Talk:Harry Bailey

Australia Low‑importance

	Australia portal Harry Bailey is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Disputed

Obviously, the fact that there was a Royal Commission into the happenings at Chelmsford, something happened there. However, the CCHR is not a reliable source on such matters; in 2005 CCHR was still publishing on their pages L. Ron Hubbard's "Crime and Psychiatry" essay, in which he claims that ""There is not one institutional psychiatrist alive who, by ordinary criminal law, could not be arraigned and convicted of extortion, mayhem and murder." (emphasis added) It's not a watchdog group that takes prejudice that sweeping as its guiding principle, it's a hate group. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I'm not sure what the point of your disputation is. Most of the article reads in an appropriate, factual manner. Certainly the events described did happen. The inital acts, subsequent public exposure and then the Royal Commission and subsequent criminal prosecutions and civil actions are all matters of public record. You note that that CCHR is not an organisation with a neutral viewpoint on all things psychiatric which is very true - but how do you believe that this issue has affected this article? I don't see that it has.

I have not verified the references made in the text - if someone could do this it would probably be a good thing.

There is one sentence that is very dodgy - it is the one that refers to Dr Harry Bailey molesting female patients. If no one says anything in the next few days I will delete it, as there is no verifying evidence that I know of. Or, if you do know this to be true, please post some references. -- Stuart Midgley 18:45, 28 July 2005 (AEST)

I didn't say they weren't "an organisation with a neutral viewpoint on all things psychiatric". I said that they were not a reliable source. The whole point of not being a reliable source is that you may not know how their unreliability has affected the article, but you can't just print what they say as if what they say could be counted on. Publishing a statement that accuses tens of thousands of people all, without even one exception, of committing rape and murder, is not just lacking a "neutral viewpoint" -- it's lacking a willingness to restrict one's self to only those statements which one actually has evidence for. Accordingly, I am removing the statement that inserts a highly dubious statement into Bailey's mouth, for which I can find no indication from a reliable source that he ever made. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's alot of what is written in this article that I do recognize from the volumns of the Royal Commission report on Chelmsford. It makes for a very good read. It would be nice if someone can put some more information up as well, regarding actual techniques, the victims, various court actions against Dr Bailey and effects on staff that worked at Chelmsford, one of whom, a Sister Shea, a registered nurse, committed suicide in July 1977 using the very drugs that were administered to the patients.Wikiphyte 13:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Dr Harry Bailey can not speak from the dead I suggest you get all the facts before you go putting rubbish on the internet. How and why he ended his life is for him to know and only him. As for the sentence that is very dodgy, your right it is very dodgy. He is dead so why don't you leave all this in the past. Don't you think his family have had enough.( Joshua Bailey )

If we left things in the past because one of the main players was dead, that would make very short shrift of the study of history, wouldn't it? Ever thought of that? It appears to be the case that you can't say anything when someone is alive because of Australia's stringent defamation laws, and then, you can't say anything once they are dead because it's not cricket. Give over, this man presided over a medical abattoir. His whole practice was a whited sepulchre, and he spent most of his time trying to stop the stench from escaping. When it did, he took the coward's way out. Myles325a (talk) 04:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What his family has or is going through is his fault. Former patients are still suffering today, how about that? Wikiphyte 13:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Praise God I survived DST.

118.210.36.209 (talk) 22:15, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By his grace and mercy I survived Chelmsford. Owen Woodcock. 118.210.36.209 (talk) 22:28, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]