degrees... I'm removing that part about research degrees. user:solumanculver Also, is there really such a thing as an "industrial psychiatrist", that practices psychiatry in somebody' workplace? It doesn't seem likely or even helpful to have a psychiatrist just hanging around the office... The link goes to industrial psychology, as well, which doesn't mention psychiatry.

Footnotes section
I've deleted a reference to Ross & his Trauma model. Just browsing mental health pages and seems to have been inserted on multiple pages, including Schizophrenia & anti-psychiatry and here, I do'nt know what other pages. As far as I know, this is one particular model by one particular professional, among hundreds, but is being presented as if a generic kind of theory and alternative to biopsychiatry.

There are a couple of footnote links for this for pages advertising a book and an institute. But when I click on the edit button of the 'footnotes' section, the links don't appear in the box for editing? (same situation on antipsychiatry page regarding the initial section, first two footnotes. The 2nd might be OK if linked to the homepage of the journal rather than a publisher selling page). Can anyone help? EverSince 09:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The actual footnote text is embedded with the main text where the reference appears. For example, to edit the the first footnote, find the [1] in the text and edit that section, which in this case is "Diagnostic systems of psychiatric disorders". The note will be bracketed between tags. The accepted way of listing a book here is to give the usual author, date, title and publisher followed by the ISBN number. When the letters "ISBN" are followed immediately by the ISBN number, a link is automatically created by the wiki software, avoiding the need to link to a particular retailer. If this needs more clarification, ask! JonHarder 20:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you JonHarder, appreciate your time. I've re-inserted the journal ref link in to the antipsychiatry intro section, since it does seem to be the main homepage. It's already included elsewhere in the psychiatry page. EverSince 11:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

A must-read
 Sure there is some newer edition in english language, too. Austerlitz 88.72.30.66 20:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

History & Theory
Just a note to say I've rejigged the history section and added a new section on the main theoretical tenets of psychiatry. EverSince 11:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, it is hard work, is it not? Maybe the research done by David Rosenhan can be integrated into the text somewhere, too Perhaps I'm going to do it myself. Austerlitz 88.72.30.146 12:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Rosenhan, On Being Sane in Insane Places


 * I you want to include the links, the better place might be the antipsychiatry article. ―Cesar Tort 21:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess the history section is getting longish now but I would feel the Rosenhan research was quite notorious and notable so could be mentioned re. general issue. It could also be addressed in the section on diagnosis I suppose? By the way I've revised & renamed the theory section... potential overlap with the specialities listed above it but seem to be at a different level.

p.s. The refs section is already bigger than the footnotes section, and seems to need more stuff (esp. key sources about psychiatry rather than just criticisms of it). But it isn't linked in to in-text citations like the footnotes section is. Could this be changed, perhaps combined to just one references section? No doubt a 'further reading' section would be useful too. EverSince 12:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It can and should be changed. But that means a lot of work converting plain references to mode! —Cesar Tort 20:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Psychiatry behind the Holocaust
The hate against the judes was Hitlers own, however, the concept for the mass killing has been invented and made possible by Psychiatry. The story begins a bit sooner, before the Nazi’s came to power with the Psychiatric science called Eugenetics that also today has many support from psychiatrists.

Eugenetics does research about “good” or “bad” genes in rases. Using this science they have tried to show that African-americans (black people) are inferior to Caucasian people (white people). During the slavery they thought up multiple “mental illnesses” such as when a slave tried to escape then the slave was mental ill and needed punishment as treatment.

Far before the Nazi’s came to power, a professor in psychiatry from Berlin and other well recomended psychiatrists wrote about the killing of people with mental problems on behalf of science and public health and to help them. He wrote that these people proposed a threat for public health. Hitler read his books before he wrote Mein Kampf. Hitler maintained contact with a lot of psychiatrists from America and England.

The psychiatrists began with the killing. Before they started with the killing they started with the sterilisation of people with mental problems and continued with forced euthanasia. Psychiatrists have developed and managed the first death camps and killed the first judes. Later they trained the SS to continue the killing on a wide scale.

Let's talk about this. Meespierson 19:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * More discussion here: Hitler? Meespierson 00:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

One more quote from Harvard dr. Peter R. Breggin:

ADDENDUM

Below is more of what Dr. Wertham said:

"In 1941 a commission of five went to the concentration camp Dachau to select prisoners to be transferred to Mauthausen to be killed. All five men were psychiatrists, and their chief was a professor of psychiatry of the University of Berlin."


 * }

Psychiatry behind the Holocaust, a new wikipedia site?
This seems to be vey important, let's establish a new site.
 * Austerlitz 88.72.14.248 14:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, start it ;) We'll see if it's considered valuable ;) Aldough, it will require more then just the reference from Dr. Peter R. Breggin and the DVD: Psychiatry: An Industry of Death footage. It's ofcourse very logically that in fact psychiatry has steered it's science to extermination of the weak and formed the base for people like Hitler to make it possible. If it wasn't Hitler, it would have been some other (group of) KKK like member(s). Meespierson 10:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well said. I found out that I cannot do it. Can you do it alone? But most probably someone else is going to write a book about a similar topic, I think about Masson. Look here  Under contract: Psychiatry and the Holocaust: The Collusion of German Psychology in the Final Solution.  HarperCollins:  London.

I am not quite sure though that psychiatry formed the base for people like Hitler, or whether it has been the other way round. Or mutual influence, but psychiatry as well as Hitler needed financial support for their work of destruction.
 * Austerlitz 88.72.17.86 20:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "It wasn't the Nazis who needed the doctors, it was the doctors who needed the Nazis."(Ernst Klee quoted from his speech at the IPPNW-Congress in Nuremberg 1997).
 * See also 'Interview mit Thomas Szasz', in the New Physician, 1969
 * Two more references: Faulstich: Hungersterben in der Psychiatrie and Klee: Sichten und Vernichten

and Henry Friedlander, The origins of Nazi genocide : from euthanasia to the final solution, 0807822086
 * 82.54.154.105 20:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you ever heard about that psychiatrist?
or about this book
 * Austerlitz -- 88.72.28.102 18:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Addition of template concerning the USA bias of this article
I've added the template to the article page just as a visible reminder that some sections really are mostly just about how psychiatry is organised or practised within the USA. Section 1, in particular, bar a few "heads up" edits I made a few days ago, seems to be mostly about Psychiatry in Professional Practice within the USA. Although not a psychiatrist myself, I worked professionally with them for 16 years in an academic department of psychiatry in the UK, so I know that there are differences between the UK and the USA here, but feel that any major contributions I would make there would only make the bias a little less specific to one country. I hope poeple do not object strongly to the addition of this template. It was done for the reasons I mentioned at the start of this comment. DDStretch   (talk)  22:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Image
Can someone, please, substitute the image in the right top box. This image is good for a topic about diagnostic image, not for psychiatry! -- 87.0.36.161 10:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Addition of redundant section
I'm moving this section here so someone can incorporate it into anti-psychitary.

The wording really nees to be cleaned up before this happens. Currently it's nothing more than a referenced opinion. Chupper 01:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Psychiatry limitations and possible dangers

Since there is no way to make a scientific test about psychiatric illness, it is not uncommon that they are incorrectly diagnosed. Since the psychiatrists consider not a fault the fact that the etiology of the alleged illness is unknown, since they consider normal that their cure produce no benefit for the patients   (ascribing that to the difficulty of the illness) and since they consider the lack of a scientific test not a problem but a proudly deliberate method that avoid them to be proved to have written a non correct diagnose, the operation of the psychiatric method could leave to a severe damage in the patients since he/she can have a different illness that is take under cure. While the best practice in theory prescribe that to avoid this all the possible other illness (in the psychiatric jargon organic illness) to be tested, this is practice never than and is actually impossible to do (since the test of all possible illness would required to test also illness for which there is not enough scientific knowledge).

This way of conduct, with the fact that any protest made by the patients is seen as nothing more than a confirm of the alleged mental illness, may lead to severe damage and also to the death of the patient. A notorious case is the one about the death, in young age, of the American composer George Gershwin.

This facts lead to the point that psychiatrists often claim to be of their competence patients that deserver better treatments.

For instance before the discovery of the cause of the Diabetes, many patients of diabetes were incorrectly considered as of the competence of the psychiatry. Even in these days some psychiatrists are of the opinion that there is a connection between diabetes illness and psychiatric illness, basing their opinion on the fact that many alleged psychiatric patients also suffer of diabetes. However, as usual in this discipline, no proof are stated, and it is never take into account that this correlation may be a result of the psychiatric therapy, when it is well know to the specialist, but also taken well hidden to the general audience, that many psychiatric drugs can have as an effect that the patient became affected by diabetes or other metabolic problems.

A similar thing has happened, in the beginning of XX century to patients affected by dementia caused by a late stage of syphilis. And a similar situation has happened, till not many years ago, about epilepsy.

In current days a similar situation is about the Alzheimer's disease, where the lack of an efficient therapy has lead the psychiatrist to claim it inside their competences.

The fact that an illness is inside the psychiatric competence when no other specialities has an interested on, without the regards of if the psychiatry has or not an efficient therapy for this disease, but the same disease became of competence of a different speciality when a different speciality find an efficient therapy, make very difficult to understand what are the competences of the psychiatry and what are its aims.

In fact the fundamental terms on which psychiatry stand lack of a serious definition. There is neither a definition of what psychiatry is or what is the mental illness, and it is not clear, on scientific ground, where the threshold among illness and not illness. The definition of the illness are not ground on scientific evidence, but by agreement among some psychiatrists.

The psychiatry is well know to have caused many problems, have been used to justified many political imprison and used as excuse to do mass murder, like in the Nazi Germany's gas chambers.

The psychiatry is the only well know discipline inside the medicine that not the care of the interest of the patients, and the force patients to have unwanted treatments. Psychiatrists usually justify these treatment saying that it is in the best interest of the patients, but are not able to give proof for this statement and the rules (see for instance Hippocratic Oath) that a doctor should not produce pain in the patients is not take into consideration.

Psychiatry is also involved in possibly the most embarrassing Nobel Prize, the one in medicine awarded in 1949 to Egas Moniz for the Lobotomy.

Psychiatrist often says that their theory are proved by the experiments made by the neuroscientists. Not only is not a good scientific practice to put the burden of the proof to someone else, but in the specific case many alleged scientific proofs have actually never been made in the way stated by the psychiatrists. One of the most famous case is the psychiatrists insist to say that depression is proved to be cause by a lack of serotonin, while no one neuroscientist have proved that.