Talk:Grandiose delusions/Archives/2013

Merge with Megalomania

Suggestion : merge with Megalomania and convert to a redirection. See the low number of interwiki links on this article, this is a clue that something is wrong. --MathsPoetry (talk) 07:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Very different, Megalomania is a historic name for Narcissistic personality disorder (although still in use today colloquially), while Grandiose delusions are symptoms that appear in several places in the DSM such as for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.--Penbat (talk) 08:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

??? Narcisism is excessive admiration of oneself (see the Greek myth of Narcisse, who gets drowned by admiring himself in the water, then falling into it), and megalomania is grandiose delusion. At least that's the way ot works in French, "folie des grandeurs" is a strict synonym of "megalomania". "Folie des grandeurs" is considered the colloquial version, and "mégalomanie" is the medical term. It works the same in Greek, "μεγάλως" (megalos) meaning "greatly", "grandiose": the etymology show that they are the same. I find it had to convince myself that it does not work the same way in English. --MathsPoetry (talk) 12:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of its French or Greek origins, it is the DSM that now defines things since about 25 years ago. Megalomania was a medical condition pre DSM, mentioned by Freud for example, but no longer.--Penbat (talk) 16:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, if this has become normative in English, it can't be contested. I suppose you mean "per DSM" above. Too bad however that it introduces a discrepancy with French terms and the etymology. Thanks for the explanation. Best, --MathsPoetry (talk) 08:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal

God complex has been previously nominated for deletion and rejected; I still feel that the content is largely non-encyclopedic and therefore should be largely excised, and I think that whatever's left would be better suited to this page anyway. BatmanAoD (talk) 04:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Like I just stated in this edit summary while trying to remove the tag: "A person does not have to have a mental disorder to have a god complex."

Further, like the God complex article states: "God complex is not a clinical term or diagnosable disorder, and does not appear in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)." It shouldn't be merged with this article for the same reason that it shouldn't be merged with the Narcissistic personality disorder article, which is what it used to redirect to. This edit summary by a different editor explains the matter quite sufficiently. The God complex article could be appropriately expanded to better show itself as the social, non-medical topic it is. Flyer22 (talk) 05:15, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose: This is just adding to the confusion. Grandiose delusions & god complex are very different. Grandiose delusions appears in the DSM as a possible symptom of various mental disorders. God complex is not an official mental illness but most likely relates colloquially to a variety of narcissistic personality disorder (which appears in the DSM), or more broadly, narcissism.--Penbat (talk) 07:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose: per both Flyer22 and Penbat Lova Falk talk 06:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

There has been a confusion - this article refers to Grandiose subtype, not a separate diagnosis

Delusional disorder has several subtypes, of which grandiose type is one. Grandiose delusions does not appear in either DSM-IV-TR or DSM-5. Farrajak (talk) 02:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Farrajak, I cannot find the discussion about this move. Or is this the discussion before you made the move? Lova Falk talk 07:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose move: I think by your logic, there ought to be separate articles for "Grandiose types" and "Grandiose delusions". We also already have "Grandiosity" article. This is getting silly. It is also wrong to paste in "grandiose types" onto sources that say "Grandiose delusions" or similar just because that's the phrase the DSM uses when the source is talking about the concept in broader terms. It isnt black and white that the DSM is the bible and thats all that matters and any psychiatric discussion of broader concepts isnt valid.--Penbat (talk) 08:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose move I don't have DSM-5 (yet) but "grandiose delusions" is mentioned in DSM-IV-TR: pages 311, 319, 357. Also "grandiose type" is mentioned, and both concepts are clearly not mentioned as interchangeable concepts. Lova Falk talk 08:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Ah yes so that blows User:Farrajaks basic premise that "grandiose delusions" are not in DSM and demonstrates that it cant be interchanged with "grandiose types" as Farajak has done. However it does sound like in theory there could be separate articles for "Grandiose delusions" and "Grandiose types" but probably not worth the trouble.--Penbat (talk) 09:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, if anyone feels like creating Grandiose type I won't protest... Lova Falk talk 14:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, "Grandiose delusions" is covered in a sentence or two here and there in DSM-5. Is that enough for a whole article filled with {{primary sources}} and inaccurate information? Farrajak (talk) 23:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

reversion of corrections without consideration of reference

This was reverted without discussion.[1] This dispite the fact that the article doesn't take into account the DSM-5, as well as the mixup in language (like comparing Grandiose delusions with auditory hallucinations and confabulation (a memory disorder that has nothing to do with delusions). Further, many sources are {{primary sources}} which is against the standards for WP:Verifiablity and WP:MEDRS. Please address these problems. Farrajak (talk) 23:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)