Template:Did you know nominations/Henri Laborit


 * 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 Yoninah (talk) 09:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Henri Laborit

 * ... that in the 1950s Henri Laborit (pictured) discovered the effects of chlorpromazine, which transformed asylums and the treatment of mental illness?


 * Reviewed: Smith Canal, Blue's Clues, Judith Hamer
 * Comment: May need an experienced review. Offered in hope because what Laborit did is so important. This is not eligible under a strict reading of the rules. However, I just discovered today that 5 days ago, almost the whole article was a copyvio. At least now it's not. Thanks.
 * Well it is eligible! The rules say that copyvios are the only exception to the fivefold rule. I could not find a rule that governs copyvios. -SusanLesch (talk) 10:46, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Created/expanded by SusanLesch (talk). Self-nominated at 18:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC).


 * Article needs a good deal of toning down in terms of everything being successful, pioneering, etc.  E Eng  06:38, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * EEng I appreciate your comment and your edit. An explanatory sentence has been added to the lead that I trust will tone this down. Thankfully it is citable.
 * It is absolutely true that Wikipedia is not the place to make claims about being first at anything! I'm not quite sure what to do about the facts of the matter though, in relation to the history of chlorpromazine and GHB. Wikipedia's articles both credit Laborit as the first researcher. Also I hope that him being at war with Sainte-Anne's and dying a bitter man will help to show that the field was a minefield. Do you have any suggestions, or do you think that our changes brought his story back to neutrality? -SusanLesch (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, it's better. I've had to remove the first-drug-for-mental-illness statement again, because regardless of what one source might say -- perhaps you're misinterpreting it -- that's patently ridiculous. Amphetamines, cocaine, bromides, and other drugs were in use for 50 or more years prior for the treatment of, among other things, depression and "hysteria".  E Eng  18:23, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That claim is entirely gone now. It seemed to be a given, like in this source which seems reliable: "Yet, until the 1950s there was no such scientific discipline as psychopharmacology and there was no effective drug therapy for mental illness. In 1952, chlorpromazine (CPZ) appeared on the psychiatric scene in Paris." I have no desire to argue for a first if it wasn't. The hook may need rewriting now, can you help or can you live with it as written? -SusanLesch (talk) 19:13, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, effective may be the key word there. Anyway, to avoid the quibbling that I'm sure would come from others I think it's best left out. The hook as stated is fine, and absolutely true, though I'd state it as
 * ALT1 ... that in the 1950s Henri Laborit (pictured) recognized the psychiatric uses of chlorpromazine, which helped empty asylums and "change the face of serious mental illness"? Quote: "The potential use of CPZ in psychiatry was first recognized by Henri Laborit (1952)," ; "Chlorpromazine helped change the face of serious mental illness... With the advent of early antipsychotic medications such as Thorazine, the number of patients in U.S. mental institutions dropped dramatically: from a high of 559,000 inpatients in 1955 to 452,000 just a decade later. Another important social consequence was the growing acceptance of the view that mental illness is as much a biochemical phenomenon as it is a social and cultural one."
 *  E Eng  21:01, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * ALT1 is fine with me. I've added a footnote, to say the drop in patients was greater according to Frontline. Is that too much? I was afraid of entering into original research. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:17, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Issues are resolved, as far as I know. Requesting a new review. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg This article is new enough and just about long enough as a five-fold expansion, taking into account the removal of copyvio material. The image is suitably licensed and the ALT1 hook has an inline citation. The article is neutral and I did not detect any close paraphrasing. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:07, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Hi, I came by to promote this, but would appreciate clarification on how this meet the 5x expansion requirement. On September 4, eleven days before this article was nominated, the character count was 2021. Could you provide diffs to show how much of that was copyvio? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 08:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, I have recalculated:


 * 29/7 Pre-expansion 2019
 * 14/9 Copyvio (minus 732) = 1287 x5 = 6435
 * 23/9 Final article length 7055 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Thank you. Restoring your tick. Yoninah (talk) 09:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC)