Talk:Involuntary hospitalization of Joyce Brown

Criticisms

I'm disappointed that this article does not tell the whole story: How the ACLU cleaned her up and gave her a job so as to make her look normal for the hearing. How they arranged for her to speak at Harvard. How after Mayor Kotch's attempt to provide help for her was defeated the ACLU abandoned her and left her to return to the streets and meet the end described in the posting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arturo 1929 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Title

This should probably be at something like Involuntary hospitalization of Joyce Patricia Brown, since most of the news is about her hospitalization and related trial, laws, etc. If nobody objects I'll boldly move it in the next day or two. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:16, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Actually, looking at the sourcing, this seems pretty straightforward. I'm going to go ahead and make the move. If someone objects you can revert and we can have a formal discussion. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:19, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Given that the sources in the article refer to her generally as Joyce Brown, instead of her full name, and since the new article title doesn't need natural disambiguation between other Joyce Browns, shouldn't the article title be "Involuntary hospitalization of Joyce Brown"? :3 F4U (they/it) 22:45, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion 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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Involuntary hospitalization of Joyce Patricia Brown/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Freedom4U (talk · contribs) 23:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Changes need to be made. Expanded on below.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Changes need to be made. Expanded on below.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	References are in acceptable format.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Concerns about source-integrity
	2c. it contains no original research.	Material not in the sources found. Expanded on below.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	close paraphrasing needs to be fixed
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	A few minor changes need to be made. Expanded on below.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article history consists of normal editing.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Image in the article used with valid non-free use rationale. I was unable to find any other suitable pictures in searches of public domain databases.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Concerns regarding the caption below. Not required, but highly recommended that the image have alt-text for obvious accessibility concerns.
	7. Overall assessment.

Comments

• Re-adding my comments because they weren't included when I first saved the review. I've added some remarks today, but I'll finish up my review in the next few days. This article is right in my area of interest, falling in the topics of antipsychiatry and marginalized people. I've listed concerns with regards to source integrity, grammar, tone, NPOV, and other issues that should be addressed. The article's scope appears broad and comprehensive enough. I haven't run copyvio, but from close comparisons of the text to the sources in the first few paragraphs, I find it highly unlikely I'll find any plagiarism or close paraphrasing. :3 F4U (they/it) 03:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

General

• Hyphens need to be replaced with en-dashes ("–") in date ranges
  •  Done I think there were just a couple? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
• Is there a reason the image caption uses her full name? Brown would suffice. Caption would be less convoluted if it states "Brown being released from Bellevue in 1988" and wikilink Bellevue Hospital. The caption is also a sentence fragment and the period should be removed.
  •  Done I agree with your comment on the talk page. The first few sources I saw when learning about the subject used her full name, but it's not consistent and there's no IMO good reason the article shouldn't just be "Involuntary hospitalization of Joyce Brown". The image just reflects that initial framing. I'll go ahead and change the caption, and will move the article after this review is done (to avoid and confusion for the bot, etc.). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
• Many instances of User:Sammi Brie/Commas in sentences that should be addressed. If a clause after an "and" (or any other conjunction) can be a independent sentence, then there needs to be a comma before the and. If the clause cannot, then the comma may need to be removed, dependent on the sentence structure.
  •  Done Removed a bunch of commas. Looks like I do it more often with ", but" than ", and". Interesting. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Lede

• (September 7, 1947 - November 29, 2005) En-dash needed.
  •  Done @Freedom4U: I just started going through this and see there are some sections here still labeled "review incomplete". Could you clarify whether that's just left over from the template or whether you still have more to add? I'd prefer to wait until the review is done to start acting on it. Thanks. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
    • @Rhododendrites: I've just gone around and added some more comments in a few of the sections I didn't get to yet. :3 F4U (they/it) 21:10, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
• new Koch administration program remove "new" and is there a way to phrase this that makes it clear that he's the Mayor of New York?
  •  Done Removed new. Couldn't come up with a good alternative wording for the rest, so just added "...under a ^Mayor Ed^ Koch administration program..." — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• which made it easier to forcibly place people in psychiatric hospitals to which expanded the city's ability to forcibly commit homeless New Yorkers to psychiatric hospitals?
  •  Done — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• and ultimately won her release As Colin M states below, this oversimplifies what happened. See that comment for more detail.
  •  Done Yep. Good point. Revised/expanded. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• challenging programs reliant on the practice in New York and elsewhere. Article doesn't explicitly state that.
  •  Done Ah yes. This was in the article when I got to it. I left it in because it seemed like the sources were headed in that direction (it'd probably be substantiated), but I guess that never happened. Removed. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Background

First paragraph

• The 1975 Supreme Court decision O'Connor v. Donaldson limited mandatory hospitalization for mental illness to those who are a danger to themselves or others. Many states passed legislation following the ruling, including New York, which passed its Mental Hygiene Law in 1978... The ABA Journal is the only source in the paragraph that discusses this ruling and only states that it established strict standards for involuntary detention of the mentally ill.
  •  Done It also explains the dangerousness definition. Are you looking for a cite for the second sentence? I went ahead and added a couple. One specifically says that states passed legislation following the ruling; the other is about NY's law, and includes the influence of O'Connor. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• ...allowing involuntary hospitalization of people with mental illness if they were considered a risk to themselves or others "people (plural) with mental illness (singular)" is not grammatically correct. Both the jstor and the New York magazine source uses the word "danger" and I think replacing it with risk diminishes the accuracy of the sentence.
  • I don't think the grammar point is correct. mental illness can be used as a mass noun (i.e. uncountably). And if you do a Google News search for the phrase "people with mental illness", you can find plenty of uses in major news outlets (e.g. CBC, Washington Post). Colin M (talk) 16:34, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
    • Yes you appear to be correct. Although I think in this context "people with psychiatric disorders" would be the most accurate way to phrase it. :3 F4U (they/it) 16:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Done Risk → danger is fine with me. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• The case was one part of a larger trend of deinstitutionalization in the mid-to-late-20th century which, combined with other factors like inadequate social programs, led to an increase in homelessness in parts of the United States. 1) "in the mid-to-late-20th century" That does not mean the same thing as "Beginning in the late 1950s" (jstor). Replace with something like "The ruling was part of a larger trend of deinstitutionalization in the United States, which began in the late 1950s and resulted in the release of hundreds of thousands of people from psychiatric hospitals. These changes coincided with a rise in the homeless population who faced barriers in accessing mental health and welfare services." (the jstor article describes how the relationship between deinstitutionalization and homelessness is still controversial)
  •  Done This isn't an area that I have an extensive background in, but saying deinstitutionalization and homelessness "coincide" seems like it indirectly weighs in on the issue (that they're merely coincidental) in a way I'm not comfortable with here. I've rewritten it, however, removed "led", and added a citation. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  The new phrasing looks good to me! :3 F4U (they/it) 19:15, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Second paragraph

• Mayor Ed Koch Wikilink Mayor and Ed Koch, expanded on in bullet point below.
  •  Done
• established a program called Project HELP (Homeless Emergency Liaison Project) in the early 1980s, designed to provide food, clothing, medical, and psychiatric services to homeless people in Manhattan None of the sources in the paragraph state that the acronym stands for "Homeless Emergency Liaison Project". Also wouldn't that become "Project Homeless Emergency Liaison Project"? Replace "established a program called Project HELP" for "established Project HELP, a program that ..." -- also the AP describes it as a city agency.
  •  Done Added cite. Also wouldn't that become. Yep. See also: RAS synrome. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
  • The source doesn't state Manhattan. Manhattan=/=New York City
    • Yep. Everyone knows NYC=Manhattan and Brooklyn. Sometimes Queens or the Bronx. Sometimes. But yeah, it's a program for Manhattan based on what I've seen. Added a cite for that. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
  • designed to should be removed, as the sources discuss it in the context of what it did, not what it was proposed to do.
    •  Done
  • in the early 1980s When? This should be something with a definite date that can be found.
    •  Done
  • strict legal requirements The article doesn't describe it as strict. Stating that restrictions preventing government workers from committing people who "were not a danger to themselves or others" (AP) were strict legal requirements would go against WP:NPOV. The source doesn't state "Sometimes staff would" (and "sometimes" is WP:WEASEL). Do include the cited figure in the source that the majority of those brought to hospitals were not admitted because they did not pose a danger to themselves or to others.
    • would go against WP:NPOV - I think you're reading between the lines there. Strict in the sense that there are clear protections. Strict in relation to what the city was trying to do. Not strict in the sense of "too strict" (?). The ABA article uses the word "strict" in this context. Regardless, it's not necessary for the meaning of the sentence, which is just as well served by "legal requirements".
    • The source doesn't state "Sometimes staff would" (and "sometimes" is WP:WEASEL). - How is "sometimes" WP:WEASEL? The idea is they take people to the hospital when they think it's necessary. They don't bring everyone to the hospital, but they do ... sometimes. There's no figure about a frequency that I've seen, but if there were, do we really need to get into that level of statistics when writing about an individual case? An alternative is "On the occasions when staff would bring people to psychiatrics hospitals...". Similarly, there is a figure provided for the rate at which hospitals were refusing to commit people brought to them, but there are conflicting numbers given by New York and the AP (and it doesn't seem necessary to the article to present a range of values). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Also I think rephrasing the first bit to "On [date], New York City Mayor Ed Koch established Projet HELP...." would flow better (than having "In New York City," be the subordinate clause)
    • Not a big objection, but the thinking with putting it first is because the first paragraph of the section is about the Supreme Court (national), then New York (state-level), so "In New York City" just reframes the scope before going further. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

    Ahhh that makes sense, nevermind on that. :3 F4U (they/it) 19:18, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

• from the perspective of his staff remove this
  •  Done This is standing in for something like "in his view" to avoid making the claim in wikivoice that "there were people who needed help but could not receive it because of [legal protections against forced hospitalization]". Reworded per below. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• there were people who needed help who could not receive it because of the typical interpretation of the law Better phrased "Koch was frustrated that only 60 percent of those recommended to psychiatric hospitals were committed and pursued changes in the guidelines." (New York magazine)
  •  Done Attempted a rewording here. Omitted the statistic for reasons above. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• He was advised the case law might extend the Mental Hygiene Law's concept of "danger to themselves or others" from an immediate sense of danger to a danger in the future Grammatically incorrect. Could rephrase to "He was advised that case law could support a re-interpretation of the Mental Hygiene Law, expanding its coverage to those could be a danger to themselves or others 'in the reasonably foreseeable future.'" extending laws about self-harm to include self-neglect and future harm is also confusingly worded. There should be a better way to phrase, quoting from the AP, "announced it would begin forcibly hospitalizing anyone whose self-neglect might become life- threatening 'in the reasonably foreseeable future.'" (eg. explaining that the criteria was expanded to include people whose self-neglect wasn't life-threatening, but that city determined could be life-threatening in the future) The term redefinition also appears to suggest that that law was changed, rather than what New York magazine states, which is that Koch decided upon a new interpretation of the law.
  • Essentially, (per the AP) the distinction made by Koch appears to be that people with psychiatric conditions were not being institutionalized, when he believed they should be, because they could pose a danger to themselves or others in the future. There should be a way to explain this without using the kind of phrasing currently used in the article.
    • Attempted rewording. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• He went out with Project HELP staff to try to understand which people such a redefinition would apply to, and came across Brown Not really written in encyclopedic tone. "While considering these changes, Koch met with people who would be affected by this redefinition, including Brown, who would later become one of the first people subject to involuntary commitment under Koch's reinterpretation."
  •  Done
• In late 1987, AP source states "Oct. 28, 1987"
  •  Done
• extending laws about self-harm The laws aren't really about self-harm? and they were "re-interpreted" rather than "extended".
  •  Done
• to include self-neglect and future harm that's not what the source states. It states that if their self-neglect put them at risk of future harm. Not one or the other, but one causing the other.
  •  Done
• allocating a unit of space at Bellevue hospital capitalize hospital, and just state 28-bed unit instead of "unit of space"
  •  Done
• Project HELP's psychiatrists could then direct police officers to take people to a hospital, although involuntary hospitalization was contingent upon not just Project HELP's doctors, but also an emergency room psychiatrist and a psychiatrist at the inpatient facility agreeing that the patient met the criteria. This phrases it like this was a new requirement. The sources state that the requirement for three psychiatrists to approve the hospitalization existed before Koch's reinterpretation. This sentence needs to be altered to match that.
  •  Done Just added "remains"... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Third paragraph

• a state branch of the American Civil Liberties Union "the New York affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union" per the NYCLU article
  •  Done
• was firmly opposed to Koch's program Remove adverb and "was" -> "The NYCLU opposed Koch's program" and continue with ", criticizing it as a violation of the civil rights of mentally ill and homeless people."
  •  Done
• for the sake of wealthy residents as well as a misguided effort to fix a problem that should be addressed through the development of more affordable housing This is an expansion of their primary criticism of the program-- replace with, for example "They argued that the Koch program attempted to hide homeless people, rather than help them through housing assistance and mental health clinics".
  • fine with me  Done
• Lawyers for the NYCLU started distributing fliers Drop "started"; per the source volunteers not lawyers distributed flyers; per the source this was a response to Koch's announcement; ("Following Koch's announcement, volunteers for the NYCLU distributed flyers...") and use "flyers" which is the American English term.
  •  Done
• people living on the street MOS:EUPHEMISM replace with homeless people
  • Is it? Seems like a description of a pretty harsh reality rather than a euphemism. Somewhere between a synonym and a subset. The source says "street people", which to my ears is somewhat less respectful. Got another suggestion for an alternative to mix up the writing a bit? Thoughts on "unhoused" (perhaps not in this particular case, though)? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• to explain the new program and what rights they had, and to encourage them to reach out for help if they were forcibly hospitalized change to "detailing their rights under the new program and advising them to contact the organization if they were involuntarily committed."
  •  Done except "under the new program" since I think they're talking about rights that exist despite the program, which may be a subtle difference. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Life prior to hospitalization

• Would "Life before hospitalization" or "Early life" be more concise?
  • Struggled with that one. Only the first paragraph is really about her early life. The third paragraph is immediately prior to the hospitalization, so not particularly early. Still, a section break made sense and the hospitalization under the new program seemed like a sensible way to break it up. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:39, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

First paragraph

• Joyce Patricia Brown was the youngest of six children, born to a working class family in Elizabeth, New Jersey, on September 7, 1947. Hyphen is needed between working and class for "working class family". Would Joyce Patricia Brown was born on September 7, 1947 to a working-class family in Elizabeth, New Jersey. She was the youngest of six children, with four sisters and one brother. be better?
  •  Done
• September 7, 1947 Both the AP article, and the New York magazine article cited at the end of the paragraph, state that she was born in 1947 with no further elaboration.
  •  Done Removed. Thought I verified that, but I guess it was just carried forward from the original version of the article. Argh. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:23, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• after high school could be read as after school, as opposed to after graduating from high school.
  •  Done
• including a job for the city of Elizabeth remove "a job"
  •  Done
• and lived with her parents until 1977 Including this here hurts the article's flow by jumping around in her timeline. Move this further down in the paragraph.
  •  Done Although to avoid having it on its own, it's "with her parents until 1977 and with her sisters in the mid-1980s", which may be too conspicuously unclear about where she lived between 1977 and the "mid-80s" (it seemed unclear in the sourcing). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:23, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• Around the same time, her family began to understand the extent of her psychological struggles. gives off the impression that she her psychological struggles were constant, and that her family began to understand them around that period. The source suggests that her mental state was deteriorating—in flux. Also move this down as well past the sentences on substance abuse.
  •  Done [I think?]
• She struggled with several forms of substance abuse, addicted to both heroin and cocaine by the time she was 18, and began to hear voices and act erratically. and She was charged with several minor offenses like larceny and possession of heroin, but was arrested for assaulting a police officer are confusingly organized sentence and the second section doesn't make grammatical sense. I would make substance abuse one sentence (She struggled with substance abuse and testified that she was addicted to heroin and cocaine by eighteen. She began to hear voices and act erratically, resulting in her dismissal from her secretary job, (jstor p11) and she was later convicted of possession of heroin. In 1982 (year given in jstor article), she was charged with assaulting a police officer at Newark Penn Station.)
  •  Done
  • (Pennsylvania Station in Newark would be better off as Newark Penn Station)
    •  Done
  • Also? New York magazine states that She testified that by the end of her eighteenth year, she was addicted to both., but the jstor article states Joyce Brown's history was unremarkable until, in her early 20s, she began using cocaine and heroin. The New York magazine article also states She was introduced to drugs right after she got out of school (meaning she started using after graduation, and in less than a year was addicted)
    •  Done Revised to be a bit more vague with the timeline. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:23, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• They eventually pooled their money to get her a place of her own instead, but she was soon living in a homeless shelter. Reads like an essay or a memoir rather than an encyclopedia entry. Ping me if you need suggestions on how to rephrase that.
  • Not sure I see the issue there ("place"? "but she was soon living"?), but you're welcome to have a go at it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:23, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Second paragraph

• after being removed from a shelter in Newark How?
  • ? Are you asking if she was, say, removed by her sisters or kicked out? It was the latter. "Ejected" is more specific, I guess? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:45, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
• East Orange A wikilink to the hospital if there had been an article on it would be preferred, but since there isn't, I don't think its helpful to link to East Orange.
  •  Done
• She was hospitalized for fifteen days, diagnosed with a form of psychosis likely caused by schizophrenia and prescribed Thorazine. Not necessary at all, but would prefer the addition of an oxford comma to aid readability. Also After she was discharged she did not continue her medication. suggests that she ever did take it, but the source states that she was prescribed, but she didn't take it, meaning she never took it.
  •  Done
• a sister's house her sister's house? or one of her sisters' houses? and live between a sister's house and shelters, living on disability benefits is just weirdly phrased in general. Also the source states social security checks, not disability.
  •  Done
• In May 1986, after an argument with her sisters, she left home for Manhattan, and her family did not see her again until she appeared on the news years later. needs a citation
  •  Done

Third paragraph

• Swensen's Ice Cream Shop "Ice Cream" should be included in the wikilink while "Shop" should be lower case. However, none of the sources in the paragraph mention a Sweensen's Ice Cream shop. The cited Chicago Tribune article states She slept on a vent in front of a fancy restaurant and Brown took up residence on an air vent near Second Avenue at 65th Street by a Swensen's Ice Cream Shop for about a year, during which time she was arrested and released a number of times. appears to be original research as its not mentioned elsewhere. The sources do state that she slept near a hot air vent, but the rest of the sentence failed verification.

• The Huffington Post article provides a source for 2nd avenue, but still no mention still of 65th Street. I think the best source to find information on this is from some of the newspaper articles on newspapers.com

•  Done The cross streets are mentioned in several of the sources, but I can't find which documented the arrests, so removed it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

• people with Project HELP "people from"? "workers from"? "Project HELP workers" would be better phrasing
  •  Done
• would not accept their aid "did not accept" or simply "refused" would be better
  •  Done
• did not pose a danger ...to? I know its fairly obvious what its referring to, but I still think that's awkward wording.
  •  Done
• She was known to people in the neighborhood for alleged behaviors What does that even mean? The source states At a three-day hearing before a judge at Bellevue, the city’s witnesses said Brown urinated and defecated on the sidewalk, burned dollar bills and screamed obscene threats at passers-by, especially black men. and also exposing herself to passersby is just not grammatically correct.
  •  Not done alleged behaviors as in this is what people said she did. They're in several of the sources, but the sources typically say "people said they saw her do [these things]" rather than "she did [these things]". exposing herself to passersby is just not grammatically correct. What am I not understanding there? Exposing herself to people (plural) who walked by = exposing herself to passersby. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
• Neighbors recounted Just stating testified would be better I think
  •  Not done Not sure why testified is better here. It's not specifically in court. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
• On October 28, 1987, the same day the program began, she was the first person involuntarily committed to Bellevue Hospital. to On October 28, 1987, she became the first person involuntarily committed to Bellevue under Koch's program.
  •  Done
• She gave false names including "Ann Smith" and "Billie Boggs" The New York magazine source for "Ann Smith" states she generally called herself Billie Boggs, but sometimes used "Ann Smith". This also implies that she gave false names only upon being hospitalized, but the source states that she was giving those names prior to hospitalization as well.
  •  Done — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
• The latter was the name widely published in news stories about her case. Just The latter name was... would be simpler and cleaner
• Actually everything beginning with On October 28,... should be moved into the next section.
  • Moved most of it. Kept the involuntary commitment, which segues. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Hospitalization and trial

First paragraph

• Wikilink ride-along
• Remove , whom Koch met during his ride-along with Project HELP, and to a treatment program
  • Revised.
• treated her She was involuntarily injected with the two drugs, this is not the right language to use. Simply injected would work.
  •  Done

• also include what the drugs are (ant-psychotic and tranquilizer) because its difficult to discern why "she woke up" without connecting the dots in your head.

• •  Done

• Do mention she was taken into Bellvue. Nevermind, see my last comment in the previous section.

• Shortly after she regained consciousness on the day after arriving at the hospital, Brown contacted the NYCLU. and As soon as she awoke, she went to a pay phone and called the New York Civil Liberties Union. (New York magazine) are a bit too similar, and the previous information could be shortened to Brown contacted the NYCLU, who [whatever they did... took her case?]
• The organization had been searching for a client which would allow them to challenge the Mayor's program, and staff attorney Robert Levy and Executive Director Norman Siegel were glad to take Brown's case. and Levy and Siegel had hoped that someone would come forward to challenge the new program. So when the call came in from "Billie Boggs," they were thrilled. (New York magazine) are also too similar. Simply the only part that matters here is that the NYCLU had been looking for someone to challenge the new program. This could be incorporated into a single sentence with my previous suggestion. Also which would should be that would anyways.
  • Revised.
• The case generated extensive media attention from the start. to From the start, the case generated extensive media attention. Feels better
  •  Done
• went to Bellevue to identify her after recognizing court sketches of her in the news They identified her so they went to identify her?
  • Yeah that's a little awkward I suppose. "Identify" in the sense of "give hospital staff her real identity [after seeing her on the news]". Suppose that's not necessary. Revised. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:57, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Second paragraph

• There should be sources for the dates of the trial. In a trial at Bellevue in November 1988 needs to be more specific like Proceedings for the trial began on [date] and were held under Acting Supreme Court Justice Robert Lippmann. (Found the date its in the NY Magazine source, its November 2)
  •  Done
• He called multiple witnesses I don't think this is important to note. Say something like Testifying for the defense, Robert Gould.... Also remove "the" from "the New York Medical College"
  • Reworded, though I don't think Brown's team would be the defense in this case, right? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:29, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
• did not wear adequate clothing to survive harsh New York City winters. They stated that she had inadequate clothing, a very different meaning from "she did not wear adequete clothing"
  • What is the very different meaning? The concern was about whether she wore adequate clothing [to keep her warm]. If she had adequate clothing but didn't wear it, that seems like it would be beside the point?
• One of Brown's sisters wanted to testify that she needed to be hospitalized, but the scope of her testimony was limited after objections by Levy that someone who has not seen Brown in years could not speak to her current state. Honestly don't really see the point of the inclusion of this?
  • There's a ton of potential detail that could be included, of course, and this seemed salient. Family wanting to testify against (whether it's for or against is a matter of perspective, I guess) Brown, and a legal argument over the scope of that testimony just struck me as an interesting detail is all. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:29, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Third paragraph

• Brown herself gave testimony explaining many of her actions Rephrase. Brown testified that
  •  Done
• that what was characterized as talking to herself she was singing to herself Grammar, lmk if you need me to expand on it.
  • Honestly this whole sentence should be split into two, its way too long to navigate without difficulty
    •  Done
• argued she should be released argued that
  •  Done
• apparent lucidity Apparent?
  •  Done Only meant to describe the perspective of readers/viewers. Removed. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:40, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
• became part of the public conversation I think shifted the public conversation or influenced and whether she needed to be hospitalized would be better as simply her hospitalization
  •  Done
• the effectiveness of treatment, Grammar. the effectiveness of the city's treatment would be better
  •  Done
• forced or voluntary Don't understand the point of this clause
  •  Done removed.
• Judge Lippmann ruled in her favor, granting her release Date?
  •  Done
• It appears that the two clauses here have been swapped around from the New York Magazine article so as to prevent close paraphrasing, at the cost of the accuracy of the article. he explained that he mostly considered Brown's own testimony because the testimonies of the psychiatrists conflicted with each other so significantly as to be unhelpful. It could be rephrased to like Lippmann explained that he based his ruling primarily off of Brown's testimony and demeanor, as the psychiatrists' testimonies differed so significantly from each other that they were largely unhelpful.
  •  Done

Fourth paragraph

• granted a stay expand to "stay of proceedings"
  •  Done
• The appeal was granted on a vote of 3-2, with the dissenting justices arguing that the potential harm Brown posed to herself was too speculative to deprive her of rights. Use an en-dash and the sentence would make more sense with the reasoning of the judges who made the decision being after the comma, with the reasoning of the dissenting judges being the next sentence.
• The NYCLU filed an appeal. I think it's worth mentioning as part of this sentence that the appeal never happened or simply better just move this down after the information about what happened leading up to her release.
  •  Done
• ...leading to another State Supreme Court hearing at which an independent psychologist, Francine Cournos, testified that Brown had either schizophrenia or manic depression and could benefit from medication. Cournos did not, however, think that medication would be a good idea if it had to be forced, as she had developed a network of people supporting her while forced treatment might lead her to reject all mental health care This is a way too long and could easily be shortened imo. Lmk if you need me to elaborate on this.
  •  Done
• Unable to provide medication, the city released her. Date?
  •  Done
• The result is The result was? Also the whole sentence this is part of needs to be clarified.
  • Removed this. The main point (multiple parties wanted a better definition but didn't get one) is communicated in the preceding sentence, and I'm frankly not certain what sorts of definitions may have come into play in the time since then. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:56, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Fifth paragraph

• Would be better phrased with "on January 19, 1988" being at the beginning of the sentence than the end.
  • Date moved into preceding paragraph per above. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

After release

• Would 'Post-release' be a better heading?
  •  Done

First paragraph

• According to Rick Hampson of the Associated Press, when Brown was released, she was "the most famous homeless person in America" He calls her that, he's not necessarily stating that she's literally that. would be better phrased Upon Brown's release, Rick Hampton of the Associated Press called "the most famous homeless person in America".
  •  Done
• That night to The night of her release?
  •  Done
• Change 5:00 PM and the like to 5:00 p.m. with a non-breaking space.
  •  Done
• WCBS is linked twice.
  •  Done
• John Roland, who lived in the same neighborhood as Brown, challenged her, calling her "a mess" and "a disaster" and saying she did not make sense. The NY Magazine source for this states that he got impatient and became confrontational with her -- "challenged her" isn't the best phrasing
  • Reworded.
• Thomas Dunn, mayor of Elizabeth Elizabeth Mayor Thomas Dunn?
  •  Done
• news programs media?
  •  Not done - seems to be talking about specific interviews rather than the media [coverage] in general. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Second paragraph

• Would People Are Talking on WCBS, and The Morning Show on WABC be better as WCBS's People Are Talking, and WABC's The Morning Show?
  • [shrug?]  Done
• She also spoke at a Harvard Law School event called "The Homeless Crisis: A Street View". Source states a month after, also remove "also"
  •  Done
• When US President Ronald Reagan met with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in March 1988 rephrase to include a link to Moscow Summit (1988)
  •  Done

Third paragraph

• Two weeks after the Harvard event, Brown was seen panhandling. The significance of this sentence is explicitly mentioned.
  • ? Not sure what this comment means?

• A New York magazine feature about her published in 1988 shorten to "A 1988 New York magazine feature on Brown noted that..."
  •  Done
• noted how frequently people would call out to her when they saw her, to which she would sometimes respond politely and sometimes aggressively. Should be rephrased, particularly the last bit is awkwardly phrased.
  •  Done
• she spent many of her days at the rephrase, lmk if you need me to elaborate
  • Combined a couple sentences...
• She was hospitalized two more times in 1988 and arrested while in possession of heroin. and arrested for possession of heroin? Or was she arrested for something else while possessing heroin? heroin is linked twice.
  •  Done

Fourth paragraph

• and was receiving disability benefits, but not taking psychiatric medication. the word "but" doesn't make sense and it feels like the article is shoving in unrelated information into the same sentence, outside of that it being the same year.
  • Reworded. It's all in there because it's just sort of a three-part update where separate sentences would be odd. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Fifth paragraph

• Joyce Brown died at the age of 58, in 2005. The Gothamist article mentions the exact date that's used in the lede.
  •  Done

Legacy

First paragraph

• Jeanie Kasindorf of New York compared Brown's case to that of Bernhard Goetz and the 1984 subway shooting in the extent to which it polarized the city. Some New Yorkers felt the government did not have the right to tell someone they could not live on the street or had to medicate themselves against their will, while others argued someone with severe, untreated mental illness could not make such decisions for themselves or that other citizens had a right, when using city streets, not to contend with the kind of behaviors she exhibited. Could be better written to use encyclopedic tone. Also I don't think Kasindorf's comparison is helpful. The sentences could be rephrased beginning with something along the lines of "The court case was subject to intense public debate, ..." - The New York magazine citation should also be moved down to the end of the paragraph/duplicated since that's what this whole paragraph is referencing.
  • We've covered Brown's perspectives and those of the lawyers, judges, medical professionals, and politicians involved. This is about the public debate. The comparison with Goetz made sense to me -- they were both extremely polarizing in the city in a way that tapped into many similar concerns and biases. It's hard to think of many more recent examples. There have been several prominent police killings since then which fueled a lot of public discussion and protest, but I wouldn't call them polarizing locally. Maybe covid masks if that weren't polarizing everywhere? Anyway, that's the point of the paragraph. I tweaked the wording a bit. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Second paragraph

• According to Alan Pusey in the ABA Journal, Maybe suggest Writing in the ABA Journal, Alan Pusey stated that. I think in this scenario, the journal is more important than the author.
  •  Done

• I also think the quote could be removed for better phrasing. ...Brown's cases sparked a national debate over whether forced hospitalization policies actually helped the mentally ill or simply removed them from the eye of the public.

• •  Done
• Same suggestion with Alexander Brooks in that to mention the journal first, then the author.
  •  Done
• what is needed ... is remove the spaces before and after the ellipses.
  •  Done
• A case study by Luis R. Marcos The case study is Joyce Brown, Luis R. Marcos was writing in an article in the International Journal of Mental Health
  •  Done
• I think this whole paragraph needs fewer quotes, but its not really a big issue.

Third paragraph

• Looking here the Gothamist article states she was confined for 12 weeks. The article should mention that somewhere.
  • It gives the number of days in the hospitalization section.
• returned to local news I think this would be better phrased as something like After Mayor Eric Adams announced a compulsory hospitalization program (elaborate on what that means), comparisons were drawn to Joyce Brown's case. I also saw a newspaper column written by the NYCLU on newspapers.com that also drew comparisons between the two.
  •  Done, added a couple cites. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

References

These comments aren't required for GA status, but still would be nice.

• If you give a jstor identifier, remove the jstor link from the source's url. Same applies to proquest.
• Update the capitalization of "Law and ideology in the case of BILLIE BOGGS"
  •  Done
• Wikilink Huffington Post, AP News, Gothamist, New York Times, Chicago Tribune
  •  Done
• It would be helpful if there were some page numbers for some of the references using {{Rp|page=PAGENUMBER}}

Further comments from a would-be reviewer

I actually started making some notes about this article yesterday with the intention of starting a GA review today, but I see Freedom4U has beaten me to the punch. I'm going to leave the feedback I had collected here, just in case it's useful, though these are mostly minor points which are not necessarily indicative of shortcomings with respect to the GA criteria:

• Medical Ethics: Accounts of the Cases that Shaped and Define Medical Ethics (2004) by Gregory Pence has about 5 pages on Brown, so you might consider using it as an additional source. The relevant chapter is available online.
  • I do want to go through this, but for the sake of wrapping up this GA review, I'm going to say I'll come back to it. I did a pretty thorough search for sources before nominating. Obviously I missed this one, but I think we're in good enough shape for GA. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
• Between 1987-88, Brown worked with the New York Civil Liberties Union to challenge her hospitalization and ultimately won her release. I realize the intro should provide a simplified overview, but I think this might be simplifying to the point of being misleading. If I'm understanding correctly, they did get a favourable ruling, but it was overturned on appeal. They didn't win a court order for her release, but the hospital chose to release her because of a subsequent legal judgement that they could not forcibly administer medication to her. Right? I would try to restructure or expand this part of the intro so it doesn't give the misleading impression that Brown simply won a court case and was released as a result.
  •  Done
• She was hospitalized for fifteen days, diagnosed with a form of psychosis likely caused by schizophrenia and prescribed Thorazine. After she was discharged she did not continue her medication. This doesn't seem right. The New York source says she never took the prescribed medication.
  •  Done
• She struggled with several forms of substance abuse, addicted to both heroin and cocaine by the time she was 18, and began to hear voices and act erratically. (Pence, 2004) gives a different picture. It says that her sisters claim she "started taking heroin in her 20s, and later cocaine". It also suggests she experienced a sharp decline in her mental health in 1982. Might be good to check some other sources to see if they can resolve these discrepancies.
  •  Done
• All the sources I've looked at so far mention that she specifically was known to have antipathy and aggression towards black men. Seems like a detail worth including given how often it comes up in RS coverage.
  •  Done
• Doctors at Bellevue diagnosed Brown with paranoid schizophrenia and treated her with Haldol and Ativan.[3] Shortly after she regained consciousness on the day after arriving at the hospital, Brown contacted the NYCLU. The beginning of the second sentence is a bit of a jarring transition (it makes it seem like the reader should already have been aware that Brown had lost consciousness).
  •  Done
• The "Hospitalization and trial" is long enough that you might want to consider breaking it into subsections.
  • May revisit this later.
• The biographical categories like Category:People from New York City should attach to the Joyce Patricia Brown redirect, rather than the article proper.
  •  Done

Overall, my impression was that the article is in an excellent state and very close to an immediate pass, though I didn't get to the point of scrutinizing all the citations as closely as I would have liked to for a complete review.

Anyways, it's in Freedom4U's capable hands now. Good luck with the review! I'll try to stay out of the way, but I have put this page on my watchlist because I'm interested in seeing how the process goes. Colin M (talk) 16:55, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Haha! I'm sorry for stealing your review 😅😅. It's my first GA review so I wouldn't mind the extra pair of eyes making sure that my suggestions are all good. I noticed the discrepancy between (Pence 2004) and the New York source as well (though the magazine says the 18 years old point is from her testimony). Noticed the transition as well, probably worth mentioning that Ativan is a tranquilizer. Newspapers.com also picks up a lot of stuff from the time period (using very dated language whoof), but that could be used for uncontroversial information (just found this https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/image/704694887/?terms=%22Billie%20Boggs%22&match=1 clipping which confirms the Sweensen's Ice Cream shop). :3 F4U (they/it) 17:21, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

In-progress comments

Hi Freedom4U and Colin M Thanks very much for your time on this, which is I think the most thorough GA review I've seen in a while. :) There are a bunch of good points above, some of which will require more effort to fix than others, and it'll probably take me some time to get through it all. A couple things look like they may extend beyond WP:GACR (dashes, for example), but I don't foresee a problem addressing them (why not, now that they've been pointed out, after all?). It just might take some time. I'll fill in responses/updates under the original comments as I go and put any further general comments here. Thanks, again. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Working against a wiki-unrelated paper deadline until Wednesday, but should be able to return to this then. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:51, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites Any update? :3 F4U (they/it) 02:10, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Not yet. Busy week and, If I'm being honest, I've lost some momentum with the size of the review. It's about double the size of the longest GA review I've ever been involved with, and that was based on the size at the end, after my revisions and back-and-forth. Can't fault you for a thorough review, of course (which can only be good for the readers); just being realistic about my style of focus/motivation (I long ago determined that FAC was not where I want to spend my time, for example). I do plan to work through it all and get it done; it just might take some time. You fine with leaving it open for a few weeks? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:08, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Perfectly fine doing do! Take all the time you need~ :3 F4U (they/it) 15:10, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Taking even longer than I hoped, but a note here to say I haven't forgotten. :) Will be traveling for about a week. If there's downtime, I may poke at it, but most likely I'll come back to it when I return. Thanks. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:01, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

No worries, I don't think that there's too much left now :3 F4U (they/it) 15:06, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites Any updates? :3 F4U (they/it) 22:13, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the nudge. I now have this on my calendar for the end of this week. :) Apologies for the long wait. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@Freedom4U: At long last, I think I'm done. Thanks for your patience. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I gave it another read and I've corrected a few spelling/grammatical errors that likely happened as a result of the changes. I'll pass this now. :3 F4U (they/it) 12:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

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.

Media link?

Debating adding this: the John Roland/Joyce Brown interview. It would be a straightforward addition except I suspect the uploader doesn't own the rights. :/ — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:12, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• I agree that an EL would unfortunately run afoul of WP:COPYLINK. But I actually think you could directly include a portion of that video in the article as non-free content. I think it easily meets the contextual significance criterion. The interview is the subject of sourced commentary in the article, and "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic", in that viewing some of the interview gives the reader a clear sense of the attitudes and demeanours of Roland and Brown in the interview, in a way that cannot be conveyed in text. Understanding how Brown presented herself in public appearances and how she was treated by media figures is key to understanding the topic of the article. Colin M (talk) 16:40, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  Strongly agree that this would be a worthwhile addition as non-free content. It's the subject of sourced commentary within the article and the inclusion of a video clip provides readers an understanding that simply wouldn't be possible through text. :3 F4U (they/it) 02:16, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

One last issue

@Rhododendrites Sorry to bother you again, but I've just realized the HuffPost article is by a HuffPost contributor, rather than a staff writer. Per WP:RSP, Until 2018, the US edition of HuffPost published content written by contributors with near-zero editorial oversight. These contributors generally did not have a reputation for fact-checking, and most editors consider them highly variable in quality. Editors show consensus for treating HuffPost contributor articles as self-published sources, unless the article was written by a subject-matter expert. I don't believe there's anything cited to that article that isn't found in the other citations there, so I'll remove it if that's alright. :3 F4U (they/it) 13:34, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

@Freedom4U: Good catch. I don't think I realized that Huffpost had that "contributor" thing (or I just forgot). Yeah, I don't think anything relies on it. When I'm building out an article I tend to err on the side of including a source even if it's just to spread the weight around a bit. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:45, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Although FWIW the author appears to have some expertise (and may even be notable). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I did see that, but I don't believe that he counts as a subject matter expert. I do think I may write an article on him now though... :3 F4U (they/it) 13:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC)