text:
Talk:Peter Breggin

Breggin's formal training
I really think the author of this article needs to specify Breggin's formal training. Supposedly he went to Harvard for undergraduate school, then to Case Western Reserve Medical school. Normally, after medical school a prospective physician then does an internship, either general or in a specific field, then proceeds to the residency training which determines his or her specialty. At the completion of the residency training, he or she may then take "The Boards" in that specialty, and becomes a Board Certified Physician in whatever specialty he or she trained in. It appears that Breggin went from medical school to some type of research fellowship, then to some vague appointment to NIH, then went to a faculty appointment at Johns Hopkins. These are all top-notch institutions, but what did he research at first? And what was his position at NIH? And in what department was he a faculty member of at Hopkins? Did he do any specialty at all? Is he Board Certified in any field? These are not trivial questions, as they speak to his formal training in the field in which he has made his name, and of which he is so critical. It is not enough to go to a reputable institution, what one does while at that particular institution is equally, if not more, important. From the article (which, by the way, I found very interesting and balanced), it does appear that, at least as far as psychiatry may be concerned, he is somewhat of an autodidact. The problem with autodidacts, of course, is that their erudition is often like a Texas river: a mile wide and an inch deep.Cd195 (talk) 04:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

 * According to Quackwatch, Dr. Breggin is not certified with the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology (ABPN). He is licensed by the American Board of Forensic Examiners, but this board is not recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS).  While ABMS does also offer subspecialty certification in forensic psychiatry and forensic pathology, Breggin has has not received either certification.   While he appears to have passed the National Board of Medical Examiners test, this is the most basic requirement for practicing medicine in the US.

 * So while Dr. Breggin is licensed to practice medicine, he is not certified by any ABMS recognized authority. In short, he appears to be roughly as qualified as the average intern or resident. ~ Hyperion35 (talk) 04:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting appeal to authority, but not being certified with one or another body doesn't mean a person isn't qualified in the field that body claims to have the sole authority on. --41.146.29.22 (talk) 00:26, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the last user confuses 'qualified' with 'experienced'. Having a lot of experience with the Law does not make you a lawyer, for instance. Egmason (talk) 07:44, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Being licensed by the state to practice law doesn’t make one a competent lawyer. Now that a huge percentage of American workers are in occupations requiring licenses, that has become, upside facto, putative evidence of expertise. For reasons of economics and prestige, professions demand to be licensed. Despite the alleged prohibition on it, Wikipedia bios are, in the main, models of appeal to authority. Nicmart (talk) 04:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Blessed autocorrect. Nicmart (talk) 04:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The contributor PeterBreggin = Peter Breggin?
I've noticed that PeterBreggin has made a number of edits some of which imply a personal knowledge of Peter Breggin. Is PeterBreggin Peter Breggin?--scuro (talk) 14:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

 * I've no idea! While it's worth noting that I wouldn't automatically assume a User:SantaClaus was actually Santa, this Peter Breggin certainly seems knowledgeable about the real Peter Breggin, has been making changes to the article which are arguably a little self-aggrandising, and someone has recently tagged it as Conflict of Interest, so perhaps.

 * I am going to keep an eye on the additions, however: removing referenced criticism as the most recent batch of edits has done isn't on, IMO. Nmg20 (talk) 15:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

'''This is Peter Breggin and I have been making changes on my biography. This week is actually the first time I've looked at it, ever. Really. '''

I've tried to learn the ropes, to clarify my identity some, to fix up the citations, but not to make substantial additions or changes. I am disappointed and rather surprised that so much attack is permitted on the page. From the page, it would hardly seem that I'd accompished all that much.

More specifically, I am surprised that the quotes from the judges are allowed but apparently I am not allowed to explain anything in rebuttal. For example, what the issues where in the cases, which is important, since they were cutting edge questions in which time as confirmed most of my views, for example, that electroshock causes permanent memory loss. Or the fact that one of the judges went to work immediately after the trial for the defendant's firm.

I am not sure what "referenced" criticism have been removed. There was a reference to a Forbes article which was very hostile, drug-company inspired, and old. The Center for the Study of Psychiatry is patently not confined to me as suggested. I don't even run it anymore, the director lives in NYC, and hundreds of professionals are involved.

Meanwhile, I am typing onto someone else's box--and haven't yet figured out how to start my own.

Do you want to tell me who you are? PB

 * This is the talk page of an article on Peter Breggin, where informal discussions can occur on the nature of the article. Every contributor also has a talk page. I have a talk page which you managed to also to post a response on. PeterBreggin the contributor(you) also has a talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PeterBreggin If you would like to start a new section on a talk page, choose "edit this page", go to the bottom of the page, and put (==) two equal signs on either end of a title. ie (==) It's me, the real Peter Breggin (==) DON'T include the brackets. Otherwise go to the section where you would like to post something and hit the edit button next to the title. Generally all contributors post in chronological order so always post at the bottom of the section unless you are responding to a specific post.

 * Most editors don't use their real names in Wikipedia...and most message boards. There are nuts on the internet!!

 * There are specific guidelines and rules for posting on your own page and the page of a living person. I'll see if I can't dig this up for you and also I'll contact an administrator. They should be more helpful then I can be. Regards,--scuro (talk) 23:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Peter,

 * You should read these policies.

 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Dealing_with_edits_by_the_subject_of_the_article
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AUTO

 * Regards,--scuro (talk) 23:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

 * If you are the real Peter Breggin (this is sounding a little like a song now, isn't it?), then welcome to Wikipedia. Having no evidence one way or the other, I'm not suggesting you're not, merely exercising a little caution. The items I've restored I've done so because they are sourced and verifiable. You may think, for instance, that the Forbes article is unfair, hostile, and drug-company-funded, but Wikipedia guidelines mean that you need to find independent sources to say that; it is not acceptable simply to turn up and say so. Similarly, your criticism of the judges needs sourcing. I'm sure that somewhere the court papers are available online or in print - if you can reference these documents in the article to show that the judge left to go to the defendant's chambers, fine.

 * Without wishing to kill your enthusiasm with policies, have a look at the ones I've linked above (WP:V and WP:CITE) and WP:NPOV if you have time. Nmg20 (talk) 07:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

 * I have got to the request to have a look at this very, very late. My apologies to all for that. If Dr. Breggin has factual biographical information to help us improve his article, then that would be very welcome indeed. Regarding criticism, its very difficult for Breggin to escape conflict of interest in editing those sections, which is why we ask individuals to keep them contributions confined to the talkpage on articles about themselves. Nevertheless, he may be able to provide us with insight or sources that can ensure this is accurate and balanced. Rockpock  e  t  01:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Never started psychiatric drugs
Marie588 (talk) 13:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: "... I've never started anyone on psychiatric drugs."

That may be true but is somewhat misleading. It does not reflect that Dr. Breggin does prescribe psychiatric drugs to clients who transfer from other psychiatrists and who are already taking such prescriptions.

Selective use of the term 'unreferenced'
It is indisputably problematic that in Scuro claims this statement (bold text denotes changes):

 * In Brain-Disabling Treatments in Psychiatry and other books and articles he rejects the idea that a scientist must participate in controlled clinical trials in order to justify his expertise.

becomes "unreferenced" when edited to:

 * In Brain-Disabling Treatments in Psychiatry and other books and articles he rejects the idea that a physician must participate in controlled clinical trials in order to justify his or her medical opinion.

yet neither statement is referenced! The only difference is that the former is a blatant straw-man and non-NPOV smear against Breggin (like so many other statements of wiki-editor opinion in this entry). So Scuro clearly appears to define 'unreferenced' as: "unreferenced and not derogatory of Breggin." Or perhaps Scuro can explain to us how the former became unreferenced when it became not derogatory of Breggin.

Furthermore, Breggin is not a scientist and has never claimed to be. He is a private-practice psychiatrist, and thus physician. The first statement Scario favors is a classic staw-man in fabricating a false position for Breggin not reflecting a position he's taken and then scoring a fallacious hit by making it seem as if he's defined a special status for himself of being a scientists who need not conduct studies. It's horrible that wikipedia provides a platform for such non-NPOV abuse of persons. 96.241.126.252 (talk) 17:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

 * The addition of this material, "invokes an instance of argumentum ad populum against Breggin, stating", is a personal judgement call and consequently should be referenced. Hopefully it is now clear what I had meant by "unreferenced". If you had simply asked I would have told you. Assume good faith! Altering my name in a derogatory manner and falsely attributing behaviour to me goes against wiki policy and assumes bad faith. Desist in your counterproductive behaviour or you shall be reported once again. --scuro (talk) 18:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Your edit said: "changes add judgmental tone that are not referenced." So in fact you did imply illogically that the claim became unreferenced. You also claim one should assume 'good faith' and then immediately accuse me of intentionally altering your name, when it was a typo in one case. 'Scario' is not a derogatory term that I know of.

 * To confirm my initial point, the alleged source of the claim that Peter claims to be scientist who does not need to conduct studies is Brain-Disabling Treatments in Psychiatry. However, that text (1997) says: "Peter R. Breggin, MD, is a psychiatrist in private practice in Bethesda, Maryland where he works with children and adults, and families." The more recent edition has similar wording. Neither claims Breggin is a scientist. So the entry that Scuro defends is in fact an abusive fabrication. For pointing out this naked falsehood that misinforms wiki-readers Scuro is trying to have me barred by reporting me. 96.241.126.252 (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

 * This is all a bit of a storm in a teacup, isn't it? I find myself agreeing wholeheartedly with the idea that Breggin isn't a scientist, and couldn't agree more with the idea that it is an "abusive fabrication" to call him one. Can we find a primary or secondary source which says this so we can include it in the article, ideally verbatim...? Nmg20 (talk) 19:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

 * The point is he does not claim to be a scientist and implying that he does is a straw-man. In the meantime, don't you agree that the statement in question should be omitted or reverted to the edit I made? It seems that obviously defamatory claims against persons should be held to the highest degree of necessary confirmation and not maintained until someone can support them. And moreover, the quote I provided above from the alleged source contradicts the claim. 96.241.126.252 (talk) 20:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Not entirely, no. Your edits disclaimed his failure to publish any actual research by saying "though this is not a prerequisite of holding a professional medical opinion". This is true as far as it goes, but if you were looking for someone to act as an expert in any medical field, you would expect them to have conducted controlled clinical trials and published the results; it is a prerequisite of making consultant status in the UK, for example. Further, it is a basic tenet of science that if you argue against the prevailing scientific viewpoint, and that viewpoint is based on the results of clinical research, it is incumbent upon you to conduct and publish research supporting your alternative viewpoint. Your edit misses both these crucial points.
 * That said, thank you very much for finding something he's published which appears on pubmed, and for finding the Primary Psychiatry article - both those are fine. The link to the Journal of Mind and Behaviour study seems to be a reproduction of the contents page from the university of Maine website, which is not ideal, but still an improvement on what we had before. Whether it constitutes a valid reference I doubt. The supposed "theoretical paper, review [or] analysis" in the Archives of General Psychiatry turns out to be none of these but rather a letter to the editor - but again, this is a very helpful addition.
 * So a mixed bag, but overall I think parts of your edits were helpful. Nmg20 (talk) 20:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

 * But Nmg20, you're expressing your opinion that physicians need to conduct clinical research in order to express an qualified opinion. However, the fact that numerous peer-reviewed journals have published Breggin over the years (enter breggin[author] at PubMed.com) means that regardless of your opinion, the scientific community has expressed the opinion that Breggin's opinions and analyses are suitable for inclusion and consideration in the arena of the scientific inquiry.

 * And yet curiously, in your other reply you say: "Stephen Barrett, however, is a retired psychiatrist, and so is qualified to have an opinion [...]" But both Barrett and Breggin are psychiatrists. So I presume Barrett has published clinical research, right? Can you tell us about it? Are there any peer-reviewed papers of Barrett's (other than those published by activist groups who agree with him)? If there are not such studies or papers, are you going to express your concerns leveled against Breggin objectively against Barrett too? Or are the allegedly objective criteria being applied by wiki-editors to Breggin specially designed for him. 96.241.126.252 (talk) 19:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

 * That is not just my opinion, Ninety-Six. May I suggest doing some basic research here on wikipedia before resorting to the rhetorical crutch that is the POV accusation? The idea that you need to base your practice on sound research is a key component of every medical system in the world, as espoused in the concept of evidence-based medicine. If you go on from there to the article on the scientific method which it links to, you'll perhaps understand a little more about the medical approach to matters of science. It may be very different to how one might operate were one wishing to flog books to people afraid of illnesses they - and we - don't understand, but in medical matters you are required to base your practice on research, and by extension if there is no research to support the practice you wish to use, you are required to carry out that research.
 * Breggin's "papers" have been discussed here previously - they are almost all editorials in the journal which he himself founded, the few exceptions are decades old, and there is a world of difference between editorialising and clinical research.
 * Stephen Barrett's publications are listed in his own wikipedia article; again, some research would have helped you here, and I've no inclination to do your work for you by checking whether his work has been included in peer reviews, particularly when this is Breggin's talk page, not Barrett's. Your comments about "activist groups" are classic appeals to unspecified Dark Forces at work so I don't propose to give them any of my time, and you seem to have got it into your head that I am some sort of Barrett-champion. I am not - I only mentioned him to try to explain what an appeal to authority was, hoping to help you to realise that you can find out a lot of this stuff yourself on wikipedia if you do a little bit of work before posting. I hope you enjoy evidence-based medicine, the scientific method, and Barrett's publications. Nmg20 (talk) 20:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Fallacy of appeal to authority
About deleting my edit, Scuro says:

 * "The addition of this material, "invokes an instance of argumentum ad populum against Breggin, stating", is a personal judgement call and consequently should be referenced."

But it references wikipedia and logical fallacies are hardly 'personal judgments'. But let's talk about it. The statement I noted as invoking argumentum ad populum (which should instead be the fallacy of appeal to authority) is this derogatory statement about Breggin made by Stephen Barrett:

 * "he would like you to believe that his clinical experiences and investigations have enabled him to reach a level of insight that is greater than that of the majority of mental health professionals".

Can someone explain (1) how that statement is not an appeal to authority, and (2) why, if it is, wiki-readers should not want to identify instances of fallacies? 96.241.126.252 (talk) 19:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Sure. An appeal to authority requires that the person being appealed to is not an expert in the field. The article here gives the example of Arthur C. Clarke being quoted on dental floss.
 * Stephen Barrett, however, is a retired psychiatrist, and so is qualified to have an opinion on whether someone's psychiatric views are valid or not. That's not to say he's an inviolate authority, but he's is an authority. Nmg20 (talk) 20:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Nmg20, there are number of descriptions of what appeal to authority (AtA) constitutes. Some note, in line with your comments, that AtA is about appeal to inappropriate authority. But other descriptions favor a broader meaning more indicative of the phrase. Take for example the fallacyfiles, which gives this intuitive example of AtA:

 * 1. Authority A believes that P is true.
 * 2. Therefore, P is true.

 * That's a straightforward interpretation of how an "appeal to authority" works. In this case, Barrett's argument amounts to:

 * 1. Most doctors believe that P is true.
 * 2. Doctor x believes that P is false.
 * 3. Therefore, doctor x is wrong.

 * But 3 does not logically follow. 96.241.126.252 (talk) 19:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm coming at it on a much simpler level. Take this passage written by user 96.241.126.252, "But it references wikipedia and logical fallacies are hardly 'personal judgments'. But let's talk about it. The statement I noted as invoking argumentum ad populum (which should instead be the fallacy of appeal to authority) is this derogatory statement about Breggin made by Stephen Barrett". I can reference many things to Wikipedia, that doesn't mean I can use them in a personal argument, and post that on Wikipedia. If someone of note has made these observations, by all means reference them and post the citation. This is an encyclopedia and the persuasive essay format should be avoided. In an essay we try to persuade readers of our viewpoint and we do that by characterization of the subject through observed "proofs". Do you understand my objection now? It would be nice if you identified yourself, the claw marks look familiar. Also proof reading your posts will stop that nasty habit of misspelling other contributors names. Thanks ahead of time. --scuro (talk) 22:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Barrett has written and edited books and articles about health practices about which he has no relevant credentials, if credentials be important. The criticism leveled at psychiatry for generations is that it is a pseudoscience, and therefore to debunk it requires no education in it. That is precisely how Barrett has behaved toward a myriad of activities he considers to be pseudoscience. Now maybe someone can invoke argumentum ad populum, and I will remind you that the history of psychiatry is festooned with such nonsense as epileptics are criminals, masturbation causes insanity, and gastric ulcers are caused by emotional stress. Nicmart (talk) 01:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Size of Bibliography
The size of the Bibliography section is ballooning, it needs paring down to what illustrates Breggin's career and views. Wikipedia is not a place to store the CV or list of publications of someone.... --Crusio (talk) 19:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Agree. Any dissenters? Nmg20 (talk) 10:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

 * I think that it suffices to cut this down to 3-5 representative publications. For those interested, all his publications can be found on his home page. --Crusio (talk) 12:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Overstated claims, citations, and POV
The article should be carefully checked. Just today, I found two claims that were really overstated. The first was that Breggin "was selected by the National Institute of Health (NIH) to be the expert on brain injury caused by ECT at the 1985 NIH Consensus Development Conference on ECT" (emphasis added). Turns out (see ref in article) that he was just one of many speakers at a session organized by the consensus panel and that he was not even a member of this panel (and the latter apparently mostly ignored Breggin in its conclusions). The second was that "Breggin is a life member of the American Psychiatric Association". Sounds really impressive, until one looks up the APA website and finds that "Any member who has reached the age of 65 and has belonged to the APA for a total of 25 years, may choose to begin a dues-reduction schedule, culminating in Life Member status and exemption from APA dues."

An anonymous IP has been making numerous edits today. Many edits just added superfluous info that only seems to be geared to make things look impressive (for instance, adding that his latest book is published by "the Springer Publishing Company", something that is already said in the way-too-long bibliography). Another addition is that "EHSS is received and archived at the National Library of Medicine (pubmed: 101231408[NlmId])". If EHSS would not be indexed by NLM, that would be more remarkable. As it is, this is not interesting and, in any case, whether indexed or not this info does not belong here but in the article on the journal.

A further issue is the addition of a long citation to Hirsch on h-index values. The original edit cited Hirsch quite selectively (see history if you want to see what I mean). Again, this info does not belong here and is already presented in the article on the h-index. Additionally, as it stands now, I think this statement is rather denigrating to Breggin: it basically says that after a long career, he has reached a point where he could be considered for tenure as a mere associate professor. What a lifetime total of 382 citations in the scientific literature means is that his works have been largely ignored by the scientific community. That is an NPOV statement, it does not imply anything about whether his views are right or wrong, it just says something about how they were received by his peers. Another editor, Nmg20, changed this text to "These relatively low numbers indicate that his work is not considered useful and/or influential by the scientific community." This is not correct either, it is a conclusion that this editor draws from the data (and hence original research). Low citation counts means being ignored, that is not an OR conclusion and not a POV. The anonymous IP has reverted me when I put the old text back and I am not in the mood to start an edit war over this. I just would like to note that the way things are currently formulated probably constitutes a violation of WP:BLP. --Crusio (talk) 23:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Once again, Crusio, your opinion that inclusion in the National Library of Medicine means nothing does not cause the fact of inclusion to be omittable. The NLM does not except any medical journal. Journals must meet objective criteria outlined here. But of course acknowledging the the fact of the meta-peer-review acceptance of his journal isn't favorable to the Breggin Black-Eye Committee commandeering this entry. 96.241.126.252 (talk) 05:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Ah, the desperate POV-cry... The publication status of the journal is not relevant to an article about Breggin himself. Find me one other article on wikipedia in which the founder of a journal has that journal's inclusion in the NLM mentioned, please? And the fact here is that both his journals are essentially vanity-pieces with non-existent impact factors - as I posted here previously. Nmg20 (talk) 06:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Dear anonymous. Thanks for reminding me that I still have to pay this year's dues to the Breggin Black Eye Committee, I almost forgot! :-D As for the NLM inclusion, I am rather involved with academic publishing and therefore quite familiar with these guidelines. NLM archives literally thousands of medical journals, even some rather obscure ones. In this sense, inclusion in Medline is not really that notable. As Nmg20 remarks, this is not something that is ever mentioned in articles about persons that founded or edit scientific hournals. In articles about journals, this is not really mentioned prominently either. Most of the time, there is just a sentence saying "the journal is listed in...." with ... standing for a list of databases containing the journal. More important actually is the fact that Breggin's journal has no impact factor. Scientists look at 2 things when deciding in which journal to publish: is it listed in PubMed ad what is its IF. Whatever the case may be, these are factoids that might be mentioned in an article about this journal, not in an article about its founder and I will remove this again. Oh, and by the way, why don't you read WP:AGM when you have a minute? --Crusio (talk) 17:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

You may want to use of these tags on the article.

--scuro (talk) 03:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks quite horrible now, so perhaps this will be effective in getting this thing cleaned up :-) Thanks for the suggestion. --Crusio (talk) 08:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Appreciate your edits. I ran Breggin through the Scopus tool to check the h-index he'd been given (I'd dispute that what I wrote was WP:OR, but the subsequent associate professor reference is far better than my text which was open to accusations of being POV) and it gave him an h-index of 7, not 14, so I have updated the text to reflect that. I've also listed the Ethical Human etc. journal for deletion, as the page was really just a copy of one paragraph from this article. Nmg20 (talk) 10:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Thanks. Regarding WoS, you're mistaken. First of all, "Breggin P*" does pop up if you use the author finder. Second, both using "cited reference search" and "search" will give you plenty of hits. As Breggin published a lot before most people's access limits (mine is limited to 1975), the cited reference search is more complete. In addition, it will contain citation scores for books and articles in journals that are not indexed. I calculated the h index by hand from those citation counts. Just repeated the whole thing and I still get 10 (not 14, but even that would be rather dismal for someone whose first article was published in 1964...). Scopus probably gives a lower score because it does not cover literature before 1996 very well. Finally, it looks like your Scopus link does not work for others than yourself, I get "This bookmarked page cannot be displayed" when I click the link.... I'll revert to the WoS scores. I agree with your prod of "Ethical", it's not included in the ISIS JCR either. I'll add a prod2 tag there. --Crusio (talk) 12:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

 * A new tidbit of info that I just discovered: I wondered above about the inclusion of "Springer Publishing Company", basically thinking by myself "everybody knows Springer".... Actually, this info is pertinent: the Springer Publishing Company is NOT the same thing as the well-known scientific publisher "Springer Verlag"!! See the company website here. Another instance of making things seem more than they are. --Crusio (talk) 12:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

 * In fact the Breggin-hating editor Nmg20 removed that link just hours before you then post it here as your 'discovery' of a fact that was allegedly being hidden from wiki readers to confuse them. Your ignorance of there being two scientific publishers "Springer Publishing Company" and "Springer Verlag" is evidence neither of bias for Peter nor of any intention of "making things seem more than they are." The fact that the explicit name and link to it the publisher was posted (but deleted by Nmg20) in fact falsifies your accusation. Yet another example of your difficulty in disentangling your limited POV from how the external world actually is. 96.241.126.252 (talk) 02:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Personal attacks, such as accusing me of being "Breggin-hating", are frowned upon here. Indulge in them again and I'll raise your problem formally by way of dispute. I don't hate Breggin - I think he's ridiculous, and every time anonymous editors come on here fawning over "Peter" and making wild claims about the reasons for my deletions from the article (as above, this is an article about Breggin not his journals) and about other editors (your "diagnosis" of Crusio is ridiculous and qualifies for a further warning about personal attacks), it makes clear just how ridiculous. Nmg20 (talk) 06:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Dear anonymous, I am afraid that you didn't interpret correctly what I was saying (WP:AGM might perhaps help here). I did not imply that the publisher was being hidden, the link may have been gone, but the text was there for all to see. It was just that almost everybody knows "Springer" (meaning Springer Verlag), a very reputable scientific publisher. Hardly anybody knows the "other" Springer where Breggin's journal is published. As with the NLM stuff above, where the journal is published is not really very important in the article about Breggin, it would be something to mention in an article about the journal. Mention "Springer Publishing company" prominently here may lead readers to think of the well-known big Springer Verlag, a much more prestigious publisher than the small SPC. That's all. I will ask my shrink to address my difficulties with viewing the external world, thanks for this helpful suggestion. Perhaps my medication should be tweaked a bit. Anyway, shall we now stop accusing people of bias and try to make a readable encyclopedic article out of this? --Crusio (talk) 18:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

tags

 * While I agree that there are problems with the article I think the eight tags are a little overdone. Some tags speak to the same issue. Perhaps the editor who put them in can reflect if some of the tags can be eliminated...especially if the problems have been rectified.--scuro (talk) 22:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

 * good start...wondering if one of the fansite and "contributor with a conflict of interest" tags can be eliminated. Either there is an editor with a conflict, which should be spelt out on talk, or some POV pusher(s) have fluffed it up. The "misleading" tag wouldn't really be needed if the fan tag was there.--scuro (talk) 01:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Done, good suggestion, thanks. --Crusio (talk) 18:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

h-index, career context, and NPOV
The repeated insertion by Crusio of his personal POV about the meaning of the h-index and Crusio's repeated deletion of the objective citation to its meaning by its originator (Hirsh) is prima facie vandalism. Furthermore, the point being made is that an h-index has to be interpreted in context. So saying Breggin has a low h-index relative to academics and scientists is comparing an individual to success criteria in other professions. Applying NPOV criteria requires comparing an individual's success to his career peers. And as we all know, Breggin is a private-practice psychiatrist.

Given that, a good example of a peer to Breggin is Stephan Barrett as both are psychiatrists, and Barrett happens to be a critic of Breggin's whose expertise Crusio is on record admiring in contrast to Breggin. However, in a review at isiknowledge.com it seems that Barrett's h-index is all of 1, one tenth of Breggin's "lowly" h-index! Now, there are a number of "Barret, S" authors who are not this Barrett. But I only pull up 4 pages of them from which this Barrett is easily disambiguated. And it seems that he has all of 1 genuine peer-reviewed paper at isi (apart from those debunking his paper), unlike 37 papers for Breggin listed at isi. So doing a citation report on Barrett's only isi-listed paper suffices to cover the whole of Barrett's citation report. If there is disagreement, please make this clear. Let's actually try to establish an accurate NPOV peer context for interpreting Breggin's h-index.

This demonstrates that if in an objective NPOV context Breggin's h-index is compared to his career peers, not to those on other career paths, it stands out as uniquely high. What would be particularly relevant would be to find an average h-index for private-practice psychiatrists. I'd bet it's around 1. 136.160.224.142 (talk) 16:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Barrett's h-index is probably higher than 1. This site lists 13 Barrett papers that are pubmed archived. But it would be good to try to build some context of the average or relative h-index of private-practice psychiatrists, if the h-index is to be applied with any objective fairness to such a practitioner. 96.241.126.252 (talk) 23:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I think you two are missing my point. Perhaps you can suggest how we can edit the text to get this point over correctly. I am NOT trying to say (as one of you has done), that Breggin's citation record would be barely enough to get him an appointment as a mere Associate Professor. I only want to say that the scientific community is not paying attention to Breggin's message. Breggin has been publishing for over 30 years and about 10 or 12 citations per year (some of those probably from himself, as is the case with literally everyone publishing in the scientific literature) is really not a sign that scientists are paying any attention to what he is saying. I do not see why this statement is POV. Most of the article discusses Breggin's battle with the scientific "establishment". Saying that other scientists ignore Breggin does NOT imply that he is wrong or anything like that. It only means what it says: other scientists are ignoring him. Perhaps that is because they think Breggin is wrong. Perhaps it is because they are stupid and don't see how brilliant he is, perhaps it is because Breggin's truths are so uncomfortable to them that they don't want to hear about it. I don't know and have no sources for this, so that is why I do not write anything about their possible reasons, just the simple fact that they are not paying attention. As for anybody else's h-index, that info does not belong in this article at all. I know that many people view high numbers of citations as generally indicating that a scientist is doing important stuff, I actually do so, too. However, the reverse is not necessarily true: low citation counts do NOT mean that a scientist is not doing good work: it may not be cited because it is mediocre or it may not be cited because people don't (yet) realize its importance. --Crusio (talk) 18:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Crusio, you completely ignore the point being made. The h-index is a measure of the success of research scientists. The factual data you keep replacing with your derogatory opinion states as much. And as you also know, Breggin is a private-practice psychiatrist. Your opinion that Breggin's h-index means he's ignored ignores context, which in considering we must ask: Is he ignored more or less than the average private-practice psychiatrist? I don't think we can answer that yet, and you seem uninterested in establishing any such fair context. Instead you're consistently misrepresenting him as a research scientist, and then applying a success criterion of research scientists to him. But the meaning of being relatively 'ignored' or 'not-ignored' wrt the h-index properly applies only those whose career paths are properly measured by the h-index. 96.241.126.252 (talk) 02:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I'm sorry, but I think you still misunderstand my point. The citation data are NOT presented here to evaluate Breggin's career and that is therefore not what I write. They are presented to illustrate that although Breggin has published widely on important topics that are of interest to many research scientists; despite that these research scientists are not citing his works. Mentioning the citation data and adding text that implies this would not even equal associate professor status for a starting scientist is insulting, as far as I can see. --Crusio (talk) 08:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Text deletion by User:Mihai cartoaje
There was quite a lof o sudden "cleaning up" of critical comments, so I reverted. I wonder if some reason will be stated for the deletion. --CopperKettle (talk) 15:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

 * From WP:BLP: "The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves." All of those claims were from Quackwatch which has been ruled a partisan website by the Arbcom. It is also a personal website. --Mihai cartoaje (talk) 18:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

 * FYI, regarding the use of Quackwatch as a source.... An amendment to a previous ArbCom finding has been made. In the process, important observations were made about the use of Quackwatch as a source. -- Fyslee (talk) 15:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Most all websites are partisan in some way or another. As far as I see in the link to that ArbCom decision that you provided, it is not said that Quackwatch cannot be used as a source. The text that you deleted contained detailed information about courtcases, including their reference numbers and all that. Do you suggest that either Quackwatch falsified this information or that court cases cannot be mentioned in this article? If you want to remove Quackwatch from the references while leaving the court info, you could do that, if you like, but removing all this info just because it is not very flattering about Breggin is an overreaction. After all, BLP does not say that unflattering information cannot be included, only that it should be sourced. Also, QW is the site of an organization, I don't see why that makes it a "personal site". --Crusio (talk) 18:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

 * Another relevant part of WP:BLP is, "If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability." If you had checked that that is what is actually in the cases, they would be primary sources at best, but you probably didn't. Quackwatch is Stephen Barrett's site. Its page on Breggin says, "This article describes why I consider him untrustworthy", which indicates that is self-published. --Mihai cartoaje (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

 * I have written articles in the first person in scientific journals and they certainly were not "self-published". I don't see why Barrett's use of the first person in an article that he writes makes Quackwatch therefore a "personal site". --Crusio (talk) 20:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

 * PS: what about http://www.drugawareness.org/, is that a good source? --Crusio (talk) 23:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

 * The point here is surely that, while neither Breggin nor Barrett are ideal sources, they have both engaged in a battle on their self-published websites. If we're including all the claims Breggin makes on his website, it's entirely balanced to include the counter-claims made in exactly the same vein by those who disagree with him. Nmg20 (talk) 14:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

 * I don't think quoting Quackwatch is a major problem in this context, so long as it is attributed. That notwithstanding, the removal of all unflattering content is not been justified. I have replaced that which is not sourced to Quackwatch. Rockpock  e  t  08:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Please read WP:BLP. If you were to check that that is what is in those cases, it would be original research, undue weight (since you have to dig through case files for negative content), and primary sources. For now, it is only copypasting from QW. --Mihai cartoaje (talk) 08:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

 * I think your reading of BLP is too narrow. If your reading were correct, it would be impossible to include any criticism in such bios, which clearly is not the case. The "accusations" that were removed from the article are not slanderous or libelous, they just say that some people think Breggin's reasoning is faulty. --Crusio (talk) 10:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

FYI, regarding the use of Quackwatch as a source.... An amendment to a previous ArbCom finding has been made. In the process, important observations were made about the use of Quackwatch as a source. -- Fyslee (talk) 15:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

 * I also think Mihai cartoaje's interpretation of BLP is too narrow, it does not demand that all critical content be removed, simply that the critical content is not libelous, is relevant, and from notable and verifiable sources. Once again, he or she has removed content that is not sourced to QW. That content documented criticism of Breggin as an expert witness, which is a useful counterpoint in that section.
 * There are now three or four individuals who have expressed an opposing opinion to you on this matter, Mihai cartoaje. "See talk" doesn't justify your removals, because there is no support for it on talk. I'm replacing the sourced content, again, until there is a consensus for its removal. Rockpock  e  t  22:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

 * As for the justification requested - the content is all based on primary sources which should be used sparingly or not at all - we should only use material published by a third party source. --  The Red Pen of Doom  23:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

 * The majority of that entire section lacks support from third party sources, much of it cite's Breggin's personal website. If primary sources are out, this entire article needs to be seriously culled. Rockpock  e  t  00:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

 * What steps did you take to check that those judges wrote that? --Mihai cartoaje (talk) 05:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

 * I am getting confused here. Why are you assuming that nobody checked this info? Perhaps because you did yourself and found that the oythers are wrong? Then why not tell us? And with regard to primary sources: if the comments of the judges are out because they are primary sources, why then can we use Breggin's own publications to write about his criticisms and attacks on Barkley and Ely Lilly? I agree with Rockpocket here that if that is the case, logic would demand that the whole article gets pared down to what is published in reliable this party sources. --Crusio (talk) 08:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Proofs are up to whoever re-adds something. --Mihai cartoaje (talk) 13:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Given that these statements are now supported by independent reliable sources, proof is now up to whoeber removes this sourced info. --Crusio (talk) 15:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Breggin has rebutted the judges' claims . If that was true and notable, it would be in biographical articles. --Mihai cartoaje (talk) 13:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Breggin has not "rebutted" the judges comments. User:Peter Breggin just said they were wrong and we have nothing but this user's word for this. His argument assumes that the judges did not know what was going on in their courtrooms. This is possible, but if true, that would have undoubtedly raised a stink in the media, especially in such a high-profile case as the Columbine one. Meaning there should be reliable sources on the judges being wrong. Be reasonable. First you remove the judges comments because they are considered primary sources. Now that secundary sources are available, you still remove them by saying that the journalists in those sources just copied Quackwatch and/or don't believe what they write. This is becoming plain silly. --Crusio (talk) 15:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

 * This is getting out of hand. Mihai cartoaje, you have now reverted this material six or seven times in 4 days and your justifications are becoming surreal. Rm per BLP. The first is weasel-worded as an opinion. They don't believe what they say.? Its the judge's comment that is be sourced, not the opinion of the Fox News contributor. Please stop.  Rockpock  e  t  17:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

 * An opinion is a weasel phrase and fails BLP. See BLP. In the Bradley article, the author writes that he copied it from QW so it is not more reliable tha QW itself. In addition, the author writes that he has a negative opinion of Breggin because of the Wikipedia article, so it acts like a Wikipedia mirror. It does not say what the author's opinion of Breggin would be if this article was kept free of BLP violations.
 * I am also removing this: "He has also known to express views that he later rejects, such as that it can be okay for children to have sexual relationships". What happened was the Eli Lilly paid someone to read through all of Breggin's writings to find something negative. The fact that Eli Lilly had to do that to find something negative about him is an indication that it is undue weight. There is no indication that if Eli Lilly had not done this, it would have been anything more than a book that no-one reads at the Library of Congress. There was a report about this on CBC where the journalists lean toward it being undue: "She's seen those companies dig up and air any dirt they can to discredit critics, including Healy." "And he's one of the, he has very, he has no baggage as far as I know. There's no skeletons. And if there's nothing that they can try to dig out to throw at him at trial, then what better way than try to manufacture something." --Mihai cartoaje (talk) 04:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Mihai cartoaje is indeed getting out of hand with his/her deletionism and censorship. MC, you simply don't understand BLP or the sourcing rules here. Wikipedia is all about documenting opinions and facts, using V & RS. This has gone on long enough and must stop. I'm beginning to wonder if you aren't Breggin himself, or acting as a meatpuppet for him, with or without his knowledge. It certainly seems like some type of COI editing. Your edits are disruptive, possibly violate 3RR, and show a degree of ownership that is totally inappropriate. You are just one editor who is refusing to collaborate with a number of other editors, and that creates a problematic situation. Stop the stonewalling, tendentiousness and disruption I'm going to take this higher up so we get more eyes on this situation. A block or ban may be in order here. Enough is enough. -- Fyslee (talk) 06:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Mihai cartoaje has been reported for disruption. -- Fyslee (talk) 06:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Using self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves
from WP:V:

''Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

 * 1) ''the material used is relevant to the notability of the subject of the article;
 * 2) ''it is not unduly self-serving;
 * 3) ''it does not involve claims about third parties;
 * 4) ''it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
 * 5) ''there is no reason to doubt its authenticity;
 * 6) the article is not based primarily on such sources;

So the fact that we should not use primary source legal documents does not automatically preclude that we might use primary source material published by the subject of the article. -- The Red Pen of Doom  18:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying that. So if I understand your point correctly, then Breggin's primary-sourced criticisms of Barkley and Eli Lilly (and other stuff, these are just 2 examples) fall under #3 and should be removed unless an independent secundary reliable source can be found for those statements? --Crusio (talk) 18:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. In that case Breggin's website and self published material is fine as support for, as an example, his employment history. However, there are numerous controversial claims about third parties made by Breggin that are sourced only to his own site, for example:
 * Breggin testified as an expert witness in the Wesbecker case (Fentress et al., 1994), a lawsuit against Eli Lilly, makers of Prozac. Ultimately, the jury found for Eli Lilly. Breggin later claimed that this was because the plaintiffs and defendants had secretly settled behind closed doors.[32]
 * Breggin also testified to Congress with Fred Baughman. In Congress Breggin claimed "that there were no scientific studies validating ADHD", that children diagnosed with ADHD needed "discipline and better instruction" rather than psychiatric drugs, and that therapeutic stimulants "are the most addictive drugs known in medicine today."[15]
 * Breggin states psychiatric drugs, "...are all, every class of them, highly dangerous". He asserts: "If neuroleptics were used to treat anyone other than mental patients, they would have been banned a long time ago. If their use wasn't supported by powerful interest groups, such as the pharmaceutical industry and organized psychiatry, they would be rarely used at all. Meanwhile, the neuroleptics have produced the worst epidemic of neurological disease in history. At the least, their use should be severely curtailed."[11]

 * These clearly violates #3 or #4 (self-published claims about third parties/events). There are plenty of others. In short, if other notable individual's claims and opinions expressed in primary sources are deemed unsuitable, then why are Breggin's permitted? Strict interpretation of standards are fine. Double standards are not. Rockpock  e  t  19:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not familiar enough with the content of the article to argue strongly, but to me it appears that most of the content above could be validly sourced to Breggin's self published sources as the statements are generally phrased as reflecting Breggin's opinions/what he has said.
 * Of course, any third party commentary from reliable sources out there that addresses these claims that Breggin makes in his self published sources would need to be included for WP:NPOV.
 * And there may be additional considerations such as WP:UNDUE that I have not taken into consideration. -- The Red Pen of Doom  20:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So Breggin's claims that "plaintiffs and defendants had secretly settled behind closed doors" are just fine, but a judge's statement "the Court believes that Dr. Breggin's opinions do not rise to the level of an opinion based on 'good science.'" is not? Either unpublished opinions about third parties are permitted or they are not. If a judge questioning Breggin as an expert witness is a BLP issue, as is claimed, then Breggin questioning the actions of the plaintiffs and defendants is also a BLP issue. I have no problem with using Breggin;s website to support claims about himself, but when he uses it to comment on others, I'm struggling to see how it differs per #3, above. Rockpock  e  t  21:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear! --Crusio (talk) 21:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In my gut I feel that the above examples are 1) indeed helpful to the reader to understand Breggin/his opinions and are 2) phrased in a way that does not validate his opinions and 3) the inclusion in the article is not violation of other individuals protection that we demand under WP:BLP. It appears that two other editors do not agree with me, but I dont know that consensus is decided by 3 editors. Would it be appropriate to do a formal request for comment? -- The Red Pen of Doom  18:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That is a possibility, but perhaps not necessary yet. I feel that we may not be that far removed in our respective positions that compromise is not possible. I have no problem, for instance, to include Breggin's attacks on Barkley and Eli Lilly, as long as it is clear from the article that these are his opinions and/or allegations, not established facts. And I agree that this can be sourced from his own website. Of course, this article has much more important problems than just this. There's a lot of puffery and unsubstantiated claims. This includes exaggerations of the importance of his publications in mainstream psychiatry journals (I always find it amusing and puzzling that many people attacking "mainstream" medicine as being incompetent and dishonest, almost invariably put enormous weight on any recognition they may get from these incompetent and dishonest people), the inclusion of an overlong list of publications (including many minor comments, letters to the editor, etc), etc, etc. I have tried to do something about this in the past, but as soon as one touches these things, several editors with an anti-psychiatry POV pop up and start reverting.... So apologies if I appear sometimes a bit prickly here, because I am losing my patience with all this a bit. --Crusio (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Would the creation of a "Bibliography of PB" article where his many but minor publications can rest be a way to clean up some of extranious clutter in this article? -- The Red Pen of Doom  19:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really, I think. Why would we do this for Breggin when we don't do this normally for other academics? What we usually do in articles on academics is to include a list of selected publications (choosing the most important ones, of course), generally not more than 4 or 5. And, of course, many academics (and I guess Breggin is no exception) have complete lists of their publicaitons somewhere on their website and we can provide a link to that. --Crusio (talk) 19:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Punctuation around refs
Please be careful to follow MOS. No spaces between multiple refs; no spacing between punctuation and ref; no punctuation after a ref, etc.. I just did a major cleanup. Let's keep it that way. Thanks. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Good job, I've removed the cleanup tag. Xasodfuih (talk) 13:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Mihai cartoaje reported at AN/I
I have filed a report at AN/I. I suggest that Mihai cartoaje and other editors take a look. -- Fyslee (talk) 06:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Synthesis in the SSRI section
I find it a little hard to believe that Breggin had significant role in FDA's black box labeling of SSRIs. The way the that section is written it leads the reader to think that his role must have been so. No third party sources are cited saying that. Xasodfuih (talk) 15:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Peter Jensen (psychiatrist)
I was going to write what Peter Jensen the psychiatrist said about Breggin on PBS, as it's fairly substantive, but of course he's a nobody on the wiki. Xasodfuih (talk) 19:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Recent removal of child sexuality related criticism
If we're going to have an NPOV discussion of Breggin's previous views on this topic, and if there are sufficient sources to do it, that would be fine. But it's ridiculous to include "criticism" of something which the body of the article never describes. Even the sources cited never criticize the view per se, other than by way of an insinuation that it's obviously contrary to common sense. But WP:NOR forbids putting words in their mouths. Using the child sexuality issue as way to attack Breggin's unrelated views on psychiatric medication is not journalism. This material isn't up to WP:BLP standards. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 02:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH
Time has noted that other mental health professionals worry that "Breggin reinforces the myth that mental illness is not real, that you wouldn't be ill if you'd pull yourself up by the bootstraps...his views stop people from getting treatment. They could cost a life."[5] However, despite this concern, an emphasis on a purely biological explanation of mental illness has actually been associated with an increase in stigma instead of a decrease by at least two studies.[58][59]
 * You can't add something unrelated by simply putting "however, despite this concern" in front of it. The stigma attached to mental illness wasn't the topic. Ssscienccce  (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I have gone ahead and removed this. Tameamseo (talk) 12:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Suicide and violence
I removed this paragraph because it incorrectly implies that Breggin pioneered the ideas that antidepressants are tied to suicide and violence in 1991, and that these ideas became mainstream many years later.

Suggestions that antidepressants are associated with suicidiality were around as early as 1964. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1817583/ Other articles discussing this connection were published in 1984 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3097733), in 1986 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3538914), in 1987 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3110852), in 1988 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3183073), and was discussed in literally dozens of papers published by other authors in 1990. Pubmed has no Breggin publications on this subject prior to 1992, a year after his 1991 book. He appears to have been riding on the coattails of others on this particular issue.

Some of the papers above also note connections with violent behavior, though this putative connection does not seem to have become mainstream. Treatment guidelines by major medical groups do not note violence as a side effect of SSRI therapy, and the package insert merely notes that spontaneous reports of unestablished causation exist. Two barriers to presenting Breggin as a pioneer of an idea that was only much later appreciated by others in this context are that 1) others suggested a connection before he did, and 2) We have no MEDRS compliant references stating that this idea has ever become widely accepted. Formerly 98 (talk) 18:17, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Peter Breggin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.breggin.com/Joemccarthylives.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080908120214/http://www.icspp.org/Board-of-Directors/ to http://www.icspp.org/Board-of-Directors/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLP
I removed a couple of poorly sourced contentious claims. Among other problems, a wikipedian should not interpret interviews by the subject. The interviews should be interpreted in a reliable 3rd party secondary RS. My very best wishes (talk) 15:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Personal bio facts?
I've been trying to clarify about his politics/religion/upbringing, does anyone happen to know the best (open) sources? He apparently grew up in New York state and started undergrad American History and volunteering at a local mental health facility. I've found bits suggesting he's a libertarian but "I started out with a very strong streak of libertarianism, I said lets not have government regulation, lets regulate through the market, through malpractice and product liability suits and so on. But it's clear that the companies by and large, from my experience, do only what they are absolutely forced to do". He seems to have something in common with Szasz but to disagree on other things. He mentions God influencing his life from age 16/17 (wasn't able to continue with running competitions) but I saw a mention that he's not a Christian? Does he believe in souls, what's his philosophy of mind/brain? He seems to have been entirely separate from, and critical of the internal practices and legal threats of, Scientology, since having some links with them in the early 70s (sources in the article and ), marrying Ginger in 1984 after meeting her in the early 70s when she (unlike him) was a member but had left Scientology 'unauthorized' and has made complaints against it? This WP article says he clarified that he agrees with some of CCHR (Scientology) views, but in the source he says they seem to share a number of his views - but suggests the media are too afraid to criticize them because of their legal threats - what am I missing, is there some evidence or rumor he's more linked to or supportive of them than he lets on, or is it just the historical links? He says "My wife was a Scientologist, and is now so strongly anti-Scientology, that if I even took a phone call from a Scientologist, she'd be on my back. ... I don't want to take on the Scientologists. I've got enough trouble taking on psychiatry". Neurohz (talk) 14:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Peter Breggin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/66N8Cc0oj?url=http://www.breggin.com/ritalinbkexcerpt.html to http://www.breggin.com/ritalinbkexcerpt.html
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/66N8Dcs2i?url=http://www.breggin.com/classactionmore.html to http://www.breggin.com/classactionmore.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theories/Anti-vaxx opinions in latest book
I had a cursory look at 'COVID-19 and the Global Predators: We are the Prey', Breggin's new book, and it references several well-known and repeatedly debunked claims, such as the COVID-19 vaccine being untested and possibly dangerous. I think it would be a good idea to note that in this article. 155.43.78.54 (talk) 17:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Peter Breggin


text:
Talk:Sterno

Untitled
Why remove the mention of the very well-known phenomenon of sterno abuse? It is, after all, factual. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:40, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

chafing fuel?
What does "chafing fuel" mean? --Allen 23:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Fuel for a chafing-dish -- I've made a link. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Drinking Sterno? Really
Where are the citations for the Cocktail section? It's difficult to believe that anyone would try to extract the alcohol from Sterno, which must be more expensive than just buying alcohol outright. There are no citations at all in this section and it sounds like someone just made it up. 118.90.79.17 (talk) 05:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

 * I don't have a citation other than the word of my father (who's no longer with us). One of my favorite stories of his during WW2 (the Pacific theatre) concerns drinking strained sterno.  If you have no alcohol, you'll probably use just about anything, in a "time of need".Bigrafa (talk) 20:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Drinking Sterno, unfortunately, was very common for a time, especially during prohibition (in the U.S.) and for a while afterward (which answers the first question, above, about sterno vs. regular ethanol). It's widely enough known that probably no citation is necessary (google "drinking sterno" or "canned heat" and you'll see).  It's not nearly as common anymore, but it still does happen.  In his youth, Woody Guthrie actually sold it, along with "jake," under the table in one of his jobs as a soda jerk (see, Ramblin' Man: The Life and Times of Woody Guthrie, by Ed Cray).  "Jake" was extract of Jamaican ginger, a patent medicine, occasionally fortified with denatured alcohol.  However, jake also contained a sketchy little toxin, added by bootleggers -- too much of it and you get "jake-leg," and Guthrie will write a song about it:

 * Jamaica ginger in a cold root beer
 * Make your eyes see double and your ear sound queer.
 * It'll paralyze your dingdong, too.
 * I'm a jake-walk Daddy with the jake-walk blues!

 * Sugarbat (talk) 03:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Jamaican ginger was an ethanol extract. It always had a lot of ethanol in it, and wasn't ever "denatured" (which would have included methanol). All the damage from Jake was done by the tricresylphosphate added to it to mimic the expensive oil-of-ginger (about 20% of the unadulterated protect) it was supposed to be made with. This was the 1920's version of melamine poisoning from Chinese milk, and it happened for the same reason: an adulterant was added to get around tests designed to detect the expensive quality incredient (protein in the case of the milk, ginger essential oils in the case of Jake). S  B Harris 04:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I was surprised to see in the Discussion page that much of what has been added about drinking Sterno and other cultural references had been posted and removed several years ago. Unaware of that, I re-posted much of what had been discussed, but I added 5 links and references that verify each of the claims. I hope that no one will try to purge this information again. It is not only true but it is also culturally relevant, and I thought that that is what Wikipedia is supposed to be all about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.239.141 talk) 02:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

 * How would you know ? I mean this seriously. My grandmother who has been dead many years now, would have an idea. My grandfather likewise. But some 23 year old kid who "heard about" or "read this on wikipedia", well ... good luck with that. People have known Sterno was poisonous for a long long time. Unless you are over 90, I'm going to discount your "it was true" statement. 116.231.74.164 (talk) 09:59, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Added to Peter Jackson sentence
I added to the Peter Jackson/Sterno sentence to include that the character wasn't addicted to Sterno in the movie, but using it as medicine. Since this is a big difference from the novel, it should be mentioned.

Rayghost (talk) 08:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this page needs to have a lot of terms linked to other articles, there seemed to be an odd lack of blue text. 68.161.68.30 (talk) 01:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Sterno is a registered trademark of the Sterno Group, LLC.
→ I represent the Sterno Group LLC.

Sterno is a registered trademark of the Sterno Group, LLC. STERNO and its related trademarks have not become genericized and The Sterno Group, LLC seeks to protect exclusive rights in its valuable STERNO trademark. The Sterno Group takes significant measures to prevent the Sterno Trademark from being generercized and prevent comments such as the "the Sterno trademark is genericized". If a reference refers to the Sterno Groups’s product, proper usage should appear as: “STERNO® canned cooking fuel.” If the reference does not refer to the Sterno Group’s product, the reference should avoid using The Sterno Group’s registered trademark and use the generic phrase “canned cooking fuel.”

Also, as a matter of accuracy, The Sterno Group is not owned by Candle Corporation of America. It is currently owned by Midwest-CBK, Inc., also a subsidiary of Blyth, Inc.

My edits have been removed already. If there is an opposition to these changes, please explain why. Otherwise, please allow for these changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jetzy2011 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. Please review our conflict of interest policies; we do not get to write about ourselves or our companies. Feel free to suggest changes to the article on this page; but we will take this solely as suggestions, not as requirements. --jpgordon:==( o ) 02:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This needs a reliable update - looks like the Candle Corporation trademark registration was cancelled in 1993. Now a different company owns the Sterno Group. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

calorific value/BTU
A section paragraphs needs to be added that discusses the calorific value of the fuel (BTU). According to wolfram alpha,

3.3% of 198 =    6.543 198 - 6.543 =  191.457    6.543   grams of methanol in btu = 141 btu_it 191.457 grams of ethanol in btu = 5390 BTU_IT 5390 + 141  = 5531 total btu

in a can of 20108 sterno ethanol gelled chafing fuel with a two hour burn time, and listed ingredients weight of 198grams of which 3.3% is methanol, there are about about 5531 BTUS in one can (about 2765 BTU per hour). 141 BTU from methanol and 5390 BTU from ethanol. In reality it might be as high as 5950BTU (the gelling process may contribute to the BTU)

sterno       3,388 BTU per dollar ( 22,124 / 6.53 ) wood pellets 34,121 BTU per dollar ( 22,124 / 6.53)

For £4 you can buy 4 cans of sterno for a total of 22748 btu

In england (like London)
 * For £4 (about $6.53 today) you can buy 4 cans of sterno for a total of 5531 * 4 = 22,124 BTU
 * For £3 (about $4.90 today) you can buy 10 kg of wood pellets for a total of      167,195 BTU

That is 7.5 times more BTU for cheaper.

sterno       3,388 BTU per dollar ( 22,124 / 6.53 ) wood pellets 34,121 BTU per dollar ( 22,124 / 6.53)

In USA (san francisco bay area) wood pellets are twice as cheap and sterno is about same price. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.144.118 (talk) 06:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

 * Agreed, Sterno is a ripoff. But it's difficult to get a bag of wood pellets under the fondue pot :D 116.231.74.164 (talk) 10:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Sterno


text:
George A. Sheridan

George Augustus Sheridan (February 22, 1840 – October 7, 1896) was an American Civil War veteran and politician who, along with Effingham Lawrence is known for serving for the shortest term in congressional history, serving for just one day in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Biography
Sheridan was born in Millbury, Massachusetts, and moved with his parents to Chicago in 1858.

Civil War
During the Civil War, he served as a captain in the Union Army until his resignation on October 28, 1864.

After the war, Sheridan was one of a group of Northern officials who moved in to administer the defeated Southern states (often derisively referred to by Southerners as "carpetbaggers"). In 1866, he moved to New Orleans, Louisiana; where he served as brigadier general of the militia on the staff of the Republican Governor, Henry Clay Warmoth. In 1867, Sheridan was made sheriff of Carroll Parish in northeastern Louisiana, which was later divided into East Carroll and West Carroll parishes.

Congress
Sheridan ran for the House in 1872 as a Liberal Republican against then Lt. Gov. P. B. S. Pinchback. After the election, Pinchback would become the first black governor of a U.S. state following the impeachment of the prior governor Henry C. Warmoth. Pinchback originally had credentials to be seated and the House was inclined to do so, but did not wish to be as he had also won a seat in the Senate (that he was never allowed to take). Sheridan contested the election and the matter wasn't fully settled until March 3, 1875, the last day of Congress. He was sworn in in the morning, serving until noon the next day.

After Congress
After his service in the House, he was appointed Recorder of Deeds in the District of Columbia by President Rutherford Hayes, serving from May 17, 1878, until May 17, 1881, when President James Garfield fired him in order to provide the job to Frederick Douglass.

Family
His daughter was the actress, Emma Sheridan.

Death
Sheridan died at the age of fifty-six in the National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers in Hampton, Virginia. He was interred at Arlington National Cemetery.

title: George A. Sheridan


text:
Côte-Nord

Côte-Nord ( Region 09) (, ; lit. 'North Coast') the region runs along the St. Lawrence River and then the Gulf of St. Lawrence, from Tadoussac to the limits of Labrador, leaning against the Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean to the west, the Côte-Nord penetrates deep into Northern Quebec, Quebec, Canada.

With the motto: Between nature and excess, the Côte-Nord is made up of 99% public land, it is the second largest region after Nord-du-Québec, which occupies 51% of Quebec's territory.

History
The origins of the settlement of the Côte-Nord precede by a few millennia the population movements that began in the middle of the 19th century.

Archaeologists tell us that the main prehistoric cultures, called "archaic", were based on three sets of groups coming from the southwest, from as far away as the Great Lakes by the St. Lawrence River, those coming from the great plateaus of the interior and James Bay and those from Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and New England.

From the 14th to the 17th century, known history, the presence of Europeans in the regions of the North Shore and the Gulf of Saint Lawrence began with the periodic visits of the Basques and Breton fishermen. Until the advent of the World War II (1939-1945) the growth of the population occurred in concert with the development of the pulp and paper industry.

In the 1950s, mining caused massive immigration.

"'... From Kegashka to Blanc-Sablon, the inhabitants are individualistic, dwell on Crown Lands — often as squatters — and keep jealously to their self-appropriated fishing spots, whence their dispersion.' (Bussières, P., p.1, 1963)"

Geography
The Côte-Nord is bounded to the west by the Capitale-Nationale and Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean regions and, to the north, by the Nord-du-Québec region and by Labrador. To the south, it extends from Tadoussac to the east of Blanc-Sablon, encompassing Anticosti Island and part of the Estuary and Gulf of St. Lawrence.

Côte-Nord was created as an administrative region in 1966. Stretching over nearly 1,250 km and with an area of 196,058 km², the administrative region roughly includes the basins of all the rivers that flow into the St. Lawrence between Tadoussac and Blanc-Sablon.

Important landmarks of Côte-Nord include Anticosti Island, the Mingan Archipelago National Park Reserve, and the Manicouagan Reservoir.

A territorial dispute between Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador concerning the border between Côte-Nord and Labrador was set on 2 March 1927 by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The boundary was entrenched in the Canadian constitution upon Newfoundland joining confederation in 1949. While this border has not been formally accepted by the Quebec government, the Henri Dorion Commission (Commission d'étude sur l'intégrité du territoire du Québec) concluded in the early 1970s that Quebec no longer has a legal claim to Labrador.

Protection of natural heritage
Several portions of territory on the Côte-Nord are dedicated specifically to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity. The region has 262 wildlife habitats, 172 aquatic bird concentration areas, 12 heronries, 66 bird colonies on islands, peninsulas or cliffs, 4 muskrat habitats and 8 white-tailed deer containment areas on Anticosti Island.

Overwiew of the diversity

Fauna
The Côte-Nord has abundant and diversified wildlife resources spread throughout the territory. Each year, the Fur Trapping Agency publishes an information bulletin on the furbearers of the North Shore. Among the main prey, they are considered common to abundant and generally stable.

Species considered rare in the region.
 * Lepus americanus. – Snowhoe hare. Lièvre d’Amérique
 * Sciurus vulgaris. — Écureuil roux. — (Red squirrel).
 * Mus musculus. — Souris grise. —  (House mouse).
 * Canis latrans. — Coyote. — (Coyote).
 * Mephitis mephitis. — Mouffette rayée. — (Striped skunk).
 * Pekania pennanti. — Pékan. — (Fisher).
 * Procyon lotor. — Raton laveur. — (Raccoon).
 * Lynx rufus. — Lynx roux. — (Bobcat)

Small game
Most well-known small game is and the Snowshoe hare and Grouses family species
 * Bonasa umbellus. — Gélinotte huppée. — (Ruffed grouse).
 * Canachites canadensis. — Tétras du Canada. — (Spruce grouse).
 * Lagopus lagopus. — Lagopède des saules. — (Willow Ptarmigan).

Mammals
The most well-known species are: The large fauna includes:
 * Martes. — Martes. — (Weasel).
 * Castor canadensis. — Castor du Canada. —North American Beaver.
 * Ondatra zibethicus. — Rat musqué. — (Muskrat).
 * Neovison vison. — Vison d'Amérique. — (Mink).
 * Vulpes vulpes. — Renard commun. — (Fox).
 * Canis lupus. — Loup. — (Wolf).
 * Gulo gulo. — Glouton, Carcajou. — (Wolverine)
 * Lynx canadensis. — Lynx du Canada. — (Canada lynx).
 * Rangifer tarandus caribou. — Caribou des bois.  — (Caribou).
 * Alces americanus. — Orignal, élan. — (Moose).
 * Odocoileus virginianus. — Cerf de Virginie, Chevreuil. — (White-tailed deer).  Present only on Anticosti Island.
 * Ursus americanus. — Ours noir.  — (Black bear). Considered extinct on Anticosti Island.

Avi-fauna
An important migratory stopover for birds, the Côte-Nord offers many favourite sites to observe 350 listed species at leisure. The diversity of habitats favours the presence of many avian species. According to the Manicouagan Ornithology Club, a wide variety of birds have been observed on the Côte-Nord including:
 * Gavia stellata. — Plongeon catmarin. — (Red-throated loon).
 * Sterna paradisaea. — Sterne arctique. — (Arctic tern).
 * Fratercula arctica. — Le Macareux moine, Perroquet de mer ou Calculot. — (Atlantic puffin, Common puffin).
 * Haliaeetus leucocephalus. Pygargue à tête blanche. — (Bald eagle). is a species at risk or designated threatened or vulnerable.

Marine mammals
From Tadoussac to Blanc-Sablon, along The Whale Route (Route 138), it is possible to observe marine mammals.

Cetaceans: Seals:
 * Delphinapterus leucas. — Béluga, Bélouga, Baleine blanche, Marsouin. — (Beluga).
 * Balaenoptera acutorostrata. — Petit rorqual. — (Minke whale).
 * Balaenoptera physalus. — Rorqal commun. — (Fin whale).
 * Phocoena phocoena. — Marsouin commun. — (Harbor Porpoise).
 * Balaenoptera musculus. — Baleine bleue, Rorqual bleu. — (Blue whale).
 * Halichoerus grypus. — Phoque gris. — (Grey Seal).
 * Phoca vitulina. — Phoque commun. — (Harbour Seal).
 * Pagophilus groenlandicus. — Phoque du Groenland. — (Harp Seal).

Economy
The hydrography of the Côte-Nord has always been considered over the centuries as a structuring element, whether for exchanges between indigenous nations, for the beginning of colonization, for logging and transport of wood and, more recently, for the development of hydroelectricity and recreational tourism.

Mining, forestry, hydroelectric power, aluminum processing and fishing constitute the main regional economic activities. These activities are confronted with global markets and natural and human upheavals which affect resources such as fires and insect epidemics.

The region has 121 companies that have permits for the exploitation of granite quarries, sand pits, gravel pits and peat bogs. The exploitation of the latter also represents 50% of Quebec production. Considering the presence of numerous peatlands throughout the territory, vast reserves of high quality are still unexploited.

The presence of major contract givers, access to the St. Lawrence Seaway, three major seaports (Baie-Comeau, Port-Cartier and Sept-Îles, as well as cruise ship ports of call), good air and rail transport in a territory with potential for tourist development constitute the main economic assets of the region.

In addition, with 2,400 kilometers of snowmobile trails, the region is appreciated by fans of this winter sport. The rights of way granted on public land to various snowmobile clubs contribute to the development of this form of winter tourism which boosts the local and regional economy.

Regional county municipalities (RCM)
Caniapiscau — La Haute-Côte-Nord — Le Golfe-du-Saint-Laurent — Manicouagan — Minganie — Sept-Rivières

Indian reserves
Essipit — La Romaine — Lac-John — Maliotenam (part of Uashat-Maliotenam) — Matimekosh — Mingan — Nutashkuan — Pessamit —  Uashat (part of Uashat-Maliotenam)

Naskapi reserved territory

 * Kawawachikamach

Population
Between Sept-Îles and Natashquan, people arrive by sea, settle in complete freedom, without fees, depending on the salmon fishing at the mouths of the rivers, the banks of cod offshore, the trapping of fur-bearing animals in some cases and hunting seals other times.

At the 2016 Canadian Census, the population amounted to 92,518, approximately 1.1% of the province's population, spread across 33 municipalities, various Indian reserves and a Naskapi reserved land. The towns of Baie-Comeau and Sept-Îles combined amount to a little more than half of the population of the region.

Demographics
In the 2021 Census of Population conducted by Statistics Canada, the Côte-Nord region had a population of $88,525$ living in $39,798$ of its $45,263$ total private dwellings, a change of -4.3% from its 2016 population of 92,518, making it the fastest-decreasing region of Québec. With a land area of 234,442.27 km2, it had a population density of in 2021.

The median age is 46.4, as opposed to 41.6 for all of Canada. French was the mother tongue of 84.9% of residents in 2021. The next most common mother tongues were the Cree-Innu languages at 7.8% total, followed by English at 4.5%. 0.6% reported both English and French as their first language. Additionally, there were 0.8% who reported both French and a non-official language as their mother tongue, mostly speakers of Cree-Innu languages.

Speakers of Cree-Innu languages mostly live in Pessamit and Uashat-Maliotenam. English speakers mostly live in Le Golfe-du-Saint-Laurent Regional County Municipality.

As of 2021, Indigenous peoples comprised 16.2% of the population and visible minorities contributed 1.5%. The largest visible minority groups in Côte-Nord are Black (0.7%), Arab (0.2%), and Latin American (0.2%). The region is home to 280 recent immigrants (i.e. those arriving between 2016 and 2021). 130 of them come from various African countries.

In 2021, 71.3% of the population identified as Catholic, while 19.6% said they had no religious affiliation. Anglicans were the largest religious minority, at 1.9% of the population, while Muslims were the largest non-Christian religious minority, making up 0.4% of the population.

Major communities
Baie-Comeau — Fermont —  Forestville —  Havre-Saint-Pierre — Port-Cartier —  Sept-Îles

Exploration
The Côte-Nord region was gradually explored by French colonists during the centuries with the help of natives. However it is worth noting the contribution of Henry de Puyjalon (1841-1905), a pioneer in ecology who devoted his life to the exploration of this region.

title: Côte-Nord


text: User talk:159.53.206.141

title: User talk:159.53.206.141


text:
Alicia Rhett

Mary Alicia Rhett (February 1, 1915 – January 3, 2014) was an American actress and portrait painter who is best remembered for her role as India Wilkes in the 1939 epic film Gone with the Wind. At the time of her death, Rhett was one of the oldest surviving credited cast members of the movie.

Early years
Rhett was born in 1915 in Savannah, Georgia to Isobel Murdoch, an immigrant from Liverpool, England, and Edmund M. Rhett, an American army officer and engineer based in Savannah. Her grandfather was Col. Alfred Moore Rhett, the commander of the 1st South Carolina Artillery for most of the civil war, and her great-grandfather was Robert Barnwell Rhett, Alfred Rhett's father. After her father's death during World War I, Alicia and her mother moved to Charleston, South Carolina. Rhett became a theatre actress in Charleston. A newspaper article in 1939 quoted a Selznick International Pictures news release as saying that Rhett Butler's first name was chosen by Margaret Mitchell because "Since earliest Colonial days, the Rhett family has occupied a prominent position in the South generally, and, more particularly, in and around Charleston, S.C."

Alicia Rhett graduated from Memminger High School in Charleston.

Gone with the Wind
During a performance of The Recruiting Officer in 1936, Rhett was spotted by Hollywood director George Cukor, who was impressed by her charm and beauty. The director was scouting for an actress to play the role of Scarlett O'Hara after producer David Selznick purchased the film rights to the Margaret Mitchell novel. Previously, she had been suggested by talent scout Kay Brown as a possible Southern belle for the film.

Rhett auditioned for the part of Melanie Hamilton, but the role went instead to Olivia de Havilland. In March 1937, Cukor offered Rhett the role of India Wilkes, sister of Ashley Wilkes. After the success of Gone with the Wind, Rhett left Hollywood and returned to South Carolina and retired from filmmaking in 1941, citing a lack of suitable roles. Rhett later became an accent coach for aspiring actors and a radio announcer at station WTMA in Charleston.

Portrait painter
Prior to appearing in Gone with the Wind, Rhett showed talent as a sketch artist and portrait painter. Between takes on Gone with the Wind, she made sketches and drawings of her fellow actors. Soon, Rhett was creating portraits of American servicemen in the Charleston vicinity.

Death
Rhett died at age 98 of natural causes on January 3, 2014, at Bishop Gadsden Episcopal Retirement Community in her longtime hometown of Charleston, South Carolina. In her obituaries, Rhett was cited as having been "the oldest living actor from Gone With the Wind", being 17 months older than Dame Olivia de Havilland.

title: Alicia Rhett


text:
1950 in rail transport

January

 * January 26 – To provide an all-India rail route to Assam following the Partition of India, the Northeast Frontier Railway opens to passengers a new line between Kishanganj and Fakiragram (229 km) on which construction commenced only on January 26, 1948; also, Chittaranjan Locomotive Works, India, commences steam locomotive production, the first locomotive (class WG no. 8401) being rolled out on November 1.

February

 * February 5 – The first diesel locomotive to pull a freight train on the San Diego and Arizona Railway begins its journey from El Centro, California, on a trial run.
 * February 6 – A labor strike by United Mine Workers causes shortages of bituminous coal encouraging New England railroads to accelerate replacement of steam locomotives with diesel-electric locomotives.
 * February 10 – Canadian National Railway gains control of Temiscouata Railway in the provinces of Quebec and New Brunswick.
 * February 17 – Rockville Centre train crash: A head-on collision between two Long Island Rail Road evening trains in Rockville Centre, New York kills 32 and injures 158, the worst in the road's history until November.

March

 * March 2 – The Nickel Plate Road runs its first mainline freight train powered by diesel locomotives, as two yard switchers are pressed into service to handle a train from Peru, Indiana, to Michigan City.

April

 * April – The Canadian Pacific Railway registers its first, unsuccessful application with Canada's Board of Transport Commissioners to abandon passenger service on its interurban subsidiary, the Canadian Pacific Electric Lines.
 * April 30 – The Pennsylvania Railroad replaces its Steeler with the Morning Steeler and Afternoon Steeler passenger trains between Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and Cleveland, Ohio.

May

 * May 6 – Pacific Electric quits the Los Angeles to San Bernardino railway post office, the last interurban RPO in the United States.
 * May 7–8 Long Island Rail Road's Jamaica Bay Trestle erupts in a major fire between The Raunt and Broad Channel stations, destroying the bridge over Jamaica Bay, and leading to the eventual decline of the Rockaway Beach Branch five years later.
 * May – ALCO introduces the ALCO RS-3.

June

 * June 16 – Copper Range Railroad's coal unloading dock at Houghton, Michigan, is razed.

July

 * July 2 – Pacific Electric service along the West Santa Ana Branch is truncated to Bellflower, California.

August

 * August 1 – Indian Railways takes over most remaining state railways.
 * August 8 – Illinois Central retires the Illinois Central 121 passenger trainset from active service; the trainset will soon be scrapped.
 * August 22 – Canada's railroad workers go on strike, crippling operations across the country.
 * August 27 – United States President Harry Truman orders the Army to take control of U.S. railroads to prevent a strike.

September

 * September 15 – The first diesel locomotives produced at General Motors Electro-Motive Division's London, Ontario, works are delivered to the Canadian Pacific Railway.
 * September 17 – The first of the 6000-series rapid transit cars (6001–6720), are placed in service on the Chicago "L" system. built by the St. Louis Car Company of St. Louis, Missouri, the number of these cars would eventually reach 720, dominating the CTA's fleet for decades. The first batch is placed in service on the Logan Square route.
 * September 30 – Tasmanian Government Railways introduces X class into service, the first mainline diesel-electric locomotives purchased by an Australian government railway system.

October

 * October 1 – First section of Stockholm Metro (Stockholms T-bana, Sweden) opened by conversion of the underground tram line from Slussen to Hökarängen.
 * October 15 – Pacific Electric ceases operations on the El Monte–Baldwin Park Line.
 * October 16 – The East Tennessee and Western North Carolina Railroad (ET&WNC) officially ceases operation on the narrow gauge.

November

 * November 21 – Canoe River train crash: A Canadian National Railway train carrying Korea-bound troops is given incorrect orders and collides with a passenger train at Canoe River (British Columbia), killing 21, including 17 soldiers.
 * November 22 – Kew Gardens train crash A collision in rear between two Long Island Rail Road evening commuter trains between Kew Gardens and Jamaica stations in the Kew Gardens/Richmond Hill neighborhood of Queens, New York City, kills 78 and injures 363, the worst in the road's history.
 * November 30 – Baldwin Locomotive Works becomes Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton Corporation.

Unknown date

 * Ferrovie dello Stato, Italy, opens new Roma Termini railway station.
 * Work on electrification of Saint Petersburg Railway Division of the Oktyabrskaya Railway, Russia begins.

Births

 * July 18 - Richard Branson, founder of Virgin Rail Group.

Deaths

 * February 11 - Victor V. Boatner, president of Peoria and Pekin Union Railway 1921-, Chicago Great Western Railway 1929–1931, dies (born 1884).

title: 1950 in rail transport


text:
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department

This article lists past and present parliamentary under-secretaries of state serving the home secretary of the United Kingdom at the Home Office.

Non-permanent and parliamentary under-secretaries, 1782–present

 * April 1782: Evan Nepean
 * April 1782: Thomas Orde
 * July 1782: Henry Strachey
 * April 1783: George North
 * February 1784: Hon. John Townshend
 * June 1789: Scrope Bernard
 * July 1794: The Hon. Thomas Brodrick
 * March 1796: Charles Greville
 * March 1798: William Wickham
 * February 1801: Edward Finch Hatton
 * August 1801: Sir George Shee, Bt
 * August 1803: Reginald Pole-Carew
 * July 1804: John Henry Smyth
 * February 1806: Charles Williams-Wynn
 * November 1807: Hon. Charles Jenkinson
 * February 1810: Henry Goulburn
 * August 1812: John Hiley Addington
 * April 1818: Henry Clive
 * January 1822: George Robert Dawson
 * April 1827: Spencer Perceval
 * July 1827: Thomas Spring Rice
 * January 1828: William Yates Peel
 * August 1830: Sir George Clerk
 * November 1830: Hon. George Lamb
 * January 1834: Viscount Howick
 * July 1834: Edward Stanley
 * January 1835: William Gregson
 * April 1835: Fox Maule
 * June 1841: Lord Seymour
 * September 1841: John Manners-Sutton
 * July 1846: Sir William Somerville, Bt
 * July 1847: Sir Denis Le Marchant, Bt
 * May 1848: Sir George Cornewall Lewis, Bt
 * July 1850: Edward Pleydell-Bouverie
 * February 1852: Sir William Jolliffe, Bt
 * December 1852: Henry Fitzroy
 * February 1855: William Cowper
 * August 1855: William Nathaniel Massey
 * February 1858: Gathorne Hardy
 * June 1859: George Clive
 * November 1862: Henry Bruce
 * April 1864: Thomas Baring
 * May 1866: Edward Knatchbull-Hugessen
 * July 1866: The Earl Belmore
 * August 1867: Sir James Fergusson, Bt
 * August 1868: Sir Michael Hicks Beach, Bt
 * December 1868: Edward Knatchbull-Hugessen
 * January 1871: George Shaw-Lefevre
 * March 1871: Henry Winterbotham
 * February 1874: Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson, Bt
 * April 1878: Sir Matthew White Ridley, Bt
 * April 1880: Arthur Peel
 * January 1881: Leonard Courtney
 * August 1881: The Earl of Rosebery
 * June 1883: J. T. Hibbert
 * December 1884: Henry Fowler
 * June 1885: Charles Stuart-Wortley
 * February 1886: Henry Broadhurst
 * August 1886: Charles Stuart-Wortley
 * August 1892: Herbert Gladstone
 * March 1894: George W. E. Russell
 * June 1895: Jesse Collings
 * August 1902: Thomas Cochrane
 * December 1905: Herbert Samuel
 * July 1909: Charles Masterman
 * February 1912: Ellis Ellis-Griffith
 * February 1915: Cecil Harmsworth
 * May 1915: William Brace
 * January 1919: Sir Hamar Greenwood
 * April 1919: John Baird
 * October 1922: George Frederick Stanley
 * March 1923: Godfrey Locker-Lampson
 * January 1924: Rhys Davies
 * November 1924: Godfrey Locker-Lampson
 * December 1925: Douglas Hacking
 * November 1927: Sir Vivian Henderson
 * June 1929: Alfred Short
 * September 1931: Oliver Stanley
 * February 1933: Douglas Hacking
 * June 1935: Harry Crookshank
 * June 1934: Euan Wallace
 * November 1935: Geoffrey Lloyd
 * June 1939: Osbert Peake (check date)
 * October 1944: The Earl of Munster
 * August 1945: George Oliver
 * October 1947: Kenneth Younger
 * March 1950: Geoffrey de Freitas
 * November 1951: David Llewellyn (to Oct 1952)
 * February 1952: Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth, Bt (to Dec 1955)
 * November 1952: The Lord Lloyd (to October 1954)
 * October 1954: The Lord Mancroft
 * January 1957: Patricia Hornsby-Smith (jointly) (to October 1959)
 * January 1957: Jocelyn Simon (jointly) (to January 1958)
 * January 1958: David Renton (jointly) (to June 1961)
 * October 1959: Dennis Vosper (jointly) (to October 1960)
 * February 1961: The Earl Bathurst (jointly) (to July 1962)
 * June 1961: Charles Fletcher-Cooke (jointly) (to February 1963)
 * July 1962: Christopher Montague Woodhouse (jointly) (to October 1964)
 * March 1963: Mervyn Pike (jointly) (to October 1964)
 * October 1964: The Lord Stonham (jointly) (to August 1967)
 * October 1964: George Thomas (jointly) (to April 1966)
 * April 1966: Maurice Foley (jointly) (to January 1967)
 * April 1966: Dick Taverne (jointly) (to April 1968)
 * January 1967: David Ennals (jointly) (to November 1968)
 * April 1968: Elystan Morgan (jointly) (to June 1970)
 * November 1968: Merlyn Rees (jointly) (to June 1970)
 * June 1970: Mark Carlisle
 * April 1972: David Lane
 * March 1974: Shirley Summerskill (to 1979)
 * May 1979: The Lord Belstead
 * April 1982: The Lord Elton (to September 1984)
 * January 1983: David Mellor (to September 1986)
 * March 1984: The Lord Glenarthur (to September 1986)
 * September 1986: The Hon. Douglas Hogg
 * July 1989: Peter Lloyd
 * April 1992: Charles Wardle
 * July 1994: Nicholas Baker
 * October 1995: Timothy Kirkhope (to May 1997)
 * November 1995: The Hon. Tom Sackville (jointly) (to May 1997)
 * May 1997: Lord Williams of Mostyn (jointly) (to July 1998)
 * May 1997: George Howarth (jointly) (to July 1999)
 * May 1997: Mike O'Brien (jointly) (to June 2001)
 * July 1998: Kate Hoey (jointly) (to July 1999)
 * July 1999: Lord Bassam (jointly) (to June 2001)
 * June 2001: Beverley Hughes (jointly) (to May 2002)
 * June 2001: Bob Ainsworth (jointly) (to June 2003)
 * June 2001: Angela Eagle (jointly) (to May 2002)
 * May 2002: Lord Filkin (jointly) (to June 2003)
 * June 2002: Michael Wills (jointly) (to July 2003)
 * May 2003: Paul Goggins (jointly) (to May 2005)
 * June 2003: Caroline Flint (jointly) (to April 2005)
 * June 2003: Fiona Mactaggart (jointly) (to April 2005)
 * May 2005: Andy Burnham (jointly) (to May 2006)
 * Joan Ryan - 5 May 2006 – 29 June 2007
 * Meg Hillier - 28 June 2007 – 12 May 2010

Parliamentary secretaries, 1940–1945

 * May 1940: William Mabane (to June 1942)
 * October 1940: Ellen Wilkinson (to May 1945)