Talk:Munchausen by Internet/Archive 1

"Kaycee Nicole"

Many of these links, except ones to the Wired article and to a blog, appear to be dead.99.240.139.189 (talk) 06:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Melanie Johnson

While reading this article I noticed something curious - the line "In 2008-9, 16-year-old Melanie Johnson from Thunder Bay, Canada claimed to suffer from many diseases through MSN." seemed to have nothing at all to do with the citation given. Reviewing the history, it would seem the user Imissyoumostofallmydarling inserted the line after the information the citation was meant to refer to. The actual information, then, was ironically removed for being uncited. I have since reversed this error. My money's on Imissyoumostofallmydarling actually being Melanie Johnson, and I will be watching this page just in case. --74.170.53.76 (talk) 08:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

My concern is that losing one's spouse isn't a class case of Munchausen--which is usually more about faking an illness. There are other good refs n that Viillage voice article. Maybe discuss one of the others?

More broadly, I think we don't want to list every person who fooled people and get into tabloid-ish details. We want to describe the phenomenon more neutrally and clearly.

Asbruckman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC).

Sources, sources, who's got the sources?

The following paragraph in the article has no sources, but makes remarkable allegations about persons (or personas, anyway) that may be living persons:

Emma revelled in the sympathy of other mothers, despite the person who invented her not having any children of her own at the time. Emma Bowyer claimed to have a ten month old daughter while imminently expecting twins, which had been conceived shortly after the daughter was born. As the twins came to term, Emma claimed to have complications and one of the twins died. She later gave birth to the other twin. Later, her second twin died, and soon afterwards, Emma was pregnant again, with yet more twins. This caused people to become extremely suspicious and ask questions, and soon the story started unraveling. By this time, a "friend" had posted in her own name, on Emma's behalf, and a Robert Bowyer, supposedly Emma's airline pilot husband, posted to update members on her progress. Robert Bowyer, as was later discovered, didn't exist either. Emma's inventor also signed up to the site under other names - Jo74 and Kerrytwinkle.

Can anyone justify the presence of such an unsourced paragraph, apparently entirely net.drama, in a Wikipedia article? --FOo (talk) 06:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree it needs more sourcing. I've looked through all of the sources for the Emma Bowyer section and none of them look like reliable sources to me. I've removed all of the Emma Bowyer info from the article. –Megaboz (talk) 17:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Possible defacement (or really poor use of english)?

"claimed her husband had been killed in a plane crash to garner an orgasm."

No 'orgasm' is in any source material. Defacement, or really poor grasp of english? I'm not sure but I'm guessing this doesn't exactly belong —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.120.80 (talk) 08:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

"was first coined"?

A minor point, I know, but still. The 'Characteristics' paragraph tells that the term "was first coined in 2000, by Marc Feldman [...] in an article". That should be rephrased. With all respect for Feldman, he was the nth person to invent the term (I saw it between 1995 and 1997, but guess it's almost as old as the newsgroups). A possible solution may be to state that this was the first use of the term in a scientific article, or something along those lines - if this is indeed the case. Wurdnurd (talk) 12:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I hate the word "coined" anyway. I adjusted the sentence to reflect when it was first published in medical literature. I'm sure you know unless a source states when the term was first used, I have to go with the most reliable source. --Moni3 (talk) 12:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Feldman says he coined it.[1] —mattisse (Talk) 19:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Münchausen by Internet/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Unclear writing. Way too formal. In short, hard to read. The second paragraph has no references (perhaps OK in a short lead, when the info is reffed below, but not in a long lead). It looks like the bulk of the article is based on the work of a single person (Feldman), but that's not clear from the beginning. The main need is for more natural language. Noloop (talk) 20:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, in simple language, this subject is: Making up stories of serious medical conditions, presumably to get attention. And doing it on the Internet. So...1) That can be said in a way that is easy for readers to understand quickly, but this article doesn't. 2) Why isn't this a section in the article on Munchausen syndrome generally? Not sure it needs its own article. Enlighten me! Noloop (talk) 20:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment and other comments

It has been suggested via WP:Psychology talk page and my talk page here that this should be treated as a medical/psychology article. I worked rather diligently to ensure the writing is accurate and professional, not informal. I do not believe the language is unnatural. Which part is unclear? I have asked advice from Wikiproject Psychology and Wikiproject Medicine who have not stated the writing is unclear.

If you are referring to the second paragraph in the lead, citations are not required for leads per WP:LEAD. If you are referring to the list of characteristics, the list was paraphrased from a single source, which is cited.

If you want to start a merge process, you are free to do so, but that is separate from the GA review. I would disagree, as this is a specific manifestation of Munchausen and Munchausen by proxy. It has enough sources that are specific to computer/internet culture to give it its own article. Such emphasis on internet culture in either Munchausen article would be distracting, in my opinion.

Further, I am concerned with the suspected banned sockpuppet banner on your talk page. I am going to refer this GA review to the GA talkpage. --Moni3 (talk) 20:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Agree with fail - I agree with the reviewers comments. My concern is that it is unclear who uses this term "Münchausen by Internet" other Marc Feldman et al who apparently coined the term, and perhaps a few online sources who picked up on the novelty of the term and the current fad for Münchausen disorders, which are informal names for legitimate psychiatric disorders. The general psychological/psychiatric disorders are known as Factitious disorders. Naming conventions for medical conditions are quite clear that the medical diagnostic term be used. See Medicine-related articles - Naming conventions. Further, the article refers repeatedly to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, published by the American Psychiatric Association[2], the standard diagnostic manual for psychiatri disorders but which does not mention this disorder. This is misleading and seems to be legitimizing the use of this term by relating to standard medical sources. The linked article Münchausen syndrome by proxy probably should not exist either, and is a collection of trivial, OR, and a similar attempt to legitimize a slang or lay term. If someone wants to write an article on Feldman and his attempts to set forth standards etc. fine. But to write an article posing as a psychiatric disorder, while referring DSM is not ok, in my opinion. The rest of the article concentrates on Feldman's ideas, and perhaps becomes OR as it attempts to relate Feldman's ideas to the internet community/culture in general. Like other psychiatric disorders, eg Major depressive disorder, this article should use the sourcing standards of WP:MEDRS if it is to pretend to be a psychiatric/psychological diagnosis. If it is going to be a popular cultural article, it should not pretend to be a psychiatric diagnosis, and admit it is engaging in pop psychology. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 22:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• The article reflects the bulk of material printed about a phenomenon straddling internet culture and psychology/medicine. GA criteria demand that information is cited to reliable sources, neutral, and well-written. You have not addressed these issues.
• The DSM is integral to understanding how Munchausen by Internet is related to factitious disorder and factitious disorder by proxy. However, the lead is clear: Münchausen by Internet is not included in the DSM as of 2009, but it has been described in medical literature as a possible manifestation of factitious disorder or factitious disorder by proxy.
• I agree that it would be swell to have more than Feldman's opinion, but JAMA, Southern Medical Journal, and Psychosomatics have printed his articles and opinions. Your issues seem to be related to deleting or merging this article, not GA criteria. If you are claiming issues of notability and fringe science, you should initiate those processes.
• Munchausen by proxy is included and described by the DSM and widely discussed in reliable medical literature. That issue is irrelevant here, however. --Moni3 (talk) 23:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Please provide some evidence that "Munchausen by proxy is included and described by the DSM". You do not have any links in the article showing that. Rather, you misleadingly link to Factitious disorder diagnoses. This is a fork if you are saying this is the same thing as a Factitious disorder. One man does not a theory or a diagnosis make. You should show multiple sources validating this is a legitimate term, separate from the Factitious disorders. And that it is in the commonly used diagnostic manuals, DSM and ICD. —mattisse (Talk) 00:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision

Appendix B: Criteria Sets and Axes Provided for Further Study > Proposed Disorders >

Factitious Disorder by Proxy

Topics Discussed: factitious disorder by proxy.

Excerpt: "The essential feature is the deliberate production or feigning of physical or psychological signs or symptoms in another person who is under the individual's care. Typically the victim is a young child and the perpetrator is the child's mother. The motivation for the perpetrator's behavior is presumed to be a psychological need to assume the sick role by proxy. External incentives for the behavior, such as economic gain, are absent. The behavior is not better accounted for by another mental disorder. The perpetrator induces or simulates the illness or disease process in the victim and then presents the victim for medical care while disclaiming any knowledge about the actual etiology of the problem. The most common induced and simulated conditions include persistent vomiting or diarrhea, respiratory arrest, asthma, central nervous system dysfunction (e.g., seizures, uncoordination, loss of consciousness), fever, infection, bleeding, failure to thrive, hypoglycemia, electrolyte disturbances, and rash. The simulation of mental disorders in the victim is much less frequently reported. The type and severity of signs and symptoms are limited only by the medical sophistication and opportunities of the perpetrator. Cases are often characterized by an atypical clinical course in the victim and inconsistent laboratory test results that are at variance with the seeming health of the victim.The victim is usually a preschool child, although newborns, adolescents, and adults may be used as victims. With older children, consideration should be given to the possibility of collaboration with the perpetrator in the production of signs and symptoms. The perpetrator receives a diagnosis of factitious disorder by proxy. For the victim, Physical Abuse of Child (995.54) or Physical Abuse of Adult (995.81) may be noted if appropriate. In the event of voluntary collaboration, an additional diagnosis of Factitious Disorder may be appropriate for the collaborator...."

DOI: 10.1176/appi.books.9780890423349.5088 [3]

You brought up Munchausen by proxy saying it should not exist. I do not understand why a condition being considered for inclusion by the DSM should not have an article. Unless you meant it should not exist as a factitious disorder. If that's the case, it is even more irrelevant to the GA review of this article.

Feldman posits that Munchausen by Internet is a manifestation of factitious disorder. Factitious disorder communicated online instead of at hospitals. It's not the same thing and the article does not say it is. That's cited to his article published in a peer-reviewed academic medical journal. --Moni3 (talk) 00:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• The one link you provide, above, is to Factitious Disorder by Proxy[4] —mattisse (Talk) 00:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, in response to your statement Münchausen syndrome by proxy probably should not exist either, and is a collection of trivial, OR, and a similar attempt to legitimize a slang or lay term. I never claimed, nor does the article, that Munchausen by internet is in the DSM. In fact, it states the exact opposite. --Moni3 (talk) 00:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

But the link was not to the DSM diagnosis Münchausen syndrome by proxy.[5] The words "Munchausen" is not the same as "Factitious". Do you not see that these words are not the same. You cannot just willy-nilly substitute one word for another in a DSM diagnosis. The words matter. I give up. —mattisse (Talk) 01:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I agree. Words matter. Let's get to what the issue really is, then I'll address your point here.

• Should this article have been quick-failed or closed within 9 minutes, or any time under 7 days according to the quick fail criteria?
• Are the sources cited in this article reliable and a representation of the best literature dedicated to the topic?
• Is the article neutral?
• Is the article well-written?
• If that answer to the last three questions is no, should instances of this article not meeting the criteria be pointed out to the nominator to address them?

That is what the GAR is about.

You have introduced a tangent, and I'll play along for now. Wikipedia's article for Factitious disorder by proxy is titled Munchausen syndrome by proxy. If your point is that that article should be titled Factitious disorder by proxy, I agree. However, I do not understand why you would protest the title of an article tangentially related to this one, specifically citing it in why you think this article should not pass GA. Furthermore, per this page Munchusen syndrome by proxy was Factitious disorder by proxy's initial term. This article uses Factitious disorder and Factitious disorder by proxy, giving their former and common/popular names in parentheses. These issues are very clear to me, as are the GA criteria. --Moni3 (talk) 01:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I would encourage discussion of issues related to the community GAR to take place at WP:Good article reassessment/Münchausen by Internet/1 (or its talk page). The article talk page is intended precisely for issues about general improvements to the article (such as article title changes). As a remark on the latter, the capital "I" for internet may be inappropriate (I don't know). Geometry guy 01:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It is my understanding that as a title, Munchausen by Internet should be capitalized, but internet by itself should not. Is this not correct? --Moni3 (talk) 01:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. Why should "internet" be capitalized when "proxy" isn't? These things change with time, of course, like hyphens. Geometry guy 02:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I will be happy to change it if a MOS policy somewhere addresses it. --Moni3 (talk) 02:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is the editor is not following naming conventions of diagnostic manuals and the professions of psychology and psychiatry that only capitalise the first letter in a diagnosis. —mattisse (Talk) 12:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comments
• The lede sentence is misleading: "Münchausen by Internet is a term used to classify behavior patterns that mirror elements of factitious disorder ..." Unnecessarily weasel wording.

To remove POV and restore neutrality, it should state that it is "coined" or "dubbed" or "used" by Marc Feldman and picked up popular journalists.

• The article is POV because it presents this term as a is a formal diagnosis, falsely clothing it in DSM legitimacy. In reality, the article serves as a forum for one man's point of view, his naming gimmick for which he successful received a lot of press. There is no evidence any professional psychological/psychiatric organizations took up this term. It is misleading to provide web links to Factitious disorders as sources. You should change the name to Factitious internet disorder by proxy if you can find sources for that.
• The article is well written in the sense that proper English is used, but it is used to mislead.
• The article contains OR, as you combine general information on internet culture that do not mention Feldman nor Münchausen by Internet with info from articles about Feldman and his coined term. Also, Münchausen by proxy is not the same thing as Munchausen by Internet. Feldman is merely drawing an analogy. All the articles that I could access (all but the Lancet journal article) mention Feldman and no other professions, except the general internet culture one that doesn't mention Münchausen by Internet. Combining information like this is OR.
• It does not take more that a quick read to see the failures of the article. Further, the assumption is that the review did not read the article before he opened the GA1. I always read an article and even to a simple evaluation before I sign up to review it. So focusing on the number of minutes is a red herring. —mattisse (Talk) 12:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • This it the MOS naming convention, including psychiatric/psychological terms in DSM: MoS medicine-related naming conventions. Must use to be correct if you are referring to formal diagnoses from DSM, DSM is published by the American Psychiatric Association and provides diagnostic criteria for mental disorders.
  • This is one man's theory and that should be made clear in the lede.[6]

—mattisse (Talk) 15:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Diagnosis is never used in the article. The article merely paraphrases what has been published about a phenomenon.

• From the Southern Medical Journal, 2000: I present four such cases and, based on experience with these and other cases of "virtual" factitious disorder and Munchausen by proxy, summarize indicators of factitious Internet claims and the reactions that participants usually experience once the ruse is recognized.
• The risk exists not only that faulty information will be imparted unwittingly, but also that cyberspace resources will be deliberately misused to garner attention and nurturance. Such online behavior can be viewed as a manifestation of factitious disorder or Munchausen by proxy (MBP).
• False claims of victimization have also been conceptualized as a variant of factitious disorder or MBP.

• From the Western Journal of Medicine, 1998: (First paragraph of article) FACTITIOUS DISORDERS involve the feigning or selfinduction of ailments, physical, emotional, or both, in the service of assuming the "sick role."' The form factitious disorders have taken, from simulated seizures to self-induced infections, are limited only by human creativity. 2 In Munchausen by proxy, also called "factitious disorder by proxy," persons may demonstrate equal ingenuity in falsifying or creating illness in others, the goal being to assume the sick role vicariously.
• Feldman and Smith have written about the immense toll factitious disorders and Munchausen by proxy can have on family members, friends, and caregivers.4 Reports such as those just described make it clear that the repercussions can resonate further, coming to involve persons who have never met, who live in disparate parts of the world, and who know each other only as they have chosen to depict themselves in virtual support groups.
• People who misuse internet support groups to mobilize attention may, like factitious disorder patients in general, communicate knowledgeably, but also strike others as unduly vehement about the extent of their personal struggles.

• To understand and for clarity, with only two examples shown above that Munchausen by Internet has been connected to Factitious disorder and Factitious disorder by proxy by a professor of psychiatry who helped write the Psychiatry Online DSM description of Factitious disorder, that it is inappropriate to explain how Munchuasen by Internet is related to Factitious disorder and Factitious disorder by proxy. And that referencing how the DSM--the best possible source on behavior disorders--categorizes and describes Factitious disorder is inappropriate. Is this your point?

• Please indicate which sections/sentences include original research.
• In response to your suggestion that the article be renamed per MOS medicine-related conventions, again, diagnosis is never used in the article. There is no formal diagnosis and the article does not claim there is. --Moni3 (talk) 15:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for 1st two sentences

"Munchausen syndrome is the seeking of attention for physical or psychological ailments that do not exist. Münchausen by Internet refers to Munchausen syndrome occuring on the Internet." Seems a lot clearer. Also, I have to take issue with Moni3's suggestion that natural language "dumbs down" an article. Noloop (talk) 21:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Per the Wikipedia:LEAD#First_sentence, the first sentence, and preferably the first words, should contain the title of the article. It should start with Munchausen by Internet is ...

As for formal vs. natural language, I'm not sure if you think I was struggling unnaturally while writing this to create painfully unclear language. This is natural language to me. If you endeavor to perform other GA reviews in the future, provide specific examples from the article that should the nominator should fix. Improving the encyclopedia and self-improvement is not possible if criticism is expressed in vagaries. --Moni3 (talk) 09:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe that comes from reading too much :-). I know i can write the most hideously convoluted sentences when writing papers, but they seem fine to me! I love me some Virginia Woolf-style run-on semi-colons, but seems i am in a minority there (and the MoS probably bans them). Anyway, my suggestions:

Make the lead 3 (small) paragrpahs:

1)The first paragraph is a very simply description of what the phenomenon is ("MbP is a term used to describe the phenomenon of people making up or exaggerating illnesses during internet interactions, in order to gain sympathy"), and that the term itself was coined by Feldman in year xxxx.

2) The second paragraph starts with acknowledging the novel nature and that it is not officially recognized. It also points out that proponant of the term consider it to be a type of Munchausens sydrome or MbP, which are in the dsm.

3) The final paragraph remains as the current last is, covering the factors and occurance.

Would that be a compromine for all? (being not too long and repetitive, simple intro to casual readers, and clear on its status in psychological circles). Should i take a stab at writing it?YobMod 10:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry there. Didn't see your suggestion when I posted the section below. I'm ok with a 3-paragraph lead. I'll pay cash money not to use the term "coined", however. That's a rake-chalkboard word. --Moni3 (talk) 10:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Introduced? :-)

Lead clarity

Recurring comments about the clarity of the term in the lead prompt me to revisit it.

Precisely because it is still in the observation stage is why I chose the wording currently in the article: Münchausen by Internet is a term used to classify behavior patterns that mirror elements of factitious disorder. This distances the term from fact. It is used by someone (explained in the body of the article) to mean a pattern of behavior.

An alternative: A1

Münchausen by Internet is a manifestation of factitious disorder and factitious disorder by proxy expressed primarily through internet communications such as chat rooms, message boards, and Internet Relay Chat (IRC).

This, however, is more declarative, as if it is widely recognized by the psychiatric/medical community at large. If it is not already clear in the lead that Munchausen by Internet is a specific avenue for factitious disorder, then it should be made so.

An alternative: A2

Münchausen by Internet describes behavior patterns that mirror elements of factitious disorder and factitious disorder by proxy expressed primarily through internet communications such as chat rooms, message boards, and Internet Relay Chat (IRC).

This is a fairly short article. If general comment is that Feldman's name appear in the lead, then I guess it should appear in the lead. But he would have to be described as he already is in the first section of Characteristics, as a professor of psychiatry at the Center for Psychiatric Medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. I thought it cumbersome and unnecessary to have his name and title appear twice so closely. I can't get hold of two articles written by others, that may describe the phenomenon. I have to order them through Interlibrary Loan. When/if they get here, and Munchausen by Internet is used by other researchers, would it still be necessary to mention his name in the lead? Or is it really necessary to do so now?

Thoughts? --Moni3 (talk) 10:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I propose an even simpler first sentence above - making it so simple that someone reading at newpaper level (age 9 for UK tabloids) would encorage random page readers to continue, imo.

What are the other papers? I have uni library access, so might be able to get them sooner (or can ping some other acedemics to email them to me).YobMod 10:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Two papers:

• Munchausen's syndrome by Google.Citation Only Available (eng; includes abstract) By Griffiths EJ, Kampa R, Pearce C, Sakellariou A, Solan MC, Annals Of The Royal College Of Surgeons Of England [Ann R Coll Surg Engl], ISSN: 1478-7083, 2009 Mar; Vol. 91 (2), pp. 159-60; PMID: 19317939 Database: MEDLINE with Full Text
• A simulated case of chronic myeloid leukemia: the growing risk of Munchausen's syndrome by internet.Citation Only Available (eng) By Caocci G, Pisu S, La Nasa G, Leukemia & Lymphoma [Leuk Lymphoma], ISSN: 1029-2403, 2008 Sep; Vol. 49 (9), pp. 1826-8; PMID: 18608864 Database: MEDLINE with Full Text

See also this section of my talk page for more papers, some of which may be able to be used, but mostly not. --Moni3 (talk) 10:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, L&L is not available at all online, and Annals... is avaiable through pubmed, but they don't put the most recent 12 months there.YobMod 10:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Neither A1 nor A2 are clear. A well-educated non-specialist won't know what "factitious disorder" means, and without that knowledge you can't know what is being said. Wikipedia is for non-specialists. Noloop (talk) 15:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Factitious disorder, in my opinion, is the most accurate way to describe what Munchausen by Internet is. Do you have a suggestion? --Moni3 (talk) 15:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Technical jargon is often the most accurate efficient way to refer to something; that's why it exists. The problem is that it is technical jargon, so non-specialists won't understand it. I gave my suggestion:

Munchausen syndrome is the seeking of attention for physical or psychological ailments that do not exist. Münchausen by Internet refers to Munchausen syndrome occuring on the Internet.

In this case, I don't think it is important to follow a rule about having the article title in the first sentence. It's good to indicate that the topic is a sub-class of something more general. Noloop (talk) 16:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

A compromise, I hope. I'm pretty set on the name of the term as the first part of the sentence. Otherwise, the very first words will confuse readers.

Münchausen by Internet is a pattern of behavior where internet users seek attention by feigning illnesses through online communications such as chat rooms, message boards, and Internet Relay Chat (IRC). It has been described in medical literature as a manifestation of factitious disorder or factitious disorder by proxy, which are described in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM-IV-TR (DSM) as psychological disorders in which the primary demonstrations are behaviors that earn sympathy for physical or psychological ailments that do not exist. They are intentionally feigned, not for monetary or other gain or to avoid inconvenient situations, but solely to attract compassion or to control others.

Reports of internet forums being fooled by users who portray themselves as gravely ill or victims of violence have appeared only recently with the relative _newness_ of internet communications. It was identified by a psychiatrist named Marc Feldman in 1998, who gave it the term "Münchausen by Internet" in 2000. It is not included in the DSM as of 2009.

Factors facilitating the development of factitious disorders via online correspondence involve the availability of medical literature on the internet, the anonymous and malleable nature of online identities, and the presence of communication forums established for the sole purpose of giving support. Several high-profile cases have allowed behavior patterns to be documented which are common among those who pose as gravely ill, victims of violence, or whose deaths are announced to online forums. The virtual communities which were created to give support, as well as general non-medical communities, often express genuine sympathy and grief for the purported victims. When fabrications are suspected and then discovered, the ensuing discussion can create schisms in online communities, destroying some of them and altering the trusting nature of individual members.

I can't think of a better word for newness. --Moni3 (talk) 16:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Novelty? Recency? LeadSongDog come howl 15:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Novelty was my first guess too, but it also means something cheap and easily discarded--like novelty party favors, which internet communication is clearly not. Relative recency? I dunno. What do you think? --Moni3 (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Crisis of identity?

Is this article attempting to describe a psychiatric condition, a psychological one, or none of the above? The distinction is, I think, important in the context of the "one man's idea" objection that has been raised; psychology is a science, psychiatry is not. Even the most cursory glance through medical journals will show doctors publishing accounts of observations involving far fewer subjects than would be required for statistical significance.

Clearly the term has entered popular culture though, but this isn't written like a popular culture article. My belief is that this article has a crisis of identity, and it needs to decide exactly what it's aiming to be. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Psychology is a science, psychiatry is not? I don't know what that means. Do you want this to look like a pop culture article? If so, which one(s)?

I constructed the article based on what is presented in the sources. Why would it not defy categorization? A psychiatric problem inflicted upon a vast, faceless audience. Technology gives the power to inflict more pain to more people. That sounds like the basis of a SciFi novel. I have to stress again the novelty of this phenomenon. Consider it similar to the discovery of a new organism, made possible by technology. It may take a while for it to be studied or categorized. But then, the implications on internet behavior come into play. Almost everyone reading this article will know an instance of this happening in a forum they've participated in, if they've participated long enough. It is my OR that whatever bonds people make in their instant idealized anonymity allows them to fall patsy to this kind of behavior. Maybe as internet babes in the proverbial woods, we know better than we did in the 1990s, and this will be a relic of our first foray into online communications where we get to look back with fondness on how naive we all were.

This is all irrelevant to the construction of the article, which should reflect the points made in the best reliable sources. I believe it does. If you have suggestions as to how else it should be constructed, please post them. --Moni3 (talk) 12:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to recast the article more in the style of, say sockpuppet. That Feldman, who coined the term (I just put that in becuause I know you don't like "coined" ;-) ) is a psychiatrist is of interest, but it doesn't make the condition any more of a psychiatric disorder than it would if a journalist had invented it. It just makes it a term that's been popularised by someone who happens to be a trick cyclist. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

With a Durova-created image at the top as well? The one with the Rx clipboard? That would illustrate a whimsical concept nicely.

It is my impression that article structure should follow what reliable sources have printed. Should your suggestion be used instead? If that is the case, I disagree, but I am not keeping you or anyone from editing the article. --Moni3 (talk) 15:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree then, as it's clear to me that as presently structured the article is expanding on Feldman's concept and limited research in a way that does look very much like synthesis. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

A full assessment of what has been paraphrased or synthesized can only be performed by reading the sources, which I am again offering to anyone interested. Email me and I will attach articles as pdfs or copy and paste as text per the format they are available to me. --Moni3 (talk) 21:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

There are at least two issue in play here. The first is the GA assessment, which you say you're no longer interested in pursuing. The second is the article itself, irespective of any independent criteria. It's in no danger of being AfDd, and that some consider that it does not at present meet the GA criteria has become irrelevant, so there's no longer any urgency to do anything. Wikipedia is better off with this article on MBI than without, which all that really matters so far as I'm concerned. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Malleus

I agree with Malleus. It is probably best to recast the article as a popular culture article framed so it does not mislead people into thinking it is a medical diagnosis. (The article as written straddles the fence. It mimics the tone a medical article but is not sourced as one.} Then the article should follow the standard polices/guidelines regarding WP:V and WP:OR. Supporting WP:RS should be found for the term, so that Wikipedia is not pushing one man's theory. Articles on the general culture of the internet should not be used by the article's editor to put together the editor's view of how Münchausen by Internet operates per WP:SYN. The very fact Münchausen by Internet is capitalized as it is, instead of Münchausen by internet as standard terminology for diagnoses dictates, shows it is not a diagnostic term commonly used in the field. Write it as a pop culture article and drop the medical/scientific pretensions, unless support for this angle can be found. And drop the OR speculations and enhancements.

Münchausen by Internet is a term used to classify behavior patterns that mirror elements of factitious disorder and factitious disorder by proxy expressed primarily through internet communications such as chat rooms, message boards, and Internet Relay Chat (IRC).

Does Feldman mention message boards, IRC etc.? He is concerned about on-line support groups for health issues only.[7] I don't think Feldman is into the other behaviors mentioned farther down, such as stalking. Stalking has little to do with the motivations behind Factitious disorders and therefore, by analogy, presumably behind Münchausen by Internet. The editor has interjected OR and this must be carefully checked. Articles that mention problems that "sound" like they are talking about Münchausen by Internet but do not mention the "diagnosis" of Münchausen by Internet should not be used to support the article editor's thesis that these are the same. The article is OR the way it is written now. It needs someone besides Feldman to validate the general use of term, not just someone mentioning Feldman and his term. Wikipedia will become a major vehicle to push Feldman and his term.[8] If Philcha, who proposes to review this article for GA, checks this article as carefully as he checked the article by Malleus he reviewed, there should be no problems, and if he makes sure the statements are supported, with no weasel words. Who uses this term to "classify behaviors", for what purpose and under what conditions? The point of a diagnosis is to determine a treatment. What is the treatment for Münchausen by Internet? Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 13:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Addendum. "A psychiatric problem inflicted upon a vast, faceless audience. Technology gives the power to inflict more pain to more people." ??? The issue in a psychiatric diagnosis is not that the condition is "inflicted" on others. The primary focus is the individual suffering from the condition. Others may be, and usually are, affected negatively, but the psychiatric focus is on treating the illness in the individual. —mattisse (Talk) 13:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

When Feldman was asked What advice/treatment, if any, do you offer people who confess to you that they have perpetrated such a deception? Is there an accepted way to "treat" this?, he answered (in part) I usually respond by suggesting that they gain more knowledge of MBI and FD/MS in general, perhaps by reading my book, Playing Sick (which has a "Cyber-deception" chapter) or by reviewing the links on my website at http://www.munchausen.com. Feldman also mentioned this Wikipedia article.[9] —mattisse (Talk) 21:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Review of the article

Lead

1. Comma - "disorders, in which" The comma can be removed as it divides a clause into two. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The rest of the lead has a strong grammatical structure. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Characteristics

1. Denotation - "The term Münchausen by Internet was" When you say "term" or "word", you should denote the term or word within quotation marks for clarity. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

2. Phrasing - "in the Southern Medical Journal in 2000, in an article written" the repetition of "in" gives an awkward feel to the sentence. Here is a possible rewrite: first published in an article written by Marc Feldman, a professor of psychiatry working at the Center for Psychiatric Medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, for the ____ 2000 Southern Medical Journal." "___" denotes the month of the issue. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

3. Tense - "Feldman notes" You use "was" in the previous sentence. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

4. Clarity - "with a specific problem" - "Medical problem"? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

5. Clarity - "before presenting to a medical doctor" The term "presenting" may confuse lay readers. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

6. Phrasing - "individuals are able to " - "can"? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

7. Comma use - "with their limited time, as well as" The comma can be dropped as it splits the parenthetical clause. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Notable cases

1. Clarity - "Denise Grady employed" Please mention in a parenthetical statement who he is. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

2. Grammar - "These include a woman..." then you list only one within the sentence. Re-preface each description by saying "one case" or something similar. That will allow you to separate "A teenager" from the previous individual. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

3. Phrasing - "involving a 15-year-old boy involved in an online support" The duplication of "involve" makes the sentence feel awkward. You could use "participating in an" and transforming the "involving" into "involved". Ottava Rima (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

4. Clarity - "The boy's mother was deaf and his father" According to whom? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

5. Clarity - "woven the stories of three cancer patients to create that of Kaycee Nicole," The use of "that" lacks an appropriate grammatical referential. Replace with "to create the story" or "create the character"? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

- I am half way through the page now. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Causes

1. Clarity - "Feldman has admitted that" in his book, an article, etc? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

2. Clarity - "factitious disorder remembered" Remembered where? See above at point 1 in "Causes". Ottava Rima (talk) 20:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

3. Clarity - "a member of the support group for premature infants stated" See point 2 and 3 in "Causes". Ottava Rima (talk) 20:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

4. Phrasing - "Reports seem to parallel" - "seems" sounds too colloquial. How about a more technical term? I can't think of a strong substitute. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

5. Clarity - "A communications professor " and "social theorists write " - Names? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Impact on online communities

1. Phrasing - "only to move to other websites to display" - Repetition of "to". How about "only to move onto other websites and display"? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

2. Clarity - "Denise Grady noted" Who and where? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

3. Clarity - "London admitted" and "Feldman notes" - where? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

4. Grammar - "However, in 2005 a participant in a 7,000-member online support group brought a lawsuit against a website for defamatory language, following heated discussion about his dire predicaments and related crises, which seemed to contradict medical knowledge and his own accounts." You have a clause confusion. Your parenthetical clause is followed by another ("in 2005") and the main clause is followed by a parenthetical clause with another inside of it. Here is an attempt at rewriting - "However, a participant in a 7,000-member online support group brought a lawsuit against a website for defamatory language in 2005. The lawsuit followed heated discussion on the website about his dire...." Ottava Rima (talk) 20:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

5. Phrasing - "When the presiding judge intended to allow cross-examination of the plaintiff's medical history, the lawsuit was withdrawn" - Move "The lawsuit was withdrawn" to before "when" and change "when" for "after". Ottava Rima (talk) 20:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

6. Comma use - "lies, while others " The comma divides a clause in half and separates two components that should be linked. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

7. Clarity - "A grief counselor who witnessed the outpouring of emotion for Kaycee Nicole likened" - Where? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

8. Clarity - "The authors of an article" - Names? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

- Many of the concerns about the scientific nature of the article can be overcome by stating who writes various articles and identifying academic sources that are sometimes alluded to but not identified. I will go through the sources now, but it does check out to be a medical condition, or a component of an actual medical condition. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I made most of the changes you listed here. Once I think the language became so cumbersome it was difficult to construct a sentence about a chapter of a book cited in a paper about online deception.

Geometry guy's closing remarks at the GAR suggested placing the DSM info in the text of the article. I'm considering how to do this, either by removing it from the lead or duplicating it.

I am continuing to search for more info. It seems MBI is being considered one of many factors that indicate problematic internet use. This paper (p. 212-213) discusses adding an internet-related impulse control disorder to the DSM. Two journal articles I've read address the internet as a tool for patients to get hold of doctors. One in Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery specifically warns doctors about MBI patients who may suck all their time, using Feldman as a primary cite. More as/if I find them... --Moni3 (talk) 18:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Source discrepancy

I have received the last ILL source I requested, from the journal Leukemia & Lymphoma (2008) that describes a woman who falsified her medical records and brought them to a clinic in Cagliari, Italy, attesting that she had leukemia. She got the information online, copied and pasted it into a document, sealed it and handed it to her doctors as correspondence ostensibly from her previous doctor's office. She was a frequent participant in online mailing lists. The article states, "Fortunately, within a short time, our patient was suspected as being a case of 'Munchausen by Internet'". Two of Marc Feldman's articles are cited in the paper; they are also used in this one. However, Feldman seems to be rather clear that in order to be considered a case of Munchausen by Internet it must be expressed primarily online in order to mislead an audience on the internet.

This is one of perhaps three articles that address factitious disorders that have been facilitated by online information as opposed to attention-seeking behaviors that are presented primarily through the internet instead of doctors.

Anyone have any thoughts? --Moni3 (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Amanda Baggs

• 40 page extensive, high detailed, very thorough, carefully written, professional report [[10]]: Compelling testimony from people who knew her between 14-18 years old. More, her internet Google-Group posts uncovered, their evolution from 1994-1998 tracked, from DID (multiple personality) group, to Schizophrenia group, to Autism group. And more.--CommunityCenter station2 (talk) 06:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Since we're dealing with Biography of living persons issues, a major newspaper, magazine, or professional journal should verify the facts presented in the link. Certainly not a blog. I am aware of the controversy surrounding Baggs, however. --Moni3 (talk) 12:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Some media and specialist physicians are considering the matter currently. Yes with no media coverage, it wouldn't be included in wikipedia. In the meantime, I'm curious of your, and others, opinions on the Amanda Baggs Controversy report. Since 2008, it's been developed by Chris Ralanelst graduate of Reed College and resident of Portland, Oregon and Seattle, Washington. He began compiling and analyzing hundreds of emails and hundreds of Amanda Baggs's Google-Group posts from 1994-1999 (14-19 years old) (Aside to this - with her apparent Internet Münchausen, there also follows rankerous Internet gossip about who is criticizing her, and assumptions are made about who, with no care. Including by Amanda on wrongplanet.net ("he" did x y z and a c d and h f w), and including by Amanda's attorney Ann Bevington on autismspeaks.com forum with her own name. Most of her posts were deleted by the forum administrator. I suppose, a part of Munchausen by Internet is, often, great resistance and aggression toward those who try to hold you accountable for your Munchausen. Is this type of aggression common? Demonetization, and legal terrorism, against those who try to show you're lying? The legal terrorism has apparently been somewhat successful in deterring the main witnesses from continuing to testify; they are two doctors, who went to college with her at Simon's Rock college when she was, yes, 14-15 years old, an early entry college for gifted students, she was 100% verbally fluent the entire time, prior to this she went to the Johns Hopkins Center For Talented Youth, and The Harker School (prep school), all elite schools and she was 100% verbally fluent and had many friends, etc etc. The doctors, Daniel Drucker Ph.D and Ophelia Austin-Small Ph.D, as shown in their statements at the above report, have said they don't have the time or money to go to court against attorney Ann Bevington. This should be another part to this Munchausen. That is, the lengths Amanda would go to protect her Munchausen from being revealed.--CommunityCenter station2 (talk) 06:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

My opinions don't matter on what is going on outside of Wikipedia. None of our opinions really do. We can only present what is verified in reliable sources. When they involve potentially damaging information to living people, they have to be verified beyond a doubt. To include information about Baggs, a source would be needed to confirm that she is actually not autistic and a source would have to confirm that she exhibits components of Munchausen by Internet. No sources that I'm aware of do either of these right now. --Moni3 (talk) 12:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

My questions etc are mainly for informal discussion here. Maybe those interested in Munchausen could stimulate additional discussion among the media about this.

Donna Williams case. Diagnostic Controversy, section 2, and Australia Broadcasting Company 1996 article. Donna's case is similar to Amanda's. Amanda's is more pronounced though. In ABC interview, several people who knew Donna in the past are interviewed, including her doctor. Their testimony is similar to the testimony given by some people who knew Amanda in the past. As typical, Donna responds aggressively. A rare Nevada TV interview with Donna. Recently this has generated forum and blog discussion about "does she have autism", as she is very clearly and very obviously lacking what is typically considered the wide range of symptoms of autism. In short she appears and communicates well within the normal range. I do not think any medical professional would diagnose her as even remotely autistic given her communicative abilities, emotional abilities, person-to-person interactive abilities, quality and quantity of eye contact, expressive abilities... Again just informal discussion about this.--CommunityCenter station2 (talk) 18:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I am all for discussing issues pertinent to Wikipedia, but this is not the right venue to do it. Unless an individual is specifically connected to Munchausen by Internet by a reliable source, this space per the WP:FORUM guidelines should be reserved solely for discussion about this article. If you would like to discuss the material in the Amanda Baggs article, use that talk page. If you are more interested in chatting about who is or who is not actually autistic, Wikipedia may not be the right venue for you at all. --Moni3 (talk) 18:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

"syndrome" in article title?

Shouldn't this article be titled Münchausen syndrome by Internet, just like Münchausen syndrome by proxy? --Dan Leveille^TALK 23:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think not. The source material does not say it is Munchausen syndrome by internet, and these are medical/psychological sources, so I'm leaning to what they are stating. While it may seem a bit informal to leave "syndrome" out, it's a fair point to note that this is a pattern that resembles a manifestation of munchausen syndrome and from what I read, no one has been diagnosed. --Moni3 (talk) 23:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)