From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Guardian Article[edit]

User:Black Kite, please do not revert a good edit without basis, see WP revert policy. Make edits that are limited in scope, do not mass revert a contribution that adds useful and relevant information to the article. Don't engage in contentious edit-warring behavior. If you want to discuss the Guardian article and Oaklander's comments further, here is the place to do it. Martin Friedrichsen (talk) 17:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

The quote is misleading when pulled out and dropped in our article. I have removed it, and you need to discuss it and seek consensus before you add it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:07, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the burden was on the reverter/editor who removes information to seek consensus if there is a dispute? In any case, there is absolutely no reason not to include this Guardian article and the comments of a Harvard Medical School professor stating that Morgellons is a neurological itch disorder (not DOP). Refusing to allow this source betrays the deep bias of the few WP editors active here and skews the article's POV. One cannot pick and choose which newspaper sources you allow in this article purely to support your notion (and/or the general consensus) of what Morgellons is. This causes false balance in the WP article. This article includes newspaper articles referring to fringe theories that Morgellons is linked to UFOs, biowarfare, and chemtrails, all of which are far more "fringe" than Oakland's statements--the views of an established medical expert--who is stating that Morgellons is a neurological (not psychiatric) disorder. Frankly, this is egregious. Martin Friedrichsen (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
You're wrong. You can't pick and choose quotes from an article to suit your POV. It's made quite clear in the article that Oaklander does not believe Morgellon's to be anything other than self-inflicted and to cherry-pick those quotes is basically misleading Wikipedia's readers as to the article's overall commentary. Either include both sets of quotes or none - anything else is synthesis and disallowed here. Black Kite (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
You're also wrong about the burden. WP:BRD - Bold, Revert, Discuss. You insert something contentious, if it's reverted, you discuss. Incidentally, I have reported you to WP:AN3 now because your editing is not acceptable. Black Kite (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Okay fair enough, I will look back at the Guardian article and pull quotes that are more reflective of the overall commentary. But I will correct you that, while Oaklander does believe the wounds are self-inflicted, she does not believe the condition is (nor do the medical professionals who think it is DOP). Rather, she believes those afflicted are driven to self-inflict wounds based on a neurological problem rather than a purely psychiatric one (re-read the article). On a separate note, I would remind you to assume my good faith. My only interest is in improving WP, and my interest in this page stems from my interest in idiopathic medical conditions. Martin Friedrichsen (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
WP:BRD is a suggestion, not a policy. I engaged with BRR, an alternative way to reach consensus, as I genuinely felt your revert was in error. Reporting me for edit-warring after a 2 reverts (you also made 2 reverts) seems necessarily contentious and certainly shows you don't assume I am editing in good faith.Martin Friedrichsen (talk) 17:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
It's an explanation guideline for WP:CONSENSUS which is policy. —PaleoNeonate – 19:30, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
I reported you to AN3 not because you reverted me twice, but because this was there was a pattern of reverting a number of editors over the last 3-4 days. Unfortunately you simply can't keep editing against consensus. Black Kite (talk) 19:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

"Informal name"[edit]

Using the informal name text in the first sentence violates WP:NOTDIC. I understand the need to ensure the reader knows it is a delusional disease, but the first sentence says that it is 'self diagnosed' and the 2nd sentence explicitly states that medical community thinks it is a delusion. Furthermore, say it is an 'informal name' in no way makes it clear that the medical community thinks it is a delusion. Fairies are also fictious but that article manages to talk about them without saying that it is an informal name. Ashmoo (talk) 15:03, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I got a question. If Morgellons is the informal name, then what's the formal version? LookWhosBack (talk) 15:34, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

There is no formal name for the invented condition other than delusional parasitosis. What else would you like to name the article? The form of delusional parasitosis wherein people believe textiles emerge from their epidermis? Natureium (talk) 15:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2018[edit]

Nitajain (talk) 11:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2018[edit]

I wouldn't change anything but I would add: The other common denominator in this disorder is very often methamphetamine use. Methamphetamine is known to cause formication (sensation of something crawling on the skin)in a small subset of users. This causes the subject to scratch and "skin pick" which is the original source of the sores. Over time they then start to find microscopic fibers in the wounds, usually from their clothes and if their investigation leads them to expose subdermal layers they can interpret their own tissues as worms or other parasites. Emergency Physicians see this phenomenon on a regular basis and will confirm it with a drug screen and lack of occurrence of sores where the patient can't reach (i.e. between the shoulder blades). Because formication and other delusions are more frequent during withdrawal, and because amphetamines are not the ONLY cause of delusional thought the drug screen isn't always positive. Formication is not itself a delusion but a real sensation reported by amphetamine users, in alcohol withdrawal and occasionally psychotic disorders. The central nervous system, bone and skin arise from the same embryonic layer and are the three systems affected by methamphetamine. Daniel Ziegler, M.D. Emergency Physician Ziphler (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2018 (UTC) ziphler 16:33, 4 March 2018 (UTC) Ziphler (talk) 16:52, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion but Wikipedia content is built from reliable sources. For content about health, "reliable sources" are defined in WP:MEDRS - basically, recent reviews in good quality journals or statements by major medical/health bodies. Jytdog (talk) 18:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Dr. Ziegler, thanks for catching this. I'm surprised it's missing, and it needs to be added. Please try to find some RS which mention this connection. BTW, I added your missing sig. The one there was no good. It didn't link to your talk page. Just use four tildes and automation will place a properly formed signature and time stamp. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:43, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
It could be added if there were MEDRS sources for it. I check pretty regularly on this topic, and I am not aware of any. I just checked again and there are no refs at all in pubmed). Jytdog (talk) 22:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
That would support cocaine abuse as a cause at the related delusional parasitosis page. Will add there. Jytdog (talk) 23:51, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I knew I was in trouble as soon as I started writing. Emergency Medicine is very much a clinical specialty and there is a subgroup of common presentations that aren't true emergencies so get no research attention from our membership but we still have to deal with them and this one happens at least a few times/month. Determining that sores are likely excoriations by looking where they are not is a basic physical exam technique and can be found in physical exam texts and probably dermatology texts. Amphetamine induced psychosis and its propensity to evoke formication is in the pharmacology literature. My 1st degree was in pharmacology and I remember reading about it in Goodman and Gilman albeit a million years ago. That somebody has decided to suddenly give it a person's name and call it a rare disease is typical of the modern era and it would seem in this case someone has pulled an end-run on your WP:MEDRS by even getting "Morgellons" listed. The wiki article spells it right out. There is no scientific basis and the name was not even from a doctor but from "a mother who rejected the medical diagnosis" Of course if its out there in the popular rhetoric it needs to be addressed but it reminds me of a story my histology teacher told us about an international meeting of anatomists, pathologists, and histologists that took place in the 70's at which they adopted modern day nomenclature under threat from the russians that if there was one more structure, characteristic, or disease given a persons name they would retaliate by naming everything they could after russians. I'll see what I can dig up and will behave myself henceforth. BTW I did put four tildas for a sig and then went back to correct a word and signed it that way again but I also put my name. 10:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ziphler (talkcontribs)