Talk:Paranoid personality disorder

Notice

I have removed a fair amount of junk from this talk page. On Wikipedia, talk pages are for the discussion of improvement to the article in question, not for general discussion of the subject, nor as a message board seeking advice. Wikipedia is not the proper forum for medical advice or as a support group: please see our General Disclaimer and Medical Disclaimer. Messages in violation of our policies and guidelines will likely be ignored and eventually removed without comment. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 12:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Gutting an article of very recent additions

First of all, hyper alertness is NOT a diagnosis. It is a sign (see this page of signs and symptoms - http://www.icisf.org/CIS.html). Any illness or disorder has both signs and symptoms, but the sign or symptom is not a diagnosis.

Second, if you can go thru the material and find statements that are blatantly false according to expert opinion, that is one thing, but it is not anti-Wiki for some editors to add material and other editors, having the books on their shelves, to add the citations. There are hundreds (perhaps thousands) of articles on WP that have been flagged that they need citations - and those flags have been up for more than a year, yet the material has not been struck -- nor, in cases where the ENTIRE article has not a single reference or citation, they continue to languish. In my relatively brief numbers of articles I have come across (since my interest areas are very limited - I doubt I have even seen 150 articles total and have seen over 10 ancient flags of this kind.

If I had any idea of how to add that flag, I would. Perhaps you can help?

I will look around to see what I can find. I know I can find professionally written articles online with extensive reference books and journals - but unless writing for a professional journal, it is not common to find busy psychiatrists who spend the time to not the particular book and page number.... They are, afterall, writing for OTHER professionals and expect them to have access to the given volumes. For assertions I cannot find support, I will remove.

An article can not seek consensus on content when there is not content to seek consensus on. For my part, I will contact the editors who have added this material and hope they can provide citations. Some or all of them may be newbies - and we are not supposed to bite the newbies. Spotted Owl (talk) 05:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Could suggest that if there is repetitious statements or a lack of organization, that these issues could be addressed. Spotted Owl (talk) 05:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding hyper alertness, yep, ok it's a symptom or sign, but you shouldn't reintroduce dubious content. Addhoc (talk) 12:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Was unaware this same material has been entered previously. I was too tired last night to do any good work, but I will plow thru what's there and will chomp out as much as I know isn't verifiable. If I can dig up verification, I'll add it. And now that you've shown me the markup for needing citation, I know how to add it - but it seems to me that some that I see show the actual month it was added.

I have another article I am getting ready to work on and don't want to adopt this one, so what would be an appropriate approach? I had thought of posting appeals to other talk pages that might have interested motivated parties. But while it is too much text to paste into a talk page, it would be polite (and helpful) to link to the diff involved when so much gets pulled at once. That was several days of work done, where someone obviously was trying to help flesh out an article. Since this kind of material is definitely needed, I feel it would be it is respectful to post the link and a brief read talk page to the major contributor's talk page so the startled embarrassed ashamed guy understands the rationale, even if he is not capable of adding the needed cites.

I do understand that it is incredibly important for Wiki to only have verifiable sources, so I am going to start gutting those articles of flagged content or entire article contents when there is absolutely no references or cites at all or when the flag has been up for more than 3 months. How do I let the bots know that what I am doing is not revertable vandalism? Thanks. Spotted Owl (talk) 05:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

While I found the material to be usable and citable, I quickly realized that I would expend time I did not have to organize the material, track down citations and much else. All the text removed is visible on this page

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paranoid_personality_disorder&diff=prev&oldid=191374796

Most of what was removed, while generally true of the PD, is not true of ALL with paranoid pd which renders things confusing for a reader. Additionally, much of what was described can be inferred from the ICDM-10. I think some suggested reading for those who want to understand what life is like for someone with the disorder, be it for themselves or someone they know. - Spotted Owl (talk) 08:11, 14 February 2008 (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) 13:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Well it's nearly 2 years after that but I've just added a summary of the DSM criteria with a link to the full set. Also there's a couple of references in the intro that only list author surname and year, I've found what seems to be one of them, but the other I just can't track it only says "Meissner & Kuper, 2008". Might be Meisnner WW a psychoanalyst, maybe a Brenda Kuper MD?, no idea what book or article it might be...is sourcing a psychoanalytic-style claim re schizoid that really needs attributing as such or removing.... Eversync (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Changes to "Causes" section

Addition to "Causes" Section

In reviewing PPD wiki page, I noticed that the causes section was slightly lacking from a cognitive therapist view. Id like to propose the following addition to the "causes" section. Its important to remember that when treating an individual with PPD you must also make sure they focus on their self confidence in order to stand up to those they "fear."

Proposed Change:

Cognitive theorists believe the disorder to be a result of an underlying belief that other people are deceptive/malevolent in combination with a lack in self confidence.

References