Talk:Thomas Szasz/Archive 2

This article is heavily biased
As evidenced in this talk page. I advise others with the intelligence to skim talk pages of articles about controversial figures to basically ignore the main article and view the content of this talk page where others have linked to sources with critiques of Szasz's work and his responses to it.

I don't really have a dog in this fight but it's quite obvious that this page is being guarded by anti-Szasz ideologues. 162.231.134.145 (talk) 01:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Re: Section Criticism
The criticism section is deplorable. Szasz's argument has been heavily criticised by many (and not just psychiatrists) and his position is that of a minority--the criticism section should reflect that as per WP:SCICON. Furthermore there should be no WP:NOR (which I have deleted). With respect to the scientific consensus--which Wikipedia is supposed to reflect--Szasz's denialism parallels Aids denialism, antivaccinationsism and Climate change denial and hence should be treated the same way. Clearly Szas's polemics have not caused the closure of any psychiatry departments at any universities nor have they toppled the dominant biomedical paradigm (in fact that paradigm has only gained in strength since Szasz published his first polemic) so the minority status of Szasz's position shouldn't be obscured and should be treated as per WP:FRINGE. Also for those that are here to aggressively promote Szasz's views your personal ideas on the history and philosophy of psychiatry and mental illness are irrelevant unless you can WP:VERIFY. Your original research or polemic which you have sourced from some anti-psychiatry forum or website is also irrelevant and not citable as a source. I will add some (well-sourced) criticisms of Szasz's denialism shortly. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 07:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I have added Kendell's critique of Szasz's arguments and I tried to present Szasz'z response as honestly and accurately as possible. I read over Szasz's reply to Kendell (which I encourage others to do) and he fails to even address Kendell's principal arguments let alone rebut them. He offers nothing new. He justs repeats the arguments he made in The Myth of Mental Illness. I really couldn't do anything useful with Szasz's reply. I tried to summarise it but scrapped it 3/4-way through because it was largely unrelated to Kendell's main arguments (as I understood them) and was not more than a synopsis of The Myth of Mental Illness. None of Kendell's arguments that I enumerated are addressed by Szasz. Szasz promises a response when he quotes Kendell on some of the arguments but what follows is not a point by point rebuttal of Kendell's argument but instead a rephrased repetition of one or more Szasz's original arguments. Criticisms from others will follow, time and energy permitting. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 14:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Recent edits have taken things too far, and now the article is too critical of Szasz. Szasz has many supporters, and their views need more prominence; Szasz has responded directly and at length to his critics in Szasz Under Fire, and more of this material should be included, see Johnfos (talk) 07:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Szasz may have many supporters but his views remain fringe and at odds with WP:SCICON and the article should make that clear. The purpose of a criticism section is to communicate criticism of what precedes it not for further advicacy of the subjects views.  Szasz has "spoken" in the article, the criticism section gives his interlocutors an opportunity to "answer" him and therby express the scientific consensus on the matter.  I have Szasz Under Fire and Szasz consistently uses his allocated pages to just reiterate his original arguments in other words. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 02:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * This article is far too critical of Szasz. Szasz was well-respected within the psychiatric community, a lifetime fellow of the APA, a life member of the American Psychoanalytic Association, etc. Karl Menninger eventually came to side with Szasz and Szasz still has many supporters in academia, even within psychiatry. How anyone can claim that Szasz did not influence American psychiatry is beyond understanding. His work has led (directly or indirectly) to the closure of state hospitals, added legal protections for patients, and to the recovery movement in mental health. His work has also influenced the work of Allen Frances, DSM-IV chair, who raises similar questions about the concept of mental illness and about psychiatry in general. The criticism section must be shortened to reflect overall criticisms. There should not be separate sections for each individual critic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.4.22.116 (talk) 18:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * No Szasz was not well-respected within the psychiatric community and those membership don't demonstrate otherwise. Psychiatry as a branch of medicince is uninfluenced by Szasz'z conception of mental illness, i.e. that it doesn't exist and that patients are just malingering.  No university administrator ever said, "Oh f*ck it then, we may as well shut down our psychiatry departments, there are no mental illnesses and people have just been pretending."  That never happened and it doesn't look like it ever will happen.  The criticisms reflect the disposition of the majority of the psychiatric profession towards Szasz hence they need to be there consistent with WP:SCICON.  If you disagree then find me a psychiatry syllabus or a clinical psychology syllabus that is based around Szasz's key ideas.  Supporters of Szasz represent a minority within psychiatry and psychology just as scientists that believe in Young Earth Creationism represent a minority.  Telling me that X people subscribe to Szasz's beliefs means nothing.  Here's a list of scientists that believe in creationism.  What does it mean?  Nothing because as a proportion of the total scientists in the world this list represents a tiny and insiginificant fraction.  You name two people.  You could name two-hundred people and it wouldn't help your case.  Look at the textbooks on psychiatry, looks at course syllabi in psychiatry and clinical psychology, look at journals in those areas and in psychopharmacology--Szasz's idea's have had zero impact there.  The criticisms could be reorganised thematically but they shoudln't be substantively altered in terms of their content. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 01:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * First, thank you for taking the time to respond. I don't know whether you have any personal experience in the fields of psychiatry or psychology, but I am a faculty member in a major U.S. psychiatry department and a private practitioner. Your claim that Dr. Szasz has no supporters within the field of psychiatry is incorrect; I know of many, and there are many more (perhaps the majority) who hold some level of concern about the expanding scope of psychiatry and mental health. My experience has been that more intellectually-minded people tend to consider Szasz's arguments, while simple-minded people simply dismiss his ideas as "outdated" or "irrelevant." Your claim that Szasz is not listed in textbooks of psychiatry or clinical/abnormal psychology is also unfounded, and there are classes taught around the nation specifically about Szasz's ideas in departments of sociology, philosophy, and legal studies. Our psychiatry department continues to expose residents to Szasz's ideas. To say that Thomas Szasz did not have any influence on American psychiatry is incredibly naive. He was perhaps the best known psychiatrist in the world in the 1960s and his work has contributed to various sociopolitical movements and trends, including the mass closure of state psychiatric hospitals, greater overall emphasis on patient rights and autonomy, the declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder, etc. Clearly, you have only limited understanding of the history of psychiatry. Just because Szasz's ideas have not been adopted by mainstream psychiatry does not mean that his ideas have had no influence, and it certainly doesn't invalidate them. Three hundred years ago most people believed in witches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.109.155.174 (talk) 03:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Your occupation in and of itself is irrelevant to your argument so there is no point mentioning it. If you actually have a cogent argument it will stand or fall on its own merits.  You have conceded my argument:"Szasz's ideas have not been adopted by mainstream psychiatry".  That is precisely my point.  Szasz's ideas do not represent WP:SCICON, they are fringe ideas like HIV/AIDS denialism and  vaccination alarmism.  If Szasz's ideas where embraced by the psychiatric profession then there would be no psychiatry and psychopathology textbooks—they would be pamphlets that just say "Malingering" under every syndrome description.  Kaplan and Sadock remains a standard reference in psychiatry and its contents have not been deleted and replaced with the contents of The Myth of Mental Illness.  I didn't say Szasz is nowhere mentioned in psychiatry and psychology textbooks—he is only mentioned and barely as more than a footnote. "He was perhaps the best known psychiatrist in the world in the 1960s"—it is now 2013 and the course of biological psychitary has thoroughly invalidated Szasz's denialism.  "[D]epartments of sociology, philosophy, and legal studies" aren't departments in psychology and psychiatry and I don't know any suicidally depressed people that seek out a sociologist or a lawyer for relief from their mental anguish.  You have presented no case, you have no argument.  As an "intellectually-minded" "faculty member in a major U.S. psychiatry department and a private practitioner" you are remarkably bereft of substantive argument all you have offered is irrelevancy, factoids and trivia.  You history is also wrong.  The "declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder" was largely as a result of the activism of the gay community especially those that eventually formed the Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrists and the activism of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.  If one person is to be singled out as spearheding the declassification of homosexuality as a mental illness it is Robert Spitzer (psychiatrist).  Spitzer along with Freedman were pivotal in the decision to declassify homosexuality.  Szasz played no significant role in that regard. "Three hundred years ago most people believed in witches."  And?  AnotherPseudonym (talk) 10:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * AnotherPseudonym (talk) 10:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * AnotherPseudonym (talk) 13:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * PPPS:- You wrote: "Just because Szasz's ideas have not been adopted by mainstream psychiatry does not mean that his ideas have had no influence, and it certainly doesn't invalidate them." Szasz's ideas have had no influence on the practice of modern—i.e. biologically-oriented psychiatry AND they have not been adopted by modern—i.e. biologically-oriented psychiatry.  Also, Szasz's ideas have been invalidated both philosophically and empirically.  Read the criticism section of the article. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 13:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the personal attacks. I will choose not to comment on them because I believe they are outside of the purview of this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.109.155.174 (talk) 14:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I believe that AnotherPseudonym has violated at least one of Wikipedia's policies in his previous posts, and I am asking for the help of more experienced editors in dealing with this matter. I would like to see the personal attacks deleted and the information related to my physical location removed from this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.109.155.174 (talk) 14:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * AnotherPseudonym (talk) 14:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Please calm down AP. I think its great that we have academics who are willing to contribute to Wikipedia, and we should be careful not to scare them off with bad manners. 75.109 I suggest you open a (free) account as it provides more privacy. And if you feel the need, take the matter to the WP:Administrators Noticeboard, to ask an admin to intervene here, and make the deletions you have requested. Johnfos (talk) 16:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Point taken but I don't think (s)he is an acedemic. What of the innuendo in 75.109s post: "My experience has been that more intellectually-minded people tend to consider Szasz's arguments, while simple-minded people simply dismiss his ideas as "outdated" or "irrelevant."" Is that permissable?  I think not. Delete the innuendo if you are going to delete my response to the innuendo. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 17:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Johnfos. I have created an account to maintain privacy. AP, I do not care whether you believe me or not. I feel secure enough with my training and experience not to care whether someone chooses to believe me or not regarding my academic qualifications. The point of me bringing up the fact that I hold an (adjunct) faculty position in psychiatry is that you claim to have some knowledge about Thomas Szasz's reputation and standing within the psychiatric community. I don't know whether you are a member of that community (you do appear to have knowledge of psychiatry), but I am in the profession and communicate with mental health professionals on a nearly daily basis about the work and ideas of Szasz. He does indeed have a following among people in the field. I would like to try to address some of your points, but I would prefer if we could keep this conversation civil. Some of the things you said yesterday were very graphic and disturbing. I apologize for the innuendo, although it wasn't necessarily an attack on you personally. It is just my general experience about people (in my profession) when talking about Szasz.

My main reason for posting on this page is because I felt the article was too critical of Szasz, particularly the criticism section. The section is rather lengthy and I think the criticisms could be summarized well in a paragraph or two, rather than giving each critic his or her own subsection. Also, I think you are too quick to assume that the scientific consensus is that the experiences we call mental illness are biologically-based diseases. There are many psychiatrists and psychologists (not necessarily Szaszians) who take issue with a purely biological approach to mental illness and with the disease concept in psychiatry. There is no real scientific consensus on this matter, outside of maybe schizophrenia and psychosis. I mentioned Menninger and Frances because they are two well-respected psychiatrists who are generally regarded as major figures in American psychiatry.

Regarding homosexuality, Szasz was the first psychoanalyst to speak out against its classification as mental disorder. Others who came after Szasz "knowingly borrowed" the idea from him without giving him credit. Szasz's "fault" was that he did not limit his argument to homosexuality. See the "For the record" section on the Szasz site owned by Schaler: http://www.szasz.com/record.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Szasz1961 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * After reviewing some pages about other controversial figures in psychiatry, I am now of the opinion that the Criticism section should be substantially shortened or eliminated. This page is about Thomas Szasz, the person, not about his ideas on the myth of mental illness. Freud's ideas have been attacked by "mainstream" biological psychiatry but his page does not have a Criticism section. Perhaps a Legacy section for Szasz is more appropriate. Szasz1961 (talk) 14:21, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * After reviewing your proposal "I am now of the opinion that" you have failed to establish a case for change and the criticism section will stay as is. You should familiarise yourself with the principles and policies of Wikipedia.  Your qualifications—real or imaginary—are irrelevant as are your—real or imagined—"communicat[ions] with mental health professionals on a nearly daily basis about the work and ideas of Szasz".  Articles are composed on the basis of WP:VERIFY.  The WP:SCICON is that mental illness is real illness and that it has biological basis.  The term consensus means "general agreement" not "universal agreement".  So there is nothing to be gained by telling me that some psychiatrists and psychologists reject the biomedical model of mental illness.  I know that.  It was largely due to psychoanalysis that homosexuality was classified as a mental illness in the first place and Szasz played no significant role in the declassification.  Judd Marmor proposed that homosexuality was not a mental illness as early as the 1950s; at that time Szasz was writing on "Oral Mechanisms in Constipation and Diarrhea" and "Psychosomatic Aspects of Salivary Activity" and other such pseudoscientific psychoanalytic bunkum.  So am I supposed to take the claim seriously that people that disagree with you are "simple-minded" and that you want to have a "civil" discussion.  You've pre-framed any dialogue with you such that you have ruled out civility and mutual respect.  Intelligence and knowledge are demonstrated not declared.  "It is just my general experience about people" that when they merely assert their superior intelligence and superior knowledge they lack both.  Thus far you have demonstrated neither civility, knowledge nor intellect.  Your supercilious—and vacuous in terms of substantive content—initial post, its cheap innuendo and pointless bragging received the response it deserved.  Also, Wikipedia articles must conform to the same standards as peer-reviewed academic journals, i.e. full citations are required.  Your, "Once during brunch, after the corn fritters were served, Fred commented that Szasz is a genius"-form of quotation doesn't quite meet Wikipedia  standard of citatbility. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 05:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the responses, AP. I think what we really disagree about is whether or not there is a scientific consensus on the disease concept, and how this should impact Szasz's page. I strongly disagree with your assertion that the scientific consensus is that "mental illness is real illness and that it has a biological basis." This may be the case within psychiatry, but psychiatrists are not the only professionals who study and treat the experiences called mental disorders. Psychology takes a non-biological approach to mental illness (with the exception of some biological psychologists who do laboratory research) and clinical social work takes a broader social/sociological approach. Most psychologists and clinical social workers reject the disease model outright. The Wikipedia entry for mental disorder states, "Mental disorders can arise from multiple sources, and in many cases there is no single accepted or consistent cause currently established." There simply is no scientific consensus on the matter. And, for the record, I said I was an adjunct faculty member in psychiatry, not a psychiatrist! I did find the corn fritters comment quite funny. Szasz1961 (talk) 15:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * You are ignorant of the way in which Wikipedia "works" and you have a supercilious manner which is incongruously coupled with an ignorance of the subject matter which you claim to have expertise in; that is irritating but I will push on. Psychiatrists are the subject matter experts in relation to mental disorders.  Mental illness is the official purview of psychiatry and psychiatrists.  You and others may not like this but that is besides the point.  Psychology is only peripherally concerned with mental illness, most of psychology has nothing whatsoever to do with disease.  You are also conflating etiology with treatment modality.  Psychology takes a "non-biological approach to mental illness" only in so far as the method of treatment is concerned but it is either indifferent/agnostic or consistent with psychiatry on the etiology of the illness.  For example, CBT is used by some psychologists to help psychotics deal with their auditory hallucinations but so doing doesn't commit those psychologists to a non-biological view of the etiology of psychosis.  Social workers are irrelevant to the notion of scientific consensus to which WP:SCICON pertains.  Social work is not scientific.  You are also being deliberately uncharitable in your reading of what I write and in your conception of the biological model of mental illness.  The biological model of mental illness neither states nor implies that mental illness has a unitary cause.  No exponent of the biological model that I am aware of rejects the influence of environment in the etiology of mental illness.  The consensus of psychiatrists (clinical and experimental) on the etiology of mental illness is the scientific consensus on the etiology of mental illness. By virtue of WP:SCICON it is contrary to policy to obscure or confuse the consensus view with a fringe view.  Further, because this article pertains to a medical concern WP:MEDRS also applies and this policy places a limit in the manner in which Szasz's views can be presented.  None of Szasz's ideas (that have an empirical content) have been subjected to to any empirical test and there exists no Szaszian response to any of the evidence that favours a biological etiology.  Szasz's ideas are at best unvalidated—if we ignore all of the scientific evidence—and at worst invalidated—if we take account of that scientific evidence.  What you are seeking to do violates both WP:SCICON and WP:MEDRS and I am confident that is case. You have also demonstrated your bad faith by misrepresenting the contents of Szasz Under Fire.  Nowehere in that book—nor anywhere else—does Szasz answer the criticisms I have compiled under the Criticisms section.  Szasz just repeats his original thesis just as he does in all of his many books and on occasion he addresses a purpose-built strawman argument which he invents and attributes to his interlocutor.  As an exercise in personal intellectual integrity have you gone through each of the criticisms presented in the Criticism section?  Your innuendo implied that you were "intellectually-minded".  I would expect a person that claims to be "intellectually-minded" to address each of those substantive criticisms to themselves.  Not to me or in the article but privately to themselves.  I doubt that you have done so.  I asked you for the page references to Szasz Under Fire where Szasz addresses each of the criticisms listed in the article and you have gone silent on that matter.  You've gone silent on this because Szasz doesn't address any of these criticisms.  Are you familiar with Reznek?  Reznek is both a philosopher and a psychiatrist and he provides a comprehensive philosophical rebuttal of Szasz in his book The Philosophical Defence of Psychiatry.  Szasz never answered Reznek's criticisms and Reznek's book remains unanswered.  I doubt you have read Reznek's book.  To be blunt I think you are a an intellectual charlattan, an intellectual fraud, that is why you felt the need to declare an occupation and to make a claim to being "intellectually-minded".  You knew that the content of your posts would be deficient and vapid so you resorted to an attempt at an argument from authority: a loud fanfare of trumpets to announce an impotent king.  Your proposed text and your other posts have met my very low expectations.  In summation you have no case and the Criticism section will stay as-is.  So now you aren't a professor of psychiatry nor even a psychiatrist [shaking my head in disbelief].  Now you are an "adjunct faculty member in psychiatry".  God help me.  Do you think that this is helping you?  Can you at least concede that anyone with access to the internet that had just read The Myth of Mental Illness and understood perhaps half of it could have performed your behaviour, i.e. any idiot?  Given that I wish to remain anonymous would there be any point in me posting my qualifications?  How would I substantiate my claim and at the same time preserve my anonymity? That being the case how would I distinguish myself from a fantasist or a liar? I can't, and how is it that this didn't occur to someone that is "intellectually-minded" such as you are?  In any event my qualifications and profession per se are irrelevant they don't buy me exemption from the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia so on those grounds alone why mention them at all?  But you took this foolishness a step further, you declared your intelligence as if that were something that a fool is unable to do.  The irony of this has escaped you even though you are "intellectually-minded". AnotherPseudonym (talk) 03:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Psychiatrists do not "own" "mental illness", regardless of what you say or claim to know. Your arrogance and petulance are astounding. You repeatedly use the term "disease" with no sense of its original meaning in medicine and in doing so reveal that you have had little or no training as a mental health professional yourself. Even the most ardent supporters of biological approaches to psychiatry shy away from the term "disease" because they know that "mental disorders" don't meet the established criteria for classification as disease. If you have read Szasz (which at this point I'm not sure you ever have), you would know that his arguments cannot be invalidated by biological psychiatry. The discovery that a "mental disorder" is actually a brain disease only validates its existence as a brain disease; it says nothing of its existence as a mental disorder. This is the Szaszian response. Philosophical attempts to refute Szasz's arguments have all failed, Kendell's and Reznek's notwithstanding, because they presuppose that Szasz was a Cartesian dualist, which, of course, he was not. Kendell essentially agrees with Szasz that mental illness is a myth but attempts to claim that physical illness is also a myth. There is no reasoning with you. I guess there is no arguing with a delusion. As Szasz used to say, "What do you call a person who has the delusion that he is delusional?" Szasz1961 (talk) 15:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Psychiatrists do "own" mental illness and disputing that is as foolish as disputing that dentists "own" dental disease. Merely because some foreign party can proffer an opinion on a subject does not dissolve disciplinary demarcataion.  Are primary care physicians not the authorities on general medical care because there are  naturopaths?  I am fully aware of Rudolf Virchow's conception of disease which is what Szasz is relying on.  Firstly,  etymology is not meaning; secondly, no branch of medicine conceptualises disease strictly in terms of Virchow's definition.  You wrote: "If you have read Szasz (which at this point I'm not sure you ever have), you would know that his arguments cannot be invalidated by biological psychiatry. The discovery that a "mental disorder" is actually a brain disease only validates its existence as a brain disease; it says nothing of its existence as a mental disorder. This is the Szaszian response."  That is just a bunch of unfalisfiable garbage; it is a good example of the no true Scotsman fallacy.  If X is found to be a "brain disease" then Szasz was wrong that it was merely malingering.  Also, it is the contention of biological psychiatrists that "mental illness" is brain disease so that response is irrelevant.  Szasz is effectively a Cartersian dualist, he refers to "minding" as if it has no biological substrate.  Merely because Szasz does not conceive of the mind as a "thing"—as a fully dedicated dualist would—he nevertheless accords his "minding" a magical transcendental status—and he needs to do so to make his case.  If it is acknowledged that "minding" has a biological substrate then a corollary of that is that disturbed "minding" is due to a disturbed biological substrate—and that is the foundational assumption of biological psychiatry.  Szasz attributes his own flawed metaphyical assumptions to his interlocutors and then proceeds to tilt at windmills.  In your original post you posted something to the effect of "300 hundred years ago people believed in witches". You and your psychoanalytic brethren belong in that era.  An essential element of witchcraft is a belief in the magic of words.  You practice a form of modern-day witchcraft.  The idea that by merely talking to someone using the magic words that you have been trained by a senior witch to use you can heal people of melancholic depression, schizophrenia and bi-polar disorder is witchcraft par excellence. Your superstition also contributes to the stigmatization of persons with mental illness.  Rather than allowing afflictions such as MDD to be understood as illness proper—which would have a destigmatizing effect—witches like you promote the idea that someone that is so profoundly depressed that they seek to end their lives has some sort of transcendental malaise that can be banished using magic words.  Szasz is even worse in this reagrd in that he contends that those with mental illness are just malingering.  Your ideology is a vestige of a past when it was believed that magic words could treat all afflictions.  Psychoanalaysis represents a quantitative rather than a qualitative change from that era—now magic words can treat only some afflictions.  In 300 years psychoanalsysis will look as ridiculous as traditional witchcraft looks to us now and it will likely be used in tha manner in which you invoked traditional witchcraft as an exemplar.  Your career as a witch turns on persuading people that you can heal them using your magic words and that is why you are here to try and spread folk tales about your witchcraft.  Your devotion to Szasz is entirely opportunistic: any port in a storm.  A positive case cannot be made for psychoanalysis so a purely negative case is made.  The idea that a psychoanalyst is a  "mental health professional" is risible.  If the praxis of a belief system that has as one of its foundations the idea that  children want to have sex with their parent represents professionalism in mental health then so too does Haitian Vodou.  Psychoanalysis is not scientific so its practitioners views are irrelevant to determining WP:SCICON.  Psychoanalysis is institutionalised superstition and its marginalisationa and the continuation of that trend is entirely positive.  Szasz's ideas are fringe crackpot ideas—that have as much relevance to modern mental health care as ideas of perpetual motion machines have to  modern physics—and as per WP:SCICON and WP:MEDRS this article won't be used to obfuscate or distort the scientific consensus on the etiology of mental illness. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 03:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * You should re-read your above post just as I have to fully appreciate its mindlessness. You are just blindly and habitually repeating the original thesis rather than answering the criticisms provided in the article.  I'll show you.
 * Even the most ardent supporters of biological approaches to psychiatry shy away from the term "disease" because they know that "mental disorders" don't meet the established criteria for classification as disease.
 * The response to this is provided in Kendell (1), (2) and (3).  Migraine, torticollis, essential tremor, blepharospasm and torsion dystonia don't meet Virchow's criteria of disease either, i.e. there is no demonstrable lesion.  Are these conditions non-existsent, mythical and just malingering?  Mental illness doesn't meet Szasz's' criteria of disease—viz. demonstrable lesion as per Virchow—but neither do many other illnesses.  No one other than Szasz uses Virchow's definition of pathology as a criterion for determining disease.
 * If you have read Szasz (which at this point I'm not sure you ever have), you would know that his arguments cannot be invalidated by biological psychiatry. The discovery that a "mental disorder" is actually a brain disease only validates its existence as a brain disease; it says nothing of its existence as a mental disorder.
 * The response to this is provided in Shorter (2).
 * Philosophical attempts to refute Szasz's arguments have all failed, Kendell's and Reznek's notwithstanding, because they presuppose that Szasz was a Cartesian dualist, which, of course, he was not.
 * That is a false generalisation. Kendell (1), (2), (3) and Shorter (1) are not predicated on Cartesian dualism.
 * Kendell essentially agrees with Szasz that mental illness is a myth but attempts to claim that physical illness is also a myth.
 * See Kendell (5), Shorter (1). What you have provided is an idiotic rendering of Kendell's argument that also hides Szasz's commitment to mind-body dualism.  The only diseased bodies simpliciter are those in morgues.  There are no such things as diseases of minds and diseases of bodies there are only diseases of organisms.  Lesion per se is not sufficient to warrant a diagnosis of diseases, some sort of functional impairment is also required, e.g. dextrocardia exhibits lesion but produces no functional impairment hence it is not deemed a disease; and we don't treat corpses for disease.  Szasz's argument is predicated on mind-body dualism that's why he keeps on refering to possible disease states of the brain as if the "minding" he describes emerges from some place other than the brain.  Yes Szasz does argue that "mind" is an abstraction and hence an abstraction can't become diseased but no one argues that mind qua organ becomes diseased other than psychoanalysts.  But this criticism betrays Szasz's metaphysical commitments.  Yes, mind is really a verb, a description of what the brain does (and none of Szasz's interlocutors suggest otherwise so this is a really a strawman argument) but if mind (or "minding" to use Szasz's preferred term) is based in the brain then it necessarily follows that disturbed "minding" is a result of a disturbed brain function.  If we are committed to the idea that "minding" is what the brain does then there can be no avoiding this conclusion.  Szasz does avoid this conclusion hence he must secretly believe that "minding" is something other than the activity of the brain.  If minding is a product of the brain—an idea which Szasz claims he is committed to—then what is the problem in responding to "minding" that the patient does not want, e.g. MDD, BPD, schizophrenia, with treatments directed at the brain qua physical organ that is the seat of "minding".  Excluding Szasz's idiotic ideas that everyone with mental illness is malingering (pp. 117–9 of The Myth of Mental Illness) or that all psychiatric interventions are coercive, why does there even need to be a demonstration of lesion?  If a persons "minding" is causing them distress and they want relief from that distress then that is sufficient warrant to intervene in the brain's functioning to produce a different, less-debilitating "minding".  That is the substance of Kendell's argument and there is no Szaszian response to that.  Whether a problem of "minding" is treated by a neurologist or a psychiatrist is besides the point, it is entirely an operational matter that has no bearing on ontology or epistemology.  Furthermore, whether a problem of "minding" is best treated by talking to someone versus intervening directly in the functioning of the brain is entirely an empirical matter.  The weight of evidence indicates that the most severe problems of "minding"—MDD with melancholic features, schizophrenia and other psychoses, BPD—are best treated by intervening directly in the functioning of the brain.  So excluding coercive treatment which is exceptional—most people with problems of "minding" seek out assistance from psychiatrists—what is the problem and how exactly does Szasz help?  If you are going to answer then actually respond don't just repeat Szasz's original thesis over-and-over.  If what you are going to post is answered in the Criticism section then don't bother posting.  AnotherPseudonym (talk) 06:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * AnotherPseud - The comments above show a profound misunderstanding of Szasz. Have you read 'The Meaning of Mind'? You state 'If a persons "minding" is causing them distress and they want relief from that distress' is answered by Szasz in his reply to Kendell when he states the fact that many people do not suffer from their 'minding'. That they cause other people to suffer. Which is why many, such as the 'paranoid schizophrenic' have to be coerced into 'treatment'. Szasz was never against consensual psychiatry. As stated above, Kendell's argument is that Szasz was right to say that mental illness is a myth but that physical illness is a myth also. Perhaps a wikipage be created on the 'Myth of Physical illness' that Kendell subscribes to. Kendell himself is an obscure fringe UK psychiatrist that no-one has even heard of or would not have if it wasn't for Szasz's book. 24.253.64.178 (talk) 17:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I need to remind both of you that the purpose of this talk page is to discuss improvements to the article, not to debate the merits or demerits of Szasz's ideas? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 18:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Your claim that every person with paranoid schizophrenia is treated coercively is patent nonsense and you fail to explain how this grand psychiatric conspiracy relates to those that do seek out psychiatric help. The issue of coercion is incidental to the issue of the reality of mental illness and most psychiatric treatments are not coercively administered.  If they were coercive then there would be no need for public advocacy campaigns such as this that encourage troubled people to seek out psychaiatric help.  Only the most florid cases of psychoses and severe cases of mood disorder (in which there is a refusal to eat and drink) are treated coercively in Australia.  You can seek to present a radical libertarian argument against treating these exceptional cases quite independently of any argument that mental illness is mythical or that all psychaitaric treatment is coercive.  Regardless of your Quixotic quest the criticism section is well-sourced and accurate so it will stay. Wikipedia isn't an instrument for disseminating crackpot ideas and superstitions about mental illness so kindly fuck off. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 04:20, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This debate about the merits or demerits of Szasz's ideas is inappropriate, as already noted. It is of course totally unacceptable to tell another editor to "fuck off", AnotherPseudonym. See WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. You could be blocked if you continue to behave this way. Oh, and please try to keep talk page comments in chronological order. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Legacy section
I am proposing that the criticism section be eliminated and replaced with a legacy section. This is an article about Thomas Szasz, not his ideas or the reception of his ideas. See the entry for Sigmund Freud; there is no criticism section, despite that fact that many of his ideas are now unpopular in mainstream biological psychiatry. There is no need to have very detailed criticisms of Szasz's work in his entry. These belong elsewhere. Criticisms of Szasz's specific works should be located on the Anti-psychiatry page or on pages for his various books, including The Myth of Mental Illness. Below is some text that could be a starting point for a legacy section. Please feel free to comment and expand.
 * Thomas Szasz is generally viewed as a controversial figure in psychiatry. His writings have attracted both criticism and praise by those within and without the psychiatric and mental health professions. Szasz was once described in the Journal of Psychiatry & Law as having "more impact on the actual practice of psychiatry in this country than anyone since Freud." His work continues to influence research in sociology, philosophy, and legal studies, and he maintains a small following in psychiatry and mental health. Critics claim that Szasz’s arguments are inconsistent with findings in biological psychiatry and that his premise about the myth of mental illness does not stand up to rigorous philosophical inquiry. In Szasz Under Fire (Schaler, 2005), Szasz responds directly to his critics. Szasz1961 (talk) 18:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Whoa, whoah, woah! Slow down. There is no such thing as Szaszianism under which criticisms can be placed. The Freud article doesn't have criticisms because those are in Psychoanalysis.  There is Anti-psychiatry but that is just an umbrella term that encompasses a motley collection of ideas that are unified only by their opposition to some aspect or all of psychiatry.  Placing the criticisms of Szasz there would be inappropriate.  I suggest the criticisms of Szasz be retained here and the content remained unchanged.  The only change I would support is a reorganisation into a thematic form.  Wikipedia is supposed to reflect the scientific consensus; familiarise yourself with that policy  here.  You wrote: "His work continues to influence research in sociology, philosophy, and legal studies, and he maintains a small following in psychiatry and mental health."  Yes! A small following in psychiatry and mental health.  Further his influence on "sociology, philosophy, and legal studies" is irrelevant with regard to matters medical which have a more stringent evidentiary standard than other articles (see  here).  Also you are overstating Szasz's influence in "sociology, philosophy, and legal studies".  Szasz did not originate anything which could be described as a theory in any of those disciplines, he is not a Michel Foucault, a Karl Marx, a Max Weber, or a Émile Durkheim.  There is neither a philosophical, sociological or juridical theory associated with Szasz.  I've read Szasz under Fire and no Szasz does not answer his critics; Szasz ignores the criticisms and just repeats his original thesis using a different selection of words, analogies and metaphors.  Nowhere does Szasz even address any of the substantive criticisms.  Tell me where Szasz's rebutts the biological evidence.  Your suggested text is poorly composed, lacking in citations and misleading.  Hence it is unusable. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 04:47, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Szasz does not need to rebutt the biological evidence because there is none. There are no biological markers used in the diagnosis of a 'mental illness' Even Jeffrey Leiberman, head of the APA, and Tom Insel, head of the NIMH lament this fact. Allen Frances is another prominant psychiatrist who accepts this. The DSM5, does not have any biological markers for any of the mental disorders. Not one. If you think that Szasz does not answer Kendell you have read a different piece from that which I have read. But anyway, I see from reading this talk page that many others here, more qualified than I, have requested changes which have been ignored. So there is no point in even bothering. It is a shame that wikipedia is being hijacked in such a manner. 24.253.64.178 (talk) 01:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No biological markers are used to diagnose migraine, it is diagnosed entirely in terms of syndrome. Many diseases have a similar history, e.g. malaria before microbiology.  Are/were these imaginary conditions? AnotherPseudonym (talk) 04:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * How pathetic your thinking is. Yes many diseases have been misdiagnosed before science found out what they were caused by. But we have moved on since such times when bloodletting was the norm. These conditions, such as measles or smallpox were diagnosed always on physical empirical observations - you know.. spots on the flesh etc. . Psychiatry is not. And of course there are some medical diseases such as migraine that medical science cannot explain fully. But no ... I repeat.. no 'mental illness ' has been shown to have a physical cause. And of course as Szasz said,if the cause of a mental illness is shown to be biological... then it is immediately removed from psychiatry. (Neurosyphylis and epilepsy for example). Szasz said that if all mental disorders were shown to have a biological cause thn psychiatry would not exist. Because they would be moved to science based medicine. Quite frankly.. (Frank Quitely). .. you do not know what you are talking about do you? It is not worth speaking to a zealot. 24.253.64.178 (talk) 22:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * So is migraine a mythical condition merely because it is diagnosed syndromally? AnotherPseudonym (talk) 01:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Talk pages are for discussing improvements to articles, not for general discussion. This debate you are having with the IP is quite unproductive. I suggest you both stop. You've also both violated talk page guidelines for insulting each other. Please note that you could both be blocked for it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "Please feel free to comment and expand." Wikipedia doesn't work that way.  You have made no case for your proposal and your propsed text doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards.  I thoroughly reject your proposal.  There are many articles that are biographical that include a section on criticism, e.g. Heidegger, Leo Strauss, Paul Tillich.  Where a persons work forms a recognised theory and thus justifies a dedicated article then criticism should go there.  Where there is no theory as such their biographic article is the natural place for criticism.  Given that Szasz has really written only one book, The Myth of Mental Illness and all his other books are just that book in a different form the criticisms cut across all his books and we aren't going to confine the criticisms to that one book (The Myth of Mental Illness) nor are we going to reproduce them for all his books.  As I wrote above Anti-Psychiatry does not comprise a distinct theory or even a collection of theories.  Laing—for example—has nothing in common with Szasz other than his opposition to psychiatry.  There is no such "thing" as "Anti-Psychiatry" beyond an abstraction for the grouping of a disparate bunch of ideas that are grouped only by virtue of their hostility to psychiatry.  But aside from that look at your proposed text! You claim to be not only a psychiatrist but an adjunct professor no less and you propose that piece of drivel replace the criticism section.  The entire mess is without one iota of substantiation!  Moreover it is misleading.  Tell me where in Szasz Under Fire Szasz provides a rebuttal to any of Kendell's criticisms.  Show me where Szasz rebutts the points (1) through (5) that I have summarised under Kendell's critique. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 06:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * AnotherPseudonym has destroyed this piece and shows that he does not know much about Szasz. To say that Szasz, 'has written only one book' merely confirms a profound ignorance. Kendell, in his critique states 'there is no illness that is purely physical' - which is of course scientific nonsense. Also Kendell's statement that 'Szasz's contention that mental illness is not associated with any morphological abnormality is uninformed by genetics, biochemistry and current research results on the etiology of mental illness' is not the current position of the APA who state that there are no biological markers for any mental disorder. I agree that the criticisms section is mere opinion, and has been answered by Szasz and this has not been represented, and thus should be deleted. 24.253.64.178 (talk) 21:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Even were it true that Szasz had successfully rebutted the criticisms that have been made of his ideas, that wouldn't be a valid reason for removing the criticism from this article. As editors, we aren't supposed to care about whether arguments for or against Szasz are correct: we're meant to fairly represent the views that appear in reliable sources. If I don't revert your edit, that's simply because I'm not sure whether the criticism of Szasz belongs in this article rather than in, say, the article on The Myth of Mental Illness. That article seems neglected, and could perhaps be expanded with some of the content you are so intent on removing. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You have allowed a complete idiot like AnotherPseudonym to decimate what was previously a balanced article with his schoolboy rubbish. There are a thousand nutjobs that have criticised Einstein. I do not see that shit in his wiki page. I, for one, will not be using wikipedia as a reference in the future. 24.253.64.178 (talk) 14:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Though you are of course entitled to hold whatever view you wish of other editors, it's not helpful, in a collaborative project, to call an editor a "complete idiot." And there is no point in blaming me for whatever may be wrong with the article. You might accomplish more if you made an effort on the talk page to describe what you see as the article's problems. If you expect all criticism of Szasz to be removed, however, then that's unrealistic. Szasz isn't exactly Einstein. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Kendell's criticism of Szasz
1. Szasz's conception of disease was based on the work of Rudolf Virchow known as the father of modern pathology and is not a case of 'special pleading'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Virchow Torticollis has well known causes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torticollis as has http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_tremor#Cause and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torsion_dystonia as well as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blepharospasm#Causes Of course syndrome-based diagnosis is considered unsound by the science of medicine. Symptoms or syndromes are presented but objective tests, x-rays, blood tests etc, are then carried out to look for signs on which the diagnosis is made. 24.253.64.178 (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

2. It could just as well be argued that these conditions,fusion of toes, are abnormalities or diseases which are not worth treating because treatment would be more harmful. 24.253.64.178 (talk) 19:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

3. 'A strict application of Szasz's criterion necessitates the conclusion that diseases such as malaria were "mythical" until medical microbiology arrives at which point they became "real".' No it doesn't. This statement is laughable. It also shows a profound ignorance of what the word 'mythical' means as used by Szasz. 24.253.64.178 (talk) 19:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

4. 'Szasz's contention that mental illness is not associated with any morphological abnormality is uninformed by genetics, biochemistry and current research results on the etiology of mental illness' This is not true and pure speculation. There are no biomarkers. 24.253.64.178 (talk) 19:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

In his critique, Kendell writes 'Dr Szasz was quite right to assert that mental illness is a meaningless term, a myth, and a dangerous metaphor. But the concept of physical or somatic illness is equally meaningless, equally mythical, and equally dangerous.' Kendell's views are ridiculous quite frankly. Surely better criticisms of Szasz can be found. I suggest that this criticism piece is deleted. 24.253.64.178 (talk) 18:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Shorter's Critique
1. Shorter has obviously not read very much Szasz beyond The Myth of Mental Illness. Szasz's book 'The Meaning of Mind' http://www.amazon.com/The-Meaning-Mind-Language-Neuroscience/dp/081560775X

2. Shorter states 'it is the contention of biological psychiatry that so-called mental illnesses are actually brain diseases. Modern psychiatry has de facto dispensed with the idea of mental illness, i.e. the notion that psychiatric disease is mainly or entirely psychogenic is not a part of biological psychiatry.' Actually the idea that mental diseases are brain diseases has not been shown as yet and there are many in the psychiatric field who vehemently disagree. Just reading the comments section from the original article will show this fact. http://pb.rcpsych.org/content/35/5/183.full/reply#pbrcpsych_el_10900

3. 'There exists at least prima facie evidence that psychiatric illness has a biological basis' Not true. There is no evidence to suggest that the Hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis is involved in any psychiatric illness. Shorter is a historian and hardly qualified to make such statements. http://www.history.utoronto.ca/faculty/facultyprofiles/shorter.html 24.253.64.178 (talk) 20:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Clarke's Critique
Clarke is not a psychiatrist but a 'mental health' worker, at the Faculty of Health and Society Science, University of Brighton, UK. Hardly qualified to comment on Szasz. (Brighton Polytechnic changed it's name to Brighton University in 1992).

1.Re: malingering, Clarke 'Clarke responds that this contention is both cruel and untenable.' Ahhh. Poor Clarke.

2. Clarke does not like Szasz's libertarian views and anti-coercion convictions. Ahhh Poor lefty Clarke.

3. 'Historically psychiatry has abandoned those treatments that were demonstrated to be dangerous and/or ineffective' Ahhh poor boy wants to still force ECT and dangerous neuroleptic drugs on people which are known to cause brain damage such as tardive dykonesia etc etc.

This 'critique' is total rubbish and should be deleted.

It appears to me that anotherpseudo has just googled 'critiques of Szasz' and cut and pasted the results into this article. He shows no actual knowledge of psychiatry. What is your rationalwiki user name AnotherPseudo? 24.253.64.178 (talk) 20:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Arguing the merits of the criticism of Szasz is really rather pointless. Whether the criticism is correct or not has no relevance to whether it's appropriate to the article; Wikipedia just doesn't work that way. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Well if the criticism is incorrect then surely it is inappropriate to the article. Otherwise anyone can just write any old rubbish. We end up with critiques of Szasz written by a historian and a 'mental health worker'. Doesn't this apply? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Definition_of_a_source 24.253.64.178 (talk) 23:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:VERIFY. Information is acceptable to Wikipedia if it can be backed up by reliable sources. Its correctness or lack of it is explicitly not a concern. The whole point of this policy is to avoid endless, pointless arguments about which views are "really" correct and which aren't - the kind of argument that you have tried to engage in here. By the way, please stop vandalizing the article - you'll be blocked otherwise. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * How is a historian and a social worker from Brighton considered reliable sources as defined by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Definition_of_a_source ? Where is your logic that I cannot quote an old bag lady? AnonymousPseudo has already stated above that Popper is not considered a credible source! There are two standards being adopted here don't you think? How come there is no critique page for any other psychiatrist or even any other person as far as I can see on Wikipedia? 24.253.64.178 (talk) 02:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not interested in arguing with a vandal. At an earlier stage, it seemed to me as though you might be making a legitimate effort to improve the article: unfortunately, your most recent edits make it clear that this is not the case. You can probably expect to be blocked. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Ha! Go ahead and ban me. It is obvious the little games that are being played here, and how the tiny fantasies in some people's heads now rule. You have demonstrated that you have a POV against Szasz. This page has been vandalised and you want to keep it that way. Wikipedia has lost all credibility to me and I am not going to waste any more time. Good luck in the future mate. 24.253.64.178 (talk) 15:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Critiques deleted
No other person on wikipedia has a 'critique' section. Take the critiques to the 'myth of mental illness' page. Szasz wrote about many other issues. So I have deleted it. 24.253.64.178 (talk) 04:44, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Honestly .. you guys are as thick as shit. To think you have such control of wikipedia makes my eyes water. Block me, ban me. I dare you. 24.253.64.178 (talk) 06:22, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Honestly? An article that according to Wikipedia has multiple issues. 'Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page'. And some twat called Tom Morris has locked it? Are you serious? Or just sanctimonious? Please answer with intelligence or don't bother. 24.253.64.178 (talk) 14:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Honestly? I ask a simple question. Maybe too simple for the likes of you? 24.253.64.178 (talk) 14:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Although it's more common to see Criticism or Reception sections in articles about books or ideas, they do exist on some personal profiles, particularly philosophers and politicians: Jacques Derrida, Judith Butler, Julia Kristeva, bell hooks, Julie Myers, Houston A. Baker, Jr., Richard Clarke, Kersey Graves and Henry James are a few. In fact, it's hard for me to think of a feminist philosopher who doesn't have a criticism section. Liz Read! Talk! 19:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * How do the critiques of Kendell,(the idiot) Shorter,(the historian) and Clarke (the social worker from Brighton) affect what Szasz says in his book 'Our Right to Drugs' or 'Ceremonial Chemistry' for example? Do you think nine wrongs make a right? 24.253.64.178 (talk) 19:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I have never said there should not be critiques of The Myth of Mental Illness. They should be in the appropriate wike page not here. At least the critiques of, say, Derrida are made by legitimate analytical philosophers such as John Searle. The critiques of Szasz are from Kendall (from Szasz's own book Szasz Under Fire) who states 'I agree with Szasz that mental illness is a myth but so is physical illness', from Shorter, a historian!, and from some random social worker who happened to have a piece published in 'Nursing Times'.  It is obvious that Anotherpseudo has merely done a quick google search and cut and pasted from the results. Without any understanding! Jeez... 24.253.64.178 (talk) 17:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Please do not undo factual statements
FreeKnowledgeCreator - will you stop vandalising. I can only report you to the authorities now. Thanks. 24.253.64.178 (ee talk) 22:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Making false accusations of vandalism won't help you win a oontent dispute. Feel free to report me for vandalism if you wish, however - you'll only make a fool of yourself. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * How are they false? Explain to me why you have deleted them then. In detail. Thanks. This page is not a collaboration, it is an attempt by you to express a biased point of view. The fact is that the views of Szasz are still taken seriously by psychiatry. A simple google will show you this. You have no credibility to edit these pages. 24.253.64.178 (talk) 04:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia's content policies permit (and in fact require) the removal of unsourced or biased material, of the kind that you added. Removing it is therefore not vandalism. So your accusation is false. It's stupid to call the article an attempt by me to express a biased point of view, since I didn't write most of it. It was AnotherPseudonym, not me, who added all the criticism of Szasz. I agree that the article is probably now unfairly slanted against Szasz, but unfortunately your attempts to remedy that bias aren't helping - they are making things even worse. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * @24.253.64.178, it is you that is vandalising the article by tacking on unsourced and semi-literate nonsense. Familiarise yourself with WP:VERIFY.  The overwhelming majority of psychaitrists do not take Szasz's ideas seriously.  Kaplan and Sadock is a standard textbook on psychiatry and in its near 1500 pages it devotes one small paragraph to Szasz and in that paragraph Szasz's ideas are described as "controversial".  Szasz is nothing more than a footnote in the curricula of most psychiatry departments around the world.  Psychopharmacology continues to flourish as a field and there are more journals in biological psychiatry than there ever were.  Szasz is part of the crackpot fringe and as per WP:SCICON, WP:PSCI and WP:PROFRINGE the article should reflect that.  Further, because the article is concerned with medical matters an even more stringent evidentiary standard is required as per WP:MEDRS.  The article as it currently stands is not overly critical, it is as critical as it needs to be given WP:SCICON, WP:PSCI, WP:PROFRINGE and WP:MEDRS. Also, you haven't answered my question: migraine is diagnosed solely with reference to syndrome, no biological markers are used to diagnose migraine; is migraine a mythical condition? AnotherPseudonym (talk) 10:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry but a simple google will show you that Szasz's views are still current within psychiatry. His views are still taken extremely seriously even by those who disagree. You have been told this time and time again in the above talk pages. It is totally false to say he is just a footnote. Even this month Allen Frances was referencing him. Yes pain and migraine are currently a symptom but not a diagnosis. If I go to the doctor with a pain in my chest what does he do? He takes x-rays, scans, blood tests and makes scientific observations. Psychiatry does not do this at all. There are still a few scientific medical mysteries!. But there is not one mental illness... not one..of the 300+.. that can be clinically diagnosed by a biological marker. And as Szasz says... if there is a biological marker identified then the 'disease' is immediately removed from psychiatry into a scientific medical discipline. Your arguments stem from a lack of knowledge about this subject. How you have been able to decimate this article astounds me. 24.253.64.178 (talk) 07:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no psychiatry textbook that takes Szasz's ideas seriously. Since you disagree then provide me the references for the textbookss.  So what if Allen Frances referenced Szasz?  Frances doesn't represent the entire community of professional psychiatrists in any country.  Migraine is a diagnosis and according to Goetz's Textbook of Clinical Neurology (3rd ed.) it is diagnosed as follows:


 * Table 53-2 -- Diagnostic Criteria for Migraine
 * Migraine with Aura (Classic Migraine)
 * Diagnostic Criteria
 * At least three of the following four characteristics:
 * 1. One or more fully reversible aura symptoms
 * 2. At least one aura symptom over more than 4 minutes or two or more symptoms occurring in succession
 * 3. No single aura symptom lasts more than 60 minutes
 * 4. Headache follows aura with a free interval of less than 60 minutes (it may also begin before or simultaneously with the aura)
 * Migraine Without Aura
 * Diagnostic Criteria
 * At least five attacks fulfilling criteria A–D:
 * A. Headache lasting 4 to 72 hours (untreated or unsuccessfully treated)
 * B. Headache has at least two of the following characteristics:
 * 1. Unilateral location
 * 2. Pulsating quality
 * 3. Moderate or severe pain intensity
 * 4. Aggravation by or causing avoidance of routine physical activity (e.g., walking or climbing stairs)
 * C. During headache at least one of the following:
 * 1. Nausea and/or vomiting
 * 2. Photophobia and phonophobia
 * D. Not attributed to another disorder


 * Migraine is diagnosed entirely with reference to syndrome--just like most psychaitric disorders--so is migraine a non-existent mythical condition? You wrote, "If I go to the doctor with a pain in my chest what does he do? He takes x-rays, scans, blood tests and makes scientific observations." So before microbiology, when the cause of malaria was unknown and malaria was diagnosed also only in terms of syndrome was it too a "mythical condition" and then it became a real condition when microbiology was developed?  There is no biological marker for migraine and there was no biological marker for malaria until microbiology arrived.  Why is syndrome-based diagnosis only a problem for psychiatry? AnotherPseudonym (talk) 10:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no textbook on homeopathy that states that under the laws of physics it is an impossible medical subject. You are spouting utter nonsense. 24.253.64.178 (talk) 13:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what the point is that you are trying to make with this analogy. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 15:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I do not expect a textbook on homeopathy to state that it is a pseudoscience. I do not expect a textbook on psychiatry to state that it is a pseudoscience. Do you even know who Allen Frances is??? Ha! Anyway a simple google will show you that Szasz is not a fringe figure and his views are still debated now. Unlike Robert Kendell. 16:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)24.253.64.178 (talk)


 * Maleria is defined by objective scientific observations - a person's temperature for example. It has never been a 'mythical condition' even before the cause was known. What you are saying is utter tripe and merely demonstrates a lack of knowledge. 24.253.64.178 (talk) 13:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Before the thermometer was invented there was no objective means of measuring body temperature and all temperature measurements were subjective so fever as well as malaria must also have been mythical conditions. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 15:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I think there are objective clues to establish whether someone has a fever or not. Establishing a body temperature by touch or seeing shivering and sweating etc etc? What do you mean by mythical? 24.253.64.178 (talk) 16:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the amount of space given over to criticism of Szasz is excessive. The IP is obviously going too far in trying to remove all the criticism of Szasz, but I would have hoped that there would be some way to streamline the criticism and express it more concisely. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 18:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The section can be streamlined but I don't think "excessive". AnotherPseudonym (talk) 10:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I do not necessarily agree that criticism should not remain. But Szasz's response should be allowed as well. I have attempted to provide this but all my changes have been deleted. Kendell, for example, agrees with Szasz that mental illness is a myth and then goes on to say physical illness is also a myth. Szasz obviously tears this view to pieces. The references are there for anyone to read. 24.253.64.178 (talk) 07:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You additions are semi-literate, unsourced and tangential so they have no place in the article and I will also remove them if you reintroduce them. AnotherPseudonym (talk)


 * My additions have not been unsourced. They come from the same source as yours. Szasz under fire. In which Kendell writes that he agrees with Szasz that mental illness is a myth but so are physical diseases. Have you read the article? 24.253.64.178 (talk) 13:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * In fact AnotherPseud, have you even ever read a book by Szasz? Tell me which one - which we can discuss. Then we can debate your credibility to edit this page. I have read most of his work over the past 30 years. What have you done? You ask ' is migraine a mythical condition?' You are surely joking here. Have you a medical background? What are your qualifications? 24.253.64.178 (talk) 07:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * So answer the question. Migraine is a neurological disease according to all current neurology textbooks and it is diagnosed without using any biological markers. Is it too mythical? You are trying to argue that whatever condition isn't diagnosed using biological markers isn't a real disease.  Here are the diagnostic criteria for migraine from Harrison's Neurology in Clinical Medicine (2nd Ed.):


 * TABLE 6-4
 * SIMPLIFIED DIAGNOSTIC CRITERIA FOR MIGRAINE
 * Repeated attacks of headache lasting 4–72 h in patients
 * with a normal physical examination, no other reasonable
 * cause for the headache, and:
 * At least 2 of the following Plus at least 1 of the
 * features: following features:
 * Unilateral pain Nausea/vomiting
 * Throbbing pain Photophobia and
 * phonophobia
 * Aggravation by movement
 * Moderate or severe intensity


 * So according to your logic, migraine is a mythical condition, it must be because neurologists don't use any biological markers to diagnose migraine. So what if you have read most of Szasz's work?  You have no idea about the history of medicine or of diagnosis.  I've read The Myth of Mental Illness, a pile of Szasz's papers and several of his lectures.  Everything that Szasz writes and says is just The Myth of Mental Illness over and over again until his death. You can either read 10 of Szasz's books or read The Myth of Mental Illness 10 times.  The result is the same.  Even his papers are repetitive of the same ideas and his books are just rewrites of the ideas he published in journal articles.  What are your qualifications?  How is it that your qualifications are irrelevant but mine are relevant?  How ill you know if I am telling the truth?  How will I know if you are telling the truth? If I tell you that I am neurosurgeon how will you determine if I am telling the truth or not? AnotherPseudonym (talk) 10:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * No not according to my logic. Only yours. I have no idea of the history of medicine? You know this? If you say that what Szasz writes is just the 'myth of mental illness' over and over again? What about 'Ceremonional Chemistry' or 'Sex by Prescription' or 'The Meaning of Mind' or even 'Fatal Freedom'? If you have read MOMI.. then tell me what Szasz means when he talks about 'The Myth of Mental Illness' Show me your understanding of his argument. What does he mean when he stated mental illness is a metaphor. Why does he use the word 'myth' and what does it mean? If you tell me you are a neurosurgeon it is easy to refute. I will just ask you a question so that you can reveal the level of your knowledge. Which you already have by the way.. 24.253.64.178 (talk) 13:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * So why isn't migraine a mythical condition? Migraine is not diagnosed with reference to any biological markers. So tell me why it too shouldn't be considered a mythical disease.  If you answer my question I will answer yours.  AnotherPseudonym (talk) 15:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Define first what you mean by the word 'mythical'. Do you mean the same as when Szasz uses it? Or something different? To many, migraine is not even considered a disease. It is a condition and a symptom. (It can also be faked!) When I went to my doctor, complaining of severe headaches, he took tests - in my case a MRI scan to look for signs. None were found, so migraine was my diagnosis. This is what happens in medical science. The accurate and definitive diagnosis of disease is accomplished through signs, not symptoms. While symptoms may lead to tests, which in turn reveal the signs of disease, symptoms alone are highly unreliable when it comes to disease diagnosis. In part this is because the symptoms of one disease could also be the symptoms of many diseases. And there are some illnesses for which the cause is still unclear. But no psychiatric illness, of which there are 300 plus, has a biomarker - not one. And if one is found, such as happened in the case of neurosyphilis and epilepsy, it is immediately removed from psychiatry. As Szasz says, if biological markers were found for every mental illness then psychiatry would not even exist! 24.253.64.178 (talk) 15:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * So your doctor made a diagnosis of migraine in the absence of any biomarkers. He used the MRI to rule out a brain tumour and because he didn't find a tumour he concluded--without any positive biomarker for migraine--that you have migraine.  So why isn't your doctor a fraud, practising pseudoscientific medicine?  Why do you believe you have migraine given that your doctor has presented you with no positive test results for a biomarker for migraine?  Your doctor diagnosed your migraine solely with reference to syndrome.  Why is it ok for your doctor to do that but it is so bad for a psychiatrist to do the same for MDD?  Please explain. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 12:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * After doing all the tests first. Migraine only means headaches with unknown cause. Chronic Fatigue is another syndrome. Psychiatry has no tests and no biomarkers - not one. But it is obvious to me you have an extreme POV about Szasz. And that you are a bit of a dunce. If you and your mates want to turn Wikipedia into Rationalwiki (Hi David - how's Xenu? )then go ahead. I am done here. 24.253.64.178 (talk) 15:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter what eliminative tests he did first. There is no biolmarker for migraine, he didn't present you with a positive result for some test and then conclude you have migraine.  He diagnosed your migraine purely on the basis of you syndrome.  Migraine doesn mean "headaches with unknown cause", it has specific diagnostic criteria that I reproduced for you from two neurology textbooks (see above).  Your doctor did exactly what psychiatrists do when they daignose MDD, GAD and schizophrenia.  I have a view about Szasz but it is not extreme.  Szasz is wrong about mental illness.  I support his libertarian position regarding the free availability of drugs but I think he is wrong about everything else and that is the consensus view of psychiatrists (and that is what the article is obligated to represent).  Furthermore, Szasz doesn't need his flawed "mental illness is a myth thesis" to advocate libertarianism.  The libertarian issues that Szasz is concerned with are independent of any issue about whether mental illness is a real disease real or merely a myth.  I have no connection with RationalWiki.  I have visited it and most of the articles are awful so I have not visited it since.  Your allusion to the CoS is curious because Szasz allied himself with the CoS via the CCHR.  Are you a Scientologist?  Apparently everyone that disagrees with you and doesn't think Szasz was the moshiach is a dunce.  You are yet to explain why it was ok for your doctor to use a syndrome based diagnosis for your migraine but why it is so evil for psychiatrists to also use syndrome-based diagnoses for psychiatric illnesses. You can't explain this because that is the fundamental contradiction in Szasz's work.  Psychiatry is not the only branch of medicine that uses syndrome-based diagnoses.  You object that all psychiatric illness is diagnosed with reference only to syndrome.  Yes and that has been the case with all branches of medicine in their immaturity.  It was impossible to form an objective diagnosis of malaria infection prior to microbiology, there was no biomarker for malaria until microbiology and microscopy became available.  The brain in the most complicated organ in the body so it is to be expected that it will be the last to to yield to human inquiry. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 03:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd encourage you to not waste your time arguing with the IP vandal. His most recent edits show you all you need to know about how serious he is about improving the article. Reporting him for vandalism and getting him blocked would be a more productive use of one's time than arguing with him. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Go ahead. Report me for vandalism. Get me blocked. Anotherpseudonym is just like any old creationist that states 'ah but where are the intermediate fossils? Hey ..where?' He is obviously an anti-science zealot with a belief system that does not accord with the scientific facts. Of course medical science cannot explain migraines or even such conditions such as CFS. So? Science does not know everything does it? I can fake migraines... many people do. (darling I have a headache tonight). But these are few and far between. Tell me how many true medical conditions I can fake. Measles? Cancer? AIDS. I can fake every one of the 300 psychiatric 'illnesses'. Every one. Psychiatry is a pseudoscience like homeopathy. You ever heard of Popper? You two geezers have an anti-Szasz POV. I can see right through you and your pathetic attempts of censorship. Any intelligent person reading through these talk pages can see it too. This page on Szasz should not contain your stupid opinions. Nor the opinions of stupid people such as the historian Shorter, nor the 'social worker' from Brighton without allowing a response. Which of course you will censor to maintain your ignorant POV. Anotherpseud cannot even explain what Szasz means by a myth. I have asked him many times. But he refuses to answer because he cannot. Nuff said. 24.253.64.178 (talk) 04:31, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * But I can see right through your ploy. Get someone else to report me for 'vandalism'. Why not report this yourself? Eh? 24.253.64.178 (talk) 05:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I can see now that FreeKnowledgeCreator is correct, you are vandal and have no interest in improving the article. I tried to reason with you but that appears to be futile.  I did not answer your questions because you refuse to answer mine.  You are unreasonable and overly emotional. Szasz has won your heart rather than your head and nothing can cleave you. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 06:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I have answered you. I agree with you that in medical science there are conditions that have unknown causes e.g. Migraines (headaches without a known cause). I have even said you should use Chronic Fatigue Syndrome or ME as another example. I am overly emotional? Only because I cry at your facile stupidity. With tears of laughter. I think you have given me Irritable Bowel Syndrome with your unmitigated ignorance. But the fact remains that no psychiatric condition - not one- has a biological scientific marker. And when one marker is discovered it is immediately removed from psychiatry to a scientific discipline. I have answered your questions fully. Now it is your turn. What do you mean when you use the word 'mythical'. I think you do not want to answer my questions because you are actually simpleminded. Prove me wrong. 24.253.64.178 (talk) 13:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * You, anotherpseudo, and your cronies, are a joker. A joke without intellect is called slapstick. Batman is gonna get you. I have answered your questions. Now answer mine. What does Szasz mean when he uses the word 'myth'. (Clue - it is academic and intellectual). Without this understanding you do not have a clue. Sorry to 'up set' you and your rigid thinking. 24.253.64.178 (talk) 13:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * You haven't upset me and I hope I haven't upset you. It is inappropriate to debate here in the talk page, that is not what the talk page is for.  It is also inappropriate to deface the article.  If you want to discuss/argue Szasz then register an account and PM an email address and we can take our discussion there.  But if you want to go that route your behaviour will have to improve.  That means no evasion and no childish name calling. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 05:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * No, you have not upset me. You make me laugh!. I have not evaded anything. And no, I will pass on giving you an email address since I get enough porn spam as it is (which I admit is probably my fault). 24.253.64.178 (talk) 17:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

This page is a deliberate misrepresentation of Szasz
This page is a deliberate and systematic misrepresentation of the work of Thomas Szasz and reveals a completely biased POV. This wikpedia article has been dominated by Anotherpseudo who has admitted that he has read little of Szasz's work, and also shown that he does not understand it. He is aided by the gatekeeper FreeKnowledgeCreator (sic).

Anyone who is interested in Szasz would do better to visit this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicalization and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-psychiatry or better still visit http://www.szasz.com. 24.253.64.178 (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Anotherpseudo attempts to picture Szasz as 'anti science' (Szasz obtained a degree in Physics before moving into medicine) and that 'the criticism section should reflect that as per WP:SCICON as well as 'Szasz's denialism parallels Aids denialism, antivaccinationsism and Climate change denial and hence should be treated the same way.'
 * I object to this POV. There are many who believe that psychiatry is a pseudoscience. Psychiatry claims to be able to cure a disease by talking! CBT is just one example. Name one other scientifically based disease that can be cured by talking. In fact Tom Insel laments the failure of science within psychiatry and particulalry the DSM here. http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-diagnosis.shtml. He states of the DSM 'The weakness is its lack of validity. Unlike our definitions of ischemic heart disease, lymphoma, or AIDS, the DSM diagnoses are based on a consensus about clusters of clinical symptoms, not any objective laboratory measure. In the rest of medicine, this would be equivalent to creating diagnostic systems based on the nature of chest pain or the quality of fever. Indeed, symptom-based diagnosis, once common in other areas of medicine, has been largely replaced in the past half century as we have understood that symptoms alone rarely indicate the best choice of treatment'.

AnotherPseudo states 'Szasz may have many supporters but his views remain fringe' A simple google refutes this statement. Also read here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSM-5#Criticism for a reasonable analysis. Indeed, the British Psychological Society expresses Szaszian views here http://apps.bps.org.uk/_publicationfiles/consultation-responses/DSM-5%202011%20-%20BPS%20response.pdf


 * There is too much focus here on the Myth of Mental Illness and this debate should be removed to its own page. Szasz wrote about a wide range of topics including politics, specifically libertarianism, on the philosophy of mind, drugs, suicide, sex and society. 24.253.64.178 (talk) 19:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.
If critiques of the 'Myth of Mental Illness' are accepted then critiques of Szasz's other works should be noted also.

For example, his views as expressed by his works such as ..

http://www.amazon.com/Ceremonial-Chemistry-Persecution-Addicts-Pushers/dp/0815607687

http://www.amazon.com/The-Manufacture-Madness-Comparative-Inquisition/dp/0815604610

http://www.amazon.com/The-Medicalization-Everyday-Life-Selected/dp/0815608675

http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Prescription-Startling-Todays-Therapy/dp/0815602502

http://www.amazon.com/Suicide-Prohibition-The-Shame-Medicine/dp/0815609906

are but a few.

AnotherPseudo and Freecreativeknowledge... what is your response to this? 24.253.64.178 (talk) 06:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Kendell's critique
Kendell states ' 'Dr Szasz was quite right to assert that mental illness is a meaningless term, a myth, and a dangerous metaphor. But the concept of physical or somatic illness is equally meaningless, equally mythical, and equally dangerous.' This should be added to the critique. I am now banned from changing the article. 24.253.64.178 (talk) 13:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Will the person who keeps removing the Kendall quote kindly refrain. Thanks. 24.253.64.178 (talk) 06:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I recently read The Myth of Psychotherapy
...And while in general I liked it a lot, there was a significant amount of what I think can pretty fairly be called antisemitism. Has no one written on this? A third of the book was about characterizing Freud as fundamentally and extremely antigentile, based on absolutely nothing but a very small number of times that he identified himself as Jewish. The gist was a very clear "Jewish identity = rabid antigentilism", without substantiating Freud's relation to either side of that equation or even the relation of the two sides to each other. Has no one written about this?

I don't want to come off as an ideologue here; I'm planning to go out and get a number of his other books, because I really am a fan. But this was just so egregious and ridiculous... 149.31.198.88 (talk) 18:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Please don't add anything to an article suggesting that someone is anti-semitic without a reputable secondary source that states that the person is anti-semitic. Interpretations of primary source material can't be used for this purpose. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thomas Szasz was a Hungarian Jew. Why has the talk page been deleted? 82.2.75.224 (talk) 04:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * In all the years I’ve read Szasz and criticism of him I have never heard any thing ridiculous as the suggestion that he was anti-Semitic. 98.220.165.202 (talk) 05:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Criticism section deleted
1. Szasz was not only concerned with mental illness but with libertarian politics, right to drugs, and other sociological issues. Any critique of myth should therefore go into a separate section.

2. Lack of citations regarding claims in the critique. Biological/genetic causes of mental illness are not yet established. See Tom Insel etc.

81.100.116.166 (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

There are no citations. Is mind illness genetic? Citation required. 81.100.116.166 (talk) 03:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * There have been very many valid criticisms of this page on the talk pages. They are no longer available. Someone has deleted them. Why???? Can you answer this? 81.100.116.166 (talk) 04:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Nothing has been deleted. The content has been moved to the talk page archives. ImprovingWiki (talk) 10:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Criticism section
It has been reverted back into the article. I still think the Criticism section is too large. There no such Criticism section for other doctors such as *https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Banting *https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Bethune *https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Blackwell
 * I shouldn't have reverted you without discussion, and wouldn't revert again if you reverted back. That said, I do wish that you could be more careful and more discerning in your arguments. It's not of much help to say that the criticism section is "too large" without further explanation, and it isn't relevant how much criticism there is or is not in other articles. You should consider keeping some of the more relevant parts of the criticism, or summarizing it more concisely, instead of removing massive amounts of properly cited material on vague grounds. To place the criticism in a drop-down menu, as you did here is completely inappropriate and unacceptable, and I will be reverting you. ImprovingWiki (talk) 22:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The Myth of Mental ilnnes was only one of Szasz's 30+ books. As such the criticism section should be moved to here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_Mental_Illness. Within the criticism there are vast amounts of unsourced material from Kendall, who states "Dr Szasz was therefore quite right to assert that mental illness is a dangerous term, a myth and a dangerous metaphor". http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=mCBKtxLe7w4C&q=kendall#v=snippet&q=kendall&f=false, from Shorter, a historian! and from Clarke, a social worker from Brighton Poly! Hardly the most qualified to comment. As such the criticism section should be deleted as it is opinion and bias. 81.100.116.166 (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, in principle there should be no problem with moving the criticism to The Myth of Mental Illness, although it may require some rewriting and readjustment. However, you should have proposed that on the talk page first, rather than edit warring to remove the content from this article. I am not convinced that your other criticisms of the material are correct; there is no reason why, for example, being a historian of medicine should not be a helpful background for arguing against Szasz. ImprovingWiki (talk) 00:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I have proposed it on the now deleted talk pages. I am content to have criticism of the Myth to be debated. A historian can have a historical    opinion - I can be a historian of quantum physics but have no expertise..and have no credibility on the actual subject. 88.106.95.145 (talk) 10:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear about it again, no talk pages have been deleted. Messages on the talk page are moved to talk page archives after a certain period of time - that's a device meant to prevent the talk page from becoming too long and cumbersome. ImprovingWiki (talk) 01:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Psychiatric Times citation
From the looks of it Psychiatric Times is only available to members and I'm pretty sure most Wikipedians aren't psychiatrists let alone members of said news publication. Can anyone find another citation? Clr324 07:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Marginalizing Szasz's views
I can't think of another person whose Wikipedia entry includes such a high proportion of critical opinion, though it could often be done. Szasz's critics take up almost half of this fairly long page. It is obviously intended to diminish Szasz's views. It is, unfortunately, the type of abuse to which Wikipedia is easily subject, and an effective way to marginalize dissident views. It is also notable that a large number of comments have been removed from the Talk page, without regard to their adherence to the rules. Nicmart (talk) 15:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, that's routine talk page archiving. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Where are the archives? I do not see an obvious link.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 15:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Archives
I found the archives here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Thomas_Szasz/Archive_2 --Mark v1.0 (talk) 15:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC) This account has been confirmed by a CheckUser as a sock puppet of FreeKnowledgeCreator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ImprovingWiki


 * Thank you for the link to the archive. It demonstrates again that the wiki entry for Szasz has been subject to complete bias and censorship by FreeKnowledgeCreator. 88.106.90.46 (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)