I changed "timely and humane" to just "psychiatric" treatment as "timely and humane" is both POV and incorrect. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 02:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I added "judged" before "likely to become violent" because TAC's presumption that all those with psychiatric labels are more likely to become violent is far from clear. TAC's promotion of such views further stigmatizes those with psychiatric labels. TAC's claim that 1,000 murders are committed every year by the untreated mentally ill is a wild exaggeration and does not stand up to scrutiny The claims of Edward Fuller Torrey and his Treatment Advocacy Center should be viewed with skepticism. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 02:58, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I took out the reference to "serious brain disorder" as there is not yet any proof that psychiatric disorders are brain diseases, in the sense of tissue pathology. I also referred to "increasing legal power" because that is exactly what the TAC promotes. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 03:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Major changes need to be discussed here, on the discussion page. Please be a responsible wikipedian. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 03:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Again, 24.55.228.56, please discuss major changes here first. Also, please consider getting a wiki account. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 06:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, 24.55.228.56, please consider abiding by wiki-rules. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 15:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you have have a strong negative view of this organization, please consider contributing to this article in a "Criticism" section. Wording that takes a specific point of view (pro and con) does not belong in the introduction or main body of this article.--Ombudsperson 15:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. But I'm also not going to let the fluff on the TAC website stand in for a description of what this organization is really all about. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 15:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Without wanting to disappoint Francesca (something at which I seem to be adept), I think Ombudsperson is making good NPOV edits here. However critical one may be of the TAC, this should not be a reason for using loaded terminology in the intro. Look at the almost dispassionate way Wikipedia covers known mass murderers (forgive the analogy). If we can NPOV Charles Manson, why can we not NPOV the TAC? JFW | T@lk 20:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you're right that "loaded terminology" doesn't belong in the intro. However, Ombudsperson should be discussing substantial changes here first and, clearly, he's not. As for Charles Manson, at least he's honest. He never pretended to be a saint, as does Torrey. And, frankly, Charles Manson has caused less pain and suffering. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 01:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was not comparing Ombudsperson to Charles Manson. The article about Charles Manson can be NPOV. I think you should withdraw your comments, as they can easily be interpreted as a personal attack. JFW | T@lk 23:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, ha. No, silly, I was comparing Torrey to Manson. Ombudsperson is just an apologist. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 01:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would hope that a lot of the criticisms that users are adding throughout this article (in language and in actual statements) could be backed up with specific citations. Otherwise, they really do not belong in the article. Mike5904 03:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider applying the same standard to both sides of an argument. Also, it's wiki-etiquette to discuss major changes first. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 01:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! You just made 18 POV edits without discussing them. Please practice what you preach. By the way, it's wiki-etiquette to avoid editing articles when you have an extreme POV on the subject (e.g. mindfreedom.org), especially when this issue has been discussed with you on numerous occasions. I will now revert your extreme POV edits.--24.55.228.56 03:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I be the only one to follow the rules? I did discuss changes and tried to use edit summaries but my contributions were disregarded. I've asked and asked you here to discuss changes. Being a member of MindFreedom doesn't exclude me as an editor. We aren't ANTI psychiatry. We're ANTI forced treatment. I'm going to ask for page protection on this one if you keep it up. Please consider getting a wiki-account. You lack credibility with an IP address for a handle. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 03:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you are part of an extremist group on psychiatry issues, you shouldn't be making edits to a psychiatry article. I welcome a 3rd party's involvement here. I will now again revert your extreme POV edits. Have a great day! --24.55.228.56 03:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe there is any question here that you have a very negative opinion of the TAC. This is fine, but many of your edits show this quite clearly, and without direct citations these edits appear to be baseless allegations. Even if these claims are true (which I am not of the authority to say), the language of your edits is very evidently intended to put the organization in as negative a light as possible. This is not appropriate in promoting the neutral point of view so heralded here. Please find some sources to back your claims up, and discuss the article with its major contributors before editing so substantially, as there is obviously a dispute. Thank you. -Mike5904 03:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, learn to read!!! We're not "extremist." We're not "anti-psychiatry." Get a wiki-account or go away. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 03:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're clearly pro forced treatment. So, by the above standard, you shouldn't be editing either you little hypocrite. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 03:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One more personal attack and you risk being banned. JFW | T@lk 14:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged the article with an NPOV warning because of the back-and-forth reverts between multiple editors. I am not an expert on this subject, nor do I have a strong opinion on it, but I am interested in keeping with a neutral language and content.

User:Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC's edits appear to very strongly reflect a personal opinion. In addition, many of her claims are not currently supported by external source. I would like for her to find legitimate materials backing up these claims, and if none are found, the claims should most likely be removed. The language reflecting a specific opinion on certain people, organizations or viewpoints should (in my opinion) be removed as well. -Mike5904 04:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please work out your differences or use dispute resolution. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 06:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few examples of User:Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC's extreme unreferenced POV that she continues to insert in this article:

1. She changes the term "people with mental illness" to "people with psychiatric labels," which suggests that serious mental illness doesn't exist and is merely a label created by psychiatry.

2. She refers to Dr. E. Fuller Torrey (who the Washington Post calls "the most famous psychiatrist in America") as "intellectually and morally bankrupt."

3. She refers to TAC's statistics as "falsified and alarmist."

4. She refers to the medical condition of anasognosia as "medical fiction."

5. Although psychiatric drugs have helped millions, User:Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC writes that "Psychiatric drugs are very dangerous and disabling (neuroleptics were used as a torture device in the former Soviet Union) and many reasonable patients refuse to take them."

These are just a few examples. User:Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC has been trying to insert her unreferenced extreme anti-psychiatry POV into articles related to psychiatry for many months now. I believe she has been warned enough times about her POV pushing. Here are some comments she deleted from her talk page: [1] Is there anything that can be done to restrict her from editing articles related to psychiatry?--24.55.228.56 13:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

24.55.228.56, I am fully aware of this problem and have attempted numerous times to explain essential Wikipedia policies, such as WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. There is little change in this pattern, which disappoints me a bit. I would recommend you get a username - this will gain you credibility which is not normally extended to people editing under their IP (don't ask me why).

There is a guideline called resolving disputes. The first step is to politely explain policy. If that fails, requests for comments may help, but this is not strongly mediated and some cases drag on forever without resolution. Restriction of editing privileges is only done by the arbitration committee and only after all steps of dispute resolution have failed.

Again I encourage Francesca to avoid loaded terminology and to use only reliable/representative sources to source critical statements. Personal opinion, however, falls under original research. Considering Francesca claims to represent MindFreedom BC, it must be relatively easy to access critical pamphlets/editorials from the documentation of that organisation. JFW | T@lk 14:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]