Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Psychiatry task force/Archive 1

Ok

Ok folks, the main raison d'etre I can see for this task force would be intensive collaboration for psychiatry articles. Having now sent quite a few articles down the FAC gurgler, I can safely say that medical ones are alot more challenging to get over the line, and that it is important to get everything as sorted as possible before FAC. Many psychiatric topics are controversial, and many people hold strong views, which has the potential to make these messy affairs and subject to post FAC erosion - schizophrenia has had two FARs already.

Anyway, I was lukewarm on the idea of a task force until I saw potential for a coordinated multieditor attack on some psychiatry articles to get them to GA and FA, the major difference to other articles being rigorous assessment of sources - i.e. recent ones, reviews etc.

The idea being we discuss a few candidates and decide on one or more to improve - then, we can take turns in check and hunting sources etc.

OK, I will list a few below:

bipolar disorder - pros - ambitious and high profile, cons - I have some reservations about scope (bipolar I vs bipolar grp, how much of manic episodes to include)

borderline personality disorder - more well defined one. Another high profile one.

dissociative identity disorder - more esoteric, but a frequent target for fringe theories so potential benefit in really tightening it up.

psychiatry - core subject, but might be a little dry.

chlorpromazine - first antipsychotic

clozapine - fascinating drug, and well-defined topic. Might be easier.

delusional disorder - article in bad state, would be smaller and maybe easier to do.

fluoxetine - will have some other broader literature, thus making an interesting contrast to a drier pharm article.

Game Plan - check comprehensiveness, check sources, check comprehensiveness again, copyedit - GA - FA. Done and dusted. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Casliber. Sounds good. The challenges are (1) getting good references (it's a lot easier if you're working in the field of the article concened), and (2) dealing with editors with strongly held but misinformed views (and a critical mass of well-informed editors will help with that). Unfortunately some articles nneed more than just checking sources, copyediting etc, they need to be fundamentally restructured. I'd like to throw in a few more suggestions:

Assessment of suicide risk
Antidepressants (important because of great public interest)
ADHD (also of great public interest; a bit of a minefield)
Child and adolescent psychiatry (a mess; I've just started trying to fix it)
Forensic psychiatry
I agree with the suggestion of borderline personality disorder. I've done some editing on that a while back and would be happy to come back to it.

--Anonymaus (talk) 05:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Best wishes for your future

I hope it all goes well for this venture :) I see your looking for articles to get your teeth into, and Huntington's Disease is listed among your GAs - as it happens User:Garrondo and myself are planning to nominate this article soon after he's back from hol's ( July 17th ), article achieved GA a couple of months ago and we are ( confident / fairly confident ) we can fend off FA requirements, but I couldn't say how strong the pyschiatric aspects of the article are. Anyway it might a good starting block for you as it's in pretty good shape already ... ? Best wishes L∴V 13:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, we made it ... so that's another of your listed GAs to FA :) L∴V 22:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question on merging

A user is wondering whether Solipsism syndrome should be merged into the derealisation article. See here. Talk:Derealization#Derealization_.3D_solipsism_syndrome.3F--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychopathology

Have you considered merging the defunct Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychopathology into this task force? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychopathology was created to complement Wikipedia:WikiProject Medical Conditions. Given WPMED's current form and the existence of this task force, a revival of Psychopathology seems unlikely. A merger (or just redirecting Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychopathology to here) would be appropriate and reduce the clutter of inactive projects. I can help with the merger and link updating tomorrow. --Scott Alter (talk) 01:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brain-disabling psychiatric medical treatment

Hi, this article (the result of a class assignment) could use some attention of a specialist. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 10:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brain-disabling psychiatric medical treatment.--MrADHD | T@1k? 20:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

psychology.wikia.com and template:enPW

Is psychology.wikia.com a reliable source? This question is in relation to the attribution template {{enPW}} now under deletion discussion -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 06:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was deleted, probably because wikis (in general) aren't acceptable sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alzheimer's disease (AD)

I noticed that the AD page was listed under this task force and I think this is an error. I realise that AD can have psychiatric symptoms (e.g. depression, psychosis, mania, anxiety, etc.) but its nature is more neurological than psychiatric seeing how it is a neurodegenerative disorder. Fuse809 (talk) 10:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Verbal Behavior Milestones Assessment and Placement Program

Is this submission at Articles for creation of interest here, or is there a more appropriate place to report it? —Anne Delong (talk) 15:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pediatric Brain Tumor Foundation

Prodded. Bearian (talk) 23:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology/Psychotherapy

FWIW, there's a task force at the psychology wikiproject called "psychotherapy"

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology/Psychotherapy

76.66.192.64 (talk) 08:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on the Rorschach test: fresh eyes needed

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rorschach test images. Should Rorschach test display all ten images used in the test and the common responses, or should we act on psychologists' concerns that doing so undermines the test? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History of Psychiatry

Hi, I'm not part of this task force and I don't know if it's appropriate for me to post here (please delete if it's not) but I was wondering if there was any reason why certain elements from the history of psychiatry - particularly the asylum era - are not part of the Psychiatry Wikiproject? For instance lobotomy. I realise the project is already covering a very wide topic but I think some consideration in regard to the history of the discipline might be appropriate. Thanks Freekra (talk) 11:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea - a mere oversight on our part and you are welcome to add the appropriate templates :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Psychiatric Hospital

Hello again. Psychiatric Hospital: this page is a complete mess. I've started to re-edit it and removed some of the more eggregious errors but it's still full of opinionated, unsourced gibberish. It lacks tons of relevant information on the history and development of the asylums/mental hospitals/psychiatric hospitals. It needs a complete re-organisation and re-write. It's marked as top importance for your task force. Any chance of having a look and doing a few edits? Thanks Freekra (talk) 03:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asian fetish

There is a Talk:Asian fetish#Request for Comment and a Talk:Asian fetish#Proposal which may benefit from attention from interested and informed editors. Please comment there if you wish to participate. Шизомби (talk) 04:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paranoia

needs some work - from both a psychiatric and nonpsychiatric perspectives. Even a minor contribution would make a good impact. Earlypsychosis (talk) 09:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Critical psychiatry

this article now has a WP:NPOV tag - so this project is ideally suited to contribute !! Earlypsychosis (talk) 06:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Armando Favazza

Hello. The article about psychiatrist / author Armando Favazza is suffering at the moment from a lack of sources, as well as having been edited by the subject. Presently, notability is in question. I'm having trouble sourcing the article as much of the coverage is behind paywalls. If anyone can add anything to the article to help demonstrate notability, or if you think he doesn't meet notability guidelines, if you could mention that at Talk:Armando Favazza, that would be appreciated. I'm also posting this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology. Thanks, --Beloved Freak 09:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Types of psychological depression

Hi. On its Talk page, I'm suggesting this article be merged with Mood disorder or deleted. Your input would be welcome. Anthony (talk) 12:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kraepelinian dichotomy

An article on Kraepelinian dichotomy is needed. Free feel to use my collection of references if you feel like starting it here (orginally based on writing a post-Kraepelinian article). Cheers. Earlypsychosis (talk) 07:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Psychiatry and activity

I've started setting up a Portal:Psychiatry. Any help would be appreciated. Is there still such a thing as the psychiatry task force? FiachraByrne (talk) 00:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FiachraByrne (talk) 12:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marketing of Madness

I know this discussion page here only gets a view every few days... I just want to know what you all think of this trailer for The Marketing of Madness?. I am trying to figure out where I should stand on the continued existence of a page I created by the same name.-Tesseract²(talk) 19:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Content Error/Ethics Issues

[[RFC/Error noted for the definition stated in italics, below. The definition (by its wording) seems to be speaking of physics, geology, chemistry, or some other subject --- not psychiatry. General rule of thumb is that there are three (3) natural sciences known -- physics, and biology. Most other science fields --- including any applied science --- are subsets, adjuncts and derivatives of those three natural sciences (e.g., botany and zoology as the two subsets of biology). Applied sciences related to the physical world or to humankind (e.g., medicine, dentistry, psychiatry, and other human health specialties) are man-made and governed by human and civil parameters --- including that of being subject to legislation and law enforcement --- and are not themselves deemed "natural sciences".]]

Nature of psychiatry (content found on http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Outline_of_psychiatry).....NOTE TO EDITOR: Although the general policy is for open edit, the error noted above is significant enough to raise the types of ethics issues related to scientific content released for general use. Blurbzone (talk) 07:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC) Blurbzone.]][reply]

Psychiatry can be described as all of the following: Academic discipline – field of study with academic departments, curricula and degrees; national and international societies; and specialized journals. Scientific field (a branch of science) – widely-recognized category of specialized expertise within science, and typically embodies its own terminology and nomenclature. Such a field will usually be represented by one or more scientific journals, where peer reviewed research is published. A natural science – field that seeks to elucidate the rules that govern the natural world using empirical and scientific methods. A biological science – a branch of biology, which is concerned with the study of life and living organisms, including their structure, function, growth, origin, evolution, distribution, and taxonomy.[1] A medical specialty – branch of medical science. After completing medical school, physicians or surgeons usually further their medical education in a specific specialty of medicine by completing a multiple year residency to become a medical specialist.

Samuel Guze

As part of a sweep of the oldest tagged uncited articles, I've added references to Samuel Guze the noted psychiatrist and tagged it as needing expert attention. Can some one give it look and correct any inaccuracies if necessary, thanks. Mattg82 (talk) 22:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dissociative identity disorder

There is a full-blown edit war going on at this article and it could use the intervention of some level-headed editors from this project. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ICD-10 Chapter V: Mental and behavioural disorders

Firstly, can I congratulate those that have been involved in creating this task force - a worthy effort!
I've noticed that the ICD-10 Chapter 5 article has a lot of broken links to (presumably) articles that haven't been created (in comparison to the DSM-IV Codes article which seems cleaner in appearance). I'm sure that many links could be removed or redirected to more general articles, but does anyone think it may be work creating new articles for certain disorders? As someone who is new to the task force, i'd value your advice. Macarism Talk to me 11:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm you're right. I think that many of the broken links can be redirected to general articles, for example all the red links under (F31.) Bipolar affective disorder can link to bipolar affective disorder or sections of that article; conversely some disorders (such as atypical bulimia nervosa and psychogenic syncope) probably deserve short articles, or stubs at least. There are some gems in there which are almost irresistable, such as excessive masturbation, abuse of non-dependence-producing substances, lack or loss of sexual desire and trance and possession disorders. Enjoy! Regards, Anonymaus (talk) 09:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--

I'm all for free and ready information, however, psych editors must realise the ethical considerations inherent to this sort of information being freely available. Seriously, this stuff can hurt sufferers of mental illnesses if it's not handled well. Reciting DSM criteria from the DSMIV (a text that's formulated specifically for psychological and psychiatric practitioners and sold through specialist bookstores - I worked at one) isn't perhaps as tactful as it could be.

Take a look at this, and compare to the wikipedia article. Bear in mind that I suffer from BPD, and know full well how devastating the language of a Wikipedia article can be.

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/borderline-personality-disorder-fact-sheet/index.shtml

And this:

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Borderline_personality_disorder

I have severe doubts as to the ethical nature, and practicality of such articles in providing useful and clear information to the masses. If anything, the current wikipsych project is promoting stigma and misguided attempts at self-diagnosis. I suggest that this entire area needs a massive rethink, and some attention from WikiHQ. And I'm hoping that all you psych editors understand why ethics are so important in this field. I note that BPD is listed above, but I do think that this is a point that needs to be addressed generally throughout psychology, and psychopathology especially. As it is I've already had to alter the article so that it doesn't, outrageously, claim that all BPD sufferers were sexually abused. Ethics are an important part of quality, and I'd suggest that some guidelines need formulating around this. 203.206.250.184 (talk) 16:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit I may be a bit naive regarding the ethics of information but you do have a valid point here. We may all have the best intentions but people get hurt by the information Wikipedia presents. Every war, including the fight for freedom of information, unfortunately has collateral damage.

I've recently had an interesting discussion about this subject with a friend who is an expert in the field of dissociation and public media related anxiety and he mentioned that noticed free information significantly affecting the health of his patients, promoting self-diagnosing behavior and (self-)stigmatization, worsening paranoia and depression and contributing to anxiety of being diagnosed (especially controversial disorders) resulting in patients not seeking or refusing the help they need.

The freedom of information vs. the devastating effect information can have is an ethical dilemma I don't have an answer to. Every bit of freedom of information we give away to science allows science to make more profit over less progress. Every bit of freedom of information we give to governments is one step away from democracy. That's why freedom of information is so important. But it's not a perfect picture.

The only answer I have is to rigorously keep editing these articles to make the information as accurate and up to date as possible and try to relocate stigmatizing information and controversy to put it in perspective (e.g regarding development theories, epidemiology, history, etc) and gradually level out the black & white thinking of scientists trying to get attention to their own theories, as the truth eventually unfolds... I generally prefer not to remove any information but update and restructure instead and condense some information from time to time to keep things simple. I am very hesitant with any destructive edits.

I'd love to read everyone's opinions on this issue.JGM73 (talk) 01:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Hi guys.

So, following a crazy idea at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disability#Crazy_idea, to set a goal of getting our top ten most popular pages up to GA+ standard, bipolar disorder is being looked into with a view to put it forward for GA (thread here) - does anyone have any thoughts on this? For or against? It would be great to get some of you guys involved either at the prep or review stages... For full disclosure, this message also went out at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Psychology#Howdy... Fayedizard (talk) 08:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of possible interest to this task force

Please have a look at Talk:Suicide#Chronic suicidality, which is quite short and sweet and might be of interest to you. If there is follow-up kindly backtrack to my talk page. Guyovski (talk) 04:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of DSM and application of MEDRS to forensic psychiatry, psychiatry, and related articles

There is discussion of DSM and of application of MEDRS to forensic psychiatry, psychiatry, and related articles, here[1]. ParkSehJik (talk) 21:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Commit Suicide" discussion

Input from members of this project might be helpful at Talk:Suicide#Revisit "Commit" language as Not Neutral. Markhenick (talk) 14:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RM

FYI there's a RM at Talk:Jerome Frank (lawyer) which affects the dab leading both to lawyer and pyschiatrist of same name. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Archived some threads

I've archived some inactive threads to subsections which were notifications about discussions that have since been closed. — Cirt (talk) 23:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Anal Expulsiveness Disorder

Dear psychopathology experts: This page was created in Afc but never submitted to be added to the encyclopedia. Is this already covered in Anal expulsiveness, or is this a separate notable topic? Should the article be kept? —Anne Delong (talk) 06:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Emotional amoral egoism

Hello psychopathology experts. Is this old Afc submission about a notable topic? Should it be kept or deleted as a stale draft? —Anne Delong (talk) 06:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has faded away...

Nezavisimiy Psikhiatricheskiy Zhurnal

Hi, could someone (preferably someone who can read Russian) have a look at the last few edits on this article? Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 10:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History of psychosurgery and psychosurgery

Two editors are squabbling over these articles. The subject seems to be rather important to me (inclusion of criticisms and ethical considerations) and I think their discussion could benefit from the input of some knowledgeable editors here. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 18:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Portal

Ive added content and reorganized Portal:Psychiatry, along with Portal:Psychology. lots of items apply to both, so i used some in both (images, bios, articles)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

requested articles from psychiatrry navbox

I will add these to the tasks here.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Expert attention

This is a notice about Category:Psychiatry articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 19:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diogenes syndrome

Excuse me, I'm a noob at Wikipedia internals, but I think the Diogenes syndrome article needs expert attention, while it's pretty isolated. As it is described, the disorder has huge overlap with schizophrenia (social withdrawal, apathy, lack of shame, catatonia, correlation to poverty and trauma/abuse, suspicion of others, "many of them deny their poor conditions and refuse to accept treatment", etc.), maybe most of symptoms. As it has also some similarity to OCD, which has significant comorbidity with schizophrenia, it seems to be little more than a trauma/abuse-induced or -aggravated case of schizophrenia with OCD or other things. See:

--186.231.143.33 (talk) 04:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Morire di classe

Despite my lack of any background in psychiatry, I have developed an early draft by Lesser Cartographies into an article on the book Morire di classe. I'm sure it would be better if somebody with a background in psychiatry were to look it over.

If anyone is wondering, my interest in this book stems from my interest in one of the photographers. (I might well be interested in the other too, but have seen very little that I know is by her.) So for me this is primarily an entry in Category:Books of photographs.

(Which is a strange category: It does contain a tiny number of books of indisputably encyclopedic significance: Vietnam Inc., and, um ... well, that's about it. And there are articles about very minor works and articles that I suspect are more or less vanity items. Conspicuously missing are virtually all of the most celebrated photobooks: Henri Cartier-Bresson's Images à la sauvette = The Decisive Moment, Robert Frank's Les Américains == The Americans, etc.) -- Hoary (talk) 10:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS that was rather too negative about Category:Books of photographs. It also includes Twentysix Gasoline Stations and one or two others of note. -- Hoary (talk) 13:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic p/Psychiatry and anti-psychiatry

The article Democratic Psychiatry tells us that it:

is [an] Italian society and movement for liberation of the ill from segregation in mental hospitals

If (or so far as) it's the former, I think it should be referred to as "Società Italiana di Psichiatria Democratica" (whose website doesn't seem to provide a name in English). If (or so far as) it's the latter, I think it should be referred to as "democratic psychiatry" (no capitalization).

However this subject is (these subjects are) written, the current article describes Franco Basaglia as the most important figure (indeed, nobody else is blue/redlinked). And it tells us that:

The movement was political in nature but not antipsychiatric in the sense in which this term is used in the Anglo-Saxon world.

However, the article Franco Basaglia is in Category:Anti-psychiatry. Comments? -- Hoary (talk) 12:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Before I got distracted by the mess on the Anti-psychiatry article, I was starting to look into some of your questions. I don't know much about any of these topics, except some anecdotal stuff about deinstitutionalization in the US, but I did find a good amount of RS in English about Italy's deinstitutionalization process. When I get home, I'll read them and get back to you with some more thoughts. Just wanted to write something for now and let you know someone saw this. Permstrump (talk) 02:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble finding references? The Wikipedia Library is proud to announce ...

The Wikipedia Library

Alexander Street Press (ASP) is an electronic academic database publisher. Its "Academic Video Online" collection includes videos in a range of subject areas, including news programs (notably shows like 60 minutes), music and theatre, lectures and demonstrations, and documentaries. The Academic Video Online: Premium collection would be useful for researching topics related to science, history, music and dance, anthropology, business, counseling and therapy, news, nursing, drama, and more. For more details see their website.

There are up to 30 one-year ASP accounts available to Wikipedians through this partnership. To apply for free access, please go to WP:ASP. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 06:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Wiki-GLAM Project at the Wellcome: focus on Psychiatry & Mental Health

The Wellcome Library and Wikimedia UK are jointly supporting a Wikimedian in Residence, and the residency will focus on the History of Mental Health and Psychiatry.

This coincides with a project to digitise historical records of key UK psychiatric institutions and personnel, and two exhibitions at the Wellcome Collection: States of Mind: Tracing the edges of consciousness and Bedlam: The asylum and beyond.

We'd love for Psychiatry Task Force members to get involved. For example, you could:

suggest pages to be created or developed at editathons
attend editathons here or host a satellite event somewhere else
suggest or plan events / talks / activities that could happen in conjunction with editathons
… or something else – feel free to suggest things!

Please get in touch via the project page or my user page if you'd like to get involved in any way. Zeromonk (talk) 09:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Jung or Carl Gustav Jung

The discussion currently active at Talk:Carl Jung#Requested move 14 November 2016 features arguments for either variation. Greater participation is invited. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 08:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sports psychiatry

Unsourced, perhaps OR.Xx236 (talk) 14:16, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: characterization of Thomas Szasz

Please consider participating in the RfC at: Talk:The_Myth_of_Mental_Illness Dlabtot (talk) 23:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider not participating. The issue is minor and the RfC question is posed confusingly and incorrectly. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure anyone following this Wikiproject is capable of constructive input to the article, even if, as alleged, there is some flaw in the way I worded the RfC. The essence of Wiki-editing is that more eyes and more minds, working together, can achieve a better result, and a broader consensus than one editor working alone and unwilling to collaborate. Dlabtot (talk) 08:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Wechsler

Project participants may be interested in this AfD nom: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Wechsler — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfC-Borderline personality disorder

Hi, a new RfC request was posted at Talk:Borderline personality disorder that might interest some of this WikiProject's members.ThatGirlTayler (talk) 01:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Dignity of risk

I have started the draft, please feel free to participate in developing it further. I have posted a list of sources that I can share on the draft's talk page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Germanwings_Flight_9525#deliberately.3F

Hi! Maybe I should have asked here first... :) Is it just me, or is it inappropriate to say that someone is doing something “deliberately”/“intentionally” during a florid psychotic episode (his general practitioner thought it might be a F20.8) that results in the death of 150 people (including himself)? Thx. Bye. --Homer Landskirty (talk) 14:41, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I feel it is appropriate to state someone did something intentionally during a psychotic episode - all it means is it was not an accident such as a mistake or clumsiness. Someone can intentionally murder people, due to for example a delusion, but be found not guilty due to reason of insanity. If an accident occurs resulting in death it is considered negligence or manslaughter. The actions of aiming a plane towards mountains and accelerating at speed along with the other evidence does suggest intentional act and the presence of depression or psychotic symptoms does not change that, in my view. Anyway, he probably wasn't in a full blown psychosis, if psychotic at all, as he was able to interact with his crew prior to take off and come across as ' all is ok'.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 15:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

it seems like, my definition of “psychosis” is different that the definition of the other WP authors... e. g.: somebody could act normally, but then u find out that he bought that new colorful umbrella at amazone.com for his little “look! i can fly!” project (then u call the police, and 12hrs later he flies out of the window, because the police can only help _after_ it happened...)... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the days leading up to the crash Lubitz searched the Internet for "ways to commit suicide" and "cockpit doors and their security provisions". Lubitz then locked the cabin door, and disabled the mechanism for a crew member reopening it from the outside before descending the plane and crashing the plane into a mountain. Additionally, he had a long history of severe suicidal depression. This demonstrates that his actions were premeditated, that he knew what he was doing, even though it was irrational, perhaps to the point of being somewhat psychotic. Your example of a guy using an umbrella thinking they could fly is not at all comparable with this case. The facts clearly show a picture of a suicidal person planning and executing a murder suicide. His actions, although motivated by depression, perhaps with a colouring of psychosis, were pre planned, intentional and very deliberate and achieved the results that it is known Lubitz wanted to achieve from his internet searches.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:18, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hum... ok... but: isnt there another well-established theory that tries to explain such behavior? i mean: the lack of choice worries me... as long as nobody knows what L. wanted to achieve, I wonder how L. is not that umbrella-guy (there is a plan and a terribly wrong goal and a long period and no choice...)? or is my subconscious unintentionally mixing Supernatural (U.S. TV series) with reality...? :) --Homer Landskirty (talk) 20:39, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remaking Psychiatry Portal

As the portal is broken to a stage of losing all of it's usefulness, I will be remaking the entire portal using the portal template used in The Psychology Portal For it's better style and welcoming behavior (A very personal opinion). The remade portal, after completion will be used to create a psychiatry Sidebar and in turn will be used to connect all pages relating to Psychiatry. (Expecting assistance and criticism where needed, as I am very new to Wiki editing)Appoox 19:35, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Ted Gärdestad, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
_{Delivered by --BabbaQ (talk) 00:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team}[reply]

Ophidiophobia badly needs work

Ophidiophobia (fear of snakes) is pretty much a disgrace. It's not just a micro-stub, but it cites no reliable sources for anything other than that Indiana Jones is fictionally afraid of snakes. It's also making a non-credible claim that 30% of the population have ophidiophobia (when in reality 30% of people just think snakes are creepy, a normal mammalian reaction, not a phobia, which is an irrational and overwhelming fear that manifests even in the absence of the object of the phobia, e.g. simply from pictures or from thinking about the object). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:19, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trypophobia needs work and watchlisters

FYI

– Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology#Trypophobia needs work and watchlisters
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:40, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please create a stub about or link to the Psychiatry Resident-In-Training Examination / PRITE?

I don't see any information on Wikipedia about the Psychiatry Resident-In-Training Examination / PRITE. - https://www.acpsych.org/prite

Could someone please create a stub about this, or make those redlinks direct to any existing information that I may have missed?

Thanks - 189.122.52.73 (talk) 04:12, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gender dysphoria article controversy

Please see Talk:Gender dysphoria beginning with Let's move away from U.S.-centric articles (DSM-5 vs. ICD-11) for the debate. - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 06:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RfC about merging an article with the Involuntary commitment article

Opinions are needed on the following: Talk:Involuntary commitment#RfC about merging an article with this one. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 07:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obstacles to receiving mental health services among African American youth

... seems to be a well-constructed new article, but that title is Something Else. I'm not sure what conventions are observed among related topics, but if someone were to move this to a title that is less completely unlikely to ever be a valid search term, that might be useful. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:12, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Greta Thunberg § BIAS Alert: Why does the article start with Health (mental health)?

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Greta Thunberg § BIAS Alert: Why does the article start with Health (mental health)?. The issue is whether discussing her mental health early in the article biases it. There is a suggestion that it should be moved to the bottom of the article. Sundayclose (talk) 00:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ADHD in Women

Hi, I am very interested in creating an ADHD in Women article. A lot of research has been done on this topic and more girls/women are getting diagnosed. I feel that the importance of an article to summarise the research for women considering diagnosis or recently diagnosed and their friends/family (and let's be honest, their health care providers too) is increasing because the numbers of people to whom it is relevant is increasing. However, I've got some problems

I myself have ADHD and therefore have issues with follow-through. I need others to help because I will just peter out without others to get me going.
I have a biased view on the topic because I am a woman with ADHD and a disability advocate.
I am used to writing about ADHD in an academic context and may not be able to write in an accessible way.
I am new on wikipedia and don't know a lot of things (e.g. how one creates a new article).

I have posted this on the psychology talk page as well.

Thoughts? Xurizuri (talk) 03:30, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oops forgot that I should also post this to WP:AUTISM and the ADHD article itself. Have now done that. Xurizuri (talk) 12:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you make a DRAFT, or a subpage to your own userpage, I'd be happy to take a look at it and contribute little bits here and there. I suspect if you create it in mainspace now, it'll get speedy-deleted/merged before you have a chance to actually make it "full" is the only concern. I'll go ahead and create the basic stub at User:Xurizuri/Gender differences in ADHD for now and let you play with it so you can show people exactly what you mean. Don't worry about the academic context or your newness; other editors will help out. HLPD (talk) 19:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Wikiproject:Psychology and rename it to Wikiproject:Psych or Wikiproject:Psychology and Psychiatry

I just found this page because I'd previously been getting frustrated trying to discuss psychiatry with a bunch of General Practitioner-oriented types at Wikiproject:Medicine. I assume it would make sense to merge these two groups into one ASAP? Somebody want to BEBOLD and do so? HLPD (talk) 19:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article request for criticism of psychiatry and psychology practices.

Anti-psychiatry is a movement rather than just criticism of psychiatry which has a connotation that entire stream of psychiatry is bad. But there are various kinds of practices in psychiatry and psychology which are criticised, obsoleted and changes with time, just like any other branches of science. Sometimes there is a delay in this change or updatation though. I want to request an article on criticism of psychiatric and psychology practice, and how it changes with time.

Controversies about psychiatry article discusses the subject of psychiaty as a matter of controversy, it does not have a discussion on individual practices and methods and their criticism.

Therefore I request an article on criticism of psychiatric and psychological "practices" rather than entire psychiatry and/or psychology.

RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 04:31, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]