Talk:Bipolar disorder
24.58.228.xxx makes the assertion that
- Psychohistory is a highly unreliable and dubious enterprise generally promoted by less than reputable psychologists and psychiatrists, patients who wish to be in good company, and organizations that stand to benefit from contributions made by those whose sympathies would be aroused by such "diagnoses at a distance".
The leading author of books on mental illness in history, Kay Redfield Jamison, is a Professor of Psychiatry, at The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. She is a MacArthur Fellow. She has been published extensively in peer-reviewed journals. Her book on the subject, 'Touched with Fire', has been favourably reviewed by Herbert Pardes, Dean of the Faculty of Medicine at Columbia University, and James. D. Watson, the Nobel Prize winning discoveror of DNA. Hardly 'less than reputable'.
24.58.228.xxx, your contributions on this subject seem to be remarkably forceful, as if you are speaking with authoritative professional expertise on a subject of which previous authors have little knowledge.
Can you tell us what your qualifications as a medical doctor are?
-- The Anome (who is not a medical doctor)
SE, please see my edits to Depression, with matching commentary, in Depression/Talk. See how Wikipedia works: the striving for consensus and NPOV?
It's not my text, or yours: it belongs to Wikipedia, and via the GFDL, the world. -- The Anome
Reply to Anome:
I have entered this reply twice and once in another location for Talk, but for some reason it is not taking. Hence I repeat my reply here, again:
For some reason the person who made the original entries on bipolar disorder and depression (you, I take it) deleted my corrections of these and snidely challenged my credentials (assuming that like himself, I was unqualified), while acknowledging that he was not an MD. Somehow my reply to his comment was deleted. The fact is, I am an MD, a neuropsychiatrist and an officer of a society on the history of psychiatry. As I explained, it would not seem appropriate for him to go in and on his own authority delete everything that I have written because he assumes that I am no more qualified than he. I assume that there is a reconciliation to be done between the (rather obvious) misinformation he has been providing and the detailed and accurate information I have provided. Where appropriate I have given chapter and verse for my explanations. Despite the fact that his work was riddled with errors and misleading information, I did not take it upon myself to delete any of his work, and I should appreciate his giving me the same courtesy. (SE)
I have therefore replaced the last version of the bipolar and depression entries with the last version which included what I have written. If you wish to correct anything that you have written, or suggest anything incorrect in what I have written, I welcom you to re-enter these as separate comments. I trust that you will not delete or in any way alter what I have written without informed authorization from the owner/editor of the Wikipedia site.
For some reason, my restoration has not taken in the bipolar and depression entries, so I will replace them again. I trust that you are not purposely erasing my work a second time.
I will attempt to inform the owner/editor of the problem
Thanks, SE
---
Hey, SE! Please don't just revert my changes - I am trying to merge in your point of view. Please don't just write CORRECTION all over the place: it breaks up the article, and forces others to edit the article back into readable shape.
Please either:
- boldly edit the article to what you think it should be (but be aware you may be boldly edited in turn) or
- (better) where there are differing points of view, mention it: 'some say this, others say that' or 'medical opinion now generally considers x to be true; some disagree and say y'
This is particularly true of the several different meanings assigned to 'Manic Depression' over time. Remember, your view is not the only view - and even if you consider yourself to be correct, others may not - so cite evidence for your opinions.
You will find that I have 'authorization from the owner/editor of the Wikipedia site'. As do you. Please see Welcome, Newcomers! and Most_common_Wikipedia_faux_pas
I am glad to hear that you are an MD. We could use your informed point of view. But please don't assume that non-experts in a given field have nothing to contribute - we are after all the intended audience for Wikipedia, and are generally competent at editing text.
I am sorry that you are upset by my request to state your qualifications - I am more likely to take your point of view seriously as an expert in the field, rather than as another non-expert.
But you do need to _work with_ other authors.
-- The Anome (who is a recognised expert in a number of non-medical fields)