User talk:Zigzagzen

Welcome!

Hello, Zigzagzen, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Original research

Hi there,

Please read wikipedia's policy on original research and the talk page guidelines - new comments should go at the bottom of pages - people may have been ignoring your comments on the psychogenic page because it looks like they are very old and therefore dealt with. I'm going to be reverting your change to the page as original research I believe, I'll decide in a second. Please let me know if you've got any questions. WLU 14:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, did indeed look like original research. You may also want to read WP:NPOV as your comments were kinda opinionated. If you can find reliable sources for the material you added, then it stands a chance of staying up. WLU 14:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read, or re-read the policy on original research - if there are no reliable sources on the importance of the origins of the term or the errors regarding them, it in inappropriate to go on the page. If you can source it, your citation of someone else pointing out the etymological error is a good addition to the page.

Putting the words "This article and related articles on Somatization disorder and Conversion disorder actually relate to an entirely different class of problems that better labelled psychogenetic" is the presentation of an opinion, which is to say, a point of view on the accuracy or properness of labelling disorders as X or Y. The bold, italic' terms are especially problematic, if not exclusionary. Who says they are better labelled? Is it a recognized scholar? Is it a doctor? A philosopher of science, medicine or ancient dead languages? If so, source it. If it's you, it is a violation of WP:OR, which is one of the five pillars on which wikipedia rests. This is policy, not my opinion. If it's something you thought of one day and then put together the errors in latin yourself, it is original research and should not be on the page. Wikipedia reports on the world, it does not correct it.

The whole paragraph on 'Infallible Doctor Error' very strongly sounds like WP:OR and a strongly POV opinion. Again, if you can find a reliable source which discusses this, put it in. Reliable sources include scientific journals, doctors, philosophers, published books, and do not include websites written by yourself, or unrecognized 'experts' or non-experts. I know there are sources that are extremely critical of western medicine and the worship of doctors, but you would have to find them, make sure they are relaible, and cite them.

As a final point, the bold is totally unnecessary, here it states that italics, not bold are to be used for emphasis, and should be applied sparingly.

If you think I am being unreasonable, you may put in a request for comment asking for other wikipedian's opinions on this, or as a quick opinion ask to an english wikipedia admin what they think of the section. User:FisherQueen or User:Arcadian are both good 'uns, as is User:TimVickers.

I am not opposed to my views being corrected by reliably-sourced commentary on psychosomatic/psychogenetic issues - if you are working on sourcing your statements, then all this means is you will be pasting a high-quality piece of your work directly to the page rather than having to improve it piecemeal, which is a good thing. Should you require any help, I would be glad to provide it. You could even work on it on wikipedia where it could be viewed and edited by other interested users by setting up a subpage like user talk:Zigzagzen/Psychosomatic and working on it there - click on the link and start editing, it'll automatically be linked to your talk page. In the mean time, a quick review of WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:5P, WP:OR and WP:NOT might be helpful so we are both addressing things from a common reference to policy. The policies are good ones.

If I'm not addressing your concerns adequately, I'd be happy to discuss this further on my talk page were your original points are, it'll be easier to refer to them there. Thanks, WLU 20:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, everything does come with a POV and all the attendant epistemological problems of acknowledging our own POV, identifying others' POV, striving for objectivity and aspiring to the philosophically pure but impossible to achieve 'view from nowhere'. However, this is not the place to hash them out, and particularly not the place to champion one particular POV. Hence the reliance on sourced criticisms rather than our own ability to dissect arguments. There are flaws to the current medical model of disease and health, but we as wikipedians are not the ones to point them out. We are the ones who report the work of others in pointing them out. Again, I suggest you compose your section in a sub-page and perhaps run it past an admin or two so you aren't just getting my opinion on the matter. WLU 13:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DSM-IV

Would you consider adding any input to our proposal regarding the DSM-IV. Input is being collected on our talk page. Thanks! Mindsite (talk) 22:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]