Talk:Scientology and psychiatry
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
The Arbitration Committee has placed all Scientology-related articles on probation (see relevant arbitration case). Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages. |
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Scientology, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scientology. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on Scientology-related topics. See WikiProject Scientology and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ. |
|
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess. |
| B | This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance assessment scale |
 Archives |
|---|
Contents |
[edit] standardization
I am tempted to standardize all block quotations. Which style would be more convenient, the {{Cquote or another? —Cesar Tort 04:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- I better chose the
< blockquote >style. —Cesar Tort 21:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- I suspect that Wiki formatting should be used over pure html when possible. (I don't know if I've even seen a style guide that says that, just a hunch.) Doesn't starting a paragraph with a colon give the same result as blockquote? AndroidCat (talk) 07:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- This month I encountered the article with both quotation styles and I just wanted to standardize it. Do you think it's ok as it stands now? Any suggestions for further change (I'm lazy to bury my mind reading WP guides)? —Cesar Tort 08:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
-
[edit] Great article
Just wanted to compliment the great article. It's thorough, well-researched and well-referenced, and surprisingly NPOV for a topic so easy to deride. If I had any feedback, it would be that it would be useful to get scientologists' reactions to some of the criticism, particularly regarding Jeremy Perkins and Hubbard's use of psychiatric care. I'm also interested in what incident may lie at the root of Hubbard's clear hate for the profession. Dcoetzee 19:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- The reason can be clearly guessed in Russel Miller's book. After Hubbard beat his second wife Sara Northup, she wanted him committed and a psychiatrist labeled him as schizophrenic. Curiously, in a CCHR conference I attended (I was the only non-Scientologist in the auditorium!) the speaker, a member of the Sea Org, stated that the psychiatrists tried to involuntary commit Hubbard in 1951 (times of the Sara affair), but that he escaped using his Judo abilities. Aside of the fancy part of the story, I believe it has a ring of truth, as I try to show in an online book I published in Spanish [1]. In a Nature (journal) book review Martin Gardner asks "How could a man this crazy have lived to 74 without being committed"? I believe it was precisely the feeling of humiliation after being labeled by a psychiatrist, rather than humanitarian feelings for the victims of involuntary ECT, lobotomy, etc, what moved Hubbard to hate psychiatry.
- —Cesar Tort 20:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] phrase removal
I have removed this —:
Scientology has also consistently evidenced more vocal opposition to biopsychiatry and to psychiatric medication than to related civil rights issues.{Fact|date=September 2007}
because I think it's impossible to source. The experience that in the past I had with Scientologists is that they are indeed more concerned about psychiatric medication of children than to adult civil rights issues. But that's just my own OR. Since nobody sourced it since September I felt free to remove it.
—Cesar Tort 00:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] John Kuzma's quotation
I tried to obtain the source for this statement —:
"This book from the Church of Scientology offers their prospective on Psychiatry and Psychology (hint: they aren't huge fans). The book itself is the literary equivalent of a MST3K episode (my favorite ‘revelation’ — psychiatrists and psychologists are responsible for the rise in drug use in America since WW2). But it made me wish I could find a more even-handed and knowledgeable critique on the mental health professions."
—but didn't find it in the web.
I e-mailed Kuzama and he tells me that he believes it was taken off the web page for the University of Minnesota's Program in Human Sexuality; that Kuzama completed an elective there in his final year of medical school and had written a series of brief reviews of various materials in their library; that the review was written in 2001, but that it may have been taken off the web by this time.
Has anybody access to the 2001 University of Minnesota's Program in Human Sexuality to source the quotation properly?
—Cesar Tort 03:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Needs something on the leaked New Year speech
Where David Miscavige made the statement on the goal of dismantling psychiatry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.219.237.226 (talk) 03:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] dubious paragraph
I would recommend to remove the paragraph of the unnamed Australian woman who killed members of her family. It looks like a newspaper sentence. A name and more info is needed for an encyclopedic article. —Cesar Tort 05:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Her name has previously been protected by court order, which may or may not still be the case. AndroidCat (talk) 14:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Psychology and Psycho-analysis
The beginning paragraph says the Church of Scientology is against psychology and gives a citation from a Scientology site so I'm not doubting that. However, I would like the antagonism between Scientology and psychology explained. Psychology is as a science somewhat to largely independent of psychiatry (while it borrows from neurological research, much of psychology fits more into the social science category and many psychologists are actually quite anti-psychiatry to a greater or lesser degree) and is again somewhat to largely independent of psycho-analysis such as Freud's (where Hubbard's opposition is noted in the Hubbard and Psychiatry section) (while psychology views Freud as an important figure its development is different than psycho-analysis, placing more insistence on scientific method and less on introspection and dream analysis for theory, although many in psychology view psycho-analysis as a sub-field). Now it is probable that Scientology just lumps the three together, but if not it would be interesting to see why it opposes psychology in particular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.227.246 (talk) 17:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
