Talk:Psychiatry/Archive 6

I've done the following:

1. Archived the talk page, once again getting too long.
2. Switched to the use of the archive box template.
3. Added the multi wikiproject template
4. Added the clinical medicine wikiproject banner
5. Added a warning that any comments posted here not relating to improvements of this article will be removed.

I've added the caution for several reasons:

1. Talk pages, including this one, are not a place to debate the existence of psychiatry. Psychiatry exists and is supported and guided by science. General medicine is also supported by and guided by science. Psychiatrists are physicians. In the US, UK, Canada, and most other developed nations they are required to attend medical school, just like any other doctor. (Sources: (King, L.S. (1952) Is Medicine an Exact Science?. Philosophy of Science, 19, 131-140.) (A, N.C. (1997). What is Psychiatry? The American Journal of Psychiatry, 154, 591-593.) from the web: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]) This is the last time I'll be stating the obvious or "defending" the centuries old existence of psychiatry (whichever way you want to look at it).
2. This article is not the main article dealing with those not supporting psychiatry. Anti-psychiatry is a well written article, which could still use work, dealing with this social criticism.
3. This talk page has become a magnet for comments of individuals opposed to psychiatry or elements of it. Due to such a high amount of comments inappropriately being placed here, and the lack of comments discussing article improvements, future inappropriate edits will be removed, thus the warning.

So, just relax, be bold and edit, and enjoy Wikipedia. "Psychiatry" can use a lot of work and any positive contributions, here or on the article page, would be appreciated. Chupper 18:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Citation needed in Controversy.[[8]] How do I add a citation? Someone help me out ? Robert Spitzer. Vol. 33 No. 4, April 1976 Archives of General Psychiatry. http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/33/4/459 .--Mark v1.0 15:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the massive delay in response. If a page is set up for it, it is actually kind of easy to do. You just type in "<ref>(reference info using whatever style you prefer)</ref>". For more info check out Wikipedia:Citing sources or feel free to leave messages here or on my talk page! Chupper 12:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The reference to totalitarian regimes in the history section cites a Citizen's Commission on Human Rights article. Given the Church of Scientology's established feud with psychiatry, would that not be an inappropriately biased reference? Maqusan 15:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the "Church of Scientology's established feud with psychiatry" biases a reference from the U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services (specifically the National Center for Biotechnology Information). Chupper 19:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:DSM-IV.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Please, do not remove criticism from this page. A fair description of the psychiatry, that what to describe it as it really is, should include an objective description of the problem it create and the criticism it arise..

Since what I have written is not taken from a script of a soap opera, as has been said in my talk page from the user who removed my edit, I am going to reinsert it. Moreover I have cited sources, and what are written in these sources are based of an objective analyse On the other hands, no source are cited in many part of this article, and I do not consider fair to include sources that are not based on analyse or real facts, but based on the interest of a class of people. (see Cargo cult science and any description of how a fair scientific description should work for more information on this).

Now I cannot understand why why I have written should be removed?

Is there anything I have written that is not true?

And why criticism should go somewhere else?

Now you should know that if a thing has done before in a particular way then it is not a guarantee that this is the correct way. So the point that until now criticism have been moved to Anti-psychiatry, is not enough to conclude that this is the correct way to do.

If you see the page about Astrology, you will find many point where criticism are present. If the same rule should be applied, also the criticism in the astrology page should be move to Anti-astrology.

I think that the better way to write these article, and to give a better idea of what psychiatry really is, is to write in the Anti-psychiatry page a description of the movement that has called themselves Anti-psychiatry (if any of the exists), and to put a real description of the psychiatry.

Now if it is sure that a good description of the psychiatry should include the criticism this argument has. And this is not my fault if the psychiatry us subject to criticism.

So unless I will receive a good reason why the description of the criticism should not go here I will reinsert it here.

I can agree that it was not written in the best way it can, so I will try to reword it and to write it better.

AnyFile 17:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Response

Please, do not remove criticism from this page. A fair description of the psychiatry, that what to describe it as it really is, should include an objective description of the problem it create and the criticism it arise..

Content will be removed if it is inaccurate, not NPOV, not referenced, not referenced correctly, or not adhering to any other Wikipedia policy such as WP:SIZE. If you don't agree with those policies, I recommend you create your own blog.

Since what I have written is not taken from a script of a soap opera, as has been said in my talk page from the user who removed my edit, I am going to reinsert it. Moreover I have cited sources, and what are written in these sources are based of an objective analyse On the other hands, no source are cited in many part of this article, and I do not consider fair to include sources that are not based on analyse or real facts, but based on the interest of a class of people. (see Cargo cult science and any description of how a fair scientific description should work for more information on this).

Again, as I've mentioned on your talk page - Sounds like you are getting confused between a soap opera and soap box. I'm referring to the latter. If you reinsert the material, it will be removed again. If you reinsert it again, it might not be bad to attempt to resolve the dispute and request a mediation.

Now I cannot understand why why I have written should be removed?

I spent a lot of time responding to your edits with a post to your user talk page. Are you having problems locating it? If you are, click here.

Is there anything I have written that is not true?

Yes. You may want to look at the references I used on this page.

And why criticism should go somewhere else?

Again, as mentioned on your talk page twice, and assuming your added content is factual, [Criticism] information should be included in the Anti-psychiatry article and only a "short summary" should actually stay in "Psychiatry". See WP:SIZE

Now you should know that if a thing has done before in a particular way then it is not a guarantee that this is the correct way. So the point that until now criticism have been moved to Anti-psychiatry, is not enough to conclude that this is the correct way to do.

WP:SIZE says otherwise.

If you see the page about Astrology, you will find many point where criticism are present. If the same rule should be applied, also the criticism in the astrology page should be move to Anti-astrology.

Only if size merits the article to be split.

I think that the better way to write these article, and to give a better idea of what psychiatry really is, is to write in the Anti-psychiatry page a description of the movement that has called themselves Anti-psychiatry (if any of the exists), and to put a real description of the psychiatry.

Your "real" description of psychiatry is not supported by the bulk of governments, academic institutions, and the medical profession. You may want to see the references listed in the first section above.

Now if it is sure that a good description of the psychiatry should include the criticism this argument has. And this is not my fault if the psychiatry us subject to criticism.

Oh, I'm fully aware that psychiatry is subject to much criticism. In fact, to a point, I support the criticism. I think it makes the profession that much more aware, and that much better. But, this page doesn't exist for us to voice our own personal opinions.

So unless I will receive a good reason why the description of the criticism should not go here I will reinsert it here.

Feel free to reinsert it on the talk page if you like, but as mentioned above, reinserting in the article would not be a good idea before gaining consensus. And I'm assuming my responses on your talk page where not a "good reason"?

I can agree that it was not written in the best way it can, so I will try to reword it and to write it better.

That might not be a bad idea, and be sure to keep a NPOV when writing it. Remember it should be integrated into the Anti-psychiatry article. If you wish to rewrite the summary on the psychiatry page, I don't think I would have a problem with that.

Chupper 18:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Where is this image derived from? The caduceus is a symbol of commerce. Axl 08:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The cadeceus is also a widely use symbol of medicine/healing hence its use in many places including the logo for the American Veterinary Medicial Association. Ratinabox 18:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Editors may wish to review Psychiatric abuse, a new article created (surprise!) by a Scientologist. -- ChrisO 08:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to try to get this article to GA and eventually FA status. I'll try to address the issues of referencing and worldwide representation. I'm going to try to actively work on it over the next several days over at - User:Chupper/Sandbox04. Chupper 13:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Psychiatry is a branch of medicine dealing with the prevention...of the mind..? A rewording may be indicatedCisum.ili.dilm 16:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The following was originally posted to HG's talk page and is being copied here. Chupper 23:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

HG, Thanks for the comments. Sorry if I came across this way but it is not my intention to own the article nor to be the "buck stops here" editor when I stated "The criticism section will not be included ... the information will be included .... the current article will be replaced soon anyway." I'm fully aware that "no single editor gets to own an article" and the edit history for Psychiatry should reflect that I don't "own it". When editors add in referenced NPOV material, I welcome it, and always beg for it.

Before the "psychiatric abuse" dilemma here on Wikipedia, the Psychiatry article hadn't really been edited (I mean with substantial material) for a long period of time. My "rewrite" of psychiatry started long before the psychiatric abuse issue arose. I began the "rewrite" for the following reasons:

1. To add in references.
2. To introduce a more understandable outline and prose.
3. To eliminate the controversy section and integrate those comments into the remainder of the article.

Now the conflict during the last couple of weeks may draw more attention to my "#3" above, but when I originally read the article several weeks ago I thought it conflicted with Jimbo Wales's comments on criticism sections and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Article structure. Honestly, criticism/controversy sections are unencyclopedic to me and need to be integrated.

"Do I have a sense of what this may read like?"

Yes, I'm trying to integrate this information into the history section, and other sections if appropriate. You can see what I've done so far at User:Chupper/Sandbox04.

"Instead, I would recommend that you propose some changes -- either vet a new structure/outline through Talk, or maybe replace one section at a time with an brief explanation in Talk."

Well, I don't know if you saw, but back on September 21st I posted a comment saying I'm going to try and rewrite the article and the location of where I was working on it. The reason I posted that there was so other editors could make comments if they wish.

While I always talk to other editors about controversial changes, I'm usually pretty bold in my edits and, honestly, probably won't formally propose rewrites in situations like these. The psychiatry article just needs too much work and has so few references. If I were going to "rewrite" a GA or other well written article, I would certainly talk to other editors beforehand. In addition, I'm always willing to make changes if editors don't agree with what I'm working on.

The reason I haven't replaced one section at a time is because some of the new sections are taking material from various other old sections. I figured it would be easier to get it rewritten that way. I may, of course, be wrong.

"I think you'll find that a gradual and more open process will gain you -- and Wikipedia -- much more in the long run. How does that sound?"

Well, I always try to follow the Wikipedia:Be bold idea. If you look at my edit history you should see that I'm always open and willing to talk about things, especially with controversial topics and changes. But if no opposition exists to my edits or hopeful edits, I'm going to go ahead and make the changes, even if they are big.

If you really feel I'm owning the article, please let me know, and it would probably be a good idea for me to refrain from editing it. I don't think I am, but recognizing your own problems is not always the easiest thing to do. Chupper 23:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Greetings. I've move here some content from the deleted Psychiatric abuse article. The content deals with "Professional ethics" and "Political abuses" of psychiatry (see new subsections). Both sections should be improved, especially the former. In addition, personally, I think the "Main criticisms" subsection should be expanded into substantive subtopics, at least one of which might then merge with "Professional ethics" or the like. Good luck and best wishes. HG | Talk 22:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

A spin-off article has been created already for Political abuse of psychiatry. Since this topic is still only a brief subsection here, I have discussed reasons to delete of the spin-off. Meanwhile, wouldn't it make sense to delete the link to the spin-off and request discussion of the spin-off first here? Thanks very much. HG | Talk 02:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Kudos for graciously deleting the spin-off to The Anome, who I hope will contribute to the work on this page. Thanks! HG | Talk 12:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Like most articles, the section is not flawless. I think it lacks a certain degree of cohesion, so there's a need for some kind of lead (introduction for the readers) and some ways to turn the various points into a flowing narrative. In addition, I'm sure there are various other key controversies that should at least be mentioned here (and linked to main articles, as need be).

However, the controversy section seems to be an appropriate size, given the strength of reliable sources and the notable content (e.g., Supreme Court decision). For this reason, I encourage Scuro et al. to raise concerns with the Controversy section here, before deleting large amounts of text. Specifically, in what way would you argue that the section gives undue weight to the subtopics? Indeed, the anti-psychiatry piece is already quite small, thereby proportionate to its size, and it links to a main article on these minority viewpoint(s). Thanks. HG | Talk 03:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

My edit summary for the delete of much excess material, "WP:UNDUE undue weight especially considering there are internal links to this topic. Controversy sections by their nature are to be brief". I believe the typical size should be a small paragraph at best which this section has quickly outgrown. The idea is not to give anymore attention to a fringe and opposing viewpoint then necessary. One could argue that the whole section should be deleted. At best it should be a brief summary of the main points. We have undo weight given not only by the breadth of the material but also by topic heading which highlight antipsychiatry. We also have undo weight by not placing this topic at the bottom. I move to shrink this section to the size of the previous edit.--scuro 04:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, in general, I'd say psychiatry has been wrapped up in a notable number of controversies, including in-fighting. I just wrote an section intro that lists: controversies over theories, research methods, diagnostics, treatments, individual (mal)practitioners and political/institutional systems. Frankly, I think we need to beef up our coverage of the history of controversies, including within schools of psychiatry. Comments from folks familiar with that history? Scuro: I wonder if your mostly are concerned about anti-psychiatry. I'd like to point out that this might not be a fringe theory in WP technical terms, perhaps it is a "significant minority" viewpoint? In any case, since it has its own main spin-off article, this page merely needs to give a brief neutral precis of the spin-off. From the other controversies I've listed, scuro and others, in what order and prominence do you think these should be covered? (I prefer the logic from theory to practice to malpractice, but am open to other suggestions.) Thanks for hearing me out. HG | Talk 12:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

So everyone is aware I'm in the process of rewriting this article. I know the criticism sections always get contributed to a lot, but the remainder of the article really needs a lot of work.

I've been trying to integrate this information into the history section of the new article and I did mention that abuse continues today. The criticism section will not be included in the new article - the information will be included throughout the article, mostly in the history section. If you want, feel free to edit User:Chupper/Sandbox04 as the current article will be replaced soon anyway. (Maybe in a few weeks to a month) I'm going to work on the lead last, but the history section is nearly done along with the theory and focus section. The diagnostic systems section has been started. Chupper 12:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'd suggest a full discussion here of how the criticism/abuse are handled. Personally, I'd highly recommend keeping controversial criticism/abuse subtopics as separate sections -- to ease editing, facilitate editor disputes, and allow folks to more readily determine (undue) weight. On your efforts in general, I've comment on your Talk. Good luck! HG | Talk 14:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

HG, I'm not disagreeing with you that Psychiatry has a checkered past. Certainly you can mention that in the history section as long as the undue weight policy is followed. IE, a history mainly focusing on all the negative aspects of Psychiatry would be biased. If on the other hand an issue is still current then you would have both minority and majority opinion on that topic. For instance I think you could make a good minority case that the reward/ risk profile of antidepressants would call for greater caution in the use of that medication. In that case both minority and majority opinion would be easy to cite with good secondary sources, and they are. Anti-psychiatry websites are not reliable because they go on to state major problems with the drugs that are neither mentioned in the minority or majority viewpoint. For example they believe that drugs cause brain damage. They would be considered fringe viewpoint also because neither majority or minority viewpoint even considers their stance. A good deal of their ideas verge, or are, original research and can not be sourced by good secondary sources.

I am asking that you cite your sources for additions to the article. I am assuming your focus is strictly on the negative aspects of Psychiatry and consequently may be excessively biased. With regards to the controversy section feel free to order it in the way that you believe these controversies are regarded in order of importance. You can used my deleted edit as a template for the future edit if you like. Simply be careful to keep the length of this section to a paragraph and make sure to paste the controversy section at the end of the article.

Hope that helps and I appreciate the communication.--scuro 16:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better to assume that I'm (excessively?) unbiased. Indeed, I'm not sure what my personal POV might be toward psychiatry, though I certainly try to be neutral both on articles and Talk pages on all topics. Anyway, scuro, I only got involved thru my interest in helping resolve conflicts (e.g., as a 3rd party opinion for you and Sullivan). I'm sure you're right, if I gather from your remarks that ant-psychiatry is a broad arena with both minority as well as (WP-) fringe elements. In any case, there isn't a "one paragraph" rule about length, so maybe it would make sense to focus on the specific content of what deserves to be said here (vs. elsewhere, if at all). Thanks! HG | Talk 16:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The antipsychiatry movement can not be counted as a minority source with regards to Wikipedia. By minority I mean that they could be quoted as a minority viewpoint within Wikipedia...that is unless the article topic deals specifically with a Antipsych/ Scientology issue vrs. mainstream mental health issues. This is all a little off topic but allow me some leeway and I will make my point. Anti-P and Scientology attempts to look legitimate by creating associations, journals and what not. For instance take a look at the often quoted anti-P association called the ICSPP. That Wikipedian article on the ICSPP may be deleted from Wikipedia simply because there is no secondary source which can back up their claims. This is the problem with the whole movement. They are insular and do not attempt to engage with mainstream institutions and thought unless it is in a highly critical and obtuse manner. Instead they do a lot PR to promote ideas which generally are belief systems and may often also be original research. Their viewpoint is remarkably similar over time. Take at a look at the noted Anti-P critic Peter Breggin, what he states now is what he stated over 30 years ago. There is no variance over time. When they do "research", they tend to cherry pick information to make their point. They don't do double blind research, they "summarize" info.

This is the problem with the controversy section. It is giving too much prominence to neither a minority or majority opinion. The problems with this section include: a) it is not just a brief summary, b)the actual SUMMARY can't be supported by good secondary sources(NYT, Time magazine, textbooks on the issue), c) studies and citations are used but cherry picked. We are given no context to the overall majority and minority viewpoint on the topic of the cited material, d)this information belongs on the article of the appropriate topic, e)and the issue of visual prominence/undue weight with regard to fringe opinions.

Finally, I do now remember you HG, thanks for the refresher. Yes, you were a very balanced editor on the Psychiatric abuse page. Apologies for my faulty assumption. --scuro 21:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your kind words. Just to clarify, are you talking mostly about the "Anti-psychiatry" paragraph or all the "tidbits" (as you said, fair enough!) in the "Main criticisms" section? (Both are under "Controversy.") Certainly the ending paragraphs are different and more mainstream. Anyway, I did use "weasel" words in the section lead-in, just to guide the reader on what would (or should) be coming up, the scope of this section. Assuming that the section is filled in eventually and referenced, the lead could be tightened. From [[User:Chupper|Chupper's sandbox (nice work!), I gather that anti-P did have some influence in de-institutionalization, so wouldn't that imply it (had) had a minority POV role in some quarters? Thanks. HG | Talk 23:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

"I gather that anti-P did have some influence in de-institutionalization". My sources think so. The sources I saw basically stated that psych meds may have jump started it and anti-psychiatry kept it moving. In that sandbox page I tried to present antipsychiatry from a historical context but mention that it still exists today - and tried to do so in an NPOV way. That is one reason I included the image. Chupper 23:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I also wanted to comment on the "Controversy" section as it stands now. I do not feel a Controversy section should exist, and should certainly not exist at its current length. I say so for two reasons.

• As mentioned above, Wikipedia:Neutral_point of view#Article structure (and Jimbo himself) states that these types of sections should not exist and instead the info should be integrated into appropriate sections of the article. This is one Wikipedia policy that I fervently support.
• The existence of this section, and its length make the article unbalanced.

I liked the setup of how I wrote it in that sandbox version and was hoping that would make everyone happy. I understand that might not be the case, but thats my 2 cents... Chupper 23:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I have seen controversy sections on other pages where editors that I respect stated the section should be brief. I have seen the heading changed to "Criticism" such as the Gary Null page, and I have seen controversy labeled as fringe and removed. Regardless, this is a psychiatry article and not an Anti-P article, DO NOT give undue weight to a non-Psychiatry viewpoint. I agree with Chupper that mainstream minority viewpoints about psychiatric issues belong in the article under the appropriate section...when you get out on that fringe end of the spectrum it is questionable as to what you do (if you have the definitive answer let us all know). These true minority viewpoints should be accessible in excellent secondary sources. You may think you know something about a topic but that doesn't matter in Wikipedia land. I'll be demanding that you show me those good citations. I can live with material that is well cited...and for the record single studies or articles out of PLoS Medicine or Anti-P journals doesn't measure up on the yardstick because often there is no social context or any context given. We don't hear what others think of what they have written. Wikipedia wants CONTEXT. Show me that overview, where many editors judged the material that is published or posted...such as a Time magazine article or a citation from the Surgeon General website, that is an impressive citation.

So to answer your question HG...the whole section should be integrated into the article, or moved to other articles, or eliminated...I'll accept a SMALL controversy section. Not everything should be in Wikipedia. Finally the D-instutitionalization issue should again be seen in the broader context of what this article is about. If the Anti-P's want to take credit for that let it be stated on the Anti-P article. One could certainly argue that the whole time period was rife with a questioning of authority, a humanization of mankind...etc and that event would have come about with or without Anti-P's. If someone wants to claim in this article that the Anti-Ps were mainly responsible for that trend then they need a darn good citation...otherwise speculation should be left for the weather.--scuro 03:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'll let you folks work it out. Let me know if I might be useful. Ciao. HG | Talk 03:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Without further input I'm going to revert the controversy section back to my brief version. If someone feels that deleted material should be in this article they can add the info with appropriate citations into the relevant sections. --11:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Chupper. As your version gets closer to completion simple post on talk to let us know. editors can then examine it and give you final input before it replaces the current article.--scuro 11:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha. Yea, HG persuaded me to post it here before I make any changes. I think the bottom line is that before this article just wasn't that active and its activity levels just skyrocketed. I've been trying to integrate changes made here into the sandbox, but haven't been able to completely keep up. I'll work on it ASAP to get it finished. Please remember though that my sandbox version is not the "ultimate" version and if someone else wants to rewrite it or make major changes, I won't feel like you are stepping on my toes :). This is Wikipedia after all - we should all be bold. Thanks for being patient with me though, Chupper 12:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I looked at your latest version briefly and it looked like to be a significant improvement. Simply the sandbox version looked to have some significant revisions and I just wanted to give a little input before it was switched. From my standpoint it's easier to compare your sandbox version and the article then to compare revisions in the history of the article. It's admirable that you are doing the work. The one thing that did strike me visually was that the history section was first on the article and typically the history section is placed further down an article. Is there not a set sequence for sections on articles? I have noticed that the current article has the same problem. Also what did you want to do with the controversy section. I'm not pleased with it's current state and would like it changed soon. Is the whole section a new addition?--scuro 15:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Well maybe we should see what others think of the placement of the history section. I guess I'm used to seeing them first, but I know there a lot of articles where they are not. I probably prefer it first, but either way is really OK with me. As I mentioned above I haven't included a Controversy section for two reasons - Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Article structure (and Jimbo himself) states that these types of sections should not exist and instead the info should be integrated into appropriate sections of the article. This is one Wikipedia policy that I fervently support. In addition, the existence of this section, and its length make the article unbalanced. Remember these are just my opinions. I do feel that "psychiatric abuse" is important enough to be mentioned and have included it in the history section of the article. I do mention that the movement is still active, in at least some form, even today. Let me know your thoughts, and feel free to edit that sandbox article. Chupper 16:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)