Talk:Asylum

Why is the Tantalus colony listed as an "asylum"? The episode indicates it is a Penal Colony, which is a place for criminals, not just those who are insane. "Whom Gods Destroy" indicate that the facility is an asylum for the criminally insane, but not Tantalus. Does someone have a citation that either the Tantalus facility was called an asylum or that only the criminally insane were there? Aholland 01:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted the following text from the article, as Tantalus was not an asylum.
 * "From 2246 to 2266, Doctor Tristan Adams developed several revolutionizing methods in Humanizing prisons and the treatment of prisoners by converting a number of penal colonies over to rehab colonies. These rehab colonies, even described as "resort colonies", were established in attempt to treat the criminally insane, rather than to just "cage" them up. James T. Kirk visited a number of these penal colonies and noted that "they're clean, decent hospitals for sick minds". The Tantalus colony on Tantalus V was undergoing this change during the 2260s. " Aholland 03:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * A rather one-sided "discussion" to justify the removal of more or less valid text, and to be honest, your initial comments are rather convoluted. Either way, it appears this is being assessed in the 21st century frame of mind, as Kirk also essentially pointed out to McCoy, judging from the content and the dialog. Lumping the above in with asylum appears to better fit the definition of what an "asylum" is than lumping it in with the definition of a "penal colony", which we otherwise associate with something like Rura Penthe. Both places afterall were operating under the auspice of wishing to "rehabilitate incorrigibles", to quote . One with technology, the other with drugs, neither appeared to be "punishing" anyone. With regards to what was "deleted", perhaps it should belong in an article such as rehab colony/rehabilitation colony, since that is what the colony identified itself as. --Alan del Beccio 04:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The information could easily go in an article related to penal colonies; one reason I preserved it here. I would hesitate to put it in an article on "rehabilitation colonies" as Tantalus was not identified in that manner in the episode. After all, there is a whole Central Bureau of Penology related to Tantalus, so I think that - regardless how unlike our current views of a penal colony it may be - fidelity to the episode requires that it is a penal colony. Aholland 04:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Labels aside for a moment, Tantalus (as it operated prior to Adams going nutty) was closer to meeting the description of an Asylum or Rehab colony, as it actually tried to treat the (criminal, yes) residents. Elba II, as the name and security measures imply, operated far more like a prison by keeping the truly dangerous locked up far away. Elba's residents were considered incurable and incorrigible, so for some time before Enterprise delivered the miracle drug, whatever rehabilitation efforts being performed were just marking time. With that in mind, it didn't offend me that Tantalus was included in this article. But now that this is a micro article with one reference to Elba, I think it's fitting to make it a redirect to Penal colony, and expand that article to explain the evident Federation penology philosophy (rehabilitation over incarceration when possible). --Aurelius Kirk 05:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

A logical proposal. :) Make sure, though, to think about whichever penal colony Tom Paris was in when drafting the additional text - my recollection is his did not sound much like rehab, but perhaps that was his perspective showing through (or my faulty memory).  Aholland 12:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I took a swing at Penal colony a few hours ago. I thought of the New Zealand Rehabilitation Colony, and you're right, it needs a line explaining its different nature, but the right words haven't come to me yet. It is linked though. My new version is shorther than the last actually, but hopefully sweeter. --Aurelius Kirk 14:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I think what you did was excellent, as is, over there - and I'll put a note to that effect there as well. Given the way you summarized it, I wouldn't change anything as regards New Zeland. Aholland 15:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)