Talk:Folie à deux
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Portal |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
|
||||||||
The following turned up on my talk page. I don't quite understand what the criticism is exactly, but I am recording it here in case anyone else can make it a little clearer:
---Start quoted text---
Contents |
[edit] Folie a deux- Shared delusions, visual hallucinations
I don't think you looked hard enough. Try: Medline, Telepathic Hallucinations: A New View of Ghosts-Frank Podmore, London, c1920 & Contacting Ronald K. Siegel, pscychopharamacologist, author of Whispers: Voice of Paranoia. Did you contact Dr.Oliver Sacks? I find this interesting because YOU couldn't find data on shared visual hallucinations, YOU being the EXPERT, deleted the data. How many professional clinical psychiatrists and psychotherapists did you question? How many clergymen? How many family doctors? How many hospitals? You guys kill me! You have extraordinary big heads. Have you ever examined yourself for delusions of grandeur? Put it back. Trust me on this. You only comfortably skimmed the surface. You have established boundaries on your curiosity. The idea seems uncomfortable to you? You are out of your field of expertise. Anonymous-guess why. 6/29/05
---End quoted text---
- Vaughan 30 June 2005 16:05 (UTC)
[edit] Came to a conclusion too quickly
You edited and removed the text involving occasional reports of shared visual hallucinations from Folie a Deux without doing proper research. 8 July 2005
[edit] I saw this.
I am a registered nurse working outside of Pittsburgh. I saw this psychosis while in nursing school. A state hospital which has since been closed, had a set of Identical Twins, whom we were told had this dx. (Folie a deux) These women were at the time probably in their 50's or 60's and this was in 1979. They wore the characteristic heavy makeup of the psychologically disturbed, and the dominant one, spoke just slightly ahead of the other. They sounded like they were talking in tandem, but if you listened carefully, the dominant one spoke first and was followed in speech identically by the other. So, in conversation, they might come up and say, "do you like my new purse?" and the words would come out seemingly at the same time. One had the feeling that they were speaking completely in tandem and knew telepathically what to say. It was very weird and disturbing to watch. They were very pleasant, but I sometimes wonder what happened to them when the hospital closed. Great website.
[edit] Backwards redirect?
Why does Shared Psychotic Disorder- the accepted and standard name for the disorder- redirect to the colloquial name of the disorder's article? With Bipolar/Manic Depression, and with Dissociate identity/Multiple personality disorders, the antiquated, colloquial name redirects to the standard, clinical name for the syndrome. Per these examples, I suggest we change what redirects where. How do I put this up to a vote? Asarkees 02:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
More evidence for moving article: According to a Google scholar search, [Multiple Personality Disorder] outnumbers [Dissociative Identity Disorder] 112,000 to 5940. Should we move that article back, as well, because more research was conducted on the disorder before it was officially renamed? Just because the name was previously used more in the literature doesn't mean that it is correct to use it now. Asarkees 03:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- The following discussion is an archived debate 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 debate was NO CONSENSUS to move page at this time, per discussion below. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Requested move
Folie à deux → Shared Psychotic Disorder — It is standard for articles on clinical syndromes to redirect from the obsolete name's article to the name that is used in standard practice. For example, see Multiple Personality Disorder (now Dissociative Identity Disorder). Shared Psychotic Syndrome is the classification used in the DSM-IV Asarkees 03:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Survey
Add * '''Support''' or * '''Oppose''' on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
- Support—Standard terminology should be a starting place for naming articles, and contemporary psychiatric practice is the best point to find standard terminology here. Dave 03:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose-:I agreed that standard terminology should be used for naming articles. Shared Psychotic Disorder is not the standard name for this condition. It is the DSM name for this condition. As noted in the article, the ICD, which is the World Health Organisation criteria and is used more widely, uses a different term and includes the name folie à deux. The research literature tends to use the name folie à deux because of this difference in naming. Hence, the idea that Shared Psychotic Disorder is the 'standard name' is rubbish and naming the article after only one type of naming convention is confusing, especially since the actual diagnostic criteria are largely the same. - Vaughan 10:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- Additional info. I just looked up the use of these terms on PubMed. Hits for folie a deux: 164. Hits for shared psychotic disorder: 9. Hits for induced delusional disorder: 5. Folie à deux is overwhelming used by the medical community and in the research literature.
[edit] Discussion
Add any additional comments:
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.
