User talk:Feline negativity
Welcome!
Hello, Feline negativity! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place
{{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking  or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC) |
|---|
|
|
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- See also WP:MEDRS and this template for generating a citation template from a PMID. WT:MED is the talk page of the Medicine WikiProject if you want to join there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:23, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Controversy/criticism
Sorry I didn't provide more detail on this earlier ... really pressed for time. From WP:CRITICISM:
In most cases separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided in an article because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints. Articles should present the prevailing viewpoints from reliable sources, whether positive or negative. Segregation of text or other content into different subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents. There is no requirement to include criticism or controversies in an article.
Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:09, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- @SandyGeorgia Apologies about that under antidepressant, I'll try and better incorporate the material. I don't think it's undue as debates occur in journals about them quite regularly. Some of the material is duplicated, however, so there's probably a way to cut it down a bit. Feline negativity (talk) 04:07, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- No prob ... I would have worked on it myself if not in the middle of a huge project ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
R D Laing's change of mind
Feline Negativity, would this reference be good enough? "In time, he became disenchanted with this approach and with many of his other early notions, such as his politics of madness, and he acknowledged that many of his own methods of treating schizophrenics had failed." [1] Andrarias (talk) 16:05, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Andrarias Yes, that seems better. There definitely was a change in his thinking later in life, I just don't know that it can be said to be because of his daughter. Feline negativity (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- == Why did you remove the most important intellectual step of Dr. Laing? ==
- I think it is a disservice to hide such an important intellectual development (to reject one's own theory, which requires giving up the time and energy spent and one's own reputation usually due to overwhelming evidence), especially for those who arrive on the page looking for the seriousness of his theories.
- Can you please restore:
- "Laing regarded schizophrenia as a theory not a fact, but later acknowledged his views on schizophrenia were wrong.[2][3]"
- or something to that effect with the style you like? Andrarias (talk) 23:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
- ^ https://www.nytimes.com/1989/08/24/obituaries/rd-laing-rebel-and-pioneer-on-schizophrenia-is-dead-at-61.html
- ^ McQuiston, John T. "R.D. Laing, Rebel and Pioneer On Schizophrenia, Is Dead at 61". The New York Times. The New York Times. Retrieved 13 February 2023.
- ^ Lieberman, Jeffrey A.; Ogas, Ogi (2015). Shrinks: the untold story of psychiatry. New York: Little, Brown and Co.