Talk:Obsessive–compulsive disorder

Famous sufferers

What is wrong with having a list of famous sufferers. These people are all verified on their respective wikipedia pages as having the disorder, so what why did this idiot called PIrish delete my edits?

You could always just put them back. I know some of the most famous sufferers of other major diseases are listed in other articles. --Hourick (talk) 14:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

This seams to be an ongoing problem.--Ekologkonsult (talk) 06:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

There is already a list of 'famous sufferers', in a separate Wiki 'Category' page, i.e Category: People diagnosed with Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder. I therefore don't quite understand why there should be a need to have a list in this article.Snookerrobot (talk) 10:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the notable cases that is now works.--Ekologkonsult (talk) 12:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:MONK Season4Cover.jpg

Image:MONK Season4Cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

reference in 1st paragraph?

While I certainly believe that OCD is one of the top 10 most disabling illnesses, the link only goes to a page that has some professor saying that the WHO said this. I think it would be a lot better if someone could find the actual WHO publication... I looked for it and could find no such list. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.75.247.88 (talk) 23:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

Well in my book "Overcoming ocd" It says that OCD was called one of the top ten disabling illnesses in the world, by the world health organisation. I saw some website listing all of them in order but I cant remember which one? lol that's not very obsessive of me, sorry! XYaAsehShalomX

Firstly, I moved this discussion section to the bottom of the page as I'm adding this comment. I really think that this comment about OCD being one of the top 10 most disabling illnesses needs to be referenced from it's original source - ie, the WHO - rather than a repeating source. Can anyone help with that? 85.210.178.198 03:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

...in my book..." and "...I can't remeber where I got the reference..." [sic] are two phrases that anyone who expects to be taken even remotely seriously shouldn't be using in the same sentence.

The statement needs to be referenced. --DashaKat 19:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The document referenced actually does NOT say what is claimed in the first paragraph. It says that "Among individuals between the ages of 15 and 44, panic disorder, drug use disorders and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) were in cluded in the top 20 disorders." Also, it does not credit a particular document or person within the WHO for this claim. If you google for ("World Health Organization" "top 10" "disabling illnesses"), you'll find pages of links each referencing this Wikipedia article, which in turn references a document which makes a different claim and makes no references to back that claim. You won't find any of those Google hits pointing to an actual source document. Going to the WHO site and searching, both through the search feature, or by manual digging through the "Statistics" section finds no such claim.

This claim should be removed from this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.207.218.130 (talk) 23:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC) It's referenced in a book by David Veale and Robert Willson called "Overcoming obsessive compulsive disorder". Is that better?? XYaAsehShalomX (talk)

Party drug effect

I live in NZ where benzylpiperazine is legal. I tend to find that other stimulants (caffeine, nicotine etc) make my OCD worse, but BZP makes it much better. Has anyone else noticed this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

This is the wrong forum for this type of inquiry. Kindly move on to an OCD chatroom or bulletin board. Thanks. --DashaKat 21:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

OCD is not fun at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.23.75.191 (talk) 23:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for Pure-O section

I suggest we add a separate section for Pure-Obsessive OCD. It is a very distinct kind and with different treatment results. I would have added it myself but don't have adequate reliable sources for the info yet. Please comment. --Amit 20:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, there's no such thing. An obsessive can't be obsessive without being compulsive, and a compulsive can't be compulsive without being obsessive. While the two dysregulations may occur on a spectrum of balance (so to speak), they are, by definition, co-occurring, and necessarily so. --DashaKat 00:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Tell this to all the people who suffer, and suffer painfully, from pure-O. U can check the many OCD discussion boards for accounts of such people. I wish more than anyone else that there was "no such thing". --Amit 17:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The perception of that from which one suffers and the clinical reality are two different things. There is no clinically documented evidence to suggest that this condition exists. Obessional behavior cannot exist without its compulsive counterpart, and vice-versa.

This is an informational site, not a message board. If you can find a reliable source supporting the existence of this condition, then I am certain your suggestion would be seriously entertained. --DashaKat 19:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, i don't think you are qualified to make that statement. Only doctors are qualified to make statements on whether or not a condition exists not someone going by what studys they happen to have read writing a wikipedia article. Your comment is indicative of a personal opinion. "There is no clinically documented evidence to suggest that this condition exists" I highly doubt you have read through all clinical papers related to ocd and found no referance to obessions without the compulsive componant. I will have a read and soon be post some links to reliable sources.

[1] Here's one. More on the way. 86.20.26.239 18:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

DashaKat is correct on this one. Once reliable sources are found, the appropriate additions to the article will be made. Until then, the ocdonline article really doesn't cut it. Absentis 19:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that reliable sources need to be found but that was just the first article in my my case. Naturally it will take some time for me to dig through the medical journals to find the appropiate studys. "Pure-O" is a sufferer coined name but purely obbsessional OCD is quite well documented and i must ask what clinical data DashKat has to support that "An obsessive can't be obsessive without being compulsive, and a compulsive can't be compulsive without being obsessive."

[2] This study mentions purely obsessional OCD. Of couse the existance of all conditions has to be proven though clinical studys so i will find the appropiate resources proving that purely obsessional OCD is a real condition. 86.20.26.239 20:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

There are professionals who have studied and talked about pure-O, and that should should be enough for there to be additions to the article or a separte article, even if it has something like, "Some professionals feel that Pure-O does not exist," or something to that effect. I'm personally not qualified to decide what is or isn't good scientific psychology, but I know that Freud wasn't a very good scientist, and he has a page, with appropriate criticisms, of course. There used to a "Pure O" page with links to sources about it, but it's gone now for some reason. And the statement, "An obsessive can't be obsessive without being compulsive" is ridiculously absolute in my opinion-- it shouldn't even be taken serious without massive amounts of supporting evidence.andrewlargemanjones —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.230.35.145 (talk) 21:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I think I need to clarify, the above unsigned comments were not made by me. I only made two comments before on this page, both of them were signed. As for evidence, I am looking for reliable sources and will be right back with them soon. I have no conflict with anybody. --Amit 04:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

There is definitely a "pure-o" type of ocd. I know because I was diagnosed with it and am currently seeing a pychologist for it.--Finblesco 18:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Quite frankly, this debate shouldn't exist. Provide the relevant citations from respected sources and it gets in the article. It is not our place to go round question if it is or it isn't. Then, if people really need to debate, it can be over the respectability of the sources.--Kerotan^{Leave Me a Message} Have a nice day :) 02:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I am a medical doctor and OCD can be diagnosed with obsessions alone. This is stated in the DSMV criteria. Longsocksandbooks (talk) 08:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

request sources

Someone should just cite information. It is so annoying seeing a page have all of these "citation needed" things. The box at the top of the page will go away if someone just puts down sources 216.93.229.62 02:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.93.229.62 (talk) 03:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism?

There seems to be a vandalised paragraph: "A good example of OCD is Sharon Ludwick of Mount Holly, New Jersey..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.74.65.25 (talk) 23:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Treatment centers

Are external links to OCD treatment centers/programs considered linkspam? I lean towards yes, but I guess if there's valuable info at the site it may be worth inclusion. Thoughts? AlphaEta 17:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

If you're referring to that Linden Centers link, I think it is. The IP editor added it to (nearly?) every anxiety disorder-related article. I have removed it from all the articles and posted a spam warning to the IP's talkpage. Aleta 17:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Who keeps removing the references?

And why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.254.29 (talk) 03:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

External links

External links to patient support groups (especially online chat boards), blogs, and commercial (e.g., "buy our program") sites are normally not accepted on Wikipedia. Please read the external links policy and the specific rules for medical articles before adding more external links. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the specific rules for medical articles you've wikilinked to here and noted that it specifically targeted charities and the like for exclusion. Beyond that, it doesn't seem that any of the links I've just removed provide anything beyond that which could (and should) be added to the article as content. aruffo (talk) 14:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Nutrition

Should nutritional therapies be included from quality articles and studies (i.e. peer reviewed, double-blind, randomized, controlled-trials)? I think, absolutely. If there is general agreement, will do... Gnif global (talk) 12:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I would assert there is little value in information that can be described no more clearly than "studies have been done...", especially when only a single study is being referenced. Legitimately scientific studies have "been done" and can "be done" on any topic imaginable, however irrelevant or unhelpful. If the results of this study you wish to include are meaningful, significant, and notable, then they should not merely be alluded to with an external link but described in a manner which informs this article and acknowledges its context; otherwise your mention, thus shoehorned in, will undoubtedly be recognized and interpreted (as the comment from the previous revision indicates) as akin to spam. aruffo (talk) 23:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

error in medication section

In the following paragraph in the medication section of this article, there is an error:

Recent research has found increasing evidence that opioids may significantly reduce OCD symptoms, though the addictive property of these drugs likely stands as an obstacle to their sanctioned approval for OCD treatment. Anecdotal reports suggest that some OCD sufferers have successfully self-medicated with opioids such as Ultram and Vicodin, though the off-label use of such painkillers is not widely accepted, again because of their addictive qualities. Tramadol is an atypical opioid that may be a viable option as it has a low potential for abuse and addiction, mild side effects, and shows signs of rapid efficacy in OCD. Tramadol not only provides the anti-OCD effects of an opiate, but also inhibits the re-uptake of serotonin (in addition to norepinephrine). This may provide additional benefits, but should not be taken in combination with antidepressant medication unless under careful medical supervision due to potential serotonin syndrome.[20]

Ultram is the trade name for the medication Tramadol - they are described in this paragraph as substantially different.

--24.121.109.186 (talk) 02:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

St John's Wort

On the St. Johns Wort section, the references given for st. Johns wort being an effective treatment for OCD are completely bogus, if you read the actual papers that are cited through the citation, both clinical trials involve depressed patients, not OCD patients. This is misleading and the paragraph should be removed. - signed by an anon IP

This is not entirely accurate. It is effective with people suffering OCD in the similar biological pathway that improves the lifestyles of people with depression. SSRIs are given to both depressives (types of) and people with OCD. There is a clinical protocol in subscribing St Johns Wort in children and teenagers. Longsocksandbooks (talk) 08:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Try this ref: "St John's wort versus placebo in obsessive-compulsive disorder: results from a double-blind study" by Kenneth A Kobak, Leslie V H Taylor, Alexander Bystritsky, Cary J Kohlenberg, John H Greist, Phebe Tucker, Gemma Warner, Rise Futterer, Tanya Vapnik; Int Clin Psychopharmacol; Nov 2005 (Vol. 20, Issue 6, (pp 299-304) |||| —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.133.0.13 (talk) 13:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Obsessive behaviors

I wanna make it clear on there should be other additions to the article: OCD is also characterized by an intense fascination or "obsession" with a thing, subject or person (i.e. stalking). There are theories on whether stalking involves one person obsessed with another person who doesn't desire to be near or associate with them, that is to obsessively follow around or harrass the other person as a possible OCD trait. To be obsessed or "fixated" over something like an attachment is a classic example of obsessive behaviors associated with OCD. + Mike D 26 (talk) 02:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with any publication, health organization or diagnostic tool that claims stalking another human being is a "classic" OCD behavior. Could you provide a reference so that we may evaluate this suggestion before adding it to the article? Thanks, AlphaEta 04:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't understand this part

A symptom of OCD according to the article:

"Chasing- Having the need to follow people who the victim is irritated by. Sometimes having warm feelings inside about this person."

By the victim, do we mean "sufferer". If so could this be made clear, and then also, the second sentence seems contradictory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.223.238 (talk) 15:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm new to this stuff and haven't figure out how to generate a new item so, I'll attempt to add it here. Something doesn't read right to me and I think it should read as follows:

"Although these signs are often present in OCD, a person who shows signs of infatuation or fixation with a subject/object, or displays traits such as perfectionism, does not necessarily have OCD, a specific and well-defined condition."

mike Mjpearson (talk) 00:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Anal-retentive character

In case anyone is wondering, I re-added "anal-retentive character" to the introduction as an alternative explanation of various traits. I'm well aware that this isn't a DSM differential diagnosis, but the point is that people who are "OCD" in the vernacular do not necessarily have OCD or even OC personality disorder, and may simply have character traits that are best described as "anal-retentive." Cosmic Latte (talk) 10:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I just put quotation marks around "anal-retentive" in order to imply that it's being used in a rather less formal sense than other terms. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, so add a citation or don't add it. It purely doesn't belong here. For a disease that the world health organization considers the 10th most debilitating on the planet, you would think that this kind of vandalism would be stopped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.85.84 (talk) 18:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I concur. OCPD is an appropriate, clinically valid assessment; "anal retentive" is a conversational, non-clinical term that does not sufficiently nor accurately describe the personality trait. aruffo (talk) 21:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

"Anal-retentive" derives from Freud's writings. The notion that this is "non-clinical" by mainstream psychiatric standards does not mean that it is automatically excluded from the article. Many contributors to mental-health-related articles seem to forget that psychoanalysis has exerted a profound and lasting effect on the arts, the humanities, and various cultures at large, and that these entities have contributed significantly to our understanding of the conditions. Many also seem to confuse non-scientific ideas with "fringe" scientific ideas, as if they could be dismissed as easily and experimentally as flat-earthers. Let us keep in mind the core principle of WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." The fact that the term has become "conversational" implies that there are so many such sources that the nature of the term is common knowledge. Aruffo, your claim that this "conversational" term "does not sufficiently [or] accurately describe the personality trait" is of unclear relevance and meaning to me. First of all, I put the term in quotation marks, in order to imply its "conversational" nature in the first place. Second, I'm not sure which "personality trait" the term doesn't accurately describe. The only "personality trait" that it is referring to is...well, itself; it is accurate by definition. If you mean that it doesn't accurately describe OCD, then that is obviously correct, but that's the whole point of including it. The passage says that someone with obsessive-compulsive traits, who does not meet criteria for OCD or OCPD, might best be described as having an "anal-retentive character." If you mean that the personality trait isn't actually caused by a psychological defense mechanism stemming from psychosexual development, then you are certainly not alone, but I refer you again to WP:V--not WP:TRUTH (the latter of which happens to be a comical essay, the former an official Wikipedia policy). IP-142.162.85.84, if you are offended by this, then I'm sorry, but bear in mind that Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED; articles are not required to be unoffensive. Talk pages, however, are a different matter. We are expected to be WP:CIVIL to one another, and to assume WP:GOODFAITH by our fellow editors. I don't believe that your referring to my edits as "vandalism" exactly meets that standard. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Let's keep context in mind. The whole passage is about the colloquial use of psychological terms. Therefore, the inclusion of "conversational" items is not only completely appropriate; it's the whole point of the passage! Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any clue whatsoever about this illness? People often don't discover this for some time after having all kinds of fears and doubts about what might be "wrong" with them. Wiki being as popular as it is; should bend over backwards to include valid, reliable information. Quoting Freud (who is largely considered to be a pioneer but with ideas that today are considered outdated and antiquated and not to mention highly inaccurate today) is hardly valid. Do you know the suicide statistics of this illness? How would you feel if you were diagnosed with OCD or were trying to find out more information about it based on suspicions you might have OCD only to come across this page which tells them they might in fact just be "anal retentive". While I may be a complete novice to wiki; I am far from a novice when it comes to OCD having suffered with it all my life. Perhaps I should ask my Psychiatrist to come edit this crap out and I bet you still come up with a way to add it back in and disagree with the modern Psychiatric field. What gives though really? It doesn't belong. Get over it and try to realize who your audience is on this page and provide them with valid information and not some obscure Freud reference. I've looked on many professional web sites with information regarding OCD and not one of them mention that these sufferers are "anal retentive". You quite possibly could cause emotional distress or more to an individual reading this and to be perfectly honest you seem quite "anal" yourself. This needs disputing and arbitration as far as I am concerned and is just another wonderful example of how Wiki needs to get better control over things.

I urge you to read WP:CIV and WP:AGF again. I also suggest that you WP:COOL down. Have you even read the passage? Nowhere, not in one single spot, does it say that OCD sufferers are anal-retentive. What it says is that people who do not have OCD might have some other condition, including non-clinical conditions such as what has come to be known colloquially as an "anal-retentive" personality. Once again, that passage is not about OCD or actual OCD sufferers; it is about the inaccurate(!!) way in which the term "OCD" is used in society. You are contesting a claim that is not even made in the article. By the way. Not that this is anyone's business, but I have a psychology degree from an accredited university, and I was diagnosed with OCD a long time ago. So, to answer your question, "Do you have any clue whatsoever about this illness?"--I'd like to think I do, anyway. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I am suggesting that "anal-retentive" does not sufficiently nor accurately describe obsessive-compulsive personality disorder (which is what I meant by "OCPD" above) which is, of course, not OCD. Although I doubt that the inclusion of the term "anal-retentive" would be likely to cause emotional distress, I'd say that the term has become so corrupted from its use in the popular lexicon that a casual reader, upon encountering the term, will believe-- incorrectly-- that they understand what is more appropriately described and detailed as OCPD. Furthermore, "anal-retentive" has, again through its popular usage, become a disparaging (if not condemnatory) label; making a direct association between it and OCPD seems to create the strong probability that a naive reader may believe that OCPD is similarly worthy of contempt-- a judgment which I would think desirable to avoid.

More soberly, or at least more practically, I wouldn't say that "consensus" is the issue in this article. Verifiability, not consensus, is the main concern. Common knowledge may be commonly known, but that does not mean it has been verifiably published. I am not aware of any publication which demonstrates or implies that OCD is diagnosed where it should instead have been recognized as "anal-retentive" personality. Please cite such a publication if you intend to include such an assertion in this Wiki article. aruffo (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with the first of your two preceding statements--we don't want to imply condemnation of OCPD. As for the second statement, I agree that verifiability is important (after all, it's policy), but think that the main issue was probably mere phrasing. Our verification begins with Freud himself, but I suppose it should be clear from the wording that Freudian concepts need to be appreciated in a different way from more positivistic ideas such as OCD and OCPD. So I've altered the wording a bit, in order to distinguish anal retentiveness more from both OCD and OCPD. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The "anal-retentive" thing keeps bothering me... not because it's mentioned, but because it's mentioned in the opening summary-paragraph of the article, clearly implying that its characteristics are universally applicable, or at least recognizable, in cases of OCD. That is, although those "some symptoms" may not be at all present in an OCD sufferer, the opening paragraph clearly suggests that when OCD (or OCPD) is present, some of its symptoms-- which symptoms, I might add, are neither enumerated, distinguished, nor referenced here-- will certainly resemble "anal-retentiveness".

The whole anal-retentive thing seems too beholden to pop-culture considerations; its inclusion here is simple, vague, and unreferenced. It's not enough to claim that "it began with Freud" without any further qualification. If it began with Freud, where? Quote something. Reference something. Describe something. Be specific. What is "anal retentive" personality, what are its characteristics, and how are these confused with obsessive-compulsive disorder, and when are they not? Before a connection between OCD and "anal retentive" is worthy of being mentioned in the opening paragraph here as a primary distinguishing characteristic of OCD, I think such a connection deserves more sophisticated treatment and analysis in a body-article section. Until that section is properly written, detailed, and referenced, I simply can't see the justification for its inclusion in the opening paragraph. aruffo (talk) 19:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Definition of 'Compulsion'

I'm certainly not an expert on ocd but the definition of a compulsion, given in the main article, is slightly at odds with what I've read elsewhere (sorry can't remember the references). In the main article, a compulsion is defined as the act (mental or physical) that is carried out in response to the anxiety produced by the obsession, usually to 'neutralise' that anxiety. According to what I have read elsewhere, however, a compulsion is not really the act itself but the mental urge to carry out the act. So the compulsion, like the obsession, is also a mental 'event'. According to this point of view, an obsession is a mental event in the form of an intruding thought such as: "My hands might be covered in germs" (generating anxiety). The compulsion would then be another mental event i.e. a thought in the form of a 'mental urge': "Therefore I MUST wash my hands." The act is then carried out (the direct product of the compulsion) and the anxiety temporarily relieved. This point of view also allows for the existence of 'pure C' as well as 'pure O'. An example would be people who compulsively arrange things in a certain way or in a symmetrical pattern. These people simply have a mental compulsion to order and arrange, but there is frequently no identifiable 'obsession' as such. I have no idea which point of view is correct, but I am simply raising the question as to whether the definition of 'compulsion' that has been given is scientifically accurate. Can any knowledgeable expert advise?Snookerrobot (talk) 14:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Famous cases

I think Wikipedias Article about ALzheimer is pretty good, and it has been featured. This article has a paragraph about known individual affected by Alzheimer, so deleting it from this page with the argument that this is about the disease , not a celebrity article makes no sense. In fact, giving people real examples adds value to an article about, what for many readers is a fairly unknown disease. I would like to have more discussion about this before its deleted again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekologkonsult (talk • contribs) 07:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The most obvious reason is that none of these articles has even the slightest detail about these celebrities' OCD. No symptoms, strategies, social issues related to OCD, nothing at all. The nearest it comes is one of the articles referencing the fact that one of the celebrities wrote about it as some portion of a biography (again, with no details). In short, adding a list of celebrities offers no insight into the condition, no social context for its manifestation, and ultimately provides nothing to a reader but incidental trivia. aruffo (talk) 07:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I see you've implemented a reversion without contributing to the discussion. If you're determined to revert then you may as well call in a mediator right now because I have no intention of letting this lie. Your comparison to the Alzheimer's article is an inappropriate analogy; the cases represented there, such as Ronald Reagan, are well-publicized, well-documented, socially relevant (e.g. a national leader becoming mentally incompetent), and by most yardsticks undeniably notable. Most importantly, in each of these cases of Alzheimer's, the condition became their defining characteristic, privately and publicly. It is not possible to meaningfully discuss their lives without discussion of the disease's effects. This makes their inclusion appropriate-- not as curiosities or footnotes but as embodied representations of the disease.

No such embodiment exists in any of these people whom you intend to include in this article. OCD may affect their lives, but it plainly does not define them, as their condition warrants zero attention in any of their Wikipedia articles (save one, and again, the mention was a mere passing reference). A quick web search, which any interested party could do without resort to Wikipedia, turns up a longer list of celebrities and their conditions-- many of which compulsions are far less destructive, controlling, and exhausting than those of ordinary people I have personally known. The reports on these symptoms are, singly and in total, nothing more than amusing trivia to people with an interest in those celebrities. They offer nothing substantial to a reader with an encyclopedic interest in the condition. Unless a person has been publicly identified as an embodied representative of the condition, such Howard Hughes or Freud's "Rat Man", what notability they possess does not arise from their condition of OCD, and their personal notability does not automatically render their condition notable. In other words, to justify the inclusion of any individual case of OCD in an encyclopedic article, that case must itself be notable. The specific manifestations of OCD described by these celebrities are perfectly ordinary, entirely mundane, socially irrelevant, and assuredly non-notable. aruffo (talk) 06:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

To start with I suggest that you drop your angry tone and calm down, there is no need to get speedy by a disagreement. As you may know both the featured article about Alzheimer, and the featured Article about Downs Syndrom include notable cases. Why do you think this article merits the same. Do you have anything against people with OCD, and do not want to have people with OCD feeling that there are more people like them. That is many times the purpose of such information. To make people realize that there are many people with the condition.

I think this articles should have this information first and foremost because most people looking for information about OCD on the net, are people who either have OCD themself or have near ones affected by OCD. Yes you might also find academics searching information, but Wikipedia is something else than just a pharmaceuptic dictionary. Please feel free to call on a moderator.--Ekologkonsult (talk) 08:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this article merits the inclusion of notable cases because notable cases provide real-world embodiment of what would otherwise be an abstract intellectual discussion. The cases you propose to include are not notable, therefore they do not merit inclusion. You have not yet provided a reason why non-notable cases of OCD should be included in this article. If "people are looking for information on the net", as you describe, they will find far more information about celebrities elsewhere, easily, and again I assert that there is nothing special about these particular celebrities which makes them any more worthy of mention than the dozens that can be found by "people looking for information on the net". I would argue that my friends' cases are far more interesting and informative than celebrity gossip, but still not notable, which again underscores the fact that including these celebrities is merely a comment on their celebrity and not a contribution to understanding of OCD. aruffo (talk) 13:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Where do you draw the line between notable cases, and celebrities. Reagans Alzheimer is seen as notable, but this was because he was an ex-president. Beckham is the most influential person in the Uk according to the Observer. He has talked openly about his struggle with OCD in the media. Your friends that are affected are of course just as important, but they do not have the same familiarity to most people. Ths is not celebrity gossip. Someone speeking open about their struggle is not gossip. Just because they are known, does not make them less human.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-381802/The-obsessive-disorder-haunts-life.html

Do you really believe your friends with OCD get humiliated by information that Beckham has OCD. I know that the very close friends with OCD I know like that people get information about that anyone can have OCD, without it being seen form the outside. Isn´t it so that it bothers you because your friends cases are close to you, but Beckhams is not. I do agree that it should be switched to notable cases, and not famous.--Ekologkonsult (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok User:Aruffo (talk), but where is that discussion re Princess Alexandra of Bavaria? Perhaps hotable historical cases are less significant since they were never diagosed "correctly". Or maybe we can all agree that OCD did not really exist before the 1970s? Or do we just say "so what"?

I would agree with you that "so what" is, truly, the most vital question. There is very little reason we should care about OCD being associated with any specific historical figures. It is clear that a reader interested in a particular historical or celebrated figure would be interested in that figure's personality, behavior, and general traits, especially if those should be abnormal, and diagnostic facts should certainly be included in an encyclopedic examination of that individual. Whether that individual's specific case contributes substantially to an encyclopedic examination of their abnormality is another question altogether. I would challenge a writer to justify how any celebrity, whose celebrity is not predicated directly on the manifestation of their abnormality, can meaningfully contribute to an encyclopedic understanding of whatever abnormality they exhibit. If the subsequent argument cannot be advanced any further than "they had the condition" and "they did these weird behaviors", especially if, unlike Howard Hughes or Ronald Reagan, they failed to become exclusively identified as an embodiment of their affliction, then I vigorously contend that their case is no more notable nor worthy of inclusion than any random manifestation plucked from the non-celebrity case files of any psychiatrist's office. aruffo (talk) 18:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, sorry I asked, now that we have lost the Princess altogether. The price of dissent? Although equally suspicious of any notability conferred by the modern cult of celebrity, I feel a little less inclined to think that, just because a sufferer is not an exemplar of any medical condition or an important source of information about it, the fact that they suffer is not of interest - along the lines of "OCD is so common that even David Beckham, who you might think had no health problems at all, has it". Might not the same be argued for famous historical figures? King George III still figures widely, of course, in the article on Porphyria. But perhaps you'll rip him out soon? As for poor Princess Alexandra, she can't even play football, let alone for England. Or maybe you know of another, or even a clearer, example of an historical figure who probably had OCD before it was officially an illness? I'm sorry that you couldn't discuss before your deletions, but it looks like your not that keen to build consensus here. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

If you choose to forward a reasoning that David Beckham-- who has chosen to publicly self-identify not only as an individual sufferer but as an advocate of OCD awareness-- is not notable for his efforts, and should therefore be removed from this article, then I'm sure you are welcome to do so. Neither would I attempt to discourage you from advancing any individual of your choice, celebrated or otherwise, as a notable case of OCD; I have described what appear to be appropriate criteria for notability or non-notability and I will support those criteria. aruffo (talk) 19:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Um, why do you think that I want David removed? Did you not understand my last post? Yes, your suggested criteria are very neat. So that neatness justifies your deletion of any historical figure? Just one more question - did anyone before 1970, wikinotable or not, have OCD? Please explain how we can tell. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Compromise

Aruffo, how about a compromise. I can see your point that a list of people can give a gossipy impression. I have taken away all examples except BEckham, and even added another source to this. Is this compromise better?--Ekologkonsult (talk) 14:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and I think we should also add a link to Howard Hughes (perhaps the most famous case of OCD). I apologize if my enthusiasm seemed "angry". I have a bias against non-notable cases for a specific reason-- I am personally acquainted with more than one person whose OCD went undiagnosed for many years, despite OCD's oppressive influence on their lives, because every time they heard about OCD it was in the context of some random person with some random symptom (washing, checking, etc). They'd see this random anecdote and think to themselves "I don't behave like they do, therefore I must not have OCD," which prevented their receiving proper treatment and care as their situations became increasingly desperate. I think you're right that people who seek out information about OCD are most likely those who have a personal stake in knowing; the importance of notable cases for OCD is that, even though the stories of those cases do begin with the bizarre and highly individualized manifestations of the condition, they move beyond the anecdotes, holding up the case principally as a vehicle to discuss general patterns of OCD thought and behavior. I would expect it is the general pattern of OCD and its broad effects, rather than any of its unique consequences, which allow a reader to relate the condition to the same patterns, expressed differently, in their own lives. aruffo (talk) 16:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Did not know that, but I see that it is mentioned a lot on the Wikipedia article regarding him. It should bee with, you´re right.--Ekologkonsult (talk) 19:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

OCD and music

As a minor sufferer of OCD (I fiddle with my fingers lots in completive ways, and have to complete certain rituals with my feet in rhythmic patterns), I feel that it has contributed in certain ways in understanding rhythm and melody (creating a musical anomaly then solving it with a climax), and often considered it something that inspires me. A brief google shows many articles on the internet on OCD and music suggesting a link between musical genius and OCD. I'm no musical genius - I wasted it drinking too much booze, but I see my ticks as related to the way I resolve my musical opening bars with the closing bars. In fact, I can see how it can make you artistic in many disciplines. I spent a lot of times experimenting with odd time-signatures. My finger twitching seems to always end with a final resolution, which is difficult to describe, but is always even. My right hand compliments the left, but after an odd and quite creative sequence, with the right performing three to the left doing two, to the right doing one, the the left two. etc.. etc..

There's nothing here in how OCD may affect art. One says that "insanity is to art what garlic is to salad". Perhaps a section should be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.224.22 (talk) 23:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Semiprotection against continous ip-vandalism

I suggest that an administrator semi-protects the article Obsessive-compulsive disorder due to the longlasting continous vandalism to the page by ip-users which is obvious from a quick look at this article's edit-history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekologkonsult (talk • contribs)

I also think there is a lot of vandalism, tried a request at the noticeboard, been protected for a short while, but it is just never going to get long or indefinite protection. Clark89 (talk) 02:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

strange statement

a patient should be concerned that intrusive thoughts are dangerous if the person doesn't feel upset by the thoughts, rather finds them pleasurable; has ever acted on violent or sexual thoughts or urges;

If read literally, this means that intrusive thougths are dangerous for all normal adults. That is -- assuming they "have ever acted on sexual thoughts or urges". Which most people do regularily....

Rephrase ?

--Eivind Kjørstad (talk) 08:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)