This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Journalism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Medicine: Psychiatry Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Psychiatry task force (assessed as Low-importance). Psychology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Books This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

A fact from Mad in America appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 18 November 2010 ( check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that Mad in America was a 2002 critique of psychiatry written by American journalist Robert Whitaker? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2010/November.

Many activists of the movement against involuntary treatment in psychiatry consider Whitaker’s Mad in America the best book of its kind. — Cesar Tort 19:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I know this is a talk page and so doesn't require the same standard of citation as a the actual entry, but still — which activists? -- Jacj 19:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply

MindFreedom's. — Cesar Tort 16:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC) reply

The video content of the external links is interesting but the audio is awful. I suggest to replace it for the recent long radio interview here: [1]

— Cesar Tort 16:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I replaced it. However, the videolinks can remain in talk page:

• A video in which Robert Whitaker and Loren Mosher, the first Chief of Schizophrenia Studies at the NIMH, calculate the death toll from the use of neuroleptics.

• A video (third video on the page) in which Robert Whitaker discusses the nature of the evidence for the "chemical imbalance" theory of schizophrenia.

— Cesar Tort 23:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• http://info.epmhmr.org/poc/view_doc.php?id=928&type=book&cn=7 (same as http://metapsychology.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=book&id=928&cn=390)
• http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Mad+in+America%3A+Bad+Science,+Bad+Medicine+and+the+Enduring...-a0190198292
• http://www.schizophrenia.com/bookreviews/MadinAmerica.htm
• http://www.pep-web.org/document.php?id=jaa.031.0581a

Yes, some of these guys are quite known for a strong POV one way or the other, but they should probably still be mentioned. Tijfo098 ( talk) 23:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Tijfo098, would you like to add them? I count three out of these four to be very positive. - SusanLesch ( talk) 20:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Done. All four added, though I'm not sure of their reliability. - SusanLesch ( talk) 02:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC) reply

FWIW, I've nommed this at T:TDYK, but anyone is welcome to think up a better hook than my (rather lame) one...cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 03:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks for doing that (I missed this talk page discussion until now). I added one ALT, maybe there are others. - SusanLesch ( talk) 05:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC) reply

A new hook is ready at DYK if you have time to look and if possible correct it. - SusanLesch ( talk) 22:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Does the Reception section in the article really need expansion as delineated by the {{ Expand section}} tag? At this rate, we can create an entire article on "Reception of Mad in America". If no significant expansion is needed, we should remove the tag. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE ♨ 07:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC) reply

okay, I am happy if it goes now, as the article has a more comprehensive reception section than many book articles on WP I imagine.... Casliber ( talk · contribs) 10:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Does this really belong in this article, especially in the lead? It seems more suitable in his bio, but even there I would not put it in the lead. He did write more than one work on mental illness. Tijfo098 ( talk) 02:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Also, the issue is not covered in the body of this article, which is against WP:LEAD. Tijfo098 ( talk) 02:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC) reply

I used to agree with you but have since been told that that's not true. The lead can contain this. - SusanLesch ( talk) 22:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC) reply

What the article really needs is a background section, which'd be where a sentence like that would go, as well as containing some info on Whitaker and his reasons or motivation in writing the book. Susan, are there any interviews with Whitaker (or even the prologue of the book) where this is covered? Casliber ( talk · contribs) 03:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Good idea. The "never suffered" part is from an interview. Tijfo098 ( talk) 11:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC) reply

I think it's fine as is (wouldn't want any more about the author here). - SusanLesch ( talk) 22:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Since punctuation in this article swung back and forth between British style (commas and periods outside closing quotes) and American style, I took the liberty of attempting to make it all consistent with standard American written style: commas and periods always inside closing quotes. OK? Ed8r ( talk) 19:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Yeah, good move. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks a lot, Ed8r. - SusanLesch ( talk) 22:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC) reply

I see the title is moving back and forth. If someone wants to move it from Mad in America over objections, there's a procedure at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves that ought to be followed. The first step is to move it back to the original title, then hold a seven-day discussion, which an uninvolved editor will close unless the consensus is obvious. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• Not in this case: It's not just this article that's going through this issue. Unfortunately, there's no guideline that I can find that states whether or not a book article's title should have it's full name, or a shorter name. Just requesting one move discussion will not resolve this issue: consensus needs to be formed about this distinction as a whole. Please refer to Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Should books have full titles, or short titles when necessary? for the discussion that hopefully will be able to form overall consensus about this topic. Steel1943 ( talk) 22:19, 31 March 2013 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mad in America. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:icPMLny9H2EJ:www.medscape.com/viewarticle/432570+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk with https://web.archive.org/web/20140715021226/http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/432570 on http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/432570

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mad in America. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101024073004/http://www.madinamerica.com/madinamerica.com/Whitaker/Whitaker.html to http://www.madinamerica.com/madinamerica.com/Whitaker/Whitaker.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC) reply