Talk:Citizens Commission on Human Rights/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Untitled

People who criticize things before actually learning about them for themselves are not smart and can never be truly wise. It also helps when you are trying to learn the truth if you make sure you are getting information from a reliable source. This does not mean you listen to a random person who is saying bad things about any subject; it means you get a book or article that is from a well known or respected place and it seems like a reasonable place to get it from. You wouldn't get information on an activity going on at your high school from your kid sister. You should make sure that the information you are getting makes sense to YOU. If you pass on false information or something you are not sure of for yourself, you are just as bad as the people who started the falsehoods.

No source that comes from the Church of $cientology is a respectable source.

Uncited, Unverified and Unverifiable Statements

Most of this article is uncited. I know myself that at least this statement which appears in the article is unciwteable, it could never be verified because C.C.H.R.'s stance on it is different that it says. "Scientology holds that all illnesses, both physical and mental, are caused by "engrams" of negative energy in a person's "thetan", and that mental health professionals in fact place new "engrams" in their patients, covering up old problems with new ones." Is anyone watching this page, anyone wish to discuss? Terryeo 19:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I have removed this paragraph (second paragraph of the article) to this page because I know it to be unciteable. Besides, it is just plain bad writing and full of words which are not defined. Whomever wrote it is free to site a source for it and then it can be re-posted to the article page with its associated verification. This is per Wiki Policy and I would hope more people who do this sort of thing. Here it is:

Scientology holds that all illnesses, both physical and mental, are caused by "engrams" of negative energy in a person's "thetan", and that mental health professionals in fact place new "engrams" in their patients, covering up old problems with new ones. Terryeo 08:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Consequences of quoting and credibility

One must also consider the date in which L. Ron Hubbard wrote this, and thus the possiblity for changes to have arrisen. Thus, CCHR does not accuse all psychiatrists of being criminals.

When was the statement quoted found on CCHR's web site? Today, April 10, 2005. If they're no longer standing by it, they should no longer be publishing it.

PLEASE DONT ADD COMMENTS BASED OFF OF "OUTSIDE" INFORMATION UNSUPPORTED BY CREDIBLE SOURCES
This page is meant to inform, not to suggest to people who is right and who is wrong
with terms such as "accused" and "supposed" without citing [credible] sources. Thank you.

The sources are credible, except to Scientologists, who are required to believe that all critics of Scientology must be criminals, who must therefore not be credible sources. Remember that these are documents which were uncovered during the FBI investigation into Operation Snow White. Was it critics on the Web who determined that key leaders in Scientology, right up to MSH herself, had committed the largest incident of domestic espionage in the history of the US? No, it was the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Don't make us laugh by saying it's Scientology's critics who have the credibility problem. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:55, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Antaeus Feldspar, you say that a Scientologist is both unable to judge whether a source of information is credible or not, and that every Scientologist is "required" to believe something. May I ask you, what exactly is this vast, indescribable power whose manifestation causes belief? Because I'll tell you or anyone, no one can make you or me or John Doe believe anything he doesn't wish to believe. But according to you all Scientologists are "Forced!" to believe a certain thing. That is plain wrong. You are just plain wrong about that. I begin to understand better why you suspect everyone's "good faith" but good faith doesn't matter as much as its manifestation. Which is, can a person think clearly? Scientology encourages a person to think for themselves, I would say. That's even the European slogan which has proved a successful means of Scientology's attracting people. No wonder you State the opposite ! That's just not true Antaeus. Wikipedia:NPOV defines our work here. After a subject is introduced (and it really has to be introduced without the carping and criticism else it is not a subject.) Then contrversial (cited) points of view can be introduced which gives a neutral person an opportunity to judge for themselves. It is Wiki policy to cite sources. When you don't, your posts are subject to removal to the discussion page until they are cited. At which time they can be moved, once again, to the article. That's the policy folks. Why, oh why, don't critics cheefully follow it and carp and complain at every enforcement? :) Terryeo 08:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
See, I'm trying to find something in all the above which translates to more than "you claim one thing, but Scientology claims the opposite! Therefore, you've been proven wrong, because it couldn't be Scientology that's wrong!" Far from being an effective rebuttal, this rather proves my point. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
huh? No, no. Any good piece of verifiable information should be included. We can just follow Wiki Policy and Guidelines and make good articles. If we run into a situation that each side says exactly opposite things, we can put them right butt up against each other, let the reader deceide. Terryeo 20:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Who to Trust

Sorry, but I don't think that trusting someone who orignally posted "Scientology" with a dollar sign in place of the S is a credible source. (I have since changed it.)

First of all, I'm reverting that, because it is unethical for you to change another person's words and make it appear that they said something other than what they said. Second, if you think that I was that editor or that it was that editor I was counting on as a credible source, you are incorrect. -- Antaeus Feldspar 11:38, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You never justified removing my revisions. Where is the reference that says that the Churhc refers to CcHR as one of those PR groups? Even if they have those PR groups, you're making an assumption that CCHR is one of them. Also, I see no reason for you to remove the possibility that things have changed. After all, it's been 19 years since the death of L. Ron Hubbard (which means it's been even longer since the quote was made), so wouldn't it be reasonable to just consider that things might be different?

Also, I don't think it matters WHO put the "$" in place of the S. It still stands that it's clearly a baised opinion. I'm not claiming Scientology to be everything they say they are, I'm just trying to find the ground in the middle. Please join me in the middle.

I think you need to look at WP:NPOV more carefully, not to mention the text of the article. One doesn't need to make the assumption that the CCHR is a front group of the Church of Scientology to include the true information that a great many people accuse it of being one, and the true information that Scientology has indeed employed front organizations which adds credibility to that theory.
As for adding the possibility "that things have changed", if you can cite an actual reason to believe that they have changed, then that can go in the article. Heck, if you can actually define who these people are that believe the CCHR has changed its ideas about psychiatrists despite still quoting Hubbard's ideas about psychiatrists on their website, then the attributed opinion can go in the article. But the mere speculation that maybe they've backed off their stance of every single psychiatrist being a murderer (despite still publishing it) doesn't belong in the article -- speculation is all it is. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:59, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Before reverting again, could the anon editor please respond to User:Antaeus Feldspar's points? They seem reasonable. Thanks, -Willmcw
The assertion "Mental illness is still being researched, although it has no proof of actually existing. (http://www.oikos.org/radchang.htm)" is so contrary to generally held views that it needs stronger support than a rant from an unaffiliated MD. Anyway, Dr. Baughman seems to be attacking ADD and ADHD, not all mental illness. Further, it is unclear why it belongs in this article. -Willmcw 23:48, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, there is certainly a great deal of question about whether the one website which may be making the claim that there is no proof of mental illness (or may just be making it about ADD/ADHD) is a credible source -- an issue which I know greatly concerns many of the editors who work on this article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:10, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The claim that "there is no proof mental illness exists" is flat nonsense. I see reverting such a claim to be similar to any other reversion of nonsense being inserted into an article. --Carnildo 00:20, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Then please disprove it. Please provide a link of biological proof in support of mental disorders instead of removing my links which prove otherwise, or even just making it seem as though they are not important. The relation is clear: CCHR is against the creation of mental illnesses which are not scientifically supported, and thus the question as to whether they even exist comes into play. Before discrediting my own links, please provide solid proof of your own. That's all I ask.
If you were asserting that gravity does not exist would you make us prove that it does? Follow this link, ADD, and see the evidence there. More generally, it is not the point of Wikipedia articles to prove one thing or another. We, as editors, are just here to write verifiable, NPOV articles. What is relevant here is what CCHR claims, not whether those claims are factually true. So it is NPOV and correct to write "CCHR claims that there is no biological basis," while we would be adopting a POV if we write, "There is no biological basis." Anyway, thanks for discussing this point. Cheers, -Willmcw 20:41, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Posting a few links, two by the same write, does not merit saying that "many people" agree that there is no such thing as mental illness. Especially since that is not even what the links say. More importantly, it does not matter whether the CCHR's assertions are true or false. Our purpose in writing this article, as with any article, is to summarize with a neautral point of view the verifiable information about the article's subject. The subject is the CCHR, not mental illness. -Willmcw 05:57, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

I came here from the RFC to give my two cents on the question, "Is the fact that one website claims there is "no proof of [mental illness] actually existing" all that is needed to state this as factual?" I agree with what Willmcw just said, that this article is not about whether mental illness actually exists, but about CCHR and the claims by CCHR. It would be appropriate, however, in light of CCHR claims that there is no "proof" of mental illness to present the CCHR response (if it exists) to Human Genome Project discoveries pointing to genetic linkage of mental disorders [1]. Also, what belongs in the article are any responses by groups who refute CCHR (perhaps this one for example, or others if they are out there). --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 06:41, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
The anon has indicated that he would be satisfied if we remove the last clause in the disputed sentence:
The practice of psychiatry is considered by Scientologists to be a form of extortion because they believe it has no biological evidence to support it.
Would this satisfy other editors? Some settlement would be nice. Cheers, -Willmcw 05:23, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. --Carnildo 05:58, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
To be fair to the reader, the reasons Scientologists find it to be a form of extortion should be given and properly cited, not just left hanging there. Meanwhile, the anon has violated 3rr, and it appears has been warned repeatedly for it, so I've listed it at AN:3RR [2] --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 06:28, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we need to concern outselves with what one solitary anonymous editor who wants to put in highly biased POV content thinks. The article doesn't make sense if we don't explain why they call it extortion, because the word doesn't make sense just standing on its own. Changing neutral wording and chopping out factual content to suit someone who has already made it clear that he does care about following Wikipedia policy makes no sense. DreamGuy 06:41, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if readers are being deprived of necessary information. In fact, we've never even had a cite for that particular claim (which is grounds enough for deleting it). In any case, if you guys want to stick with it, fine. Cheers, -Willmcw 09:20, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
It is too simple, people. Cite a source, make a statement. Cite a source, make a statement. Yo, oh, heave, ho, Yo, oh, heave. Terryeo 08:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

192.104.181.229 7-day block

Okay, enough is enough. After a 24-hour block, 192.104.181.229 repeatedly made the same unaccepted edits to this article. A two-day protection on the page gave no comments at all on the talk page. So, 192.104.181.229 is now blocked for seven days. --Modemac 16:16, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • BLOCK HIM AGAIN... He's back and doing the SAME thing. - Anonymous, 4.27 PM 15 Jun 2005
  • 29 Jun 2005 - I notice this user has returned to his habit of repeatedly labeling this article NPOV - and now he is doing the same thing TO OUR TALK PAGE! Is nothing to be done about this one? - Anonymous

bias

I don't think this article is neutral. ~~~~ 08:31, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

What's not neutral about it? --Carnildo 19:45, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

WHY I MADE THE CHANGES

First off I posted this before I don't know who removed it but whatever...

Quotes non-journalistic standard references (whytheyaredead), and uses incorrect definitions for Scientology terms instead of quoting the actual ones which you can easily cut & paste off their site. Makes suppositions as to why Szasz was more active in other areas for awhile (if you look on his cite and check the dates he was busy on Sociological research for a book in another subject area) and is now he's done with that he's very active on their board (see www.szasz.com & www.cchr.org)

Mine sites actual Szasz, CCHR, Scientology, and official scholarly & journalist level Psychiatic references for what each group belives.

edit 6:52pm August 3rd 2005

Citation 1

Citation 1 (http://www.cchr.org/candp.htm) just goes to a 404 page. Ransak 07:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

for http://www.cchr.org/ I get a good page. when I add candp.htm I get a 404. Terryeo 17:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
If you go to Google and search on "site:cchr.org "There is not one institutional psychiatrist alive"" you will get the result page of "http://www.cchr.org//candp.htm". That link 404s; however, you can still examine the cached version through Google and see that CCHR was indeed reposting "Crime & Psychiatry" by L. Ron Hubbard, the complete text of which is seen at http://humanitarian.lronhubbard.org/psych2.htm and confirms that Hubbard did indeed make those unilateral claims about every institutional psychiatrist alive.
Wow, that's interesting. Do you think we can depend on cached versions of webpages in cited statements? Do we really have to deal with everything in present time? HEH. Terryeo 20:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
You don't suppose it would be possible to get back to the "good old days" when any Minister + any law enforcement official + any relative could have "good old (wealthy) mom" commited and drugged for life do you? heh ! Terryeo 20:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about Wikipediatrix removing links and info

This article is about CCHR. To an extent it should present their actions of the past and their proposed actions for the future. Their philosophy and their reason for existence. Their failures and their successes.

Exactly! While I in *no way* associate myself with the Scientologists, NOR do I agree with their religious beliefs and ideas for the society or politics, NOR do I believe in the things as 'dianetics', 'engrams', 'psychometers', etc., and finally, while I don't discern nor discredit psychiatry as a whole field (some of my friends are psychiatrists, and from what I heard from them and their patients, they are good, well-behaving and kind people, who treat a patient as a *human* that should be helped, and NOT as a box of illness syndromes, that should be cured with medications at all price), I appreciate the activity of any human rights organization that is reliable enough, _regardless of who has founded it_.
After all, there were some communists among the ACLU founders, and still it doesn't (and shouldn't) be a cause to disparage the pro-freedom and pro-democracy actions (eg. for the gender or racial equality or ending the persecution of gays) of this organization, many of which were (and are) successful. Furthermore, lots of charities are founded by the Catholic Church and nobody seriously denies their usefulness, despite of what one thinks about CC itself. CCHR has caused *lots* of psychiatry-related laws around the world to change (ca. 30 legal acts that were essential for the mental healths systems in various countries), and has lead to prevention and even banning of some most cruel aspects of involuntary commitment, as forced electroshocks, forced lobotomy, etc. CCHR has exposed lots of abuses (including sexual ones) committed by doctors against their patients. It's CCHR that exposed some doctors in German-speaking countries (Austria, Germany) with the nazi past. It's CCHR that has lots of credit and support of the United Nations. Face it, folks, User:Terryeo is right while most of you who delete his (her??) edits are not (I have nothing personal against you). My statements are:
1. 'I find this article to be extremely POV against CCHR and attacking the good name and reputation of this organization.
2. Instead of describing successes and failures of CCHR, its mission, statute and actions (as it is done in the case of other Human Rights (HR) organizations, as ACLU, EFF or HRW (Human Rights watch)), it points out to the ideas, ideology and religious beliefs of Scientoligists one may agree or disagree with.
3. This article is a big piece of criticism that should be properly marked as such in the specified paragraph (eg. Criticism).
4. With any new, subsequent article of such low quality, that could be labelled as pseudoencyclopedic, Wikipedia will be more and more regardes as 'pseudoencyclopedia'. Think about it, folks, before it's too late: I'm too attached to Wikipedia (someone to claim that it is dependent personality disorder, uh? ;))to let the whole project, that holds more than one million of articles in many languages to derail into POVity and unreliability. Regards to all, Critto

If you don't see that is wrong to remove every success and only have the article talk about failures then you should quit editing or read and understand WP:NPOV. We want an informative article. To include a small section by non-scientology links, shows what goes on is appropriate. What is not appropriate is to simply delete anything which you don't consider valid. Discuss such matters. We want a balanced point of view, balanced by verified informations. So quit it without discussing it, Wikipediatrix ! Terryeo 15:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Your unencyclopedic edits have been reverted by a dozen other editors on many articles on a daily basis.
Your reply, wikipediatrix, is in style of And you are lynching the negroes. To me, it is totally unrelated what comments or edits does Terryeo make in other articles; the remarks he made and questions he posted here are sound and reasonable, and it is _unjust_ to discredit them only because he might have (or have not, I haven't read it) been credited with less reliable inputs in other areas. Regards, Critto

When I try to engage you in discussion, all I get is doubletalk, Scientologese, non-sequiturs, and lies about quotes and deeds you mistakenly attribute to me. So I gave up. You can find my reasons for my edits in the edit summary, which is more than I can say for you, because you are the undisputed king (I assume you're male, apologies if you are not) of deceptive and misleading edit summaries. wikipediatrix 16:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I am engaging in discussion. I appriciate that you have stated your reasons for not engaging in discussion. Can we discuss what is being included in this CCHR article? Terryeo 17:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Povmec was the last person to revert your edit, not me, so I don't even know why you're talking to me. wikipediatrix 17:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I am talking to you because of these edits summaries:
  • 09:16, 29 January 2006 Terryeo (Re-inseting what Wikipediatrix removed. Please don't remove it without discussion because it is verified)
  • 20:34, 29 January 2006 Wikipediatrix (rv Terryeo's edit)
  • 23:51, 29 January 2006 Terryeo (Wikipediatrix, it is appropriate to discuss before deleting cited text and links.)
  • 07:48, 30 January 2006 Wikipediatrix (rv Terryeo's NNPOV and unencyclopedic Scientology spam)
  • 07:40, 31 January 2006 Terryeo (Included a past case the CCHR delt with)

and then, finally, the Povmec edit you mention which you are not responsible for:

  • 07:45, 31 January 2006 Povmec (rv by edits by Terryeo to last version by Wikipediatrix: unencyclopedic edits)

yep, that's what I am talking about. Admitedly you might be right about my edits being "unencyclopdic" in nature. In which case they should be discussed rather than deleted. WP:V states, "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth". What I posted was verified. Perhaps it should be modified in presentation. I'm willing to talk about that. Terryeo 18:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

If they're unencyclopedic by your own admission, they don't belong in an encyclopedia and do not require discussion. why don't you try hashing your ideas out on the discussion page before you post them? wikipediatrix 20:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
The threshold for admissibility is verifiability, per WP:V#Verifiability.2C_not_truth. But okay, here is what I would like to see included in the article and you shouldn't delete it outright but should discuss such deletions.

== Past involvements with "human rights" ==

CCHR invovles themselves with what they consider to be human rights, such as psychiatrists murdering patients.Official Site

Those hostile to CCHR state the situation differently. (a situation of some years ago) That situation legally resolved, here is CCHR says about Official Site it. OKAY, that's it. My intent is to include some of CCHR's successful actions, attempting to present a track record of the sorts of things CCHR does and involves themselves with. I would also like to make it clear to the reader that CCHR maintains a "report psychiatric abuse" hotline and database via the internet. Terryeo 20:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't remove your bit about the database in the article, Terryeo, it's still there. I agreed with you that part was a good inclusion. See, I don't just blindly revert everything you add. lol. wikipediatrix 20:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Glad to see you smiling, now about the rest of what I would like to see included ? Terryeo 20:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

"Ritlin" and "Vitimin"

Terryeo, why should we trust information about these subjects from someone who can't even properly SPELL them? Seriously, this isn't just taking a cheap shot: bad writing is bad editing. Your edits are continually filled with atrocious spelling and grammar. This, combined with the sheer number of edits you make, give the reader the impression that you aren't putting much thought and effort into these haphazard darts you're hurriedly throwing. wikipediatrix 22:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I see. Terryeo 22:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
My question wasn't a rhetorical one. wikipediatrix 22:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

"mailers" are "published"?

It doesn't seem likely. To whome were mailers mailed? If to selected members that would be one situation. If to the entire membership, that would be another situation. While I've never heard of them and while I would grant the possibilty they might be considered "published to the public" I would want to understand them better. Really they aren't, you know, the red hot cite of the week. Can you supply a little more information about those 3 citations? Terryeo 22:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

By The Way, Fledspar, you are frequently applying a double standard to your edits. While you frequently remove information, including perfectly good, cited book lists or studies, you do it with weak excuses like, "Removed so-and-so's POV" but when you revert really weak, poor information, for example, the three "mailer" citations, you use other methods of presenting your edits as being bonafide edits. I'm not the first person to notice your extreme POV, consistently and contually putting the worst of the situation into an article and removing the best of a situation and calling both "Out POV" or "NPOV". Terryeo 22:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

That's funny, Terryeo, I was just about to say all of that about you. wikipediatrix 23:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
What stopped you from saying it, Miss POV, revert anything terryeo edits? Terryeo 06:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
The citations are all given in "CCHR - Human Rights Organization Attacks Its "Enemies"," at http://www.lisamcpherson.org/cchr.htm . I'll add this to the article.
BTW, Terryeo: "what's true is what's true for you" might be a Scientology maxim but it's not a Wikipedia one. Just because you can't be bothered to Google a citation doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. It's pure laziness on your part, frankly. -- ChrisO 23:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
ChrisO, you so frequently misunderstand, misapply and ignore Wikipolicy that I'll inform you again. WP:V tells you how an editor is responsible for the words he places on the page, he is to verifiy his statements and spells out how and why this policy is to take effect. Read it as many times as you need to, to understand it is incumbant on an editor to verify the information an editor places into an article. If you feel a google search helpful, go ahead and do that too. No citation you ever put into any article should be taken at face value, ChrisO. You have too often used unpublished citations. Even grossly illegal citations, you're not to be trusted about your citations. Terryeo 06:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo, if you showed even the faintest signs of actually trying to edit in actual good faith, other editors would try to forgive your failings. But if you are going to just about wave red flags and screech "Hey! Hey! I'm just here to waste your time! Ha ha ha! Ha ha ha!" then no one is going to bother trying to salvage anything from your .... "contributions". Perhaps you might pretend that the screw-up you introduced to the very first paragraph of the article here was simply a mistake. But then you did it again here, with the edit summary "The mention of Breggin should point to breggin's site. doh." And here's the text of your change, with the part you changed emphasized:
BEFORE AFTER
Breggin has since sought to dissociate himself from the organization. [http://www.breggin.com/Joemccarthylives.html] Breggin has since sought to dissociate himself from the organization. [http://www.breggin.com]
Yes, that's right! With your justification being "The mention of Breggin should point to breggin's site. doh." you removed a link to the specific page on Breggin's site that verifies the statement just made and replaced it with a generic link! What was your next move going to be? Oh, let me see if I can guess... next you were going to say "there's no citation for this claim that Breggin ever distanced himself from Scientology; cutting untrue claim to talk page for discussion", right? Face it, Terryeo, it's over. You've blown your cover. No one can believe anymore that you're even trying or ever were. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Feldspar, that's more like a personal attack than an indication of how what you linked on the page better verifies what you meant it to verify than it verifies how Breggin is distanced. heh ! Terryeo 06:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
No, this is a personal attack. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I gotta laugh

You people really don't get it at all. ChrisO, Feldspar and Wikipediatrix, you people just don't get it. CCHR has one single purpose in mind. CCHR was created by an organization which has proven itself to be legally vital and effective. Guess what its purpose is? .... yet you people insist on keeping the page chock full of what you hold up as failures of CCHR. Does this make me think your editing is POV and unbalanced? ohhhh, well, maybe a little bit. Out of many court cases you find a small handful of "failures" and of course you insist those are in the article. You instantly revert any perfectly valid information I put in the article, information about a few of CCHR's successes. And by Success, I mean events which have significantly changed how government treats psychiatry and psychiatry's scam of raping patients and even murdering patients. For balance, both wins and loses, both popularity and citations from leading citizens and venom from psychiatrists would be appropriate to the article. But what do you people do? You tred along a single, narrow line. HEH. I gotta laugh. Terryeo 06:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I gotta laugh because you honestly believe that numerous psychiatrists are sexually abusing their clients all the time, LOL. $cientologist, right? 76.30.72.197 (talk) 02:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

"leaked docuemnt

WP:V, if it isn't published to the public, it is not to be included in Wikipedia, we are not a rag expose' newspaper. Here is the paragraph I cut for discussion and verification. "In one example, a leaked document outlining a training course for the job of President of the Church of Scientology International requires the trainee to demonstrate "HOW A PR CAMPAIGN ON EXPOSING THE PSYCHIATRIC DRUGGING OF SCHOOL CHILDREN IN A COMMUNITY OR COUNTRY WOULD BUILD PRO AREA CONTROL FOR THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY" [3]. An internal training course from the Office of Special Affairs reportedly requires the trainee to undertake exercises such as "writ[ing] a campaign that you can actually execute from your hat [job] to help cut off the funding to psychiatrists in your area." [4] " and WP:V simply doesn't let any editor cite any document in any article which is not published to the public. Terryeo 07:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The CCHR logo can be found on the Church of Scientology's document found at Narconon's Place on the Scientology Org Board (second scan, down the page, just above Narconon's logo.) Is it something of interest? If yes we could try to find a clean scan and highlight the CCHR logo to show that according to the Church of Scientology's own document, the CCHR is seen as part of a "solution to creating a cleared civilization" (their words), along other organizations such as Narconon, etc. Raymond Hill 20:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the accidental deletion of the previous section. No idea what happened. Thanks for restoring it Antaeus. Raymond Hill 21:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't it occur to you guys that to "prove" that CCHR intends to "take out" psychiatry, all you have to do is link to the CCHR's website? I mean it is so obvious. What is this infatuation you guys have with mailers and things which no one can read, which only appear on Lisa mcPherson type websites, etc. etc. The point is so obvious that to use undisclosed, unavailable, impossible to find, long ago mailed out and thrown away "mailers" makes the arguement weak and sound like it is created by hidden school boys fantasy. Terryeo 22:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Why do you guys do it?

Isn't it obvious? CCHR intends to DESTROY psychiatry. Is that bold enough for you? Why do you guys do it? Why do you mouse around and pussyfoot around with "mailers" and references to 1966 actions by one man alone, L. Ron Hubbard and put his actions 40 years ago as what CCHR is doing today? There must be better information available to you, information which directly tells you exactly how and why CCHR intends to legally bring psychiatry to its knees. You could make a good article, but you often remove the good information which I present in the article (CCHR wins in court) and instead mousey in little mailers and such drivel, poor citations at best. CCHR intends to destroy psychiatry and it is not pussy footing around about it. Surely the article can reflect CCHR's intent, CCHR's court actions, CCHR's education to the public, upon which base it intends to destroy psychiatry. Terryeo 22:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

"legally"? Wow, that'd be a switch. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
At first by exposure. By exposing the undisclosed things that happen when you feed a person psych drugs and psych treatments. Disclosure that Psychiatrists don't actually use "chemical inbalances" in the brain as a base to prescribe drugs with and by exposure of the drug industry driving psychiatry toward perscribing drugs. That's obviously wrong, if patients need drugs then they should be perscribed by doctors, based on need. Disclosure first, that has been the pathway CCHR has taken so far. Disclose of how electro-shock causes memory loss and so on. Disclosure of so-far undisclosed effects of psychiatric "treatments". Terryeo 09:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I am not "trying to prove" anything. I just want factual information to be reported objectively. The paragraph you removed, along with the references is just that: factual information. Raymond Hill 23:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
How can I say this so it is obvious to you. Probably any psychiatrist on the planet would write the article as you are viewing it today. Two defeats of CCHR in court are listed. Thus CCHR's inability to effectively act is spelled out (for those who "really know" what is going on). The connection of present day CCHR to Hubbard (briefly popular in the 1950's, right?) is underlined, underscored and made clear to the reader several times. That a psychiatrist once supported CCHR but has removed himself from it utterly, totally and completely is brashly presented as an introduction. CCHR has won some court cases . Psycho-drugs is a huge industry, it is being examined more closely both in the USA and abroad. In large measure this is do to CCHR's work. But a psychiatrist would not state that and the article does not. Attention Deficeit drugs were once forced on children. No longer. no mention of CCHR about that . Don't you see the article does not present what CCHR is doing? Yet if I stick even a single CCHR "victory" in there (The psychiatric laws of Australia were changed due to CCHR's work) not a speck of it remains, you guys are too sure my properly cited inclusion is a "POV" and I might as well say. Yeah, its POV to put CCHR into the article. Yeah, it is certainly POV. oh yeah ! Terryeo 16:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
If the psychiatric laws of Australia were changed due to CCHR's work, it certainly should be included, as long as there is a pertinent reference that CCHR did have an influence on the matter. Raymond Hill 16:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Here's what I put in, which was of course almost immediately reverted as being "POV". [5]. It could be stated better, that I agree with and I didn't include the follow on which was in newspapers about how Australian Law got modified as a result.Terryeo 09:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
"Why do you mouse around and pussyfoot around with "mailers" and references to 1966 actions by one man alone, L. Ron Hubbard and put his actions 40 years ago as what CCHR is doing today?" - Because Hubbard was the one who founded this? Opponents of Islam still pick up on certain things Mohammad said and take out context certain actions of his some 1,100 years later. Opponents of Christianity would no doubt do the same to Jesus if they could. If the founder of a religion/belief system/etc does wrong, unethical, immoral, illegal, et al things or advocates followers and believers do them then yeah it deserves to be mentioned at every opportunity 40 years later, 1,100 years later or 10,000 years later.
Now speaking of Australia, another modification to Australian law relating to Scientology that you probably won't be crowing about would be the state of Victoria banning the E-Meter and heavily restricting Scientology money collecting abilities. Or this Royal Commission, also from the state of Victoria, that has some charming quotes about Scientology and Mr. Hubbard: http://www.xenu.net/archive/audit/andrhome.html and on a more recent note you may not like to mention this manipulation of the Australian Media by the Citizens Commission on Human Rights: http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1607574.htm LamontCranston 11:59, 04 April 2006 (UTC)
Whether I "like them" or not really isn't relevant to the article, is it Lamont :) Here's an interesting link. [6] Terryeo 09:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC) Oh, I love it, the second link's story concludes with "Frankly it's hard to say who was using who." heh ! Terryeo 09:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
That will be fine, Mr. Lament, err. Lamont. Just fine, go right ahead and create a historical document which traces those developments why don't you? But, if you do, by all means, present the present day situation as well. And I'm sure you must know what that is, or you would not be raking the muck of yesteryear when Psychiatry ruled supreme and could have any person commited on the word of a relative, a law officer and a priest, commited forever and drugged so they could not even speak. More than one young relative got their older relative's inheritence by that procedure ! Terryeo 17:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Chelmsford Hospital and "sleep therapy"

The subsection entitled Chelmsford Hospital and "sleep therapy" talks around the subject, but doesn't actually say what the whole thing is all about. wikipediatrix 16:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Good point. The link spells out some of the lurid details (rape while asleep, etc). Terryeo 02:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Link of interest on the CCHR site

the CCHR site presents this link which it apparently made some efforts toward bringing about. Apparently the U.S. Supreme Court made a decision about the legality of Arizona's law in regard to psychiatric testimony. Terryeo 02:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

External Links are not for POV pushing

An external link cannot use language such as " list of articles on the cult of Scientology & CCHR." That is pure POV pushing. Please do not revert that language back into the ELs. BabyDweezil 22:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Meaning please

What does this mean? "Prominent anti-psychiatry advocate Dr. Peter Breggin worked with the group up until 1974. Breggin dissociated himself from the organization in 1994,"? I'm guessing he started working with them in 1974 and stopped in 1994, however this is not clear from the sentence. Steve Dufour 04:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I fixed it. --Justanother 05:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Steve Dufour 06:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Psychiatry causes Nazis, terrorists

At least, to hear the CCHR say it. Source[7] seems reliable enough, and this sort of insanity is hardly unprecedented, but I'd rather someone more knowledgeable than I make this addition, in the proper context and with better cites.85.64.39.111 23:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

This is already in the article Psychiatry: An Industry of Death which is linked from this article :-) --Tilman 16:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Riverside

The link to the story about a picket at Riverside does not work. ChrisO's edit did not fix it. When you click on the link you get a 404 message. Also someone disabled my link to 'Inside 60 minutes', so I fixed it.S. M. Sullivan 08:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

New voice from CCHR International

Greetings. I'm Kevin Hawkins, the Webmaster here at CCHR International in Hollywood California. I've been assigned to this project, and to make sure that the page on CCHR is accurate, neutral, fair, and balanced.

Does anyone have any questions for me?

CCHR International (talk) 01:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I have something of a caution for you. As a member of the organization that is the subject of this article, you have a built in conflict of interest in this matter. As long as you can edit neutrally and without bias, you are welcome to edit anywhere you like, but Wikipedia frowns heavily on conflict-of-interest editing. Imagine a scenario in which the editors working on the Republican article were members of the Republican National Committee; could you expect them to remain neutral, and include criticism and negative information about their party from reliable sources? Not likely. And the fact that you have "been assigned to this project" and are using a promotional user name are themselves a serious violation of Wikipedia policy, and you will likely be blocked from editing this and related articles.
For these reasons, I highly recommend you avoid editing this article. Your edits will be very closely scrutinized, and any attempt to remove properly sourced negative material will be reverted immediately. It would be in your best interest as an editor to stick to other subjects where you have an interest, but not a built-in COI. --GoodDamon 06:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Good is correct, but let me, on behalf of Wikipedia, welcome you. The editor has explained WP:COI to you, but he is not correct, I think, that you will be automatically blocked. (Certainly I would oppose that, and I'll put a watch on your user page to make sure I know if it happens.) If you edit contentiously, and especially if you edit this article in any controversial way, you could indeed be blocked. However, you are very welcome to comment on this Talk page, or elsewhere as you see it relevant, as long as it follows Wikipedia rules (civility, no personal attacks, etc). If you think anything is incorrect or improper, by all means, feel free to tell us, and, please, provide reliable sources as the user indicated. We can then make our own decisions as uninvolved editors, and you will have made our job easier. You will find, also, that there are users here with an agenda, which might include defaming you or your organization. I highly recommend exercising restraint. Just patiently explain to us the truth, preferably source it, and avoid commenting on those editors. If you have a complaint, consult and advise, don't fight fire with fire. Your coming here and announcing who you are was an excellent move, to be encouraged, for far too many organizations set up anonymous accounts and promote their agenda in that way. There is some Wikipedia policy against multiple accounts for the same user, but there are exceptions, and, in particular, if you have other accounts you should declare and connect them explicitly. If you need any help, please feel free to ask me. So, again, I welcome you and I will do my best to see that your you and your work here is properly treated.--Abd (talk) 19:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I overlooked something. Good may have been correct. There is some possibility of a problem with your user name, and that's a policy I'm not familiar with, but if that is blocked, just register an account of your own, if you don't already have one, come here, and announce who you are. The same restrictions will apply, the name of the account doesn't matter. Make sure, though, that if you establish a new account, you explain the purpose on your user page. Don't use your user space to promote CCHR, but it's fine to inform us who you are and how you came to be here, as you already did. Twere up to me, I'd let you keep the account name, it makes it obvious the conflict of interest, and that's better than it being concealed under some name that doesn't convey that information. Again, best wishes --Abd (talk) 19:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops again! I didn't look at your Talk page and check your contribution history. Not good. However, follow the instructions. Edit as an individual. Declare your conflict of interest. Don't edit this article unless it is purely noncontroversial. The edit to this article done with this account was totally inappropriate, and if you don't understand why, ask.--Abd (talk) 20:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right. That old account was just unsalvageable. And you're right about how the old username makes the COI obvious. I would have been okay with this. The problem is that it is perceived as promoting the organization, which is discouraged. Lemme see, where is that Wikipedia:Username_policy page...

Use of a company or group name as a username is not explicitly prohibited, but it is not recommended, and depending on the circumstances may be seen as a problem.

Well, there certainly was a problem with the old account, seeing as how multiple people were using it at the same time. I've opened a new account: User:Kevin_E_Hawkins. I don't have much on it yet, but I'll fix that eventually. And now for my grand reintroduction... Kevin E Hawkins (talk) 02:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Grand reintroduction

Or maybe not so grand. Hello wikipedia, I'm Kevin Hawkins and I do indeed work for CCHR International here in Hollywood, California. I come in, I work, I leave, and I even get paid.

It would be a Conflict of Interest if I were to do any editing in this page. These mistakes were made before me and you can see what happened to the other accounts: CCHRInt and CCHRInternational. These accounts were in violation of wikiPolicy just by existing: Username_policy.

I look forward to being a first-class WikiGnome because, well, I seem to be unusually good at proofreading. Maybe it's because I'm a programmer and I'm used to syntax being important.

Anyway, that's it for now. If you have any questions for me, just drop me a line. --Kevin E Hawkins (talk) 17:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

And allow me to repeat my welcome. You can sign Talk page post with four tildes, and I like to precede them with two hyphens: --~~~~ gets translated in the posting to --Abd (talk) 03:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Welcome...I don't visit this page much but may I say that for a CCHR guy you sound intelligent, reasonable, and well balanced. That blows away my preconceived notions of what a CCHR guy would be like. I'll certainly thoughtfully consider anything that you state and help if an editor is being totally unreasonable. I do have a question for you...not that your answer could be used as a citable source (no fears Abd...no fears), but hopefully you can answer some questions about Fred Baughman that would satisfy my curiousity. Does he still work for the CCHR and was/is he working as a paid consultant? Thanks ahead of time.--scuro (talk) 04:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The question is a reasonable one, and exactly the kind of question we might ask an expert on the subject. Scuro is correct that we won't be able to use your reply here, directly, but it can give us guidance as to what to look for. (I do think that eyewitness and expert testimony, properly obtained and verified, should be usable, but it currently is not.) Personally, if I know something, or there is reasonably reliable testimony to it, I won't take it out of an article, even if it is not properly sourced, whereas I will take out something I think is misleading or false, if it isn't reliably sourced. The question here is how to frame the work of Dr. Baughman; if you look at Scuro's edit histories Special:Contributions/Scuro or mine Special:Contributions/Abd you will see what we've been up to, and you'll find some contention between us on how to frame Baughman's work. The reliable sources establish a certain relationship with CCHR, Scuro stated more than that, which might be true, but which is also of marginal or controversial notability. How important is it that Baughman worked for CCHR? Does he still do so? Personally, I'll start with the assumption that what you tell us is true. And if it turns out to be important, I'll try to verify it. Maybe I'll ask Baughman. That also will not create reliable source, but it is like a source speaking to a reporter for "background." It helps the reporter put facts in context. It can be tricky, to be sure. But also necessary. By the way, full disclosure: I have ADHD, and am pretty critical myself of most critics of the diagnosis, as well as the knee-jerk prescription of drugs with no consideration for other aspects. I see a psychiatrist regularly, and take various forms of Ritalin. My mother had shock therapy when I was a small child: she had a remission of her very serious schizophrenia, which may have been a result of the shock therapy. However, on the other side, I find the work of Dr. Simon Sobo quite cogent, and the whole question of what Baughman calls "biological psychiatry" is actually a complex one. Clearly, there is something genetically heritable connected with ADHD. But the brain also develops *physically* in response to the environment, and chemical imbalance can arise from environmental causes (such as stress, worry, rejection, etc.) It's all connected, in fact, so extreme views are almost certainly wrong. There is no pill that "cures" ADHD, but there are some that, sometimes, make the symptoms more tolerable, both to the patient and the society which must deal with the patient. Paul Erdos once stopped taking amphetamines for a month (I thought it was Ritalin, but that's not what the Erdos article currently says.) From the article:
His colleague Alfréd Rényi said, "a mathematician is a machine for turning coffee into theorems", and Erdős drank copious quantities. (This quotation is often attributed incorrectly to Erdős.) After 1971 he also took amphetamines, despite the concern of his friends, one of whom (Ron Graham) bet him $500 that he could not stop taking the drug for a month. Erdős won the bet, but complained during his abstinence that mathematics had been set back by a month: "Before, when I looked at a piece of blank paper my mind was filled with ideas. Now all I see is a blank piece of paper." After he won the bet, he promptly resumed his amphetamine habit.
I understand. As is common with ADHD, I'm very responsive to Ritalin, a tiny dose is enough, I take the minimum that can be prescribed without cutting tablets. I'm not tempted in the least to increase the dosage. (I start to get side effects if I do.) But, when I miss my daily dose, by the evening, I'm depressed and have returned to my normal befuddled state. There are people here who think I'm just plain befuddled, but ... I know the difference, and the best of what I write is ... good enough that the people I trust encourage me. In any case, you could be working for the Grand Panjandrum himself and I'd welcome you and try to help you in what is good and proper. But I might also, if necessary, point out who you are working for and the implications. What I'm getting from you is that this won't be necessary, you already understand the limits on your work here. Quite a few others don't, so, indeed, it's refreshing. --Abd (talk) 18:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Abd: You're right, I totally forgot to insert the standard sig. Lemme update... There. --Kevin E Hawkins (talk) 17:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Abd: I understand. Thanks for being honest with me. BTW, I've heard similar quotes about hackers (programmers): "A programmer converts caffeine into code"... or something similar. --Kevin E Hawkins (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Abd: What is the Grand Panjandrum? --Kevin E Hawkins (talk) 20:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Question for Mr. Hawkins

Again, this is not likely to make it into the article as it's completely WP:OR, but I'm curious about something your quote about caffeine and code reminded me of. What is CCHR's stance on coffee and cigarettes? Both are addictive substances (one more than the other) and both are mildly mind-altering. --GoodDamon 21:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

GoodDamon: I don't think the organization has a position on it one way or the other, but I'll ask. Personally, I don't smoke nor drink caffeine, though I'll occasionally have a soft drink at a party or something like that. Generally, I just stick to water. I'm probably one of the most boring human beings you've never met. I don't smoke, don't drink, don't go to clubs, don't dance (well)... yeah, pretty boring. --Kevin E Hawkins (talk) 21:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay GoodDamon, here's the response: That's a fair question. CCHR is a mental health watchdog and deals with abuses in the mental health industry. Of course cigarettes, coffee, alcohol, and for that matter, street drugs alter your state of mind. The difference is that no one with a medical degree is sitting you down in their office, asking a few questions about how you feel, and then telling you that you have a nicotine or cocaine deficiency based on your answers and then prescribing nicotine/alcohol to correct the imbalance you are assumed to have. What CCHR has long fought for is informed consent; for people to have the right to be fully informed of the risks of the drugs being prescribed (something withheld for decades but now being acknowledged by international drug regulatory agencies) and the medical legitimacy of the conditions for which the drugs are being prescribed. --Kevin E Hawkins (talk) 23:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for answering my question, Mr. Hawkins. By the way, note how I used a colon at the beginning of this paragraph. You can use that markup to indent your paragraph some, allowing it to become obvious which text you're responding to. It's a very handy mechanism. --GoodDamon 16:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
GoodDamon: Thanks for the tip! --Kevin E Hawkins (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Heads up - Internal CCHR emails leaked on Wikileaks

I was just perusing Wikileaks, and found these leaked CCHR emails. I don't think they themselves are usable in this document, but there's about to be a rush of news from reliable sources about CCHR and Scientology because of this. --GoodDamon 16:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Let me know if there's anything you need from me. --Kevin E Hawkins (talk) 17:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome, but to be honest I was letting everyone who edits here know, which includes a lot of different editors with an interest in CCHR and Scientology. --GoodDamon 18:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

That link takes us to a zipfile. The zipfile contains 87 emails. I just look at the first. Totally innocuous. If we are supposed to make something of this, we'd need a specific email to be cited. Further, it's not at all clear what the relevance of this would be. CCHR was founded by scientologists and Szasz, openly. I've generally promoted the position that we should assume testimony is true unless controverted; it's a common-law principle, it's statutory law wherever I've looked, and it's also WP:AGF. So what is the claim on wikileaks?

- Scientology denies that it is behind CCHR (which is clearly contradicted by the references in the emails)

- It shows, clearly, how Scientologists and the CCHR are deliberately manipulating the media... using false accounts and sock puppetry to skew information.

- It shows just how Machiavellian and hypocritical the CCHR is in their planning and execution of attacks against peer-reviewed medical science.

6. Yes. The CCHR's campaign of misinformation is designed specifically to derail people seeking psychiatric help, and instead funnel them toward Scientology. This nonsense, and lack of peer-reviewed treatment CCHR recommends instead (vitamins, niacin, hot saunas) is likely to harm rather than help.

Individuals operate sock puppets, sometimes with the collusion of people in leadership positions in various movements. There may indeed be information of interest in those emails; however, for starters, this is primary source. We can refer to it in Talk, but it's useless for the article itself; if there is information there about the use of sock puppets on Wikipedia, though, this will be of interest in our process.

Absent, however, reference to specific emails, this pointer to wikiquote is only useful to someone who really wants to dig up dirt. Yes, this wasn't posted for Kevin. However, I'd ask this: did GoodDamon look at the mails themselves and verify that they match what was said about them? If not, this is disruptive rumormongering, wasting our time. If so, why didn't he make a more specific comment? If, even, I had a piece of text to search for in those mails, I could do it. As it is, I'm not about to read 87 emails looking for something that is likely ho-hum: some scientologists are promoting CCHR using means at their disposal. The Pope is Catholic.

Kevin, in case you haven't noticed, there is a whole class of anti-Scientology users here. I'm not a fan of Scientology myself, but the world is full of things and organizations I'm not fond of. Where there is abuse, by all means, we should oppose it. But beyond that, obsession is obsession. Reasonable people differ. Fortunately, we'd be in bad shape if they did not.--Abd (talk) 14:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but... huh? I just pointed out their existence. I made no statement as to their content other than that they will probably generate news about CCHR and Scientology. I intentionally left any opinion I might have about their contents out, as I strive for neutrality per WP:NPOV. I just thought it would be nice to let regulars here have a little advance notice about them. --GoodDamon 15:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

On section 'Other secular antipsychiatrists'

In the section, 'Other secular antipsychiatrists', a new sentence was added 13:55, 9 March 2008:

"Notible of which is Scientology's founder L. R. Hubbard's postmortem showed an abundance of Psychiatric drugs in in system."

by IP 82.10.204.121. Diff link. Does anyone have a reference for this? Is this verifiable? --Kevin E Hawkins (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Good catch. Totally off-topic. It's gone. --GoodDamon 04:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
GoodDamon: Thank you. --Kevin E Hawkins (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

While we're in this section, I'd like to query this line:

"These positions are shared by few, if any, secular critics of psychiatry."

Maybe it's just because I work here, but it seems like our position is shared by quite a few secular critics of psychiatry. Does anyone know if this line is verifiable? Is it someone's original thought or personal opinion? --Kevin E Hawkins (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Reading that paragraph in context, I have to disagree. It is specifically about beliefs concerning psychiatry that are largely unique to the Church of Scientology, such as the 9-11 conspiracy angle. I could find lots of secular psychiatry critics, and lots of newspaper articles about them, but none of them indicate sharing the Church's more controversial positions.
That said, I can't find any specific reliable sources indicating that secular critics specifically disagree with the Church, either. But none of them appear to agree, so the statement appears to be valid. If you can find reliable sources to the contrary, feel free to post them here. --GoodDamon 21:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Aah, I see what you're saying. Hummm, that could be tough. --Kevin E Hawkins (talk) 16:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Baughman's relationship to CCHR

Here are the facts: Although Dr. Baughman strongly supports CCHR and its activities (for more than 10 years) he has never worked for CCHR, nor been paid by CCHR as a consultant. He is wholly independent of CCHR, and simply one of the many doctors/medical professionals that agree with the work CCHR is doing, particularly in the arena of exposing the dangers of psychiatric labeling and drugging of children. He has testified at state and federal hearings alongside CCHR, (always on the issue of psychiatric drugging of children), assisted parents who have sought help from CCHR who were being pressured/forced to drug their children, and testified before the US FDA alongside CCHR and dozens of other doctors/scientists and parents in support of fully disclosing the documented dangers of the psychiatric drugs being administered to children. --Kevin E Hawkins (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I understand the WP:OR policy, but thanks for the reminder. I think this is one of the things that previous people who posted here didn't know.

I just noticed that it says Dr. Baughman "worked for" CCHR (ref). This is not correct, and the reference supplied does not state that he worked for us either. It states, "... He is also a medical expert for the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR)..." (under the image on the right: ref). Does anyone, besides me, think this should be changed? --Kevin E Hawkins (talk) 22:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It should match the source, "worked for" could be misleading. If somebody else doesn't fix it, I intend to.--Abd (talk) 00:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Abd: Cool, thanks. --Kevin E Hawkins (talk) 19:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Kevin for the response.--scuro (talk) 06:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Scuro: You're welcome. --Kevin E Hawkins (talk) 19:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Kevin, could this just be clarified because I see it still says in a couple of places that Baughman works for CCHR. So he doesn't get any money from CCHR, or free lunches or trips to exotic places etc? What then is this "is a medical expert for the CCHR" that it says on pbs website? Does that just mean that CCHR ask him something and he gives up his time for nothing to give an answer? Or what?Ancadi (talk) 19:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Scuro: Dr. Baughman is actually not a medical expert "for" CCHR, he is a medical expert "in agreement" with CCHR. He is not a paid consultant for CCHR, nor would he ask or expect CCHR to pay him a fee if we asked him to review a medical or scientific study, or assist a parent who was requesting help from CCHR, or any of the other issues where we collaborate with the medical professionals we work with. Dr. Baughman has his own website, his own book, his own views, but when it comes to child drugging, his views align with CCHR. Dr. Baughman is one of many medical experts that work alongside CCHR (meaning championing the same issues) and we do not pay them consultant fees either because we're basically all on the same page with these issues. In the last few years alone Dr. Baughman has testified before the US FDA on numerous occasions, as has CCHR, and we didn't pay for his flight or expenses to get there. At the same time, that's not to say that we've never paid for anyone's flight anywhere in the history of CCHR, of course we have, particularly if it was a parent or someone who wanted to testify or attend a key meeting and couldn't afford to get themselves there. It's also not to say we've never bought anyone lunch, of course we have. But to answer the question simply; the reason Dr. Baughman and any of the other doctors or professionals work alongside CCHR is not for financial gain, and its certainly not to win any popularity contest as the issue has been, and continues to be, a controversial one. It is simply because they feel passionate about the issue. --Kevin E Hawkins (talk) 01:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I think I get the picture now. Even saying he has been a medical expert for CCHR is a bit misleading, but it is what it says on the pbs website which seems to be the only source we have. At least it doesn't imply a financial relationship in the way "working" does. Does something like this: "Dr. Wilens has also disclosed that he has served as a consultant for Abbott Laboratories, Cephalon, Janssen, National Institute on Mental Health, Ortho-McNeil, Eli Lilly and Company, NIDA, Novartis, Pfizer, and Shire PLC." involve money?Ancadi (talk) 11:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

07:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)Kevin, what of the yearly awards Dr. Baughman receives from CCHR? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.120.20 (talk)

Dear 69.109.120.20, Here's what I got:
Can you clarify the question a bit please? Because Dr. Baughman once received one of our annual human rights awards -- every year we present awards to doctors, psychologists, parents, legislators, etc. who are working for reforms in the field of mental health, but the human rights award we presented to Baughman was I believe in 1996.
--Kevin E Hawkins (talk) 18:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

updated PDF link, ref [13]

The PDF link in reference #13 has been updated. It is now:

http://www.cchr.org/media/pdfs/White_Paper_-_Information_Concerning_Antidepressants_2007.pdf

--Kevin E Hawkins (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and replaced it. Ideally, we should find a link to a news article about that report, and use the news article instead. --GoodDamon 17:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Gentle readers, this document has been updated:

http://www.cchr.org/media/pdfs/White_Paper_-_Information_Concerning_Antidepressants_2008.pdf

The old link will not work for too much longer. I should probably remove the year from the filename, eh? --Kevin E Hawkins (talk) 20:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I replaced it again. I will likely turn it into an external link instead of a reference soon, if no reliable source can be found to replace it. --GoodDamon 20:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

No mention of critics of the CCHR?

I find very few mentions in this article reguarding critics of the CCHR. It seems to me that this article leans in a very positive standpoint towards an organization that is a known front group to funnel those with mental illness away from peer-reviewed psychiatric and psychological treatment and into Scientology funded, unreviewed and sometimes unhealthy treatment methods. This seems like a very biased article according to WP:POV. 198.254.16.200 (talk)chanceemtiv

There's another article on this subject, Scientology and psychiatry. As far as I know the church doesn't have facilities to treat psychoses. —Cesar Tort 15:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "gumbel" :
    • Andrew Gumbel, "[http://www.lacitybeat.com/article.php?id=3137&IssueNum=136 Scientology vs. Science]," ''Los Angeles City Beat'', [[January 12]], 2006
    • {{cite news |first = Andrew |last = Gumbel |url = http://www.lacitybeat.com/article.php?id=3137&IssueNum=136 |title = Scientology vs. Science |work = [[Los Angeles CityBeat]] |publisher = Southland Publishing |date = [[2006-01-12]] |accessdate = 2006-06-08 }}

DumZiBoT (talk) 02:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Where's the money trail lead?

The article on CCHR, is typical of Wikipedia. Articles on CCHR and Scientology are rife with barbs and invalidations and articles on psychiatry speak in such unrealistic glowing praises, it raises the question "why?" To call psychiatry a "hard science" is so laughable, I bet even the shrinks can't believe Wiki had the nerve to actually publish such a falacy. So, in my opinion, Wiki is incredibly naive and oblivious on the one hand and compulsively biased on the other out of sheer ignorance, or there are "other forces" at work here.

Is there anyway to view the funding sources for Wikipedia???

Itstwoo (talk) 12:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)itstwoo

You're seeing a conspiracy where none exists. Psychiatry is supported by the vast majority of articles on the subject in reliable sources. Many of the same reliable sources are, as you say, "rife with barbs and invalidations" on Scientology. I'm sorry, but Scientology is viewed in an overwhelmingly negative light in the lion's share of media about it, and at Wikipedia we have to rely on the standards of verifiability and reliability established by that media, as we rely on them for citations.
Beyond that... Don't be silly. Wikipedia is vast and diverse, with Scientology and Psychiatry articles accounting for some ridiculously small percentage of its content. Perhaps Wikipedia is taking bribes from atheists for labeling Creationism non-scientific, or maybe it's taking money from some shadowy cabal of Muslims for portraying Israel as controversial, or maybe it's taking money from Marvel Comics to keep Marvel superhero articles more up-to-date than DC superhero articles... See how absurd this is? --GoodDamon 16:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Talk pages are not forums. Discussion should be focused specifically on this article, not on psychiatry or wikipedia funding sources. Wikipedia related questions should be asked somewhere like the help desk. -- Scarpy (talk) 19:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

---This entry is written with bias by someone who is clearly not educated about psychology, the cause and effect nature of the mind, or context (especially cultural context.). The aims of this entry are made to discredit this organization by associating it directly with scientology (a belief system created by a sci fi author) as opposed to bringing up the several phd theorists and psychologists who agree with the CCHR view. There is plenty of evidence to the claims CCHR makes about psychiatry outside of a scientology association, this entry should be flagged for review by experts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.1.64.76 (talkcontribs) 01:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

"cause and effect nature of the mind" hmmmmmm where have i heard that before? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.104.214 (talk) 18:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Kendra Wiseman

This:

Kendra Wiseman, the daughter of Bruce Wiseman, the president of the U.S. CCHR, maintains that: “ Members of CCHR put down and ridiculed non-Scientology anti-psych groups as "crazy" [...] One day, I ran across another group of people who considered themselves psych-survivors. Their message was almost identical to ours, and they'd really experienced psych-abuse first hand. I was so excited, I ran and told my senior about it. To my surprise, she already knew about them, but discounted them as "people we didn't want to have anything to do with."[37]

makes no sense. Sourced with an anti-scientology forum and probably only in this article because it is anti-scientology in some way. I'll leave the link to the EL section. TaborG (talk) 03:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

"The People"

  • "One Man Britain Can Do Without", The People, March 20, 1966.

Does anyone know anything about the history of this publication, and what became of it? Spidern 21:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

This paper is still existant in the UK, although it's status has declined over the years and is now a minor tabloid. There is a (rather sparse) entry here on wikipedia [The_People]. My understanding, although I don't have any sources to hand I'm afraid, is that the original faily 'The People' folded and the sunday edition 'Sunday People' continued. This publication then changed its name to 'The People'. I may be substantially incorrect on these historical points, so if someone more learned is able to correct me then do go ahead... SupernautRemix (talk) 16:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Uhh

"psychiatrists caused the universe havoc billions of years ago". That's a joke right? Humans diodn't exist billions of years ago... 193.1.52.12 (talk) 15:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I altered the text describing the ref. I you read the pdf it does not say "billions", it says "eons". I think the text now represents the source better.

Pathetic

It's so very obvious that this article places emphasis on the support of this group by Scientologists in an attempt to discredit the organization. CCHR may have a loose affiliation with Scientology, but it does not justify the disproportionate focus given to this link. It's actually quite disgusting to see how blatantly you people try to present CCHR in a negative light. Of course, all my reasonable edits will be deleted on some bullshit grounds. Whatever.

Oh and someone back in 2008 completely agreed with me on this issue as well. Something needs to be done about this article, it's extremely biased and such a blatant attempt at putting a POV spin on the topic. Prove me wrong.

"---This entry is written with bias by someone who is clearly not educated about psychology, the cause and effect nature of the mind, or context (especially cultural context.). The aims of this entry are made to discredit this organization by associating it directly with scientology (a belief system created by a sci fi author) as opposed to bringing up the several phd theorists and psychologists who agree with the CCHR view. There is plenty of evidence to the claims CCHR makes about psychiatry outside of a scientology association, this entry should be flagged for review by experts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.1.64.76 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)"

My Possible Conflict of Interest

Stated as per arbitration policy above. I am *not* a member of CCHR or Scientology but I am a campaigner in the area of Psychiatric human rights ( http://mindfreedom.org.uk ). I did consider this before editing but decided to go ahead to test my neutrality skills.DJ Barney (talk) 05:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Scientology and the CCHR

"The CCHR continues to be entirely controlled by and subject to policy directives issued from the Church of Scientology", there is no citation for this statement and no data can be found to support this on the CCHR website. The Church of Scientology co-founded the organization with Thomas Szasz, but there is no evidence that the Church itself entirely directs CCHR policy. TheGreatEditorial (talk) 10:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)TheGreatEditorial

That's a fair point. Frankly I am not very happy with the quality of this article, and I propose to undertake a comprehensive review and rewrite of it. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Great idea, that would be most appreciated and helpful for the project! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 15:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Article reads like a smear campaign against CCHR - No dispute over content of CCHRs claims or presentation.

Considering the huge amount of claims presented by CCHR in their videos, there seems to be no dispute about any of them. That's interesting - considering everything else in this article seems to be digging into the closet for dirt on the people behind the videos. 67.184.122.108 (talk) 10:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Breggin

this web page says that Breggin has not had anything to do with the CCHR since 1974. it implies that he had knowingly worked with a Church of Scientology front group called the Prozac Survivors Support Group, Inc., when he has said otherwise. the article had implied a close and recent collaboration rather than a long-ago and perhaps accidental one. My source for the above information — Preceding unsigned comment added by *Ria777* (talkcontribs) 07:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

This was brought up 6 years ago now, but some other people may have the same complaint. I edited the article yesterday to clarify Breggin's position (and give a reference for the statements). In short, he does appear to have knowingly worked with CCHR for 2 years, being initially unaware of scientology and related projects, but steadily growing opposed to them as he learnt more. Wikiditm (talk) 10:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Jan Eastgate legal situation

I was looking to update the bit about Jan Eastgate, but cannot find any sources. She was due to face trial in June. Anyone know the outcome of this? Is it still on-going? Did it not happen? I could update the page saying her trial has began, with a link to a source from May saying she would go on trial in June, but that seems very clumsy. Any ideas? Wikiditm (talk) 18:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

She was released on bail. The trial is not due until next year. Petter Bøckman (talk) 07:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The marketing of madness

Shouldn't Wikipedia discuss The Marketing of Madness: Are We All Insane?? Because the page is at risk of being deleted...-Tesseract2(talk) 04:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd be fine with it being deleted. CCHR have made a good handful of documentaries now, all of which espouse the same view, which is summarised well enough in this article. Might be worth adding a list of the documentaries they've made, but I wouldn't have thought a separate page on each one is necessary - you wouldn't do that for material produced by any other advocacy group.Wikiditm (talk) 21:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


Good point. I moved the relevant content here.-Tesseract2(talk) 04:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Taking a stance on the chemical imbalance model

I had edited out a bit in the page which stated outright that denying the links between mental illness and chemical imbalances was false. It's since been edited back in with some sources. I didn't want to start an edit war so am posting this. I'm not sure the wikipedia article should take a stance on the link between mental illness and chemical imbalances. There are plenty of prominent mental health experts who deny the link (If we discard all the ones who have links with scientology, then there are still notable people like Irving Kirsch and Richard Bentall.) and while the majority of scientists do believe in the chemical imbalance link, I don't think it's wikipedia's place to be saying that those specific scientists are correct while the rest are not. I think a more toned down wording would be best (something like "the majority of scientists disagree with this view. source source source") Wikiditm (talk) 20:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Jamesthecat (talk) 23:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC) I think this article could do with being re-worded. For instance: "In fact, a great deal of research suggests that the prevailing view among experts is correct". "In fact" is somewhat rhetorical. Perhaps something along the lines of: "Others have noted..."?

I am not sure we want to go into the full details of research in a very advanced, very complicated field where progress and change happends constantly.
"where progress and change happens constantly" Progress and change does not happen constantly in the field of psychiatry. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders that psychiatrists use to "diagnose" illness states in the insert that there is no biological etiology. 68.50.119.13 (talk) 00:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
The article on chemical imbalance states in the lede:
This conceptual framework has been challenged within the scientific community, though no other demonstrably superior hypothesis has emerged. While the hypothesis has been shown to be simplistic and lacking, there is sufficient evidence to consider it as a useful heuristic in the aiding of our understanding of brain chemistry and explaining pharmacotherapy.[1][2]
To the best of my cnowledge this summs up the stance on chemical imballance in the medical field fairly well, and should be the threshold of acceptance/rejection of the theory on Wikipedia. Thimbleweed (talk) 07:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I am bringing back up this conversation. It is not controversial to make the statement of "no biological etiology exists linking any mental health disease, disorder, or illness to a chemical imbalance." It is fact. There is no scientific evidence other than "theories" which hold no weight and are not bound to the scientific method. 68.50.119.13 (talk) 23:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

for the layman, in other words these theories are not the same as the theory of evolution or the theory of gravity. Do not get pseudo-science courtesy of the collusion between the drug manufactures and the drug peddlers of which psychiatry work hand in hand. 68.50.119.13 (talk) 23:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy

Freedom magazine is apparently blacklisted by Wikipedia, so I could not add this source which describes in detail the vast psychiatric conspiracy, entitled "The Terror Doctors". I can't even put the link here. Speaking of which, does anyone know which event it was that Miscavige revealed this conspiracy, claiming (quite erroneously) that al-Qaeda is a direct descendant of the medieval Assassins who were reputed to use hashish to create suicidal martyrs and all that? I believe it was the New Year's Event, but not sure. If we can find a source for this, it would be great because the claims made by the church regarding the Assassins were disproven a long, long time ago, considering the idea of Muslim soldiers martyred in battle would ascend to heaven with 72 virgins for eternity was a fabrication invented by the Crusaders. Considering that not a single reliable source in Islam mentions any of this, and it's today only parroted by anti-Muslim activists, this would be good to detail in the article, preferably with reliable rebuttals. Laval (talk) 23:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

This page is in violation of WP:Due/ Undue policy

This page reads likde a promo piece practically taken straight from the literature of the CCHR itself. The majority view of RS on the CCHR is not to be found fully expressed on this page anywhere. I propose that in order for this page to be restored to compliance with WP:Due and WP:Undue, that this page be reverted back to an earlier edition/ version when it was in compliance with these two policies. Scott P. (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Citizens Commission on Human Rights/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

*3 images, 36 citations. Smee 09:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

Last edited at 09:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 14:32, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Efforts for psychiatric reform section is not balanced

CCHR and Scientology has had both a positive and a negative impact on the way psychiatric treatment has been practiced. It is difficult to separate Scientology from CCHR in a discussion like this, as the CCHR's attitudes to psychiatry are identical to the Scientology Organization and attitudes of Scientologist people to psychiatry are influenced by CCHR material.

For simplicity, and to avoid discussions about whether it is a front group I will use the term Scientology to apply to the Scientology organization and CCHR.

The Chelmsford Hospital success story is one of the examples of the positive. At the same time, the attitude of Scientology to psychiatry has also led to Scientologists not receiving treatment for mental illness.

This has lead to and been implicated in many deaths, most notably Jett Travolta and Lisa McPherson, both of whom were denied treatment on the basis of denial of well accepted psychiatric facts.

I think that a section that says Psychiatry vs. CCHR and Scientology which poses both the positive and negative aspects of the conflict would be appropriate.

This particular section reads like a promotional piece. Although my superficial examination and my knowledge of the Scientology organization lead me to believe that most of the facts here are accurate, it is certainly not balanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elevenwar (talkcontribs) 02:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed the section closely, but from a quick cursory check of citations used, it appears to be very well sourced for the most part. It doesn't look like any primary sources are being used as most of the sources, if not all of them are sourced to legitimate (non-tabloid) news sources and the wording doesn't come across as promotional to me. The basic Wikipedia view on this can be summarized as "verifiability, not truth". That basically means that article content must reflect, as closely as possible, material previously published in a reliable source, rather than the opinions or interpretations of individual editors.
For example, you mention Jett Travolta. Take a look at this paragraph from the John Travolta article: [8]. You'll notice there is no claim or statement blaming anyone or anything for his son's death. Why? Because the theory that Scientology or Scientology policies or his parents were somehow responsible for "denying" or "withholding" medication is not verifiable. It's absolute speculation. You can also look at this discussion: [9] for an example of the complexity surrounding such matters and how they should be handled on Wikipedia.
It's a similar situation over at the Lisa McPherson article. Regardless, neither Lisa McPherson nor Jett Travolta appear to have any connection, direct or otherwise, with CCHR and its anti-psychiatry campaigning. If there is a verifiable connection, then a reliable source would be needed to support the assertion.
Regarding balance, there is already a section on controversies, which I've renamed as "Controversies and criticisms" that certainly could use expansion.
My advice would be to open up a "request for comment" and have other editors chime in and see if others agree that the article is promotional or biased in favor of the subject. Laval (talk) 09:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Laval, I see no need to open an RFC for this topic. You yourself have not denied that the article is in violation of WP:Due/ Undue. Currently the article is 90% positive, and 10% negative. In order to properly reflect the balance of RS, this ratio needs to be reversed. Merely renaming the "Controversy" section to the "Controversy and criticism" section in no way reverses that balance. Unless you take it upon yourself to start an RFC on this, I will soon do the necessary work needed to reverse this balance as needed. If you do start an RFC on this, while it may buy a day or two for the current article, I still don't see how such an RFC could allow this article to continue in its flagrant violation of WP:Due/ Undue policy. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 04:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Scott, as has been demonstrated over at Talk:Psychiatry, you need to take a step back or two in terms of your tone and admonitions. You were suggested, here and over at that article, about reverting to an earlier version from 2 or 3 years back of the article because you feel the current version is too biased in favor of the subject or whatnot. There was absolutely no support or consensus for such a move regarding the Psychiatry article and indeed, there would be no consensus for such a move at any article.
I have no idea why you would even mention doing something like that when you clearly are not new to Wikipedia and in fact, have been here since 2004! You, of all people, should know that reverting to a previous version of an article from a few years ago, even a year ago, would be wrong for so many reasons and totally unnecessary.
You state that I have not denied your claims of WP:UNDUE regarding this and other Scientology articles. I have neither denied or confirmed that there is such a issue. I have stated that I do not see that there is such a problem, unless you wish to specifically provide exact examples of the bias that you are claiming. I'm not seeing it. At Wikipedia, as you very well know, the correct action is to open an RFC before attempting any major changes or reversions to an article. If you think I'm wrong, go find a bunch of other editors to come over here and set me straight. I can guarantee that you won't.
Furthermore, I am disturbed and dismayed by this apparently militant attitude that you have been showing here and at Talk:Psychiatry, which is clearly not going over very well and which others have demonstrably and vocally disagreed with. I can promise that unless you start behaving in a manner that takes into account WP:CONSENSUS, you are either going to get yourself topic banned or worse. I do not want to see that happen. So, please do not go around stating that you are going to do this or that "reverse the situation" when there is no consensus for such radical changes. This is not how things are done at Wikipedia and you know this. Laval (talk) 09:54, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Marketing of Madness section ends in an opinion statement

It says:

"An example used in the movie is the assertion that psychiatrists seek to label typical shyness as a "social anxiety disorder".
However, patients are diagnosed with a social anxiety disorder only at debilitating levels, where there is an "intense fear in social situations".[57] Unlike a shy individual, a person diagnosed with social anxiety disorder is likely to suffer from symptoms such as nausea, stammering, and panic attacks."

Patients should be diagnosed with a social anxiety disorder only at debilitating levels, but according to the documentary, they are not. Patients that should be diagnosed with social anxiety disorder should be likely to suffer from symptoms such as nausea stammering and panic attacks, but according to the documentary, they are not.

As I see it, whoever wrote that part of the article, is not sourcing his actual claim that contradicts the documentary from anywhere. Stating what the diagnostics criteria should be seems to contradict a claim by the documentary that the criteria is not followed, whereas in fact it does not. That is an opinion piece and editorial debating, not content for an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:470:28:FA:0:0:0:2600 (talk) 12:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


Hi, I logged on to make that exact same point. The editor here is stating opinions and positions and supporting them by references. I wanted to read the Wikipedia article to start to decide how I feel about these issues, but the article is telling me how to feel about the issue before I even get to know what the references say. Createangelos (talk) 02:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC)