User talk:Menelaus2

Message to myself: begin to work on a specific set of cortical and subcortical neural structures for the Wiki Neuroscience Project.

Get back up extra help from Rob Risinger's team.

Psychiatric illness

You recently removed the redirect on Psychiatric illness and created a new article. I have reverted your edits for two reasons.

The terms "psychiatric illness" and "mental disorder" are synonymous.
Your page violates POV rules, includes opinions and was completely unreferenced. This type of material does not belong on Wikipedia. Comments such as "it might be noted at the outset that psychiatric treatment is not something that anyone looks forward to" and "We might postulate..." are not appropriate. You can't state opinions and you can't bring original research to articles. If this was your intention I suggest starting a blog or submitting a paper on the subject to a scientific journal first.

If you disagree with the revert to the redirect, let me know on my talk page. I'll be happy to bring in some other editors to see how they feel about it. In the mean time I suggest editing the mental disorders article instead. Chupper (talk) 16:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess then there should be a reference showing the synonymity -- and then we can trade references. As I point out on Chupper's User Talk page, this discussion would tend to bring in most important philosophers in the Western tradition. We could start with the greatest Western poet (Homer) and fill in all of the gaps in the discussion up to the present day (are those who engage in war rational or mentally ill ?). On the subject of obtaining references, the approach mentioned by Chupper to provide references is problematic to say the least. Anything that appears in print or on the Web is a potential reference. Does this make it any more reliable ? Scientific evidence consists of information obtained via the scientific method. There is little to be said for trying to obtain truth by fetishizing authority.

Sincerely Menelaus2

Menelaus2, thanks for your response. I tend to agree with those who state that the definition and classication of disorders is rather vague and poorly defined. I don't know if I would want to discuss the definition of mental disorder, but rather just hear your thoughts. I'm not an extremely bright individual and I don't like to act like one :). I always enjoy hearing people's opinions on things related to mental health. Not to mention, I'm a overworked student who is trying to learn all these sciences in which you seem to not subscribe - and I don't have insane amounts of time.

However Wikipedia isn't the place for debating or discussing these ideas. The titles of articles, redirects and (sometimes) the articles themselves need to be based on concrete ideas of how our society and, sorry to say it, authoritative institutions construct the article subjects. So whether the article is mental disorder or Michael Jordan, we have to stick to the facts and make sure the article is balanced with current understandings. These "authoritative institutions" I refer to, in the context of a mental disorder, are made up of subjects related to the article subject. So for mental disorder we look to scientific journals, books, peer reviewed articles, universities, hospitals, governments, etc. We even try to include information from the other end of the spectrum. We could mention that there are those, especially in the anti-psychiatry movement, who reject the idea of mental disorders.

Overall, though, we try to balance the articles as best as we can. Wikipedia doesn't exist to provide all possible philosophical understandings of a subject. it exists to describe them in an encyclopedic manner. So within the context of Wikipedia I'm nearly 100% sure that having two articles titled "psychiatric illness" and "mental disorder" are redundant. I'm also pretty sure that other Wikipedia editors would agree that within this context, one article will suffice.

Finally, in response to your comment - It sounds as if you wish the articles in Wikipedia to describe the entire set of academic and political controversies regarding that particular subject. I believe most Wikipedia editors, including myself, wish for articles in Wikipedia to describe subjects using authoritative sources and to be balanced according to the majority. This policy may seem to be lacking in depth, but we as editors feel users come to Wikipedia to understand things the way the profession/discipline understand it and see things from the eye of these authoritative sources. Wikipedia is not constructed to provide boatloads of information from all perspectives. Articles need to be balanced (see WP:UNDUE). They give a good example there.

I also use Wikipedia to better understand things I don't know about. So if I start reading the article on gravity, I don't want to sort through minority viewpoints (as intelligent or perhaps even "truthful" they might be). I want to understand the concept as so-called experts in the field understand it. Wikipedia isn't about discovering or even describing absolute truth. Wikipedia is about describing what we know and understand. Or perhaps to put in terms better fit for your intellect, Wikipedia is about describing what authoritative sources and the majority believe we know and understand.Chupper (talk) 00:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shock and Awe (shocked at ignorance, in awe of foolishness)

Copy of my most recent add on to the discussion of psychiatry articles on Wikipedia: "Hi - just introducing myself

Hello - didn't quite realize what a welter of controversy was present in the formatting of articles on psychiatry. If I might suggest a good point to begin, would be to try to bring into the picture some new articles on social perception of psychiatric illness. Of course, there are those who don't believe that psychiatric illness exists. I am sympathetic. I am also sympathetic to the wide range of viewpoint rejecting science, to various degrees. Just not sure if that viewpoint moves science forward very much.

Not sure if I want to spend my time trying to argue for the existence of gravity, or evolution. And am quite wary of working with an on line community that purports to be interested in improving the public's knowledge of the world around us, and then considers the earth as a floating disk on the primordial body of water vs. the earth as subject to the force of gravity as equally valid viewpoints, both of which have references to back them up. Thnx.

Menelaus2"

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 21:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Dinotopia

Hi. You have recently expressed interest in WikiProject Dinotopia, which is inactive. You may, however, still participate in the project if you wish. Basicly we need to expand our scope, so for example creating new articles and expanding additional ones, and providing book details such as ISBN where needed. Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 21:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]