Talk:Factitious disorder imposed on self/Archive 1

Inappropriate/irrelevant content?
I believe that the edit to add the section "In delusional disorder ... They are incapable of being cured." to the description as of 1/20 is not relevant to this article, and its relevance to MHbP is debatable in my opinion. There are also no citations of any kind, and I dispute the sourcing and neutrality.

Also, "In a realistic sense, Munchausen does not exist and it is a 'new' term improperly used to replace the real descriptions such as criminals, self-harmers, assaulters, mutilaters and murderers." appears to be nothing but conjecture.

But - it was an awful lot of text to just take out as a first edit, so I was hoping someone would weigh in. CampionCL (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to add that I completely agree with the above comment. I think the last four paragraphs of the "Description" section should be removed. --SAH — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.179.109.125 (talk) 20:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I have tried to remove the last 4 paragraphs of the "Description" section, but a certain user undid that edit. As you can probably see, I am new to Wikipedia and don't really know the ropes, but those four paragraphs were so egregious that I thought they needed to be deleted promptly. Perhaps someone with more knowledge of Wikipedia could take over the project of monitoring this section in the future. --SAH

"Commonly feigned" section
Hey, I don't edit wikipedia often so I am sorry if I am doing anything wrong here. But I was just reading this article and I found the section "Illnesses and conditions commonly feigned by Münchausen patients" very offensive. First there's the overlap with psychiatric disorders. If someone repeatedly checks in to the hospital with -big air quotes- DEPRESSION, well, how would saying they are suffering from Münchausen syndrome be any more likely than saying they are suffering from depression? Secondly, there's the fact that the editor himself/herself says "Many of these conditions do not have clearly observable or diagnostic symptoms." I'm pretty sure the hallmark of Münchausen syndrome is that the symptoms are observable but fake - not that they are characteristic of medically difficult problems. I myself have Chronic Fatigue Syndrome ("Myalgic encephalomyelitis" as it's billed here), for which science has thus far failed to find any universal testable diagnostic criteria. Since this can't be measured then, does that mean that everyone with CFS and similar conditions is faking it? Of course not. I think difficult-to-defile conditions like these should not be confused with Münchausen syndrome.

In summary I vote that this entire section be removed. If someone knows the rules (it was flagged in Sept 2010, that's quite a while ago) and could facilitate the process, I'd appreciate it.

♭e ♫ (talk) 18:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree with this. First, many of the illnesses on that list are chronic, incurable, and difficult to diagnose. Hence, the running around to different doctors. Moreover, doctors are also much more likely to believe someone has Munchausen or is feigning illness when *they* cannot see it or are powerless to treat it. I'm pretty sure pre-MRI and pre-EEG, MS, epilepsy and certain brain tumors (particularly if they presented with "psychiatric" symptoms) would have been included in that list. Beyond the capacity of medical science to (yet) see is not the same as does not exist. --Eve789 (talk) 12:11, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Official call for vote on MS/MSbP split
Since the subject has already been brought up informally a couple times, and the reasons for making the split are arguably even more valid now, I thought it was time to bring the idea of splitting this article up for an offical discussion and vote. The article itself has gotten more than a bit confusing, sometimes jumping between the two topics without warning, and at no point drawing a clear and consistant line between the two. Unless valid objections to the split come up, I will likely attempt the split myself in the near future. - Pacula 13:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Split. There is a major difference between these two, both in terms of the psychological makeup of the people who have it and in terms of what the world around them experiences. Also, MSbP gets a pretty heavy emotional response, and the people who "just" have MS are not being done any favours by being associated with the killing of children in the court of public opinion. The article will be cleaner too. Discussion will take ages. Just make it a vote, and put it on the top of the page. Zuiram 20:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Question:
ARTICLE: Many experts now doubt even the existence of MSbP
 * But I have seen documentaries where parents killed their babies in the hospital. How can some experts doubt the existence of this disorder?


 * wildt 17:27 11. May 2004 (UTC)
 * hmm i also saw on tv, hospital surveillance cams and all --62.251.90.73 00:27, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * The fact that these events occur is not in dispute. What is in dispute is the rationale for them and whether they are all part of the same associative grouping, and whether generalisations can be drawn. Sjc 08:45, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I think the article could use a bit more detail on that; what are the alternate theories to explain the evidence (if there are alternates), etc... Is the alternate theory simply that, when that evidence for which we were trusting Meadow is discounted, the remaining evidence is not enough to support the theory of a syndrome?  -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:06, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The some articles did not use the capitalised form of "Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy", and it is causing a little bit of problem... should I just go and make correct those articles? or make a new redirection page? --Zephirum 08:34, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * If I understand what you're saying, then the way I look at it is this: we have "legitimate" redirects, and "practical" redirects.  (Not official terminology, just mine...)  "Legitimate" redirects are names under which the article might legitimately be found, even if it's not there (for instance, it's reasonable to expect "Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy" to be the page where MBsP is discussed, even though it's actually a redirect page.)  A "practical" redirect is one where the name is incorrect, but it's fairly predictable that someone will at some point use that incorrect name anyways (for instance, the James Joyce novel A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man is so frequently referred to incorrectly as just A Portrait of the Artist that it might be for the best to have that page redirect to the correct article.)


 * Given that distinction, I think that if a page points to a legitimate redirect, it's functioning as appropriate and can be left as it is. If it's pointing to a practical redirect, it's better in the long run to fix the link to be pointing to a legitimate redirect, or to the article directly.  Out of the two redirects we have for MSbP, Munchausen by proxy and Munchausen syndrome by proxy, I really don't have the subject-specific knowledge to know whether these should be considered legitimate or practical.  I do, however, suggest that this should be the question we try to answer.  -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:06, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

does msbp exist?
just like to add my voice to monsignor feldspar.. as regards more detail on alternate theories.. and some links to relevant papers would be nice.


 * There are far too many documented cases for it not to exist; although most paediatricians (pediatricians) today would not recognise the description in the article, which represents the state of knowledge of approximately 10 to 15 years ago.


 * The idea that there is "something wrong" with perpetrators of MSbP came from early, largely anecdotal, descriptions of families in the 70's and 80's. The Leeds-Cardiff study (?1998-ish) largely dismissed that idea. Perpetrators of this form of abuse are no more "suffering" from it than, say, a paedophile suffers from the abuse of his victims. Countless psychiatrists have verified that abusers do not have any identifiable psychiatric disorder.


 * Diagnosis is indeed difficult and controversial; paediatricians are used to believing and supporting parents and find it hard to switch into a accusatory and oppositional role. In addition, successful abusers are by their nature accomplished liars, if only because the poor ones are detected early on. The medical signs and symptoms can be confusing, inconsistent and misleading; excessive investigation is probably a greater cause of suffering than the fabrication itself, but many children have been injected, infused and even operated on unneccessarily.


 * Suggestive signs and symptoms centre on the child, not the adults. Poisoning with bizarre substances such salt levels way beyond even pathological levels; convulsions and respiratory arrest that only occur in the presence of one particular carer; a strong association with other forms of abuse such as fractures and neglect in the same child or a sibling.


 * refs (I'll check these fully when I have a moment)


 * 1) Fabricated and Induced Illness. 2003 Royal College of Paediatricians and Child Health http://www.rcpch.ac.uk/publications/recent_publications/FII.pdf


 * 1) Davis PM, Sibert JR.  Munchausen syndrome by proxy or factitious illness spectrum disorder of childhood. Arch Dis Child. 1996 Mar;74(3):274-5.


 * Fearghus 23:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Points for discussion, January 3 2005
These points were removed from the article on the above date but they may represent some information we do not currently have in the article, so I'm listing them here as points for further research and discussion. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:52, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Observations on hospital surveillance cameras have caught MSbP abusers in the act of poisening and smothering their children and many confessed.
 * Not in dispute, except for whether MSbP is the correct classification. -- Antaeus Feldspar


 * MsbP is often a highly recidivistic type of abuse like sexual abuse.
 * I do not doubt that some experts express this opinion but who are they and how do they fit in on the general spectrum of experts? -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:52, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Many people alarmed at the heinousness of the abusive acts mischaracterize MSbP as a psyhiatric illness which it is not.
 * Somehow I doubt that the question has been completely settled that MSbP is not a psychiatric illness. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:52, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Experts more recently have coined the term "Pediatric condition fabrication" to define the abuse acts more precisely
 * It seems to be "pediatric condition falsification" but it also seems to be a descriptor of one half of the characteristic behavior of MBsP. What's the other half, and where is the line drawn? -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:52, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Question: Should the MSbP info be split into a seperate page?
This article seems to be on two different topics that, while related, seem to be distinct enough to each have their own articles. Munchausen Syndrome is an unarguably real condition that sufferers bring upon themselves for sympathy and other intangible reasons, while Munchausen-by-proxy is a "something" (a condition? a type of abuse? both?) that a guardian of some sort inflicts upon someone under their care for similar intangible reasons, and is of arguable actual existance. I don't think combining these two topics into one article is fair at all to either, and unless anyone objects, I may perform the split myself. - Pacula 15:58, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the evidence that Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy exists is (I know this will be disputed, but I say this carefully in consideration of the facts) just as unarguably real as Munchausen Syndrome itself. Has it been overdiagnosed?  Unquestionably.  But have there been cases where a caregiver has unquestionably done harm to a child in their care, and where the evidence (including testimony by the perpetrator) that the motive was to gain attention and sympathy would result in a solid diagnosis of Munchausen, if the harmer had been doing damage to themselves rather than to a child?  The answer is yes.


 * There may be good reasons to split the article, but because some people can believe in one and not the other is not one of those reasons. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:45, 12 May 2005 (UTC)


 * My point was not at all that MSbP should be split off into a seperate article because it might not be 'real', but that MS and MSbP should be seperate articles because they are different topics. I don't want to get into the MSbP exists/doesn't-exist argument, because I don't know enough about the controversy, but I will say this: in either case MSbP is worthy of it's own article because just in concept it's different enough from MS to warrant its own page. - Pacula 10:41, 12 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I have no problem per se with splitting the articles. But your original suggestion that we should split seemed to be based on the presumptions that Munchausen by Proxy was unlikely to even exist, and that even if it exists, it's barely related to Munchausen -- views which are held strongly by some people, but which the medical experts seem to disagree with. -- Antaeus Feldspar 11:55, 12 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the confusion, but I meant to basically say that they are two seperare subjects with diffeent histories. I did NOT mean to impy that because one is a bit controversioal that shuld be alome reason for the split. - Pacula 22:26, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

MSbP in adults
My question is, is there any evidence of MSbP where the victim is an adult? I am thinking particularly of elderly or infirm people who may have a carer (husband, wife or professional carer) who is causing or aggravating a condition in order to gain attention?


 * Yes. Dr. Marc Feldman discusses at least one such case in his book Patient or Pretender; if I remember details correctly, this was one of the rarer cases where the person inflicting the fake illnesses was a man, and incredibly, after he'd gone to jail for the damage he'd done secretly injecting his wife and others with gasoline, he actually was discovered doing the same thing to his cellmate. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

M.S by Non-existent Proxy?
It seems that in some cases, disturbed people who want to gain attention and sympathy have done so, instead of by inflicting illness upon their children, by inventing completely fictional children with illness (Kaycee Nicole, Anthony Godby Johnson). The connection to MSbP seems pretty obvious; should we include a short mention of these cases? -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:17, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't see that as the same - there is no harm to a child involved. Call it lying to gain sympathy.  Midgley 20:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Munchausen-by-proxy-LIKE behaviors
"In one of Douglas Preston and Lincoln Child's Pendergast novels, Dance of Death (novel), a character is accused of suffering from an unusual form of MSbP—committing murders in order to garner attention solving them."

This contribution raises a few questions. The first is, is it the judgement of characters in the novel that this behavior is a form of MSbP? If it is not, then I believe it should go out, it constitutes original research on the part of the editor. Frankly, even if it is a judgement contained in the novel itself, I'm not sure how educational it's going to be to note it; the connection between the behavior described and MSbP seems fairly tenuous when one looks at the dissimilarities. For instance, a crime-solver is going to receive admiration and attention, but not the sympathy that the parent and caretaker of a sick child receives; outside of the general similarity, they don't seem to have a connection. MSbP parents also don't take a forward role in solving the "problem"; they merely bring the problem to others for attention and then accept praise for their courage and strength.

However, it does make me wonder: is there any research in the field on that general pattern? Of people secretly causing problems so that they can reap rewards? It seems like it might be a notable enough topic for Wikipedia to have something on it; Richard Jewell was considered a major suspect by the FBI based on the theory that he was seeking attention in this way. Does anyone know if there is such a theoretical model? -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:16, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Point of view
In the MSbP: clues that indicate Muchausen Syndrome, it keeps on saying her child or herself. I think someone should go in the and change all those the one's or oneself. I won't right now until we ghet some disscussion going on this but i'll put up a POV thing above it for right now.schyler 04:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I would just change it. As it sits, there is false emphasis on gender as opposed to the behavior Fred Bauder 01:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * With the overwhelming majority of the perpetrators of MSbP being female, it doesn't strike me as a particularly important edit. It would be less work to just add a note saying "As most perpetrators are female, this text uses the feminine third person form in referring to them; this should not be taken to mean that males are entirely incapable of this behaviour." or something to that effect.
 * Plenty of articles place some emphasis on the gender commonly associated with something, so it's not really all that inconsistent. Zuiram 16:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

In fact, it is improper to ignore that there is a significant gender difference in MSbP. It must be pointed out that the vast majority of MSbP perpetrators are women; some estimates are as high as 90%. That is a significant statistic; that MSbP is largely a woman's crime is a disturbing and cogent aspect of MSbP that must be explored in this article. In Wikipedia articles detailing criminal behaviour that is largely perpetrated by men (eg: rape), the gender bias is not hidden. Grammatical units such as "he" and "his" are blatant and frequent in those articles. Thus, "she" and "her" are appropriate in this article.

Indeed, we need a sub-section in this article that dwells upon the fact that women are by far the largest group of MSbP perpetrators, and tries to explain why. This gender difference is a significant aspect of MSbP and can not be ignored. It goes towards explaining an organic basis to MSbP by addressing the biological differences between males and females.

Lastly is the issue of fairness and, in particular, gender equality: if you insist on changing all references in this article from "her" to "one's", then you must go into all other Wikipedia articles and change "his" to "one's" as well. Otherwise Wikipedia is fomenting a strong anti-male bias that borders on racism (yes, "racism", since many feminists claim that misogyny is a form of racism). At the very least, obviating the gender bias in MSbP by changing "her" to "one's" leans towards misandry in this particular article. Atikokan 18:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler Warning
As the reference to Munchausen's gives away the core plot for several of the referenced items, I added a spoiler warning 67.42.57.142 00:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

THe film
How accurate is the description? TO describe it as a documentary is true ... it is a documentary of three cases. I've not seen it, so better if someone who has reviews that. Why was it made - is there an interest in the producer, was it sparked by a specific case? To what extent does it depart from its description as following three cases into arguing that a specific medical diagnosis is in all otehr cases as well incorrect, and what additional material does it use for that? And no, I shouldn't watch it instead of asking, those questions should be addressed in the article or at least in teh talk page if the current description of the film is to stand. Midgley 01:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Please split the MSbP info into a separate page
There is no reason to have two different subjects, MS and MSbP, on one single page, could someone with more experience please split the two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.233.252.253 (talk • contribs) (11:26, May 23, 2006)
 * Why is there no reason? It seems perfectly reasonable to me to have them on a single page. - Zepheus 21:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As I've suggested before, a possibly valid reason to split the article is because the two subjects - even though related - are quite distinct. I don't think it's fair to either subject to mix the two like the current article does. It also seems unbalanced and a bit confusing, since most of the article is on the 'by-proxy' variant, and there is not always a clear seperation between discussion of the two in the article. - Pacula 14:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. I unfortunately know one girl with MS and one with MSbP, and these two conditions are very different. Not just in who it affects and how, but in the manner in which they go about their attention seeking behaviours, and the manner in which they respond to such behaviour. The extent to which it appears to be under (partial?) voluntary control also differs, as does the apparant awareness of their own behaviour.
 * Also, conceptually and practically, there is a major difference between harming another person, possibly even shifting the blame to innocent third parties in the process, and confining it to yourself.
 * Quite simply, I don't think we're doing the MS people any favours by associating them with the MSbP people, particularly from the POV of the readers that may be unfamiliar with the topic. Zuiram 16:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree this article should be split --62.251.90.73 19:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

This discussion has been going on for over 6 months now and the consensus has clearly been for split. So who is going to create the new page and what will the title be and who will help with the move and who will help with spreading the links and choosing the categories? Get the move done now. --A green Kiwi in learning mode 11:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, if you scroll up a bit, you'll see an earlier discussion that I started about splitting the page dating way back to May of 2005. At the time, there wasn't a clear consensus either way, so the matter was basically dropped. However, it seems there's a lot more support now for making the split, as well as a lot more validity to the reasons for doing so, so I added the tag to the article and put the matter up for a formal vote. As per a suggestion made by the first voter, I moved this 'formal vote' discussion thread to the top of this page. Assuming we don't get a wave of dissenters with valid reasons for not doing so ('wah wah I don't want you to' != valid :) ), I'll do the initial split myself in the very near future - a week seems to be the standard time allotment for a 'formal vote' here. I have no doubt that once the split is actually made, I'll have plenty of help cleaning up the resulting messes afterwords. :) - Pacula 13:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

parent or patient?
In "Clues that may indicate Fabricated or Induced Illness" it reads "A parent who appears to be unusually calm in the face of serious difficulties in their child’s medical course while being highly supportive and encouraging of the physician, or one who is angry, devalues staff, and demands further intervention, more procedures, second opinions, and transfers to other, more sophisticated, facilities." Shouldn't that be patient instead of parent? 155.207.254.128 20:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No, the parent caused the affliction, so reacts oddly to it, either by not being worried enough or by seemingly worrying far too much. StuRat 11:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Eminem's "Cleanin' out my closet" and munchausen syndrome
It says he's a victim of munchausen syndrome-- which the article "dispells" by claiming he meant munchausen syndrom by proxy. However, I firmly believe that he means he's a victim of it as a result of his mother having Munchausen Syndrome, and projecting her side effects and derangements onto him. It's frequently noted in MANY of his songs that his mother has been the bane of his existence for the last 15 years, and I believe this suggestion is much more likely.

Consensus? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PublicSecrecy (talk • contribs) 05:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC).


 * I didn't know that. The trouble is that Munchausen syndrome is a mental disorder, and MSbP is a pattern of abuse, so it's best not to confuse the two.  Maybe you could put a description specifying the circumstances?   Joie de Vivre 16:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Treatment section?
Most disease and disorder pages have a section devoted to treatment. Seems like there ought to be one here NoahWH 06:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Subjective content
These lines at the end of the "Syndrome" section stand out as subjective opinions by the author:

"A disease may be initiated in the child by the parent or guardian, and this is considered to be a form of serious child abuse. The parent or guardian needs serious psychiatric help and the child needs to be saved on all accounts."

They should be struck from the article, simply leaving:

"A disease may be initiated in the child by the parent or guardian." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naturalethic (talk • contribs) 08:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I noticed this too. I'm changing it. Michael Keats (talk) 07:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Missing Description of faking psychological trauma
The opening states that they "fake disease, illness, or psychological trauma," but there's very little about faking psychological trauma, and most of this article doesn't pertain to that behavior. It then claims that "It is in a class of disorders known as factitious disorders," but the "factitious disorders" article is even more narrowly focused on faking diseases. What about people who fake a personal crisis to gain attention from a friend/lover? This seems to fit the description of faking psychological trauma, but most of the article doesn't cover this case. Is there another mental-illness category that would fit that behavior better? Neither this article nor the "factitious disorders" article gives me any clue. --MiguelMunoz (talk) 23:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In terms of the literature, most of the cases of Münchausen syndrome were of physical symptoms. That is probably because the term is outdated and predates the emergence of the emphasis on psychological trauma. As far as factitious disorder, there is no need to cover psychological disception, as malingering is a more common diagnosis for that. Xme (talk) 23:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Illnesses and conditions that are feigned by Münchausen sufferers
This list is completely unreferenced--where did it come from? Some of the list seems a little suspicious to me; I have never heard of a Munchausen patient faking a learning disability, and faking something like ADHD sounds more like drug-seeking behavior than a psychiatric problem. Anorexia is diagnosed by body weight--something impossible to fake without actually dieting to the point that an anorexic does, which is arguably the same thing as typical anorexia. (MsBP on the other hand lends itself to anorexia nicely.) I suggest we comb through the existing references and only mention conditions that are actually listed as having been used by recorded Munchausen patients.--24.164.85.127 (talk) 02:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

How can faking death get you in to a hospital?

You can't fake it well for long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.75.180 (talk) 21:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Add Chronic Lyme disease.

Ambiguity in the Description section
In the first sentence of the Description, the article states "the affected person exaggerates or creates symptoms of illnesses in themselves or their child/children..." However, the next paragraph says that Munchausen syndrome where illness is caused in children is a distinct condition. Should the "or their child/children" portion of the quote be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Interestingly average (talk • contribs) 18:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Factitious disorder
--91.55.213.44 (talk) 23:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Münchausen syndrome is an outdated term for Factitious disorder.
 * Münchausen syndrome is a term for psychiatric disorders known as factitious disorders [...]


 * This is true. It is an outdated term.  Xme (talk) 23:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If there is a merge, Münchausen syndrome should be merged into Factitious disorder. Factitious disorder is the proper term; Münchausen should be mentioned in the article on factitious disorder. Cresix (talk) 03:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Spelling
So, it's "Baron von Münchhausen" in German, but the syndrome's name is "Münchausen syndrome" or even "Munchausen syndrome". That "ü" becomes "u" in a language without 'Umlaute' is comprehensible (although "ü" should have become "ue"), but why (and that's my question) would the English speaking world drop the second "h"? Even Wikipedia says that he is known as "Baron Münchhausen" in english: Baron_Münchhausen --194.95.117.68 (talk) 09:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I second that. IDC-10 lists it as "Münchhausen"; various other diagnostic manuals list it variously as "Münchhausen" or "Münchausen".  If anyone knows why some diagnostic manuals dropped the second "h", a note of explanation in the article would be in order, explaining how and why that occurred. &mdash; QuicksilverT @ 19:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Probably by accident. Does not exist in DSM, so the ICD10-spelling should be the reference.--Olag (talk) 12:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Statements in the Introduction and Description at odds
The introduction states that "afflicted" may or may not be conscience of their actions and this has a reference. However, in the Description it is stated that, "It is distinct from hypochondriasis in that patients with Münchausen syndrome are aware that they are exaggerating". Which view is most widely held or is a distinction (though unclear) being drawn between exaggerating and possessing symptoms? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.29.242.121 (talk) 01:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point! I have changed this now.  Lova Falk     talk   10:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Adding a Symptoms Section
Hello. For my class term project we are editing Wikipedia. I came across this article and saw that there is some information that could be added to it. I would like to add a section on the symptoms of this disorder. Does anybody have any ideas they would like to add to this or any objections. I would appreciate any help you guys can give me. Thank you. Mgarcia1292 (talk) 04:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Welcome! Please remember that Wikipedia is not an academic paper or essay. Wikipedia articles should not be based on WP:primary sources, but on reliable, published secondary sources (for instance, journal reviews and professional or advanced academic textbooks) and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources (such as undergraduate textbooks). WP:MEDRS describes how to identify reliable sources for medical information, which is a good guideline for many psychology articles as well. With friendly regards,  Lova Falk     talk   07:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Prescriptive vs descriptive tone in Treatment section
The tone in parts of the Treatment section seems to violate the Wikipedia medical-related tone guidelines. Specifically 'Wikipedia is not a procedural manual. Don't give "how-to" instructions.' and 'Ensure that your writing does not appear to offer medical advice. [...] Statements using the word should frequently provide inappropriate advice (e.g., "People with this symptom should seek medical care") instead of plain statements of facts.'. I think all of this needs to be reworked as statements that these things have been advocated by the cited parties instead of directly advocating:


 * Medical professionals or doctors suspecting Münchausen's in a patient should first rule out the possibility that the patient has an early stage disease that is not yet clinically detectable. Providers need to acknowledge that there is uncertainty in treating suspected Münchausen patients so that real diseases are not under-treated.[9] Then they should take a careful patient history and seek medical records, to look for early deprivation, childhood abuse, or mental illness. If a patient is at risk to himself or herself, inpatient psychiatric hospitalization should be initiated.


 * Medical providers or doctors should consider working with mental health specialists to help treat the underlying mood or disorder as well as to avoid countertransference.[11] Therapeutic and medical treatment should center on the underlying psychiatric disorder: a mood disorder, an anxiety disorder, or borderline personality disorder.

--Akevinclark (talk) 21:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be an umlaut on that U?
Or have I been spelling it wrong all along? 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:9DB:9CD9:8ABE:7E56 (talk) 16:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Diagnosis section & citation #7
The section on diagnosis includes references to an article on MSbP. In this medscape.com article, 14 different tests "may be considered," ranging from UA to MRI. In the wiki article, it says these tests "may be required." Because the diagnosis section relies entirely on another factitious disorder, it should be revised. The error is particularly egregious given the topic at hand; this misinformation could stand to reinforce pathological behavior patterns in a person with MS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.172.49.68 (talk) 13:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

question
I'm sorry for adding this to an established section, but I don't know how to start my own, and this really is just a question. What is is called when it is like MsbP, but the child really is ill/disabled, and the parents make sure the child always feels like an invalid, protects them from having a life away from them, and they really do it for the attention they receive? I've known someone like this, and after her child died, she became a nurse to take on the same "I'll take good care of you because you're so helpless" routine with patients. And now I see the same thing in a nurse taking care of someone I know who is trying to get better. Does MsbP always have to be about an otherwise healthy child, or can it be a disabled child or a patient in a hospital, even if that patient is an adult? Atwhatcost (talk) 03:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Please ask at Help:Reference desk. Jytdog (talk) 20:42, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Table
What is the meaning of the table in section Diagnosis? The left hand column seems to have a heading 'Common signs and symptoms', but what of the other columns?86.132.221.224 (talk) 20:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Medscape reference
All of the Diagnosis section of this article is sourced to But that source relates entirely to Munchausen syndrome by proxy, (or factitious disorder imposed on another), a different condition. The conditions may well be similar, and possibly even related, but I see no evidence that the diagnosis of one condition is appropriate for the diagnosis of the other. Can somebody more expert in psychiatry than I (that's most folk) suggest appropriate sources to re-write that section? I can see might be usable, but I'd prefer something more scholarly if we're going to use it to source an entire section. --RexxS (talk) 22:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Suggestions from Queen's Medical Students
Hello!

We are a group of first year medical students from Queen's University who are editing this page as part of a class assignment. We have compiled a list of suggestions to improve this article and would appreciate any community feedback before we proceed with these edits. Please find below a list of our suggestions:

1) In the diagnosis subsection, change: "A similar behavior called Munchausen syndrome by proxy has been documented in the parent or guardian of a child." To: "A similar illness, Factitious Disorder Imposed on Another (formerly Factitious Disorder by proxy), also exists. This entails a person (not necessarily a parent or guardian), presenting another individual as falsely sick.

2) In regards to the “diagnosis” section, since extensive research on factitious disorder is not available, a brief summary of disease types that have been mimicked and laboratory diagnostics used to differentiate these cases from true disease could be included using the following table: Immediately before the table, we propose to add the following sentence (after ... "or electrocardiography may also be employed,"), "A summary of more common and reported cases of factitious disorder (Munchausen syndrome), and the laboratory tests used to differentiate these from authentic disease is provided below:


 * Note: comment below on placement of citationJenOttawa teaching (talk) 14:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

3) In Munchausen syndrome, add the following to the end of the first paragraph: “Due to the uncommon and underlying nature of this disorder, it is hard to study as participation in studies is difficult to maintain after suggestion of factitious disorder diagnosis. As such a prognosis is difficult to establish. ”

4) We suggest moving the following sentences to Munchausen syndrome or Munchausen syndrome, rather than Munchausen syndrome:

“There are several symptoms that together point to Munchausen syndrome, including frequent hospitalizations, knowledge of several illnesses, frequently requesting medication such as pain killers, openness to extensive surgery, few or no visitors during hospitalizations, and exaggerated or fabricated stories about several medical problems. Munchausen syndrome should not be confused with hypochondria, as patients with Munchausen syndrome do not really believe they are sick; they only want to be sick, and thus fabricate the symptoms of an illness. It is also not the same as pretending to be sick for personal benefit such as being excused from work or school.[5]” → Munchausen syndrome#Signs and symptoms section

“There are several ways in which the patients fake their symptoms. Other than making up past medical histories and faking illnesses, patients might inflict harm on themselves such as taking laxatives or blood thinners, ingesting or injecting themselves with bacteria, cutting or burning themselves, and disrupting their healing process such as by reopening wounds.[citation needed] Many of these conditions do not have clearly observable or diagnostic symptoms and sometimes the syndrome will go undetected because patients will fabricate identities when visiting the hospital several times.” → Munchausen syndrome#Diagnosis section

We also suggest changing the following sentence in order to add an appropriate citation: “There are several ways in which the patients fake their symptoms. Other than making up past medical histories and faking illnesses, patients might inflict harm on themselves by consuming laxatives or other substances, self-inflicting injury to induce bleeding, and altering laboratory samples.”

5) I would like to change “Munchausen syndrome is a factitious disorder…” to “Munchausen syndrome, a term no longer in use, described a disorder wherein… Factitious disorder is now the term of choice by experts.”

I would also change “Munchausen syndrome fits within the subclass of factitious disorder” to “Munchausen syndrome was the original term used to describe a condition with predominantly…”

6) Modify the introduction of Munchausen syndrome by proxy to incorporate the new terminology of ‘factitious disorder’ and use language that reduces villainization of the perpetrator. "*Remove “Munchausen syndrome is related to Munchausen syndrome by proxy (MSbP/MSP), which refers to the abuse of another person, typically a child, in order to seek attention or sympathy for the abuser.”""*Insert:“Factitious disorder is related to Factitious Disorder Imposed on Another (formerly Munchausen syndrome by proxy), which refers to a caregiver producing illness in a person under their care, typically a child, in order to satisfy a psychological need for praise or sympathy for their devoted care. ”"

Many thanks to the Wikipedia community for your insights and feedback! :) Adrianda (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * COMMENTS: Citation creation did not use one of the standard templates, and #3 goes to the journal itself rather than to the abstract at PubMed, which is the norm. Citations ! and 4 are the same, unless 1 is for different page numbers. Bothe have "5th ed. ed." There is a separate Wikipedia article "Munchausen syndrome by proxy," so at your first mention of that term put it in brackets   to create a Wikilink. Spelling: articles that were started with U.S. spelling conventions continue as such (same for those that started with UK/Canadian). Your proposed table for Diagnosis is an improvement over the existing table, which makes no sense. If replacing that table, the text at the beginning of the section needs to be amended. Also, for a table, the convention is to place the citation in the table rather than after. I am unsure of the value of your suggestion #3, but leave that to a physician reviewer. For your #4, citations needed. Item #5 raises an interesting point that may be left to the hands of an experienced editor, to wit, a proposal that the name of the article be changed, with a redirect created for people who search Wikipedia on Munchausen syndrome or Munchausen syndrome by proxy. If this path is taken, then the last sentence in History needs to be deleted. Looking forward to seeing this moved from Talk to the article. David notMD (talk) 12:03, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with . This article uses the CS1-style citation templates (e.g. cite journal, cite book, cite web), so you must use the same style. Here's the first ref reformatted into a citation template for you:
 * I've also reformatted the table for you. It's important for visually-impaired visitors who use a screen reader that we mark up header cells properly and make sure that lists are marked up as semantic lists, not just bits of text with dots. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 17:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your feedback RexxS and David notMD - really appreciated! HeatherMurray Queen&#39;s (talk) 22:06, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your feedback RexxS and David notMD - really appreciated! HeatherMurray Queen&#39;s (talk) 22:06, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Removed table
Hello Wikipedia Community! Thank you for your feedback on the edits we (Queen's med students) made. I am unsure of how history works, so I am posting the table that I removed from the article page here, so that if we decide we want to put it back it will be easy to do. I removed this table

Adrianda (talk) 15:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you . That's exactly right, as it gives other editors an immediate view of what was removed, along with the sourcing. Of course, that set of symptoms relate to Munchausen syndrome by proxy, so had no business being in this article in the first place!
 * I see from your prior edit summary that you think you're struggling with citation style. I think the citation you added in that edit is near-perfect, so don't worry about it. Simply do your best, and other editors will come along and fix any tiny discrepancies. For example, I've changed the separator for the page range from a hyphen (-) to an en dash (–), because that's our convention, but you shouldn't have to worry about it. That's how Wikipedia works. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 16:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Updated suggestions from Queen's Medical Students
Hello Again!

Thank you to the Wikipedia community for your feedback! :D, your table reformatting is awesome! We would have had no idea how to figure that out. Also, thank you for the invaluable comments.

We have
 * Fixed the DSM references (they are now the same reference)
 * Posted the table to the article page, and added an introductory sentence with our citation listed
 * , thank you for your comment. We completely agree, in fact we've been told that Munchausen syndrome is simply referred to as "factitious disorder" now, which has its own Wikipedia page. It's occurred to us that perhaps these pages should be unified, but feel this is a change that is too far out of scope for both our medical training and experience in editing Wikipedia. What are the community thoughts?
 * We have also changed a sentence and added a citation for our fourth recommendation
 * We'll aim to add the other changes on the article page ASAP

Thank you again for making this such a great learning experience.

Sincerely, Adrianda (talk) 16:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay so we have "Factitious disorder" of which there are two types "imposed on self" and "by proxy". This is the first one of those. Have adjusted the naming to match. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Now, all THAT is what I call meeting Wikipedia's "BE BOLD" advice. David notMD (talk) 18:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I did citation clean-up on the citations that were already in the article. I left Munchausen by Internet with that existing title, but added a link in the lead to direct to this now factitious disorder imposed on self. David notMD (talk) 12:44, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I left a note on your Talk for my reasons for citation changes. David notMD (talk) 15:37, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I left a note on your talk page giving my reasons for reverting you. I'll reproduce it here so that the students and other editors can see the reasoning:
 * I'm sorry you've been given bad advice at other articles. There is indeed value in making citations consistent, but in an article containing a mish-mash of styles, you could pick any style to made as the standard. In these cases you have to ask yourself, why would I level down to the least informative version, when I could level up to the most informative one? What advantage is there for the reader or re-user in throwing away information? --RexxS (talk) 15:53, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 18 November 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. as per discussion below following WP:NCMED the standard naming guideline for medicine related articles Mahveotm (talk) 17:17, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Munchausen syndrome → Factitious disorder imposed on self – The applicable policy guideline for naming of medical articles is Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles, which is indicated at the policy Article titles as "It is supplemented by other more specific guidelines (see the box to the right). Unusually, the consensus for medical articles does not defer to WP:COMMONNAME, but is given at WP:NCMED as follows: The ICD-10 classification is "Intentional production or feigning of symptoms or disabilities, either physical or psychological [factitious disorder]" - see http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd10/browse/2016/en#/F68.1 and the DSM-5 classification is "Factitious Disorder DSM-5 300.19 (F68.10). The latest article at Medscape is titled "Factitious Disorder Imposed on Self (Munchausen's Syndrome)", reflecting the modern name, which is now preferred to "Munchausen's syndrome". You can see other examples of this updating in the recent references in the article. I know this doesn't sit well with what we do in other fields, but in medical articles, using the modern, scientific name is uncontroversial.
 * "The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources, rather than a lay term (unscientific or slang name) or a historical eponym that has been superseded."
 * "Some examples of international standards include: Diseases—The World Health Organization, International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-10) or the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5)"

The longer title is necessary because of the existing article Factitious disorder imposed on another (which is the target of the redirect Munchausen syndrome by proxy). --RexxS (talk) 16:22, 18 November 2017 (UTC) On a related point, does anyone know when the "new" name officially started being used? We commonly wait a few years after a name change, precisely for the reason that LT gives: the new names do not always gain acceptance, and there are commonly multiple possible "official" names. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC) In the instant case, I see these names in key sources: Intentional production or feigning of symptoms or disabilities, either physical or psychological [factitious disorder] (ICD-10, which additionally lists Munchausen syndrome as the second of three common alternative names), Chronic factitious illness with physical symptoms (ICD-9), Munchausen Syndrome (MeSH), and Munchausen syndrome aka/or Factitious disease aka/or Hospital addiction syndrome (Diseases database). That doesn't actually look like a strong case for declaring that your preferred name is actually "the scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources, rather than a lay term (unscientific or slang name) or a historical eponym that has been superseded". I see (a) no evidence here that your suggestion is the "recognised medical name" (every source I checked prefers a different one, but they do still recognize the old one), or that the eponym has actually been superseded in practice (see, e.g., Peter's comment about the new name not being popular, i.e., not having really superseded the old one yet). Which is kind of a pity, because my own WP:Use common sense argument was going to be in favor of your suggestion on the grounds that it would reduce confusion with respect to the "by proxy" version, which more people will have heard of. But you seem to have just argued against using common sense and in favor of a "law" that doesn't necessarily support your proposal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose No way, Hosea. To get some idea of how often the proposed move is used, I searched on google n-gram (result: could not be found) and google (8,400ish vs 340,000). This confirms my personal experience and suspicion that Munchausen syndrome is much more commonly used. So oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Issue can be revisited in 5-10 years when the proposed name gains more acceptance. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, José. And Heart attack is a lot more commonly seen than Myocardial infarction, but that's the medical name for the condition, and that's where the article is. Did you bother to read the policy on article titles for medical topics at all? COMMONNAME is nothing more than a secondary consideration for those articles. --RexxS (talk) 23:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * C'mon, guys, we're all friends, and we should act like it. LT's entitled to his view about how to balance the competing considerations, just like each of the rest of us are.  We don't absolutely follow the "official only" approach in every case.  If we did, then we wouldn't have a Featured Article at Tourette syndrome.
 * So what's the point of having documented guidelines and policy if anybody can make up their own "competing consideration" and ignore the policy? If we followed WP:NCMED for Tourette syndrome, we'd find: (i) Combined vocal and multiple motor tic disorder [de la Tourette] (ICD-10); (ii) Tourette's disorder (ICD-9); Gilles de la Tourette syndrome (OMIM); (iii) Gilles de la Tourette syndrome (Diseases Database); (iv) Tourette syndrome (MedlinePlus); (v) Tourette Syndrome and Other Tic Disorders (Medscape). So, yes, we would have a Featured Article at "Tourette syndrome" – what title do you think we would have? --RexxS (talk) 23:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I expect that the point behind accepting common sense considerations is the same point behind declaring WP:Ignore all rules to be a fundamental policy, and the same the reason that guidelines such as NCMED say "it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply" right at the top. We need to accept common sense and rationales for the occasional exception.
 * No point in trying to shoot me: I'm just the messenger. This isn't a game of trying to assert my viewpoint over somebody else's, and I'm quite impressed by your line of reasoning in not necessarily accepting Factitious disorder imposed on self as the best choice to meet WP:NCMED. So there's nothing for it to be a pity about. In fact, if Tom had adduced that sort of argument instead of blindly spouting an irrelevant guideline, I'd have thanked him for it, and we wouldn't be having this argument. I'm still not seeing any reason whatsoever for throwing IAR at me, though. You demonstrate to everyone you're on shaky ground when you have to quote "occasional exceptions may apply", but can't generate any reason why those exceptions should apply in the case you're putting forward. The only problem with common sense is that it's not very common, and I think I prefer a Wikipedia where editors are expected to follow agreed policy and guidelines, rather than have the anarchy of everybody claiming that the "law" doesn't apply to them. YMMV. --RexxS (talk) 14:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * support per RexxS rationale(invariably name changes occur, we should do this now...IMO)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support This is the current name. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. The correct name may not be particularly popular, but it does define the appropriate scope of the article better than a more frequently used but possibly poorly defined term. Other popular names are available as redirects, so the reader will be able to find the appropriate article without difficulty, and will be educated on arrival about the recognised terminology, as well as the other information available. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support I think changing the name of the article would be a step in the right direction. 'Factitious disorder imposed on self' is the current medical/psychiatric term, used in the DSM-5. We met with a psychiatrist and psychiatry resident to discuss our proposed edits to the Wikipedia page, and their main feedback was also regarding the change in terminology ('Munchausen syndrome' is no longer really used.) Jwaserman (talk) 15:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)Jwaserman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwaserman (talk • contribs) 15:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support A "common name" in one country may be completely unknown in another, and uninformative when translated. David notMD (talk) 16:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support for rationals already presented above. This is a common name, and looking at newer litterature it has superseeded the older term. Carl Fredrik  talk 15:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Retracted because I'm not sure what the implications for search traffic are. Googling "Myocardial infarction" gives Wikipedia at nr. 1, googling "Heart attack" gives our article at page 2. Carl Fredrik  talk 15:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * User:CFCF in my experience Google figures things out fairly well and traffic is not affected. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That illustrates one of the problems with using Google to make judgements. Google delivers individualised results as far as it can, so I see the Wikipedia article Myocardial infarction as the number one Ghit for that term – as you do – but when I Google "heart attack", I see our article Myocardial infarction as Ghit number four, after the NHSUK, NHSUK Choices, and British Heart Foundation pages. No doubt editors across the pond won't see such Anglo-centric results. As far as I can tell, Google seems to treat search terms that are Wikipedia redirects like Heart attack almost as favourably as searches for the actual article name. We also need to remember that there is likely to be a lot more competition for lay and slang terms like "heart attack", because Demi Lovato hasn't recorded a track called "myocardial infarction".--RexxS (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * First of all, it is possible to turn off individualized results (as I have done), so the only thing they would be going off is location (which does not explain US & UK-centric links coming up above Wikipedia). Second, I think it matters more than we think — and we shouldn't just brush it off so lightly. Carl Fredrik  talk 17:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There's no point in turning off individualised results because most readers don't do that, so you can't draw any conclusions from those sort of experiments. Because we don't know the algorithms Google uses to determine result rankings, we can't explain any set of results, and it's pointless to try. I think it matters much less than you think, and I don't believe we should be trying to fit our article naming policies to suit Google. YMMV. --RexxS (talk) 18:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * User:CFCF last time we discussed this, we looked at the data and it did not support a concern. Can you provide evidence of concern? Maybe we could change the name and then reassess things in a few months.
 * Right now the article used the NEW name for part of the 15th and 18th and all of the 16th and 17th. Looking at the data and not seeing significant concern.
 * That we are number one and two for heart attack and myocardial infarction means supports that naming has no significant effect. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 06:15, 23 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. For two reasons: 1) Psychiatry, psychology, and other mental health disciplines have used factitious disorder rather than Münchhausen syndrome for decades, e.g., in DSM-III (1980) "301.51 Chronic Factitious Disorder with Physical Symptoms ... This has also been called Münchhausen syndrome" (p. 288). Most authoritative sources, such as the previously mentioned DSM-5 and ICD-10, but also the draft version of ICD-11, UpToDate, the Merck Manual, the Cleveland Clinic, and the Mayo Clinic, to name a few examples, refer to factitious disorder, usually with a parenthetical mention of Münchhausen syndrome, e.g., the Cleveland Clinic, "(Formerly known as Munchausen syndrome)." Some journal articles still use Münchhausen syndrome, but, particularly in psych journals, one sees factitious disorder used, sometimes with Münchhausen syndrome in parentheses, with explanations such as this one from an article in Psycho-Oncology, "Background: Factitious disorder is where patients repeatedly seek medical care for feigned illnesses in the absence of obvious external rewards; ‘Munchausen’s syndrome’ is the historical name for this disorder." (It is a very interesting article btw - well-written, succinct, brief.) 2) Many authoritative sources  refer to Münchhausen syndrome as a severe form of factitious disorder imposed on self, i.e., it is a subcategory of factitious disorder. This definition is not universal, which is a point that could be addressed in the Factitious disorder imposed on self article.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)  07:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment It is deplorable that such a misleading nomination was made by an experienced editor. Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles is a style guideline and not, as claimed here, a policy. However, it is correct to say our Article titles policy is supplemented by the guideline but this is not the same as being superseded. However, there is merit in the suggestion (despite the biassed way it has been proposed). WhatamIdoing makes some valuable remarks pointing out it is not at all clear what is the best title for the target article, even if it is agreed a change should be made. For me, the most significant matter is that Munchausen syndrome should not become a red link. Thincat (talk) 09:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * And it's disgraceful that you have to resort to ad hominems because you have no other argument. The truth is that our Article titles policy defers to the Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles guideline for medical articles and it is disingenuous to pretend otherwise. If the key statement in WP:NCMED, "The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources, rather than a lay term (unscientific or slang name) or a historical eponym that has been superseded", is to have any meaning, it must indicate an agreed deviation from COMMONNAME, and that is what "supplemented" means in this particular case. If you don't like the guidance, make your argument at Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles and see how far you get. You also need to apologise for that uninformed "biased" smear, and read WP:Requested move . See if you can spot the note "Unlike other request processes on Wikipedia, such as RfC, nominations need not be neutral. Make your point as best you can..."? A requested move is not an RfC and the instructions require the proposer to make the case for the move, so of course it is biased toward that conclusion. Where do you get the ludicrous idea that there is any proposal to redlink Munchausen syndrome? Requested moves inevitably lead to the former term being retained as a redirect. It is a plausible search term and the historic name for the condition. --RexxS (talk) 09:55, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I do indeed apologise for saying "biassed" when I meant "inaccurate". Of course the nomination should make a case but it should be based on accurate information. I do like the guideline (and I expressed no objection to a move) but I don't like it being described as a policy. I was not suggesting a redlink was being proposed – I was merely commenting that that was the matter of most significance to me. Thincat (talk) 10:12, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and I'm sorry that you found my nomination inaccurate. It certainly was never my intention to mislead, and I've now tried to clarify the preamble by amending "policy" to "guideline" where I introduced MOS:MED. There is often a grey area between policy and guidelines, and we sometimes develop cases like this where a subject-specific guideline (WP:NCMED) modifies a general policy (WP:COMMONNAME) so much that it effectively overrides the general policy – and if it didn't, it would serve no purpose at all. However it really has a purpose since in medicine, there has long been agreement that the scientific name found in reliable up-to-date sources takes preference over the lay or unscientific name, which may indeed be commoner. --RexxS (talk) 16:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Rename
Should we rename to the current name of "Factitious disorder imposed on self"? Munchausen's has not been the official term for a long long time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:34, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

This solution is a bit odd. Munchausen syndrome is a proper subset of factitious disorder, as peregrination and pseudologia fantastica must be present. They are not synonyms, as the current article suggests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.114.183.47 (talk) 03:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

spelling
Could someone clarify which of these four spelling(s) are the right ones: Münchhausen, Münchausen, Munchhausen and Munchausen? All four seem to be in use in the text. Consistency would be appreciated.
 * There is a historical person, a work of fiction, and different traditions for spelling that work in different languages - hence no simple consistency. It seems to me that every single occurence in this article is spelled exacly as it should be, and that the History section covers the cause for the apparent inconsistency adquately.--Nø (talk) 16:53, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jwaserman, Aamorra, Adrianda, Qmedbs, Afsd95.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)