Talk:Misophonia

Some research has been done now

The article states "As of 2014 there was no evidence-based research available on misophonia."

I've found this paper reporting on some research. It's not extensive and it's not a review article, but it's something. I wanted to note this, and i'll add it if i can get to it, if nobody adds it first. SageRad (talk) 23:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

And, a good recent source here that could be integrated into the article. SageRad (talk) 01:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

that statement is sourced to the Duddy 2014 review. If you read that review, it cites the paper you link there. A case report with 11 people is not evidence-based research. Jytdog (talk) 01:39, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the Cavanna & Seri (2015) review as follows:

The pathophysiology of the anomalous physiological/autonomic effects in the context of misophonia has recently been investigated: a study by Edelstein et al showed increased autonomic responses to auditory (but not visual) stimuli in six subjects with misophonia, compared to typically developed controls.7 Albeit in a small cohort, findings from this study using skin conductance responses provided an objective corroboration to subjective reports that specific sounds evoke intense emotional and physical reactions.

I think that shows that it's evidence-based research taken seriously by reviewers in a secondary source. We do not make the determination. Experts in secondary sources are qualified to do that. SageRad (talk) 01:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

look at all the things that cavanna says about "evidence". Jytdog (talk) 01:59, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

What exactly are you hinting at? Please be more specific. What sort of changes to content do you advocate? SageRad (talk) 02:01, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I am not advocating any changes - you apparently are. I am unwatching this article. Good luck with it. I hope you stick around as this article is beset by advocates. You can deal with them now. Jytdog (talk) 02:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I think this source is interesting. I'm going to look into it. AbsenceOfSound (talk) 21:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the problem Jytdog had here was that the source seems to be primary. However, Cavanna and Duddy are good resources, this particular report is a first hand account. Perhaps this is where the confusion was? Any thoughts? AbsenceOfSound (talk) 03:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Question about Over-Reliance on A Source

Bruxner, G (2016), "'Mastication rage': a review of misophonia - an under-recognised symptom of psychiatric relevance?", Australasian Psychiatry: Bulletin Of Royal Australian And New Zealand College Of Psychiatrists, 24 (2): 195–197, I understand that there are few sources, and even fewer secondary sources on the disorder, however... this citation has been used quite a few times throughout the article. Currently there are 10 citations attributed to this one source. I am wondering if any one has any thoughts on this. What are the general rules for project medicine and using sources all over an article? AbsenceOfSound (talk) 04:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

By default, I do not care about the sources. If the facts are uncontroversial and correct, there is no use reading the guidelines to the smallest letter, as that may lead us to remove valid information. If there is any particular point, where you think that source gives questionable information, that would be a different matter. Mlewan (talk) 05:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. Sounds good. I'll look over the sources to make sure. As for now, I think it's ok. Particularly difficult for a disorder with little sources. Thanks again! AbsenceOfSound (talk) 06:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Question about "External Links"

I am wondering if the "External Links" should include a link that has been sourced and listed in the text. Is this redundant? Quiet Please has been mentioned heavily, and has been sourced several times. What are the usual policies for external links? Are they usually listed as other sources as well? In particular, I'm asking you, @SageRad after reviewing the Recent Edits. Samara-x (talk) 22:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I do not know. I noticed after my edit that it was mentioned in the text. I wouldn't mind if it were removed from External links section. I also don't know about the categories. I simply wanted to have discussion on those separately if someone wants to remove them for some reason, instead of an IP user making a removal with an inscrutable edit summary. SageRad (talk) 22:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed on that point. However, I think it would be reasonable to remove the link now that it's been discussed. I think it has ample mention. Samara-x (talk) 23:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I removed the content about the movie. That was 100% sourced to WP:SPS (the website for the movie, indiegogo, and IMDB) and that is not how we do things in Wikipedia. Please read WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS. Jytdog (talk) 16:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I think that it's extremely useful for readers to see that there is a film about this condition. I think that's a useful external link. I would support adding the external link if it is not mentioned in the article itself. SageRad (talk) 21:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

If nothing else, it should be an external link. Simply removing it is careless. Samara-x (talk) 21:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Question about placement of statement

This statement, "It may be a form of sound–emotion synesthesia, and has parallels with some anxiety disorders" currently appears under the "Classification" heading. Since it is speculation I am wondering if it would be better off reworded and added to "Research Directions"? Perhaps something like this:

It has been suggested that the disorder----"may be a form of sound–emotion synesthesia, and has parallels with some anxiety disorders"

Any thoughts? @Ozzie10aaaa @SageRad Samara-x (talk) 03:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

It is about classifying it. Jytdog (talk) 18:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Interesting that you are fine with speculation if it fits YOUR idea of an article, and yet you remove several academic sources by well-respected researchers. I am not talking about the "Misophonia" world, or "research" teams. Samara-x (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

pretty everything about this is speculative as it is not well researched; am following MEDRS sources. Jytdog (talk) 23:37, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Promotional/advocacy editing

I unwatched this for a while. I checked it over and sure enough a bunch of promotional/advocacy editing has crept back in. I cleaned it up and am watching this again. Content about the putative condition must be sourced per WP:MEDRS. Research should be sourced to secondary sources per WP:MEDRS[, WP:SCIRS, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV. We need to be very careful to source non-biomedical information to high quality reliable sources. If content is sourced only to primary sources, blogs and editorials that is a sign that things have gone off the rails.

As is evident to any independent editor who reviews this Talk page and its archives as well as the article's history, from time to time this article has been skewed by advocacy editing favoring one or more "teams" involved in misophonia treatment and research and criticizing other teams.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - it is not a vehicle for advocacy for the condition nor for any teams working on it, per the policy, WP:SOAPBOX. Jytdog (talk) 17:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

It is an actual condition. The article should be useful to readers above all. I would also caution you to be very careful about accusing other people of promotional or advocacy editing, when people may actually be simply trying to improve the content of Wikipedia in a very honest and good faith way. When you say that somebody has a motive that is impure or somehow unwanted on Wikipedia that is quite an accusation. I also would like to say that I find some of your recent edits to be unhelpful to the article and to be decimating the article without just cause. Perhaps you are fighting a demon that is not there. Perhaps you're tilting at windmills that don't need to be knocked down. Perhaps others are trying to improve Wikipedia by adding useful content. Guidelines and policy must be followed but I'd like to see a cooperative process here and you have entered the article brandishing accusations that others are editing for the wrong reasons here. That really doesn't seem to be assuming good faith to me. SageRad (talk) 21:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

What "teams" have been advocated? All sources were academic and followed a trail that had been cited between each other. Research Directions are an imperative knowledge for a disorder yet to be classified. It seems you, @jytdog have already made up your opinions based on past experiences. This is NOT neutral. Aside from that, the sections you removed much from ie society and culture had been discussed between other editors, and you decided to remove it without discussion. While you dislike the sources used in society/culture, they were not "scholarly" but this is not what that section is for - it is to teach persons about the culture of the disorder, something that may be useful to those struggling with a disorder they know little about. Please examine source by source, and not your mere "opinion" of the sources. I have spent hours reading each article, and incorporating them. Samara-x (talk) 21:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, instead of any discussion you have stripped the article back to bare bones. I am wondering, what is YOUR aim here? You have accused me of having a motive when clearly you have an idea of just how this page should look. The articles cited are OK but there are several research articles that have amassed on Auditory over responsivity in the past 20 years. This was listed as possible research directions and NOT as main content - which is even stranger that you have removed it without discussion, especially since work on the amygdala has been prominent in science. What do you hope to achieve by keeping the page a bare shell? Instead, shouldn't you allow persons reading the article to draw their own conclusions - especially in regard to academic sources? Samara-x (talk) 22:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Would be fine with "research directions" sourced to a review; it is not OK to build a survey from primary sources. For the society and culture section please do read RS; high quality sources are preferred. Jytdog (talk) 23:29, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

There are multiple review articles that survey the literature and describe research directions.
What particular sources did you find to be troubling in terms of quality? SageRad (talk) 00:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Number of edits from [1] to [2] in 51 minutes: 27. All of them with a similar sort of goal of removing material or making it seem that misphonia is not an actual thing. Edits like this one with edit summary :remove statement that "misophonia is X". not clear that this exists and we cannot treat it as though it does, at this time" seem to be pushing a cause to make the article absolutely not state that misophonia is a thing that exists. It seems Jytdog's mission is to make sure that the article absolutely will not speak of misophonia because he does not think it is known to exist. I say that is wrong according to reliable sources and is not neutral in point of view. We have a fundamental conflict of perspectives and goals here. I think this version from before the rapid editing by Jytdog is a better than the current version, more useful for a reader, and more neutral. I think the article has suffered a sterilization.
I think we need a good, solid meta-discussion with all cards on the table. Jytdog, what is your goal for the article? How do you want to see the topic treated? Who are you accusing of "advocacy editing" or any other improper motives? Please be specific and do not put out general accusations without objects to be hanging in the air over this discussion. What problems do you see? Do you think there are people with an improper agenda trying to make it "seem" like misophonia is a real condition and can be written about in Wikivoice as such, using reliable sources? If so then state that outright. No more innuendo please. SageRad (talk) 13:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)