Talk:Menstrual psychosis

Untitled

Thank you very much for accepting this article. I will supply some links, first of all to postpartum psychosis, but it is necessary to modify that annotation first. Son of Fraser and Joyce

I have put in the links to puerperal psychosis, and also some missing accents. Son of Fraser and Joyce

Review

We have a review article here [PMID:9638603] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Major edit

I have just seen the revision of my entry of 2009, by an American author (December 2019 and January 2020), who has removed most of the detail about menstrual psychosis, including two illustrative cases and much interesting clinical detail, and replaced it by her views on the premenstrual exacerbation of established psychoses (such as 'schizophrenia'). This is a mistake. The effect of oestrogens on psychosis is, no doubt, important and may well justify a wikipedia entry on its own account. There is no case for squeezing out details of menstrual psychosis. I shall replace the missing material, eliminate paragraphs of distant relevance, and update my entry, using the re-analysis I conducted for my monograph 'The Psychoses of Menstruation and Childbearing". Son of Fraser and Joyce (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)Son of Fraser and JoyceSon of Fraser and Joyce (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Stewards! I am afraid I have had to replace the current entry (as the author replaced mine, without explaining why on the talk page), reinstating my 2009 account and bringing it up to date. I do not want to start a game of ping-pong and hope that stewards will afford me some authority on a disease, on which only one other person has written a monograph – v. Krafft-Ebing in 1902 – and I have written two (2008 and 2017). I was the person who introduced this subject to Wikipedia in 2009. I have obtained and read about 85% of the literature known to me, and have a personal series of over 60 cases. I have had to cite my two books, but my interest is in drawing public attention to the works of others, and giving information to sufferers who cannot get help from their psychiatrists.

My best guess is that the author of the current entry is Canadian: from her kraepelinian stance, she has a 30-year interest in the effect of menstruation and oestrogens on ‘schizophrenia’. An approximate line count shows that 51 lines and 23 references were devoted to these effects, 47 lines and 25 references to menstrual psychosis, and 30 lines and 10 references to other disorders, such as premenstrual tension. Menstrual psychosis, that is periodic attacks of acute psychosis in women hitherto free from mental illness, is quite different from the influence of menstruation and its hormones on chronic psychosis. If she thinks there is sufficient evidence, and that the general public should be informed, she could write another Wikipedia entry on that subject, instead of cookoo-laying her material into an entry on menstrual psychosis, chucking out much that is important and heuristic.

Frankly I doubt whether she has much interest in menstrual psychosis; she may never have seen a case. She has not bothered to read the references she has cited. For example, she has cited my 2017 monograph on the psychoses of menstruation and childbearing. If she has read any of it, she will have glanced at page 144, which in 23 lines summarises the 44 pages of chapters 26-32. This states on the first two lines that, in the literature and my series, there are 119 probable or confirmed cases (not 80 as stated twice in her account). In the penultimate paragraph, recommendations for clinical investigation are offered (not mentioned in her entry) and, on treatment, the possible efficacy of progesterone, clomiphene and thyroid (not thyroid stimulating hormone as in her account). The remarkable occurrence of episodes before the menarche, during amenorrhoea and without a pituitary, summarized in the last paragraph, are not mentioned at all; if she does not believe them, she should study chapter 28, or, far better, the original reports cited in the bibliography.

This is how knowledge is lost – writers, who have hardly scratched the surface of the literature, publish superficial ‘reviews’ that bury the sedulous and pioneering studies that should be the basis of knowledge. Son of Fraser and Joyce (talk) 09:46, 13 February 2020 (UTC)Son of Fraser and JoyceSon of Fraser and Joyce (talk)

Major edit again

This entry was accepted by Wikipedia on May 26th 2009. Shortly afterwards my account was blocked for breach of copyright. On February 11th 2020 I was unblocked, and discovered that major changes had been made, adding material of remote relevance and removing much detail about menstrual psychosis.

The changes were probably made by a distinguished Canadian scientist, who has a 30-year interest in the effect of menstruation and oestrogens on schizophrenia. An approximate line count shows that 51 lines and 23 references were devoted to these effects, 47 lines and 25 references to menstrual psychosis, and 30 lines and 10 references to other disorders, such as premenstrual tension. I should explain that, in the classification of the psychoses, the cornerstone is the distinction made by Kraepelin, at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, between chronic psychoses, which follow a pernicious or malignant course, and relapsing psychoses, from which (whatever their episodic severity) there is full recovery. This is Kraepelin’s Zweiteilungsprinzip (two-entities principle). Schizophrenia is the most important member of the first group and manic depression (bipolar disorder) of the second; menstrual psychosis - that is periodic, acute and brief psychoses in women who otherwise enjoy good mental health, is at the other extreme from schizophrenia. Introducing material about menstrual effects (or oestrogen) on schizophrenia is a radical change – it alters the theme of the entry. Wikipedia (How to edit a page, as written in May 2009) advises that “any change that affects the meaning of an article is major (not minor), even if the edit is a single word’. The alterations made to this article were swingeing,. Yet I have not been able to find any explanation at all - there is no note on the talk page or history of when or why this drastic change was made. If Wikipedia has a fair and consistent policy to reject major changes made without explanation, why did staff allow it to survive?

My first alteration, therefore, has been to remove these invasions, which are irrelevant to the theme, and disturb the clarity of the article. If this contributor considers that there is sufficient evidence on menstrual effects in schizophrenia, and that the general public should be informed, she could submit another Wikipedia entry on that subject,

But this contributor’s revision goes much further than adding irrelevant material. She has thrown out details about menstrual psychosis that are important and heuristic. I suspect that she has little interest in the subject. She may never have seen a case. She may be one of those psychiatrists who (in her own words) “do not recognize the syndrome as a distinct condition”, or worthy of study. Her treatment of the literature may be an indication: she cited my 2017 monograph (The psychoses of menstruation and childbearing); if she has read any of it, she will have glanced at page 144, which in 23 lines summarises the 44 pages of chapters 26-32 (the main chapters devoted to this psychosis). This summary states on the first two lines that, in the literature and my series, there are 119 probable or confirmed cases (not 80 as stated twice in her account). In the penultimate paragraph it offers recommendations for clinical investigation (not mentioned in her entry) and mentions the possible efficacy of progesterone, clomiphene and thyroid (not thyroid stimulating hormone as in her account). The remarkable occurrence of episodes before the menarche, during amenorrhoea and without a pituitary, summarized in the last paragraph, are not mentioned at all. All these recommendations and seminal observations have been omitted or deleted. This is how knowledge is lost – writers, who have hardly scratched the surface of the literature, publish superficial ‘reviews’ that bury the sedulous and pioneering studies that should be the basis of knowledge.

On February 11th, I published an entry which updated my 2009 article, and removed the intrusions. I was careful to fill in the edit summary, and explain the reasons for these major changes.

This article survived until February 25th, when Mvolz removed it. He wrote,

      I noticed that you recently removed content without adequately explaining why … If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on Mvolz|my talk page.

I posted my 500-word justification to Mvolz by e-mail, with a note on his talk page drawing attention to the explanation, which can be found on the talk page.

The present submission, accompanied by a rather longer explanation, is similar to my 2009 entry in style and format, so, if Wikipedia is consistent, it should be considered sufficiently ‘encyclopaedic in manner’. It contains no unpublished research. All information is based on secondary reliable sources. I hope, therefore, you will allow it to survive. There are many women, who suffer from this disorder and cannot get help from their psychiatrists, who turn to Wikipedia to obtain the information they need.

Son of Fraser and Joyce (talk) 09:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)Son of Fraser and JoyceSon of Fraser and Joyce (talk) 09:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC), February 28th 2020.

@Son of Fraser and Joyce: I have reverted your complete re-write of the article, as I have the following concerns:

1. You have replaced the lead with a less summative one, making an editorial judgement unsupported by secondary sources.
2. You have completely altered the structure of the article, removing sections that are expected by MOS:MED, and adding others that are unencyclopedic. We do not write medical articles by "examples".
3. Your writing style is not suited to an encyclopedia: you use bulleted fragments instead of prose, and address the reader directly. This is not a lecture presentation.
4. You make far too many value judgements unsupported by reliable secondary sources. In fact, far too much of your text is completely unsupported by sources.
5. You make value judgements and assessments of sources in the article, based only on your own opinion. You are not competent to make those judgements.
6. You write in the first person, and speculate at statistics, again without sources.

I am concerned that you are emailing another editor to discuss content changes. Wikipedia is a transparent project, and discussion takes place here, on talk pages, not in private correspondence. I am further concerned that you have too strong a focus on your own view of this topic and not on the job required for a Wikipedia editor: that of finding and accurately summarising the best quality reliable sources, in a neutral manner. This is not the place to right great wrongs, and you cannot simply tear up what many other editors have taken a great deal of time in contributing, simply because you want the article to reflect your point-of-view.

I have no interest in debating other editors here, other than to remind you that if you have any conflict of interest {not just financial) with this topic, or with the sources in this article, you should declare it. This page focuses on the content of the article and improving it. Your changes so far are not an improvement. Nevertheless, if you have better sources to add to the article, or have legitimate concerns about sources present in the article, then please feel free to bring them here and discuss them.

I have, unfortunately, also felt it necessary to revision delete your edit because you included identifiable personal information. Please don't do that again. --RexxS (talk) 00:12, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Update: On advice from Oversight, and to assist discussion, I have restored the edit's visibility in the page history. --RexxS (talk) 15:18, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

This article would benefit from using more recent sources. I suggest that this article be WP:Based upon sources such as:

• Brockington, Ian (2017-08-11). The Psychoses of Menstruation and Childbearing. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-316-72076-9. (entire chapter on the subject)
• Henn, Fritz; Sartorius, Norman; Helmchen, Hanfried; Lauter, Hans (2013-11-11). Contemporary Psychiatry. Springer Science & Business Media. pp. 188–189. ISBN 978-3-642-59519-6. (section 1.3)
• Ward, Heather Burrell; Greenberg, James A.; Almeida, Marcela (2019-06-03). "Perimenstrual psychiatric hospitalization: case report and literature review". Archives of Women's Mental Health. doi:10.1007/s00737-019-00967-3. ISSN 1435-1102. PMID 31161260.
• Susser, Leah C.; Hermann, Alison D. (April 2017). "Protection against hormone-mediated mood symptoms". Archives of Women's Mental Health. 20 (2): 355–356. doi:10.1007/s00737-016-0702-9. ISSN 1435-1102. PMID 27987053. (case study with some background information – typical of a rare disease)
• Seeman, M. V. (May 2012). "Menstrual exacerbation of schizophrenia symptoms". Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica. 125 (5): 363–371. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0447.2011.01822.x. ISSN 1600-0447. PMID 22235755. (slightly older but still valid review article)

WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:30, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Dear WhatamI doing. Thank you very much for these comments, which I shall study carefully. I am keen to avoid conflict and achieve a legitimate entry. Please give me a few days to consider my reply. 2A00:23C5:EC0A:5800:A919:32F5:3818:E660 (talk) 22:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)Son of Fraser and Joyce2A00:23C5:EC0A:5800:A919:32F5:3818:E660 (talk) 22:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC), February 29th 2020.

Dear RexxS, In the last 24 hours, I have given some thought to your most helpful critique of my submission on Menstrual Psychosis. It is best to seek a compromise with the person who wrote the present version. Under a revised title, Menstruation and Psychosis, I could prepare a submission that starts with menstrual psychosis (mentioning menstrual effects in bipolar disorder), and then adds her material on menstrual effects in schizophrenia. Is that acceptable to you? I have also been offered help in achieving an ‘encyclopaedic style’ by an experienced Wikipedia staff-member. I should also be able to make the other alterations you have indicated – a more comprehensive introduction, more citations, use of third person, no bullets and less opinion. I have, as far as I know no conflict of interest, financial or otherwise. If I am collaborating with this other editor, I should remove much of my explanations, at present posted on the talk page. Am I allowed to do that? All this will take some time – weeks rather than days. What should I do with this revision? If it is rejected a third time, I risk another ten years of ‘blocking’. Can I run it past you, before submitting it? Many thanks for your patience. Ian Brockington, March 1st 2020. 2A00:23C5:EC0A:5800:E8B3:8353:1E8:E69A (talk) 17:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC)Son of Fraser and Joyce2A00:23C5:EC0A:5800:E8B3:8353:1E8:E69A (talk) 17:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC)