This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
THIS IS AN ARCHIVE OF PAST DISCUSSIONS. ITS CONTENTS SHOULD BE PRESERVED IN THEIR CURRENT FORM. IF YOU WISH TO START A NEW DISCUSSION OR REVIVE AN OLD ONE, PLEASE DO SO ON THE CURRENT Talk:Involuntary commitment
I have a question
Is Michael Foucault cited in the article the same person than Michel Foucault ? John Stewart
Thank you for taking my opinion into account. This is late. Good night. John Stewart
Is the comment on various countries using psychiatric imprisonment to remove the "unwanted" neutral? Some source should be referenced.
Quote: some claim China, North Korea, Canada and the U.S.A., amongst others, such facilities were, or currently are, routinely used to imprison and "treat" dissidents - Who's "some"?
After reading this article and looking at the edit history, I have come to the conclusion that many of the editors of this article have serious POV issues. Since I'm not very familiar with the intricacies of this subject, I'll add a cleanup note to this page and trust that wiser users than myself can help clean this up. Maverick 19:29, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
http://mparent7777.blog-city.com/read/995088.htm
“When the 109th Congress convenes in Washington in January, Senator Bill Frist, the first practicing physician elected to the Senate since 1928, plans to file a bill that would define ‘political paranoia’ as a mental disorder, paving the way for individuals who suffer from paranoid delusions regarding voter fraud, political persecution and FBI surveillance to receive Medicare reimbursement for any psychiatric treatment they receive,” writes Hermione Slatkin, Medical Correspondent for the Swift Report. “Rick Smith, a spokesman for Senator Frist, says that the measure has a good chance of passing—something that can only help a portion of the population that is suffering significant distress.”
The book which is referenced seems to have nothing to do with "psychiatric imprisonment." This term seems to be a sort dysphemism created to denigrate psychiatry in general. See Scientology and Antipsychiatry.
That suggestion tag has been here for 3 months without any one voicing opposition. The clean-up tag sat here for a year and no one cleaned up the article. If there is no opposition, I will merge this article with Involuntary commitment.-- Ombudsperson 15:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
This article is no more biased than many of the articles supporting the official psychiatry, its pseudoscientific views, and human rights violations.
--I do not understand what is objectionable about the neutrality of this article. Even the most hard boiled cynic would not deny that a person could be imprisoned without trial for anti-government speech in any country, even America. Cf. "enemy combatant" designation, dissemination of state secrets, "terroristic threats", etc.
Over 200 countries on this planet, and any article describing something unpleasant always uses the US as one of its examples. You figure it out. 67.164.212.239 05:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
If no objections I’ll merge the article. — Cesar Tort 21:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
THIS IS AN ARCHIVE OF PAST DISCUSSIONS. ITS CONTENTS SHOULD BE PRESERVED IN THEIR CURRENT FORM. IF YOU WISH TO START A NEW DISCUSSION OR REVIVE AN OLD ONE, PLEASE DO SO ON THE CURRENT Talk:Involuntary commitment
I have a question
Is Michael Foucault cited in the article the same person than Michel Foucault ? John Stewart
Thank you for taking my opinion into account. This is late. Good night. John Stewart
Is the comment on various countries using psychiatric imprisonment to remove the "unwanted" neutral? Some source should be referenced.
Quote: some claim China, North Korea, Canada and the U.S.A., amongst others, such facilities were, or currently are, routinely used to imprison and "treat" dissidents - Who's "some"?
After reading this article and looking at the edit history, I have come to the conclusion that many of the editors of this article have serious POV issues. Since I'm not very familiar with the intricacies of this subject, I'll add a cleanup note to this page and trust that wiser users than myself can help clean this up. Maverick 19:29, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
http://mparent7777.blog-city.com/read/995088.htm
“When the 109th Congress convenes in Washington in January, Senator Bill Frist, the first practicing physician elected to the Senate since 1928, plans to file a bill that would define ‘political paranoia’ as a mental disorder, paving the way for individuals who suffer from paranoid delusions regarding voter fraud, political persecution and FBI surveillance to receive Medicare reimbursement for any psychiatric treatment they receive,” writes Hermione Slatkin, Medical Correspondent for the Swift Report. “Rick Smith, a spokesman for Senator Frist, says that the measure has a good chance of passing—something that can only help a portion of the population that is suffering significant distress.”
The book which is referenced seems to have nothing to do with "psychiatric imprisonment." This term seems to be a sort dysphemism created to denigrate psychiatry in general. See Scientology and Antipsychiatry.
That suggestion tag has been here for 3 months without any one voicing opposition. The clean-up tag sat here for a year and no one cleaned up the article. If there is no opposition, I will merge this article with Involuntary commitment.-- Ombudsperson 15:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
This article is no more biased than many of the articles supporting the official psychiatry, its pseudoscientific views, and human rights violations.
--I do not understand what is objectionable about the neutrality of this article. Even the most hard boiled cynic would not deny that a person could be imprisoned without trial for anti-government speech in any country, even America. Cf. "enemy combatant" designation, dissemination of state secrets, "terroristic threats", etc.
Over 200 countries on this planet, and any article describing something unpleasant always uses the US as one of its examples. You figure it out. 67.164.212.239 05:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
If no objections I’ll merge the article. — Cesar Tort 21:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)