Talk:Tactile hallucination

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

possible bias in artistic impression[edit]

"Artistic view of how the world feels like with schizophrenia." Was that piece of art made by someone with none or brief encounters with medical gadgetry? I would imagine that any sensitive person ie. True artist like m.jackson etc, if held at hospital and having regular ecg,ekg etc done might end up eventually painting such. Ie. I feel it's possibly biased by circumstances. Not "world feels like". Has this impression/view been confirmed to be such before encounters with medical profession.

It's also misleading for anyone in the profession to claim the patient is having hallucinations unless the professional has a completely emf and electromagnetically shielded room to verify the patient is actually generating the hallucination in their own mind. It's not hallucination if the source is external albeit not measurable by inadequately tooled professional. Afaik no public health facilities are tooled well enough to measure external inputs to subconscious or have such isolated rooms. It's not far from quackery to make claims or seed the idea that patient might be hallucinating. Only 1% have ability to perceive inputs that 99% can't. Hallucination is defined as something not externally produced and the quackery is in diagnosing such without proving that something one self cannot see could actually be real and measurable. A lot of this stuff has been known for thousands of years but western text books are full of "fake education". It's a running joke of sorts but those with real interest in real science and knowledge aren't amused by all the fake bs since not everyone have equal ability to tell lies and poorly done statistical studies from the proper. The government of dunces either know what's up and lie about it or pretend to know. And some of us know which. Why should they have the power to decide what books are mandatory reading... unless it's to obscure reality and abuse of power...

article[edit]

1. Quality of Information: 2

2. Article size: 2

3. Readability: 1

  • I feel like some portions of this are still a little too technical for an ordinary person to feel comfortable with. Some of this is referring to the frequent use of medical terms. Maybe you can explain terms a little (even if they are hyperlinked) or use common names for things?

4. Refs: 2

5. Links: 2

6. Responsive to comments: 2?

7. Formatting: 2

8. Writing: 1

  • under "Tactile Hallucinations in Schizophrenia" section I believe you meant to write "Olfactory and Tactile hallucinations correlate with one another"
  • not sure what you meant to put under "Cenesthopathic Tactile Hallucinations" where it says "patients with [paraesthetic] cenesthopathy"

9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2

10. Outstanding?: 1

  • I'm not really sure how to make this outstanding, maybe add pictures of the parts of the brain you mentioned?

Total: 17 out of 20

General Comments:

  • Under the "history and background" section, I'm not sure how I feel about the phrase "great neuroscientists such as...". It just seems a little cheesy to me
  • Sometimes I personally feel like you are linking too much to other pages (like, skin and cockroaches seem a little unnecessary but it's up to you). Also, I dont think that you need to link to a page every time you use the word; once or twice would probably be sufficient.

Anna Tadsen (talk) 02:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for you feedback! I'll try to eliminate some of the unnecessary links and phrases use. --Angela Mariam Thomas
  1. Quality of Information: 2
    Good info.
  2. Article size: 2
    About 18,000 bytes.
  3. Readability: 2
    Readable without much jargon.
  4. Refs: 2
    References are recent.
  5. Links:1
    "Tactile" should be linked in its first use in the intro section instead of in the history section. Could red link "Cenesthopathy". Only linked to in one other article.
  6. Responsive to comments: 2
    No comments to respond to.
  7. Formatting: 2
    Good choice in breaking down tactile hallucinations by disease.
  8. Writing: 1
    Some typos. Spelled spinal cord wrong, should have "types" instead of "type" in 3rd sentence of history section, etc. Missing periods in "VS" of "VS Ramachandran".
  9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
    Used real name as username.
  10. Outstanding?: 1
    Good article, but not outstanding.

Total: 17 out of 20 Bsridhar6 (talk) 21:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Quality of Information: 2
    Well-detailed article and informative.
  2. Article size: 2
    About 17,711 bytes.
  3. Readability: 2
    It was quite readable and there were lots of links.
  4. Refs: 1
    Needs more links on references, but still fairly referenced with 3 articles form the last 3 years.
  5. Links: 2
    There were many links that made it easy for a layperson to reference things they didn't know.
  6. Responsive to comments: 2
    No recent comments.
  7. Formatting: 1
    Appears to be formatted properly, but could do with more separation of sections into subsections.
  8. Writing: 2
    Appears to be well-written and well-organized, but formatting could be more detailed.
  9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
    Username is real name.
  10. Outstanding?: 1
    Is reasonably referenced and well-written, but not quite outstanding.

Total: 17 out of 20 --Ksuraj3 (talk) 02:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tactile_hallucination&oldid=1210611215"