2004

What is this project about?

I have a question: What exactly does this project do that Wikipedia:WikiProject Medical Conditions does not do? I'm a big fan of WikiProjects, but I don't actually know what this would do to enhance the topics. Of course I do not have a deep knowledge of the subject as many other people might, so I would love to be enlightened. -- Ram-Man

Largely, because this serves as a way for people interested in this particular area to focus, gather and discuss. Since much of the professional world is organised in this way (for example psychiatrists and psychologists having specialist knowledge in this area) it would be beneficial to have this reflected on Wikipedia. Also, Wikipedia:WikiProject Medical Conditions aims to describe the diagnoses, prognoses and treatments for medical conditions. For example, entries for anti-psychiatry (movement), James Tilly Matthews (person), hallucination (sensory distortion, not necessarily medical) and Martha Mitchell effect (concept) do not seem to fit very well under these WikiProject Medical Conditions headings, despite the fact they are all relevant to psychopathology. Just aiming for a 'birds of a feather' effect really. -- Vaughan

Clinical depression needs another review. It's got all fuzzy from too much editing to-and-fro and has accumulated some strange things (some of which I have just removed). In particular, the whole Unipolar-Bipolar-Manic Depression set of distinctions is no longer being made clearly. -- The Anome 08:52, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Drugs

I note the generic/proprietary mention. I thought generic drugs were not capitalised whereas trade names were. It this is the standard then this should be mentioned. Again if it is then it is a bit misleading to list Fluoxetine (Prozac) as this should be fluoxetine (Prozac). What about drugs names that vary from country to country e.g. frusemide vs furosemide (the only one I could think of at the time). While on this point, what is the standard here for reference to concepts and spellings? Does spelling depend on the country of origin of the author? e.g colour vs color? But more relevant to this topic, adrenaline vs epinephrine? --CloudSurfer 06:17, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hi Cloudsurfer

> capitalisation of generic / proprietary drug names: this should be fluoxetine (Prozac)

I agree, this is a standard medical convention, so probably best adopted here.

> What about drugs names that vary from country to country e.g. frusemide vs furosemide, adrenaline vs epinephrine etc

I think it is probably best to leave it to the author of the article and make sure that the article for the drug itself lists the various names it is used under (as most of them do already).

> Other alternative spellings e.g. colour vs color

Either are acceptable on wikipedia. See the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style.

- Vaughan 15:04, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

{{SampleWikiProject}}

Symptoms and Signs

I have copied the entry below from my talk page, taking out the stuff that was irrelevant to this topic. --CloudSurfer 22:33, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

We now have a classification that is based on disorders: you can look up a disorder and read about its symptoms. That's good. But I think it would also be useful if there was some kind of "reverse lookup table": an article with a list of symptoms along with the disorders that each symptom is associated with (along with a cautionary note at the top of the page not to jump to conclusions). Something like:

What do you think about it? Any idea about a short title for such an article? ;) Sietse 18:16, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea but I think there is an even better way of doing it. If every symptom and sign had its own category then that category could be added to each disorder entry. Thus there would be a way of looking up the category for "thought disorder" and finding that it had articles on schizophrenia, borderline PD, anxiety disorders etc. People could then go to the articles and find that it was core symptom of schizophrena, that it occurred transiently associated with psychoses in borderline PD and that it occasionally occurred in states of high anxiety. The problem is that it creates an overhead of many additional categories. It also means that the category section at the bottom of the page could get really big. The benefit is that it is automatically updating. Someone writes an article on a minor disorder that has "thought disorder" as a symptom. As long as they include that as a category it is immediately available to all on the Category:Thought disorder page. I think we have to have a relational database mindset when we approach this subject and thus try to "normalise" the data base. If we hard code this stuff into a page, like the many lists in Wikipedia, there will inevitably be mistakes. --CloudSurfer 22:33, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. I guess it would be best if we'd organize the symptom categories in a hierarchy, like disorders. Something like:

Mental disorders associated with problems in social functioning
- Mental disorders associated with inhibition in social interactions
- Mental disorders associated with lack of interest in social interactions
- Mental disorders associated with antisocial behaviour

I think it is important to make the categories very specific. For instance, just about every disorder can be thought of as being a 'thought disorder'. Categories like "Mental disorders associated with negative self image" or "Mental disorders associated with inflated self image" would be more informative. This will also reduce the number of categories to which disorders are assigned. Sietse 11:10, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Your entry didn't come up on my watchlist. I have only just seen this. What I am talking about is not disorders but symptoms and signs. In those terms formal thought disorder is a specific feature of some disorders. A delusion is another. Anxiety is a symptom that occurs in anxiety disorders but also in depression and psychosis. Psychomotor retardation is a sign that occurs in depression. Derealization is a symptom that occurs in ... etc. etc. Perhaps to look at a general medicine example. The person presents with symptoms that they report of a runny nose, cough, sweats and headaches. You examine them and you find they have signs of fever, pharyngitis, tender lymph nodes in the neck. You put all that together with the diagnosis of an upper respiratory tract infection.

As far as symptom and sign categories go, no specific categories spring to mind. The mental status examination is one way of looking at them, in which case you could have a structure based on those headings, but they really could be in a flat file without a hierachy. If we went down the MSE approach then we could have symptoms/signs divided up into Appearance, behaviour, speech, affect, mood, though, etc. Then formal thought disorder would be under thought and so would delusions. Elation would be under mood and affect, stuttering and pressured speech would be under speech, etc. --CloudSurfer 09:53, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I'm talking about symptom/sign categories too. But if disorders are to be put in such categories, I think the names should reflect that. In general the relationship between an article and the categories in which it is put is a "equals" or "is a subset of"-relationship, so if disorders are put into symptom-categories, the categories should be named "disorder that involves ..." or something similar (e.g. "cyclothymia" "is a subset of" "disorders that involve depressed mood", instead of "cyclothymia" "is a subset of" "depressed mood"). I agree that it's a good idea to organize symptom-categories into a hierarchy that is based on MSE's. Sietse 19:47, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

PS: Of course the symptom/sign articles themselves would also be placed into such categories. (e.g. the category of mood-related symptoms would contain the article "depressed mood", as well as the category "disorders that involve depressed mood"). That's my idea about it anyway. Sietse 19:53, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ahah! The penny drops. I understand what you are saying now. I have been reading elsewhere that categories really should have at least 10 items in them so I think this idea is doomed to failure. Also, until there is an ability to do boolean category groupings this is not all that practical. For instance if someone looked up the sign - fever - then they would get thousands of replies. What they really want is to look up fever AND right lower quadrant abdominal tenderness they would then get a much smaller list of diseases. One way of looking is go to fever and look up "What links here". Again this is not boolean. Using the search engine you will only find the text that is in the article, not the links so if you have [[fever|pyrexia]] then a search won't find fever in that article. What we really need is a way to code in the possible symptoms in an invisible way and then have a specific search engine that can search the pages for matches. This would be a keyword search with the keywords being invisible on the page displayed. So, if people are agreeable to this I might suggest this as an improvement to the software and see if they are interested in doing it. --CloudSurfer 06:35, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I was wrong! The Wikipedia search seems to search everyting in the original text. This means we CAN put keywords into comment lines and they won't display but you can search them - in the Wikipedia search, not Google etc. This opens up more possibilities. --CloudSurfer 06:53, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

References

I have just reread the article Wikipedia:Cite sources which documents the style method recommended for Wikipedia. It uses the (author, year) method, not numbered references as is used in the Schizophrenia article and indeed as I have used when writing articles. Time to rethink, methinks. --CloudSurfer 09:32, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have unilaterally done a rewrite to the structure section of the main page. I think it covers the current Wikipedia style views. Please see what you think and edit it to your preferences or discuss it here first. Trying to do references by name and year is a better way than numbered footnotes which can easily get out of synch. We should try to keep numbered footnotes to a minimum for that reason alone. --CloudSurfer 04:00, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Still active?

I've moved Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychopathology to the Inactive section of the WikiProject page, as it hasn't been edited since Nov 1st; I wanted to let you all know, and ask if you're still working on it. If so, feel free to move it back up into the active section. JesseW 08:09, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi JessW

It's still very much active as when not writing new articles, we still maintain and monitor current ones.

- Vaughan 09:00, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Multi-licencing: Creative Commons and FDL

Hello.

Many of you may have read on your talk pages (especially the 2000 top contributors) about multi-licencing, that is, using both Creative Commons and FDL licences.

I know there are several very good psychology and psychopathology Wiki sites that would benefit from this multi-licencing, especially those that follow a Wiki philosophy and haven't much content of their own.

I would like to know more about how it specifically affects members of this WikiProject and what their stance is, particularly those who play the role of administrators. I understand this is a user decision, not necessarily a WikiProject decision.

My stance? I am in favour of the Creative Commons licence. I took this decision on December the 11th 2004.

Please let me know about your stances. I hope we can have a fruitful discussion about this.

Thank you very much. I will answer lots of questions and respect all your decisions.

EuropracBHIT 10:31, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC).

2005

Unethical experiments using psychiatric patients

Dear Sirs of Wikipedia Psychopathology,

I would like to request a section or article about unethical experiments using psychiatric patients; and i would suggest something about recent experiments, like those shown in Robert Whitaker`s book "Mad In America" (Chapter 10 The Nuremberg Code Doesn`t Apply Here). I am not proposing sensationalism, but only the coverage of unethical experiments that have actually been performed, and are probably still being performed, in countries like the USA. I would like something like an investigative enquiry about this issue, involving simultaneously aspects of human rights, ethics in research, psychiatry and also science. I insist i am not proposing sensationalism. Wikipedia has already articles about MKULTRA , Project CHATTER, Project BLUEBIRD, Project ARTICHOKE, MKNAOMI, Tuskegee syphilis study, Louis Joylon West, etc, so why not cover this ? Examples of the mentioned experiments are:

- Giving hallucinogen drugs to patients suffering from hallucinations and delusions;

- Giving stimulant drugs to patients undergoing episodes of acute mania;

- Giving neuroleptic drugs (that are toxic and don`t have any healing power) to underage minors not displaying any psychiatric symptoms, for years and years, only because they have older siblings diagnosed with psychosis, with the excuse of "preventing psychosis".

Thank you for your attention,

Alberto

Hi Alberto

This sounds like an excellent idea, although perhaps a comprehensive article on the ethics of psychiatric research, rather than simply listing the unethical research which has taken place, might make for a more balanced (and interesting) article.

- Vaughan 12:53, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Improvement Drive

The article Psychotherapy is currently nominated to be improved on on Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. If you are interested you can vote for it there.--Fenice 13:43, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Science pearls

Hello, Please notice this project. I hope that the List of publications in philosophy and List of publications in psychology will be adopted by the psychopathology project. Thanks,APH 06:53, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

About DSM criteria

Hi! I'm working on trying to improve Swedish wikipedias articles on psychopathology, right now I'm working on translating the excellent schizophrenia article. I have two questions:

I wonder what people have thought about including DSM criteria in articles, in terms of copyright. Could this be a problem, or is it justified quotation?
The criterias often do not flow very well in the main text - how about putting them in floating boxes on the side, as is often seen in textbooks?

/Skagedal 16:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2006

DID

The attention of this project seems to now be directed at the DID article -- or at least, the vast changes there seem to be carried out under the aegis of this project, by Zeraeph and Mjformica.

Most of the old article has been axed and replaced with a precis of the DSM-IV diagnosis and an explanation that assumes that there is such a condition and that it is as real, recognizable, and treatable as any physical condition. My protests have been dismissed on the grounds that I'm not a psychologist.

While in general I welcome the participation of qualified editors, they should not be given carte blanche to defend the sacred cows of their profession by erasing any hint of controversy. The whole history of MPD/DID in the US (and to a lesser extent in other English-speaking countries) seems to be a somewhat embarrassing episode to the defenders of the faith, and it seems to be in the process of being expunged.

No profession is beyond criticism. Wikipedia rules mandate the inclusion of notable points of view, even when those POVs are not majority POVs. Critics of the MPD/DID craze are notable -- especially when they're members of the American Psychological Association.

Mjformica seems to have based his practice on dissociative disorders, is a strong upholder of the diagnosis and of a certain POV within the APA, and does not seem to understand that he has to give the critics equal time. Could other members of this project take time out from the headlong rush to "standardization" to consider the WP ground rules? Zora 17:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe a review of the article as it stands, as well as a historical review of its content will assure all that Zora's issue is being addressed with full intention, and that her statements here are not only unfounded, but pre-emptive in nature.

To that point, the section entitled "The controversy over dissociation" follows directly after what I perceive to be a qualified and balanced introduction. The "controversy" section begins with a specific review of the DSM re-dress of MPD/DID over the years, and points to that publication's struggle with qualifying the disorder. The section also includes no less than six different as-yet-to-be-cited (I'm being lazy about writing them out, but they are noted in the text) references to published points that review issues with the diagnosis. This section does need to be, and will be, expanded.

Frankly, I am not certain what Zora is talking about. If someone can enlighten me as to how her stated arguments above apply to the reality of the article, her perception of my professionla practice, and the mandates of this project, I would be grateful.

Thanks, all... --Mjformica 18:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zora seems to have misunderstood what has become of the old article. There was a lot of work in it and it made some important points very well, but exclusively about the MPD/DID controversy, with only the most minimal mention of what DID actually is, so that I moved it (pretty much verbatum) to a new article Multiple Personality Controversy devoted entirely to this important topic.

MJFormica has actually added considerably to the excellent (and already adequate) section on "Controversy" that remained in the dissociative identity disorder article when I had finished...and in the course of so doing he put the Skeptics case very strongly.

I don't really understand what Zora's problem IS, unless she wants to suppress all definition and description of dissociative identity disorder from Wikipedia? (And Zora, as one civilised person to another I would ask you to give serious consideration as to whether this may be exactly what you are, unconsciously, trying to do?)--Zeraeph 18:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NO! I just don't want the "official" DSM view presented as the truth. You have made a few pro-forma edits towards dethroning the official view, but the overall impression is still "this is the truth, there IS such a disorder, this is what causes it, this is how it is treated". But if you think that it's all a FAD, then all of that is suspect.

I need to try editing the article myself -- it's just that it would take HOURS to dethrone the psych-speak and reintroduce some of the material that has been removed, and I'm recovering from a cold, and tired.

I don't want the DSM material removed -- it's one of the POVs that must be represented -- but it is should not be treated as holy writ. Zora 11:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No one is treating the DSM view as holy writ. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum to engender debate. The article says, "This is what it is, and these are the problems with the argument."

Your evangelical position on the presentation of this article clearly no longer has to do with the article. Rather, it is clear that it has to do with your personal agenda, and you are using Wiki-policy to deflect attention to that fact.

This is an article on psychopathology. It does not matter if there is controversy around the diagnosis. Dethroning the psych-speak (nice) is a clear expression of a personal agenda, and goes back to my original observation that your personal Talk page repeatedly indicates that you exercise your POV, soapbox (not my word), use Wiki-pedia as a forum for your personal agenda, etc. and hide behind policy.

I would ask respectfully that you cease and desist while the article is in process. --Mjformica 11:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zora, four facts even you cannot deny:

The DSM Lists Dissociative identity disorder
People are really diagnosed with Dissociative identity disorder in terms of the DSM
People really claim to have Dissociative identity disorder in terms of the DSM
There is controversy over the diagnosis

The article now clearly makes those points, and defines them equally. What you want to do is remove all that and replace the article with irrelevancies about repressed memory and cult abuse, that, if and when they are relevant at all, relate only to point 4, - again.

Let's examine your original "colonisation" (for want of a better word) of the article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dissociative_identity_disorder&diff=5367204&oldid=5283780 , which does just that. Your last idea of what the article should be is now multiple personality controversy, to which, I notice, you have not made even the smallest edit, so I must conclude you agree with me that it is totally relevant to it's current topic without further alteration, which begs the question of why, therefore, you thought it was also totally relevant as a definition of DID alone?

I will not speculate further on you motivation in doing this, nor on the "tactics" you appear to use to try and "enforce" it, but I will state that what you have tried to do is most definately NOT in accord with either policy or reality and I, respectfully, wish you would, "cut it out" too. --Zeraeph 12:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joining...

Hey...I've just been lurking for a while, and this looks intersting. Can I just join up (which is something I presumptuously did...) or do I have to be invited or something? Sorry in advance if I did something wrong. --Seriphim 01:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Seriphim,

You just need to add yourself to the list. It's an interest group, so members are anyone with an interest.

- Vaughan 12:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Vaughan. I appreciate your taking the time to respond. --Seriphim 15:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project

Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class, B-class, and Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles? Please post your suggestions here. Cheers, Shanel 20:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article Ratings

Hello. WikiProject Psychology has begun rating the quality of articles on Wikipedia in the field of psychology. Would it be appropriate for us to rate and work on articles on psychological disorders, or would you rather we left articles relevant to psychopathology for your project to deal with? I just don't want to step on any toes here. Thanks! --Zeligf 16:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zeligf

This sounds like a great idea. I think it's very appropriate for the Psychology Wikiproject to rate psychopathology articles as the more people who read through with a critical eye the better.

- Vaughan 17:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Articles

Dear colleagues of mine, psychiatrists/neurologists/pharmacologists/psychologists:

-I would like to invite you all to visit the recent pages we posted in Wikipedia (english & portuguese):

Dysphrenia: [1] & Tardive Dysphrenia: [2]

I wonder if they may be of interest for your relevant project. Comments, questions, positive criticisms posted on their discussion, as on private, will be wellcome, OK?!

Thankfully in advance, Cheers, Leo.

Leopoldo Hugo Frota, MD Adjunct Professor of Psychiatry - Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. leopoldo.frota@uol.com.br

Sister project

Just as heads-up, there is a somewhat related project, Pedophilia Article Watch in existance. We aren't on your line of descent (our ultimate parent is the Sociology project), but some of material intersects with your (although a good amount of the material we deal with is political). As you might image we are very busy, and as our name implies we are busy trying to keep bias out of our articles. Help is always needed and wanted! Herostratus 17:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Psychosis

Psychosis is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 22:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 00:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stablepedia

Beginning cross-post.

See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★TWO YEARS OF MESSED ROCKER★ 03:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2007

Articles for Deletion: Mental Health Association of San Francisco

Mental Health Association of San Francisco at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mental Health Association of San Francisco (26 November 2007 – 8 December 2007) Keep

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:25, 26 December 2007 (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} 17:06, 7 August 2009 (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?

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) 02:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]