Talk:Obsessive–compulsive disorder/Archive 1

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


Useful public domain source

Here's a useful public domain booklet; material from this can be freely copied into the article [1] Enchanter 00:13, 15 January 2003 (UTC)

Link currently dead, alas boffy_b 22:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Dead, but the content is still available at the Internet Archive. Jareha 22:00, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


The article linked to by extinction is irrelevant. I don't know what to change it to, as there is no article about the indented meaning of the word "extinction". However, extinction (disambiguation) mentions it. —Daniel Brockman 21:14, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Why italics instead of quotes for titles of works?

I don't know who at Wikipedia decided that titles of books, films, etc., should take italics rather than quotation marks, but it's an atrocious decision. Italics might be the way it's done in freshman college essays, but it's not the way it's done in the real world. Check the stylebook of most any contemporary publication; quotes are used for titles.

The italics look amateur. (Which I suppose is what Wikipedia legitimately is, when it comes down to it.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:14, 28 October 2004 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I checked the periodicals that are currently lying in heaps all over my house. Quotation marks: The New York Times, The New Yorker, The San Francisco Chronicle. Italics: The New York Review of Books, The Nation, The Comics Journal, The San Francisco Bay Guardian, Poets & Writers Magazine, Nurse Week. I think there's more diversity in "the real world" than you're suggesting – though I do speak as an amateur. Hob 03:47, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Then again, the OCD page is probably the last place I want to be starting a nitpicky argument about details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:14, 28 October 2004 (UTC)

HA! Thanks for that. Hob 03:47, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
For what it's worth, Hob, it's the Harvard Standard, and I have rarely come across any other way of cited sources in any of the journal articles i have read throughout my career.-- 23:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
The way my high school English teacher taught me, titles of "full-length" works like books, plays, albums, and movies are supposed to be italicized, while titles of "short" things like short stories, songs, and magazine articles are to be placed in quotes. The CITE tag in HTML, intended for use with titles, is generally rendered in italics. -- Dan -- 03:30, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Picky Picky. Does it really matter on a free-based online encyclopedia that anyone (well, almost anyone) can edit what is italic and what is not? --Admiral Roo 10:52, 23 June 2005 (UTC)
The AP style uses quotations over italics (italics or underlining is the correct way to denote longer works) only because "type face cannot be sent through AP computers." That's from The Associated Press Stylebook, 2004 edition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Minor quibble

"An estimated two to three percent of the population is thought to have OCD or display OCD-like symptoms."

The population of where? I assume it's either the US or the entire world, more likely the former, but it's not exactly clear. TheJames 00:54, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Minor quibbles are OK on the OCD entry. Semolina Pilchard 13:15, 23 January 2005 (UTC)
I'd think it's the U.S. From the statistics listed, they may be referencing the 1983 National Institutes of Health survey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:16, 24 March 2005 (UTC)
"Most people who suffer from Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, usually only suffer from that of obsessions or that of compulsions. It is rare that they would develop both that of obsessions and compulsions." Ltdoyle 17:57, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
This statement is not true. Most people who suffer from OCD suffer from both obsessions and compulsions. To have either alone is extremely rare. Often, mental compulsions are confused with obsessions. See Edna Foa's work for clarification.
Bob Falk —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
While the quoted statement is definitely untrue, I think for many people the concept of "mental compulsion" is not very useful. Mental compulsions can become so entangled with obsessions that it becomes difficult to distinguish between the two. People with pure-O also almost always complain about their obsessions rather than their compulsions, and I would think for something to be considered a compulsion you would at least have to be aware of its presence and that it's unreasonable. Just trying to stop thinking about something is not unreasonable when it's extremely distressing and occupies hours of your day. --Karl —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I think that it is important for people to know that Obsessive Compulsive disorder is a very serious illness, even though it only affects three percent of the population, Obsessions and Compulsions are so powering that they can run ones life. An example of a compulsion could be the urge to pick at ones hair, where an obsession could be the thought that you have killed someone, even though you really haven't. Ltdoyle 18:04, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
It is serious. I don't suffer from it, but I have seen people with it. Thank you for your comment, and I hope the world will one day stop persecuting (sp?) ppl with a mental illness. Though developed countries are better at tolerating us then others are.  ;) --Admiral Roo 10:55, 23 June 2005 (UTC)
Actually, it is not rare to have obsessions alone, a lot of people have pure-O, although I do not know the exact percentage. You can either have obsessions & compulsions, or obsessions alone, and not just compulsions alone. Why would someone have a compulsion to do something if they do not have an obsession with it. -RockClimber15 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

List of celebrities

I think this list is highly questionable. I researched a few names just now and the links to OCD are questionable. Just because Donald Trump says he is a "germ freak" doesn't mean he has OCD. Cameron Diaz reportedly opens doors with her elbows – this is stronger evidence, but the reference was 2nd hand at best. IMHO, Wikipedia should not list someone as having OCD unless they have been diagnosed and admitted it in public. Should the list be removed entirely with names only being added back in when their OCD is verified? Robertbrockway 07:50, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree completely. The list is very misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:01, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Thirded. The list is misleading. However, I do know for a fact that both Howie Mandel and Marc Summers do in fact have OCD. At one time (and maybe still is) Marc Summers was pretty active in trying to support people with OCD. I think he used to speak publicly to raise OCD awareness. I believe that Howard Stern has also suffered from OCD at one time or another. Flyerhell 09:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Some people listed, as well as fictional people listed under 'References in Film and Literature', would be more accurately describes as Obsessive-compulsive personality disorder, which is different (eg. Bree -Marcia Cross- on Desperate Housewives. And I agree that the list needs to be shortened, with maybe a little information being added next to the names of those who are left. -Matthew238 07:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

It is almost like the list of celebrities with breast implants. Do we have sources for this apparently growing list? --None-of-the-Above 03:12, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

As per my earlier comments, I think the list of celebrity OCD suffers is highly suspect. I find it odd, for example, that the articles on Cameron Diaz or Donald Trump would not mention the disease if they indeed admit to having it. If we don't have objective evidence such as an admission or a (possibly unethical) disclosure by a medical doctor, we have no business claiming they have OCD. Robertbrockway 03:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
It seems like the entire list should be deleted, and celebreties only added to it if they can be verified as having the condition. --Starwed 10:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The list of celebs who have OCD seems very speculative. As suggested in discussion above, it should probably be purged, and names only added back in if a source/reference exists.

No particular objection was raised above, so unless someone gives reason to the contrary, I propose the list be removed in a couple of days.--Starwed 01:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted most of the list. The three that were left have OCD mentioned in their own Wikipedia article, so I left them. Anyone adding to the list should provide some source for the info. --Starwed 23:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I guess whoever keeps on reverting the list is probably just a troll, but in case they're not, they should read Wikipedia:Verifiability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starwed (talkcontribs) 22:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
The list should be moved here: Category:People with obsessive-compulsive disorder Flyerhell 20:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I am submitting what seems to be a more reasonable list. The shortened list someone put up has gone overboard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
The problem is that it isn't "reasonable" if it contains even a few names which are incorrect. Furthermore, I checked a couple of the first few famous names on the list, and couldn't find any other reference for them having OCD. I'll post the list in the talk page, but the article should contain only material which has at least some basis in fact. ^_^ Frankly I don't really care enough to research each individual to see if they do or do not have OCD. That doesn't mean I shouldn't take the couple of seconds to prevent incorrect information from staying on Wikipedia. Furthermore, the list should only contain people who have OCD, not just those who have mentioned they are "germ freaks" or whatever...
Here is a list of what appeared on the page, and which I have again removed. This list can be thrashed out here, but only those with some source should actually appear in the article itself. Note that, as the article states, "OCD should also be distinguished from the similarly named but notably different obsessive-compulsive personality disorder." I've gone ahead and done google searches for the first few. Many seem incorrect/completely undocumented, and in either case they're not suited for Wikipedia. Please don't just add the whole list back in.
--Starwed 10:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a separate list for people who were dead before OCD was even documented? Darwin, Proust, Florence Nightingale and so on... Pascal.Tesson 15:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Jessica Alba

Jessica Alba said she had OCD as a child. So she isn't a sufferer anymore. I think it would be appropriate to remove her name from the list on the article. -- Porcher 17:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. --DanielCD 17:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I completely 100% agree. Duh. --Jennifer Alison. Indiana. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I am under the impression that one doesn't "get over" OCD. Or, at least that's what I gathered from my shrink. I mean, mine is under control, but I still have it. So, I don't know if that's a valid ground for removing her. Mogwit 00:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I would leave her in, because this is not that odd. I had OCD as a child and have "recovered" though I have not undergone any formal treatment at all. I was a counter/checker, had to have things in balance/overcorrect and was a compulsive handwasher. I could not stand to have any substance on my hands. I think mine was due to anxiety; my dad suffered a brain injury and exhibited bizarre behavior so I think the OCD kicked in as a means of controlling something in my life situation. I still feel compelled to correct pronunciations but I'm a broadcaster, so that comes in handy and my 99% of counting/checking symptoms have disappeared. (A family member told me they were concerned about my "weird" childhood behavior - gee...thanks for getting me some help. Not.) :) Vsmac 17:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Joey Ramone

In case it hasn't already been done, Joey Ramone's OCD can be verified by statements made by his mother and brother in the film End of the Century: The Story of the Ramones. Also, please reconsider the "Diane Chambers" and Vertigo; they sound more like either OCPD, or minor, non-clinical compulsive tendencies, than true OCD. Illusi0nist 03:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

References in films and literature

To the anon IP, can you say something about why you're removing this list? If you feel there are mistakes in it, perhaps you could edit it rather than deleting it entirely. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:02, 22 June 2005 (UTC)

Just from reading this article, it seems that some of the references fall more closely under OCPD than OCD, such as the example from Vertigo. (Just going by the description here, since I haven't read the movie.) --Starwed 10:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The Monica Geller reference needs to be completed. Also, another example is the X-Files Episode Bad Blood,which depicts a vampire afflicted with the need to pick up something scattered on the floor by Mulder. --Silverhand 15:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed the Monica Geller reference. It looked stupid just leaving it blank like that. Just to keep it easily accessible this was the sentence: "*From the TV series "Friends" Monica Geller"
Didn't someone have OCD in Macbeth as well? I kind of remember someone washing their hands obsessively Flyerhell 20:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I remember the line "Out out, damn spot" or something to that effect. Perhaps Macbeth should be added to the list? brabblebrex 02:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Macbeth and his wife Lady Macbeth have murdered the King and others. Both have fears of being found out, and Lady Macbeth appears to suffer from OCD. The following is from Act V, Scene i: A Doctor and Gentlewoman or servant of Lady Macbeth secretly watch Lady Macbeth as she does her ritual handwashing, talking to herself the while:
 DOCTOR. What is it she does now? Look how she rubs her hands.
 GENTLEWOMAN. It is an accustomed action with her, to seem thus
   washing her hands. I have known her continue in this a
   quarter of an hour.
 LADY MACBETH. Yet here's a spot.
 DOCTOR. Hark, she speaks! I will set down what comes from her,
   to satisfy my remembrance the more strongly.
 LADY MACBETH. Out, damned spot! Out, I say!--One: two: why then
   'tis time to do't. Hell is murky. Fie, my lord, fie! A soldier,
   and afeard? What need we fear who knows it, when none can call
   our power to account? Yet who would have thought the old man to
   have had so much blood in him? 
 DOCTOR. Do you mark that?
 LADY MACBETH. The Thane of Fife had a wife; where is she now?
   What, will these hands ne'er be clean? No more o' that, my lord,
   no more o' that. You mar all with this starting.
 DOCTOR. Go to, go to; you have known what you should not.
 GENTLEWOMAN. She has spoke what she should not, I am sure of
   that. Heaven knows what she has known.
 LADY MACBETH. Here's the smell of the blood still. All the
   perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten this little hand. Oh, oh, oh!
 DOCTOR. What a sigh is there! The heart is sorely charged.
 GENTLEWOMAN. I would not have such a heart in my bosom for the
   dignity of the whole body.
 DOCTOR. Well, well, well--
 GENTLEWOMAN. Pray God it be, sir.
 DOCTOR. This disease is beyond my practice. Yet I have known
   those which have walked in their sleep who have died holily in
   their beds.
 LADY MACBETH. Wash your hands, put on your nightgown, look not
   so pale. I tell you yet again, Banquo's buried; he cannot come
   out on's grave. 
 DOCTOR. Even so?
 LADY MACBETH. To bed, to bed; there's knocking at the gate.
   Come, come, come, come, give me your hand.What's done cannot be
   undone.To bed, to bed, to bed.  [Exit.
 DOCTOR. Will she go now to bed?
 DOCTOR. Foul whisperings are abroad. Unnatural deeds
   Do breed unnatural troubles; infected minds
   To their deaf pillows will discharge their secrets.
   More needs she the divine than the physician.
   God, God, forgive us all! Look after her;
   Remove from her the means of all annoyance,
   And still keep eyes upon her. So good night.
   My mind she has mated and amazed my sight.
   I think, but dare not speak.
 GENTLEWOMAN. Good night, good doctor.  [Exeunt.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I doubt this. She was simply trying to cleanse herself of the guilt she felt from killing the king. Notice that this behavior is never mentioned in any other place in the book. So unless any dissenter wishes to add her back on the list, Lady Macbeth is getting nixed. Sanjayhari 22:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I don't think Lady Macbeth had OCD. Her obsession about washing the (non-existent) blood from her hands isn't irrational. She was complicit in a murder! Her obsession is borne of her guilt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Further, the idea that the Blackadder actors have OCD is sheer barking madness. Remove it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I strongly recommend the short story of an Russian writer Anton Pavlovich Chekhov: The Death Of A Government Clerk.
Read online:
It seems that the main character suffers from OCD... (posted by anonymUser)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

As Good As It Gets

Why does info about As Good As It Gets say something like OCD is portrayed in a sterotypical way in this movie? I don't think that this movie really was that much worse than other movies in its portrayal of OCD and a lot of aspects of this movie show the true suffering of someone with OCD....the scene where Melvin keeps locking and unlocking the door come to mind. You also see Melvin burning his hands in the beginning of the movie as well. Flyerhell 09:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, seconded- I thought that the symptoms were portrayed pretty realistically. The end credits of the film also certify that the OC Foundation of California was consulted by the screenwriters. Illusi0nist 21:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


I think it would be nice if some aspects of this article were expanded. Specifically, the history of OCD (Anal fixation from Freud????) and better treatment details (Exposure and Response prevention). Depression tends to be highly comorbid with OCD as well (Helpless-hopeless hypothosis), it would be nice if this were mentioned. Done. The part about opiates was interesting but it would be nice if it were expanded...and perhaps a reason could be offered for the treatment effects of opiates. I have read some recent research positing that the comorbidity rate of OCD with drug addiction is VERY high, perhaps because drug addiction can be viewed as a type of compulsive behavior? Done. I also take issue with this sentence: "People who suffer with OCPD tend to derive pleasure from their obsessions or compulsions. Those with OCD do not derive pleasure but are ridden with anxiety. This is a significant difference between these disorders." While people with OCD are in fact filled with anxiety, it is important to note that the compulsion RELIEVES this anxiety (temporarily)....and while the compulsions are distressing to individuals with OCD, it is important to note that since these compulsions are anxiety-relieving, the OCD sufferer may actually enjoy the compulsion to a point? Just something to keep in mind. I can make the edits, but I wanted to get some feedback on them before I do so. Flyerhell 09:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC) Revised: Flyerhell 09:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


I scanned for a few of the references throughout the article but I could not find any citations of them. If these are not actually cited in the article, shouldn't they be under "further reading"? I will also add the reference from the citation that I put into the article last week. Done. I also attempted to clean up the reference section, it appears that 2 or 3 different types of styles were used to cite references. I think that we should agree on one style. I would recommend APA (that is what I used) as this is a psych article. Let me know your thoughts. Flyerhell 09:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


Obsessive-compulsives, please join the Recent Changes patrol and monitor Wikipedia for vandalism. Your help is definitely necessary. Don't forget to eat and sleep, however. And make sure you are earning enough cash to pay for basic necessities. Thanks. -MPD 00:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Otay Buttweet. --DanielCD 22:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I doubt you meant it, but some of those comments such as "Don't forget to eat or sleep however" could potentially be taken as offensive to OCD sufferers. Deathawk 04:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I thought it was funny, and I am an OCD sufferer... However I have been dealing with the disorder for almost 7 years now and I am currently in control of it. I did lose almost 20 lbs when I was "at my worst", because I would be so consumed with other thoughts I really DID forget to eat and sleep... yet comic relief is good sometimes and helps people put things into perspective. -- Kat —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


The neuropsychiatry section is incredibly hard to read, at first it list the receptor but then it lists them again in some sort of sequence that is just incredibly disoriented, I don't object to this section but I think we should make it more readable. Deathawk 04:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Not Xenocide that dealt with OCD characters

In the section OCD in Literature and Fiction, the article claims that the novel Xenocide by Orson Scott Card features a planet where people with OCD are revered as religious figures. It was actually Children of the Mind, Xenocide's sequel, that featured this planet- it was the character Wang-Mu that most heavily presented OCD in the novel (she would sometimes have to trace wood grains).

I've changed the article accordingly. Mouseclicker 02:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Untrue. It was indeed Xenocide that featured the "godspoken" from Path. Qing-jao was the one who traced wood grains.Sanjayhari 22:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

External links

I am interested in adding an external link to our website (the OCD Center of Los Angeles at from the Wikipedia page of OCD. I have added the site 2-3 times, but it has been removed each time. I wrote an email to Wikipedia and the person who responded suggested I write to the discussion section of the OCD page.

Our site contains over 20 pages of information about OCD and related OC Spectrum Disorders. The site includes an OCD test, in-depth descriptions of OCD and Obsessional OCD, information on the appropriate treatment of the disorder, and a list of links to over 75 OCD-related sites across the world. In fact, many of the sites listed in the external links section of the Wikipedia OCD page link to our site, and one actually uses our OCD test.

I realize that one could say that our site is a commercial site, but so are a number of the current external links on the OCD page. While our site is for our clinic, it is also meant to be a resource for those seeking expert information on OCD and its treatment. I look forward to comments. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could link the specific pages that have relevant information. The front page of the clinic is probably not best; that will get removed as it looks like advertising and doesn't appear completely relevant (as it's a clinic page). But particular pages might work. You might even find some uncited material in the article body and use the information on your informative pages as a reference. Keep in mind this would also be open for someone to challenge the clinic website as an authority; it would be much better if you could refer on your pages cited the author, and somewhere on the site the author's credentials.
In short: I think an article on a webpage written by a practicing clinician in this field would be an adequate reference. It could only really be challenged if someone found research that said otherwise, but this is not likely as much of this information is quite general. I hope this helps, and please feel free to ask further questions. Thanks, and have a wonderful day. --DanielCD 02:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Also, if there are sites on the page that you feel are inappropriate, feel free to list them here and challenge them. I'll look and see if there's anything that needs attention in this regard. Thank you for bringing it up. --DanielCD 02:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
[temporary comment removed --DanielCD 23:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)] --DanielCD 03:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Daniel - Thank you for your comments. I see what you mean about the home page. I would like to suggest you take a look at three of the pages on our site which I believe offer in-depth information related to the subject of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder.
They are as follows:
I believe these pages provide information which would be of benefit to visitors to the OCD page of Wikipedia. These pages were written by myself, and I am a practicing clinician who specializes in Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for OCD. I look forward to your comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for responding again. I'll look at it when I get a moment. Right now, I wish I had six hands... --DanielCD 23:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Wow, lots going on. I added one link, so we'll see how it goes. --DanielCD 03:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


Most OCD sufferers are aware that such thoughts and behavior are not rational, but feel bound to comply with them to fend off fears of panic or dread.

I know that this is what is said about the condition, had their been not aware of, probably their cases will include delusions and psychosis. But, this bothers me, if they are aware that the fear, for example of contamination, is not real, why would they fear dead? If you know that this thought of contamination killing you is not real, why would you fear of dying? This is problematic, since it is true that they fear of being contaminated and dying from this, but is this claim of them knowing that it is not rational not unclear? I think the thing here is that psychiatrists have tried to differentiate OCD with psychotic disorders such as schizophrenia, and this knowledge that the belief does not make sense is important but I believe this sentence is problematic, it seems to be contradictory. Fad (ix) 02:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

You need to be a OCD sufferer to understand.
You know the compulsions will not do anything, but you do them just in case. I think OCD can relate to an extreme self-defence of the human organism.
For pure obsessive people, we know we will never act on the thoughts but there's always doubt.
Matt 05:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer, this was what I also understood, the 'in case it is true.' But the sentence still seems contradictory, reality testing is intact besides the thing that start the obsessions and compulsions much like a phobia. Isn't this the cases? Fad (ix) 16:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, reality testing is intact. I wouldn't say that it is completely when the actual affected individual has no knowledge of his condition though. When you have knowledge on the OCD subject, you know ie: the bad thoughts are caused by a chemical imbalance and I will never act on them. But like I said earlier, when you have compulsions, even if you have knowledge of the subject and you know that doing ie: checking 20 times if all doors are locked will not help nor prevent something, your brain still has a temptation to do it. Because it feels ironically GOOD after doing them. When you are not on medicamentation, I would say that it's better to check the door 20 times which takes about 5 minutes than think about 3 hours in bed.
Matt 22:27, 26 March 2006
As someone with OCD, I would say that the sentence "Most OCD sufferers are aware that such thoughts and behavior are not rational, but feel bound to comply with them to fend off fears of panic or dread." is absolutely true even if it seems illogical. People with OCD know their obsessions are irrational but we can't stop them. I think the best way to describe this to a person without OCD is to think of someone who is addicted to cigarettes or alcohol or some other kind of substance. The addict knows their habit is irrational but they feel like they cannot stop. However, I would say following the compulsions doesn't really feel good just neutral that the obsession is gone... And following the compulsions sometimes makes the obsessions come back even stronger and someone with OCD would feel even more compelled to do even more compulsions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I.e. if it made sense, it wouldn't be a disorder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
The sentence is perfect. Describes OCD perfectly. 04:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I highly recommend the book The Mind & the Brain - Neuroplasticity and the Power of Mental Force by J. Swartz. It examines the neural and biological issues, as well as the types of "training" to train OCD sufferers to learn how to "know" when a thought/belief that they are having is actually a symptom of a disease, and not one of their own thoughts. It is a fascinating and worthwhile book if you are interested in brain neurology and OCD. -- 23:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Florence Nightingale

I propose changing the page to:

Florence Nightingale (disputed)


Florence Nightingale (according to some sources, other sources dispute this or have other theories)

According to the Wikipedia page on her she suffered from the bipolar disorder. Not OCD. A quick Google search brought up different sources... some saying she suffered from bipolar disorder (1), others saying she suffered from Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. (2) This would constitute adding a remark stating that the claim is disputed. Especially because this is a historic person and there is no first-hand/contemporary diagnosis. The claim is based on historic evidence of the symptoms she showed. User.gif Thehardwareman T C E 07:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not aware of any credible evidence that Florence Nightingale had OCD. Her name should be removed from the list here, as speculation. [2] Sandy 10:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Citation for vitamin claim

"Studies have also been done that show nutrition deficiencies may also be a probable cause for OCD and other mental disorders. Certain vitamin and mineral supplements may aid in such disorders and provide the nutrients necessary for proper mental functioning."

To be sure, nutrition is helpful.

And to make this point even more effective, there should be some evidence to back it up. Otherwise we're in the realm of —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I have done a Medline PubMed search for medical literature on Vitamin Deficiency AND OCD and Nutritional Deficiency AND OCD. Only one abstract address nutritional deficiency in OCD and it speculates that the finding of abnormal low Vitamin b12 in OCD could be an effect of OCD or a cause. Google search was not very fruitful either though I did not spend as much time on the Google search. I recommend the statment above: "Studies have also been done that show nutrition deficiencies may also be a probable cause for OCD and other mental disorders. Certain vitamin and mineral supplements may aid in such disorders and provide the nutrients necessary for proper mental functioning." be deleted.Psychofarm 18:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The irony

Ha! an encyclopedia entry on OCD being so long because so many of the people editing it HAVE OCD. Is that Irony? Actually, it's probably the opposite. Anyway, maybe the page should have a special thanks to people with OCD for making Wikipedia possible in the first place! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

You're saying "irony", as if implying that it was a bad thing. -- intgr 07:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Do I have OCD?

I don't know but I've wondered for years if I do. Basically, both sides of my body have to be equal, for example, if I touch my right hand on something, I then have to touch my left hand on it in the same way, and it feels very irritating if I don't do it. Also, when I'm walking, say from room to room, I have to make an even number of steps in each room and I have to count my steps (in groups of 4) in my head while I'm walking. I'm 26 now and I've done it since I was about 13 or 14. Although at times it doesn't affect me at all. Does this sound like OCD? Sweetie Petie 23:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Although I'm not a professional, from these indications I would say that yes, you do certainly have OCD. I have to do a lot of things that one could call ritualistic and I am confident that I definitely have OCD, though I have not been diagnosed. There are those rare exceptions when I am not bound by these tendencies but most of the time I feel I have to do my "routines," etc. -- Huysmantalk| contribs 01:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
A lot of the time I don't think I'm affected but then again I may not realise I'm doing it. I know when I was in my teens I was so annoyed at the counting thing that I tried and tried to stop and I didn't do it for quite some time but it came back and I just live with it! Sweetie Petie 11:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Everyone has ritualistic tendencies and it is quite common to have a need for balance when it comes to touching or walking. That tendency alone does not constitute the diagnosis of obsessive compulsive disorder. One must also have obsessive thoughts which are usually scary and disturbing and of course then produce anxiety and rumination symptoms. Thethirdperson 20:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I used to have to do that when I was about 6 or so. Like thingymabob previously stated, everyone has ritualistic tendencies, like avoiding the cracks on a pavement for good luck etc. If these rituals intrude in your life, then you could be diagnosed with OCD. But I wouldn't think it's worth seeing a psychiatrist unless you really feel as though you're "suffering" from it. For me, it's as though there's "something else" inside me deliberately trying to piss me off, telling me if I touch certain people I want to have sex with them etc. So, ask yourself, are your obsessions really that inconvenient?
SubtleV 11:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The Celebrity List again

I'm giving this a seperate section so it will hopefully stand out more.

Some good work has gone on recently (a big improvement) but we are still listing people without verifying the facts. No one should be listed as suffering from a mental illness on WP without a citation or preferably a self admission. It could be considered slanderous.

I'm going to do what I should have done a long time ago. I'm going to go through and remove references to any celebrity that doesn't have a citation. Time permitting I'm going to research them to see if I can find an admission of OCD. Claiming people have OCD without proof is a big deal. Robert Brockway 07:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

As an added reminder of why we need citations please see Wikipedia:Verifiability. Robert Brockway 07:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This seems to be an ongoing problem. I have removed all the remaining unsourced names, and placed them in a section below. I apologize for the removal of some which are probably legitimate additions. However, it is better to not have someone who suffers from OCD than to falsely claim that they do. In fact, it is probably a good idea to double check even the sourced entries. I have indicated in the comment for the section that any unsourced additions will be reverted...if they are reasonable, they can be added to the list below. As sources are found, they can be removed from the list below, and added to the article.--GregRM 22:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
PS...I also realize that some entries, like Jessica Alba, Charles Darwin, and Florence Nightengale have been discussed in preceding discussion. However, there did not seem to be a clear consensus in my brief reading of these discussions, so I removed them. They can be readded to the article with appropriate sources/qualifiers/consensus.--GregRM 22:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I just realized that there did not seem to be any debate about Charles Darwin as I had originally thought. A source was provided in the older list. I will leave it up to the other editors here to decide if the source is trustworthy. (Note that it also suggests Florence Nightengale had OCD, which has been previously questioned and discussed on this page...see Talk:Obsessive-compulsive disorder#Florence Nightingale).--GregRM 22:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced famous potential OCD sufferers

This list contains people who have been added to Obsessive-compulsive disorder#Famous/celebrity OCD sufferers without a source. They can be removed from this list and placed in the article if accompanied by at least one valid source. Multiple sources are preferable, especially in ambiguous cases. Discussion on each person can be placed below their name.--GregRM 22:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

See also: Talk:Obsessive-compulsive disorder#List of celebrities

Discussion for individuals in main article

  • Joey Ramone, aka Joey Ramone, was an American vocalist and songwriter best known for his work in the legendary punk rock group The Ramones.
    Joey mentions Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder in the lyrics of "Like a Drug I Never did Before" (the lyric itself is "demons swirling in an OCD pond"). He doesn't actually state that he has it in the song, but it is a very strong implication, especially because the lyrics of the song are in the first person. Coupled with the fact that it is relatively common knowledge of Ramones fans that he does in fact have it, is this a strong enough citation to re-include it in the article? Monkeyfinger 05:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
    I found this site and some reviews of a documentary that discusses it (e.g. [3])--GregRM 14:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • David Sedaris, American writer
    Although an Internet search seems to give a good number of sources suggestive of childhood dealings with symptoms, this interview seems to suggest that he does not suffer from OCD. It would be great if someone knows of any convincing references/sources that might help settle the issue.--GregRM 03:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
    I distinctly remember an NPR interview where he discusses his OCD, will try to find. --George100 04:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
    Perhaps you are referring to this? The interviewer mentions OCD (starting around time 15:30, I think).--GregRM 23:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Addition of inappropriate text

User:Anthony cfc added the following text:

The most common "thought" symptom is young men experiencing homosexual thoughts and quickly masterbating, etc..., to reverse the thought. Many experts now link it with many other mental illesses, as described in this article.

This sounds rather inappropriate and trollish, hence I removed it for now. Would you mind providing any sources that agree with you? -- intgr 09:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Vampire connection

Does anyone have a theory on the connection between some mythic vampire behaviors and OCD? I have OCD, and I'm also of Eastern European descent. So I'm wondering if there's a connection there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

That comes from the belief that if you throw rice at a vampires feet, they will have to count every grain before doing anything else. I don't really think that there is a connection, OCD has been found in people of all races.Wiz kid 02:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, I have never heard of anything about vampires and OCD. Have you got a link or source? Ebb 01:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

David Beckham

David Beckham is no longer England captain, so I shall change this appropriately.-- 14:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Degrees of OCD

These articles often seem to be written by people who don't actually have the disorder. Most bothersome is the lack of an understanding that our human 'models and definitions' are really just simplifications of reality; the real picture is far murkier and more complex (for example, is a transgendered person male or female?). To claim that OCD and OCPD are totally unrelated is ridiculous. I have symptoms of both; for me they are related and I'll bet for other sufferers too.

Second, the orthodox way of over-defining qualifications may lead to some to exclude themselves. Like saying that 'I'm not gay because I don't dress up in women's clothes,' misunderstanding that not all symptoms need be present for one to suffer from OCD is important. I don't check the door 20 times, I just check once or twice. I count steps, try to avoid stepping on lines on sidewalks, but I don't worry about 'balancing' the right side with the left. I might spend hours on end about one subject but not another one. I do believe there is a degree, someone might be more OCD than others. The article needs to be re-written, disposing of the ironically OCPD point of view bias (everything is black or white, right or wrong) in favor of a more nuanced view. 03:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


Can someone please add a source to the assertion that OCD is not curable. Personally – as someone with OCD and virtually all the symptoms listed on this page – I think OCD is a deep-set mindset brought on by social trauma, and therefore theoretically curable with the correct therapy. Nullbit 23:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

A lot of behavioral issues, like what you described, can be "cured", but this article is about a medical condition. This isn't the place to start a debate on OCD, so.. I'm not sure what you are getting at. -- Ned Scott 07:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not looking for a debate on OCD. I was asking if a source could be added to the statement that OCD is not curable. Nullbit 12:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I see where you are going with this, so I've changed that part of the article to say this now: "There is no known cure for OCD, but it can be treated with anti-depressants." -- Ned Scott 05:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, that's an improvement. Could I suggest removing the "with anti-depressants" part? since anti-depressants are not the only accepted treatment. Nullbit 15:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you should try the new treatment they were studying at the University of Arizona in Tucson, Arizona. They've been giving people with OCD treatments of psilocybin. The study shows that it "removes" the symptoms in patients anywhere from a few hours to a few days at a time. It's still in the research stages, but it may very well help some people. Check it out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).
It just so happens that I live in Tucson, Arizona, so maybe I can help get some good info for the article here, locally. -- Ned Scott 01:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)'
i have eliminated over half of my ocd symptoms with CBT, i have never taken anti-depressants and will never do so ;) XYaAsehShalomX 18:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


Although most of the statements and sources in this article seem pretty reliable, the referencing is not done properly. In particular, there are no page references. I tried looking for the original author of the article, but it appears most of the work was done by an anon IP: [4] :( If you have added any references to the article please go back and add in the pages. I'm going to try to get a hold of some of the references mentioned here, but if I cannot find the exact pages the sources may be thrown out because of unverifiability. A good example of a well-referenced article is this. Sofeil 09:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

You should reconsider citing the Arizona study of hallucinogens as a promising treatment. If you read the study it is a proposal with a very interesting premise but does not yet represent actual research. It is also extremely far fetched to assume that anyone will be getting medical treatment with these substances an any situation beyond research for several decades. 22:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Define "serious"

"One serious symptom which stems from this is "counting" your steps, e.g. you must take twelve steps to the car in the morning."

This symptom does not seem to differ in severity from the other ones listed, so why is it given a special emphasis? Monkeyfinger 06:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe this is a more common symptom than others, and in fact one of the questions many doctors ask while making a diagnosis. FireWeed 01:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

50% prevalence?

"An estimated 1 in 2 adolescents and adults are thought to have OCD." Half of people over 12 meet criteria for obsessive-compulsive disorder? Are you kidding me? I changed this to: "Community studies have placed the prevalence between 1 and 3%, although the prevalence of clinically recognized OCD is much lower, suggesting that many individuals with the disorder are unaccounted for clinically." and added a reference. 09:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Reference Tag

I noticed the tag saying references should be more specific (ie. cite pages), being as this is a psychology related article, and that it cites sources according to APA format (which doesn't use page numbers), it seems that it is unlikely or even impossible for someone to scan these references and come up with page numbers. I propose removing this tag. Thoughts? Beatdown 08:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The tag was added here [5], and then the comment above. I agree that most standard scientific (ie, footnoting or APA) reference formats don't require page numbers. There is still one quote that does not have a page number, however. Also, probably of more concern is the use of lectures and course textbooks rather than research articles. This article is also very frequently edited, so perhaps it has been cleaned up some since?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Limegreen (talkcontribs) 10:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Repeat information?

This whole section looks like reiterated info that's already in the intro.

I'm not gonna edit it just in case it's necessary in some way. But someone should look at it. The Snake 08:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Does someone have OCD if...

...they tell you what to do all the time, even the simplest of tasks, chores or activities that are either trivial or a no-brainer, but find yourself being told how to do it as if you don't know what you are doing? And in many instances telling you what and how to do something when you are just about to do it yourself? If it's not OCD it's gotta be something, because not only is it annoying and (to me) insulting, it doesn't seem to me to be natural for a person to do things like this to others. Can someone please help me out here? This sort of stuff can drive people up the wall at times! NiceDoggie 17:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, this is just the talk page for the article about OCD, and not really a place to discuss OCD itself. You might want to check out some of the external links for places to ask these questions. -- Ned Scott 20:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Tell that to sweetie petie. They're allowed to discuss it but why is that other person not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't sound like OCD, sounds possibly more like OCPD, or some other personality disorder to me, or maybe just a really annoying git.
I have OCD and I don't do this. XYaAsehShalomX 22:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


This page's content plus the unusually huge number of edits to it is highly amusing. Jtrainor 03:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Neuropsychiatry section

I'm new to Wikipedia editing so I don't know exactly what to do about it, but the way in which this entire section of the OCD article states conjectures about relationships between neurology and the disorder as matters of fact is not neutral or stylistically correct.

It also does not list any sources, besides for a quote. It talks about OCD and certain neurological receptors being strongly correlated, which is evidently based on scientific studies, but no source is given. Specific statments about the relationships between neuropsychiatry and OCD as proven matters of scientific fact are probably inaccurate anyway. The section should either be overhauled and cited or deleted. (Tperson 06:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC))

A quick tip for these kinds of situations, you can add {{fact}} to any unsourced statement that needs one. Anything unsourced is open to being removed at any time by any editor, per WP:V, so feel free to be bold. -- Ned Scott 07:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


Can someone please explain why an NMDA ANAGONIST may be a useful drug in treating OCD when it just said that the disorder's severity was negatively correlated with the activity of the NMDA receptor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joel2017 (talkcontribs) 22:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

"Pure O" OCD

Can we please at least devote a few sentences to explaining the and emphasising the fact that OCD can exist in an almost completely invisible form in which the rituals can take the form of things such as "counter-arguments" in the person's mind to help relieve the anxiety of the obsession. For some sufferers the disease seems to consist of an unwanted "debate" that fills up most of their waking minutes, between the irrational obsessive fears and the intellectual arguments to dispel the fears (which of course only provides relief for a short time, before obsessive thoughts invade the mind again, and a defensive counterargument must be summoned again and so on). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joel2017 (talkcontribs) 22:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

I absolutely agree. Pure-O is a very specific form of OCD, and needs to have a separate section. In fact I came across this link [6], which says there is an article on wikipedia about Pure-O OCD, but I didn't find any here. -- Amit 20:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I suffer most of all from this type of ocd but i also have compulsions, many of which are to relieve anxiety as much as anything else. ugghhh ...
and yer its funny, this page has so many edits considering what it's about :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
at least we can laugh at our stupid illness. it's xyaasehshalomx here just cant be bothered to log in ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Exercise and OCD

Does anyone know if there is any FIRM, SPECIFIC scietific evidence to suggest that physical exercise helps in treating OCD, as it does for other anxiety disorders and depression? One of the changes cuased by chronic ssri treatment (in rats at least) is up-regulation of 5ht2c receptors. However exercise is believed to cause downregulation of central 5ht2c receptors. Therefore is there the potential that exercise could even make OCD worse? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

i dont like to say for certain but my ocd symptoms are less when i exercise and in a book i have called "Overcoming obsessive compulsive disorder" it describes a woman who only escaped from her compulsions by doing exercise and eventually climbed a mountain, leaving no space for horrible ocd in her life as she was so tired :) XYaAsehShalomX 18:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Freak case

On March 4, I edited the list of "Symptoms," and today I saw that it was removed. I have Asperger's Syndrome, to which many people believe OCD, as well as growth with parallels to gigantism, is linked, and this is a problem for me. Now I know that if I do indeed have OCD, then I don't have it as well as most such people! 01:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

ocd does have features in common with autism/aspergers ... i was obsessed with that condition, for years ... it's not the same though, apparently aspergers has more in common with ocd personality disorder than ocd though :) XYaAsehShalomX 18:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

OCD in Fiction

Looking at the talk page, it seems like there was a list of examples of OCD in fiction, but it has been removed. I don't see why it shouldn't be in here, as similar articles have 'in fiction' lists. However, I do feel it should be restricted to examples where the condition is explictly stated to be OCD, and not just characters showing Obsessive-Compulsive tendancies (since they're open to interpretation). Off the top of my head, I can think of

If there are no objections, I'll add this section.

--Darksun 12:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I was the one who removed it. A few reasons why, such as it really wasn't important to this article (a bit trivial), and because it got out of control so often. Feel free to try it again, but might want to keep an eye on it since people will try to add everything under the sun on that list. -- Ned Scott 07:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I myself do not understand why it was taken off. Even if these characters are simply fictitious, or "Irrelevant" as stated in the Edit Reasoning, justification for use of these characters can be used as examples of "Believed to be OCD in Popular Culture" and then disclaimed as "OCD in Popular-Fictitious Characters". I'm deeply disappointed, especially since Adrian Monk is an AWESOME example in popular and secular cultures.
This really should be placed back in. As it IS relevant to project of OCD.
_Citations_ to follow for detailed relevance.
You Gotta Love That MONK!

♫  Bring back, bring back, Oh, Bring back our A-drian M-o-nk!  ♫ ♫

Jerry Zambrano 09:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)]]
I definitely think there should be an "OCD in Popular Culture" or "in Fiction" section. As Good As It Gets, Matchstick Men, Monk, and The Aviator are prime examples of mainstream attention given to OCD. - Razorhead August 8, 2007

OK, further to this there have been a couple of recent additions that are questionable.

"The con artist Roy Walker, played by Nicholas Cage in the film Matchstick Men, displays many traits of the disorder, in addition to panic disorder and agoraphobia." - is there a specific mention of OCD? As I stated earlier, the list shouldn't include people who just show 'traits'.

"There has been debate among some readers of Shakespeare on whether the character Lady MacBeth in The Tragedy of Macbeth exhibits symptoms of OCD toward the end of the play. She is tormented with guilt and anxiety about the crimes committed by her husband and herself, and is seen to be repeatedly washing her hands in order to cleanse herself of imaginary blood on them that symbolises the atrocities that she has taken part in." - is there some 3rd party work to back up this 'debate'. Seems like Original Research to me, and again falls foul of the 'showing traits' rule.

--Darksun 12:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

OCD and hair color

Anyone notice this statement?

Anyone who has OCD has brown hair, anyone with blonde, red or black hair has no chance of having OCD, studies show.

I couldn't find any sources to corroborate this, and it seems rather unlikely. 11:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

wtf, thats bullshit! XYaAsehShalomX 01:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
That's ridiculous. So that implies that no one in Asia or Africa has OCD since they have black hair!!?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Testosterone levels

Months ago there was an information here regarding how high testosterone levels can lead to OCD in males. I am not seeing it here now. I am a male and I believe my condition is caused by high testosterone levels. I am an obsessions-sufferer only. Never thought about compulsions. I don't have fear.. I just have thoughts that keep appearing. Most of the time I don't even think about them in concrete.. but the speed of my mind forces them to appear.

Anyone here with similar symptoms? I also suffer from anxiety.. I mean, what is anxiety after all? I am determined, I am fearless.. but this state of mind upsets me. I am extremely reflexive, obviously into philosophical meditations.

I know I am not the typical OCD sufferer. Regarding the statement above, I do think that mania, anxiety, anger and OCD can be caused by testosterone levels.

Any opinions about that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Famous sufferers

Jim Luzynski is a chronic sufferer of this disorder

What is wrong with having a list of famous sufferers. These people are all verified on their respective wikipedia pages as having the disorder, so what why did this idiot called PIrish delete my edits? j You could always just put them back. I know some of the most famous sufferers of other major diseases are listed in other articles. --Hourick (talk) 14:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

This seams to be an ongoing problem.--Ekologkonsult (talk) 06:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

There is already a list of 'famous sufferers', in a separate Wiki 'Category' page, i.e Category: People diagnosed with Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder. I therefore don't quite understand why there should be a need to have a list in this article.Snookerrobot (talk) 10:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the notable cases that is now works.--Ekologkonsult (talk) 12:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Where is this 'category' page? Shouldn't there be a link at the bottom of this page?

OckRaz (talk) 09:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)YES I agree! TYhere should be a list of famous OCD suffers or those thought to be Nikola tesla91856-1943) surely would be added to this list! Thanksamtu06160921stcntdateddecdeEAJSWORDINHAND (talk) 18:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:MONK Season4Cover.jpg

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:MONK Season4Cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Jim Luzynski is a chronic sufferer of this disorder —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

reference in 1st paragraph?

While I certainly believe that OCD is one of the top 10 most disabling illnesses, the link only goes to a page that has some professor saying that the WHO said this. I think it would be a lot better if someone could find the actual WHO publication... I looked for it and could find no such list. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 23:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

Well in my book "Overcoming ocd" It says that OCD was called one of the top ten disabling illnesses in the world, by the world health organisation. I saw some website listing all of them in order but I cant remember which one? lol that's not very obsessive of me, sorry! XYaAsehShalomX

Firstly, I moved this discussion section to the bottom of the page as I'm adding this comment. I really think that this comment about OCD being one of the top 10 most disabling illnesses needs to be referenced from it's original source - ie, the WHO - rather than a repeating source. Can anyone help with that? 03:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC) my book..." and "...I can't remeber where I got the reference..." [sic] are two phrases that anyone who expects to be taken even remotely seriously shouldn't be using in the same sentence.
The statement needs to be referenced. --DashaKat 19:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The document referenced actually does NOT say what is claimed in the first paragraph. It says that "Among individuals between the ages of 15 and 44, panic disorder, drug use disorders and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) were in cluded in the top 20 disorders." Also, it does not credit a particular document or person within the WHO for this claim. If you google for ("World Health Organization" "top 10" "disabling illnesses"), you'll find pages of links each referencing this Wikipedia article, which in turn references a document which makes a different claim and makes no references to back that claim. You won't find any of those Google hits pointing to an actual source document. Going to the WHO site and searching, both through the search feature, or by manual digging through the "Statistics" section finds no such claim.

This claim should be removed from this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC) It's referenced in a book by David Veale and Robert Willson called "Overcoming obsessive compulsive disorder". Is that better?? XYaAsehShalomX (talk)

It is the point of the reference to diabetes and asthma? These aren't mental illnesses! (talk) 01:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Party drug effect

I live in NZ where benzylpiperazine is legal. I tend to find that other stimulants (caffeine, nicotine etc) make my OCD worse, but BZP makes it much better. Has anyone else noticed this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

This is the wrong forum for this type of inquiry. Kindly move on to an OCD chatroom or bulletin board. Thanks. --DashaKat 21:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

OCD is not fun at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for Pure-O section

I suggest we add a separate section for Pure-Obsessive OCD. It is a very distinct kind and with different treatment results. I would have added it myself but don't have adequate reliable sources for the info yet. Please comment. --Amit 20:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, there's no such thing. An obsessive can't be obsessive without being compulsive, and a compulsive can't be compulsive without being obsessive. While the two dysregulations may occur on a spectrum of balance (so to speak), they are, by definition, co-occurring, and necessarily so. --DashaKat 00:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Tell this to all the people who suffer, and suffer painfully, from pure-O. U can check the many OCD discussion boards for accounts of such people. I wish more than anyone else that there was "no such thing". --Amit 17:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
The perception of that from which one suffers and the clinical reality are two different things. There is no clinically documented evidence to suggest that this condition exists. Obessional behavior cannot exist without its compulsive counterpart, and vice-versa.
This is an informational site, not a message board. If you can find a reliable source supporting the existence of this condition, then I am certain your suggestion would be seriously entertained. --DashaKat 19:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect, i don't think you are qualified to make that statement. Only doctors are qualified to make statements on whether or not a condition exists not someone going by what studys they happen to have read writing a wikipedia article. Your comment is indicative of a personal opinion. "There is no clinically documented evidence to suggest that this condition exists" I highly doubt you have read through all clinical papers related to ocd and found no referance to obessions without the compulsive componant. I will have a read and soon be post some links to reliable sources.

[7] Here's one. More on the way. 18:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

DashaKat is correct on this one. Once reliable sources are found, the appropriate additions to the article will be made. Until then, the ocdonline article really doesn't cut it. Absentis 19:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree that reliable sources need to be found but that was just the first article in my my case. Naturally it will take some time for me to dig through the medical journals to find the appropiate studys. "Pure-O" is a sufferer coined name but purely obbsessional OCD is quite well documented and i must ask what clinical data DashKat has to support that "An obsessive can't be obsessive without being compulsive, and a compulsive can't be compulsive without being obsessive."

[8] This study mentions purely obsessional OCD. Of couse the existance of all conditions has to be proven though clinical studys so i will find the appropiate resources proving that purely obsessional OCD is a real condition. 20:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

There are professionals who have studied and talked about pure-O, and that should should be enough for there to be additions to the article or a separte article, even if it has something like, "Some professionals feel that Pure-O does not exist," or something to that effect. I'm personally not qualified to decide what is or isn't good scientific psychology, but I know that Freud wasn't a very good scientist, and he has a page, with appropriate criticisms, of course. There used to a "Pure O" page with links to sources about it, but it's gone now for some reason. And the statement, "An obsessive can't be obsessive without being compulsive" is ridiculously absolute in my opinion-- it shouldn't even be taken serious without massive amounts of supporting evidence.andrewlargemanjones —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I think I need to clarify, the above unsigned comments were not made by me. I only made two comments before on this page, both of them were signed. As for evidence, I am looking for reliable sources and will be right back with them soon. I have no conflict with anybody. --Amit 04:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

There is definitely a "pure-o" type of ocd. I know because I was diagnosed with it and am currently seeing a pychologist for it.--Finblesco 18:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Quite frankly, this debate shouldn't exist. Provide the relevant citations from respected sources and it gets in the article. It is not our place to go round question if it is or it isn't. Then, if people really need to debate, it can be over the respectability of the sources.--KerotanLeave Me a Message Have a nice day :) 02:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I am a medical doctor and OCD can be diagnosed with obsessions alone. This is stated in the DSMV criteria. Longsocksandbooks (talk) 08:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

request sources

Someone should just cite information. It is so annoying seeing a page have all of these "citation needed" things. The box at the top of the page will go away if someone just puts down sources 02:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Could somebody sort out these references? Magazines such as New Scientist are not suitable references for research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


There seems to be a vandalised paragraph: "A good example of OCD is Sharon Ludwick of Mount Holly, New Jersey..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Treatment centers

Are external links to OCD treatment centers/programs considered linkspam? I lean towards yes, but I guess if there's valuable info at the site it may be worth inclusion. Thoughts? AlphaEta 17:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

If you're referring to that Linden Centers link, I think it is. The IP editor added it to (nearly?) every anxiety disorder-related article. I have removed it from all the articles and posted a spam warning to the IP's talkpage. Aleta 17:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Who keeps removing the references?

And why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

External links

External links to patient support groups (especially online chat boards), blogs, and commercial (e.g., "buy our program") sites are normally not accepted on Wikipedia. Please read the external links policy and the specific rules for medical articles before adding more external links. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the specific rules for medical articles you've wikilinked to here and noted that it specifically targeted charities and the like for exclusion. Beyond that, it doesn't seem that any of the links I've just removed provide anything beyond that which could (and should) be added to the article as content. aruffo (talk) 14:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


Should nutritional therapies be included from quality articles and studies (i.e. peer reviewed, double-blind, randomized, controlled-trials)? I think, absolutely. If there is general agreement, will do... Gnif global (talk) 12:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I would assert there is little value in information that can be described no more clearly than "studies have been done...", especially when only a single study is being referenced. Legitimately scientific studies have "been done" and can "be done" on any topic imaginable, however irrelevant or unhelpful. If the results of this study you wish to include are meaningful, significant, and notable, then they should not merely be alluded to with an external link but described in a manner which informs this article and acknowledges its context; otherwise your mention, thus shoehorned in, will undoubtedly be recognized and interpreted (as the comment from the previous revision indicates) as akin to spam. aruffo (talk) 23:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

error in medication section

In the following paragraph in the medication section of this article, there is an error:

Recent research has found increasing evidence that opioids may significantly reduce OCD symptoms, though the addictive property of these drugs likely stands as an obstacle to their sanctioned approval for OCD treatment. Anecdotal reports suggest that some OCD sufferers have successfully self-medicated with opioids such as Ultram and Vicodin, though the off-label use of such painkillers is not widely accepted, again because of their addictive qualities. Tramadol is an atypical opioid that may be a viable option as it has a low potential for abuse and addiction, mild side effects, and shows signs of rapid efficacy in OCD. Tramadol not only provides the anti-OCD effects of an opiate, but also inhibits the re-uptake of serotonin (in addition to norepinephrine). This may provide additional benefits, but should not be taken in combination with antidepressant medication unless under careful medical supervision due to potential serotonin syndrome.[20]

Ultram is the trade name for the medication Tramadol - they are described in this paragraph as substantially different.

-- (talk) 02:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

St John's Wort

On the St. Johns Wort section, the references given for st. Johns wort being an effective treatment for OCD are completely bogus, if you read the actual papers that are cited through the citation, both clinical trials involve depressed patients, not OCD patients. This is misleading and the paragraph should be removed. - signed by an anon IP

This is not entirely accurate. It is effective with people suffering OCD in the similar biological pathway that improves the lifestyles of people with depression. SSRIs are given to both depressives (types of) and people with OCD. There is a clinical protocol in subscribing St Johns Wort in children and teenagers. Longsocksandbooks (talk) 08:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Try this ref: "St John's wort versus placebo in obsessive-compulsive disorder: results from a double-blind study" by Kenneth A Kobak, Leslie V H Taylor, Alexander Bystritsky, Cary J Kohlenberg, John H Greist, Phebe Tucker, Gemma Warner, Rise Futterer, Tanya Vapnik; Int Clin Psychopharmacol; Nov 2005 (Vol. 20, Issue 6, (pp 299-304) |||| —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Obsessive behaviors

I wanna make it clear on there should be other additions to the article: OCD is also characterized by an intense fascination or "obsession" with a thing, subject or person (i.e. stalking). There are theories on whether stalking involves one person obsessed with another person who doesn't desire to be near or associate with them, that is to obsessively follow around or harrass the other person as a possible OCD trait. To be obsessed or "fixated" over something like an attachment is a classic example of obsessive behaviors associated with OCD. + Mike D 26 (talk) 02:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with any publication, health organization or diagnostic tool that claims stalking another human being is a "classic" OCD behavior. Could you provide a reference so that we may evaluate this suggestion before adding it to the article? Thanks, AlphaEta 04:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't understand this part

A symptom of OCD according to the article:

"Chasing- Having the need to follow people who the victim is irritated by. Sometimes having warm feelings inside about this person."

By the victim, do we mean "sufferer". If so could this be made clear, and then also, the second sentence seems contradictory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm new to this stuff and haven't figure out how to generate a new item so, I'll attempt to add it here. Something doesn't read right to me and I think it should read as follows:

"Although these signs are often present in OCD, a person who shows signs of infatuation or fixation with a subject/object, or displays traits such as perfectionism, does not necessarily have OCD, a specific and well-defined condition."

mike Mjpearson (talk) 00:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Anal-retentive character

In case anyone is wondering, I re-added "anal-retentive character" to the introduction as an alternative explanation of various traits. I'm well aware that this isn't a DSM differential diagnosis, but the point is that people who are "OCD" in the vernacular do not necessarily have OCD or even OC personality disorder, and may simply have character traits that are best described as "anal-retentive." Cosmic Latte (talk) 10:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I just put quotation marks around "anal-retentive" in order to imply that it's being used in a rather less formal sense than other terms. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, so add a citation or don't add it. It purely doesn't belong here. For a disease that the world health organization considers the 10th most debilitating on the planet, you would think that this kind of vandalism would be stopped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I concur. OCPD is an appropriate, clinically valid assessment; "anal retentive" is a conversational, non-clinical term that does not sufficiently nor accurately describe the personality trait. aruffo (talk) 21:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
"Anal-retentive" derives from Freud's writings. The notion that this is "non-clinical" by mainstream psychiatric standards does not mean that it is automatically excluded from the article. Many contributors to mental-health-related articles seem to forget that psychoanalysis has exerted a profound and lasting effect on the arts, the humanities, and various cultures at large, and that these entities have contributed significantly to our understanding of the conditions. Many also seem to confuse non-scientific ideas with "fringe" scientific ideas, as if they could be dismissed as easily and experimentally as flat-earthers. Let us keep in mind the core principle of WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." The fact that the term has become "conversational" implies that there are so many such sources that the nature of the term is common knowledge. Aruffo, your claim that this "conversational" term "does not sufficiently [or] accurately describe the personality trait" is of unclear relevance and meaning to me. First of all, I put the term in quotation marks, in order to imply its "conversational" nature in the first place. Second, I'm not sure which "personality trait" the term doesn't accurately describe. The only "personality trait" that it is referring to is...well, itself; it is accurate by definition. If you mean that it doesn't accurately describe OCD, then that is obviously correct, but that's the whole point of including it. The passage says that someone with obsessive-compulsive traits, who does not meet criteria for OCD or OCPD, might best be described as having an "anal-retentive character." If you mean that the personality trait isn't actually caused by a psychological defense mechanism stemming from psychosexual development, then you are certainly not alone, but I refer you again to WP:V--not WP:TRUTH (the latter of which happens to be a comical essay, the former an official Wikipedia policy). IP-, if you are offended by this, then I'm sorry, but bear in mind that Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED; articles are not required to be unoffensive. Talk pages, however, are a different matter. We are expected to be WP:CIVIL to one another, and to assume WP:GOODFAITH by our fellow editors. I don't believe that your referring to my edits as "vandalism" exactly meets that standard. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Let's keep context in mind. The whole passage is about the colloquial use of psychological terms. Therefore, the inclusion of "conversational" items is not only completely appropriate; it's the whole point of the passage! Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any clue whatsoever about this illness? People often don't discover this for some time after having all kinds of fears and doubts about what might be "wrong" with them. Wiki being as popular as it is; should bend over backwards to include valid, reliable information. Quoting Freud (who is largely considered to be a pioneer but with ideas that today are considered outdated and antiquated and not to mention highly inaccurate today) is hardly valid. Do you know the suicide statistics of this illness? How would you feel if you were diagnosed with OCD or were trying to find out more information about it based on suspicions you might have OCD only to come across this page which tells them they might in fact just be "anal retentive". While I may be a complete novice to wiki; I am far from a novice when it comes to OCD having suffered with it all my life. Perhaps I should ask my Psychiatrist to come edit this crap out and I bet you still come up with a way to add it back in and disagree with the modern Psychiatric field. What gives though really? It doesn't belong. Get over it and try to realize who your audience is on this page and provide them with valid information and not some obscure Freud reference. I've looked on many professional web sites with information regarding OCD and not one of them mention that these sufferers are "anal retentive". You quite possibly could cause emotional distress or more to an individual reading this and to be perfectly honest you seem quite "anal" yourself. This needs disputing and arbitration as far as I am concerned and is just another wonderful example of how Wiki needs to get better control over things.

I urge you to read WP:CIV and WP:AGF again. I also suggest that you WP:COOL down. Have you even read the passage? Nowhere, not in one single spot, does it say that OCD sufferers are anal-retentive. What it says is that people who do not have OCD might have some other condition, including non-clinical conditions such as what has come to be known colloquially as an "anal-retentive" personality. Once again, that passage is not about OCD or actual OCD sufferers; it is about the inaccurate(!!) way in which the term "OCD" is used in society. You are contesting a claim that is not even made in the article. By the way. Not that this is anyone's business, but I have a psychology degree from an accredited university, and I was diagnosed with OCD a long time ago. So, to answer your question, "Do you have any clue whatsoever about this illness?"--I'd like to think I do, anyway. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I am suggesting that "anal-retentive" does not sufficiently nor accurately describe obsessive-compulsive personality disorder (which is what I meant by "OCPD" above) which is, of course, not OCD. Although I doubt that the inclusion of the term "anal-retentive" would be likely to cause emotional distress, I'd say that the term has become so corrupted from its use in the popular lexicon that a casual reader, upon encountering the term, will believe-- incorrectly-- that they understand what is more appropriately described and detailed as OCPD. Furthermore, "anal-retentive" has, again through its popular usage, become a disparaging (if not condemnatory) label; making a direct association between it and OCPD seems to create the strong probability that a naive reader may believe that OCPD is similarly worthy of contempt-- a judgment which I would think desirable to avoid.
More soberly, or at least more practically, I wouldn't say that "consensus" is the issue in this article. Verifiability, not consensus, is the main concern. Common knowledge may be commonly known, but that does not mean it has been verifiably published. I am not aware of any publication which demonstrates or implies that OCD is diagnosed where it should instead have been recognized as "anal-retentive" personality. Please cite such a publication if you intend to include such an assertion in this Wiki article. aruffo (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I completely agree with the first of your two preceding statements--we don't want to imply condemnation of OCPD. As for the second statement, I agree that verifiability is important (after all, it's policy), but think that the main issue was probably mere phrasing. Our verification begins with Freud himself, but I suppose it should be clear from the wording that Freudian concepts need to be appreciated in a different way from more positivistic ideas such as OCD and OCPD. So I've altered the wording a bit, in order to distinguish anal retentiveness more from both OCD and OCPD. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The "anal-retentive" thing keeps bothering me... not because it's mentioned, but because it's mentioned in the opening summary-paragraph of the article, clearly implying that its characteristics are universally applicable, or at least recognizable, in cases of OCD. That is, although those "some symptoms" may not be at all present in an OCD sufferer, the opening paragraph clearly suggests that when OCD (or OCPD) is present, some of its symptoms-- which symptoms, I might add, are neither enumerated, distinguished, nor referenced here-- will certainly resemble "anal-retentiveness".

The whole anal-retentive thing seems too beholden to pop-culture considerations; its inclusion here is simple, vague, and unreferenced. It's not enough to claim that "it began with Freud" without any further qualification. If it began with Freud, where? Quote something. Reference something. Describe something. Be specific. What is "anal retentive" personality, what are its characteristics, and how are these confused with obsessive-compulsive disorder, and when are they not? Before a connection between OCD and "anal retentive" is worthy of being mentioned in the opening paragraph here as a primary distinguishing characteristic of OCD, I think such a connection deserves more sophisticated treatment and analysis in a body-article section. Until that section is properly written, detailed, and referenced, I simply can't see the justification for its inclusion in the opening paragraph. aruffo (talk) 19:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Definition of 'Compulsion'

I'm certainly not an expert on ocd but the definition of a compulsion, given in the main article, is slightly at odds with what I've read elsewhere (sorry can't remember the references). In the main article, a compulsion is defined as the act (mental or physical) that is carried out in response to the anxiety produced by the obsession, usually to 'neutralise' that anxiety. According to what I have read elsewhere, however, a compulsion is not really the act itself but the mental urge to carry out the act. So the compulsion, like the obsession, is also a mental 'event'. According to this point of view, an obsession is a mental event in the form of an intruding thought such as: "My hands might be covered in germs" (generating anxiety). The compulsion would then be another mental event i.e. a thought in the form of a 'mental urge': "Therefore I MUST wash my hands." The act is then carried out (the direct product of the compulsion) and the anxiety temporarily relieved. This point of view also allows for the existence of 'pure C' as well as 'pure O'. An example would be people who compulsively arrange things in a certain way or in a symmetrical pattern. These people simply have a mental compulsion to order and arrange, but there is frequently no identifiable 'obsession' as such. I have no idea which point of view is correct, but I am simply raising the question as to whether the definition of 'compulsion' that has been given is scientifically accurate. Can any knowledgeable expert advise?Snookerrobot (talk) 14:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Famous cases

I think Wikipedias Article about Alzheimer is pretty good, and it has been featured. This article has a paragraph about known individual affected by Alzheimer, so deleting it from this page with the argument that this is about the disease , not a celebrity article makes no sense. In fact, giving people real examples adds value to an article about, what for many readers is a fairly unknown disease. I would like to have more discussion about this before its deleted again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekologkonsult (talkcontribs) 07:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The most obvious reason is that none of these articles has even the slightest detail about these celebrities' OCD. No symptoms, strategies, social issues related to OCD, nothing at all. The nearest it comes is one of the articles referencing the fact that one of the celebrities wrote about it as some portion of a biography (again, with no details). In short, adding a list of celebrities offers no insight into the condition, no social context for its manifestation, and ultimately provides nothing to a reader but incidental trivia. aruffo (talk) 07:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I see you've implemented a reversion without contributing to the discussion. If you're determined to revert then you may as well call in a mediator right now because I have no intention of letting this lie. Your comparison to the Alzheimer's article is an inappropriate analogy; the cases represented there, such as Ronald Reagan, are well-publicized, well-documented, socially relevant (e.g. a national leader becoming mentally incompetent), and by most yardsticks undeniably notable. Most importantly, in each of these cases of Alzheimer's, the condition became their defining characteristic, privately and publicly. It is not possible to meaningfully discuss their lives without discussion of the disease's effects. This makes their inclusion appropriate-- not as curiosities or footnotes but as embodied representations of the disease.
No such embodiment exists in any of these people whom you intend to include in this article. OCD may affect their lives, but it plainly does not define them, as their condition warrants zero attention in any of their Wikipedia articles (save one, and again, the mention was a mere passing reference). A quick web search, which any interested party could do without resort to Wikipedia, turns up a longer list of celebrities and their conditions-- many of which compulsions are far less destructive, controlling, and exhausting than those of ordinary people I have personally known. The reports on these symptoms are, singly and in total, nothing more than amusing trivia to people with an interest in those celebrities. They offer nothing substantial to a reader with an encyclopedic interest in the condition. Unless a person has been publicly identified as an embodied representative of the condition, such Howard Hughes or Freud's "Rat Man", what notability they possess does not arise from their condition of OCD, and their personal notability does not automatically render their condition notable. In other words, to justify the inclusion of any individual case of OCD in an encyclopedic article, that case must itself be notable. The specific manifestations of OCD described by these celebrities are perfectly ordinary, entirely mundane, socially irrelevant, and assuredly non-notable. aruffo (talk) 06:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

To start with I suggest that you drop your angry tone and calm down, there is no need to get speedy by a disagreement. As you may know both the featured article about Alzheimer, and the featured Article about Downs Syndrom include notable cases. Why do you think this article merits the same. Do you have anything against people with OCD, and do not want to have people with OCD feeling that there are more people like them. That is many times the purpose of such information. To make people realize that there are many people with the condition.

I think this articles should have this information first and foremost because most people looking for information about OCD on the net, are people who either have OCD themself or have near ones affected by OCD. Yes you might also find academics searching information, but Wikipedia is something else than just a pharmaceuptic dictionary. Please feel free to call on a moderator.--Ekologkonsult (talk) 08:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this article merits the inclusion of notable cases because notable cases provide real-world embodiment of what would otherwise be an abstract intellectual discussion. The cases you propose to include are not notable, therefore they do not merit inclusion. You have not yet provided a reason why non-notable cases of OCD should be included in this article. If "people are looking for information on the net", as you describe, they will find far more information about celebrities elsewhere, easily, and again I assert that there is nothing special about these particular celebrities which makes them any more worthy of mention than the dozens that can be found by "people looking for information on the net". I would argue that my friends' cases are far more interesting and informative than celebrity gossip, but still not notable, which again underscores the fact that including these celebrities is merely a comment on their celebrity and not a contribution to understanding of OCD. aruffo (talk) 13:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Where do you draw the line between notable cases, and celebrities. Reagans Alzheimer is seen as notable, but this was because he was an ex-president. Beckham is the most influential person in the Uk according to the Observer. He has talked openly about his struggle with OCD in the media. Your friends that are affected are of course just as important, but they do not have the same familiarity to most people. Ths is not celebrity gossip. Someone speeking open about their struggle is not gossip. Just because they are known, does not make them less human.

Do you really believe your friends with OCD get humiliated by information that Beckham has OCD. I know that the very close friends with OCD I know like that people get information about that anyone can have OCD, without it being seen form the outside. Isn´t it so that it bothers you because your friends cases are close to you, but Beckhams is not. I do agree that it should be switched to notable cases, and not famous.--Ekologkonsult (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok User:Aruffo (talk), but where is that discussion re Princess Alexandra of Bavaria? Perhaps hotable historical cases are less significant since they were never diagosed "correctly". Or maybe we can all agree that OCD did not really exist before the 1970s? Or do we just say "so what"?
I would agree with you that "so what" is, truly, the most vital question. There is very little reason we should care about OCD being associated with any specific historical figures. It is clear that a reader interested in a particular historical or celebrated figure would be interested in that figure's personality, behavior, and general traits, especially if those should be abnormal, and diagnostic facts should certainly be included in an encyclopedic examination of that individual. Whether that individual's specific case contributes substantially to an encyclopedic examination of their abnormality is another question altogether. I would challenge a writer to justify how any celebrity, whose celebrity is not predicated directly on the manifestation of their abnormality, can meaningfully contribute to an encyclopedic understanding of whatever abnormality they exhibit. If the subsequent argument cannot be advanced any further than "they had the condition" and "they did these weird behaviors", especially if, unlike Howard Hughes or Ronald Reagan, they failed to become exclusively identified as an embodiment of their affliction, then I vigorously contend that their case is no more notable nor worthy of inclusion than any random manifestation plucked from the non-celebrity case files of any psychiatrist's office. aruffo (talk) 18:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, sorry I asked, now that we have lost the Princess altogether. The price of dissent? Although equally suspicious of any notability conferred by the modern cult of celebrity, I feel a little less inclined to think that, just because a sufferer is not an exemplar of any medical condition or an important source of information about it, the fact that they suffer is not of interest - along the lines of "OCD is so common that even David Beckham, who you might think had no health problems at all, has it". Might not the same be argued for famous historical figures? King George III still figures widely, of course, in the article on Porphyria. But perhaps you'll rip him out soon? As for poor Princess Alexandra, she can't even play football, let alone for England. Or maybe you know of another, or even a clearer, example of an historical figure who probably had OCD before it was officially an illness? I'm sorry that you couldn't discuss before your deletions, but it looks like your not that keen to build consensus here. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
If you choose to forward a reasoning that David Beckham-- who has chosen to publicly self-identify not only as an individual sufferer but as an advocate of OCD awareness-- is not notable for his efforts, and should therefore be removed from this article, then I'm sure you are welcome to do so. Neither would I attempt to discourage you from advancing any individual of your choice, celebrated or otherwise, as a notable case of OCD; I have described what appear to be appropriate criteria for notability or non-notability and I will support those criteria. aruffo (talk) 19:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Um, why do you think that I want David removed? Did you not understand my last post? Yes, your suggested criteria are very neat. So that neatness justifies your deletion of any historical figure? Just one more question - did anyone before 1970, wikinotable or not, have OCD? Please explain how we can tell. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Unless someone can give a good reason not to do so, I intend to add Howie Mandel. He's about as well known for his OCD now as for anything else. Marc Summers is a possibility too- although he is less notable. I'm putting this on the talk page prior to making changes to see if consensus can be reached first. I believe that there may also be reason to include Martin Luther. OckRaz (talk) 09:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


Aruffo, how about a compromise. I can see your point that a list of people can give a gossipy impression. I have taken away all examples except BEckham, and even added another source to this. Is this compromise better?--Ekologkonsult (talk) 14:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and I think we should also add a link to Howard Hughes (perhaps the most famous case of OCD). I apologize if my enthusiasm seemed "angry". I have a bias against non-notable cases for a specific reason-- I am personally acquainted with more than one person whose OCD went undiagnosed for many years, despite OCD's oppressive influence on their lives, because every time they heard about OCD it was in the context of some random person with some random symptom (washing, checking, etc). They'd see this random anecdote and think to themselves "I don't behave like they do, therefore I must not have OCD," which prevented their receiving proper treatment and care as their situations became increasingly desperate. I think you're right that people who seek out information about OCD are most likely those who have a personal stake in knowing; the importance of notable cases for OCD is that, even though the stories of those cases do begin with the bizarre and highly individualized manifestations of the condition, they move beyond the anecdotes, holding up the case principally as a vehicle to discuss general patterns of OCD thought and behavior. I would expect it is the general pattern of OCD and its broad effects, rather than any of its unique consequences, which allow a reader to relate the condition to the same patterns, expressed differently, in their own lives. aruffo (talk) 16:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Did not know that, but I see that it is mentioned a lot on the Wikipedia article regarding him. It should bee with, you´re right.--Ekologkonsult (talk) 19:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

OCD and music

As a minor sufferer of OCD (I fiddle with my fingers lots in completive ways, and have to complete certain rituals with my feet in rhythmic patterns), I feel that it has contributed in certain ways in understanding rhythm and melody (creating a musical anomaly then solving it with a climax), and often considered it something that inspires me. A brief google shows many articles on the internet on OCD and music suggesting a link between musical genius and OCD. I'm no musical genius - I wasted it drinking too much booze, but I see my ticks as related to the way I resolve my musical opening bars with the closing bars. In fact, I can see how it can make you artistic in many disciplines. I spent a lot of times experimenting with odd time-signatures. My finger twitching seems to always end with a final resolution, which is difficult to describe, but is always even. My right hand compliments the left, but after an odd and quite creative sequence, with the right performing three to the left doing two, to the right doing one, the the left two. etc.. etc..

There's nothing here in how OCD may affect art. One says that "insanity is to art what garlic is to salad". Perhaps a section should be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Semiprotection against continous ip-vandalism

I suggest that an administrator semi-protects the article Obsessive-compulsive disorder due to the longlasting continous vandalism to the page by ip-users which is obvious from a quick look at this article's edit-history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekologkonsult (talkcontribs)

I also think there is a lot of vandalism, tried a request at the noticeboard, been protected for a short while, but it is just never going to get long or indefinite protection. Clark89 (talk) 02:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

strange statement

a patient should be concerned that intrusive thoughts are dangerous if the person doesn't feel upset by the thoughts, rather finds them pleasurable; has ever acted on violent or sexual thoughts or urges;

If read literally, this means that intrusive thougths are dangerous for all normal adults. That is -- assuming they "have ever acted on sexual thoughts or urges". Which most people do regularily....

Rephrase ?

--Eivind Kjørstad (talk) 08:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

added infobox

I added an infobox with the ICD-10 link, feel free to update the rest of the fields :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sradevic (talkcontribs) 11:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Common examples

Examples of manifestation seem to be conspicuously absent. Perhaps a section. Just a thought thought thought.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

One example in the computer age might be the compulsion to click 'refresh' again and again, as though to clean the screen. (In China, half of all computer users seem to suffer from this urge.) --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Notable Cases

Hi- I just added this section because the other's on this topic were getting cluttered. First, how does one find the category list mentioned above and can a link be included on the main entry page. Secondly, I propose adding: Howie Mandel, Marc Summers, and Martin Luther. OckRaz (talk) 09:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It is easy to confuse a notable case of OCD with a notable person who happens to have OCD. Howie Mandel is a notable individual, however, the expression of his OCD-- as a representation of the disorder-- is perfectly ordinary and unremarkable. If Samuel Johnson was considered (in retrospect) a "patron saint of OCD", that's a notable case of OCD. If Howard Hughes' OCD consumed his life and the disorder became the definitive final chapter of his existence, that's a notable case of OCD. If David Beckham has taken an outspoken stance in using his own affliction to purposefully and publicly raise others' awareness of the condition, that's a notable case of OCD. If Howie Mandel only shakes hands if wearing latex gloves and shaves his head to feel "clean", that's an ordinary case of OCD. In other words, the test for notability would appear to be one where the individual's manifestation of the disorder specifically and publicly informed our fundamental understanding of the condition. aruffo (talk) 16:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
1) Well, that is one definition. I don't see what makes that the definition that should be used. If a notable person has a case of OCD, then that is a notable case. Why ought we to assume that the 'notability' must refer to the manner in which the OCD manifests, rather than the person who has the disorder? That seems like a completely arbitrary interpretation. If you want a counter-intuitive definition to be accepted, then you'll need to present an argument as to why it is preferable to the common sense definition. Also, the idea that an ordinary presentation of the disorder is basis for exclusion seems backwards. In a reference work, does it make sense only to include atypical cases? If someone has an 'ordinary' case, then that would seem to be an excellent example for people to read about.
2) Mandel is not an ordinary case. I don't know how much you've looked into him, but if it makes a difference (and I'm not sure why it should), he is a pretty severe case.
3) What about Summers and Luther?
4) Do you or anyone else know where the above mentioned category list is? OckRaz (talk) 20:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Of the proposed additions, I think only Martin Luther is well-known, and I'd suggest he was probably more notable for things other than OCD. But if a retrospective diagnosis were supportable, that would be an interesting claim indeed. The evidence does not seem overwhelming. I don't see anything inherantly wrong work with including famous contemporary people who exhibit ordinary symptoms. But I am unsure, for all proposed exemplars, whether "notability" works in an additive or in a multipicative way. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I already wrote in previous discussion why it seems unhelpful to randomly add ordinary cases of OCD, but I will repeat the essence of it. I agree with you that the subjective "severity" of the symptoms is irrelevant. In general, examples worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedic article are those instances which have made unique contributions to our understanding of the topic. It would not be helpful for me to add as content to the Videogame article that "Pengo was an example of a videogame," or "Centipede was an example of a videogame," or "Donkey Kong was an example of a videogame," and then describe their gameplay, despite the notability of each individual game. For the same reasons, it doesn't contribute anything meaningful to this article to write "X-celebrity is an example of OCD," or "Y-celebrity is an example of OCD," or "Z-celebrity is an example of OCD," and then describe their symptoms, despite the notability of each individual celebrity. I do agree that there does seem to be a general curiosity about celebrities with OCD, and for this reason there should be a category or list to service that curiosity, but I strongly disagree that ordinary cases of OCD should be included in this article, regardless of the afflicted individuals' notability in other domains. aruffo (talk) 01:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

To Martinevans123:

  • I agree that Luther is indisputably notable, but that the others are not. On the other hand, Summers and Mandel are indisputably examples of people who have OCD- though their notability is more in question. It is my sincere hope that in the future those would be the only criteria which would be subject to debate. If that much were agreed upon, then if someone wished to add a person they could simply say, 'here is why I think that the person is notable', and 'here is the basis for considering them to be a person who has OCD'. If that consensus were reached (and inclusions weren't subject to deletion based on a rejection of the criteria for inclusion), then I'd just make arguments for the 3 people I'm proposing on that basis. (If you like, I can start doing that now, but I'm presently unsure that it would serve any purpose.)
  • Could you clarify what you mean by raising the question of a list being additive versus multiplicative? My interpretation is that a reasonable list of exemplars of a category is beneficial, but that one can overdo it. In other words, there is a certain point at which adding to a list ceases to be beneficial and actually becomes merely tedious. I don't wish to put words in your mouth. Is this what you meant?OckRaz (talk) 11:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Is a famous person with OCD four times as notable than a simply famous person or than an unknown OCD sufferer, or just twice as notable? Or is notability a function of the article in which a person appears? Although of course the dead can't dispute a retrospective diagnosis, even if it makes them more famous, can they. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

To Aruffo:

  • I know that you are having to argue once more for the same conclusion, but I believe that there is good reason for that. I think that there is a basic difference (one could call it a philosophical difference) between your approach and the approach of others to this issue. With a 'democratic' project, the easiest resolution when there are different views on what to do, is to let everyone do what they want- but in your case, your view entails excluding the efforts of others. I expect that unless your view becomes the dominant one, you may have to defend it indefinitely.
  • I think that your video game example is interesting. Anyone researching video games can go to the main article and see references to over a dozen different video games. There are linked articles on the history of video games, genres of video games, video game platforms. All of these articles makes reference to a variety of different games by name. Additionally, there is a page Lists of video games which actually is a list of lists of video games. My point is that 1) there is an exhaustive list of video games, but no such list for people with OCD and 2) one cannot talk about the history of video games in a sensible way without making reference to specific games- why should OCD be different?
  • The first point- that there is no exhaustive list, could probably be remedied easily. If there was a category page at one time, there isn't one now. The closest I could find was Category:People diagnosed with dissociative identity disorder. If I were to make category page, or a list page like List of people affected by bipolar disorder, would you agree that it would be appropriate to have a link to that page both in the body of the OCD entry as well as in the 'see also' section? If you agreed to that, then I would welcome your input about how to construct such a page, and it might go some distance to solving the problem at hand.
  • To the second point- You've implied that famous cases are of interest because people are curious about celebrities and that this is akin to gossip. I disagree. The OCD page as it stands is mostly (if not entirely) medical. Wikipedia is not merely supposed to provide definitions, it is supposed to be encyclopedic. A good article about OCD should address it not only in scientific terms, but it should also be able to put it into a historical and social context. I believe that the inclusion of a variety of notable cases is necessary to do this. After all, OCD is an illness, but it is not an illness like influenza. It is an illness which delineates a community of people. Your approach to the writing of the article on OCD does not seem to leave much room for adding information about the people with OCD- and that means that it can never be comprehensive. Because mental illness is stigmatized generally, and because OCD is a disorder which people have a tendency to be secretive about, this is especially important. OckRaz (talk) 11:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I definitely agree that there should be some kind of list for "Celebrities with OCD". I don't think it was ever actually created-- possibly because each person who brought it up previously was only really interested in writing about the one or two celebrities who were their immediate fascination. I think that Martinevans' proposal of separating an individual's notability from the assessment of their OCD is reasonable.
I also agree that a variety of notable cases should be included in this article, and I agree that notable cases provide historical and social context. I fail to see how a random, ordinary case of OCD can provide this. If someone says that Howie Mandel should be included because of his germ-phobic behaviors, and I say my friend should be included because of her terror of falling out of windows, why should we select one versus the other? Debating the relative severity of the cases is meaningless, because for every symptom they could name I could counter with one that was subjectively worse. If the ultimate answer is "because he's famous and my friend isn't", then the discussion is really about celebrity gossip, not OCD. Offering a case as exemplary of a particular symptom is also invalid. Although germ-phobic behavior is classic OCD, there must be a notable historical case, not a random modern instance, which drew attention to that particular behavior as a manifestation of OCD; otherwise, again, the only reason to include a random example boils down to celebrity, not OCD. A notable case may provide social context by demonstrating how a the socialization of a person with OCD may be affected by their affliction; although a celebrity's behavior is publicly observable and results in amusing anecdotes, it is not socially notable unless, as with Howard Hughes, their socialization into human society was directly and significantly impacted by the condition. aruffo (talk) 15:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
More random ordinary cases: [9]? I quite agree with Aruffo's point on socialisaton. But I find historical cases rather more intractable. Did Ghengis Khan have a personality disorder? How about Adolf Hitler? Aruffo, your non-celebrity friend would seem to have only a phobia. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
It seems you're also discovering a distinction between historically notable people and cases which are notable in the history of OCD. Any number of people in historical times could be retroactively diagnosed. But what is the historical timeline of OCD? Who was the first to be officially diagnosed? That person is of historical importance to OCD, regardless of their (lack of) other historical significance. Who were the first medical professionals to publicly declare the existence of the condition? Who decided that germ-phobia was a manifestation of OCD, and whose case were they examining at the time? These are all surely historically notable.
What you mention about my friend hearkens to one of my earlier assertions about the negative impact of including random examples-- symptoms can be widely varied, and giving examples of symptoms serves more to obscure than illuminate their root causes. As it happens, my friend was plagued by the compulsion to throw herself out of windows; she feared to be near windows because she kept thinking she would hurl herself through them. Of course she knew she wouldn't actually do that (and she never did), but that's obviously not the point. The intrusive thoughts, uncontrollable anxiety, and rational helplessness are the core issues, and those causes (not their symptoms) are what should be understood and enumerated. aruffo (talk) 03:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
All good and useful points, I feel, Aruffo. I guess all such categorical diagnoses are culturally defined of course, as any good comparative anthropologist would tell us. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Weird/Inaccurate clause in head of article?

From the opening sentence of the article, "Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is a mental disorder most commonly characterized by intrusive, repetitive thoughts resulting in compulsive behaviors and mental acts that the person feels driven to perform, according to rules that must be applied rigidly, aimed at preventing some imagined dreaded event; however, these behaviors or mental acts are not connected to the imagined dreaded event," the clause, "aimed at preventing some imagined dreaded event", strikes me as odd if not inaccurate.

I don't want to delete it right off the bat, but are there any references for it? From my own understanding, a sufferer of OCD simply acts compulsively because he or she "has to", not because of some goal or "dreaded event". Does anyone care to comment? Damienivan (talk) 18:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes people just feel they "have" to do something without being able to articulate why, but other times they imagine a causal relationship between performing a compulsion and dealing with a more well-defined obsession. For example, someone might wash his hands repeatedly in order to rid them of germs that he supposes might kill him otherwise, or might check 10 times to see that the stove is off in fear of burning down the house. There are some lists of common obsessions and compulsions here and here. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd agree that it is inaccurate to state broadly that a "dreaded event" is an integral part of OCD. It may be that a particular recurring stimulus (e.g. noticing one's hands) causes anxiety which prompts an obsessive response; in such a case it is a condition, rather than a terminal event, which is supposedly being attended to. aruffo (talk) 10:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
The key point that has to get across is that in nearly every case of OCD, attempting to suppress the thought or behavior produces intense anxiety -- it isn't just an emotionless robotic repetition. Looie496 (talk) 16:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
That is a good point-- and I have to agree that the behavior is not necessarily performed with any kind of "dreaded event" in mind... at least, not anything more dreaded than the consequence of not performing the behavior, which may be dreaded, but is not necessarily an "event". aruffo (talk) 02:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I had a go at the wording here. See what you think. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I have to acknowledge that I think Damienivan was correct to recommend its deletion, rather than its revision-- as the statement is not universally true of the disorder, it is an inappropriate level of detail for the introduction to an article. I don't think anyone would disagree that dreaded events, intrusive thoughts, etc, are frequently present in cases of OCD, but attempting to explain or elaborate upon those particular manifestations seems better handled in the body text somewhere. aruffo (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

ocd with and without and overt compulsions

Hi all,

Came across this OCD wiki page, and reorganized a bit dividing it into OCD with and without overt compulsions.

This is generally the distinction used in scientific literature, which I try to contribute to in my professional life, and I think it will solve a lot of the discussion about the whole "pure-O" thing (a laymen's term), as well enhancing the organization of the paper.

Keep in mind, the diagnosis of OCD does not necessarily include overt compulsions, and OCD without overt compulsions is a major subtype of OCD in the clinical literature (as is OCD with overt compulsions)

The OCD with overt compulsions section would benefit from more info on checking compulsions, which is another major subtype next to washing.

Your edits look mostly reasonable to me (a non-expert on this topic), although I have never heard the term "pure-O" and would like to see a source for it. Also, please remember to sign your talk page edits by adding ~~~~ at the end; thanks. Looie496 (talk) 18:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Looie,

Well, it's mostly a laymen's term. Not one I particularly like, but it's in use nonetheless (i.e. Not sure whether internet links should be sources. I'm not that familair with Wiki and leave that up to everyone's good judgement here. Thanks for the signing tip. (talk) 04:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Added in a better reference regarding the distinction between OCD with and and without overt compulsions, and made a few corrections. Regarding the mentioning of pure-O, I think it's justified merely by the frequent use of the term by sufferers and laymen, and as long as it is pointed out out that it's not a generally accepted term in the clinical literature (which would be OCD without overt compulsions). The subtype of is also sometimes referred to as "obsessional ruminators" in the clinical literature. (talk) 18:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Are OCD suffers also more prone to addiction?

Wondering if OCD suffers9as am I!) are more prone to addictions?Thanks! Andreisme (talk) 19:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)Edsonamtu04070921stcentdecded.

This is not the place for topic questions, try the Reference Desk. Looie496 (talk) 19:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was support for move.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

En dash versus hyphen

According to MOS:ENDASH, the title of this article should be "Obsessive–compulsive disorder" (with an en dash), not "Obsessive-compulsive disorder" (with a hyphen). I noticed this problem when reading the following recent review, which used the en dash:

  • Robertson MM (2008). "The prevalence and epidemiology of Gilles de la Tourette syndrome. Part 2: tentative explanations for differing prevalence figures in GTS, including the possible effects of psychopathology, aetiology, cultural differences, and differing phenotypes". J Psychosom Res. 65 (5): 473–86. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2008.03.007. PMID 18940378. 

I propose to switch to using the en dash uniformly in this article, as per MOS and per usage in high-quality publications. Eubulides (talk) 08:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

No comment, so I made the change to the contents. Next thing to do will be to rename the article so that the name contains an en dash rather than a hyphen; I'll wait for a bit before suggesting that. Eubulides (talk) 07:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
No further comment, so I'm now suggesting that the page be renamed to use an en dash rather than a hyphen. Eubulides (talk) 05:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the interpretation of WP:ENDASH, and suggest the same treatment for Obsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorder and Passive-aggressive behavior. Jafeluv (talk) 14:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
No problem as long as it doesn't break search functionality. Need to make sure of that before making the change. Looie496 (talk) 17:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I disagree with the results of this move request. Per WP:COMMONNAME, this article should be at Obsessive-compulsive disorder, as that is the form of dash that is used in most sources. – PeeJay 09:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Technically, whatever sources use an endash (even if they're in the minority) are correct. "Obsessive–compulsive" implies something like "obsessive and/or compulsive", while a hyphen would indicate that "compulsive" is modified by "obsessive". But even though folks can perform compulsions in response to obsessions, they're not "obsessively compulsive" in the sense that a red-breasted robin is "redly breasted". My guess is that, even when people know the difference, they might gravitate toward hyphens out of sheer convenience. Cosmic Latte (talk) 22:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Perceptions of reality

I added a separate small paragraph explaining that not all OCD patients understand their thoughts are not reality. This article works on the idea that ocd patients realize that their thoughts are irrational. This is not always the case, though when one can realize this they are starting the healing proscess. I am an OCD sufferer, and am not posting this point off of personal opinion, but the reality that the disorder confuses reality with the mysteries of intrusive thinking. One so involved in the thoughts can not see that they are just chemical disfunctions, and tend to think they are a horrible person. If anyone wants to contest this, they can feel free to fight this fact. (added by (talk · contribs)).

That makes a lot of sense, but in an article like this it is really important to have published sources to back up statements. Otherwise there is no practical way to draw a line between sensible things such as what you wrote and the sorts of unsubstantiated speculations that are frequently inserted. Looie496 (talk) 16:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
a key aspect of OCD is that those with the condition recognise that their thoughts are thoughts - and not reality, althought the distinction can become blurred (i.e. the concept of irrational depends on your perspective). Earlypsychosis (talk) 01:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
That was the reason I performed a reversion, instead of just adding a FACTS tag. If a key aspect of OCD is, as the referenced source indicates, that people are aware of their own irrationality, then lack of awareness must describe a condition that is not OCD. If an assertion is made that lack of awareness is a characteristic of OCD, then cited evidence needs to be provided to support that contradictory claim. The more likely truth, I'd guess, is that people who have OCD may also have associated conditions that include (or allow, or encourage) belief in irrational thoughts. aruffo (talk) 13:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a fairly complicated isse brought up here. The phrase "recognise that their thoughts are thoughts - and not reality" refers to the ego-dystonic nature of obsessions in OCD. That is, the person with OCD generally recognizes that their thoughts are senseless, irrational and excessive. The obsessions are usually alien to the self. This is not always the case, however. As pointed out, in the middle of an obsessional episode, obsessions may not be experienced as ego-dystonic as outside of it, and there may be some blurring between reality and the obsession. Generally, in the scientific literature, if the senseless of the obsession is not recognized, then it would be referred as OCD with overvalued ideation or as an ego-syntonic obsession. The concept is closely related to insight as well in the professional literature, and touches on delusional disorder as well in that an entirely ego-syntonic obsessions is difficult to differentiate from a delusion. So overall, an addition of this sort would be justified, albeit fairly complicated to get into, and it would require a quite a bit of literature and background. (talk) 04:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Egodystonic could do with some work Earlypsychosis (talk) 08:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Caffeine sources

Perhaps I should have brought this here before removing it, but I've removed this (Caffeine anaphylaxis-stage II: obsessive–compulsive disorder, Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients, April, 2004, by Ruth Whalen) source and the accompanying statement that caffeine causes OCD symptoms. The source itself is a letter to the editor. The letter was published (in the letters to the editor section) in the Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients. I know little about this publication, but their byline appears to be "Examines medical alternatives from multiple traditions and disciplines."

The title of the article is "Caffeine anaphylaxis-stage II: obsessive-compulsive disorder - Letters to the Editor - Letter to the Editor". I have serious doubts as to whether or not this is a theory supported by research. I've found nothing from a peer reviewed journal, or even the popular press, that links caffeine anaphylaxis to OCD. Caffeine anaphylaxis is rare and, like most anaphylaxis, accute (Allergy. 2003 Jul;58(7):681-2.). While I don't doubt, in fact, I suspect there are studies that suggest a link between caffeine and OCD, this particular one does not meet WP:RS. Shadowjams (talk) 19:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


Is it a sly Wikipedia editor's joke that "Obsessive-compulsive disorder" is a redirect to "Obsessive—compulsive disorder"? Tempshill (talk) 05:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Heh. Looie496 (talk) 15:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Please would someone correct the spelling of the header for the article? Thank you. (talk) 16:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

OCD/ Pure-o

The Purely Obsessional OCD Article should be a considered for merging with the OCD article most academic sources don't differentiate Pure-O from O.C.D. they just refer to the sufferer as "Purely Obsesional person" or call it OCD without overt compulsions. See "The OCD workbook" By Bruce M. Hyman, Cherry Pedrick & "Coping with OCD" By Bruce M. Hyman, Troy DuFrene, Page 60. This is also present here Obsessive-compulsive disorders By Fred Penzel 2000-- (talk) 23:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed that there was a debate in this page over weather Pure-O exists, well it does and every OCD textbook makes references to cases without compulsions or without noticeable compulsions.-- (talk) 23:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
The main article for OCD without overt compulsions is therefore Purely Obsessional OCD-- (talk) 13:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Hatnote added

I am not an expert in this area, but it appears to me that as both OCD and OCPD have WP articles, it is helpful to add the hatnotes to clarify this and lead from each to the other. PamD (talk) 07:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Do only Americans suffer this disease?

"Obsessive-compulsive disorder affects roughly six million Americans." How about the other people around the world?-- (talk) 17:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

If you can locate reliable published statistics for other countries, we should use them. Looie496 (talk) 14:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Six million sounds a little high, really. In any event, that sort of detail probably belongs in the epidemiology section. The lead was getting to be a little bloated, so I've had a go at tightening it. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Phenomena is being confused with extremism

Looks like Essjay all over again: people playing with the facts to try to do some good that they feel can't be done any other way. According to college textbooks, there are clear lines between extremism and obsessive compulsive disorder. I can't properly say this article is altogether credible. Tcaudilllg (talk) 20:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't properly say I have any idea what you're talking about. Who is Essjay, and where does this article say anything about extremism? Looie496 (talk) 20:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Nevermind, false alarm. At first I was having some difficulty distinguishing the language from that used to describe extremists ("imagined threat or harm", terms like "overvaluation") but there do appear to be enough references to the "repetition" aspect that the association isn't completely lost. Still I think the wording is too general.
Essjay was an editor here who became a symbol for what happens when people break the rules in the name of providing service to a cause. But none of that seems to be happening here... I was just a little emotional at the time. I need a wikibreak. Tcaudilllg (talk) 01:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay, no problem. Thanks for clarifying. Looie496 (talk) 01:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The Newly-Added Subarticles

are they all really necessary? I understand the links to Intrusive thoughts and Neuropsychiatry, but the Biology of OCD, the Current diagnostic criteria for OCD and the Treatment of OCD are all subjects pertaining specifically to OCD, so why create additional pages for them? Wouldn't we just be reexplaining ourselves? MichaelExe (talk) 15:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The usual reason for creating sub-articles is to keep the main article from getting too long. This article could probably be 50% longer before it got too unwieldy, so you're right for the moment, but might not be right if there is a substantial amount of more essential material missing currently. Looie496 (talk) 23:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Protection of the article

Do you think it would be wise to "protect" the article to prevent trolls and cyber-bullies alike from tampering with it? Per instance, there's a man over in Norway that's constantly being harassed by a group of Canadians who made off with 4 kittens in 2007, saying he has the disorder, when by specification alone he does not.
Protection of the article may work, if any vandalism attempt should be stopped.
-- (talk) 16:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy doesn't support "preventative protection", only protection in response to actual vandalism. Looie496 (talk) 20:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I've considered nominating this page for protection a few times (are all the countless "weegee" edits somebody's idea of an inside joke?), but as of right now, even the ongoing vandalism probably isn't bad enough to warrant protection. But (to the original poster), if you feel that a WP user is being harassed or is harassing someone else, you can always mention it at WP:ANI. But if anyone is making any false or unverifiable claims on here about another living person, they can and should be reminded of the WP:BLP policy--and if that doesn't do any good, then there's always WP:BLPN. Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed redirect

I've tried to make Compulsive behavior look halfway decent, but in all honesty, this unsourced stub says nothing that isn't or can't be covered in here. I wouldn't delete this spinoff by any means, because it's a plausible search term, and because, I suppose, it's possible that someone, someday could write an article about non-obsessive or non-clinical compulsions. But until that day comes, or at least until this article becomes more presentable and better-sourced, I don't see how the Compulsive behavior article really adds or encourages any material that isn't or shouldn't be in the OCD article. In fact, as it stands, the CB article looks like little more than a dictionary definition, and so belongs over yonder. So, does anybody else think that the CB page should be redirected to the OCD one? Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I favor making this a redirect. Looie496 (talk) 18:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Obsessive–compulsive spectrum and Impulse control disorder could probably be merged into this page, too, or at least merged with each other, considering impulse control disorder is within the obsessive-compulsive spectrum. MichaelExe (talk) 00:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Heard that childhood/adult bacterial inefections may induce OCD?

Heard (didnt see in article) That bacterial infections in childhood or in Adults affecting the brain. Could induce OCD.Is this so?TheStrikingsword (talk) 09:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's true. I'm reluctant to add it as it really needs someone familiar with the topic who can assess the material. --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Our article on PANDAS covers that story -- maybe for now a pointer to it from within this article would suffice. Looie496 (talk) 17:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Although I'm editing from a position of ignorance here, User:Looie496's suggestion seems a good way forward: PANDAS added, with ref. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


I added only stepping on sertain color tiles to the list of compulsions because I, as a sufferer of OCD have experienced and discussed with a few of my friends who also soposedly have it. I also talked about it with a psychiatrist who said that it was not uncommon. I just hope that this edit is considered verifiable and not concidered original research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm reasonably sure that that's verifiable; regardless, I don't think that anybody would deny or even doubt that it can be a symptom. The article needs several improvements, and although more thorough sourcing is one of them, greater clarity is another, and your edit seems to have made the sentence clearer. Even if it is unsourced for now, and even if it therefore looks potentially "original", we can ignore the rules (or can at least not over-emphasize them) when strict adherence to the rules only hinders progress on the article. So I, for one, have no problem with your edit. Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
P.S. Even if you make an edit that eventually will get removed or changed, your edit may become the impetus for constructive discussions or revisions. One edit from one editor often inspires another edit from a different editor. So be bold and feel free to set things in motion. :-) Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


This article needs some information about social or family influences in the development of the disease. Theres is a lot of research about it. (talk) 04:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)Castel

Yes please excellent idea.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

map colors?

The WHO map right there at section one isn't really explained. I would assume the red areas are the bad ones, but that requires an assumption unwarranted by the evidence. Does clicking on the map cause it to be explained? (I've not clicked on it myself) Unless I am missing something (say, perhaps somewhere in the article itself the map is referred to and explained), I suggest that perhaps something could be added to the caption explaining what the colors represent. --Neptunerover (talk) 06:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it have been easier to click on the map than to type this question? Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Obsessed TV show

It appears some overeager editor was spamming anxiety-disorder articles to promote the TV show, which of course was automatically reacted to (and removed) as vandalism. If this is actually a genuine nonfiction documentary-type series about OCD and its relatives, airing on a legitimate cable station, I would concur that it deserves the same level of attention here as does Monk. aruffo (talk) 21:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Im going to disagree with this one. Monk, even though he displays extreme OCD, uses it in a humorous way and also uses it to unrealistically solve crimes in minutes that would have normally taken months to solve, which is relatively innacurate. a person with OCD is most likely afraid of the world, would not touch random car antennas because of germaphobia, and would not go into a sewer to rescue a friend. A Word Of Advice From A Beast: Don't Be Silly, Wrap Your Willy! 02:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Actors etc

I agree with CosmicLatte that the Jack Nicholson edit was in good faith. The editor was probably not aware of the previous conversation about that particular section of the article becoming a dumping ground for every example that anyone could list of celebrities who exhibited OCD tendencies in some manner (real or fictional). The article linked to made a specific point about movies' influence on society, and this point, rather than the trivial fact that an actor portrayed a person, is relevant to this article. aruffo (talk) 11:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I prefer your phrasing over the earlier versions (my own included). Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problems with diagnostic criteria

The American Psychiatric Association has not released its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders into public domain, but claims copyright. The Wikimedia Foundation has received a letter of complaint (Ticket:2010030910040817, for those with access) about the use of their diagnostic criteria in this and a number of other articles. Currently, this content is blanked pending investigation, which will last approximately one week. Please feel free to provide input at the copyright problems board listing during that time. Individuals with access to the books would be particularly welcome in helping to conduct the investigation. Assistance developing a plan to prevent misuse of the APA's material on Wikipedia projects would also be welcome. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I see no problem, at least on this article. I've explained my position in more detail on the complaint page. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for checking. As I indicated at that subpage, I'm a bit hampered by an inability to access the source. While this article was specifically noted in the complaint as having copyright concerns, I have restored it for now pending some specific details on what text is contested. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


What does "preocupation with religious impulses etc." mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea--someday I'll have to ask a Whirling Dervish with OCD. But for the meantime, I've rephrased the line so that it should make more sense. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Law & the rights of Obsessive-Compulsives

..There was a segment on the page titled "Law" which mentioned some jurisdictions passing legislation infringing on the civil freedoms of those suffering with OCD but with a "citation needed" posted in a rural region & having dealt with both covert & overt discrimination of my OCD it would be nice to know some legitimate sources of legal information to this effect which could make life here easier for me here as there is virtually no advocacy available to me in this cultural wasteland where I am by circumstances forced to live now..thank you for any help anyone can render.. (talk) 00:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Reply to You do not say which country you are in.

The United Kingdom now has The Equality Act 2010 which supercedes several other acts including the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

The Equalities And Human Rights Commission provides mediation in the UK.

More information is also provided by

If you live elsewhere, do an internet search on "Human Rights" and "Disability Legislation" and "Disability Discrimination", and you should be able to find references to appropriate legislation in your own country to provide you with the protection from discrimination which you need.

Also check the United Nations website for The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other legislation and documents provided by that organization related to disabled people.

See also

There is also a lot more info here on Wikipedia about the rights of disabled people which I think will provide you with the necessary links. I am sorry I cannot provide you with more LINKS at this time as I have saved lots of PAGES on discrimination rather than LINKS so that I can read them when I do not have an internet connection. (talk) 16:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Problem with the lead: mental disorder - anxiety disorder.

It is confusing to switch terms from one sentence to the next. Pick one term and stick to it. If "anxiety disorder" is the more accurate term, then use it. I understand that the current use of "anxiety" in the first sentence makes it awkward to use the term "anxiety disorder" there but I don't think the solution is to introduce the term in the second sentence. Address the repetitive use of the word "anxiety" in the first sentence by either breaking that sentence into two sentences or replacing the other uses with something else.This is writing problem that needs to be addressed and edit warring and stubbornly sticking with what's there is not going to fix it. I'd rather see the awkward repetition rather than the confusing use of terminology:

Obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD) is an anxiety disorder characterized by intrusive thoughts that produce anxiety, by repetitive behaviors aimed at reducing anxiety, or by a combination of such thoughts (obsessions) and behaviors (compulsions). The symptoms may include ...

Jojalozzo 16:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Personally (obviously) I prefer to first say more generally "mental disorder" and then a bit more specifically "anxiety disorder", but if you find it confusing, edit it and I won't revert to the previous definition. :) Lova Falk talk 17:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
If you feel it is important to mention "mental disorder" I am ok with it, but as it is now it is not clear that when we introduce "anxiety disorder" we are not contradicting the previous sentence but being more specific. We appear to be violating the technical writing guideline that suggests introducing a term and then sticking with it. It would help the uninformed reader if we explained naturally and unobtrusively why the second term is useful in describing OCD. I find it interesting that the editors of Anxiety disorder did not find it necessary to mention Mental disorder in the lead of that article. Jojalozzo 21:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
It is not important to me, I just liked it, but please make your edit! Lova Falk talk 10:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


The neurotransmitter section is littered by the subject of dopamine addiction which is forcibly linked to OCD by a questionable theory which hasn't been validated by relevant citations. The suggestion is that people with OCD repeatedly think of rewarding thoughts to satisfy dopamine addiction, which supposedly explains the heightened levels of dopamine in the brains of OCD patients. This is ludicrous because normally people with OCD who have reoccurring thoughts have negative thoughts, not rewarding ones. After the termination of obsessive thoughts perhaps there is a heightened level of dopamine which brings a patient a sense of relief, but it seems very unlikely that the obsessive thoughts themselves raise dopamine levels. The entire part that focuses on dopamine and the pathology of dopamine addiction needs to be deleted. (talk) 23:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for being so observant! You are absolutely right, and I deleted most of that section.Lova Falk talk 17:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

What to link: Wikipedia:External_links

Wiki Guidelines state links should be added if they are"accessible to the reader", if site content is proper, and if the link is likely to remain functional. Not a long list here, only 2 links

The following links should be added:,

Beehivenoqueen (talk) 02:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

You're misreading the WP:External links page. What you are quoting is not a list of criteria that justifies adding a link. They are questions to be considered AFTER the proper criteria have been satisfied. Look further for the actual link criteria, which these proposed links do not satisfy. aruffo (talk) 03:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:MEDMOS#External_links; those orgs can be added to DMOZ, which is linked in the External links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

"Invitation to edit" trial

It has been proposed at Wikipedia talk:Invitation to edit that, because of the relatively high number of IP editors attracted to Obsessive compulsive disorder, it form part of a one month trial of a strategy aimed at improving the quality of new editors' contributions to health-related articles. It would involve placing this:

You can edit this page. Click here to find out how.

at the top of the article, linking to this mini-tutorial about MEDRS sourcing, citing and content, as well as basic procedures, and links to help pages. Your comments regarding the strategy are invited at the project talk page, and comments here, regarding the appropriateness of trialling it on this article, would be appreciated. Anthony (talk) 11:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The list of articles for the trial is being reconsidered, in light of feedback from editors, and should be ready in a day or two. If you have any thoughts about the Invitation to edit proposal, they would be very welcome at the project talk page. Anthony (talk) 14:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
The trial will be starting in a few days. Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

"the alphabetically sorted version"

I just came across the oddest entry at a disambiguation page, CDO, linking to the present article with the description "the alphabetically sorted version of Obsessive-compulsive disorder, a psychological disorder". Is this a joke? __meco (talk) 16:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Overeating and ocd

In your article, it states that one of the addictive behaviors that is often associated with obsessive compulsive disorder is overeating. Could the opposite, aneorexia, also be a side effect. My cousin has ocd and had a near-fatal bought with aneorexia, and was started supposedly because she heard people talking about her weight, causing her to obsess about her own weight. Is this also a common and likely connection? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryantheincredible (talkcontribs) 01:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Why Can't I Edit This Page

I was able to edit this page back in October and now I can't edit it now. What can I do to be able to edit this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curten jb (talkcontribs) 18:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It has been semi-protected. Once you've made ten edits to unprotected articles you'll be able to edit here. It's a measure applied to some heavy-vandalism pages. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 13 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Under External Links, would you please add the IOCDF, Internation Obsessive Compulsive Disorder Foundation.

It is a very important place for people dealing with OCD, themselves or in their family, to go to for acurate, up to date information and is run by the TOP EXPERTS on OCD in not only this country but the WORLD. (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done. Wikipedia is not a linkfarm and can't link to every possible informative website out there. We have a link to the Open Directory Project page for OCD and this link is included there, which is more than sufficient. --ICYTIGER'SBLOOD 01:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The main picture

Repetitive handwashing is a common OCD symptom

I really do not like that hand-washing is being used as the main picture. Having dealt with many severe sufferers of OCD (such as myself) who did not exhibit any tendency towards obsessive hand-washing, I feel like this constitutes a stereotype and I really do not like it.P2.71828182 (talk) 22:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I concur! I must not have been paying attention when that was added or I would've objected as well. As I've said in other parts of this discussion, I have personally observed such images to have an unfortunate effect-- a person will not recognize themselves to have OCD because they do not identify with the commonly portrayed stereotype of the disorder, and will thus fail to get help and treatment. Unless someone objects, let's remove it by the end of the week. aruffo (talk) 03:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Boldly removed the image per above. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Handwashing is a frequent symptom of OCD mentioned in many sources. One will never find an image of a condition that everyone with that condition presents with. On this logic we would remove all images.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Per this ref washing is one of the main subtypes 18464496 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
James, please address the point made by Aruffo, that hand-washing is so emblematic of OCD, that some may think if you're not a hand-washer, you don't have OCD. No one is saying it isn't a common symptom, they are arguing against reinforcing a possible misconception. If they're right, maybe no illustration is better than a (possibly) misleading one. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
That is my point. There are always exceptions to common or classic presentations. If we do not allow images of common or classic presentations as people may not realize that ALL cases do not present classically than we will illustrate no articles with images. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
It is not appropriate to illustrate an article on OCD with an image of any one symptom. I would compare using the handwashing image here to illustrating an article about schizophrenia by showing a man impersonating Napoleon Bonaparte. Even if not for the pejorative implications of handwashing particularly, the disorder of OCD is defined by its causes, not its symptoms. Its symptoms are manifold and often unpredictable-- e.g., every time your car hits a bump you believe you have killed a man, or you feel your life will be ruined if you don't collect every designer dinner plate that the Franklin Mint has ever produced. If it were possible to include an image that somehow illuminated the causes of the disorder, this would provide greater understanding. Attempting to illustrate OCD with any symptomatic image is misleading and inappropriate. aruffo (talk) 16:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
We illustrate hundreds of articles with a single image of a single symptom. I am not sure how this is any different.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
What you say is precisely why the image must be omitted. An uninformed observer will not recognize the difference. If, as you indicate, you do not understand the difference, I respectfully request that you refrain from judgment or action until you have gathered enough evidence to support a position. aruffo (talk) 18:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Will request further opinions. I have provided plenty of evidence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
So should we take down the picture from Acute stress reaction because not everybody who gets stabbed will be unaware of it or should we recognize that that is an example that people will understand and relate to?
If you’re going to take down the hand washing picture I would like to hear an idea of what the picture should be of. ITasteLikePaint (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Aruffo instructing another editor to "refrain from judgment" is unacceptable breach of etiquette, address issues please, rather than attack those that disagree with you.David Ruben Talk 22:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
  • include picture - the picture seems fine to me, in fact more than that, I expect such a picture to help recognise the topic. The picture illustrates a frequent classic symptom of excessive hand washing, but that is not to suggest all people with OCD have this - this is not therefore a reason not to have the picture. Nor does the picture imply these are people who implement hospital training programmes to ensure clinical staff routinely wash their hands between patients. Of course OCD may also involve repeatedly checking that doors/windows are closed, but a picture of a static closed door is less likely to indicate a process occuring as the hand-washing picture implies, that there is action in teh picture is important - it is not that hands are washed/doors closed or some particular thought occured in the past, it is that they are active ongoing and in the present. As for Affuro's point that "a person will not recognize themselves to have OCD because they do not identify with the commonly portrayed stereotype of the disorder" - firstly of course WP is not written for patients and so it is not for people to self-diagnose (WP:NOTGUIDE and disclaimer WP:MEDICAL), secondly have a look at picture for say Asthma - do people not have asthma if they have not been provided with a peak flow meter or have not had this test - as no child under the age of 5 can reliably use such meters, they play no part in the diagnosis/management of asthma in infants. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has as its picture a postmortum image of lungs with emphasyma, which is but one classification of the condition and not to imply that COPD does not exist in living people. Pictures in 'disease infobox' are but illustrative of some (but not all-encompassing) aspect(s) of the subjct matter. David Ruben Talk 22:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
    Just a minor point, but the picture does not claim to be a fixed requirement for the condition, for its caption reads "Repetitive handwashing is a common OCD symptom" David Ruben Talk 22:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Include picture Handwashing is one of the more common symptoms of OCD and certainly one of the easier one to illustrate. It would be helpful if those editors objecting would provide an alternative for a picture to use for the article. Counting would be a little more difficult. A typical picture of the results of hoarding would not be a good alternative. Repetitive checking and excessive doubt are not exactly easy to illustrate. As long as the text of the article doesn't imply that every person with OCD manifests symptoms of excessive hand-washing and the text under the picture states it's just a common symptoms, I don't think it's a problem to have a picture of someone washing his hands. Warfieldian (talk) 02:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
The picture is not illustrative of OCD. Nor is the picture illustrative of a symptom of OCD. Hand-washing is but one potential, individualized consequence of the real symptoms of OCD. I am not splitting hairs in saying this; I am saying that the handwashing picture does not illustrate a symptom of OCD. It illustrates a stereotype of OCD sufferers which is objectionable to those who suffer from OCD. In furtherance of this point, it is a misreading of my previous statement to infer that I was mounting a personal attack. I say again: a person who does not understand the difference between the handwashing image here versus images used to illustrate symptoms of other disorders is ill-equipped to pass judgment upon this image. I say again: if a person honestly believes that a handwashing image is an appropriate illustration of OCD, and sees no reason why an image of hand-washing-- as it is indeed a popularly-held conception of the disorder-- should not be presented as representative of the condition, then I would encourage that person to visit the schizophrenia page and replace the sample image there with that of a man in a Napoleon Bonaparte outfit (and, ideally, exhibiting a cockeyed expression). The reponse generated by such an image would soon make clear its indefensibility-- despite its being a storied, popular, and legitimate representation of one manifestation of the disorder.
Does anyone snigger at the thought of a peak flow meter? Does anyone snort with condescension at a post-mortem illustration of diseased lungs? I do not take issue with the points you are making about symptomatic images. If that were the only concern, I certainly wouldn't care in the slightest. The real objection to its inclusion is not one of limitation, but of derision. This is what I implore you to understand. This is the issue which is to be addressed.
I don't know (yet) what an alternative image might be. But I think the schizophrenia article is, again, a good example. The image presented there is itself a consequence of a symptom-- but it is a presentation from which a reader cannot casually conclude that they recognize and understand the phenomenon. It is an image which challenges its viewer to wonder "what could cause that?" and encourages them to read on and learn. If an image were requisite for this article, then it could be more helpful to have an image that would startle a reader into thinking that they actually do NOT know exactly what this disorder is about. The handwashing image would rather encourage them to believe that OCD is indeed that same crazy behavior they've seen (misrepresented) repeatedly in the media. aruffo (talk) 02:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Just one additional comment. It is not helpful to imply that other editors are ill-equipped to weigh in on this issue simply because they disagree with you. I treat people all the time with this disorder but that doesn't make me any more able to comment on the suitability of using the picture for the article. I can say that people with OCD often are embarrassed by the symptoms and often hesitant to bring them up. That doesn't mean that we can't talk about the symptoms or illustrate them in article about the subject of OCD because it might make some people uncomfortable. You haven't suggested a better image to use. I think the article benefits from having some type of picture near the lead. I hope that a consensus can be reached on returning the removed image or finding a similar one that illustrates one of the common symptoms of OCD. Warfieldian (talk) 03:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
You're right. It would not be helpful, nor logically sound, to imply that any other editors are ill-equipped because of a disagreement in opinion. This is why I have not done so. Rather, I should think it would be obvious that anyone who does not understand why some thing could be offensive is ill-equipped to judge whether that thing is or is not offensive. I would be surprised if anyone would believe that an informed judgment could be made from a position of ignorance, regardless of the topic.
I repeat: I assert it is no more or less appropriate or helpful to place an image of handwashing here than it is to place an image of a kooky Napoleon on the schizophrenia page. I maintain that the detriment of such an image to an encyclopedic article is that it merely evokes a media stereotype. It may not be easy to imagine an image that is emblematic of an actual symptom of OCD-- an anxiety disorder, the symptoms of which are abnormally heightened emotions, which lead to compulsions-- but perhaps we could figure it out. aruffo (talk) 04:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Hand washing is specifically mentioned in the ICD 10 criteria [httyhcole|Anthonyhcole]] ([[User ta-an05.html]. This is more than "media stereotype". Per this review article "decontamination rituals e.g., excessive washing, bathing, or grooming are present in 46%" The only compulsions is more common is checking at 80%.Markarian Y, Larson MJ, Aldea MA; et al. (2010). "Multiple pathways to functional impairment in obsessive-compulsive disorder". Clin Psychol Rev. 30 (1): 78–88. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2009.09.005. PMID 19853982.  Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

As for an alternative image, other articles have used a brain scan highlighting the regions involved in OCD organising precision cleaning trichotillomania checking hoarding symbolic representation. Would any of these be more appropriate? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

If the issue is whether an image should be symptomatic or emblematic, I suspect they're all about the same. That is-- I notice and focus on the quote following the specific mention of hand-washing given in the ICD 10 criteria: "Underlying the overt behaviour is a fear, usually of danger either to or caused by the patient, and the ritual act is an ineffectual or symbolic attempt to avert that danger." That's what's really going on. I suspect it would be most beneficial if an illustration could be provided indicating this symptomatic fear, rather than any emblematic ritual. However, I still don't know what that is, and my imagination is failing me. For now, until such an image could be conceived, I readily concede the "media stereotype" and Napoleon business based on the evidence given and withdraw my opposition to the inclusion of a handwashing image. aruffo (talk) 05:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Restored. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
There are absolutely no good arguments for KEEPING the picture, other than "the picture was there and I want it to stay." The hand-washing image perpetuates a HARMFUL STEREOTYPE: that of the obsessive compulsive as an uptight person obsessed with cleanliness. As a non-uptight and fairly messy person who suffers from severe obsessive compulsive disorder I have encountered alot of difficulty due to non-sufferers assumption that OCD is synonymous with uptight and clean. This picture really should not be the main picture. The main picture should be something liek a brain scan, as noted above.P2.71828182 (talk) 04:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Seeing that the cause is unknown a brain scan says little about this topic. I have provided evidence of how common this symptom / sign is. Can you present evidence that it is a harmful sterotype? Remember Wikipedia is trying to be evidence based.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Evidence would need to be provided first. WP:MEDRS outlines what would be suitable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay then no brain scan, it has been acknowledged that more than half of people suffering from OCD do not present with the symptom in the main picture. Furthermore, as I stated previously and as has been stated by others, this picture represents a harmful stereotype and it needs to be removed from the top of the article. The importance of this cannot be over-stressed. I will gather some evidence this week, until then I request that this picture be removed as the main picture. Can I also ask why you feel so strongly that this picture must remain the main picture? Many of us have explained why it should not be. As "checking" is a symptom that shows up in 80% or more of sufferers (your stat) and is not a stereotype i suggest that it would be a much better main picture for the article. [User:P2.71828182|P2.71828182]] (talk) 05:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
If you can find an equally good picture that involves checking we could reconsider things. BTW these are not my stats but those of the review I have referenced. I consider illustrating articles good editor form. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Doc James has presented evidence to support his case that handwashing is a common symptom found in people with OCD. Since the argument of "harmful stereotype" seems more consistent with WP:JDLI. I'd like to see some secondary sources which specifically mention hand-washing as a harmful stereotype and also how this is more harmful than any other symptom of OCD. Warfieldian (talk) 23:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
  • CONCUR with including picture - An excellent discussion! At this point, after considering all the above, and with all due respect to everyone, I personally (a) do not forsee SIGNIFICANT harm vis-a-vis perpetuating the aforementioned harmful stereotype, and (b) I DO feel it is REASONABLY representative of the disorder. Furthermore, (c) the EVIDENCE presented by Doc James, combined with (d) the ICD-10 mention (above), carry considerable weight with this user. Of course, I would be pleased to reconsider my (value $0.02 U.S.) opinion in the future if I were given additional evidence and/or argument to review. Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 06:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Note added ex post facto - perhaps I should have mentioned I am NOT an admin, merely have "reviewer" rights. Thanks.Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 06:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

hello... I have ocd and i find this stereotype to be quite offensive... being a programmer i have the means and know how to wage war upon this page and remove that picture.... if it is replaced... it will be taken down... this is the end of all argument to this picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

  • I find it extremely distracting that the top left corner of the picture contains unsightly greyness and there are various black spots throughout the picture. I hope someone will take the initiative to remove those soon. Purpy Pupple (talk) 00:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I've been too busy to find sources, I will soon. But I would Like to point out that using this picture is simply not illuminating. It is akin to using a picture of a person vomiting as the main illustration in the article about Chemotherapy. Essentially everyone who undergoes Chemotherapy vomits but this is a bad way to represent chemotherapy. Far fewer sufferers of OCD compulsively wash their hands. At the end of the day, in addition to being offensive, it is just a bad picture. P2.71828182 (talk) 12:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Remove picture
It is rather odd to have a picture of a man washing his hands on an OCD article. There are no other pictures in this article, so why have an extremely random one as the main image. When I visited this page, I wasn't sure whether I was on a "hygiene" article, or if I was at the OCD one. I agree with

P2.71828182, it is a bad way to represent OCD; plus, it could and does offend many people with OCD. Rsercher (talk) 21:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

  • I do not see how using the hand washing picture which represents one symptom of a very complex disorder is any different than the very offensive use of the term “beaner” to represent a Mexican or other one word, one image stereo-type pejoratives. Most people are familiar with OCD so why not challenge them with a new image that represents the hours that this disorder takes out of ones day if left untreated! The quality of the hand washing picture can be found on reality t.v. 333prime.curios (talk) 15:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The picture, revisited

Like some commentators on this page, I've been diagnosed with OCD. Like some commentators, I'm also familiar with the research litature. I don't see anything offensive or inaccurate about the hand-washing picture. But that, in my estimation, is the problem. The picture is not offensive enough, and at the same time it's just too accurate:

  • Unoffensiveness: OCD itself is "offensive". Sufferers literally[10] "take offense" to their condition insofar as they feel hurt or injured by it. In clinical settings, this sort of "offense" often goes by the name of "subjective distress". The current picture, in stark contrast to the topic that it's illustrating, is benign; it betrays no suffering, except perhaps for the distress that accompanies the realization that your life as a contagious pathogen on some guy's palm is over. Indeed, this article attempts to introduce a (psycho)pathological condition with the exact same picture as adorns the article on hygeine!
  • Accuracy: The picture strikes me as myopic, both in a literal sense (as a photograph) and in a figurative one (as a symbol):
    • Literal myopia: Hands do not have OCD; humans do. Hands have warts and germs and hangnails. The picture has something of a dermatological quality, I suppose, and lacks the sort of existential or expressive hues which may be found atop the major depressive disorder and anxiety disorders articles. To be sure, neither van Gogh nor Munch set out to illustrate the DSM, and neither man's selected work (At Eternity's Gate and The Scream, respectively) exactly lend themselves to easy "diagnosis". Both artists, however, demonstrated in these works that they could "zoom out" far enough from symptom and from syndrome that they could pinpoint the exact location of pathology and misery as nothing less than the entire human organism as it "hosts" its "illness" in a given setting or environment. The hand-washing illustration could very well be the perfect picture of OCD. But this compact, clear, and "nice and clean" (no pun intended) imagery does not inherently convey that something is off-kilter. "Common knowledge" notwithstanding, it is only in the context of the article that such an image can become discernably relevant to the very concept that it is supposed to make at least a little more accessible from the beginning! The reader is obliged to appreciate the symptom in terms of the syndrome and vice versa, and is thereby trapped within a hermeneutic circle from the outset.
    • Figurative myopia: I know, it's difficult to illustrate an abstract concept, especially given the tangibility of images and the intangibility of ideas. OCD, however, is decidedly bicameral, for even by name it is a creature of cognition and behaviour juxtaposed. Hand-washing might indeed be emblematic of compulsions. However, since OCD's compulsions are, by nature, logical misrepresentations of OCD's obsessions, hand-washing makes for more synecdoche than symbolism: Hand-washing is to OCD as "one small step for a man" is to "one giant leap for mankind"; the connections may be recognizable and even famous, but this does not necessarily mean that the connected entities are semiotically proportionate.

I don't claim to have the slightest clue what an ideal picture for the introduction to this article would look like; rather, I maintain that it has yet to be discovered or suggested, and I encourage further exploration in a continued (if confusing) quest to find an image which may compensate for any superfcial irreverence or imprecision by embodying a deeper logic and more sensitive aesthetics than those apparent in the current choice. With a new image of this sort the lead should spare the reader from the smallest hermeneutic circle and from the slightest semiotic scramble. Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Meanwhile, someone who has no obsession about their hands is counting peas on their plate and hording until they have head high stacks falling on them and fires breaking out. Why? Because those with this condition or those who live with them looking for information about them, but all they see is a hand washer. Stereotyping is not helpful. I agree with those who say it is harmful, but it is also deceptive. It is not the only or even the most likely symptom. SEE: Why do you need an image at all? JohnLloydScharf (talk) 07:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

psychology section is missing

someone deleted the psychology section?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that a section used to be present but is no longer there? If so, you should be able to discover what happened by looking through the history of the article. Looie496 (talk) 19:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
The section heading is there (above "biological"), but there is no content. The content that was there in the recent history really wasn't useful. The heading could be removed, but I think there should be some information on this. Don't have time to write it myself right now. If someone is interested to work on it, the article on intrusive thoughts has a pretty good description of the psychological processes that have been theorised to cause intrusive thoughts to develop into OCD - this could perhaps be reworked as a starting point to fixing the psychological factors section. Interlope (talk) 03:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


Since OCD suffers are "addicted" to their comulsions. Does this lead many to addiction? (drugs etc?) Also, since there is temporary loss of memory often associated with OCD . May be this a factor in predicting future alAHEIMER ?SOCALKIDME (talk) 19:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Please note that, as the template at the top of the page says, this is a place to discuss improvements to the article. It is not a forum for general discussion of OCD. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)

Edit request from , 20 October 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

The external links section should include a link to OCD Chicago. It is one of the biggest resources on the web for information on the subject of OCD.

The link is:

Dougbertram (talk) 16:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that's too local; see Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. If you disagree, please discuss it here and if there's consensus to add it, re-request. Also please refer to WP:EL - it'd have to be justified in those terms. Does it really provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article?  Chzz  ►  07:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

As Good as it Gets

The reference to Melvin Udall in As Good as it Gets having OCD is not entirely accurate (despite a line in the movie mentioning OCD), and I think that providing an inaccurate example will leave readers with a false impression of the disorder. Udall more likely suffered from OCPD than OCD, most notably because of the egosyntonic nature of his symptoms. He never seemed to have a problem with his behavior, whereas someone with OCD would suffer distress from their obsessions or rituals. In contrast, he alienated many people around him with his intolerance and rigidity, which are more characteristic of OCPD. I think that the reference should stay in the article but be modified to mention the OCPD diagnosis, in order to most effectively combat the misinformation within the movie. EriktheRed53 (talk) 05:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit needed in top summary. (22/11/11)

{{edit semi-protected}}

"The phrase obsessive–compulsive has become part of the English lexicon, and is often used in an informal or caricatured manner to describe someone who is excessively meticulous, perfectionistic, absorbed, or otherwise fixated.[4] The term obsession came from the latin terms “obsessio” and “posessio” were commonly used during warfare. “Obsessio” means that a group of soldiers have the desire to take over a town or city. When the soldiers successfully took over the city, they cheered “Posessio.” This metaphor was often related to the devil taking over one’s soul. The difference is possessive people’s minds were completely taken over. Obsessive people knew their minds were being controlled, but did not know how to stop the images in their heads. “Obsession is a well- known category involving doing or thinking one thing too much, being aware of that activity, but being unable to stop it." [1]These signs are present in OCD, a person who exhibits them does not necessarily have OCD, and may instead have obsessive–compulsive personality disorder (OCPD), an autism spectrum disorder, or no clinical condition"

Here, the main problem has been put in bold. This is both unmentioned in the OCPD article as well as being an unfounded and unsupported statement. Either back it up with a suitable citation and add it to the OCPD article as well, or remove the claim entirely. -- (talk) 21:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). There is an important need to add two symptoms to the OCD symptoms list: a "feeling of being poisoned by chemicals" and a "feeling of being threatened by electromagnetic radiation". Reference: "The Brain That Changes Itself" by Dr. Norman Doidge, page 166. Foxbat21 (talk) 05:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a medical ref with a PMID? Thanks. -- (talk) 09:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Need to add short description of most effective OCD treatment

There is an important need to replace the ERP treatment (described as the most effective treatment) with the even more effective four step treatment by Dr. Jeffery Schwartz described in his book "Brain Lock". Foxbat21 (talk) 05:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes I noticed that too - the article mentions exposure therapy but not Schwartz' method, which involves differentiating the disorder from the self, as well as distraction. (talk) 17:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

OCD recovery -

I have just had a look at your page about recovery from ocd - saying periods of ocd abating is uncommon !! there are people like my self who have recovered from the illness. I feel that this is not being highlighted in this article people do recover from this illness. I think you should have look at stats on recovery. thanks... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Where are those stats on recovery? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me find these for u thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Need to add relevant information and link to PANS

I suggest that the following information should be included as relevant to the entry on OCD: PANS is an acronym for Pediatric Acute-Onset Neuropsychiatric Syndrome. This diagnosis is used to describe children who have "abrupt, dramatic onset of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) or severely restricted food intake" coincident with the presence of two or more neuropsychiatric symptoms.[2]Werelived (talk) 01:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not a diagnosis: it is a hypothesis intended for research purposes (see the cited source), about which there is one and only paper to date. Not only is it not a diagnosis-- it isn't even proposed for DSM5. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

OCD: The War Inside

I notice the external links section is extremely concise, for obvious reasons. So I'll just ask: any support for adding this online NFB documentary as an external link? thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Sexual obsession

I just read this article to see if their were other names for OCD, but the sexual obsession paragraph (second paragraph under “Obsessions”), was rather unnecessary.

I am aware that some people with OCD experience sexual, intrusive thoughts, those are some that I get, as well), but it's not an obsession; when I listen to my OCD, I am making a concious decission to do so, in hope that it will stop the anxiety. My intrusive thoughts, however, are something I can never control. I try as hard as I can to get them out of my mind, but I don't have control over it. It's not something I can say “no” to like my OCD (you can say no, it's just extremely difficult), it's as if someone else is controlling my mind.

As to the comment of obsessing over what ones sexual orientation is, many people do, not just the ones with OCD.

But what really bothers me about these comments on “sexual obsession” is that, it is all intrusive thoughts. All though I am very aware intrusive thoughts occurs in many OCD patients, intrusive thoughts aren't always sexual.

My OCD gives me many intrusive thoughts; whenever I see someone, a derogatory term based on their ethnicity comes to my mind. I'm not racist; I can't control it. Intrusive thoughts can include thoughts of murder. I know people who keep imagining their loved ones dying, some even imagining that they are actually killing their loved ones. It's not them, it's their intrusive thoughts, brought on by their OCD.

Excuse my rant, but the point I am trying to make with it is that, all though it makes sense to mention these sexual thoughts, it should be specified that some people with OCD have intrusive thoughts, which I assume would have its own page, which then specifies the different types of thoughts. If it's really necessary, then, when mentioining intrusive thoughts, put down “sexual, violent, etc.” or something like that. (talk) 20:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


As a person who has been diagnosed with obsessive-compulsive disorder, I would like to respectfully object to the hand-washing photo used at the top of this article. Its prominence and placement appears to me to be perpetuating a stereotype of OCD, namely the stereotype that we're all compulsive hand-washers. Because of this, and also because of how it so narrowly represents merely one manifestation of the disorder, I'd like to suggest that the photo be either removed or replaced. Any thoughts? Chenmaoen (talk) 02:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the picture nor the article implies that OCD sufferers are "all compulsive hand-washers". It's just a common symptom, as the caption says. To pick a few other mental health articles at random, not everyone with autism repetitively stacks objects, not all schizophrenics spout incoherent word salad, and not everyone with Aspergers displays abnormally focused interests. It's just difficult to illustrate every possible permutation of a disorder within a single image. Do you have any suggestions as to what should replace the hand-washing photo? DoctorKubla (talk) 06:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The photo is offensive and less than helpful. Prove it's a common symptom. It's a common stereotype because of misinformation. It should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

this is a better picture: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I also like that image. Can we legally use it in Wikipedia? Jojalozzo 05:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, the reference given in the article says "The most common obsession is fear of contamination and results in compulsive hand-washing". The picture you're offering seems a bit too abstract to be useful or appropriate for an encyclopedia. (As for its legal status, you could try contacting OCD-UK. If they own the copyright, I'm sure they'd be happy for us to use the image.) DoctorKubla (talk) 07:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the OCD ribbon could be used. Whether as the main pucture or just anotherpicturebin the article, it's pretty significant. (talk) 23:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


I really think that this article is too short. It doesn't give much information about OCD, just how to supposedly "cure" it. What I mean to say is that it needs more info. Colabcalub (talk) 01:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Is treatment available for this? (talk) 11:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Please add Clomipramine injections, "infusions", to the list of treatments.

Clomipramine injections as cited here:

Mind you the methodology is changing as it is still under testing and refinement. I will be receiving treatment via "home-infusions" soon. It is currently not FDA approved.

- Thank you.

Williash03 (talk) 00:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 July 2012

Add Clomipramine infusions under treatments ("Introduction of a solution into the body through a vein for therapeutic purposes." - Clomipramine injections as cited here: Mind you the methodology is changing as it is still under testing and refinement. I will be receiving treatment via "home-infusions" soon. It is currently not FDA approved. - Thank you.

Williash03 (talk) 02:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you include the whole entry you want introduced; ie. if you want extra information, please add it under this message. Thanks, Mdann52 (talk) 10:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

First and second sentences of second paragraph are false or misleading

The sentences are: "OCD is the fourth most common mental disorder, and is diagnosed nearly as often as asthma and diabetes mellitus.[1] In the United States, one in 50 adults suffers from OCD.[2]"

The first sentence is blatantly false. OCD has a lifetime prevalence of about 2-3% (, which is less than almost all anxiety disorders and certainly far from being the 4th most prevalent mental disorder ( The second sentence is thus also false, and misleading since it sounds like point prevalence, although this would also be false. I don't have the knowledge to make these changes properly with citations in wikipedia, but someone please do so! OCD is closer to being the 20th most prevalent mental disorder. The epidemiology section seems to be more accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I have removed those two sentences. The second one may be more or less accurate if qualified appropriately, but the source given for it is not strong enough for such a statement in an article such as this. It would of course be nice to give a better figure there, but it is better to have no information than misinformation. Looie496 (talk) 23:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Aripiprazole as an antiobsessive

The atypical antipsychotics olanzapine, quetiapine, and risperidone have also been found to be useful as adjuncts to an SSRI in treatment-resistant OCD. However, these drugs are often poorly tolerated, and have significant metabolic side effects that limit their use. None of the atypical antipsychotics have demonstrated efficacy as a monotherapy.[55]

Edit: The atypical antipsychotics olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone and ariprazole have also been found to be useful as adjuncts to an SSRI in treatment-resistant OCD. However, these drugs are often poorly tolerated, and some have significant metabolic side effects that limit their use. None of the atypical antipsychotics have demonstrated efficacy as a monotherapy.[55]

The atypical anti psychotic aripiprazole (Abilify) has a different mechanism of action than the other antipsychotics. It has been shown to be antiobsessive as compared to the other atypical antipsychotics. The atypical anti psychotics each have a different side-effect profile.


Indented line

Reference: Psychol Med. 2011 Nov;41(11):2361-73. Epub 2011 Apr 5. Antiserotonergic antipsychotics are associated with obsessive-compulsive symptoms in schizophrenia. Schirmbeck F, Esslinger C, Rausch F, Englisch S, Meyer-Lindenberg A, Zink M. Source Central Institute of Mental Health, Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Mannheim, Germany.

Clin Pract Epidemiol Ment Health. 2011;7:107-11. Epub 2011 May 27.
Aripiprazole augmentation in patients with resistant obsessive compulsive disorder: a pilot study.
Delle Chiaie R, Scarciglia P, Pasquini M, Caredda M, Biondi M.
Department of Psychiatry and Psychological Medicine, SAPIENZA University of Rome, Viale dell'Università, 30 - 00185 - Rome, Italy.
Antipsychotic augmentation is an effective treatment intervention for Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) patients resistant to Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRI) agents. This pilot study was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of Aripiprazole for the augmentation of standard treatments in patients with resistant OCD.
Twenty patients diagnosed with OCD according to DSM-IV TR criteria and having a history of resistance to standard pharmacological treatment were included in the study. Aripiprazole was added to ongoing SSRI or clomipramine treatment with a starting dose of 5 mg/day and titrated up to a maximum of 20 mg/day (mean dose 12.62 mg ± 4.25). Efficacy was assessed with the Yale-Brown obsessive compulsive scale (Y-BOCS) and the Clinical Global Improvement-severity scale (CGI-S) at baseline and at week 12 of Aripiprazole augmentation. Side effects were monitored by the Udvalg for Kliniske Undersogelser (UKU) side effect rating scale.
All 20 subjects enrolled in our study completed the full 12-week course of treatment. A significant improvement over the 12-week study period was observed (paired t-test for mean Y-BOCS total score at week 12 as compared with baseline - all patients: t = 13.146, d.f. = 19, p= 0.0001). Aripiprazole was generally well tolerated and no changes were observed in vital signs. The most commonly observed side effects after the introduction of the augmenting agent included: akathysia, nausea/vomiting, hyperkinesia, tension/inner unrest, tremors, asthenia/lassitude/increased fatiguability.
Although results of this pilot study are preliminary and require confirmation in randomized controlled trials, our experience suggested that Aripiprazole is effective and well-tolerated as an augmenting agent in patients with treatment resistant OCD.

Gomarg100 (talk) 12:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)gomarg100

Edit request on 30 August 2012

Please include to to included in the external links section because the non-profit organization is a valuable resource for people wanting to know more about Obsessive Compulsive Disorder and people suffering from the disorder.

Mfoy1234 (talk) 17:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the policy regarding inclusion of links to support resources like this. However, I noticed that there's a link to the Open Directory Project on the article page now. Have you submitted this website for inclusion there? --Aurochs (Talk | Block) 18:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Not done:. I don't see this as meeting the criteria at WP:EL. I recommend submitting this website at Open Directory Project per above. —KuyaBriBriTalk 18:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Fringe theory - query


What's the background on this edit, and the basis for describing as "fringe"?

If it's a treatment that has had clinical discussion, even if unproven or discredited, I guess it should be mentioned anyway, the balanced view should be included with cited clinical views if it is "fringe".

(I do not have a personal opinion)


James 173 (talk) 13:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, true. This section was my contribution, but user Aurochs didn't like it and deleted it after almost insulting me on my site. Honestly I don't understand why he had problems with this information, but I didn't want to fight with him. I still believe the information about hydroxyzine is valid, and yes, while maybe old and fringe, not less important that other "fringe" theories like the one about the opiods or the glutaminergic drugs. Rgds, --Andreas Parker (talk) 13:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
The content in question was removed due to lack of sources that back up the claim being made. Both sources Parker cited discuss the use of hydroxyzine in psychotic patients. OCD has never been considered a psychotic disorder, not even in the original DSM. I repeatedly asked Andreas Parker to specifically state where in the article it says that the patients had OCD (or whatever it was called at the time), rather than schizophrenia (which can also manifest with obsessive thoughts). He did not respond. Since I cannot verify that the article says what Parker claims it says, and I can find nothing else on Pubmed or Google Scholar supporting the hydroxyzine hypothesis, I had to come to the conclusion that it was fringe and did not belong on Wikipedia. --Aurochs (Talk | Block) 01:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Further, the verbiage is far from NPOV. The passage includes quotes such as 'The scientists came to the conclusion that "the improvement was impressive"' and 'the FDA mentions the "symptomatic relief of anxiety and tension associated with psychoneurosis" as a field of application for hydroxyzine.' The treatment is also far longer than the treatment for the other experimental drugs, including that for the opioids, and includes a lot of (unsourced) speculation about the mechanism of action. --Aurochs (Talk | Block) 01:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I've asked Parker to follow up here before I attempt to evaluate these claims in further detail, but at a glance it's worth mentioning that PMID 22204483 includes hydroxyzine in its abstract.   — C M B J   11:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't have the time to join this new discussion. I just can stress on the fact that user Aurochs questions results of a study that he has obviously no access to (SCHRAM WS. Use of hydroxyzine in psychosis. Dis Nerv Syst 20:126 (1959)) - in this study the effect of hydroxyzine also on obesessive-compulsive symptoms was researched and the overall results were discribed as "outstanding".
Furthermore, talking about the way of action of hydroxyzine in the brain we don't deal with speculations but with study results (Snowman AM, Snyder SH (December 1990). "Cetirizine: actions on neurotransmitter receptors". The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 86 (6 Pt 2): 1025–8. doi:10.1016/S0091-6749(05)80248-9. PMID 1979798 ---- Kubo N, Shirakawa O, Kuno T, Tanaka C (March 1987). "Antimuscarinic effects of antihistamines: quantitative evaluation by receptor-binding assay". Japanese Journal of Pharmacology 43 (3): 277–82. doi:10.1254/jjp.43.277. PMID 2884340 ---- WHITE RP, BOYAJY LD (September 1960). "Neuropharmacological comparison of atropine, scopolamine, banactyzine, diphenhydramine and hydroxyzine". Archives Internationales De Pharmacodynamie et De Thérapie 127: 260–73. PMID 13784865)
Good luck, I'm tired of this discussion. You may figure out what you believe is "the truth", but please not on my private discussion site. I'm out of this topic now.
Andreas Parker (talk) 12:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
If Parker is willing to post a scan of the Schram article online somewhere so that I can read the whole thing, I would be extremely happy. However, currently, the only information I have is the title, which specifically refers to psychotic patients. If the subjects in the article were psychotic (schizophrenic, bipolar disorder, MDD) but also manifesting with obsessive and/or compulsive symptoms, then the results cannot be said to be directly applicable to patients with OCD. For this reason, the diagnosis of the patients is critical.
Drug binding assays are definitely proof that a drug binds at specific receptors. However, they are NOT proof that such binding is (or is considered by the scientific community to be) a mechanism of action for treatment of a certain condition. That passage read as an inappropriate original synthesis.
CMBJ, I did see that article last month while I was researching this. Hydroxyzine is listed in the abstract as an "other treatment option;" and it's not clear if the authors thought it was potentially useful for panic disorder, OCD, or both. It is helpful to note that "hydroxyzine OCD" only returns two results on PubMed, neither one of which directly refers to hydroxyzine as a treatment for OCD. Google Scholar returns this PDF, which says on page 57 as marked (5 in the PDF), "Hydroxyzine lacks a broad profile in that it has no demonstrated efficacy in depression, panic disorder, social phobia, or OCD." --Aurochs (Talk | Block) 17:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 October 2012

In the "Neurotransmitters Role" Section

PLEASE CHANGE "Differences in other parts of the brain and an imbalance of brain chemicals, especially serotonin and dopamine, may also contribute to OCD.[42]" TO "Differences in other parts of the brain and an imbalance of brain chemicals, especially serotonin, dopamine, and glutamate, may also contribute to OCD.[42]" BECAUSE Glutamate dysregulation in OCD has been demonstrated in research literature.

CITATION FOR THIS WILL BE: Pittenger, C, Bloch, MH, Williams, K. Glutamate abnormalities in obsessive-compulsive disorder: Neurobiology, pathophysiology, and treatment. Pharmacology & Therapeutics. 2011;132:314-332.


In the "Medication" Section

Please add citations listed to location [X] in the sentence mentioned below. There have been research on riluzole treatment in treatment-refractory OCD. The most definitive review of the literature to date includes the citation below.

"Much current research is devoted to the therapeutic potential of the agents that affect the release of the neurotransmitter glutamate or the binding to its receptors. These include riluzole [X]..."

CITATION 1: Pittenger, C, Coric, V, Banasr, M, Bloch, M, Krystal, JH, Sanacora, G. Riluzole in the treatment of mood and anxiety disorders. CNS Drugs. 2008;22:761-786.


Mkelly15 (talk) 21:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Done, though not exactly in the manner requested. I added the Pharmacol Ther reference and then found a second reference from Pharmacol Biochem Behav that I thought was relevant, so I added it as well. The Pharmacol Biochem Behav article also discussed riluzole, and it appeared to be of much better quality than anything CNS Drugs has ever published, so I used it instead for the second request. I did NOT add the ocfoundation link - the review article should be sufficient. --Aurochs (Talk | Block) 02:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Mkelly15 (talk) 00:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


Though the Pharmacol Biochem Behav article mentions Riluzole, I don't think that it is central enough in the article to use as it's sole citation. If you won't add the CNS Article (Pittenger, C, Coric, V, Banasr, M, Bloch, M, Krystal, JH, Sanacora, G. Riluzole in the treatment of mood and anxiety disorders. CNS Drugs. 2008;22:761-786.) then please add this one instead:

Coric V, Taskiran S, Pittenger C, Wasylink S, Mathalon DH, Valentine G, et al. Riluzole Augmentation in Treatment-Resistant Obsessive–Compulsive Disorder: An Open-Label Trial. Biological Psychiatry. 2005;58(5):424-428.

The article specifically targets riluzole augmentation

The abstract for this article can be found here:


Mkelly15 (talk) 00:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I am concerned that all of the references you're asking to include in the article have Christopher Pittenger as an author. I certainly won't add the CNS Drugs ref now.
At any rate, it's not necessary by any stretch of the imagination for a reference to include the referenced fact as a CENTRAL point, especially when it's a review article. You will commonly find scientists citing articles to support facts or ideas that are not a central focus of the cited article. Also, in general, review articles are preferable to primary research for the purposes of Wikipedia (see primary sources).
None of this is to say that I'm opposed to the inclusion of the Biological Psychiatry article, I just want to know why the Pharmacol Biochem Behav article is not enough. --Aurochs (Talk | Block) 02:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

No consideration to non-biological causes.

There are many people, both sufferers and mental health professionals who frankly balk at the notion that any form of mental illness is purely or even mostly caused by 'faulty biology' We see this as a highly damaging idea promoted by drug companies and pandered to by govenments only too happy not to have to face the problem of dysfunctional families within modern societies. There are many alternative opinions regarding the sources of OCD from a psychodynamic perspective, none of which are covered by theis article at all or even given a nod. Outrageous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

You may want to ask the relevant WikiProject (probably WikiProject Psychology) if they can help. I'm personally not familiar enough with modern psychodynamic theory to be able to do the research and find the information you're asking for. --Aurochs (Talk | Block) 04:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 January 2013

In the "Society and Culture" section, the last bullet point reads, "OCD is one of the main themes in Xenocide, a SF novel by Orson Scott Card. Grammatically, it should be an SF novel or, for more clarity, a Science Fiction novel. Idez (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. Changed it to "a science fiction novel" (lowercase). Rivertorch (talk) 17:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Where is it said that Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder is an Autism Spectrum Disorder?

Where is it said that Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder is an Autism Spectrum Disorder? I cannot find this anywhere in the primary literature or the DSM V. I propose that this be removed until further assessment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnesiumdreamz (talkcontribs) 20:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Where it have said that, I just couldn't find the Autism Spectrum Disorder, would you please help me by mentioning what section you are mentioning, Thanks, KhabarNegar (talk) 21:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm guessing this is the text in question:

Someone exhibiting OCD signs does not necessarily have OCD. Behaviors that present as (or seem to be) obsessive or compulsive can also be found in a number of other conditions as well, including obsessive–compulsive personality disorder (OCPD), an autism spectrum disorder, disorders where perseveration is a possible feature (ADHD, PTSD, bodily disorders or habit problems),[3] or sub-clinically.

It's badly written - it does indeed read as describing OCPD as an autism spectrum disorder, but I think what it's supposed to be doing is listing autism spectrum disorders along with the other disorders. I'll go fix it; I think just changing "an autism spectrum disorder" to "autism spectrum disorders" clarifies it. Does that make sense? Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 21:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Much better! Thank you. (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

OCD in literature (or movies)

please consider adding the section to wiki article I assume this short story depicts a neurotic (OCD) character — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

OCD - an anxiety disorder?

As of DSM-V (May, 2013), OCD is no longer classified as an "anxiety disorder." See: "According to the American Psychiatric Association (APA), the publisher of the DSM-5, the major change for obsessive-compulsive disorder is the fact that it and related disorders now have their own chapter. They are no longer considered “anxiety disorders.” This is due to increasing research evidence demonstrating common threads running through a number of OCD-related disorders — obsessive thoughts and/or repetitive behaviors."

While nearly every source on the internet continues to describe OCD as an "anxiety disorder", as Wikipedia itself notes, the DSM provides the "standard criteria for the classification of mental disorders."

I propose that this article at least acknowledge the changing classification of this disorder within the medical community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Grammar Errors

It would be too evil to have grammar errors on the OCD page. "However, OCD sufferers generally recognize their obsessions and compulsions as irrational, and may become further distressed by this realization." Nope, the last comma should be gone, and the page is locked for editing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eioehigksdg444444lskdfg (talkcontribs)

Fixed. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Ineffectiveness of some types of psychotherapies

If you know how to edit the text of the article please include in the text the next important passage from the source: There is no evidence that general counseling, psychodynamic therapy, psychoanalytic therapy, hypnotherapy, or transactional analysis are of any benefit in obsessive-compulsive disorder.[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Writing Error

There is an error in the first word of the section "Other common comorbidities and OCD-like conditions" Somebody please fix it. (talk) 06:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)