Talk:Psychiatric disorders of childbirth

Older entries
This entry does not describe a credible summary of psychiatric disorders associated with childbirth. Can someone with professional and unbiased knowledge please edit this page? Most of it at present reads like a list of uncited and mysogynistic urban myths. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.44.6 (talk) 09:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I second the above. Beyond the strange/vague misogynist tone, it's poorly organized and is very low on information. Someone in this field should review and edit this entry, as its current state is misleading and problematic. 108.54.211.163 (talk) 00:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * No real need. Citations are needed though. The entire article, from Illustrative Cases on has zero citations. I've personally witnessed Parturient rage on several occasions, the rest are well cited. Unless you are making the claim that peer reviewed medical journals are suddenly misogynistic. Demands for early delivery are well illustrated in the media in recent times. Painless and unconscious delivery is also well documented. Tocophobia was also cited and well understood. I could go on throughout the article, but save for the demand for early delivery, all other conditions are properly cited. Of course, there is a potential expansion to the article for male psychiatric disorders present during and after childbirth, but that would be more appropriate in another article.Wzrd1 (talk) 01:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits by FloNight
Thanks for removing the uncited and rather ancient (well over a century old) nonsense from the article. I had had it on my to-do list, but recent life events pushed it to the back burner, where it was subsequently forgotten. The page before your edit appeared like something from the Victorian age, only lacking claims of "female hysteria".Wzrd1 (talk) 02:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for noticing and taking the time to comment. :-) Sydney Poore/FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 03:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose that Organic prepartum and postpartum psychoses be merged into Psychiatric disorders of childbirth. I think that the content in the first article is a real hotch-potch and can be better contained in the one more solid, cohesive article at a more recognised scope, i.e. Psychiatric disorders of childbirth - additionally, some conditions such as postnatal depression may or may not have psychotic features so are better discussed comprehensively in the one place. Furthermore, deliriums are not strictly speaking psychoses. Discuss away.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That sounds workable, though I'd move the delirium sections that are due to infection to a historic portion lower in the article, with a section introduction mentioning what was previously considered psychosis now being understood to be mental symptoms due to infectious disease. Most readers I know of would expect pre and postpartum mental illnesses and for some, what once was considered a psychosis and is now better understood as infectious disease in an article on Psychiatric disorders of childbirth.Wzrd1 (talk) 20:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Cas. I agree that much of the Organic prepartum and postpartum psychoses either needs to be eliminated or merged here. I agree with putting some of the Organic prepartum and postpartum psychoses in a history of the disease section here since at one point there was a significantly different view of childbirth related psychiatric disorders. Sydney Poore/FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 20:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I have concerns about the content in Organic prepartum and postpartum psychoses being used as a modern description of medical conditions based on the quality of the references in that article. I did an evaluation of each source on the talk page of the Organic prepartum and postpartum psychoses to assist in deciding how the content might be used in this article. Sydney Poore/FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 00:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * After looking over the list you kindly provided, I have to agree. Can we get some assistance from the medical portal folks for more up to date references and perhaps, for the few remaining, ICD codes?Wzrd1 (talk) 01:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The lishman book is a good place to start - I note that it is at Wiley online so I might be able to access it digitally. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That sounds good. Sydney Poore/FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 14:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

✅

I decided to separate the two components, and removed all the paragraphs related to ORGANIC PREPARTUM AND POSTPARTUM PSYCHOSES. I revised what remained of PSYCHIATRIC DISORDERS OF CHILDBIRTH, adding missing paragraphs and bringing it up-to-date. This was published on February 21st. I was scrupulous to indicate on the Edit Summary that this was a Major Edit, and posted this explanation on the Talk page:

I was interested to read this. Returning to Wikipedia after ten years, I see that editors have combined my proposed entry on 'Organic Psychoses in Pregnancy and the Puerperium' (rejected in 2009 because of a breach of copyright*) with the entry on the 'Psychiatry of Childbirth' (meaning parturition). I included them all in my monograph on the subject, but I prefer to separate them, because otherwise the lists of disorders is too long. I have deleted the paragraphs on organic psychoses and will shortly offer a new entry devoted to this subject alone. I would like to change the title of this entry from 'The Psychiatry of Childbirth' to 'The Psychiatry of Parturition', because there is, at present, a risk of confusion with 'perinatal psychiatry'. How do I do this? ````Son of Fraser and Joyce```` on February 20th 2020.
 * By the way, I have the copyright for the monograph 'Eleithyia's Mischief' - I am both author and publisher.


 * If you own the copyright for the monograph and wish excerpts to be included, you should approach the appropriate personnel to give an official authorization to prevent possible claims of copyright infringement. I suggest reading WP:PERMISSIONS.Wzrd1 (talk) 01:51, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I am very disappointed that 'Going Batty' has reverted to the original text on the grounds that my major revision was 'not an improvement'. What I am trying to do is to distinguish between the disorders of labour (parturition, childbirth) itself, and the long list of organic psychoses of the whole reproductive process from early pregnancy to the puerperium. Most of the complications of parturition are not psychoses. The account I have given is an update of what I wrote in 2009, with more examples, and I am sure it will be of interest to many women who have to cope with childbirth. The material I have removed from the present text will be submitted with the title 'Organic Psychoses of Childbearing', as soon as I can get it approved; it is my entry of 2009 (which was rejected because of a copyright infringement) much updated. The two entries - 'The Psychiatry of Childbirth' (or, as I would prefer 'The Psychiatry of Parturition') and 'Organic Psychoses of Childbearing' certainly are an improvement, in the sense of adding knowledge. 'Going Batty' made a comment about pasting. It is true I am pasting, paragraph by paragraph, from a draft, but this is completely different from my 2009 draft. Son of Fraser and Joyce (talk) 22:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)Son of Fraser and JoyceSon of Fraser and Joyce (talk) 22:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC) on February 20th 2020.

I will have another go at posting this major editing of ‘The Psychiatry of Childbirth’, which was thrown out last night by one of your stewards. Let me briefly rehearse the history. In 2009 I posted two entries – The Psychiatry of Childbirth (which is about parturition) and ‘The Organic Psychoses of Pregnancy and the Puerperium’ (which is about a completely different subject). ‘Moonridden Girl’ blocked me for an infringement of copyright, although I think most of what I wrote in both entries was from my monograph ‘Eileithyia’s Mischief: the Organic Psychoses of Pregnancy, Parturition and the Puerperium’, of which I am both author and publisher, and possess the copyright; it is the only book on these subjects in recent years and has well over 1,000 references. About five years ago, stewards inserted some of the second entry into the first, making a ‘chalk and cheese’ mixture. I was unable to do anything about this because I was blocked. I was unblocked last week, and have thoroughly revised and updated both the texts, and am now trying to get them accepted. I would like to change the name ‘The Psychiatry of Childbirth’ to ‘The Psychiatry of Parturition’ to avoid confusion with ‘perinatal psychiatry’, but do not know how. I am also changing the name of the second entry to ‘The Organic Psychoses of Childbearing’ because it is shorter. If you need more citations, you can have as many as you like! A lot of them are from long ago, because that is when the observations were made. Childbirth has changed out of all recognition in high income nations, but I understand Wikipedia to serve the needs of the poor nations too – those with high birth rates and high maternal morbidity; in them the experience of parturition may be similar to that of the early 19th century in Europe and North America. Thank you for reconsidering this major edit. ````Son of Fraser and Joyce````, February 21st 2020. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Son of Fraser and Joyce (talk • contribs) 06:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I gave you a reference to follow in releasing information via Wikipedia, which protects Wikipedia, Wikimedia and both authors and publishers rights. Do follow that guidance or copyrighted content will be speedily deleted, to protect the legal interests of all parties concerned, as explained above.Wzrd1 (talk) 15:30, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Major edit (February 29th 2020)
In October 2009 I submitted an entry under the title ‘ORGANIC PRE- AND POSTPARTUM PSYCHOSES, and in November 2009 another called PSYCHIATRIC DISORDERS of CHILDBIRTH.

In 2010, I was blocked for breach of copyright.

On February 11th 2020 I was unblocked.

I then discovered that major changes had been made to my article on the PSYCHIATRIC DISORDERS of CHILDBIRTH. Studying the history and talk page, I discovered these email exchanges between Wikipedia staff:

February 13th 2013. This entry does not describe a credible summary of psychiatric disorders associated with childbirth. Can someone with professional and unbiased knowledge please edit this page? Most of it at present reads like a list of uncited and mysogynistic urban myths (Sinebot).

November 17th, 2013 I second the above. Beyond the strange/vague misogynist tone, it's poorly organized and is very low on information. Someone in this field should review and edit this entry, as its current state is misleading and problematic (108.54.211.163).

On the same day, No real need. Citations are needed though. The entire article, from Illustrative Cases on has zero citations. I've personally witnessed Parturient rage on several occasions, the rest are well cited. Unless you are making the claim that peer reviewed medical journals are suddenly misogynistic. Demands for early delivery are well illustrated in the media in recent times. Painless and unconscious delivery is also well documented. Tocophobia was also cited and well understood. I could go on throughout the article, but save for the demand for early delivery, all other conditions are properly cited. Of course, there is a potential expansion to the article for male psychiatric disorders present during and after childbirth, but that would be more appropriate in another article (Wzrd1).

March 12th 2014 The paragraph on painless and unconscious labour was removed because the references were over 100 years old, and it seemed somewhat off topic. S/he also removed an illustrative case and “outdated and poorly sourced content that was unencyclopaedic in tone and style” (Flonight).

On the same day, Thanks for removing the uncited and rather ancient (well over a century old) nonsense from the article. I had had it on my to-do list, but recent life events pushed it to the back burner, where it was subsequently forgotten. The page before your edit appeared like something from the Victorian age, only lacking claims of "female hysteria" (Wzrd1).

On the same day, a merger proposal was discussed with this exchange of emails:

I propose that ORGANIC PREPARTUM AND POSTPARTUM PSYCHOSES be merged into PSYCHIATRIC DISORDERS OF CHILDBIRTH. I think that the content in the first article is a real hotch-potch and can be better contained in the one more solid, cohesive article at a more recognised scope, i.e. PSYCHIATRIC DISORDERS OF CHILDBIRTH. Additionally, some conditions such as postnatal depression may or may not have psychotic features so are better discussed comprehensively in the one place. Furthermore, deliriums are not strictly speaking psychoses (Casliber).

That sounds workable, though I'd move the delirium sections that are due to infection to a historic portion lower in the article, with a section introduction mentioning what was previously considered psychosis now being understood to be mental symptoms due to infectious disease. Most readers I know of would expect pre and postpartum mental illnesses and for some, what once was considered a psychosis and is now better understood as infectious disease in an article on Psychiatric disorders of childbirth (Wzrd1). Thanks, Cas. agree that much of the ORGANIC PREPARTUM AND POSTPARTUM PSYCHOSES either needs to be eliminated or merged here. I agree with putting some of the ORGANIC PREPARTUM AND POSTPARTUM PSYCHOSES in a history of the disease section here since at one point there was a significantly different view of childbirth related psychiatric disorders (Sydney Poore/FloNight)

March 13th 2014 I have concerns about the content in ORGANIC PREPARTUM AND POSTPARTUM PSYCHOSES being used as a modern description of medical conditions based on the quality of the references in that article. I did an evaluation of each source (Sydney Poore/FloNight)

(I have studied the list of references: most of them are considered ‘historical’; Ndosi’s 1998 article was “not a review”; another was “a case study”).

On the same day the three Wikipedia staff (Wzrd1, Casliber and Sydney Poore/FloNight) merged the two entries.

Comments on this e-mail exchange

•	I made a mistake in entitling this entry PSYCHIATRIC DISORDERS OF CHILDBIRTH, rather than PSYCHIATRIC DISORDERS OF PARTURITION. I probably thought, in 2009, that ‘parturition’ would not be widely understood. But ‘childbirth’ has caused confusion with ‘perinatal psychiatry’, particularly by Casliber on March 12th 2014. It would be best, perhaps, to change the title to PSYCHIATRIC DISORDERS OF CHILDBIRTH (PARTURITION), but I welcome views on the appropriate title for an article strictly limited to the birth itself.

•	Wikipedia staff need to recall that there has been an sea change in the circumstances of parturition in high-income nations since the introduction of anaesthetics and advances in obstetrics dating from the mid-19th century, resulting in an enormous reduction in maternal mortality and morbidity. Disorders graphically described in the 1st half of the 19th century are never seen in these nations now, and have been forgotten. For example, Tott described early postpartum stupor, an interesting phenomenon that has never since been mentioned; when I conducted a citation analysis in 2014, I discovered why – in 170 years this paper has only once been cited. But the conditions of childbirth in populous low-income nations, where the majority of infants are born, is rather similar to those that existed in Western Europe and USA before 1850 – inadequate pain relief and no professional help. If Wikipedia exists to inform the world, not just high-income nations, these early papers are relevant and the only primary source of information.

•	There are, perhaps, some problems in the attitudes of these Wikipedia staff:

o	Some people, especially in some nations, have little sympathy for the suffering of women. Some of the remarks above smack of that attitude. Parturition was, and still is, one of the severest of human ordeals, and these papers, written by medical men, describe the extreme suffering of women in labour.

o	There is a prejudice against ancient literature (Flonight). The quality of a publication is determined by its content, not its date or the ‘impact’ of the journal in which it is published. Many of these ancient descriptions were of the highest quality. Was Flonight critical of the inclusion of the seminal paper by Ndosi? Reviews are often superficial, and bury key observations like Ndosi's.

o	There is a cavalier attitude to the rights of authorship. It is extraordinary that these Wikipedia staff-members, who do not have expert knowledge of this area, should take a decision to merge two completely different entries, without consulting the author. This is surely ultra vires.

Merging ORGANIC PREPARTUM AND POSTPARTUM PSYCHOSES with PSYCHIATRIC DISORDERS OF CHILDBIRTH was a mistake, because the first describes ‘psychoses’ that occur at any point in pregnancy or the puerperium, and the second a variety of disorders (most of them not ‘psychoses’) occurring during the few hours or days of labour. This merger was not only wrong in principle, but has created an entry that ‘mixes chalk and cheese’.

I decided to separate the two components, and removed all the paragraphs related to ORGANIC PREPARTUM AND POSTPARTUM PSYCHOSES. I revised what remained of PSYCHIATRIC DISORDERS OF CHILDBIRTH, adding missing paragraphs and bringing it up-to-date. This was published on February 21st. I was scrupulous to indicate on the Edit Summary that this was a Major Edit, and posted this explanation on the Talk page:

I was interested to read this. Returning to Wikipedia after ten years, I see that editors have combined my proposed entry on 'Organic Psychoses in Pregnancy and the Puerperium' (rejected in 2009 because of a breach of copyright) with the entry on the 'Psychiatry of Childbirth' (meaning parturition). I included them all in my monograph on the subject, but I prefer to separate them, because otherwise the lists of disorders is too long. I have deleted the paragraphs on organic psychoses and will shortly offer a new entry devoted to this subject alone. I would like to change the title of this entry from 'The Psychiatry of Childbirth' to 'The Psychiatry of Parturition', because there is, at present, a risk of confusion with 'perinatal psychiatry'. How do I do this?

This was immediately rejected by Sakura Cartelet (Going Batty), with the comment “not an improvement, possible copy-pasting”.

I immediately posted this reply:

I am very disappointed that 'Going Batty' has reverted to the original text on the grounds that my major revision was 'not an improvement'. What I am trying to do is to distinguish between the disorders of labour (parturition, childbirth) itself, and the long list of organic psychoses of the whole reproductive process from early pregnancy to the puerperium. Most of the complications of parturition are not psychoses. The account I have given is an update of what I wrote in 2009, with more examples, and I am sure it will be of interest to many women who have to cope with childbirth. The material I have removed from the present text will be submitted with the title 'Organic Psychoses of Childbearing', as soon as I can get it approved; it is my entry of 2009 (which was rejected because of a copyright infringement) much updated. The two entries - 'The Psychiatry of Childbirth' (or, as I would prefer 'The Psychiatry of Parturition') and 'Organic Psychoses of Childbearing' are certainly an improvement, in the sense of adding knowledge. 'Going Batty' made a comment about pasting. It is true I am pasting, paragraph by paragraph, from a draft, but this is different from my 2009 draft. On February 21st I replaced my revised version, again indicating on the Edit Summary that this was a Major Edit, and posted this explanation on the Talk page:

I will have another go at posting this major edit of ‘The Psychiatry of Childbirth’, which was thrown out last night by one of your stewards. Let me briefly rehearse the history. In 2009 I posted two entries – The Psychiatry of Childbirth (which is about parturition) and ‘The Organic Psychoses of Pregnancy and the Puerperium’ (which is about a completely different subject). ‘Moonridden Girl’ blocked me for an infringement of copyright, although I think most of what I wrote in both entries was from my monograph ‘Eileithyia’s Mischief: the Organic Psychoses of Pregnancy, Parturition and the Puerperium’, of which I am both author and publisher, and possess the copyright; it is the only book on these subjects in recent years and has well over 1,000 references. About five years ago, stewards inserted some of the second entry into the first, making a ‘chalk and cheese’ mixture. I was unable to do anything about this because I was blocked. I was unblocked last week, and have thoroughly revised and updated both the texts, and am now trying to get them accepted. I would like to change the name ‘The Psychiatry of Childbirth’ to ‘The Psychiatry of Parturition’ to avoid confusion with ‘perinatal psychiatry’, but do not know how. I am also changing the name of the second entry to ‘The Organic Psychoses of Childbearing’ because it is shorter. If you need more citations, you can have as many as you like! A lot of them are from long ago, because that is when the observations were made. Childbirth has changed out of all recognition in high income nations, but I understand Wikipedia to serve the needs of the poor nations too – those with high birth rates and high maternal morbidity; in them the experience of parturition may be similar to that of the early 19th century in Europe and North America. Thank you for reconsidering this major edit. This article survived for a few days.

On February 25th Mvolz replaced the Casliber/Flonight version. S/he wrote,

Hello, I'm Mvolz. I noticed that you recently removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored … If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on Mvolz|my talk page. Thanks. Additionally, could you please look into how to cite sources correctly on Wikipedia.

That evening, and the next morning, I sent this message in answer to the four emails sent by Mvolz, and pasted a version on his talk page.

Dear Mvolz, Thank you very much for your e-mail message. I do appreciate the care that Wikipedia stewards take to ensure fair play and to maintain the highest standards of Wikipedia entries – and especially because three of my 2009 entries – these two and a third on Postpartum Psychoses – have been mauled by subsequent editors without any explanation that I have been able to discover. I very much want my entries to be legitimate, and that is why, when making these major changes, I spelt out the reasons in detail. Indeed, I particularly asked stewards to read these explanations when assessing my entry. These explanations are on one of the talk pages. I have been able to find them, and they are attached. Please be so kind as to study them, and, I hope, replace my revised entry. There does seem to be a problem with my 'talk page' entries not reaching stewards. I am at present having difficulties with my submission on 'Organic Psychoses of Childbearing' - two or three stewards have made the same adverse comments, without apparently having seen my response. How can I bring my explanations to the attention of stewards?

At the time of writing (February 28th) I have not received a reply from Mvolz, so it seems best to replace my article on PSYCHIATRIC DISORDERS OF CHILDBIRTH, updated and with appropriate links and full citations in the Wikipedia format. This submission, accompanied by this extended explanation, is similar to my 2009 entry in style and format, so, if Wikipedia is consistent, it should be considered sufficiently ‘encyclopaedic in manner’. It contains no unpublished research. All information is based on secondary reliable sources, and has been referenced. I hope, therefore, Wikipedia staff will allow it to survive. There are many women, who suffer in childbirth, especially in poor nations without advanced obstetrics, who would benefit from the information in this entry.

Son of Fraser and Joyce (talk) 10:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)Son of Fraser and JoyceSon of Fraser and Joyce (talk) 10:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC), February 29th 2020.


 * Nobody has to read your wall of text to see the problem: "I then discovered that major changes had been made to my article ...". It's not your article.
 * Secondly, your self-published monograms from "Eyry Press" don't meet the standards required by WP:MEDRS for reliable sources.
 * Thirdly, your writing style is simply not suitable for an encyclopedia article. The lead of an article is not equivalent to the foreword of a book. Encyclopedia articles are written in the third person, and do not directly address the reader. Wikipedia does not speculate, but ties each statement to a reliable source that can verify it.
 * Finally, you will not force your version of the article into Wikipedia by repeatedly inserting your preferred content. That will simply lead to a removal of your editing privileges to prevent further disruption.
 * Please take the time to learn about the medium to which you are attempting to contribute. Your talk page has, as the first message, a number of links to pages – offered to you over 11 years ago –  that would be helpful to you in understanding why your changes are not receiving approval. I find it hard to believe that you have read any of them. --RexxS (talk) 17:13, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Pinging as they have been quoted and criticised by Son of Fraser and Joyce without the courtesy of a notification. --RexxS (talk) 17:22, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Pinging as they have been quoted and criticised by Son of Fraser and Joyce without the courtesy of a notification. --RexxS (talk) 17:22, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for these comments. I am, of course, keen to avoid an edit conflict, and to achieve a legitimate entry. I will consider your comments and then reply. 2A00:23C5:EC0A:5800:1917:45EF:58EA:1C88 (talk) 21:36, 29 February 2020 (UTC)Son of Fraser and Joyce2A00:23C5:EC0A:5800:1917:45EF:58EA:1C88 (talk), February 29th 2020.


 * Please review the edit history of this article more closely. I have made exactly one edit to this article, and it was to simply change "14 millions" to "14 million".  GoingBatty (talk) 21:49, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * While you're considering my comments, perhaps you might also consider the following:
 * Stewards - they are not who you think they are, and have no remit to interfere in content disputes.
 * Office - staff are also not who you think they are, and will not interfere in content disputes, other than when legal issues may arise (i.e. almost never).
 * Ownership of content -
 * Expert editors - "Expert editors can be very valuable contributors to Wikipedia, but they sometimes have a difficult time realizing that Wikipedia is a different environment from scholarly and scientific publishing."
 * Wikipedia has long been in the top ten largest websites in the world, with around 18 billion page views per month. It has established conventions that differ significantly from other publishing platforms such as academic journals, but what has emerged has sustained the largest encyclopedia ever constructed in human history. You may feel that the conventions should be changed to accommodate your preferences, but I'm afraid that is very unlikely to happen. You are much more likely to be able to contribute productively if you can manage to observe the conventions in force here.
 * It's difficult to accept that your expertise is not sufficient to justify the inclusion of your views, but our policies on verification and reliable sources are not negotiable, no matter what appeals to authority an editor may make. --RexxS (talk) 22:22, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping, didn't get notices on the conversation. The entire debacle has the very author of the copyrighted work at its heart. The question was posed on how to be able to include copyrighted content, I provided a Wikipedia reference on the process and people to approach to accomplish that, assuming that the author retains the rights, rather than the publisher. Apparently, the author entirely refrained from legally clearing the content, included it, got a wrist slap and complains. There is a reason that Wikipedia and many other entities have processes and procedures to follow in regards to copyrighted work. Those processes and procedures exist to protect Wikipedia and other sibling projects, the foundation itself and the current possessor of the copyrighted work, be that author or publisher, ignoring those processes and procedures open all up to litigation that can be insanely expensive.Wzrd1 (talk) 20:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping, didn't get notices on the conversation. The entire debacle has the very author of the copyrighted work at its heart. The question was posed on how to be able to include copyrighted content, I provided a Wikipedia reference on the process and people to approach to accomplish that, assuming that the author retains the rights, rather than the publisher. Apparently, the author entirely refrained from legally clearing the content, included it, got a wrist slap and complains. There is a reason that Wikipedia and many other entities have processes and procedures to follow in regards to copyrighted work. Those processes and procedures exist to protect Wikipedia and other sibling projects, the foundation itself and the current possessor of the copyrighted work, be that author or publisher, ignoring those processes and procedures open all up to litigation that can be insanely expensive.Wzrd1 (talk) 20:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Right then....
Okay, I have just been alerted to this. Will try and see how we can navigate. is correct in that the literature is meagre, however ICD and DSM are the consensus systems used by psychiatrists worldwide. I'll get the work and try to see what we can do. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Although the leading sentence states that PSYCHIATRIC DISORDERS OF CHILDBIRTH are mental disorders developed by the mother related to the delivery process itself, the only such disorders listed are childbirth-related PTSD and tocophobia. I would like to add some other disorders which, though mercifully now rare in nations with advanced obstetric services, may be of interest to low- and middle-income nations where the great majority of infants are born. These brief additions will be brought up-to-date from reliable sources. I will delay for a couple of weeks to give other editors an opportunity to comment or object. 2A00:23C5:EC0A:5800:D59F:4654:A78C:55B3 (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)Son of Fraser and Joyce2A00:23C5:EC0A:5800:D59F:4654:A78C:55B3 (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC), March 3rd 2020.

Proposed addition of paragraphs on delirium during labour
There is only one secondary source on the psychopathology of parturition recognized by Wikipedia as reliable – a monograph published in 2017 by Cambridge University Press, with a forward by Mario Maj. It devotes chapter 11 to the subject of parturient delirium, about 3,000 words long with 37 references. In ICD-10 this disorder would be classified under F05 ’Delirium, not induced by alcohol or other psychoactive substances.’ These are the paragraphs I propose to add to the present entry:

Delirium during labour
Under the name ‘parturient delirium’, this is defined as an acute (usually sudden) clouding of consciousness, lasting minutes or hours, with full recovery. Onset is usually towards the end of labour, and recovery after the birth. Any of the following may be observed – incoherent speech, misidentification of persons, visual hallucinations, inappropriate behaviour such as singing, or memory loss for the episode. A phasic course, with alternate delirium and clarity, continuation into the puerperium, and recurrence after another pregnancy have been described in a few cases.

It was one of the first psychiatric disorders, related to childbearing, to be described, and its importance in the early 19th century is indicated by an early classification, stating that it was one of two recognized forms of puerperal insanity. More than 50 cases have been described, most of them at a time when parturition was endured without effective pain relief. The disorder has almost disappeared in nations with advanced obstetrics, with only two early 20th century reports. But, within the last ten years, there were 28 nations in which fewer than half the births were attended by skilled birth attendants; they included Nigeria, Pakistan, Ethiopia and Bangladesh, each with more than 3 million births/year. In 2012, it was estimated that 130-180 million infants would be delivered in the quinquennium 2011-2015 without skilled birth attendance. There are still many countries where parturition in the 21st century is like that in Europe in the early 19th century, and women are at risk of becoming delirious during labour.

With the purpose of achieving an agreed text, I would be grateful for advice from the other editors of 'Psychiatric Disorders of Childbirth". Subject to that advice, my plan is to add these paragraphs in about ten days time.

Son of Fraser and Joyce (talk) 17:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)Son of Fraser and JoyceSon of Fraser and Joyce (talk) 17:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC), March 4th 2020.

I have notified Casliber, FloNight and Wzrd1 of this proposed addition, but not GoingBatty, because I could not see where to put the message. Son of Fraser and Joyce (talk) 06:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Son of Fraser and JoyceSon of Fraser and Joyce (talk) 06:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC), March 6th 2020.


 * Okay - finally getting to look at this...but it is after midnight here in Australia. I need to digest this and think. As (I think) I said previously, we have DSM and ICD but both can be somewhat reductionistic. So how we complement them....I am thinking we should include. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

On March 6th I notified my fellow editors (Casliber, Flonight and Wzrd1) of my intention to add the paragraph on Delirium during Labour. There has been no response, and I am hoping that silence means consent. I will therefore add this paragraph. In a week's time I intend to add (subject to the views of other editors) a paragraph on Unconscious Delivery. This is chapter 12 of "The Psychoses of Menstruation and Childbearing" (Cambridge UniversitY Press, 2017) about 2,000 words with eleven references. If requested, I will draft the whole paragraph on this talk page. Son of Fraser and Joyce (talk) 06:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Son of Fraser and JoyceSon of Fraser and Joyce (talk) 06:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC), March 16th 2020.

On March 16th I notified my fellow editors of my intention to add a short paragraph on unconscious delivery. No-one has objected to this, so I will put this into effect. Next week I will add a paragraph on Acts of Desperation (suicide and auto-Caesarean section). I have removed the references from my March 4th note, because they were printed at the bottom of the talk page. 2A00:23C5:EC0A:5800:4D44:9D64:2F1E:A9E2 (talk) 06:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)Son of Fraser and Joyce2A00:23C5:EC0A:5800:4D44:9D64:2F1E:A9E2 (talk) 06:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC), March 23rd 2020.
 * Good work, . Please do try to log in, though, as it helps other editors keep track of who is doing and saying things.
 * Please be careful about copyright, though. It is, of course, permissible for you to quote or closely paraphrase your own work, but you need to be aware that content that you contribute to Wikipedia is released by you under a licence that allows anybody to reuse it for any purpose whatsoever. You might want to check with your publisher if they have any misgivings. You may have to fill in a standard ticket via what we call WP:OTRS to confirm that you, as the author, are releasing your previously published work under that open licence. That doesn't matter until somebody complains about it, so we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.
 * Finally, you can collect up the references on a talk page at any point you wish by adding reflist-talk at the point where you want the references to appear (often immediately after your post). Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 15:10, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much RexxS. I will write to Cambridge University Press to check that they are happy for me to cite 'The Psychoses of Menstruation and Childbearing' in support of my Wikipedia articles. When the book was in preparation, I asked their permission to publish ten articles with some of the main points, and they were entirely happy about that, believing that it would make the book more widely known. I have added my paragraphs about 'acts of desperation', and, subject to the views of other editors, will next week add a paragraph headed 'psychosis during parturition'. Son of Fraser and Joyce (talk) 05:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)Son of Fraser and JoyceSon of Fraser and Joyce (talk) 05:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC), March 30th 2020.

Dear ReexS. I am astonished to see that I myself have the copyright for 'The Psychoses of Menstruation and Childbearing'. But I have written to Cambridge University Press to make doubly sure. Son of Fraser and Joyce (talk) 06:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)Son of Fraser and JoyceSon of Fraser and Joyce (talk) 06:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC), March 30th 2020.

I have added the short paragraph on psychosis during labour. Subject to the views of other editors, I will next week add a section entitled 'Pathological mental states immediately after the birth'. Son of Fraser and Joyce (talk) 18:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)Son of Fraser and JoyyceSon of Fraser and Joyce (talk) 18:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC), April 6th 2020.

I have added the paragraph on 'Pathological mental states immediately after the birth', and moved the paragraph on childbirth-related post-traumatic stress disorder to its chronological position after delivery. Subject to the views of other editors, I will next week add a paragraph on complaining disorders. Son of Fraser and Joyce (talk) 20:09, 13 April 2020 (UTC)Son of Fraser and JoyceSon of Fraser and Joyce (talk) 20:09, 13 April 2020 (UTC), April 13th 2020.

I have added the paragraph on complaining disorders. Subject to the views of other editors, I will next week add a paragraph on obstetric factitious disorder (directed at simulating the onset of labour]. Son of Fraser and Joyce (talk) 06:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)Son of Fraser and JoyceSon of Fraser and Joyce (talk) 06:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC), April 21st 2020.

I have added the paragraph on obstetric factitious disorder. Subject to the views of other editors, I will next week add a paragraph on parturient rage and its relation to neonaticide. Son of Fraser and Joyce (talk) 07:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Son of Fraser and JoyceSon of Fraser and Joyce (talk) 07:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC), April 27th 2020.

I have added the paragraph on parturient rage. Subject to the views of other editors, I will next week add an introductory paragraph on three settings for childbirth. Son of Fraser and Joyce (talk) 05:16, 4 May 2020 (UTC)Son of Fraser and JoyceSon of Fraser and Joyce (talk) 05:16, 4 May 2020 (UTC), May 4th 2020.

I have added the paragraph on three settings for childbirth, and replaced the first sentence of this article. To avoid duplication, I have deleted one sentence from the section on 'an international outlook etc.' Next week, subject to the views of other editors, I will revise the section on post-traumatic stress disorder. Son of Fraser and Joyce (talk) 19:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Son of Fraser and JoyceSon of Fraser and Joyce (talk) 19:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC), May 11th 2020.

I have updated the paragraph on post-traumatic stress disorder after childbirth. I have completed the revision of the disorders related to parturition, and now want to make a radical change in the article as it stands – to reverse the decision made in 2014 for a merger with organic psychoses of pregnancy and the puerperium. There are two points to make: first, the three stages of childbearing present completely different challenges – the prepartum stage has many interacting obstetric and psychiatric complications and the psychological task of adjustment to the pregnancy and unborn infant, parturition is an intense physical ordeal, and the postpartum stage has hormonal changes and the psychological task of bonding and the care of the new-born. Parturition may be brief, but its psychopathology has required 3,000 words (including references) and there are many Wikipedia articles shorter than this. Secondly, there are more psychiatric complications of childbearing than any other event in human life (I have a list of 50) and the inclusion here of 12 organic psychoses is no more appropriate than about 25 others. Most of the parturient disorders are not psychoses. It is true that I included the psychopathology of parturition in my monograph on the organic psychoses of pregnancy, parturition and the puerperium: that was because nothing had been written about them for decades and that chapter (Chapter 3, 65 pages) would not make a book of its own. The 12 organic psychoses belong (and are needed) in other Wikipedia articles. I therefore propose to remove them and, subject to the views of other editors, will do so at the beginning of June. If other editors consider that parturition alone is too short, it can be adjoined to an article on pregnancy (on which there is at present no Wikipedia article), and I can add paragraphs on the adjustment to pregnancy and about a dozen other psychiatric complications. That would need a change in title to ‘Psychiatric disorders of pregnancy and childbirth’. I will try to 'ping' other editors to make sure they have warning of this radical change. Son of Fraser and Joyce (talk) 06:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC)Son of Fraser and JoyceSon of Fraser and Joyce (talk) 06:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC), May 19th 2020. I have done my best to warn fellow editors of the radical change proposed on May 19th, and none has responded. So I will now put this change into effect. this will take some days because each paragraph has to be updated. Son of Fraser and Joyce (talk) 05:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I have completed the redeployment of the paragraphs on the organic psychoses. I would like, if possible and agreed, to enhance this article by adding the psychiatry of pregnancy. The main reason is that there is no Wikipedia article on this subject, and it might be helpful to readers to locate the information they need under a single heading. It would be necessary to change the title to 'Psychiatric Disorders of Pregnancy and Childbirth', which I am not qualified to do; I would be grateful for help with this. These additions would take at least a month, because it is more than 20 years since I last commprehensively reviewed this area. Son of Fraser and Joyce (talk) 06:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)