Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MindFreedom International


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was Keep per consensus. @pple complain 15:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

MindFreedom International

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable; fails WP:ORG, no evidence of non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Article is yet another anti-psychiatry coatrack as well, but lack of notability is the primary issue. There is a reference to Patch Adams in the article, but no sourcing and he does not appear directly connected to this organization. MastCell Talk 17:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom--Esprit15d 17:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep   (This one may fail Independent status but not sure )   153.90.88.9 01:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Er... not sure I would call those reliable sources... MastCell Talk 02:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

David Oaks (founder of MindFreedom) and and Dendron are mentioned in the full text of this scholarly article Electroshock and Informed Consent- according to a Google Scholar search on David Oaks. Dendron is the former name of Mindfreedom.org. The full text of that article is only available to subscribers. is it a valid reference if Dendron is not in the abstract ? David Oaks shows up in a Google Scholar search of this book : Disability Protests: Contentious Politics, 1970-1999 By Sharon N. Barnartt, Richard K. Scotch
 * Utne Magazine is a reliable, secondary source. Coverage in utne alone takes care of WP:V.  It is also strong support for meeting WP:ORG.  I will add my keep vote below, with more argument.  AubreyEllenShomo 17:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

David Oaks' opinions have been published by the journal Psychiatry Online in their editorial opinion section. The Evolution of the Consumer Movement I will add that as a valid reference to the mindfreedom entry.Padraic10441 03:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * When you say his "opinions have been published", you mean that the journal printed a letter to the editor from Oaks. Letters to the editor from a founder of said organization are not really independent, reliable secondary sources for the purpose of establishing notability. I've had letters to the editor published a few places... does that make the associated orgs notable? MastCell Talk 19:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I have added a reference in the mindfreedom wikipedia entry to the original Psychiatric Services article that prompted Mr. Oaks letter. This article cites both the antipsychiatry movement of the 1970s-80s, the modern mental health consumerist movement, and Mindfreedom -on this page-865 srch keyword MindFreedom of the full text pdf. Psychiatric Services is a serious, mainstream scholarly journal. The authors of that article chose to label MindFreedom as 'radical' when in fact it tries to take a centerist stance, including ackowledgement that some of its members take prescribed psychiatric meds. The fact that Psychiatric Services chooses to mention MindFreedom shows that the APA and mental health treatment conservatives take MindFreedom seriously, even though they have their own professional bias.Padraic10441 19:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I will look for more references when I have time. There are more. Note that editing this article is a VOLUNTEER effort on my part. I have other obligations. I am sure that Mindfreedom is as important an organization in this domain as the National Alliance on Mental Illness -- but Mindfreedom has a different perspective on patient treatment and stabilizing mental health behaviours than NAMI does. I will continue to read wikipedia's style guides and mission statements to ensure I am within guidelines in my edits-- and ensure myself that being a wikipedia editor is something worthwhile. Thanks for having patience while I am learning. Padraic10441 20:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Mind Freedom International and its Director, David Oaks, do appear to be what they claim to be: A coalition of 100 or so grassroots organizations in more than a dozen nations comprising the largest and most well-known coalition of "psychiatric survivor" or "consumer" advocacy organizations in the world.  The documentation for this can be found in numerous places.  Here is a partial list:


 * A German association of survivors held a conference in which some of the biggest names in the movement spoke. Featured was the Director of MFI, David Oaks.  A video of his talk is on the German group's website: http://ki-art-multimedia.de/dresden/bpe.htm


 * Another psychiatric "consumers" advocacy group web site features a video of David Oaks, Director of MindFreedom: http://www.mentalhope.com/index.php?option=com_seyret&task=videodirectlink&Itemid=52&id=24


 * "Alternatives" is a quarterly online and print magazine that featured an article by David Oaks in 2006: http://www.alternativesmagazine.com/37/oaks.html


 * NAMI (National Alliance for the Mentally Ill) reported on a well attended panel presentation in San Fransisco featuring well-known psychiatrist, Loren Mosher, and David Oaks: http://www.namiscc.org/newsletters/March01/loren_mosher.htm


 * Full Spectrum, a psychological health center in San Francisco has a seven member advisory board made up of very prominent psychologists and psychiatrists and two "consumer" advocates, one of whom is David Oaks: http://www.fullspectrumcenter.org/advisory_board.html


 * Here is a Washington Post article describing a hunger strike organized by David Oaks (who participated) and MFI. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0830-07.htm  The American Psychiatric Association recognized the strike as significant enough to offer a formal response: http://www.mindfreedom.org/kb/act/2003/mf-hunger-strike/hunger-strike-debate/apa-2nd-reply-to-mfi/


 * The LA Times profiles MindFreedom International and director David Oaks: http://www.mindfreedom.org/campaign/media/mf/losing-the-mind-david-oaks-and-others-in-the-mad-pride-movement-believe-drugs-are-being-overused-in-treating-mental-illness-and-they-want-the-abuse-to-stop


 * Freedom Center, the major survivor organization in the Northeast, has numerous articles about or referencing David Oaks and MindFreedom and links directly to MindFreedom: http://freedom-center.org


 * Likewise for the International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology: http://www.icspp.org/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1


 * I could continue to go through the web sites and print publications of the major survivor/consumer advocacy groups all over the world. MFI is simply what it claims to be, an organizing hub or coalition of these groups.  This is not a very grand claim as these groups have little power when compared to organized psychiatry and the pharmaceutical industry.  Yet, these grassroots groups are numerous and growing and all recognize MFI as important, if not central, in their cause. Kriegman 04:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not about how much power they have compared to the pharmaceutical industry, and the focus on this sort of thing is an example of the WP:COATRACK issues here. Without independent, reliable secondary sources, it's impossible build a neutral encyclopedic article. MastCell Talk 05:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur that many arguements here do not provide wikipedia-policy-compliant reasons to not delete the article. I agree such issues as the power of the pharmaceutical industry are irrelevant to this deletion discussion.  I also understand antipsychiatry is given a bad rap at times, and it not uncommon for people to brush it off as crackpottery, regardless of my views on the matter.  None of that matters here.  What matters is that we have a notable, verifiable article.  That, alone, is the standard for inclusion.  That bias does or does not exist, in the world at large, against the group or its views is irrelevant.  Only the aims of wikipedia matter here, and they are served by inclusion.  Mindfreedom's inclusion is not about WP:SOAP or WP:COAT.  It's about a valid, verifiable, article on a topic of notable and encyclopedic interest.  AubreyEllenShomo 19:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It should be pretty clear by now that articles on mindfreedom.org or referring to mindfreedom exist in the archives of the NYTimes, LATimes, Wash Post. They need to be documented as references, and this will be done. Also articles exist at NAMI and pschiatryonline.org referring to mindfreedom, and they hold different points of view on psychiatric health from mindfreedom. These will also be documented as references. I disagree that this article has to be a coatrack if it can be written and maintained NPOV and documented with references.Padraic10441 17:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The sources (LA Times, WA post, etc) need to be examined. There is some material on David Oaks there, but the mention of MindFreedom (at least in the WA post piece) is trivial - the organization is named in passing. MastCell Talk 18:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * MindFreedom is the primary focus of the Utne article, at the very least. Trivial coverage, while not supportive of a notability claim, does not damage one.  Considerable trivial coverage, so long as there are also multiple non-trivial, independent sources, is sufficient to meet WP:V and WP:ORG.  AubreyEllenShomo 18:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I was asked to intervene and made some major changes to the entry. It has been streamlined to focus on the organization's activities and the quotes and other non-POV items have been eliminated. mcm  —Preceding comment was added at 03:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I want to put an initial notice of support to NOT delete this article while I investigate the claims. Thankyou. DJ Barney 13:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Note only. I added two journalistic references from papers in two states, lessening further any supposed WP:V and WP:N issues.  AubreyEllenShomo 19:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep for the reasons I have argued in my rebuttals to MastCell. Generally: (1) multiple WP:V friendly sources exist.  (2) WP:ORG is met by multiple non-trivial independent journalistic sources.  (3) Many, many, references of some nature exist, per google test (42,500 results) and various national news outlets.  While this isn't strong evidence, it only further strengthens points 1 and 2.  (4) This article is worlds away from a WP:COAT, given the sources from points 1 and 2.  Further, even though this article isn't covered by WP:COAT, WP:COAT is not a wikipedia policy guideline, but rather an essay only. An article that meets WP:N and WP:V surely cannot be a WP:COAT anyway.  WP:V and WP:N are what matter here, and they're met.  AubreyEllenShomo 19:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * DISCLOSURE OF WP:COI. I, AubreyEllenShomo, as can be seen on my userpage and the net at large, have a vested interest in the keeping of this article.  The nature of that interest is that I am a supporter and member of Mindfreedom, and a supporter of its aims and goals.  I have personal expierence sufficient to bias me strongly in favor of MindFreedom and its aims.  Details can be seen here, , , among others.  AubreyEllenShomo 19:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * VALIDITY OF POSITION, DESPITE WP:COI.  I note that, while I'm not the sort of user who would win an RfA, I have many edits to the mainspace, as well as participation in various AfDs casting reasoned keep and delete votes as I see proper.  I have nominated multiple articles for deletion, myself.  I see this AfD as no different than the others.  I ask the closing admin to consider my argument, and the lack of an overwhelming or even substantial number of delete votes for this AfD.  While I am biased, my argument rests on verifiable sources and wikipedia policy, not my personal feelings or biases.  To the extent my argument is neutral, valid, and couched in wikipedia policy, it should stand despite my COI.  Surely, at the least, there is no consensus to delete in this AfD, as needs to be present for a deletion to succeed.  AubreyEllenShomo 19:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

As I see it the heart of the reason for wanting Mindfreedom removed is the organizers opposition to the chemical imbalance perspective of mental illness. While I have found the organizer to be unreasonable and argumentive, Mindfreedom also does much good. The chemical imbalance perspective is a misleading oversimplification which many have used to discredit other perspectives, but I believe at its core it is also very useful. The food you eat, how often you smile, or have sex, or walk...pretty much anything you do, including take drugs, be they prescribed or not, can affect the chemical composition of the blood and neuro-spinal fluid in the brain. Parameters for the various neurotransmitters have not been established and will likely vary between sexes, individuals and the indivuals ability to react to stress. When the brain goes out of balance from this perspective the odd behaviors which typify mental illnes results. Extreme stress can also release corticosteriod from the adrenal glands in sufficient quanties that the hippocampus is physically shrunk, which affects its ability to communicate effectively with other portions of the brain. Lazyrenowriter 11:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC) I am a member of Mindfreedom, a psychiatric survivor and author of Mental Illness A Guide to Recovery. Lazyrenowriter 11:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.