Talk:Hystero-epilepsy

comment from 2005

lol :) The Procrastinator 21:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

external link

Skepdic does contain advertising, but not the objectionable amounts of advertising forbidden by WP:EL. Being self-published is not mentioned as problematic in our EL policy (and that complaint is rather silly given the nature of the Web). Since neither of Jack-A-Roe's reasons for removing the link are valid, it should be restored. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 04:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Our EL policy errs on the side of excluding link-cruft/questionable links; I will revert for you.-PetraSchelm (talk) 04:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Skeptic's Dictionary is a respected, widely-cited source. It isn't questionable. I don't think the link qualifies as cruft, either, considering it stands alone. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 04:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It's of questionable relevance, which makes it EL cruft. Also, it does have a lot advertising. Wikipedia is not a linkfarm for profit-generating ad revenue scrape sites.-PetraSchelm (talk) 04:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Of questionable relevance? It's directly about hystero-epilepsy, and it could be used to source any of the information currently in our article. As it includes more details than us, it's valuable as a link. I think these reasons are disingenuous; given Jack's editing pattern, it's likely being removed because of the skeptical reference to "repressed memories" and DID. WP:EL does not err on the side of removing reliable links that happen to disagree with Jack's POV. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 04:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Robert Carroll, author and publisher of Skeptic's Dictionary is not a historian or medical expert; all of what he writes on his for-profit non-third-party-fact-checked website is his personal opinion. This is a science article. There's no compelling reason to include a non-expert's opinion; instead, actual reliable source references should be located and used as inline citations. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

A compelling reason is that it includes further information on this subject, and, even if it didn't, it would be useful for, say, students who can't use Wikipedia as a source but don't want to travel to the library. Removing a link because of its author's status as a non-expert isn't supported by WP:EL. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 19:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It's still a lame ad-supported scrape site, and any useful info should be located in sources and used as inline refs. Did you start reading the original text, which I attached below? It's fascinating historically.-PetraSchelm (talk) 20:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Carroll just poached info from other sources, ones which should be used as cites in the article. (Also, I'm not really sure anything Charcot did was "pseudoscience," either--more like experimental. His studies on hysteria were essential to Freud, and we do not call psychoanalysis "pseudoscience." There's a difference between early developments in experimental psychology and astrology, runes, etc.)-PetraSchelm (talk) 04:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Charcot's original wriitngs on hystero-epilepsy: [1]-PetraSchelm (talk) 05:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Carroll's a respected academic, the site is the Internet version of a book published by Wiley, a very reputable publisher. As for the ads, something has to pay for the website after all. And he's alive, saying he 'poached' is approaching libel.--Doug Weller (talk) 21:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the book can be cited as an inline reference once the article develops then, to keep any good content/lose the ad problem; it's a stub, after all. Also, in the book we can see Carroll's references--where he got the information, which will likely result in citing those sources, not Carroll. ( Linking it is linking to another tertiary source, which, like Wikipedia, poaches/gathers information from disparate sources...)-PetraSchelm (talk) 21:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope, it can be used. Go find the book as well by all means, meanwhile leave this. I don't know what point you are trying to make about tertiary sources because tertiary sources are definitely acceptable. You'd throw out all textbooks as sources for a start if you didn't allow tertiary sources.--Doug Weller (talk) 21:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The point is that it's a teriary source that completely overwhelms a stub article that's being developed in another tertiary source (also, full of ads, and cites no references....) And it may be a good EL for some articles, but the "Skepdic" implication here implies that it's pseudoscience, when actually it's part of the academic history of science. (See commentary on fringe theories noticeboard...)-PetraSchelm (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• And you are aware, right, that the skepdic's dictionary has an entry on Freud? And substance abuse treatment? While it may be a good EL for Dianetics and bogus theories about the full moon, we would not use at as an EL in the psychoanalysis article or the substance abuse treatment article. Being an ok EL for one purpose doesn't make it an all-purpose EL.-PetraSchelm (talk) 21:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Doug Weller, since you say "go find the book" (21:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)), does that mean you have not looked in the book to see if this topic is included? The reason I ask is that the website contains much that is not in the book. As a book, it was published by a third party, increasing the reliability of the content. If the topic were in the book, that would add reliability and encourage its use as an in-line footnote. As a website, it's self published, and represents the author's biased views (and he does not claim otherwise). This has been discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard because various editors have wanted to use it; while there has not been a definitive decision, doubt was expressed about its reliability and the general agreement was that if the site is used, the opinions of Carroll should be attributed and not generalized. So, if it were used as an inline reference, it could be phrased "According to Tom Carroll, author of Skeptic's Dictionary... etc". That approach is from the RS noticeboard recommendation.

In this situation though, as an external link, it's even less appropriate, because it does not meet the qualifications for what should be linked - external links are used only for websites that include information that can't be included directly in Wikipedia for various reasons. That doesn't apply here - there is no reason to advertise his website when info can be paraphrased and carefully used with attribution and an in-line footnote. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the EL from skepdic should be deleted as per WP:ELNO "Links normally to be avoided....Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research." The site in question makes the statement: "who assume even before meeting their patients that they have probably been sexually abused." This statement is totally unsourced, incredibly misleading and shows the extreme bias of the writer. ResearchEditor (talk) 04:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

There isn't any point in discussing this with the editors here, because the deletion of the link is clearly a poor attempt to "wear me down," as one editor has actually admitted. Besides the abuse clique, who support each other in everything, the only two people who've commented on the link (dab and Dougweller) have rejected the reasoning used to justify its deletion. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 19:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, then why are editing articles where you categorically refuse to engage in discussion; discussion is not optional, and edit warrring to force your pov is a violation of policy. Now that I see the weird tangential point you were trying to make about how you think this article is somehow related to dissociative identity disorder (which it most certainly is not) I am particularly committed to keeping it neutral and accurate, as I do know a fair amount about the history of hysteria as a concept. Arbcom has ruled on what is appropriate to refer to as pseudoscience, and this article is a subset of the history of psychoanalysis/the history of science. As I have previosuly stated, the skepdic's dictionary is a fine EL for Dianetics article, but it is not appropriate here--it violates the Arbcom ruling on referring to things such as psychoanalysis as pseudoscience. (Link to discussion where I have previosuly stated this: [2]) I don't know who you think the "abuse clique" is, but I would like to take this opportunity to remind you of the NPA policy. -PetraSchelm (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

McHugh reference

I think I now get the association believed between hystero-epilepsy and dissociative identity disorder, butit's extremely tangential, and a long ranting crackpot newsletter is not an RS. The actual McHugh Harvard newsletter could be used--I found a book reference and put it in the article. It's still an analogy made by one guy in an editorial about DID--I'm not seeing how relevant or notable it is to hystero-epilepsy itself. Seems like it is relevant to the DID article/controversy about that from the 80s/90s. -PetraSchelm (talk) 15:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I found book references also but was using the link for convenience and because I felt it best that people could read the entire article by McHugh. To call him 'one guy' is, I think, misleading, he isn't or wasn't just any guy. Your edit obscures the point McHugh was making, that the lesson finally learned by Banibinski and Charcot had been forgotten. Another example, as I see it, of the same thing so to speak. But I give up on this as I have better things to do. I'm disappointed that the Skepdic link was removed without any replacement which I thought had been agreed, but I don't plan to spend more time on this. And I don't feel any need to answer anyone's questions unless I want to, so I'd appreciate it if you'd not nag me again on my Talk page.--Doug Weller (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, then don't make baseless pov accusations, if you don't want people to ask what you meant (And clearly it was a baseless accusation.) You also appear to know zero about hysteria or epilepsy--epilepsy was later confirmed to have an organic cause, and hysteria has morphed into "psychosomatic." There's a good book about the history of conceptions of hysteria, by Ilza Veith. There's also an excellent book by Elaine Showalter called The Female Malady, notable for its chapter on male hysteria sufferers--men who fought in the first world war and had "shell-shock" were diagnosed as hysterics (and treated very very badly). The thing about Charcot was that he thought since hysteria exists (which was the name for psychosomatic illness at the time) and since epilespy exists, therefore they could exist in the same person at the same time. What turned out was that he was probably doing was inducing hysteria in epilepsy patients--but that didn't mean that neither hysteria or epilepsy existed anymore. The connection McHugh is making is a hugely tangential analogy, though his arguments about whether MPD exists certainly belong in that article if they aren't there already, with the pro-con arguments. (Hysteria, for one thing, in Freud/Charcot refers to conversion symptoms, not to "recovered memories," MPD, or dissociation. Freud's ideas of repression and abreaction were derived partly from Charcot's studies of hysterics, but neither repression nor abreaction is predicated on amnesia and recovery, but relief of phsyical symptoms from "the talking cure." (Not that I am a fan of Freud, because I am not, but the article shouldn't confuse Freud/Charcot conception of hysteria with something that came later, because they are not the same). And psychosomatic conversion, which is separate from the "recovered memory" controversy, is not very controversial--western doctors estimate that the majority of patients presenting with complaints of back pain do so with no physical cause that can be determined...we just don't call them hysterics, because hysteria isn't a nosological category anymore...) -PetraSchelm (talk) 16:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

That whole section re McHugh's comment is not relevant to the topic of this article and does not belong here. This article is about a historical oddity, hystero-epilepsy, and whatever science learned from it. But a random comment about a different topic where someone says something reminds them of hystero-epilepsy and then someone else says that's a bad analogy - none of that enlightens the readers on the topic of this article. Is it relevant to the MPD or DID articles? Maybe, but even that's a stretch. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and I would say now that I have read the reference ResearchEditor added pointing out that McHugh knows nothing about DID, that it should definitely be deleted. (He apparently knows nothing about either topic, and his weird tangential analogy is totally irrelevant. His reasoning seems to be that he has conflated the two on the basis that he thinks neither are valid, although e knows nothing about either...he may be a reliable source in his field, but that doesn't make his random opinions of general relevance to any topic. We don't cite Richard Nixon's opinions in the rocket science article, either...) -PetraSchelm (talk) 03:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Discussion above. Proponents of removal claim that the link is ad-supported, self-published, lame, non-expert, and inappropriately implies the subject is psuedoscience. In my opinion, it should be included since it provides further information about this topic and none of the objections are supported by WP:EL. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 20:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

On a close reading of WP:EL, the objections fail quite disastrously. I am lead to question the motivations for removing it more than the policy justification for adding it.

• Support inclusion of link is the yes or no type answer, if you want one. J*Lambton ^T/_C 21:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support inclusion. This site is fairly widely cited across Wikipedia, and seems valid as long as opinions are cited to Carroll. As an external link, it provides a concise summary of the history of the condition without accusing anyone of any malfeasance. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 21:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's cited in many articles. And that's an ongoing problem and provides no precedent for using it here. It's a website of one person's opinions about many topics. There has been a lot of controversy about that website on many articles and the question is by no means settled. If used as a footnote for a particular statement, it can be attributed to Carroll. But when used as an external link, attribution is not possible, thereby resulting in undue weight for that one person's opinions. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I still maintain that this has been covered by Arbcom--it is not appropriate to refer to imply that psychoanalysis etc is pseudoscience. The Skepdic's dictionary is not an appropriate EL for many of the topics on which it contains entries, such as substance abuse treatment, Freud, and hystero-epilepsy, as it implies they are pseudoscience. There are many criticisms to be made of Freud, substance abuse treatment etc., but they are categorically not pseudoscience. (That seems to be another problem with the Skepdic's dictionary, and an argument that has been had over and over--there can't be a blanket assessment of it as an EL, because the topics it covers are too diverse. It's a fine EL for dianetics, but a completely inappropriate EL for the Freud article, and I say this as a strong critic of Freud...I have referred to him as "Fraud," even. :-)-PetraSchelm (talk) 22:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

As per my objections to the EL from skepdic above, IMO it should not be used as per WP:ELNO "Links normally to be avoided....Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research." The site in question makes the statement: "who assume even before meeting their patients that they have probably been sexually abused." This statement is totally unsourced, incredibly misleading and shows the extreme bias of the writer. ResearchEditor (talk) 02:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge

This should really be part of the history of Psychogenic non-epileptic seizures as this was the old term for the disorder.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

After a bit of research to confirm that it's an older term for the same condition, I agree with your comment and support the merge. Here is a good source that can be used for this:

• "Medical writings from the 19th century describe how to differentiate ES from PNES (then known as hystero-epilepsy)." – Engel, Jerome (2007). Epilepsy: A Comprehensive Textbook, Volume 1. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. p. 2155. ISBN 0781757770. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)