Template:Did you know nominations/Glore Psychiatric Museum


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:49, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Glore Psychiatric Museum

 * ... that Glore Psychiatric Museum has a "Giant Patient Treadmill", "Tranquility Chair",  "Bath of Surprise" and "O'Halloran's Swing"?

Created by SomeoneWhoDoesn'tWantCredit. Nominated by Skr15081997 (talk) at 04:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC).


 * Symbol voting keep.svg New (25 Jun), 2223B, hook is good (part of ref AGF as offline), verified no copyvio in 2 ref, QPQ not needed.-- Redtigerxyz Talk 15:08, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg Comment: I concur with the "good to go" review in all points, but I am wondering if we should add the picture of the Tranquility Chair? It is in the article and properly licensed. For that purpose I propose alt1. --MelanieN (talk) 20:15, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Alt1: ... that the Glore Psychiatric Museum has a  "Giant Patient Treadmill", "Tranquility Chair" (pictured),  "Bath of Surprise" and "O'Halloran's Swing"?

Sorry, but I'm going to interject a no-go tick here (though I never understand what any of these inner-spectrum ticks mean, exactly) until there's wider discussion. This article is supposed to be about the museum, but it really ends up being a "oh-how-ignorant-people-in-the-old-days-were" chamber of horrors of psychiatric treatment from the past. With the exception of the Cornell and National Library of Medicine sources, none of these sources is reliable for the statements made about treatment practices over the centuries -- they're gee-whiz guidebooks and the museum's own website. Typically ignorant content in this article is the quotation from roadsideamerica apparently trying to make Benjamin Rush look like some kind of fool by calling him "a big believer in leeches and bleeding". The article's a WP:COATRACK -- perhaps unintentionally so, but a coatrack nonetheless. EEng (talk) 11:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll respond, if I may. (I had intended to nominate this for DYK, but Skr beat me to it.) First of all, I agree about Rush and I will fix that. Second, I agree that this is not and should not be an article about the history of psychiatry, and I will remove it from that category. This is an article about a museum. As such it should describe the museum's mission, history, and collections. For those things, I think the guidebooks and the museum's website are acceptable as references. The only independently verified "history of psychiatry" items are the two you mentioned. I will make some changes in the article, and then I will come back here to propose a revised hook.
 * I think I may have come across a bit harsh -- sorry. I have to repeat, though that most guidebooks/ travel websites are low-quality sources, and should be used in only the most restricted way -- e.g. for museum exhibits, to say "The collection includes restraint devices, a mockup of a typical patient room, and obsolete surgical equipment" -- very straightforward stuff like that. Anything repeated about treatment practices and so on is just too easily sensationalized by these kinds of sources. The museum itself certainly has a serious purpose but I can't really discern its curatorial credentials so its website should be used with a touch of caution, I think, especially for anything sensational. This may mean the article may need to be cut a good deal. I'm not trying to shut this article down but I know a good deal about this subject and one of the worst mistakes made -- at all points in scientific and medical history -- is to think, "Oh, we're so much smarter than people used to be -- we'd never be so cruel or foolish." That's precisely the opposite of the lesson we should draw from a place like this Museum. EEng (talk) 18:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Those horrific exhibits are what makes the museum notable. Without them, it is merely another well-meaning museum, ignored by the public and struggling to stay open, run-of-the-mill, not qualifying for a Wikipedia article. With the sensational displays it is famous and is written up in detail in many national guidebooks - the best indicator of notability for something like this. I totally understand where you are coming from, in wanting to reject the message of these "cruel and foolish" exhibits. I'm sure there are museums, with articles here, whose message I reject with every fibre of my being. But here at Wikipedia we do not censor messages we disagree with. We are duty bound to base our articles on notability - and those weird exhibits are what is notable about this museum. I have made quite a few changes in the article, including a fix to the "Benjamin Rush" information, and a mention of the other exhibits besides the models. See what you think of it now. --MelanieN (talk) 19:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. I am proposing a new hook, limited to the devices that have independent confirmation that they were actually used. --MelanieN (talk) 19:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * alt2 ...that the Glore Psychiatric Museum displays full-sized reproductions of antique devices once used in the treatment of mental illness, such as the Tranquility Chair (pictured) and the Bath of Surprise?

Coupla things:
 * First of all, notability isn't the criterion for article content -- it's only the test for article topics. See WP:N
 * This has nothing to do with wanting to censor anything. It has to do with reliable sourcing. Roadsideamerica, legendsofamerica, and Haunted Missouri: A Ghostly Guide to the Show-Me State’s Most Spirited Spots are not reliable sources. For example:
 * Haunted Missouri: "The patients and staff in that building were continually talking about seeing a lady in a flowing gown in the museum at night
 * Roadsideamerica:
 * "The museum has a reproduction of Rush's bleeding knife that was distributed to promote a drug manufacturer; they were recalled after a patient grabbed one off his psychiatrist's desk and stabbed him to death." Yeah, except Rush died in 1813, the term psychiatrist was almost completely unknown until about 1900, and the concept of a recall was invented about 1970. It's made-up sensationalist nonsense.
 * Or the Giant Patient Treadmill', a device similar to a gerbil wheel..." Oh, please. While this does give an appropriate physical image of the device, its inclusion is obvious;y meant to imply the reduction of patients "to animals" or something -- ignorant of the fact that a treatmill did not, at that time represent "useless effort" as it does today, but was a common way of providing power to an industrial process i.e. a mill, so this is a completely distorted impression to give.
 * It's one thing for a sensible statement to carry a . It's quite another to adopt, wholesale. sensationalist nonsense from sites which help parents keep their kids from being bored on road trips. I really need to ask that material cited to these three sources be removed.


 * I think your ALT2 is fine. Here's another possibility:
 * ALT3: ... that on the grounds of the Glore Psychiatric Museum are some 2000 graves, numbered but not named?

(but we'd need a different source from that currently in the article for this). EEng (talk) 21:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we can get by without the "Haunted" and "Roadside" sources; although the nonsense you cited is not in the article, I take your point that the sources are not to be trusted. I'll remove or replace those two sources. (Of course, eliminating those two sources will also eliminate your proposed Alt3.) I would prefer to keep the "Legends" source; it doesn't seem to contain unlikely or sensationalist claims like the other two, and it has a lot of helpful history of the prison and museum that I don't find elsewhere. --MelanieN (talk) 21:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. I'm not some ultimate arbiter but I appreciate your understanding my special concern on this topic. I've tagged Haunted as which is a way of saying that maybe someone in the next 500 years will substitute a better source. EEng (talk) 21:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "Haunted" is gone. So is "Roadside." So is the entire paragraph about numbered graves, and families dropping off patients with the clothes they should be buried in. I added a new source to verify the O'Halloran Swing and the Bath of Surprise. --MelanieN (talk) 21:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. You may have created a monster when you got me looking up sources. 0;-D I found a quote from Glore about the rationale for the museum - how looking at "the atrocities of the past" helps people realize how far we've come. --MelanieN (talk) 22:06, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. Are we there yet? --MelanieN (talk) 22:08, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm concerned it's fine now. Please bear in mind that as far as I can tell Glore was a very dedicated Mental Health Dept. employee, but one without any particular training in medicine, history of medicine, etc., so be careful quoting him as if he's an expert. Again, thanks for tolerating my interference. EEng (talk) 00:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If your issues have been resolved, would you mind posting a "good to go" checkmark, just so it is clear to the hook promoter? And specify, for their benefit, which hook to use? --MelanieN (talk) 01:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll use the magic summoning tool to bring the reviewer back: -- abracadabra!. Striking all but ALT2 since as you say it's the only one based on the sources remaining in the article. EEng (talk) 02:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The ref does not say that the "Tranquilizer Chair" in Glore Psychiatric Museum is a model based on chair was invented by Benjamin Rush. WP:OR concerns. Similar problem with "the Bath of Surprise". The ref only says "that the Glore Psychiatric Museum displays full-sized reproductions of antique devices once used in the treatment of mental illness" part.-- Redtigerxyz Talk 05:41, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * MelanieN, we trusted you! Into the Bath of Surprise! EEng (talk) 05:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I don't understand your objection. We know, from the reference cited, that "George Glore, an employee of the St. Joseph State Hospital, helped construct a series of full-size replicas of primitive 16th, 17th, and 18th century treatment devices for a Mental Health Awareness Week open house. Those exhibits impressed the hospital officials and sparked the idea to create the Glore Psychiatric Museum. Today, George’s treatment device replicas remain an integral part of the museum’s exhibits." We know (from references 5, 6, and 7) that a Tranquility Chair and a Bath of Surprise were in fact devices once used in the treatment of mental illness. What is the original research that you are finding? --MelanieN (talk) 06:16, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The article says "The models, together with a growing collection of other artifacts"; these others may include the said artifacts. The quoted text above does not say that they were models. Ref 5 which uses "Tranquilizer Chair" does not say that the museum has a model called The Tranquility Chair. Redtigerxyz  Talk 06:30, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * By "artifacts" I meant things from the actual hospital - " artifacts from the mental hospital, including medical equipment, staff uniforms, photographs, and artwork and writing created by the patients." The Chair and the Bath could not have been something used at the actual hospital, because they were already obsolete when the hospital opened; they are in fact exactly the kind of thing that Glore made models of, namely "primitive 16th, 17th, and 18th century treatment devices". The fact that the museum has these things on display is on page 2 of the cited reference #2 . I have added a couple of additional citations to reference #2 for clarity. --MelanieN (talk) 06:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * But page 1 says "Beginning with several full-sized replicas of 16th, 17th and 18th century treatment devices that were created for a mental health awareness exhibit, he soon began to look for other items that would illustrate how the treatment of mental illness had progressed over the years. George Glore spent the larger part of his 41 year career with the MissouriDepartment of Mental Health in developing the largest collection of exhibits featuring the evolution of mental health care in the United States." This suggests that the chair or the Bath may not be models, as such by the hook. "Also featured is a "Tranquilizer Chair” where patients were said to have sometimes been strapped into for as long as six months." suggests that it could have been used and not a model. Can't find anything about the Bath. Redtigerxyz  Talk 07:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The Bath is the "douching tank" referred to in the reference. Glore made it clear, when he referred to "the atrocities of the past", that he was talking about THE PAST, not current or recent practice. "were said to have sometimes been" - this is "said to have" happened, not actually did happen at the hospital. But let me understand what you are actually objecting to: is it the word "reproductions" in the hook? If that's the problem maybe I can write another hook that doesn't use that word - although it seems obvious beyond question that these things are some of Glore's models. The museum has them; they are devices from earlier centuries; that is exactly the kind of model Glore made. --MelanieN (talk) 07:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's leave the might-have-been issues and concentrate on the hook. A few days ago you approved the original hook without question. Now you have all kinds of problems with the current hook. Could you explain what exactly your problem with this hook is? Then maybe we can work out something we can both agree on. This is the currently proposed hook. --MelanieN (talk) 09:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * alt2 ...that the Glore Psychiatric Museum displays full-sized reproductions of antique devices once used in the treatment of mental illness, such as the Tranquility Chair (pictured) and the Bath of Surprise?

Children! Children! Do not quarrel! Maybe take a look at the museum website -- maybe you'll find the sourcing needed, or a different hook. I kind of like the unmarked grave thing -- maybe that will be in the site somewhere. EEng (talk) 07:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The "unmarked grave" thing has kind of been debunked; see the article's talk page. And we're not quarreling, we're DISCUSSING. You and I were able to work out our issues; Redtiger and I will be able to also. --MelanieN (talk) 07:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Redtiger, if the problem is that you question whether these really are models (reproductions), how about this hook? --MelanieN (talk) 09:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * alt3 ...that the Glore Psychiatric Museum displays examples of antique devices once used in the treatment of mental illness, such as the Tranquilizer Chair (pictured) and the Bath of Surprise?


 * When I approved it, the reference I saw was presumed as RS; now proved otherwise. My objection was to the word "reproductions", which the ref didn't say so. Also, what I sensed from the refs is that: Glore did not build all of them, but perhaps also collected antique pieces related to psychiatry. Can we use "Tranquilizer Chair", which is the term used in the ref? Also, can you cite a ref for "Bath of Surprise" that it exists in the museum or else remove it from the hook. If the exact term is not used, use "dunking bath" (used in Museum site) in the hook. Redtigerxyz  Talk 10:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have changed "tranquility" to "tranquilizer" in the hook and at the article. About whether the museum has a "Bath of Surprise" on display: the photo of the Bath of Surprise in the article was actually TAKEN at the Glore Museum. If that isn't enough evidence for you, let's remove the bath from the hook and just leave the chair. --MelanieN (talk) 15:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The ref call this a mundane "dunking bath", not a "Bath_of_Surprise". We should remove it or use "dunking bath". Redtigerxyz  Talk 16:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, let's remove it from the hook. The museum itself calls it "Bath of Surprise" per the photo, but apparently you don't accept that. "Dunking bath" (per one reference) or "douching tubs, where patients were drenched with ice cold water" (per the other reference) are not interesting enough to go in the hook. --MelanieN (talk) 17:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * alt4 ...that the Glore Psychiatric Museum displays examples of antique devices once used in the treatment of mental illness, such as the Tranquilizer Chair (pictured)?
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Good to go. Unless Headmaster EEng has some comments. :) Redtigerxyz  Talk 04:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Your smart mouth's gonna earn you timeout in the Chair of Tranquility one of these days. EEng (talk) 06:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Striking alt3. EEng, your quirky commentary is a good relief from wikipedia's "official" bureaucracy talk. Always a good laugh. :) Redtigerxyz  Talk 06:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Not everyone thinks so, hard as that may be to believe. Have you seen the recent ANI thread linked in this edit ? EEng (talk) 06:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * EEng, Redtigerxyz. This and this should interest you. You're offensive, and you don't realise it. You need to reflect, thoughtfully, on your manner of dealing with people. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Anthonyhcole, let me explain the "the original reviewer - the one who approved everything less than 24 hours after the item was nominated - now they are raising some obscure objection about Original Research". The ref I trusted and approved, was removed; presuming as a non-RS. After that, you can't expect me to accept it. You can personally check the references 5, 6, 7 that allegedly supported the hook; they don't. Just because Glore created some models, assuming all of the artefacts was WP:SYNTH. The references (which I read from the article) clearly said that Glore collected some; after starting off with models. You can check the current references 6, 7 and show me that "Bath of Surprise" is in fact in the reference. I stand by my judgement then, However Dennis Brown and MelanieN, my sincere apologies if I have unintentionally hurt you. Redtigerxyz  Talk 16:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Redtiger's details are the trees, and here's the forest. A nominated article contains a lot of nonsense based on sources like roadsideamerica. Other editors insist that at least the most blatant nonsense be removed from the article; that incidentally kills the hook. After much work a sourced hook is settled on. And you, Anthonyhcole, are a hypersensitive busybody scold. EEng (talk) 17:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Redtiger and EEng, you are more like symptoms - symptoms of a process that has become too unpredictable and too unfriendly for most people to want to take part in. Specifically, the second-guessing and third-guessing after everything seems to be in line and approved. (Hence my <> after I thought my discussion with EEng had worked everything out and then Redtiger raised a whole new set of issues.) And maybe a lack of realization by the regulars here that you are dealing with real people. (Hence my comment "Their chortling at the end (of the discussion) was kind of the final straw.") It's not just you; this was not the only recent DYK nomination that I have found to be frustrating. As a result I will not be nominating any more DYKs for a while - not until I see that recent trends here have reversed. Dennis had already given up on DYK some time ago and will likely not be back. And you, EEng, just demonstrated once again why that is the case. --MelanieN (talk) 17:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You know the real problem here? Someone creates an article which, for whatever reason, is nowhere near up to snuff. Someone else nominates it. Then several other people (you, me, Redtiger), who had nothing to do with setting the nom in motion, but who were foolish enough to become interested, end up having to get the article into minimal shape and come up with a supported hook. These are the consequences of a process which, for inexplicable reasons, wants to take 7-day-old articles and bring them to something like GA standards in a few days. What on earth is the point of creating such a built-in tension? EEng (talk) 17:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I haven't participated in this "process" yet it has successfully sucked all the fun out of editing what was a really interesting article on a unique museum. I've already unwatched the article, I don't want and won't accept a DYK and want my name struck from above.  I do not want my name be associated with DYK in any way that implies I endorse anything that happens in this walled garden.  While most here are good people, DYK as a "system" is only suitable for discouraging and running off good editors, as well as feeding the egos of a few self-important people; the antithesis of what I work for at WP:WER.  For whatever reason, this place bring out the worst in people that are probably pretty nice outside these walls. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  17:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Why do you make me repeat it? It was what should have been an interesting article on an interesting museum, but tainted by nonsense content cited to sources which in a lapse of judgment you didn't realize aren't considered reliable for Wikipedia purposes. These issues should have been hashed out over weeks or months in the normal way of WP editing -- at leisure by a few interested editors -- and then nominated. But as mentioned in my last post, the DYK "must-nominate-right-now" idiocy forbids this very sensible sequence of events. EEng (talk) 18:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. And oh yes -- and thanks for taking the time to say "I haven't participated in this 'process, thus reinforcing my other earlier point, that the person who ought to be in the best position to bring the article us to snuff -- the creator/expander -- often isn't involved in the DYK process at all, that task being left to hapless others foolish enough to step into a mess they didn't make. EEng (talk) 18:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * We get it: you don't like the process. If that's the case, work to change the process. Or stop paticipating in it. But don't take it out on people who are working in good faith within the process as it exists. --MelanieN (talk) 19:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't like the process, I am working to change it, and I'm not taking anything out on anybody. I'm simply pointing out that the frustration you seem to feel regarding this nom is forced on us all by the idiotic 7-day rule. EEng (talk) 21:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * EEng, summed it up very well, yet you called him "hypersensitive busybody scold", an apropos example of your recent civility.  I've only been around you a little so I can't claim to know you, but during the few exchanges we have had, I have found your demeanor to rather smarmy and self-important.  Part of the problem, not the solution. If this is how you treat everyone, you should not be working around new editors at all.  This is exactly the kind of stuff that runs them off.  Most of the community considers editor retention to be more important that the silly little blurbs on the front page. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  19:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Smarmy? Do you even know what that means? Let's see, what did Mr. Dunkum learn me in the 8th grade about that word. Oh yes. Unctuous and ingratiating. That would seem to contradict Mr. Cole's idea that I'm offensive. Unless I'm being offensive and ingratiating at the same time. Yes, Anthonyhcole summed it up well -- if you pay no attention to what actually happened. I'm focusing on the content issue, but Mr. Hypersensitive Busybody, and now you, keep talking about how offended you are. You're an established editor who should have known better than to use such sources, your WP activities range far beyond DYK, and whether you are "retained" or choose to quit WP will have nothing to do with what happens here, regardless of what you say. In any event nonsense can't go on the main page because you don't want your contributions scrutinized.  EEng (talk) 21:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You're not getting it. It's not about who's right and wrong. It's about attitude, respectful address. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You're not getting it. It is about right and wrong -- that is, what content is right and what content is wrong. You two keep wanting to make it look like I'm talking about who is right and who is wrong. I'm not. You are. You've been fussing at me ever since I said Jesus Christ! in a post and some poor victim called me anti-Christian. I repeat that you're a hypersensitive busybody, and I won't be responding further except in the unlikely event you say something worth responding too. EEng (talk) 03:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * So what is the upshot here? Based on the comments by Dennis Brown, author of this article, should we say this nomination has been withdrawn? --MelanieN (talk) 10:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * While I get what you mean, technically, I lack the authority to "withdraw" as I didn't file it. I just don't care to be associated with DYK in its current state.  I don't care what is done with it as long as my name isn't associated with it, which is why I removed my name from the template, after Eeng had already struck the names of the creator and nom.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  10:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, in the name of Jesus, Mary, Joseph, and all the Apostles! I didn't "strike the names of the creator and nom". At someone's request I struck the moot ALTS, but in doing so I typed the closing   as    so the strikeout continued further than it should. You're smart enough to find the diff -- why didn't you just correct it? This entire discussion has been full of diverting noise like this. EEng (talk) 14:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Glore_Psychiatric_Museum&diff=next&oldid=614960833
 * EEng, you had to review the Alt 4 on 1 July and I don't know what all has happened here. I can see that there are disagreements here and why had you written below the line which reads Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line. and struck out the names of article creator and the nominator?--Skr15081997 (talk) 11:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not the reviewer, and as explained the striking out was an accident, as Dennis Brown should certainly have been able to see. Redtiger is the reviewer. He'd green-ticked and all was ready until Mr. Hypersensitive Busybody dropped in to deliver a lecture., can you green-tick this again and bring this sulkfest to a close? EEng (talk) 14:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

'''ALT4 IS GOOD TO GO. PLEASE PROMOTE THIS ASAP AND END THIS DISCUSSION'''.-- Redtigerxyz Talk 14:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * WE DO NOT ALLOW ALL-CAPS YELLING HERE AT THE HAPPY ACRES HOME FOR THE BEWILDERED. YOU'VE BEEN WARNED -- INTO THE CHAIR OF TRANQUILITY! EEng (talk) 15:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * EEng, please stop your disruption here and let this sorry discussion die a long-overdue natural death. I'd actually appreciate it if you would delete your latest comment, and my reply, so that the green-tick is the last and most prominent thing here. That was the whole point of your request to him to repeat his green-tick. --MelanieN (talk) 15:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Eng, consider yourself formally and finally warned. I've already made it clear that your "Mr. Hypersensitive Busybody" comments are incivil, and I've tried to be nice about it but you are bordering on belligerent here.  In your next comment you speak of "WE", but let me make it perfectly clear:  You have zero authority here, you aren't the reviewer, don't speak for DYK or Wikipedia as a whole, you are just another person that logged in today, like everyone else.  This is exactly the kind of behavior, self-importance, that I spoke of earlier.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  21:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Let me see if I have this right. I joke to Redtigerxyz, in all caps, that "HERE AT THE HAPPY ACRES HOME FOR THE BEWILDERED" we "DON'T ALLOW ALL-CAPS", and you show up to "warn" me that I have "zero authority here"? I really hope, for your sake, that you're just playing along in the spirit of fun. In response to Melanie's concern, here's another green tick (not on my own authority, but repeating Redtigerxyz's tick above).
 * EEng (talk) 21:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg (ALT4)


 * Symbol question.svg Hi, I came to promote this and noticed that you're all in agreement on ALT4. The image, though, is not great, and I think this would make a great quirky for the last in the set. However, it would be nice to name more than one device. Since "Bath of Surprise" is not specifically mentioned in the source but "Lunatic Box" is, I added the latter to the article and would like to propose this alt:


 * ALT5: ... that the Glore Psychiatric Museum displays examples of antique devices once used in the treatment of mental illness, such as the "Tranquilizer Chair" and the "Lunatic Box"? Yoninah (talk) 22:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * If you haven't read the whole nom page (and I don't suggest you do) please take my advice -- if you don't want to use the image, just use the approved hook ALT4 but with the image dropped. I believe I speak for everyone here, though I rush to make it clear that I have zero authority here, am not the reviewer, don't speak for DYK or Wikipedia as a whole, and am just another person that logged in today, like everyone else. (Actually, I logged in yesterday, but who's counting?) ? ? EEng (talk) 22:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact, I did read the whole nom page. I loved ALT2 but couldn't find the Bath of Surprise named in the source, so I suggested this alternative. Yoninah (talk) 23:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Bahr, Jeff (2009). Amazing and Unusual America. Chicago, Illinois, USA: Publications International, Ltd. p. 176. ISBN 978-1-4127-1683-3 is the source for "bath of surprise" (and several other things). It was in the first edits, but the book was removed later. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  23:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "Amazing and Unusual USA gives you on a thrill-packed look at the weirdest, silliest, tackiest, and most amazing things in the country. You ll discover a side of America that you never knew existed, one that s filled with enormous animals, bizarre museums, odd events, and oversized furniture."
 * -- Do you seriously think Wikipedia's main page is going to make a statement about the history of the treatment of mental illness based on such a source? EEng (talk) 00:20, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * So this published book fails WP:RS and should not be used on Wikipedia? I disagree. Asylum #2 wasn't the only one that named their dunking tank "The Bath of Surprise" [], and in fact, the name appears to have been very common.  It took all of 1 minute to find this simply searching "bath of surprise" on google books.  Here is the search, there are more uses, 3600 hits just in books. . This is the cause of frustration here, you don't seem to look before you make a claim against the term. And again, this article is NOT about the history of mental health treatment, it is only about a museum.  We can't tell them what to call their exhibits. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  00:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Whatever the article may be about, when the hook says "Device X was used in the treatment of mental illness", that's a statement about the history of the treatment of mental illness. Do you not see the difference between A History of the Royal College of Psychiatrists and roadsideamerica.com? Why didn't you find reliable sources for this article when you wrote it, instead of expecting others to do it for you? EEng (talk) 01:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, this is part of the problem. I made a stub out of a couple of sources, went and located four images that are known to be of the museum, and others jumped in.  The fact is, the information I put in is correct and came from a published book and a site you don't like, but is actually a decent site.  Just like your strike above: I don't do DYK, I assumed that meant this fiasco was over, which is why I wouldn't have reverted it.  You are taking your actions and trying to shift the blame to me.  You are quick here to judge my ability as editor "Why didn't you find reliable sources for this article when you wrote it, instead of expecting others to do it for you?" is against everything that Wikipedia stands for.  Seriously, that is an amazingly brazen statement and against the Five pillars in every possible way.  I didn't ask for review or anyone's opinion at DYK. I can laugh it off as I get worse patrolling ANI daily, but if you said that to a new editor, I wouldn't be amused.  The fact that I have to tell you that you shouldn't tell any editor that because that statement is inconsistent with policy is, well, disturbing.  I didn't ask for you to judge my editing, but I can't help but interject here when you are wrong on the facts.  And you were.  We are all wrong sometimes, quit shifting blame and move on.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  01:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know who added the material and sources -- I only know who's defending them now. Like many others I'm tired of nonsense being brought to the very edge of the Main Page, and (until recently) frequently onto it. There's enough to do pointing out the hooks don't match sources, or that sources are unreliable, without taking an the extra burden of trying to scare up new sources to replace them. If you care about ALT-this or ALT-that, then find reliable sources. If you don't, then what are you doing here? If you think that "the information came from a published book" is the way to judge source reliability, then I shudder to think that you're an admin. EEng (talk) 01:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Again with the backhanded insults and blame shifting. I'm here only to correct errors, and frankly, I haven't seen editors flock here to agree with you.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  02:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Nothing backhanded: you appear to have no idea at all of how to evaluate sources. Next you'll be citing The Crucible in an article on witchhunts. The article you stubbed was a mess of nonsense and unreliable sources, and it grew from there. You seem obsessed with the idea you're being blamed, and if the shoe fits, wear it. I restate that I won't be responding further to your posts except in the unlikely event that you say something worth responding to -- for example, you might comment on which ALT to adopt, which is all we need to do here. EEng (talk) 03:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I'm using a book about unusual places and unusual museums as a source for geography, founder and displays in an unusual museum .  I can't tell if you are being obtuse or you really don't get that this article isn't about the history of psychiatry and is instead a museum.  If it WERE an article on the history of psychiatry, then I wouldn't use this book as a source, it would be outside the book's scope. As for Alts, I don't care but if I must opine, then I'll have whatever Melanie is having. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  13:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Whatever the article's nominal subject, each fact in it (and in the hook) needs to be cited to a source that's reliable for that kind of statement. Thus family road-trip guidebooks might be useable (with caution) for the content of the museum, statements like "Device X was used to treat Y" need to cite a source reliable for that. EEng (talk) 15:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dennis Brown's assessment. It's a museum. Of antique devices. And we're trying to be hooky. EEng, I think you should stop reading so much into what most readers are going to give about one second's notice. Yoninah (talk) 00:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You want me to stop reading what into what? If the hook says Device-with-amusing-name was used in treatment, there better be a source for that. And not roadsideamerica. EEng (talk) 01:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Now you are intentionally being misleading. I just gave you a book source for that fact, not roadside america.  Had you looked at the history, you would have seen that source anyway.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  01:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I said you were citing roadsideamerica.com when you were really citing a "thrill-packed look at the weirdest, silliest, tackiest, and most amazing things in the country ... filled with enormous animals, bizarre museums, odd events, and oversized furniture." I do apologize, but the confusion is understandable. EEng (talk) 01:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, you shift blame and try to trash my sources, ability as editor. Yes, it is a book on bizarre museums.  Glore is a bizarre museum.  It sources the location/founder/displays only.  You don't like it because the publisher had a flare for hyperbole on the dust jacket.  And you are questioning MY ability to judge sources?  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  13:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not just me. See the reviewer's comment below re people (guess who?) who "provide not so good hooks backed by not so good references and then cry why the reviewer is harassing them". EEng (talk) 14:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Yoninah, I think that's an excellent suggestion. "Lunatic box" definitely adds to the quirkiness factor. --MelanieN (talk) 22:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Are we going to go through this again? It adds to the quirkiness factor because it makes it sound like mad sadists were in charge of asylums, and that's just not right. I don't mind taking an eventualist approach to the article itself, with a marginal source for some kinda-questionable statements, but it's an entirely different matter to import such material into the hook. The phrase tranquilizer chair is abundantly attested to in contemporary and secondary sources. For lunatic box I find one work of fiction plus legendsofamerica.com, which is a marginal source at best. Please, can we just stick with ALT4, which is cited to a reliable source? EEng (talk) 23:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * So we are left with the question: Does the DYK review process allow for one person to override consensus and ban any mention of an admittedly disturbing display in a museum, because they just don't like the fact that the object once existed? --MelanieN (talk) 10:27, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Though I hesitate to make the obvious analogy, I'll do it: this discussion is a lunatic asylum. What are you talking about? We had a consensus for ALT4. All was fine. Oh, until I made a harmless joke, to someone who says he enjoys my humor. Cue Dennis Brown to reprise his role as tone-deaf malaprop-cum-project-scold, and here we are. Since then the reviewer, Redtigerxyzit, has bowed out, telling me
 * It is not about your humour. That does not upset me. The problem is people provide not so good hooks backed by not so good references and then cry why the reviewer is harassing them.

So much for "one person" overriding "consensus". We have no official reviewer left, but if you want to repeat, down here, Redtiger's green tick mentioning ALT4, I absolutely support that. EEng (talk) 14:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for trying, User:Yoninah, but in the interest of ending this thing, maybe it would be best to go with alt4, without the picture - since alt4 was the last one approved by the reviewer, and the photo is not great. A less good hook than what you proposed, but not worth further discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 15:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree Drop the img. EEng (talk) 15:40, 4 July 2014 (UTC)