Talk:Centre for Addiction and Mental Health

Off topic and self-published cites

The links re-added by Dicklyon do not appear appropriate. Lynn Conway's and Andrea James' sites are self-published and not subject to review to verification; they are not appropriate as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29. NARTH is not reliable IMO; but even if they were deemed so, they do not pertain to CAMH. The Xtra article is not about CAMH. In fact, none of the references actually support anything said on the page.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 10:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't read them, just objected to your reason for removing them. If you have a different reason, put it in your edit summary. Dicklyon (talk) 15:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

So noted. Will do.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 15:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Is there any reason that Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (College St. Site) should not be merged into here? Dicklyon (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a great idea.

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 17:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what the reverting is about.

I've read the pages pointed to, and I don't see how anything I added is a problem? Everything is in proportion to what I'm finding in my searches. Nothing says anything about what the right level of detail is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maladjusted1972 (talk • contribs)

Your version of that section takes up almost half the page, with paragraphs about individual incidents; that's an excessive level of detail for an institution with decades of history. Look at WP:NOTNEWS and the WP:RECENTISM essay. Magnolia677's version covers the major points concisely. KateWishing (talk) 22:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with KateWishing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2016 (UTC

Well, sure, it was a large portion of the page...but doesn't that mean that the other sections should be enhanced? I mean, I'm adding to those other parts too, but it's weird that one part can't be finished unless all the other parts are at the same level of completion. And a hospital repeatedly getting criminally charged...even pleading guilty...would seem to be much more important than two sentences! I can see that not everything should be from the point of view of unions, but with this number of cases, lawsuits, charges, and fines, it seems pretty far in the other direction not to have a SINGLE statement from them either!

Are the "Media Corp Canada" awards real awards?

Are the "Media Corp Canada" awards real awards? They look like a "Who's who" scam for institutions.

I can't find that this group does anything other than give out these awards.

Can I just take it out?

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Centre for Addiction and Mental Health. 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://web.archive.org/web/20160225170709/http://www.safs.ca/issuescases/camh.html to http://www.safs.ca/issuescases/camh.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 17:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Criticism section

I made some corrections to the "Criticism" section as it gives the mistaken impression that the people criticizing Zucker and the clinic are "activists" when in fact it's primarily scientists. Even if one wants to argue that the scientists are acting as activists, then it makes no sense to not apply the same label to the fringe groups defending it.

It also fails to clearly state that one of the main reasons for closure was the fact that it constituted conversion therapy (instead it presents it more like an unfounded allegation).

The whole thing just seems really unbalanced and doesn't accurately reflect the situation, and does not meet the standards for neutral POV. Wikisamsa (talk) 07:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)