User talk:HG1/workshop/Abuses of psychiatry/Talk

The article as it currently reads sounds like a sensationalist Scientology webpage with all the crappy references to boot. Granted this was an issue in the past and may still be an issue to some degree, especially in more primitive parts of the world...but I see no balance in the article. I could see both WP:NOPOV and/or WP:BIAS tags being placed on this article. --scuro 02:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which references do you object to? Be specific. Psychiatric abuse is not confined to the more primitive parts of the world. See the stories by the Hartford Courant and the Atlanta Constitution...no, maybe you're in Britain. See the BBC story. You could provide some balance in the article by adding info about psychiatrists who are working to stop psychiatric abuse. We both know they exist and are notable. Maybe mention the Declaration of Honolulu or something. S. M. Sullivan 00:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Psychiatric abuse umbrella as currently defined is huge. Imagine that instead the title was nurse abuse. Using your definition one could make the case that nurse abuse is totally out of control and a blight upon society because there are many examples of nurse "abuse" that happen throughout the world on a daily basis. If your focus is only on the worst aspects of an issue you sensationalize it. I'm afraid that is what has happened to this article. Ask yourself also why there isn't a nurse abuse article. I believe some pretty horrible things happened in the past and that is why this topic still has some resonance.

I don't know a lot about this topic and my viewpoint might be biased. Generally just doing a quick read, I'd say most sections have obvious bias. I'm hoping that you can see this and alter the article. For instance, this article really needs a "global" perspective. A source not out of Atlanta, or a survey of british psychiatric paitents but a reliable source that can put the whole issue in its' proper context. Also I believe the definition is too broad. Making the definition more specific would actually help the article and give it a better focus. Look to see what reliable secondary sources have written about the topic. An overview of the topic by say the NYT would be very helpful. Be careful with antipsychiatry and scientology websites. The bias on these websites are blatantly blinding and that is ultimately why their viewpoint has been marginalized. I'm willing to keep a tag off if your willing to work together to change the article.--scuro 01:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to improve the article and you have given some valuable suggestions. If you don't know a lot about this topic, just rev up your search engine and start reading. The POV anti-psychiatry sites you mention might be OK as external links, and that's where they are (except for the See also stuff). I am going to look for more info to balance th