Talk:Thomas Szasz

Death

Why is there no mention that he committed suicide via a pill cocktail that is legitimately used for that purpose where it is allowed. Also, google censors search results relating to this, including articles about libertarianism and suicide at reason.com. I think it is very noteworthy they he ended his life on his own terms, the way he said he would if he ever had to. This needs to be amended. 97.84.218.68 (talk) 23:09, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

You have reverted several good faith edits I made, falsely accusing me of "vandalism". Please do not do this. "Vandalism" is a term used to describe only edits that intentionally harm the encyclopedia. It is not a term meant to be used to describe good-faith changes one disagrees with. Falsely labeling edits as vandalism will not help you (also, since you used the bizarre edit summary "deconstruction of article" I should add I have no idea what that is supposed to mean). There is no need for a very short section, consisting of only two sentences, titled "death". Information about how Szasz ended his life can go in the section on his life. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 23:45, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

How Szsaz ended his life is especially relevant and interesting because of his long-time advocacy of the right to suicide, fully explained in one of his last books. Many Wikipedia entries have very short sections describing the death of the subject. Szasz's could certainly be longer than two sentences. Nicmart (talk) 15:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Original research/writing?

Please keep in mind I am inexperienced with Wikipedia editing.

A Google search for the following excerpt from this article:

"To be clear, heart break and heart attack, or spring fever and typhoid fever belong to two completely different logical categories, and treating one as the other constitutes a category error."

...(which, by the way, is uncited and makes no indication of this being Szasz's view) returns only results that quote this Wikipedia article, dating back to over ten years. I'm unsure how to delete the specific edit(s) that inserted this writing, as well as whether I should, since it's been left in the article for years. If it's simply been left unnoticed, I hope to raise attention to it and get answers/advice by asking here. RhymeWrens (talk) 20:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Though I was unable to identify from where that specific content was sourced (if at all), I did notice that most of the article relies heavily on Szasz's own writings (well over a third of the citations are from Szasz) instead of using independent reliable secondary sources. The entirety of the section "Szasz's main arguments" is sourced to Szasz, which means the content is original research. This article needs a significant spring cleaning.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 06:57, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't have time right now, but I'll definitely have a look at it in the future. 𝄞: JohnnyB𝄬 ^{𝅘𝅥𝅮 Sing with me𝅘𝅥𝅮} 12:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Notes from Grorp

• Most of the section "Szasz's main arguments" needs to be removed as OR unless it can be sourced by an independent secondary source.
• Almost all of the Szasz "citations" need to be removed unless they are sourcing quotations. (They are also duplicated in the bibliography section).
• Kendell and Shorter are secondary sources, so they can be used to present Szasz's viewpoints, rather than separating out sections as if their viewpoints warrant a "criticism" section.
• There is another source, Clarke, which was covered in an earlier version, but has since disappeared.
• Here are some other ideas on articles that could be used as independent secondary sources "about" Szasz:
  • Thomas Szasz: An Appraisal of His Legacy (2019)
  • Mental Illness vs Brain Disorders: From Szasz to DSM-5 (2014)
  • Psychiatrists Under Attack: The Rebellious Dr. Szasz (1966) (subscription required)
• The "Writings" section should be trimmed, especially the "Selected scholarly papers" section.
  • Note that if you include an author in such a section, then the entry displays with a "Harv warning". If you omit the author, the warning does not appear.
• The "Thomas S. Szasz Award" section is unsourced. Either find a source or remove the section.
• The "Further reading" section is too long. Use some of them as sources instead.

This topic is not in my wheelhouse so the "content" is difficult for me to sort through; thus I am limiting my participation to general Wikipedia policies about biographies in general (including format, citations, layout, use of primary sources and self-published sources, etc.).   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 04:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Szasz just came up in my psych 101 course as an essay topic, so I can spend some time checking and cleaning up sources here as my research :) Obviously, I'm not coming from an expert position but an informed amateur, perhaps. Future Contributor (talk) 08:42, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I've started by deleting a buuunch of unsourced and overly detailed discussion of his ideas, and done a little re-arranging. Probably want to end up with the "Career" section at a third of the current length, or less. Future Contributor (talk) 08:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for that work so far; I do hope you continue. Your changes allowed me to actually read through the entire article, understand it, make some corrections, rearrange a few things, and then add some content. The "Further reading" section is altogether too long, so I took one of them (Williams and Caplan) and made it a citation by creating content based on it. We can continue to use those as sources to get some of the content changed from Szasz-sourced content to other-sourced content. There seems no shortage of writings about Szasz that we need not use his own works as sources.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 23:20, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Kweit Konrad citation

I'm not sure what the Kwiet Konrad citation is supposed to support. It doesn't mention Szasz, nor did the prior URL.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 02:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)