Talk:Deinstitutionalisation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article improvements[edit]

Article looks OK, probably could use some flow improvements. Also:

  • I've got a few sources stating that deinstitutionalization has really only moved inmates from state hospitals to prisons. Meaning, they were released, now those diagnosed with mental illness commit crimes, move into prisons, can't follow prison rules due to their mental illness, get moved to in-prison psych wards or mental health treatment areas. Considering 15% of prisoners in the U.S. have been diagnosed with a mental illness, it seems like an important thing to mention for this article.

Thoughts? Chupper 19:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is kind of everywhere. The proponents of deinstitutionalization say that life is more pleasant for them outside but they end up in prisons often. Essentially they are unpredictable and the number of people who have been stabbed or killed is disheartening. Just the other week an ambulance man, father of children, was stabbed to death in a Sydney McDonald by an unpredictable. Makes your blood boil. Wrong priorities. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:4C38:7DB7:6731:37E4 (talk) 07:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't look OK to me. Perhaps we should say something about de-institutionalization in general, not just how the principle has been applied to the dissolution of lunatic asylums. See for example, Ivan Illich. Chupper, you have an interesting comment. If you can cite your sources, please add to the article. I think so-called de-institutionalization was doomed to failure, as it has confused buildings with institutions. The policy was built on a category mistake. --Publunch 01:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ALIMAN SEARS SAYS: There's one inaccuracy: The population involved in deinstitutionalization was primarly the mentally ill (SPMI) and only secondarily the developmentally disabled. Thus I amended the article to include the MI aspect. Also, Chupper, pls. realize it's too much of simplification to say de-inst. moved folks from state hospitals to prisons. Also, stats clearly show that members of the mentally ill population are more often VICTIMS of crime rather than PERPETRATORS. The "medical model" is moving out, and the "recovery model" is moving in. See my blog: http://recovery-model-aliman.blogspot.com/2008/01/what-is-recovery-model.html. Aloha, Aliman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliman (talk • contribs) 10:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys for your comments. Once I get some time I'll throw in some cites, and try to get working on this article too. You also bring up a good point Aliman about the simplicity of my previous statement. You're right, there is more to it than that - but that was probably the bottom line. Saying that they are not in prisons - I would have to disagree. I work in a prison and the numbers estimating populations of people with mental disorders are probably being conservative and may be higher than they really are. I know that comment is original research, but probably no more OR than your blog - which I also took a look at - its interesting. FYI, though, I hate the term medical model and I don't think anyone in the field, clinically or academically, seriously labels their treatment as a "medical model." This recovery model, as you define it, may already be in place for those suffering mild conditions. No matter what your "model", most mental health professionals are trying to get the person to be able to function in life - not just to treat the symptoms. ANyway, I'm not sure if that debate is necessary here at this article though. Maybe something for mental health or another topic. Chupper (talk) 14:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 16:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Definition[edit]

"... while others with extreme personality disorders, such as paranoid schizophrenia may be aggressive to family, neighbors and strangers."

Paranoid schizophrenia is not a personality disorder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.17.228 (talk) 00:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some changes[edit]

I came to this article doing some research for my personal journal. I have a relative in one of the few remaining "institutions." The article needs some work. First, nobody correctly defines institutionalization, or finds the first uses of the term, next key motivations and interested parties are not addressed. There is no mention of "warehousing" or mention of psychiatric successes that led people to concentrate mentally retarded and mentally ill into locations where they could access care and be protected, as opposed to being victimized, homeless, or in prison. There is little mention of the abuses of the system and no mention of the political will it took to stop this process. Though I don't remember specifics, I do remmember that several presidential candidates and presidents have spoke to this issue in stirring terms, regarding the need to change the well-intentioned but misguided trend toward institutionalization and medicalization. This should be a great, informative article. Flkevin (talk) 07:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree wholeheartedly, and I'd like the article to mention the detailed role that the family plays in stabilization of the patients involved, and I have some organizational changes I'd like to propose using sources obtained through University Libraries. Benkaplan42 (talk) 14:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

US or UK spelling?[edit]

This article switches from US to UK spelling all throughout it. The title is deinstitutionalisation, the lead says deinstitutionalization. MOS:ENGVAR

I can go through the article changing it, but which should I use, US or UK? Without responses I will default to the article title (UK) in a few weeks. --Matthew Thompson talk to me bro! 10:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

YesY Done, still needs more copyediting. --Matthew Thompson talk to me bro! 08:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Szasz in intro[edit]

I actually happen to like Thomas Szasz, but I don't think the paragraph with his criticism belongs in the intro of the article. It would be more appropriate integrated into the United States section. --Galaxiaad (talk) 04:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Headings in "Worldwide" section[edit]

Perhaps there are too many levels of headings here? Could "worldwide" be eliminated or "United States" be hived off into a new article or section. Currently we have: Worldwide -> North America -> United States - > Subsections. The South America section is lost at the end of the article - by the time you reach it you've forgotten you were reading a list of continents. I'm not sure what the rules or etiquette are here so I'm not making any changes beyond reducing the size of one of the headings which was out of line with the others. Dichohecho (talk) 09:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Deinstitutionalisation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:06, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just added archive links to one external link on Deinstitutionalisation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 2 external links on Deinstitutionalisation. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}). This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Deinstitutionalisation. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 3 external links on Deinstitutionalisation. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 2 external links on Deinstitutionalisation. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consequences section neutrality[edit]

The first paragraph that was added to the Consequences section (first appearing in this revision https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deinstitutionalisation&oldid=857707859) seems to express opinions and to lack neutrality in places. I think it could and should be revised to fix that problem. I don't know if anyone is watching this page, but I will check back and perhaps offer a revision to fix this problem if no one else does, unless there are objections. Llewkcalbyram (talk) 01:34, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some editing has been done to improve neutrality, by me and others. We need to counterbalance the criticisms more. It's an odd situation, because all the talk you find about the effects deinstitutionalisation tends to be negative, and yet I don't see anyone campaigning to reverse it. Perhaps it's because the benefits are simple and self-evident. Anywikiuser (talk) 11:14, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 March 2020[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. As opponents have stated, the current title is a valid ENGVAR variation and MOS:RETAIN advises against moving in such cases. buidhe 20:21, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Deinstitutionalisation → Deinstitutionalization – Z spelling is more universal: it is the only spelling used in American English and is acceptable though not predominant in British English. Anywikiuser (talk) 10:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request. OhKayeSierra (talk) 10:58, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose goes against WP:TITLEVAR, given that it's written mostly in UK English. OhKayeSierra (talk) 10:58, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose British English uses the s spelling; Oxford spelling uses the z form. Per WP:ENGVAR articles should not be moved between forms of English. Timrollpickering (Talk) 11:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Move would be a clear breach of WP:ENGVAR. Tammbeck (talk) 11:20, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as the proposer of the change. Further notes: I have double-checked WP:ENGVAR. It states that the national variety used in the title should not be changed for no reason, not that it is always wrong to change it. Anywikiuser (talk) 13:09, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per MOS:RETAIN, With few exceptions (e.g., when a topic has strong national ties or the change reduces ambiguity), there is no valid reason for changing from one acceptable option to another. OhKayeSierra (talk) 18:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Anywikiuser is wrong... the Z spelling is predominant in British English per Ngrams comparison of usage (and English overall). Its not a violation of WP:TITLEVAR to change the title if the current spelling is just provably not common within the claimed English variation. Correcting this error is a valid and obvious reason to support this. -- Netoholic @ 14:49, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nomination and Netoholic. The American spelling does indeed appear to be the one most-frequently used throughout the English-speaking world. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 16:32, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment ize spelling actually archaic British spelling. The spellings also the only spelling use in Canadian English. 36.68.165.222 (talk) 23:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Its the British spelling too, though. -- Netoholic @ 23:46, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per other editors, ize and ise use interchangeably in British English but only ize are used in American and Canadian English. The description change be change as follows (Deinstutionalisation (also known as Deinstitutionalization). 36.68.165.222 (talk) 23:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You may get a surprize when I advize that your surmize rests on a false premize. 94.21.219.87 (talk) 05:49, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - until such time as "-ize" spellings are made mandatory, there is no valid reason to change what is an acceptable spelling, and as above, MOS:RETAIN is clear that no change should be made without a valid reason (and to be further clear, an editor's personal preference is not a valid reason).Ingratis (talk)
  • Oppose per WP:CONSISTENT naming with Institutionalisation (and ENGVAR). 94.21.219.87 (talk) 05:41, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the fact that the Encyclopedia Brittanica spells it with -z- (along with the ngrams link above) might just be an indication that people are wrong about the common spelling in British English and are basing their votes on a flawed presumption or outdated information. -- Netoholic @ 09:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Encycopaedia Brittanica has an American publisher. But never mind, Fowler and the O. E. D. also prefer "-ize". That doesn't negate ENGVAR. Were it not so, we might as well give up ENGVAR and prefer the American spelling for everything, as the US has the most anglophones. 94.21.10.195 (talk) 23:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If a spelling is used 100% in the major English variation, and 70% in others... the minority spelling should not be used. ENGVAR was made with good intent to stop move wars... but it is not an anchor around our necks that we must willingly let drag us under. The point is, this is NOT an "American spelling" ... it is the most common English spelling. That should be all that matters. -- Netoholic @ 05:04, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The key policy here is MOS:RETAIN which states: "An article should not be edited or renamed simply to switch from one variety of English to another." Supporters of a move would need to provide compelling evidence that this move should be an exception. They might also make use of MOS:COMMONALITY: "When more than one variant spelling exists within a national variety of English, the most commonly used current variant should usually be preferred..." Incidentally, there was a relevant (but inconclusive) discussion here. Tammbeck (talk) 18:42, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per MOS:RETAIN. Daask (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should Republic of Ireland mention Mother and Baby Homes?[edit]

The article regarding Ireland mentions the high levels of institutionalisation in Ireland and also mentions the high levels of unmarried individuals in state facilities. Should this article mention the role of Mother and baby homes or the Magdalene laundries to explain these differences. Eamonn Cooper (talk) 15:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deinstitutionalisation&oldid=1218239643"