Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others/Evidence

Mediation or some sort of work forum needs to be arranged

I already wrote my 1000 words in evidence page and do not want to exceed the limit with a Fifth Assertion. However, it must be noted that another editor has stated that what is happening in Biological psychiatry article is a content dispute, and that “mediation or some sort of work forum needs to be arranged” [1]. If we keep in mind what I have stated elsewhere, that despite claims to the contrary I am not a pov pusher in articles [2] in spite of the fact that I showed my strong pov in talk pages [3] and that I have not violated policy [4], in my case a content dispute should have been rejected without prejudice. —Cesar Tort 17:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that pleas for mediation were offered numerous times (eg [5]), but Cesar Tort (and Ombudman) did not responded positively, instead continuing to state "strong pov in talk pages" in the defence of his tagging [6]. Rockpocket (talk) 19:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At that time I had no idea what was mediation or arbitration. Rockpocket himself wrote: “I believe Cesar Tort's position, while misguided, is in good faith and that lack of response to requests for mediation is due to not understanding [7], rather than wilful disregard for the dispute resolution process” [8]. —Cesar Tort 19:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One would hope that the outcome of this Arbitration would mean that content mediation will no longer be required. While i appreciate that you did not understand the process, i do not accept that you did not understand the meaning of the word mediation. Were you genuinely interested in finding middle ground during the tagging process you had the opportunity to explore it then, rather than simply retagging. It seems a new found enthusiasm for mediation appeared with the spectre of an Arcom decision looming, that is not to your liking.

I do accept that, as a relatively new editor, you are not familiar with many of Wikipedia's policies. I myself have only been here a little longer, yet i took the time to read about Wikipedia policy before editing a controversial article and as such regularly collaborate on articles on issues i feel strongly about in a manner that is recognised as neutral by those with polar opposite views. One can only plead ignorance for so long, especially when you disregard other editors who spend time explaining policy and offering ways to resolve the situation. My quote that you reproduce above was giving you the benefit of the doubt, and i stand by that. However, your continued refusal to recognise that strong pov contributions on the talk page as justification for tagging is POV pushing, is rapidly draining the credibility of the "newbie" excuses. Rockpocket (talk) 22:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand policy correctly, what I did (only two tags in article fully justified in talk page) was legal. While I don’t object Jfdwolff’s removal of my first tag after some discussion, the removal of my second tag by Fuzzform seems to me pro-psychiatry pov pushing. And, Rockpocket, I think overall that the case has been stated on both sides. We better stop discussing here and wait ArbCom decision. —Cesar Tort 23:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Involuntary treatment

Evidence Page is about behavior assertions. However, this case has increasingly become about content. I have stated somewhere else that I was Wiki-burnout about accusations. But now that the well is not poisoned (I hope), I’d like to comment once more about content.

Besides what the DSM psychiatric manual really says [9], some of the most relevant content issues about Biological psychiatry article have been discussed here [10]. And the genetic/environment discussion, for example, continued in user and talk pages [11], Talk:Pit of despair and also in [12].

But now Anarchist42, a newcomer to the debate, has introduced the most important subject of all: involuntary treatment by psychiatrists. Involuntary treatment explains why thousands of psychiatric users around the world have organized forums such as MindFreedom International. Besides being independent from religious affiliations, MindFreedom has been recognized by the United Nations. According to Anarchist42 involuntary treatment by biopsychiatrists “suggests that their methods and theories warrant a more critical perspective than the other medical fields (i.e. more than just a paragraph or two in psychiatric articles)” [13]. —Cesar Tort 02:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response Involuntary treatment issues are political and social issues which are unrelated to the nature of the research, hypotheses, treatment modalities, credibility, or value of biopsychiatry. Other than piling on with more irrelevant political bashing, neither Anarchist42's comments nor these by Cesar Tort add anything relevant to the discussion. I'm am curious as to why every argument regarding political, social, or economic concerns is believed to carry some weight as a scientific argument and have yet to hear any reason (other than personal hostility to conventional medicine or purely political grandstanding) as to why they should appear at all in the article on biopsych. There is an entire article devoted to anti-psychiatry where opponents to what they believe is conventional psychiatry can contribute at length and even though it is completely biased in view it has not been tagged by those who recognize the value of conventional medicine. There is no need for every anti-medicine, anti-science, anti-vaccination, anti-psychiatry, anti-evolution activist to have a loud voice in every article in WP. There isn't any need to jump the couch on this article, which is what is happening. Ande B. 03:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prometheuspan 20:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Involuntary treatment is wholly relevant, in that biopsych is a problem science that tries to solve problems in an unhinged and unbalanced way, using only the chemical aspects of the brains functions, whereas the primary social problems which most often are adressed by the method ARE SOCIAL not brain chemistry problems. Involuntary treatment is wholly relevant in that if you are "treated" and your problems are not solved, then you have just been system raped and forced to take drugs which may render you incompetent to defend yourself. This is a serious and very real problem that you invalidate with a sweep of your fallacious logic, you should think about the victims that you are now casting the blame on, and how social problems are best solved socially not chemically. Prometheuspan 20:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying that involuntary treatment is "relevant" and to the extent that it has political relevance, I agree. So do millions of others, which is why, in every jurisdiciton with which I am familiar, involuntary treatment is subject to statutory and other types of regulation. But that has nothing to do with the scientific hypotheses that are being pursued nor does it have anything to do with the efficacy, or lack thereof, of any medical treatment. Even though it may well be that for some patients a "social" or personal insight and coping strategies could be most helpful, that does not invalidate anything about biopsych. I don't see where you get the idea of me or anyone else "Blaming the victim". Denying medication to a victim and insisting that all difficulties be solved without such assistance would be blaming and burdening the victim to me. You appear to be entirely blinded by your own zealotry and have failed to make any scientifically or medically valid point in your argument by assertion. Ande B. 20:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How efficient is a medical treatment if all it does in reality is make a person easier to deal with by others, rather than actually solve any real problems? Again, you assert that there is no causal link, the causal link is obvious. The system doesn't work. As long as it sticks its head in the sand over its own inadequacies, it won't solve the problem. "Blaming the victim" no, of course you miss that. But if a patiient say for instance with a nervous social anxiety type disorder is treated with drugs, then what we have done is place the burden of the problem on probably a victim of societies

dysfunction. I'm A sociologist and a Psychologist, and I have a clear mind for how we should deal with "mental health" as a sociology problem, and how we are blaming the victim when we medicate people instead of change society as per the obvious. As far as being blinded by zealotry, I'll call that a convenient projection and an ad hominem, but I'll spare you the WP:PAIN report, since I'm sure your denial has made you delusional. My argument by assertion seems to be working fine, they say projection and cognitive disonance happen in argument when the person doesn't have a valid argument and subliminally knows it. Prometheuspan 20:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are making assertions, not providing any evidence that shows that more than a minority of the scientific / medical establishment agrees with your criticisms to the extent you seem to be claiming. You say you have a "clear mind as to how we should deal with mental health." Apparently your "clear mind" isn't in agreement with the majority of medical practitioners. I don't care if you are a sociologist or a psychologist or anything else. What I am responding to is your utter lack of evidence showing that your view is anything other than a minority view. You do not seem to be able to do that. Instead, you seem to want to use WP as a forum to "correct" what you see as an established but erroneous medical model. Perhaps this is not exactly what you want to get across, but this is the message you are giving. For some reason you seem to want to be able to attack the objectivity and ethics of anyone who disagrees with you but don't respond happily when the focus is on your own biases. I wonder why that is. Ande B. 20:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"more than a minority of the scientific / medical establishment" Why would i do that? I know that I have a minority opinion, the only question is what level of due weight that minority opinion should recieve. Trying to bait me into making a straw man for you? sorry. "Correct...established but erroneous" Again you falsely attribute my position to only myself, when in fact and as you should know many scientists share this minority opinion. You can read anything you want into what i write, your interpretation isn't what I am interested in. So far, I have yet to discuss you except in response to you discussing me. I don't mind discussing my own biases in propper time and place, and, if you are seeking disclosure, I have more than provided it. I haven't attacked your objectivity or your ethics, I have simply stated the facts as they are. Me and millions of other people know that the Pharma industry has serious problems. You are the one taking this personally, you are the one involving your own ego, so any attack you subjectivize is entirely delusional. Prometheuspan 21:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to bait you or anyone else. I'm trying to make sense of your comments in terms of whatever argument you are trying to make. It appears that we are both aware that you share a minority opinion with others. Your minority opinion may even be more constructive than the majority opinion. My opinion may reflect your own more than what might be referred to as the "establishment" view. Nonetheless, until you can articulate an argument that contains anything other than the promotion of a viewpoint, the best anyone can do is try to piece your statements into some sort of patchwork. I have tried to explain that you or your comments "appear" to say, indicate, or promote ceratin ideas; I tried to not claim that this is what you actually do believe. But your comments require massive amounts of interpretation. That being the case, both you and Cesar Tort need to provide a clear statement of your disputes regarding POV and bias in the article, not a continued attack on the majority medical and scientific view of biopsychiatry. That has not happened yet and, as a consquence, you both claim that your positions have been misinterpreted or misconstrued. You will continued to be misunderstood or ignored until you can phrase your concerns outside of the advocacy mode. Ande B. 21:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since i have knowledge of of formal logic, this noise is useless.

I have framed my argument in perfectly legal and perfectly sane terms, you are only and yet again changing the topic into a veiled ad hominem. You are very skilled at misconstrueing things, but you don't have the power to keep other people from seeing the obvious. As long as you have a cognitive dissonance and refuse to face reality, your inability to see or understand is really not my problem. To reiterate; Pharma drugs has serious problems. Those problems are not merely the fictional imaginations of me and cesar working over time, they are based in fact and there is a large body of evidence even in teh scholarly community to support our position. You are simply ignoring the arguments and making me and cesar the subject. In a variety of different ways. I don't have any problem admitting to a factual minority opinion, or in advocating that that minority opinion be given a fair voice under its due weight. Your arguments do not in general lead one to believe that you understand the reality or the severity of the problem, or the factuality of the evidence or even the number of people involved in the minority view. Prometheuspan 21:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually not making a veiled ad hominem. I am expressing frustration with your "arguments." I have not changed the topic, I have attempted to explain why my responses are as they are: they reflect the "arguments" and "evidence" that have been presented on these pages. And those arguments have consistently failed to address the underlying dispute that brought this matter to the Arb pages. You may well have had classes in logic and argument, but I do not see any evidence of that in what has been presented here because the arguments do not address the underlying editing dispute, they continually address other things, just as Cesar Tort has constantly argued about issues that are not relevant to the "editing" dispute. Arguing about whether one psychiatric treatment model is better than another or that the biopsych model is "flawed" is not what the editorial dispute is about. It is about endless tagging as a means to push POV by a person(s) who will never be satisfied with the article until it becomes one that gives preference to a competing model. That is simply not a defensible editing position. The dispute is about editing issues, arguing the merits of one model vs another is not what the article is about, nor is it WP policy as I understand it (though I could very easily misunderstand WP policies.) Ande B. 22:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the total history and can't comment on that.

My assumption is, the last thing you really want to do is send me in to go look at talk pages. I think that you are unfairly characterizing cesars position and tactics, and i would hope that the reality is that the problem here is not what you say or seem to feel, but that the dispute wasn't resolved earlier because of the polarization which both sides apparently participated in. It is appropriate for wikipedia to give fair time to this minority view, and I don't see a respect for that in your arguments. Its important that medicine be given its propper respect, and the worst failure I see is your defensiveness in that. Honestly, I think all sides of this debate are suffering because of the vagueness of handling issues of due weight. Thats a wikipedia systemic problem, and if i were the whole lot of you, I'd be haranguing Jimbo over running the place so loosely. The real question is not whether or not the minority opinion should be given a voice, but how large that voice should be compared to other voices. Apparently Cesar thinks that the voice being allowed him is too small, and apparently you disagree. Nowhere on Wikipedia is there a qauntitative rule to follow. If we go by the idea that neutrality delivers a document in which the reader can discern no apparent bias one way or the other, then the article is clearly not that. Then again, this voice got in with a due weight freedom pass under the npov neutrality policy, and giving the minority opinion equal time would seem unfair. Then there is the problem of pov forking, and when and if there are good grounds to pov fork, which i think there are in this case. If I was an arbiter, I'd instruct Him to leave no more than links to his own articles and a paragraph of basic info in the mainline articles, and instruct him to part out his arguments to several articles, and prolly get a name change as "anti" is predjudicial. As I am not an arbiter, All i can do is look at the arguments in front of me and use logic to determine their validity. The arguments you are using are polarizing, disrespectful, and whether intended or not, cross the line into ad hominems as defined in formal logic. 25 percent seems like a fair number.Prometheuspan 23:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that anyone has the time or patience to go through the article talk page in its choronological squence. Be that as it may, my perception is that on several occassions it appeared that Cesar had made explicit agreements to refrain from continuing certain arguments on these pages and to simply let the Arbitrators reach a decision.

No: my deal with Rockpocket was merely not engage anymore in mutual accusations. —Cesar Tort 23:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But then he would make another appearance and not let the matters rest. For a while, this page and Arb was fairly quiet, awaiting an official decision. Then Cesar posted an entire page of specious arguments and explications for no apparent reason. I can't for the life of me determine what he thought he would accomplish other than to create hostility.

I was merely concerned by a negative vote in Proposed decision [14]: that’s why I felt compelled to better present my case. —Cesar Tort 00:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had previously supported Cesar in this matter! But his chronic failure to abide by agreements he made with others (not with me) and his odd posting that included a direct personal attack on me and others while I was attempting to help him avoid POV and editing disputes on other articles has caused me to realize that what others had told me about Cesar's supposed "good faith" errors was spot on and that I had, indeed, "assumed good faith" when there was none to be had. Am I blaming Cesar, well it looks like I am insofar as it relates to my entirely recent hostility to him, his cause, and his claims of victimhood. I have, on numerous occassions, indicated that a full critique of each of the problematic methods and medications be examined in the articles that specific deal with those treatments. But a full critique of every failing of each medication or therapy or anything else is not warranted on the BioPsych page because the Biopsych page is, for the most part, an umbrella article that directs people to other articles about diagnoses and treatments. I agree that the rather amorphous standards for determining coverage of "criticism" within articles can lead to problems. But in this instance, given a history that involves Ombudsman, an apparently problematic editor who seems happy to instigate people to cause as many difficulties as possible, there is little chance that the anti-psych crowd will be willing to accept what most neutral others would agree is "sufficient" criticism.

I will comply with ArbCom decision without further complaints. —Cesar Tort 00:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still cannot understand why there is an ongoing effort at posting more and more commentary that could best be described as either an attack on BioPsych as it is currently practiced or information that supports an alternative to biopsych. That substance is not what this supposedly about. I have responded to those posts primarily because that is all that has been presented by Cesar and those who seem to be supporting his position. But, as far as I'm concerned, none of those anti- or pro- comments are relevant to the underlying editorial dispute about relentless tagging as a means of forcing a POV. Ande B. 23:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The editing solution has already been suggested by Fred Bauder: the 25% compromise [15]. —Cesar Tort 22:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And Fred Bauder made a suggestion that is in direct contradiciton of WP editing policy. Furthermore, there is already that amount or more given over to criticism in the article. Unless you are re-defining "25%". Ande B. 22:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you re-read my “Third Content Assertion”? [16]. There’s no substantial criticism in biopsych article; only cosmetic criticism. Bauder’s suggestion doesn’t contradict WP policy. Your suggestion does. The strongest of my assertions, Raul’s razor [17], vigorously attest for that. —Cesar Tort 23:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wholly agree with Ande B [far way above] about anti-medicine, anti-science, anti-vaccination and anti-evolution. However, unlike the above biopsych is sometimes involuntary. Hence the nature of the research, hypotheses and treatment modalities ought to be supported by solid scientific evidence. But in “bio”psych we have the eternal biomarker impasse and the unresolved issues discussed in the internal links above in this section. —Cesar Tort 04:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, "anti-science" and "anti-evolution" are often involuntary too. Religious indoctrination leaves many youngsters little opportunity to learn about science. There are educational establishments where "anti-evolution" is taught as fact. Anti-evolutionists use many of the same psuedoscience, agendist arguments anti-psychiatrists do. The point is, political and ideological cases can be made against any discipline you choose, making exceptions of one is illogical. Lack of evidence does not make a discipline invalid (or else the astrobiology article wouldn't exist) Rockpocket 01:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prometheuspan 20:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC) To compare those two is to draw a false analogy. This is not psuedoscience and it is not driven by another rival paradigm. The fact is that even Psychology and any serious psychologist has serious problems with the overmedication of society, and that is a problem, and all you are doing is serving to cover up the problem. Rather than defending your pet paradigms, maybe you should remember the scientific method. We won't solve these problems in reality until we can admit that they are real. Science is harming people in this case, and intellectual honesty requires us to examine that as fact and to use the scientific method without bias to improve science rather than defend it as a paradigm. Prometheuspan 20:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only people defending "pet paradigms" in this instance are those such as yourself who want to promote their own activist views to WP readers and administrators. No one is defending the biopsychiatry "paradigm." We (or at least I) are only saying that the article, as currently written, contains adequate criticism to warrant the removal of neutrality dispute tags and to prevent certain editors from using tags as a means of advocating a POV. If you've got a dispute with the involuntary medical practices or overmedication in your jurisdiction, take it to the proper regulatory, review, and enforcement entities. But leave your activism out of the WP pages. Ande B. 21:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that is all you are saying, then having looked at the psychiatry article, all i can say is that it does appear that due weight purposes to the minority opinion has been given. However,

it depends on how many other articles we look around at, and I'm sure i could find pro-system bias on wikipedia. To accuse me of activism is the height of ludicrousness. I was having a conversation on a talk page, and somebody noticed some points relevant to this discussion. I followed up some invitations, and I looked at your arguments. If you are not defending the paradigm, then we can admit together that the paradigm has problems. I don't really care one way or the other, this is a side job for me, an exploration for further sampling into wikipedia process. What i found was bad logic, a silly argument, and a page of amusing sparring. If the question is solved that in fact, there are serious problems with the implementation of the science, then great, implement npov policy as per giving each voice its due. The problem is, people making arguments that are grounded in propaganda tools, and ignorance. As far a neutrality dispute tags, obviously they should not be removed until the dispute is resolved. Maybe you should try admitting that there are problems with pharma drugs, and encouraging a responsible npov exploration, giving time to a minority voice in ratio to its due weight. In other words, this whole conversation is polarized, and you are obviously contributing to its polarization, not to solving the problem. Prometheuspan 21:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prometheuspan, I too got stuck in this tar-baby of a dispute due to an innocent "Recent changes" patrol. I too had great difficulty in navigating the arguments and parties that I encountered on the talk pages. I can't imagine wading through the talk pages of the article or for this dispute will be easy or even productive for anyone. The tone has been one of frustration all around, which leads to even more misunderstandings. You may find this difficult to believe, but I have typically been assigned to dealing with the "difficult" people and issues anywhere I have worked. "Difficult" including those making bomb threats, death threats, and suicide threats. Those types of situations are relatively simple to deal with effectively compared to trying to communicate with nothing but a typed page and no voice or body gestures to ameliorate what can seem to be a very hostile or bewildering tone. I don't like these types of disputes because if I have to undertake this type of aggravation, I want to be paid for it. And paid well! Still, I believe that you and I are largely on the same page with our concerns about how mental health is conducted, at least in North America. My concerns in this article have always and exclusively been editorial, not substantive. Now you may disagree with me about how an article is best structured, but I don't think any of us are gaining anything by engaging in a crazy debate about public health care issues which, I believe, most of us share. You have said I have contributed to the negative tone here and I can certainly see why you would say that. I feel the same about your contributions. You jumped into the middle of an argument that already had quite a history and made arguments similar to those that have been tossed about for a long time. Things had quieted down substantially here and the parties were getting along fine outside of these pages until Cesar Tort decided to post a lengthy page of comments that included assertions that I was an advocate and that advocates were at best questionable as editors. A rather self-defeating statement for him to make, I thought. I am not one to lie down and be quiet when I have been falsely accused. Cesar later made an effort to retract that comment but, in the mean time, more damage was done. Anyhow, do you have any suggestion as to how we can get off of this chaotic track? I, for one, would like to return to a quieter, more productive life. Ande B. 22:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prometheuspan 23:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Yes, I do have some suggestions. First off, I think that NVC would be VERY useful in dealing with edit conflicts so that we don't have to go all the way to rfcs and arbitration. Secondly, I think that 25 percent is more than fair to all around, maybe even a bit heavy on the minority opinion side, but hey. Thirdly I think that Cesars arguments and information are very complicated, and that the solution that best suits wikipedias format is for him and others to explore those arguments in many more articles than it seems have currently been generated. Rather than compete and argue over an article, it is better in cases like these for one camp to get its article and the other camp to get theirs and for the two articles to refer to each other. Science level pov forks are an interesting special case; Since both sides can produce backing for pov that is oposite and based on science and fact. The problems come in when people try to censor or change or spin the facts as they are. Its a fundamental paradox of wikipedia. Articles are written by people whoare interested in those topics; People participate because they have their biases and interests. And yet, what we want is for bias and interests to be edited out. The tools to do this are lacking. Wikipedia NEEDS to adopt conversational logic into its rules system, its the only way to make sense of complicated issues like these. Prometheuspan 23:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you [Rockpocket, far way above] that fundamentalist parents abuse their children with involuntary, creationist ideas (I myself was abused with involuntary Catholicism as a child). But isn’t this rather different from a serious, professional critical approach to psychiatry, e.g. that EHPP journal you yourself mentioned in biopsych article? Lack of evidence doesn’t make a discipline invalid, true; but astrobiology is a voluntary discipline. In other words, beware of involuntary disciplines! —Cesar Tort 02:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you insist that involuntary commitment issues undermine scientific research, clinical trial results, and the efficacy of treatment modalities? This is getting to be a one-note tune that has already been played out. Ande B. 02:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't you see basic cause and effect? If we keep using boxes such as adhd and scitzophrenia to toss people into, when any honest expert can tell you that there are dozens or hundreds of different actual disorders and causes to those symtom driven schema,

we create a cycle of systemic bias and systemic projection. That makes research unlikely to happen in useful directions. Treatment modalities based on solving social problems instead of chemicals obviously don't get applied. The problem here is that drugs are being used to anesthetize the dysfunctionality of the system, not to fix peoples problems, but to FIX people as problems of the system. Prometheuspan 20:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're making a lot of assumptions here and quite honestly I don't know where you come up with them other than your own blind zealotry. You obviously have some personal bias against the use of medications, that does not mean that your bias is legitimate nor does it mean that those who disagree with your bias engage in the weird thought processes you project onto them. Ande B. 20:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know what you don't know and thats why you don't know where i come up with information that is well grounded in science. I don't have a personal Bias against anything, I have depth

knowledge of Psychology, Sociology, And Political Science. And I have Asperger Syndrome, was misdiagnosed with adhd (I am actually capable of acute focus at "trance" levels.) And my mother was a counseling psychologist that threw her life away to prescription meds. I speak not from the lofty heights of theory and reified schema, but from a life of hard, cold, cruel realities that people like yourself have no clue of and no business even thinking that you know better than. I appreciate prescription meds for what they can do, and i recomend them in cases where they work and where the benefit outweighs any problems created. Wisely also, i understand that there are factual problems with TOO MANY PEOPLE being put ON TOO MANY drugs for TOO MANY WRONG REASONS. I understand the factual problems concerned with trying to solve complicated social and psychological problems with chemicals. I understand that the system is in fact victimizing millions of people; I lived through that abuse in two very real and very distinct ways. To call me biased with no actual logic to back it up is to heap on more ad hominems. I suggest that you desist from attacking me personally and adress the points that have been made. WP:PAIN was unknown to me because of wikipedias labyrinthine organization the last time people used ad hominems against me, but I am itching to try out the process to see if it works. The Topic is Pharma drugs. Not Me. Prometheuspan 20:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have had very unhappy experiences and express understandably strong feelings about them.

What part of don't talk about me personally are you having a hard time with?

You seem to be trying to say something about "experience" and "lofty heights" but I have yet to see anything other than personal anecdote

Yes, even if i had no knowledge of psychiatry or psychology or sociology or political science, my sheer life experiences make me an expert qualified to say that big pharma is victimizing the public.

and activism.

Ad hominem. excluded middle.

These are not adequate bases for whatever argument you believe you are making.

ad hominem

Your own statments undermine your claim that you do not have a bias.

Thats what ethical full disclosure does. I show you my weak spot and see if you bite. Then if you do, I rip your teeth out. Metaphor make any sense of situation now?

To the extent that bias and POV pushing are inappropriate then your strong activism and advocacy are appropriate areas of discussion.

ad hominems, and boring redundant repitition of theme. You can't jedi mind trick us by repeating mantras.

I would very much like to address the points you believe you have made but I cannot decipher them.Ande B. 21:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well then, I expect you to recuse yourself from this conversation on the grounds that you are having serious cognitive dissonance. Prometheuspan 21:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have the phrase ad hominem in your vocabulary.

Unfortunately you are misusing it here. I am explaining why you are not effective in your attempts at argument, not calling you names or making some sort of personal accusation.

Yes, and making ME the subject is a form of Ad hominem. If i communicate poorly, then its your job first to answer what has been said and its content, and then and only then, to make comment on me. You are using ME as a way to evade the actual subject. Which is what you are also doing with Cesar. Quit knocking him personally, and get on with actually solving problems.

It is not ad hominem if it is true. You are not presenting arguments that have any relevance as to the underlying editorial dispute. You jumped into the middle of an argument and seem to have mistook the fundamental editing issue. Beyond that, you, like Cesar, present political arguments that have no relevancy to the efficacy of treatments, the underlying course of inquiry within biopsychiatry, or an accurate description of how biopsychiatry is understood by the majority of the medical profession. I do not avoid arguments, as you may have noticed by now. Ande B. 00:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot describe yourself adequately and I have tried to understand your comments.

I AM IRRELEVANT. I am not required to descibe myself AT ALL. I gave depth information about me to satisfy disclosure ethics, and you have exploited this to make me the subject even further.

I could have more accurately phrased that as "you cannot describe your positions and argumnets adequately..." I really don't have any interest in your personal life at all. You're quite right, you are irrelevant. Ande B. 00:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You say I have not yet understood your argument, well that is not due to any cognitive lack on my behalf.

Apparently untrue; I have argued cogently and we still keep talking about me personally, not what i have argued over.

You are not an impartial, or accurate, judge as to the adequacy of your arguments. If you bring up your personal history, expect to have it commented upon. Ande B. 00:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want people to "talk" about your personal laife, don't bring it up as a basis for the legitimacy of your arguments.

If you could adress even the actual issues i brought up, that would be different. So far, you have adressed only your own projections and your claim that i make no sense to you. I think your cognitive center is operating selectively, and think you could make sense of what i am saying if you made the effort. You aren't.

You have yet to bring up any relevant issue. Ande B. 00:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for my teeth, they feel quite fine, freshly flossed and all.  Is there any reason for this angry display of yours?

How many veiled ad hominems would we be up to if i was counting? 10? Suppose i counted those direted at Cesar? 50? YES, theres a reason for my anger, Nobody should be bothered to have to argue with somebody who can't even tell the difference between the topic at hand and a conversation about other people. You are being patently abusive and manipulative, I have every right to take strong objection to you.

So, take a strong objection. But don't expect to have your comments, arguments, or evidence taken seriously if they are not relevant to the dispute. You seem to want me to argue on your own terms but the dispute is not about you or your arguments, it is about appropriate editorial standards. You apparently have failed to identify the topic at hand. Ande B. 00:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this how you communicate with your "depth knowledge?" Ande B. 22:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes, this is how i communicate. Veiled ad hominem number xyz. Lets try basic basic basic here. Hypothetically, how would you feel if i were to call you an "ignorant fool with no real communications skills?" Whats the difference between that attack and yours? Mine isn't hiding in neutral language and at least has the guts to stand up and say what it means. Both attacks are logically equal. You also use leading questions abuseively. Prometheuspan 23:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How would I feel? Well coming from you, I would feel nothing. Ande B. 00:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[Response to another entry far way above:] I just mean we have to be extra careful with such treatments after psychiatry was massively used in Communist countries to subdue rebellious citizens (just as it’s used now to subdue rebellious adolescents in the West). —Cesar Tort 02:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well that political concern applies equally to nearly any conceivable type of abuse of civil or human rights. It has nothing to do, per se, with biopsychiatry or conventianal medicine. The nazi doctors perpetrated gross horrors in concentration camps, that does not mean that medecine is a politically suspect activity. Ande B. 03:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OF course medicine is abused and is politically suspect for abuse! What kind of delusional world are we trying to live in here?

What part of corporate America making and selling a product which is overused and potentially harmful don't you understand? You keep framing this in terms of an argument you are having as if we are attacking the medical establishment and as if THAT is the key issue here. Sorry, its not about that, and its not about you and your projection. It is about the simple fact that pharma drugs are seriously overprescribed and that other solutions are not being explored or applied. Quit defending your pet paradigm ans start working with intellectual honesty to fix its problems. Prometheuspan 20:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biopsychiatry is mainstream / conventional medicine. To the extent you attack biopsych, you are, indeed, attacking the medical establishment. Overprescription of all types of drugs is a social problem. Overprescription does not, in and of itself, have anything to do with the underlying hypotheses or biopsychiatry nor does it have anything to do with the efficacy of any treatment. You appear to have not read my statements that I am skeptical of many if not most psychoactive drugs and actually believe that drugs are often over-prescribed as a result of fads rather than sound rationale and that perfectly healthy children are overdiagnosed as having problems that are really nothing more than the abundant energy of childhood. The fact that solutions other than medication should be explored in no way refutes anything about biopysch. Where did you learn to discuss these issues? You don't seem to be helping your cause. You are simply appearing to be a more and more biased activist with each additional sentence you enter. Ande B. 20:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[response to Ande B above:] Yes, but psychiatry is unique in two senses: (1) it’s the only involuntary medical specialty, and (2) it’s the only medical specialty without proof of the cause or physiology of psychiatric diagnoses. Have you read psychiatrist Loren Mosher’s letter of resignation to the APA in User talk:Cesar Tort/discussion? —Cesar Tort 03:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your above statement shows the crux of the problem: "we have to be extra careful with such treatments". An encyclopedia article isn't a forum for redressing past wrongs or influencing social policy. You obviously have strong feelings about such things, and there are many venues for such activism, but an encyclopedia isn't the place for that. Joema 15:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, what you miss is exactly your own point in reverse. Since the facts of the case are that there is a serious problem, it is our factual responsibility to report on the facts as they are, not spin them and keep them spun to protect the pharma industry and make allopathic medicine sound good. The reality is pov pushing in this instance is denial of the problem. Wikipedia would be remiss in its duty to fact, and to neutral reporting if it did not report on this problem and give it the due weight that it deserves.

Prometheuspan 20:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[Response to Joema above:] But even encyclopedias must mention the historical facts about the Holocaust and the Gulag. —Cesar Tort 16:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're really out of line, here, Cesar. The Holocaust has nothing to do with this discussion. Godwin's law says you are finished with this conversation, which you have just to degraded irretrievably. Ande B. 17:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC) Ande B. 17:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a metaphor, its a good one. The people involved in the holocaust were convinced they were doing the right thing by means of fallacious groupthink. Similar situation, same number of victims, slightly different social causations. An encyclopedia is not for only the politically expedient facts, nor for the state supported or official version facts. It is for the facts period, and, some might argue, in the face of social problems, it has an extra responsiblity to report fact and provide clarity on complicated issues.

Prometheuspan 20:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[Response to Ande B about Godwin's law:] I disagree. I trust you will agree with me that some mental hospitals were snake pits in the First World (we still have them in the Third World). Are you familiar with Albert Deutsch’s book The Shame of the States? In the 1930s there were many public US psychiatric hospitals which rivaled the European concentration camps. Deutsch wrote that in such “buildings swarming with naked humans herder like cattle [...] I saw hundreds of patients living under leaking roofs”. The psychiatric facilities were infested with rats, cockroaches and other vermin. Some hospitals housed more than 4000 people and inpatients died like flies. All of this ended in the US after the 1946 Life exposé. But we still have quite a few snake pits in Mexico... —Cesar Tort 19:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize in advance if my following observations are not appropriate to this page (I am unfamiliar with the RFA protocols). I have been asked by Cesar Tort to join this discussion, and will do so because he appears to be acting in good faith (although I may disagree with his approach and/or beliefs). From what I have read, I believe that this RFA is inappropriate with respect to Cesar Tort's conduct. I submit that psychiatry is arguably different from other medical fields because: (1) it can treat patients against their will, and (2) it is primarily still based upon an assumption which lacks definitive proof (although I suspect that eventually a neurological abnormality will be identified). Of course RFAs should not be about content, nonetheless I submit that a healthy dose of valid scepticism is warranted in psychiatric articles. The bipolar disorder article (which I have edited) took a lot of work by many editors over a significant timeframe before it reached its current balanced form, which is now NPOV; I submit that, due to the reasons I mention above, psychiatric articles may need more time and discussion that typical articles in order to become truly NPOV. Thus, I again submit that this RFA is premature. - Anarchist42 19:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Content assertions

First content assertion

Law #13. Raul's Razor: An article is neutral if, after reading it, you cannot tell where the author's sympathies lie. An article is not neutral if, after reading it, you can tell where the author's sympathies lie.

Law #57. Knucmo2's third law of Wikipedia: Attempts to change POV articles to NPOV invariably result from a different POV.

Using Raul's Razor some readers of the Biological psychiatry article could say that the authors’ sympathies lie with the pharmaceutical industry and orthodox psychiatry. While it's true, as Ande B has noted, that the original 2005 Biological Psychiatry article was POV (before Midgley and I rewrote it), Fuzzform and Joema's recent change resulted from a different POV (Knucmo2's law). —Cesar Tort 15:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raul's Law #1 and corollary are the most relevant to this situation: [18]: Much of Wikipedia's content, and all of the day to day functions are overseen by a small core of the most dedicated contributors. These users are the most valuable resource Wikipedia has. Corollary - Of these highly dedicated users who have left, the vast majority left as a result of trolls, vandals, and/or POV warriors - typically not as a result of any one particular user, but from the combined stress of dealing with many of them. Consequently, such problem users should be viewed as Wikipedia's biggest handicap. (emphasis added) Joema 15:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raul’s razor and Knucmo2’s third law don’t apply to the article Midgley and I rewrote. They do apply however to the article you wrote with Fuzzform. —Cesar Tort 16:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second content assertion

The Biological psychiatry article as it stands today is problematic. The simple and sad truth is that in biopsychiatry it’s impossible to trust a research that is paid for by the industry. Why does industry sponsor research? Because, however incredible it may seem, Big Pharma and the psychiatric profession have become business partners. Research in psychiatry is shaped by funding from the drug industry, which invests a large amount of money to sponsor bio research in universities. Only in one year the industry funded more than 6000 projects and expended $1.5 billion dollars for academic research. Some of this money is spent on grants to pharmacologists and others who are doing research on the ways drugs affect the brain (this happens even in Mexico’s universities). A study of 800 articles that appeared in 14 leading biomedical journals including Science, Nature, Lancet, The New England Journal of Medicine and Proceedings of the National Academy of Medicine indicates the degree of blending of industry and bio research (M. Wadman “Study discloses financial interests behind papers”, Nature, 1997, 385, 376). It was found that 34 percent of the primary authors had financial interests in the work they published in academic journals. —Cesar Tort 15:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The simple and sad truth is that Cesar Tort, as an acknowleged and vehement anti-psychiatry bashing activist, has again pointed to a political or social issue common to all medicine as it relates to the use of medication. Biopsychiatry is one of many conventional medical practices. An activist's dislike of big business is not a sufficient basis to call anything POV. Ande B. 18:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hate the word “Antipsychiatry” and no one has called me an “antipsychiatrist” here in Mexico City. The fact is that many mental health professionals, and even non orthodox psychiatrists, also oppose biopsych. That’s why content from other scholarly sources is important. —Cesar Tort 19:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the word "anti-psychiatry" is better phrased, when applied to Cesar Tort, as "anti-forms-of-psychiatry that Cesar doesn't like." Cesar Tort has brought forward a great many sources that are very well suited to the article on anti-psychiatry. But nearly all of them relate to political and social issues, such as involuntary treatments. Those that are critical of the efficacy of certain medications are certainly appropriate for serious discussion in the articles about those medications. But the BioPsych article is essentially an umbrella article that describes what it is and what it attempts to do and points readers to the more specific articles where comprehensive criticisms are definitely appropriate. And that is the real nature of the underlying edit dispute. Repeating full arguments from anti-psychiatry is not appropriate in BioPsych. Nor are full fledged attacks on any particular treatment modality listed on the article page. Beyond that, the fact that any or many professionals oppose "biopsych" can just as readily be attributed to their personal desire to eliminate their competition than it is to assume that their opposition is legitimate. Obviously, according to Cesar Tort's prior comments, any possible economic interest in a treatment modality renders the provider of that treatment biased, deceitful, and incapable of making valid criticisms. Ande B. 20:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are literally thousands of people that, without any economic interest whatsoever, oppose biopsych. Just take a look at MindFreedom International. —Cesar Tort 20:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And yet Cesar Tort has repeatedly asserted that economic interests lie at the heart of some sort of big-pharma deception and control over conventional psychiatry. The existence of activist groups indicates not neutrality but extreme political, religious, and cultural objections to conventional medicine. The Mind Freedom representatives whose postings I have read are rather vitriolic and grossly unbalanced, usually based on personal (bad) experiences or narrow focus and utter lack of objectivity. Similarly, Scientology, for instance, may not have a direct economic interest in psychiatry, yet it has a religious intolerance for any part of the profession. Ideologies are not appropriate sources for professional criticisms; ideological arguments are inherenty biased. Ande B. 21:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Psychiatric survivors groups don’t promote “extreme... religious and cultural objections...”. MindFreedom International has nothing to do with Scientology’s Citizens Commission on Human Rights. (Incidentally, I don’t use Scientology sources either.) —Cesar Tort 22:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have deliberately misrepresented my statements about MindFreedem, which I specifically stated was a group of people who had "bad" experiences. Even though you say you do not use Scientology "sources" (who could, they are grossly uneducated, misinformed and deceptive crock-pot rants) you nonetheless have espoused their position and have actively co-ordinated efforts with them, threatening to use Scientologist attack editing. How can any statement you make regarding your "neutrality" be taken seriously? You are a single issue editor with an admitted agenda. Your agruments on this issue, therefor, are highly suspect and warrant restriction of your editing in the spychiatry articles. Ande B. 22:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An editor's POV contributions can help to form an NPOV article; despite my personal misgivings about Cesar Tort bias, I strongly reject your suggesting that he be "restricted" from editing - he is, after all, willing to engage in discussion. - Anarchist42 19:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have being paid twice to give keynote addresses about psychiatry in a Scientology auditorium, yes. But that doesn’t mean I endorse their religious beliefs.

If I have a single agenda, it is fighting child abuse. When this process is over you will see I will forget much of this psychiatry stuff and concentrate in the subject I really claim expertise: the devastating effects of such abuse. —Cesar Tort 22:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above and previously, you've collaborated with Scientologists, given paid anti-psychiatry lectures in their auditoriums. You've described yourself as an anti-psychiatry activist: [19], which is certainly consistent with your external writings on an anti-psychiatry web page: [20]. Elsewhere you've said despite this you aren't really anti-psychiatry, just against all forms of psychiatry except the trauma model: [21]. I fail to see the difference. Joema 15:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and even psychiatrist Thomas Szasz, who like me is a secular humanist, has accepted payment for lecturing against involuntary psychiatry in Scientology auditoriums (though he himself, like me, is totally irreligious). I don’t see anything wrong with giving a couple of such paid lectures to put some bread on my table. And though I have used the word “antipsychiatry”, it still is a terrible word to describe human rights activism.

The difference between trauma model psychiatrists and biopsychiatrists is that the latter advocate involuntary treatment. FYI my personal interest is involuntary treatment and human rights psychiatric violations perpetrated on sane people (e.g., sane women committed by their husbands or sane adolescents committed by their parents). That’s the main problem with a discipline without biomarkers: anyone can be psychiatrically labeled by the one who can hire the services of a mental health professional. —Cesar Tort 16:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If your interest is in involuntary treatment of people then work to have the involuntary treatment laws changed, not to brain-wash every Wiki reader into an anti-conventianal-medicine belief. Yes, Cesar, you are indeed anti-conventianal-medicine. BioPsychiatry is conventional medicine. The trauma model is not so different from the counselling approach that has been practiced by countless psychiatrists (perhaps the great majority) who have no difficulty in recognizing environmental stressors that precipitate and reinforce great mental trauma. Nor do they have any dfficulty integrating appropriate even if imperfect pharmaceutical assistance to those who are suited to such medication. ~~Let's face it, the trauma model, by refusing to consider the use of any medication, condemns many patients to needless misery.~~ Your biomarker hysteria just doesn't wash, Cesar, yet you keep repeating it as if by doing so you will convert people to your ideology. Failure to have readily observable "biomarkers" does not negate the efficacy of psychiatric medications. Nor does failure to have biomarkers for headaches negate the efficacy of aspirin. Ande B. 17:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC) Note Cesar has stated below that he in fact supports the use of medication and although the Ross article which he references makes no mention of medication and focuses on the mind-set of victims of child abuse, he has advised that Ross does indeed medicate his patients. Apparently, Cesar simply does not want anyone else to use these medications, for reasons that now appear to be entirely political in nature. Ande B. 18:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don’t interpret my mind. I don’t hold such views. —Cesar Tort 19:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you could express a coherent description of your objections then your views would not need any interpretation. I am not trying to read your mind. I am trying to make sense of your wildly misleading and contradictory statements. I have also described what are the likely consequences of your own stated positions. If I have mis-stated your position then why don't you describe it yourself? If you think you have already done so I can assure you that you have not and needto think again. Ande B. 21:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cesar's views are clearly expressed in this article: [22]. I'll summarize a few points:

Parents give children psychiatric drugs to torment them
There has been no scientific progress in biological psychiatry
Biological psychiatry likened to Nazi eugenicists

Your summary doesn’t do any justice to my article. Curious readers are advised to take a look at the article itself in the above citation. —Cesar Tort 14:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interspersed among these outlandish statements, Cesar has some good points about involuntary treatment and over-medication. However it's obvious from the tone and content of the document (plus his actions here) that he's on a crusade. That's fine but an encyclopedia is not the place for crusades. Joema 22:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a crusader Joema: I’m so dismayed with all of these insults, trolling and unfair accusations that I’ll only rarely edit in Wikipedia after this process is over. —Cesar Tort 23:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, let's not use the word "crusader." What acceptable descriptive would accurately describe your activism and advocacy? Ande B. 00:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many questions fallacy. Ad hominem. Prometheuspan 23:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ande B. makes some valid points, but then again so does Cesar Tort; they also both make assumptions which are debatably invalid, this is the true of most editors of psychiatric articles. Again, I submit that this RFA is unwarranted and that the discussion belongs within the relevant psychiatric talk pages. I should note that as far as "recognizing environmental stressors" is concerned, I have yet to meet a psychiatric patient who was even asked why they feel the way they do; it seems that all the psychiatrists in my small sample size simply assume that the chemical imbalance theory is not only valid, but is the only factor involved in mental illnesses. (My primary rule is "beware of assumptions") - Anarchist42 20:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beware of confusing what psychiatrists feel able to do to best address the problem with not not realising what actually creates the problem. For many financial / political / sociological reasons, psychiatrists may choose to deal with a problem by addressing the neurochemical imbalance rather than addressing the environmental factor that triggered it.

Consider this scenario: a kid comes into the NHS psychiatrists office with his parents. He has no attention span, displays misbehaviour, appears hyperactive. The psychiatrist notices the parents pay the kid no attention, only sitting him down in front of tv and video games instead of interacting with him. We have a kid with a behavioural problem, most probably "caused" by poor parenting (or, as Cesar would say, "child abuse"). The psychiatrists has only 10mins to spend with the kid, as she has 50 more similar cases to see before the end of the day. So what can she do? Obviously the ideal situation would be to retrain the parents and the child, psychoanalyse, and find the 'root of the problem'. But time and money simply doesn't permit that. Instead the psychiatrist can prescribe a drug that addresses the problem biochemically. Its far from perfect but it seems to do the trick most of the time (in the short term at least). This, as a quick fix, is the parent's choice, indeed they may be pushing for the drug to be prescribed. Considering the other option (i.e. doing nothing at all) the psychiatrist doles it out, with a plea to the parent to engage the kid more and interact with them. They move onto the next kid with "ADHD".

This happens every single day (according to a psychiatrist friend of mine). Now, does this scenario invalidate psychiatry as a discipline, does it demonstrate it is a pseudoscience, does it make the psychiatrist an evil, involuntary medicating Nazi? No, it is simply how medicine is implemented in todays society. Does that make it 'right'? Most certainly not, but it is a political or societal issue, not a psychatric one. Its the equivalent of saying oncologists don't understand that smoking causes cancer when they prescribe drugs for lung cancer. They do, but its not in their power to change that, so they work within the limits of what they can change. This sort of issue may well be appropriate to be mentioned in the psychiatric policy article but it has no bearing whatsoever on an article describing what biological psychiatric theory is. This is why advocates should not edit article that conflicts with their political agenda - they can't see the wood for the trees. Rockpocket 19:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of biomarkers, which is at the core of biological psychiatric theory, may drive societies to “political medicine”, as I explained in another Rfar page [23]. In psychiatry it’s impossible to sepatate the scientific issues from the political implications.

“The trauma model is not so different from the counselling approach that has been practiced by countless psychiatrists...” [Ande B way above]. Wrong! The most common complain from psychiatric patients is that biopsychiatrists don’t want to listen anything about their existential problems and environmental stressors. Have you ever talked to a psychiatric survivor?

“Let's face it, the trauma model, by refusing to consider the use of any medication...” [Ande B]. Wrong again! Colin Ross prescribes all the gamut of psychiatric drugs in his trauma clinic! —Cesar Tort 19:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone cut and paste the part(s) of the Ross Institute article that describes pharmaceutical treatment of trauma patients? Because I've found prior links by Cesar to be deceptive references and have heard nothing but vehement rejection of the use of psychiatric medication by Cesar Tort. If he is now saying that he supports the administration of psychoactive medication to patients then I think we need to find out just what the real basis of his POV arguments are. If it's only the involuntary commitment argument, well that should receive no legitimacy since it is a purely political concern. If it's a mere preference for counselling or other modalities in addition to medication, well, that's pretty standard, despite the fact that some "survivors" have experienced otherwise. There are lousy doctors in every field, bio-psych isn't alone in that, unfortunately. I might also note that by choosing to only consider the complaints of those who are dis-satisfied with their treatments, any analysis derived from those reports is, by definition, highly biased. Thanks for any clarity that can be brought to this discussion. Ande B. 06:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect: I question your assertion that "involuntary commitment...is a purely political concern", since it assumes both accurate diagnosis and effective treatment; I'd like to see a study which validates either assertion (I'm open-minded, yet somewhat skeptical). Ditto for "preference for counselling ... that's pretty standard" (ie. what percentage of psychiatric patients actually receive counselling), you use the qualifier "some" which implies a small minority (any citation to back that assumption?). I agree that "there are lousy doctors in every field", however no other medical field takes 10 years to reach a valid dignosis. These questions I've just made all question the common assumptions about psychiatry (and hence its theoretical basis, Biological psychiatry), which may or may not be valid; I only ask that we actually attempt to find citations which either prove or disprove these asumptions. (NB: my POV is that these assuptions are false, but I am still open minded) - Anarchist42 17:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchist, I'm sorry youve been dragged into this. You seem to want to improve the situation. I make no assumptions about accuracy of diagnosis or effectiveness of treatment when I say that involuntary treatment is a political or social issue. I don't know why you would think that such assumptions would be at the base of that statement. I also don't know exactly what you are referring to when you make reference to the word "some." The only question that is up for consideration is why does Cesar Tort believe that the Biopsych article is biased? He has not been able to articulate any rationale other than "involuntary commitment." For some reason he has distanced himself form the opening paragraph of this section where he went into a rant about big-pharma having an economic interest in biopsych. He now says that his concerns about biopsych are not derived from big-pharma. I don't know about you, but when someone tells me that an article is biased because big-pharma has a conflicting economic interest, I tend to think that the argument re bias is based on that contention. Maybe that's just me, but I tend to expect people to make arguments that they think support their position. I do not expect them to make arguments that they believe are irrelevant. Nor do I expect them to deny having made such arguments. But maybe that's just me. Ande B. 22:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re Ande’s question above about medication in trauma clinics: “Generally, most trauma patients are on a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, which often seems to be very hopeful for depression, obsessive-compulsive, panic, bulimia, PTSD and other symptoms. Many are on a benzodiazepine, which though helpful, carries the risk of dependency and abuse. Anecdotally, the novel neuroleptics seem to help a subgroup of patients. The anticonvulsants have not impressed me, mainly because the target symptoms are so polymorphous and there are usually many other psychotropic medications prescribed concurrently” (Colin Ross's The Trauma Model, p. 348). —Cesar Tort 14:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So it does not appear that the link and reference that was provided actually led to any information about medication use. It appears that Cesar Tort either has no objection about the use of medication or he objects to some but not all medication or he objects to anyone other than the Ross afficianados prescribing medication, or, finally, he does object to the use of medication for psychiatric patients but il willing to accept it by a practitionor whom he likes. Sorry, this all makes Cesar Tort's angry denunciation of big-pharma and psychiatric medication seem to be simple posturing. According to his many arguments, BioPsych cannot be valid because it uses "medications" and medications are made by "big-pharma". The cognitive dissonance is getting to me. Sounds as if Cesar Tort should withdraw his complaints about POV. Ande B. 15:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

“According to his many arguments, BioPsych cannot be valid because it uses ‘medications’ and medications are made by ‘big-pharma’”. Where on Earth I uttered such a syllogism? —Cesar Tort 16:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a pretty accurate summary of your views to me. If not, can you tell me then why you have been railing against the use of medications and the role of big pharma? Are you now saying that Biopsych is a legitimate approach and that you have no objections to the use of medication or big-pharma? What is your complaint, Cesar? If neither the use of medication nor the role of big pharma figures into your denunciations of biopsych, just what are you objecting to? Ande B. 17:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If instead of gravely insulting me so many times in various Rfar pages in the last days you had dialogued with me, by now you’d have learnt that neither trauma psychiatrists nor I complaint against the voluntary use of psychiatric medications. —Cesar Tort 17:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't made a coherent argument about your "real" objections by now, I doubt you ever will. I see that you have not stated what your "real" objection is. Similarly, your ref above to the Ross page to "prove" that Ross uses medication provided no such helpful info. Instead, you quoted from a text book. Do you always play hide-the-ball with your objections or do you simply change them when it becomes convenient? Ande B. 17:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I won’t reply anymore to questions asked in impolite manner. However, for the record I shall state here that what I really oppose is involuntary drugging of sane people, which is all too common in the profession (as can be attested in the psychiatric survivor literature). —Cesar Tort 20:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to reply at all, Cesar. If what you really oppose is involuntary drugging of sane people then you have no basis to argue that the biopsych article is biased. Improper application of any procedure and medical malpractice are rife in every field. You have said that biopsych can lead to political abuse of its services. So it seems you do not have an argument other than a purely political one. I am truly bewildered that you have spent so much energy citing to anti-medication and the economic conflicts of big pharma if they are not what you "really" object to. As far as impolite, well Cesar, you have brought any perceived unpleasntry on yourself when you started posting your accusations and strange diatribe in support of your claims of bias. I've read your complaints that you have been misunderstood by others or that you have misunderstood what other people meant, and you have claimed the newbie and innocent error defense a little too often to be believeable. Just what was your purpose in posting any of the stuff you put on this page? Darned if I can figure it out.Ande B. 21:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just take a look at my First Content Assertion. —Cesar Tort 16:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the following statements by Cesar Tort were meant to indicate his support for the use of medication in psychiatry and his unwillingness to consider big pharma an issue at all:

In summary, in just twelve months more than 16 warnings (I only mentioned six) have been issued on the previously undisclosed dangers of psychiatric drugs

In a nutshell, the substance of the Biological Psychiatry article as it now stands represents little more than mere below the line advertising on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry.

decisions in biopsych are not done by scientists but by business people. Certain journals have now been identified as taking huge sums of money from the pharmaceutical industry

These are just the first few I came upon in the talk pages. I really don't think I want to reproduce all of Cesar's anti-drug and anti-big-pharma rants here. But these sure sound like a rejection of biopsych based on an anti-medication stance and assigning blame to big pharma to me. Ande B. 17:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That psychiatric drugs may be dangerous and that warnings have been issued, or that the biopsych article looks like advertising, doesn’t mean that I disapprove that an adult voluntarily consumes a licit (or even illicit) drug. —Cesar Tort 17:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet the danger of drugs and the role of big-pharma is the essence of many of your attacks on Biopsych. I've said on numerous occassions that your concerns about involuntary treatment are political not medical or scientific. If your "real" concern is involuntary commitment then why waste our time with your complaints about medication? Your other contituing camplaint seems to be the "absence of biomarkers" or lab testing, implying that a lack of such markers renders biopsych treatment modalities somehow "wrong" or not valid. But it only indicates that underlying mechanisms are not understood, not that the treatments are ineffective or inappropriate. If these are your only two arguments then I think you have really missed the mark and have even less going for your arguments than I expected. Ande B. 18:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"...not that the treatments are ineffective or inappropriate". Don’t the FDA warnings suggest that some of the treatments may be inappropriate? See also this book [24]. —Cesar Tort 16:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this response is one that demonstrates why I may seem so critical of Cesar's arguments and thought processes. The issue being discussed was the relevance of biomarkers. What Cesar responds with is something unrelated, a jump to FDA noticing requirements. This is a deceptive and non-responsive remark that does nothing to address the relevancy of Cesar's claims about biomarkers. Instead it is a failed attempt to make it look as if I have denied the validity of FDA warnings. Chronic non-responsiveness coupled with a tendency to give misleading quotes, reference links to material that does not provide the implied information, a failure to provide a rationale for his many allegations of bias, and re-curring claims of being a misunderstood, naive, victim has made it impossible to proceed in a rational manner in these discussions. Cesar is an intelligent, educated, articulate professional. Which causes me to believe that he could, indeed, respond fully and reasonably to these issues if wished to do so. I don't know if his strong commitment to activism in these issues has caused him to be less convincing or reasonable than he would be otherwise. But it is his failure to use his considerable abilities to communicate that has frustrated me greatly in this process. Ande B. 22:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here, let's see what Cesar had to say on the subject of big pharma at the very beginning of this section:

The Biological psychiatry article as it stands today is problematic. The simple and sad truth is that in biopsychiatry it’s impossible to trust a research that is paid for by the industry. Why does industry sponsor research? Because, however incredible it may seem, Big Pharma and the psychiatric profession have become business partners. Research in psychiatry is shaped by funding from the drug industry, which invests a large amount of money to sponsor bio research in universities. Only in one year the industry funded more than 6000 projects and expended $1.5 billion dollars for academic research. Some of this money is spent on grants to pharmacologists and others who are doing research on the ways drugs affect the brain (this happens even in Mexico’s universities). A study of 800 articles that appeared in 14 leading biomedical journals including Science, Nature, Lancet, The New England Journal of Medicine and Proceedings of the National Academy of Medicine indicates the degree of blending of industry and bio research (M. Wadman “Study discloses financial interests behind papers”, Nature, 1997, 385, 376). It was found that 34 percent of the primary authors had financial interests in the work they published in academic journals.

So I want to ask why Cesar made this assertion if he didn't want peaple to believe he found big-pharma to be essential to his rejection of biopsych and his claim of bias in the article. MAybe that's rhetorical, I sure don't expect much of an answer at this point. Ande B. 22:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchist42 has replied today to you about this very issue and it’s unnecessary to rephrase his arguments here. —Cesar Tort 19:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following quotes from Cesar on the BioPsy talk pages seem to indicate a focus on political issues and an attempt to equate the medical practitioners of Bio-psych with Soviet style political torture:

Soviet dissidents stated that doctors used neuroleptics “to inflict suffering on them and thus obtain their complete subjugation”. On March 1976 former prisoner Leonid Plyushch spoke to the New York Academy of Sciences that “the purpose is to force the patient to change his political conviction”. Neuroleptics were a form of torture that could “break your will” (ibid, p. 217). Yet while American newspaper reports condemned the mistreatment of Soviet dissidents, on American soil exactly the same drugs were widely acknowledged to be effective... Presently, neuroleptics and other psychiatric drugs, notably methylphenidate, are being prescribed ... like Soviet ... to control them

The full paragraph of the above quotation in User talk:Cesar Tort/discussion is this:

Presently, neuroleptics and other psychiatric drugs, notably methylphenidate, are being prescribed to rebellious, though basically sane —like Soviet dissidents— adolescents and even children to control them [25].

—Cesar Tort 02:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And the pertinent part, to repeat is Yet while American newspaper reports condemned the mistreatment of Soviet dissidents, on American soil exactly the same drugs were widely acknowledged to be effective. Sounds like Soviet=Amerika=Biopsychiatry to me. Ande B. 02:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

America is different from Soviet Union as shown above with the 1946 Life magazine exposé of its psychiatric snake pits. —Cesar Tort 15:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I've missed something here, but it seems that this type of "argument" is a simple political smear campaign against biopsych. Mistreatment and malpractice are very different from political torture. Ande B. 18:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In communists countries (e.g., in Cuba) psychiatry is still used as political torture. —Cesar Tort 15:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cesar, there is nothing wrong with giving paid anti-psychiatry lectures at a Scientology auditorium, or writing external articles about "psychiatry is a pseudo-science" [26], etc. However encyclopedia articles aren't the place for such advocacy. The primary goal is simply describe the topic. NPOV Undue Weight says any criticism or alternative viewpoints should be roughly proportional to the representation in mainstream scholarly thought. Making broad unrepresentative statements like "biopsychiatrists...advocate involuntary treatment" is strongly misleading. Activism against involuntary treatment is fine, but an encyclopedia isn't the place for that. If you can't emotionally distance yourself from those strong feelings sufficiently to write (and collaborate) in a detached, scholarly manner, then maybe sticking to other topics is best. BTW involuntary treatment is by no means limited to psychiatry. It happens frequently with minor children whose parents resist a certain medical procedure, or with certain end-of-life situations. All it takes is a court order by a favorable judge, which can be obtained in the middle of the night. Joema 18:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In many jurisdictions, psychiatrists can detain and forcibly treat adult patients without any court order. As for children, my father was a teacher at a psychiatric institution, where he noticed that only about half of his students were actually mentally ill: this suggests that psychiatric diagnostic methods may be flawed. My point here is that, with respect to psychiatric topics, assumptions abound (by both sides). Yet, again, I submit that these issues are best resolved on psychiatric discussion pages, where citations can be presented and honest debate can result in an NPOV article. - Anarchist42 20:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At least many psychiatrists advocate involuntary treatment. This is so true that I have discussed with Midgley the United Kingdom’s Mental Health Law which allows psychiatrists to do that (and there are similar laws in other countries as well). Yes: these facts are already mentioned in other Wikipedia articles. I would much prefer to discuss the scientific claims in the biopsych article. —Cesar Tort 19:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Third content assertion

Ande B’s calculations in Evidence page [27] raise a question: Can proper criticism be written by ~~advocates~~? [equivocal word: see P.S. NOTE below]. Let’s take as an example the recent exchange in Talk:Biological psychiatry. After Solo999 posted a pov tag in article, Ande B and another editor [28] agreed with a rather cosmetic change by Joema about imaging techniques in article. A real critic would simply say that PET brain-scan studies have found that simply asking normal people to recall a sad situation resulted in significant changes in blood flow in the brain (American Journal of Psychiatry, May 1993, p. 713). These kind of imaging studies do not measure real tissue pathology. —Cesar Tort 15:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above "content assertion" by Cesar Tort raises some questions: can an avowed anti-psychiatry activist be capable of any NPOV contributions to either the article at issue or the comments on this page. The only advocates among the parties here are Cesar Tort and Ombudsman. Take a look at Cesar's posting history and user pages and you will find that anti-psychiatry advocacy is his passion. I have absolutely no interest in this article except as to its editorial form, for which I actually do have significant experience. To call me an advocate is not just a lie, in the context here, it is tantamount to libel, which is reprehensible. As Cesar Tort now clearly demonstrates, anyone who disagrees wih his editorial preferences is branded an"advocate" while he, an admitted anti-psychiatry activist, is somehow the only one who is permitted to determine a proper "viewpoint"? I am apalled by this turn of events and knowingly false accusations by Cesar Tort, who seems incapable of recognizing his own gross distortions. If I am an "advocate" for biopsych then it must naturally follow that every abused child was "asking" for abuse and is an advocate for child abuse.

In another sense, however, a political activist such as Cesar Tort is not capable of neutral criticism and his views and statements should be stricken from this record. Ande B. 19:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if this were true, why haven’t the MDs in the Psychiatry article removed my contribution there? [29]. The fact that I wrote a NPOV paragraph in the main Psychiatry article itself demonstrates that, independently of my beliefs, I can write in a neutral tone. —Cesar Tort 19:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC). P.S. NOTE re equivocal word above: assertion withdrawn. Neither you nor Rockpocket are biopsych pov advocates (I’m not that sure about other editors). —Cesar Tort 00:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Writing in a neutral "tone" is not the same as neutrality in writing. Over representation of criticism in any article is tantamount to endorsement of that criticism. There is already significant criticism within the article and an entire article devoted to anti-psychiatry. Cesar is a very capable writer. My comment is based on the assertions made by Cesar Tort on this page which claim that "advocates" cannot write criticism. The only advocate here is Cesar Tort (ignoring Ombudsman for this conversation). By his own logic, he must be incapable of neutrality in criticism. I am not an advocate of any sort of medical procedure or treatment modality. I don't even agree with many of the practices or attitudes that shape the practice of conventional psychiatry and would probably be among the most sceptical of critics when it comes to ECT and pharmacological answers, especailly for children. But my opinion as to what constitutes "best practices" as applied to psychiatry is not what should count when editing articles, what counts is accuracy of description and avoidance of advocacy. That those who support or contribute to articles on conventional psychiatry have not seen fit to complain about Cesar's contributions is a testament to the acceptance of open discourse and self criticism within conventional medicine. This same open-mindedness is nowhere to be seen among the activist critics of conventional medicine, including activists such as Cesar Tort, who apparently wish to hold ultimate authority over content on this article. Ande B.

No Ande: I really think that 25% of the Anti-psychiatry article should be conceded to a Criticisms section written by pro psychiatry advocates (and would be happy if the psychiatrists remove the final paragraph about Freud). Who volunteers to write that 25 per cent? —Cesar Tort 01:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected, then, as to your own preferences re the anti-psychiatry article. However I would not recommend a specific percentage to be set-aside for criticism within any article, including the asti-psychiatry article. Quantity based set-asides are not a good idea. What matters is the quality of the writing, the reliability of the supporting data and its placement vis-a-vis the organization of the article. Just as an example, I have regularly had reams of documentary and other evidence and pages (sometimes 100s of pages) of arguments stricken from legal briefs based on motions that I have drafted consisting of no more than a single, short paragraph. I've done the same thing in court with oral motions consisting of a single sentence. Opposing counsel has sometimes stormed out of the courtroom as a result but that's another story. But clearly, quantitative space itself should not be the deciding factor or limiter although excess quantity takes on a qualitative editorial character. Ande B. 01:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV undue weight says amount of criticism should be roughly preportional to representation in mainstream scholarly literature. I realize Cesar thinks there's a "big Pharma" conspiracy that has infiltrated and corrupted scholarly research, but the WP NPOV policy doesn't allow modifications of the policy based on conspiracy beliefs. If he wants to write a separate article on his perceived evils of big Pharma and their worldwide conspiracy, go ahead, but that shouldn't be part of an article describing what Biological Psychiatry is. Joema 15:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t believe in conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theorists are cranks. That the American Psychiatric Association (APA) receives huge sums for drug advertisement in American Journal of Psychiatry is an accepted fact even by psychiatrists and APA members themselves. —Cesar Tort 16:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy theorists tend to be cranks and crack-pots. But even conspiracy theorists use "verifiable facts" whenever they can find them. They then string facts and propaganda together in bizarre patterns based on their weird theories, often misprpresenting both context and content while being incapable of prioritizing even correct information or adequately assessing the reliability and applicability of the information. I see a lot of similarities to Cesar's organization and way of thinking. Cesar's style of selecting, prioritizing, and connecting information in his arguments that makes it difficult to communicate with him. This does not seem to be related to Cesar's grasp of the Englishlanguage. As I've said many times, Cesar Tort is an excellent writer. He is, however, a problematic thinker and has shown no interest in engaging in any communication except as a form of advocay or activism.Ande B. 23:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re 25% conceded to criticism in anti-psychiatry, think carefully about what you're requesting. NPOV Undue Weight says amount of criticism should be roughly proportional to representation in mainstream scholarly literature. Since most of such literature is NOT anti-psychiatry or anti-drug, this would result in a large % (much more than 25%) of the anti-psychiatry article, trauma article, etc being devoted to criticism against those topics. Joema 15:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cesar Tort’s law: "Psychiatry-related articles should contain about a quarter of dissenting opinion, including the main Anti-psychiatry article and the trauma psychiatric articles created by Tort himself." —Cesar Tort 16:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

“Activist critics of conventional medicine”. Ande: I am not a critic of conventional medicine. I personally dislike “alternative medicine” which, to my mind, is quackery. But biopsych is different. Even MDs show quibbles about it. I remember when I was doing some research in libraries and found that neurology journals are reluctant to accept articles by biopsychiatrists. I belong to a totally different species of those wiki editors who advocate quack medicine. For the last time I must confess: I love CSICOPers, quackbusters and paranormal debunkers. —Cesar Tort 20:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cesar, let me suggest that we take our conversation to your talk page. I am overwhelmed by work demands right now, so tomorrow may be a better day for me. I think we may be over burdening these pages right now. I accept your statement that you object to quacks in alternative medicine. I am not calling you a quack. I am saynig that your editorial stance is misdirected. You and I probably agree on most of your ciritcisms of BioPsych. My disagreement is about proper coverage in the article, nothing else. I strongly disagree with the arguments you pose as they relate to editorial decisions, not to their underlying credibility. I, too, have had my beliefs mischaracterized on WP. For instance, I have objected to articles about "Multiple intelligent designers" and "christ psychosis" based entirely on their editorial content and verifiability. As a result I have been accused of being a blinkered Christian while, in fact, I have been a committed atheist for nearly 40 years, folllowing brief episodes of pantheism, deism, and agnosticism througout my childhood and adolescence. I too support CSICOP and have used James Randi's and Michael Sherme's highly readable materials to counter crocks and gullible consumers. So let's talk tomorrow. Ande B. 21:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent idea, Ande! Let’s better discuss all this in our user talk pages. —Cesar Tort 22:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not such a good idea, after all. I don't have any interest in talking with people who so lightly toss around the Nazi accusations. Sorry, but Godwin's law is right on point here. You demonstrate no interest in conversation, only in rants and accusations. I have no further interest in attempting to communicate with you. You do not appear willing to discuss matters in good faith. Ande B. 17:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ande: please read what I have just posted above in the section “Involuntary treatment” about why Godwin’s law is inapplicable to me. —Cesar Tort 19:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth content assertion

All of the above makes me to repeat that this case is based on a content dispute. As stated at the very top of this talk page, mediation for the Biological Psychiatry article ought to be arranged. —Cesar Tort 15:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that Joema had attempted mediation but was ignored in his attempts. Based on Cesar Tort's refusal to acknowledge that his own grossly biased viewpoint distorts his comprehension of the editorial process and his own incapability of recognizing that his "content" disputes are based on political or religious prefereneces rather than on legitimate scientific disagreements makes it clear that it is not mediation that Cesar wants but an absolute editorial privilege. Ande B. 19:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Religious preferences?? I am an atheist! Indeed, one of my mentors is Paul Kurtz, America’s leading secular humanist today. That the dispute is based on legitimate scientific disagreements is demonstrated by the fact that the academic credentials of biopsych critics such as Peter Breggin or Elliot Valenstein are pure establishment. (Re Joema’s attempts, I already stated in Evidence page that at that time I didn’t understand what mediation or arbitration meant.) —Cesar Tort 20:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me then rephrase that as ideological preferences as they apply to Cesar Tort. They are identical, however, to religious positions of some fringe religious groups. I did not intend to identify you as a religionist, merely as one whose arguments sound like a religion based argument. (I too am a strong atheist, Cesar. I hope our editorial dispute demonstrates how atheism is NOT a religious doctrine of any sort!) Ande B. 21:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Ande, but Breggin’s, Valenstein’s and my objections to biopsych are not identical to the objections in religious or fringe groups. Our Weltanschauung is wholly different. I will give you just one example. Scientologists maintain that World War II, the Bosnia war and even September 11 were caused by psychiatrists. Nobody I know in the psychiatric survivor movement, or in the critical literature by professionals that I have read, hold such views. —Cesar Tort 22:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I, for one, would not want to be associated with those crazy assertions. But we all get lumped in with those others who espouse similar political positions. That's why it's important to carefully differentiate between editorial versus political concerns in articles. Talk to you tomorrow. 22:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Fifth content assertion

Meanwhile the article should retain the pov tag that Solo999 posted. —Cesar Tort 15:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solo999's tagging is a bad faith tagging, coming as it did during the arbitration process. As yet another of a long string of anti-conventional-medicine / anti-psychiatry activists, Solo999 should be barred from posting to any psych related articles. Though that is not the issue under consideration at this time, permitting his tag to remain is rewarding him for abusive, bad faith edits. Ande B. 19:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is for ArbCom to decide, not us. —Cesar Tort 20:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was for the ArbCom to decide whether a tag should be permitted. If you really believed that the decision was the sole domain of the ArbCom, you would remove the tag yourself. Apparently you can support Solo's violation of ArbCom etiquette but believe everyone who is behaving properly should wait fo the ARbCom decision. Ande B. 00:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not bring up Solo's misconduct. I have responded to Celar Tort's endorsement of that conduct. Ande B. 21:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solo999's main Wikipedia contributions thus far are likening other editors Hitler's Gestapo and repeatedly POV-tagging the BioPsych article. Neither of those actions are warranted. Joema 15:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re the Gestapo statement keep in mind, Joema, that the late psychiatrist Loren Mosher, former Chief of Schizophrenia Studies of the National Institute of Mental Health, wrote the following about some kind of child abuse perpetrated by parents and the psychiatrists hired by them:

NAMI, with tacit American Psychiatric Association approval, has set out a pro-neuroleptic drug and easy commitment-institutionalization agenda that violates the civil rights of their offspring. For the most part we stand by and allow this fascistic agenda to move forward [30].

—Cesar Tort 17:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Cesar, It's pretty clear by this response to Joema that you have no interest in doing anything other than perpetrating vicious smears against people you don't like. (Yes I know you did not say, "Joema you are a Nazi" rather you have said , "Joema, you must realize that people who disagree with me or Solo are supporting Nazis and by association are de-facto Nazis." You are not interested in doing anything other than libeling conventional medicine (which is what biopsych is), conventional psychiatry (which is conventianal medicine), and anyone who disagrees with your anti-psychiatry views (you say you are NOT anti-psychiatry but it is clear that you reject conventional medical aproaches to mental illness). The only permissible approach is psychiatry-that-Cesar-approves of. At this point, I no longer believe you to be a misguided but decent soul but rather a hateful zealot who has no interest in discussion and no capability of considering any alternatives to his own ideology. Forget it, Cesar. You are not worth anyone's time. Ande B. 17:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You totally misunderstood my Loren Mosher quote. The only “Nazis” are those parents or husbands who commit their sane relatives during the common family conflicts. —Cesar Tort 18:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind, Cesar, that Solo was referring to Wikipedia editors, not psychiatrists. Please try and differentiate between those advocating a "fascistic agenda" (in your opinion) and those reporting it according to policy. For you, Wikipedia appears to be about advocacy - you quite openly admit that. That in itself is not a problem, as long as you allow others for whom advocacy is not their editing agenda, to copyedit your content to ensure NPOV. Herein lies the crux of the problem. You see those who are doing that as opponants whose goal is to advocate the opposite view. That simply is not the case.

No-one likes being compared to a Nazi and it really is unnaceptable behaviour on here. Offering a justification for Solo is tantamount to endorsement. Considering how far you have gone to distance yourself from your similar comments in the past, im genuinely perplexed at your post above. Not least because you appear to have alienated an very reasonable editor who previously had shown support for you in this case. Again, i really don't think this entire page is helping your case at ArbCom one iota. Rockpocket 17:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll ask Solo999 is he was referring to wiki editors or, say, husbands who commit their sane spouses. —Cesar Tort 18:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the word "Nazi" - unless I missed something, Cesar Tort never used the word until several other editors complained that he did. Please, let's try to be civil here. Let us not forget that we're all human, and hence make mistakes and get emotional. The real irony is that Cesar Tort is engaging in this discussion and appears willing to admit mistakes (despite his arguable bias), yet Ombudsman is nowhere to be found despite the fact that he appears to actually deserve this RFA. - Anarchist42 20:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had an agreement with Cesar to refrain from futher personal comment on the RfAR. However since then Cesar has asserted his content proposals and felt the need to justify Solo's accusations (which were aimed at me). I advised Cesar to refrain from continuing along these lines, however he has continued. Therefore, with regret, i feel i must once again respond to set the record straight. I suggest Anarchist has missed something and he investigate Cesar's contributions further. The matter was put to bed as Cesar apologised and claimed inexperience. However, with the apparent justification for Solo's comments, it is now not clear to me whether he actually appreciates that such comments are not acceptable here. Cesar's comments can be found in a link elsewhere on the evidence page. For the record, here is what Solo999 said:

"Merely to decide in favour of relegating positive contributions quoting sources etc. to the ‘sin bin’ of ‘anti-psychiatry’ is surely a cop-out...If Wikipedia was available to one and all during the time of Hitler, would Wikipedia’s editors merely concede to permitting a tame representation of the view, that following the Warsaw uprising the GESTAPO were merely intent on being nice guys with good intentions... in the above circumstances... one could be forgiven for presuming, that it might have been the GESTAPO themselves who had penned such an article and whom likewise were responsible for ensuring that all ‘detractors’ should be ‘concentrated’ and left to ‘de-compose’ within a separate camp."

Solo is clearly comparing those editors who suggested criticism be expanded in the anti-psychiatry (i.e. myself, Ande, Joema et al) to the Gestapo's actions. Indeed, he aligns the idea of segregating psychiatry and anti-psychiatry to the Holocaust. This is, quite frankly, an offensive and unjustified slur and has nothing whatsoever to do with "husbands who commit their sane spouses". If you support this type of view then please just say so, or else denounce it. Do not offer justification on his behalf then attempt to claim his comment was about something else.

I cannot believe we are discussing Nazism in a debate about content. What abuses Nazim carried out in the name of psychiatry is simply not relevent to a page about biological psychiatry. Just as the abuses the Nazis carried out investigating malaria is not relevent to parasitology, or the abuses the Nazis carried out on typhus are not relevent to bacteriology. The rights and wrongs of the application of a science is completely different from discussing the science itself. Claiming exemption because psychiatry is "different" is also inherent POV pushing.

Apparently, the aptness of the metaphor is overshadowed by your personal emotions.Prometheuspan 23:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of the science, the relative merits (or otherwise) of the discipline in the opinion of a few editors is simply not relevent. The majority opinion is that it is a valid science, therefore we say it is a valid science. A small proportion of of the field disagrees, therefore we provide a small amount of space to explain that. That is what WP:NPOV directs. Cesar's Law can be quoted as often as one pleases, but it makes no difference to Wikipedia policy. Therefore discussions here about precentages reserved for criticism and exceptions for dubious sciences are completely pointless here - take them to a Wikipedia:Requests for comment. If they are adopted as policy then you will have a valid point. Until then, there is absolutely no grounds for accepting your proposals, as they are in direct contradiction to WP:NPOV. This continual disregard for policy in favour of his own beliefs is why Cesar is involved in this RfAB. Rockpocket 21:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t you think this last phrase of yours strains a bit our agreement not to engage in mutual accusations any more? ;) —Cesar Tort 02:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cesar, you posted an edit summary justifying Solo999's “Gestapo” remark, which was an unwarranted personal attack on myself and other editors. You comment unfavorably on my edits (even though you removed my name and retracted the accusatory "advocate", the principle remains that you suggest they are inherently lacking objectivity), I asked you on your talkpage twice to refrain from this line of comment in the spirit of our agreement and because it will simply result in another pointless thread of debate. Yet you made 5 further assertions (despite it being made clear the ArbCom does not rule on content disputes). I don't think i'm the one that broke our agreement. Could we please, please stop with this and let the committee make their decision? Rockpocket 06:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. Solo's badly-phrased comments could be interpreted as an appeal for representing all sides of an issue, if so he failed misserably. Please don't the comments of an unskilled debater personally. Cesar Tort should know better than to have anything to do with such a useless comment, and so should you (with respect). Simply ignore any such comment, and instead focus on the issues at hand.

Solo’s Gestapo remark was only brash newbiness: it was one of his/her very first entries in Wikipedia. Better not focus on this but on the appropriateness of his/her tag. —Cesar Tort 01:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Gestapo remark was the justification for the tag, i.e. that those who write the article were tantamount to the Gestapo editing an article about Nazism, hence it is POV. That is while both the comment and the tagging was completely innapropriate. Nothing since has risen above attacks on the motives of others. Rockpocket 06:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for Cesar Tort's "25 percent" rule, I disgree with any arbitrary proportionalization. Nonetheless, "Biological psychiatry" is considered to be a "valid science" by psychiatrists, but not necessarily by their patients; this is arguable only because psychiatry in general seems to fail to listen to the concerns of their patients. A significant proportion of psychiatric patients (from my research, the majority) never undergo the diagnostic tests which psychiatric textbooks and websites claim are used, nor do they receive that "best practices" treatment which the psychiatric profession proudly proclaims. Although this in my personal POV (based upon significant research and discussion with patients), I still attempt to be as unbiased as possible and look at both sides with an open mind. My hope is that Cesar Tort and others here will be able to do so as well. When presented with citations, psychiatrists will acknowledge the inadequacies of their profession; however they are, for the most part, simply unaware of the problems within their profession: for example, a recent Canadian study proclaimed that 90% of psychiatric patients are satisfied with their treatment, however they only surveyed patients who still see their psychiatrist, and assume that no patients stop seeing their psychiatrist (in addition to ignoring the fact that the typical patient had to see several psychiatrists before even getting the correct diagnosis). Thus, I hope you can see why psychiatric patients harbour significant doubts about the psychiatric profession and its underlying theories. - Anarchist42 22:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you comments. Its more than psychiatrists who consider psychiatry a "valid science". That is the mainstream medical/scientific opinion also and that is what we use to determine what is science and pseudoscience. Your point about patients is an interesting take on the subject and if it could be verified (since you admit, yourself, that it is essentially OR) it could certainly be used. Rockpocket 00:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I'd never use OR in an article, but it does make me skeptical of psychiatry. What I find interesting is that psychiatric studies rarely ask the right questions, but when they do the results are startling (such as the 10-year average time from first visit to correct diagnosis, a number which has not gone down despite psychiatry's claim of improved diagnosis and treatment). I have yet to find a study, for example, of what percentage of patients even get counselling (which psychiatry considers part of its "best practices"). These observations of mine suggest that psychiatry has significant flaws. - Anarchist42 01:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be a difference, as far as i see, between the psychiatry and biological psychiatry articles (otherise one should just redirect to the other). What is that difference? Well, it would appear that (taking the definition from the articles themselves) "biopsychiatry is an approach to psychiatry that aims to understand mental disorder in terms of the biological function of the nervous system". Psychiatry is "the branch of medicine that studies, diagnoses, and treats mental illness". Therefore i woud have thought that the biopsych article should descibe the theory and background of this approach to psychiatry. That "psychiatry in general seems to fail to listen to the concerns of their patients" (in addition to concerns about abuses, involuntary treatment etc) seems to me much better suited the the psychiatry article; where it appears there is a section relating to that already. I doubt any editor here, to a greater or lesser extent, disagrees with your concerns over psychiatry in general. Its simply a case of what is appropriate and what is not in relation to the subject of the article. I don't believe an article about a theory of psychiatric investigation is the place. Rockpocket 00:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, however the psychiatry article took some time and plenty of discussion before it reached its current NPOV balance, which is why I yet again submit that we let the biological psychiatry article go through the same length process before restorting to RFA. - Anarchist42 01:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No-one has a problem with discussing the article, Anarchist42, or working in collaboration and within the framework of policy to improve it. Note, however, the background to this RfAR. Both Cesar and Ombudsman placed a NPOV tag repeatedly without justification in policy (infact, most the the talk page justification from the taggers at the time related to accusations of Big Pharma influence and OR claims of pseudoscience, both of which you appear to agree is not relevent grounds for tagging in policy). Pleas were issued to refrain and attempts were made to explain why this is not a justified reason for tagging, these were refuted and claims made for 25% reserved for criticism amid an OR critique. Requests were then made to submit to mediation. These were ignored or rejected. Then requests were made for submission to RfAB as a last resort. These were ignored also. Hence the case was brought unilterally in an attempt to bring these editors into line with editing per policy. I'm not quite sure what else we could do under the circumstances.

Since then, Cesar at least, has brought some valid, sourced criticisms to his subpages. After garnering some support with these points, there has been a concerted attempt by Cesar to turn the ArbCom into a debate about this new content. That is not the basis on which it was brought, as these were not offered at the time of his tagging. As Cesar continues to insist on editing outwith policy (i.e. his Cesar's Law, which is clearly at odds with WP:NPOV) and contesting the article content on non relevent grounds (i.e. that Nazi's abused it therefore it is inherently dangerous). I think, therefore, it is entirely appropriate that ArbCom offer guidance on what basis this article can move forward. Only with these ground rules enforced can the article reach an NPOV balance, as you suggest, and which we all want. Once that is established we can all address yours, Cesar and Solo's issues knowing the scope of criticism that is permitted. This ArbCom decision will benefit us all. Rockpocket 03:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cesar’s "law" was only a humorous reply to Joema, not to be taken too seriously. But Rockpocket: for the second time I wonder if you still want to keep our deal of not making behavior statements about each other? I withdrew my above assertion (“advocates”) in good faith because of your personal communication in my user page. So, are we going to keep the deal? —Cesar Tort 04:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A joke? Yet you have insisted in the evidence page that you believe articles should have at least 25% criticism. Should that "not to be taken too seriously" also? Perhaps you could tell us explicitly, would you or would you not edit the article so that "25% of space be conceded to critics" and then tell us how your answer is justified in policy. Rockpocket 06:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I leave to ArbCom to reach a decision on this complex issue and simply will comply. —Cesar Tort 20:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Anarchist42

Anarchist, I've read some of your comments above (may have missed a few) and on Cesar Tort's discussion pages and while you may be helpful in bringing a more cordial atmosphere to these discussions I believe that you are operating under a few misconceptions. A major misconception is that I, Rockpocket, Joema, and others are "advocates" of some sort regarding the practice of psychiatry. You are mistaken in this assumption. The only advocates I have seen on these pages are zealous anti-psychiatry activists. My own "advocay" on Wikipedia is that I strongly advocate good writing and sound editorial practices that reflect WP policies and standard, neutral reporting. As far as editing and writing go, I believe I have a suitable educational and professional background to warrant confidence in my editing abilities. As for the science or medical content, I am not a scientist nor am I in any of the health or psychology professions although I have a decent science education and some graduate & lab experience. But I also have even more credentials in education and art. Heck, I've even tutored people in music in the past, though I do not consider myself a musician. So to believe I am a single-minded advocate of some politically motivated pro-psychiatry cabal is utterly unfounded.

I do not understand how any reasonable person could come to that conclusion unless he himself was an anti-psychiatry advocate and tended to see all others in terms of advocacy. This is similar to the type of mistake made by creationists who believe that evolutionary theory is a "religion" or believers in any religion who insist that "atheism" is also a religion. It often arises from an intense but narrow frame of reference through which they view all alternate positions.

Despite the fact that I disagree with much of psychiatry as it is practiced, including overmedication and mis-medication, my positions on the Biopsychiatry article are entirely based on editorial considerations, not personal preference. I have yet to see any editorially useful arguments posed by any of the anti-psychiatry activists here. All I have seen are irrelevant arguments about economic conflicts, involuntary commitments, comparisons to the Gestapo and soviet communism. There are also "quotes" attributed to any number of "experts" that indicate that the individual is very clearly in the minority of the profession or, on closer inspection, the quotes are grossly or subtly misleading. What I find curious about this is that, identical to the behavior of creationists, the anti-psychiatry activists seek to establish the validity of their position by citing to "authorities" while ignoring the overwherming majority of authorities with whom they disagree. The utter lack of rigor in proposing tangential, non-responsive arguments undermines any credibility such attacks are supposed to demonstrate.

You and many others seem to be profoundly influenced by anecdotal evidence and your own limited experience with the psychiatric profession. My own experience with the profession is limited to maybe a dozen or so individuals who, for the most part, appear to have been highly competent professionals, with a singular glaring exception. These are not the experiences that drive my editorial position, however. Cesar Tort, on the other hand, relies heavily on anecdotes, quotes and data that do not address the underlying editorial issues.

Ande B. 00:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appologize if you or others thought I suggested that you were "advocates". I agree that much of this discussion has been irrelevent with respect to editorial considerations, which is why I keep on submitting that this RFA is not necessary. I've helped several pro- and anti- psychiatry editors to be more focused in presenting their arguments, and insisted on using high-quality citations to back their claims. Some editors (such as the one who has received litle attention so far in this RFA) simply refuse to present civil and cogent arguments, but others such as Cesar Tort seem willing to improve their level of discourse. In either case, an RFA does dot help, and in fact may make matters worse. - Anarchist42 01:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I very well could have read too much into some of your comments. For instance, your remarks to Cesar Tort regarding efforts to convince "psychiatrists and their supporters" of the validity of Cesar's position, being made in the context of discussions about this particular editing dispute, led me to perhaps erroneously believe that such a phrase applied to editors, including myself, in this Arb. But I accept your statement of intentions.

Cesar does not need to present citations to back up his claims that a minority of those within and without the profession disagree with some or all of the biopsych model. For me, at least, what I would need to see is any evidence that such dissent represents anything other than a small minority of professional opinion. I really don't care much about the opinions of the general public. In the US, at least, a majority of people seem to accept mythological creation as a legitimate "scientific" view. This type of support is not likely to convince me of anything and would, instead tend to cause me to discount their opinions. Even if the dissent were sizable, that doesn't mean that dissent should dominate the article. At present there is substantially more coverage of the critics of biopsych than would be warranted by their mere proportion in the scientific community.

I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their benign intentions, and that is how I considered Cesar Tort's behavior until it became clear that it is not "conversation" which he seeks but "conversion." I have no interest in proselytes of any sort. Ande B. 02:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence by Solo999

First assertion

Clearly the venomous bile, which has been splattered across these pages of late, is of the same invidious calibre that had earlier seeped from between the lines of the Biopsych talk page to attack Cesar tort.

Such previous spiteful incident having occurred after the POV tagging issue in Biopsych talk page, had died down, and as soon as Cesar Tort had begun to quote authoritative sources to back up his assertions in accordance with NPOV objectives.

It then appeared that Joema and AndeB ganged up on poor Cesar, due to their combined inability to formulate cogent responses to the incisive points that Cesar Tort was raising!Solo999 03:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may be under the mistaken assumption that this is the place for submitting evidence to RfAR. Its not. If you wish your comments to be taken on board, you should write them here in the prescribed format, with diffs to the evidence backing up your assertions. If you just with to comment on the debate, then you have found the right place. However, actual content or constructive justification for your tagging actions would be more useful than personal attacks. Rockpocket 17:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had planned to avoid responding to Solo's post but it may be helpful for people to note where he made his first post and the hearty welcome he received by Ombudsman on his user page when he first signed onto WP. In light of Solo's posting behavior, I think the Ombudsman connection says all that needs to be said about his credility and agenda. Ande B. 02:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spectacular work, Solo999, in managing to issue an apology for comparing editors to the Gestapo while, simultaneously, reaffirming the analogy [31]. And to do it on an ArbCom evidence page also. I would urge you to read WP:NPA very carefully and then consider quite what you have contributed to the entire Biopsych discussion other than NPOV tagging justified with personal attacks. Is there one specific, informative, contructive edit you have made to article namespace? It appears not. Rockpocket 05:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose we could simply stop feeding the troll and let him starve. Ande B. 07:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Double standard

Both User:Pansophia and User:Jgwlaw have become fed up in recent weeks while User:Midgley has ignored repeated cease and desist warnings. The fact that Midgley has still not been reigned in begs the question of why this should be happening. Ombudsman 17:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is completely unrelated to this RFAr. Please stick to the issues, Ombudsman. JFW | T@lk 08:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, ha. Please, don't be quite so silly about the nature of this RfAr, which can be traced directly to the fact that you were caught red handed aiding and abetting Midgley's scorched earth tactics, which have caused problems on many articles beginning at least as far back as the vaccine critics debacle. Your complicity therewith is exactly what escalated a simple content dispute, over the utter whitewashing of the biopsych article, into this sprawling example of how Wiki processes can be turned upside down, and into public stocks, via aggressive Wikilawyering. As so often is the case, you have once again tried to redefine black as white, and up as down. Nice try. Ombudsman 17:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was caught red-handed? Now that is what I call calling black white. It is you who has been found to be unreasonable, obsessive and driven by an agenda. Nothing in this RFAr reflects badly on my editing. JFW | T@lk 21:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to side with JFW on this one, as I wouldn't classify his actions as scorching anything. Andrew73 22:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brave New World

Just as the quest for developing a scientific understanding of the biology of mental health and mental illness undoubtedly should make up the bulk of the biopsychiatry article, so too should there be a robust analysis of controversy and context of related medical research and its applications. In other words, to be intellectually honest, the article must adequately place the subject in perspective, to reflect how biopsychiatry evolved, and why such research, primarily funded by the pharmaceutical industry, is frequently viewed today as little more than spin doctoring by many of the stakeholder groups involved, not to mention the former editors of at least two leading medical journals and the editors of Scientific American. Or at least that was anticipated when the article was first drafted. Indeed, rather than within the article itself, that context has become abundantly clear in this RfAr instead, precisely as a result of a heavy handed campaign by the Wiki's medical lobby to squelch, delete or bowdlerize content that might hint that psychiatric practices are among the major contributors to the tragedy that modern medicine itself has become: one of the leading causes of illness, injury and death today.

Annually, according to the latest US statistics, 2.2 million Americans are afflicted by in-hospital, adverse reactions to prescribed drugs, 20 million unnecessary antibiotics prescritions are written for viral infections, 7.5 million unnecessary but often lucrative medical and surgical procedures are performed, 8.9 million people are unnecessarily hospitalized, and 783,936 deaths are caused by conventional medicine, outpacing even heart attacks and cancer. All this against a backdrop of systematic efforts orchestrated by the medical industry to proactively hunt down and preemptively destroy competing medical paradigms. Although malnourishment is virtually the only causative factor positively known for triggering mental disorders (aside from the psychotropic drugs prescribed by the truckload by doctors), pharmaceutical company lobbyists continue to besiege lawmakers with urgent requests to enact legislation designed to compound the existing suppression of knowledge related to the well established health benefits of dietary supplements. Laughably, Midgley has gone so far as to propose a ban on the discussion of matters relevant to this context in which conventional medicine is practiced.

More to the point, the events leading up to this RfAr are proof positive of the caustic consequences of injecting the Wiki with the medical industry's hierarchical and dysfunctional cultural influences. As an open source project, the Wiki's culture (and overall quality as repository institutional memory) derives its strenghs from having an inherently flat organizational structure, which itself has been stretched thin by rapid growth and natural growing pains. It is little wonder that the Wiki's realm of medical articles has suffered greatly from the infliction of egregious hazing rituals by representatives of the medical community. This pattern of behavior became evident at the outset of the content dispute stemming from Jfd's abrasive condemnation of the Whale.to webmaster for his colorful editorial comments at that website. A warning, about the spectre of the medical industry's monolithic cultural hierarchy puncturing the Wiki's flat but flexible organizational structure, was duly reported in the ensuing RfC perpetrated by Jfd. Attempts to excuse Jfd's behavior at the time as an artifact of the rigidly dogmatic culture of the medical establishment were similarly condemned as personal attacks by Jfd, whose propensity for expressing conclusions that are mirror opposites to the facts is at times truly stunning. Ever since then,Jfd has sustained an aggressive stance, despite routinely being wrong on the facts, wrong on the evidence, wrong in aiding and abetting Midgley, and quite wrong in packaging myriad aggressive deletions with an avalanche of complaints. This relentlessness, manifest as an attempt to seek sanctions in the present labyrinthine proceedings despite being dead wrong once again in helping catalyze the present row, is not at all a healthy way to go about consensus building. Sharing knowledge by means of an open source project can only become more elusive when primary influences derive from competition, and attempts to control, rather than from collaboration in the quest for sharing knowlege. While Jfd took the honorable route on one point by admitting the Whale.to RfC skirmish should have been presented as the content dispute that it was, that instance was a rare exception to the rule for Jfd, who has a gift for being able to doggedly argue that black might actually be white. Jfd's allegiance to the medical community's iron fisted control of health care knowledge is evidently far stronger than his dedication to the Wiki's diametrically opposite knowledge sharing ideal. . Neuroleptics, to a large extent, are increasingly used as a fallback when other coercive methods to ensure compliance with authoritarian or acculturative norms have failed. Psychotropic drugs, aside from their chemical effects as powerful neurotoxins, do little more in the long run than ensure the serious disruption of normal biological processes, damage the functional capacity to produce and modulate biological compounds essential for mental health, and reap obscene profits for entities engaged in licit drug dealing. In large part, the disruptions caused by neurotoxic pharmaceuticals throw ph balances completely out of whack, often by increasing alkalinity, which often contributes to problems such as significant weight gain or loss, tardive dyskinesia or other neurological short-circuiting, and even causes lactation in some male victims. Children who are medicated with psychoactive drugs, primarily boys who mature more slowly than girls, often begin to behave like zombies, experience psychosis, lose weight, or have their growth stunted or at least delayed, often simply because their behavior is not as compliant as their female peers.

Biological psychiatry did not arise from any great discovery or insight into cognitive function, no, in truth it arose as a backfill to explain how and why neurotoxic dye derivatives worked so well as tranquilizers. In other words, the cart was put in front of the horse. That cart, which has been transformed over the last half century into truckloads of psychoactive drugs now being delivered to pharmacies around the globe, portends the dawn of a brave new world, in which children and the elderly, society's most vulnerable populations, and victims of trauma, are seen by drug companies as little more than vast, lucrative markets to be exploited fully. Elders are routinely doped up at residential care facilities, seemingly to make them easier to manage, and multiple laxatives are often prescribed for similar purposes. Attending physcians generally are oblivious to the impact on the enteric nervous system and overall neurological function caused by nutritional deficits often compounded by institutional diets and laxatives. While attempts at polypharmacy crackdowns in nursing homes may actually be putting a dent in the massive amount of drug trafficking that targets seniors, as evidenced by the gathering and posting of statistics designed to keep the number of prescriptions down to ten or less per patient at such facilities, the situation is far more grave for the next generation, whose situation is so bad that some school districts have made it a policy to threaten parents with criminal complaints for refusing to be coerced into medicating their children. Ombudsman 17:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ombudsman, beautifully written. I suggest you have it published in a reliable source under your real name, so we can quote it on biological psychiatry in the "criticism" section. JFW | T@lk 21:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AndeB wrote on 4th June 2006:

I had planned to avoid responding to Solo's post but it may be helpful for people to note where he made his first post and the hearty welcome he received by Ombudsman on his user page when he first signed onto WP. In light of Solo's posting behavior, I think the Ombudsman connection says all that needs to be said about his credility and agenda. Ande B. 02:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The truth is, I’ve had no contact of any warm-hearted or other sort with Ombudsman either on or off Wiki pages neither before nor since our initial exchange of greetings when I joined Wikipedia.

I venture to hope that the people that AndeB desperately sought to impress with his inherent smearing capacity and invidiously inspired imagination, will prove less tolerant of any such trollish manifestations in future. Solo999 06:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]