Talk:Laura's Law
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| WikiProject Medicine (Rated Start-Class) | |
|---|---|
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess. |
| Start | This page has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance assessment scale |
| WikiProject California | |
|---|---|
 |
This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| WikiProject Law | ||
|---|---|---|
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a quality rating on the assessment scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale. | |
[edit] This article is POV
How can this article pretend to present a neutral point of view? These are the links under See also:
- Chemical imbalance theory
- E. Fuller Torrey
- International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology
- Involuntary treatment
- New Freedom Commission on Mental Health
- Protection & Advocacy, Inc.
- Sally Satel
- World Network of Users and Survivors of Psychiatry
--Mattisse 22:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Mattisse, is your complaint that the article does not describe this law accurately/in an NPOV, or is your complaint that the legislature enacted something that some people disagree about? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- No, he's talking about how Wikipedia admin deletes every useful and honest link about a subject and leaves only the ones that give false, misleading, or skewed information about it. That's what Wikipedia does, it's fake. That's what he's talking about. Should be pretty easy for you to figure out, what with "POV" or whatever odd abbreviations or acronyms you use here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.159.55 (talk) 13:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- So the POV tag is just about the "See also" section that doesn't even exist at the moment?
- Here's how it seems to me: Someone thinks this article -- about a fairly obscure, rarely applied law in a single California county -- desperately needs a half-dozen links to Wikipedia articles about psychologists and anti-psychiatry organizations. I can easily see the point behind linking to involuntary treatment, assuming that it's not linked higher up in the article. I can also see a link to the main anti-psychiatry article (which would be rather more pointful than links to a handful of random anti-psychiatry groups). But the rest? I frankly don't see how a link to Sally Satel's bio is going to help you learn anything about involuntary outpatient treatment in Los Angeles. Links in an article need to be about the specific topic at hand. This rambling list looks more like "everything I could think of on this general theme" than like a list of things you actually need to know to understand this California law.
- I propose that a very short ==See also== section be reinstated, with four links to:
- 5150 (Involuntary psychiatric hold), California's law for psychiatric emergencies
- Involuntary treatment
- hospital-based involuntary commitment
- anti-psychiatry, a movement that opposes any form of involuntary psychiatric treatment
- These links provide information which are directly related to psychiatric treatment in California. Will this work for you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Since it looks like the POV issues have been addressed, I have removed the POV tag. If you disagree, please provide more information about what statements or omissions in the article do not accurately and fairly explain this law. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Randall Hagar
Randall Hagar's lobbying tactics have been proven to be unethical and contrary to good legislation and psychiatry. The laws that he, and thereby the organizations that he represents, are now shown to be harmful to the state's populace. They serve no useful purpose.
Hagar should realize that not all of California's criminal registration laws are life-long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.145.67 (talk) 06:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
