This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
You say "only after the Watergate scandal broke was she proved right (and hence sane).", but a paragraph earlier you explain how delusions do not necessarily cease to be delusions when a subject was right. So, yes, she was proved right, but "hence sane" is non sequitur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
There is a sociological and thus at least slightly political element to the concept 'delusional', which we see applied widely in all levels of societies, normally as one group against another group. A few sentences on this, perhaps an Emile Durkheim quote or two if applicable, would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddd1600 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Ddd1600! You might be the one of us who has most knowledge about this. Why don't you find some good, secondary sources and then please be bold and write a few sentences about this! With friendly regards, Lova Falktalk 18:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Is the current example of a non-bizarre delusion (a person believing they are under constant police surveillance) really viable as an example any more, given that state surveillance of completely innocent people has become so disgustingly common and so many news stories (especially since - but certainly not limited to - the Snowden revelations) have highlighted these sorts of abuses occurring on an almost incomprehensibly massive scale? It just seems that it no longer passes the definition of being a delusion that this article starts with, i.e., strongly believing something despite superior evidence to the contrary. Xmoogle (talk) 21:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)