Talk:Megalomania

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Psychology (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

The Megalomania Entry Has Been Hijacked By a Wiki-megalomaniac[edit]

A perhaps well-intentioned "editor" continually deletes attempts to enhance the entry. He/she has no listed credentials other than enjoying certain types of music, and taking pride in deleting the work of othersLearner001 (talk) 17:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)(talk) 17:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned 17:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to IllaZilla. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 17:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes. Do you know of this person? Note to IllaZilla. This Megalomania is a public page. You don't own it. Any further capricious deletions on this page will be reported. If you have a criticism, it's welcome: post it on the page. Please see problem areas with your general editing "work". It's well known. Best advice: please refrain from any further involvement with this page.Learner001 (talk) 18:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I know him. He's a bit deletion crazed and at times ownery but he means well. By the way Learner001, kindly refrain from making statements about the editing of articles within the articles themselves. It's unprofessional. Take the case to IllaZilla's talk page.--Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
You are right. I did that out of utter frustration. I would like to start a new article about megalomaniacs in history, but I got sidetracked. Not sure why he's so interested in that page. I did not change anything other than add examples. Is that a wiki-problem? Also good to hear that you think he means well. Thanks for your input. Seriously!Learner001 (talk) 19:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Are there specific edits of mine that you're upset about? Could you possibly provide diffs to illustrate? I assume you are talking about my removal of your list of "Significant historical individuals..." As I explained in my edit summaries, this is not a list article, and having such a list in this article is not appropriate. The "List of megalomaniacs" article was deleted by consensus because it was deemed inappropriate. The same goes for having the exact same thing in this article. All of them were unsourced and based entirely on your own point of view, and there is little to no encyclopedic value to having a "list of megalomaniacs" in the article. Feel free to report me, but I am confident that community consensus will support me on this issue (it already has, per the AfD of the list article). I will thank you not to make personal attacks or rants about me here, on my talk page, Jupiter's talk page, or elsewhere. You do not own this article any more than I or anyone else does. We are all welcome to edit it, as long as we act in good faith to improve it, and none of us are confined to editing only those areas of Wikipedia that we express interest in on our user pages. It is clear from your user page that you are editing this article with a high amount of POV, and that simply will not be tolerated. If you can come up with some kind of referenced, well-written prose section that discusses "megalomaniacs in history" or something along those lines, that content would probably be very welcome, but this "list of people I despise because I believe they are active human parasites" (though you used more weasely wording) will simply not stand. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Delusions of grandeur?[edit]

This article quickly presents megalomania as separate from delusions of grandeur (in the second paragraph). Yet it seems to focus entirely on delusions for the rest of the article; perhaps I'm missing something here, but this seems off to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.177.184.188 (talk) 00:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This is DrTonyFlagg speaking. The problem is that there is no article entitled "Delusions of Grandeur" and so material on this phenomenon must share space with Megalomania. If a separate article for Delusions of Grandeur were created, then this material could subsist there. At present, however, it seems appropriate to me for the material to be in the Megalomania article, to provide readers with information to the effect that Megalomania and Delusions of Grandeur are not at all the same thing. DrTonyFlagg. --Drtonyflagg (talk) 04:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I definitely think delusions of grandeur should be made as a separate article. Does this need to be done by an expert, or can anyone with the proper sources do this? 207.237.41.202 (talk) 23:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
As long as you've got sufficient source material to support the article, go for it. I recommend reading Wikipedia:Your first article for guidance. Also check out the core policies WP:V and WP:NOR, the guideline WP:RS, and WP:CITE. Those should help you get rolling. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Every time I try to transfer the information about delusions of grandeur to its own separate article, other editors keep taking it all out. The delusions of grandeur article desperately needs its own space and should stop being redirected here. Roastporkbun (talk) 09:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

How to make "delusions of grandeur"/"grandiose delusion" a separate article?[edit]

Can we just transfer the information the the new page? 207.237.41.202 (talk) 00:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd recommend rewriting it from scratch. We want to avoide cut & paste moves, as the page history must be kept intact in order to provide proper attribution to our contributors. Check out Wikipedia:Summary style for guidance on splitting topics. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I just reverted the definition proposed by the anon. In Megalomania's context the word "mania" has nothing to do with "rage" as the anon has written. "Mania" means "obsession" in this case. so I reverted to the previous, correct, definition. I also reverted the other massive changes because I think massive changes have to be discussed before they are implemented. Dr.K. logos 02:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I was the anon before. "Mania" might mean obsession in this context, but neither the Greek translation of "mania" nor the clinical definition of mania means obsession. The sentence incorrectly translated the Greek "mania" to mean obsession. Roastporkbun (talk) 03:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Nice to meet you Roastporkbun. The Greek translation for mania has various meanings depending on the word it is attached to. For example "Kleptomania", "nymphomania" and of course "megalomania", etymologically, do not denote rage but rather extreme attachment, i.e. obsession. As far as the clinical definition I am not an expert so I cannot reliably comment on that. Dr.K. logos 03:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello, nice to meet you as well. Perhaps that entire second sentence can be omitted? It already gave some of the Greek etymology in the first sentence. Roastporkbun (talk) 03:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
It's not a bad idea. But just to make sure, "Μεγαλομανία" does not mean "big rage" but rather an extreme attachment to "grandeur". Dr.K. logos 03:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok. Took out that second sentence and just linked the etymological mania definition to mania. Roastporkbun (talk) 03:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Great. I also add the (non-clinical) dictionary definition of "Megalomania" here

2. An obsession with grandiose or extravagant things or actions.meg'a·lo·ma'ni·ac' n., meg'a·lo·ma·ni'a·cal (-mə-nī'ə-kəl), meg'a·lo·man'ic (-mān'ĭk) adj.

just in case we may want to use it some place. Dr.K. logos 03:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

How can I transfer the contents of the page to delusions of grandeur?[edit]

Without being reverted for blanking the page? -Roastporkbun (talk) 10:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that, instead of transfering the content, you rewrite it from scratch. As I explained above, cut-and-paste moving is generally a bad thing because the edit history must be in the same place as the content, per the GFDL. However, if you gathered several sources and wrote new prose of your own, you should have no problem building a decent article on delusions of grandeur. You could then do a summary style fork from this article. --IllaZilla (talk) 10:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I created a small paragraph over at Grandiose delusions for the purpose of expanding this topic. Would I be able now to take out the delusions of grandeur paragraphs from the Megalomania article? -Roastporkbun (talk) 02:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I suggest doing that, but leave a couple of sentences summarizing the relationship between megalomania and grandiose delusions/delusions of grandeur. Then place {{main|Grandiose delusions}} above it. Basically I'm picturing something like this:

== Delusions of grandeur ==

Main article: Grandiose delusions
The relationship between megalomania and delusions of grandeur has been studied by...etc. etc. etc. Psychologists believe that there is a close relationship between the two conditions.
Does that make sense? --IllaZilla (talk) 03:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I'll continue to work on it. -Roastporkbun (talk) 06:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Merging the sections that discuss delusions of grandeur into the delusions of grandeur article[edit]

I think the grandiose delusions and psychotic/schizophrenic paragraphs of this article should be merged to the delusions of grandeur article. Anyone? --Roastporkbun (talk) 06:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


Mmkay, I'm going to take it out of this article then. Roastporkbun (talk) 17:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Contents box[edit]

I would like to suggest that the contents box be moved to the beginning of the article, rather than sitting towards the end. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 13:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Pseudo science[edit]

This article is full of pseudo science and baloney. Megalomania is a non scientific colloquial word. --Penbat (talk) 16:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Utter nonsense, I agree. Wiki red herring number 99,999,997... (sorry, I made that statistic up. Maybe, if I publish it first before putting it here, then it will become "real", citable information..?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.249.161.8 (talk) 22:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Megalomania should be merged with Grandiose delusions[edit]

I think that this link is where the idea that "megalomania is discussed in DSM-IV" came from. Certainly "grandiosity" is mentioned in DSM-IV as a symptom of various disorders. It is ambiguous whether the author is saying that the word "megalomania" actually appears in DSM-IV or if he is just providing a synonym for grandiosity. I would be surprised if "megalomania" appeared anywhere in DSM-IV and if it did it would just be as another word for grandiosity as a symptom of various disorders and certainly not as a defined disorder. This supports the idas that "megalomania" should be merged with the Grandiose delusions article with "megalomania" as a redirect to Grandiose delusions. There is no reference to megalomania in DSM-IV Codes which lists the names of all the DSM mental disorders.--Penbat (talk) 17:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Support merger.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support merger. See for example fr:Megalomanie et fr:Folie des grandeurs, the second redirects to the first. --MathsPoetry (talk) 07:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose merger. This merger proposal is historic as it started about 3 and a half years ago - since then, to my mind, the distinction between the 2 has since become very clear. "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) 08:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Penbat's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Penbat's reasoning. Lova Falk talk 19:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

"George Bush and megalomania" of questionable neutrality[edit]

Actually, it is completely biased. If you are going to state these facts regarding "George Bush and megalomania", do so with facts from both sides - and expand more than 2 sentences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.50.130 (talk) 00:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The section says what the sources say. "Both sides" is a meaningless expression for Wikipedia's Npov policy. If you have other sources, add them.--Sum (talk) 01:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The text was copied from an existing Wiki article Bush on the Couch which is also linked to. You should raise any concerns wth that article not this one. That article simply describes a single book, it is not intended as an objective analysis of Bush's mental health.--Penbat (talk) 03:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

As IllaZilla pointed out, this is not an article about megalomaniacs in history. The works of one author and his contempt for George W. Bush do not contribute to this article in any fashion, and as Penbat added, it is not an objective analysis of Bush's mental health. As such, it does not belong in an article on mental health. If we were to make the egregious mistake of mentioning every person in history who has been subject to questions of mental health to this article, it would be overwhelmingly subjective and unnecessary. As such, I am deleting the section on George Bush, as I will state once more It has no relevance to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.20.57.138 (talk) 01:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You should argue for the deletion of Bush on the Couch not this section. Megolamania isnt a scientific word. This article has a section suggesting that Alexander the Great was megalomaniac and Bush and there is a historical quote from Betram Russell. So there is plenty of history here. Bush on the Couch is just the view of 1 author deemed worthy of a Wiki article - who know there may be cther books on Bush saying his mental health is perfect. --Penbat (talk) 09:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Please don't start edit wars to delete sourced content.--Sum (talk) 10:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that Bush on the Couch should be deleted but if anything is to be deleted it is Bush on the Couch as this section simply summarises that article.--Penbat (talk) 10:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not advocating that we delete the Bush on the Couch article; the goal of wikipedia as I understand is to be an open source of knowledge, and keeping track of books is part of that. However, the content from that book is not relevant to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.20.57.138 (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Precisely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.20.57.138 (talk) 05:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)