SanityTalk

You people are driving me crazy!  *wink*  Just kidding.  I couldn't resist.  Keep talking... --JimboWales
----

This article is actually better regarded as being about insanity, a topic about which many reams have been written.  Examples of encyclopedia articles about this topic for your reference: [http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/5/0,5716,118185+1+109830,00.html?query=insanity mental disorder] -- [http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/5/0,5716,43445+1+42488,00.html?query=insanity insanity (topic in the law)] -- [http://encarta.msn.com/find/Concise.asp?z=1&pg=2&ti=761573719 mental health] -- [http://encarta.msn.com/find/Concise.asp?z=1&pg=2&ti=761553774 insanity (topic in the law)]

""SanIty" is variously defined as; the quality of a sound or healthy mind, rationality, the ability to discern right and wrong, "believing and thinking as you ought to believe and think, according to me," and any number of other definitions which users find expedient."  Is this even true, or are you only speculating: who defines the term this way?  Shouldn't you consider ''actual attempts'' to define the term?  Shouldn't you at least say something that reflects what psychologists know and believe about sanity and insanity. -- LarrySanger
----
Well - hey, Dr. Sanger:  I'm not even half done with the article yet.  In authoritarian societies, under the imprimateur of supposed scientific soundness and by psychologists and psychiatrists educated in the best universities, we have had the political definition of sanity - ie, that which authority authorizes you to perceive, think, believe.  Those who openly stray from it can be confined to mental institutions in order that their misbehaving minds might be tamed by shock "therapy,", lobotomy, and any number of other treatments. At least one public figure's wife right here in the good 'ol U.S. of A. fell victim to the same definition.  South Africa has a history of declaring uppity blacks insane and visiting experimental psychiatric treatments on them, some fatal. I also will be dealing with the issues of reality testing and social norming, other hallmarks of sanity, before I am done.  Please be patient.  All this to be described as time permits.  If you don't like the article when I am done, I am willing to adjust it so that it does not a) offend or b) reflect unsupported "idiosyncratic" views.

Besides - I was unaware WikiPedia was to remain mainstream, or to repeat what other publications have already said over and over?
----
Bruce, you have the right on Wikipedia to write whatever you want.  I reserve the right to write and change whatever I want (such as state my own opinions as to what Wikipedia should be like) as well!  For one thing, Wikipedia should be unbiased.  An article about sanity, in ''my'' opinion, should not be about Bruce's views about sanity, or Larry's views, or any one person's views, because that's inherently biased.  It should be about what is generally known and believed about sanity, making plenty of room for a clear statement of the view of those mental health professionals who happen to believe as Bruce believes (or rather, vice-versa).  Isn't that reasonable? -- LarrySanger
----
Of course it is.  I believe once you see the finished article you will not find it biased, though it may throw a fresh light on some things.  As always, I will stand ready to make adjustments if folks want.  Anything I write is going to be from my point of view.  Unlike anything I write for Nupedia, I am apt to rely of my storehouse of retained information and conclusions synthesized from it, and not research, re-research, buttress and pepper the text with references from others' scholarly works.  All valid views are not necessarily mainstream.  All mainstream views are not necessarily valid.  I will, however, always attempt to rest what I write solidly upon either published research, replicable empirical observation, or both.  You let me know if I mis-remember or mis-represent anything, and I'll fix it.
----
I'll have a look.

Not everything I write is from my point of view, Bruce.  Do you find that paradoxical?

Not all valid views are mainstream, that's about as obvious as anything can be, when you think about it.  Sure.  But the purpose of an encyclopedia article is to convey what the mainstream views are--at least.

By the way, regardless of whether you sign the article and regard it as yours, in my opinion it belongs to the wiki, and I will make bold to change it whenever I wanna.  :-)  Without asking you.

-- LarrySanger
----
Fair enough.  After all, I agree to the WikiPedia license when I dump it here.  I think I at least mentioned most mainstream views in passing.  I still don't like my last paragraph or so, so expect that to change.  I have a well-formed concept but the words elude me at the moment.  Blame it on a right-brain moment.  As to your or anyone's revisions of "my" article, If I cannot get it to retain the sense of what I meant, I can always remove my name from it.  For the nonce, I leave it appended so folks know upon whom to blame the drivel presented. ;^)
-- AyeSpy