Talk:Psychiatry/Archive 10

Why trustworthyness of psychiatric evaluation was removed and called "vandalism"?
Put it back there. Like at any other medical field trustworthyness of diagnosis is an essential question or shall we just assume that any diagnosis at any field is 100% trustworthy? But we already know that it is not so. Or give at least some kind reasoning behind your decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.34.129.144 (talk) 12:28, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * On wikipedia we only include content which is directly attributable to a reliable source. Which, in this case means secondary independent reliable publications in the form of news or (preferably) scientific journal articles. Your content was not cited or verifiable to any sources, so it was removed. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 12:34, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Is it enough that I have a source but it refers in medical diagnostics in general, not specifically psychiatric evaluation? The source is the lecture notes handout in a university? 93.34.129.144 (talk) 12:51, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Lecture notes handout from a university class are not considered a reliable source on wikipedia. That would be a primary source, as it does not have editorial or peer review from an official second party (e.g. a publisher, peer reviewer, or editorial board). — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 12:52, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Health Professions Education
 * Volume 6, Issue 3, September 2020, Pages 320-324
 * This is the source. If you could be so kind that you add the text back there with the source?
 * But I ask you a question: does it have to be psychiatry or is general medicine enough? 93.34.129.144 (talk) 12:59, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It must be psychiatry, and it must be duly-weighted as I've described below. I do not believe this content is WP:DUE. The other issue is that this is a very long section to be cited to a single source. Typically we would want many multiple sources all supporting this text given its length. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 13:00, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * How many sources you want? 93.34.129.144 (talk) 13:04, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I should add that, even if this were cited to an independent secondary reliable source, it may also fail the WP:DUE test. It must also be covered and considered notable or relevant by some authoritative sources on the subject. For instance, we can find a source which says psychiatry is spelled "psiquiatría" in Galician, but that doesn't mean that particular fact should automatically be included on this page. It must also be duly-weighted in proportion to its coverage in reliable sources. In further explanation: if very few authoritative sources (e.g. scientific journal article reviews) talk about this, it should occupy very little space on the page. If lots of the authoritative sources talk about it, it should occupy a lot of space on the page. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 12:58, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You are saying that if 90% of diagnosises are incorrect, it is not significant? Yes, I admit that it is viewpoint largely supported by the medical professonals. Probably because most of them are mathematically illiterate. 93.34.129.144 (talk) 13:03, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Probably because most of them are mathematically illiterate. This appears to be your personal opinion. This talk page is for discussion of the article and how to improve it, not a place for us to air our grievances or concerns about doctors. Please try to remain on topic.As an aside, I share a great deal of your skepticism about the scientific reproducibility or internal validity of subjective psychiatric diagnoses. But that does not mean it should be spelled out as such on this page. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines which help us determine how to write wikipedia articles. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 13:05, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If you look at the journals, they talk about lots about specifity and sensitivity. So? 93.34.129.144 (talk) 13:05, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you may be misunderstanding. They must cover the precise thing of questioning the specificity and sensitivity of psychiatric diagnosis. And the proper sources would be broad reviews or textbooks of psychiatry in general, which are regarded as authoritative by health authorities. The other issue being that we already cover some of these issues in the sections marked "Controversy" and "History". — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 13:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * So if I would to write an article about 500 antibody tests, prevalences, specifity and sensitivity of them all and calculate how probable it is to have the disease if you had positive/negative test reasult, I am not allowed to that even though most people probably would find it very useful information? And I doubt if medical journal would publish that because it is not new information as such. Just collection of calculations done based on already published information. Maybe they would but... 93.34.129.144 (talk) 13:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yep, wikipedia is not strictly a repository for "useful information" as what is and is not "useful" is a pretty subjective determination. Wikipedia is a very specific set of encyclopedic curated information. —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 13:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I thought that Wikipedia was espcially meant to be storage for information written in easily readable form. Answer to the question.
 * I think that you are trying to add totally unnecessary layer of between the first hand mathematical knowlegde and the reader. Everyone can check the calculations themselves. That's the fine thing about math. 93.34.129.144 (talk) 13:21, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I have to ask: do really think that any psychiatrist go gladly public telling that? That is why other scientific disciplines have to fill in. For example, the most criticism towards the paranormal research comes outside of the community and yet it is well represented here in Wikipedia. How do you explain that? 93.34.129.144 (talk) 13:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Psychiatry, like it or not, is an accepted discipline of medicine, whereas paranormal research is not accepted by the scientific community. The majority of psychiatric patients are treated in the outpatient office with their consent, meaning they want treatment, accept their diagnosis, and are happy to be treated. It is only a minority which are treated in mandatory settings or in compulsory ways for their own benefit and for the benefit of society. And, at this point, this thread is careening towards a WP:FORUM discussion about the subject, not the article itself. I am no longer going to reply, have a nice day. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 13:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * When was the last time when somebody checked if the psychiatry is still accepted?
 * Ok. The criticism towards Newtons laws came from the astronomy. Mercury, the planet did not seem to follow the laws.
 * And towards scholastics from Galileo Galilei. Should be forbid other discipline intervening other scientic field's businesses? 93.34.129.144 (talk) 13:28, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * we
 * 93.34.129.144 (talk) 13:28, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I checked, just now. It's still accepted. MrOllie (talk) 13:30, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * From whom did you checked? 93.34.129.144 (talk) 13:30, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I looked it up in the National Library of Medicine. MrOllie (talk) 13:34, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to mention: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_C._G%C3%B8tzsche did wrote an article criticizing psychiatry. He is an endocrinologist. Scientific journal in my country refused to publish the article. He demanded an explanation. They gave him a silent treatment.
 * Another doctor, ortopedic, criticized psychiatry too. Medical association threathened to cancel his rights to act as an practicing physician if he does not take his statements back. This is the level of scientific conversation between psychiatry and other fields. 93.34.129.144 (talk) 13:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a place to right wrongs. Per policy, we follow the sources as outlined in our reliable sourcing guidelines. If you have some kind of problem with the scientific establishment Wikipedia is not a place to try to effect change. MrOllie (talk) 13:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It canot be expressed in a shorter form. I am sorry. Extend the other paragraphs then. 93.34.129.144 (talk) 13:14, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think you're understanding me. This content is not suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a web host or a repository of opinion pieces or essays or research monographs. It is not a place for us to write our personal treatises on what we think about X, Y, or Z thing. It is a very narrow encyclopedic collection of tailored and curated scholarly information with as little spin or inflection as possible. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 13:17, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes and I am writing about specifity, sensitivity and posteriori probabilities of psychiatric evaluation offering the source right there: the calculations. 93.34.129.144 (talk) 13:30, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Your assumptions and first principles have no source, thus your calculations prove nothing. MrOllie (talk) 13:33, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not the point. We do not know the prevalence of psychosis and it is impossible to know because psychiatrists claim that some people (the healthy 50%) have psychosis instead of using some method to confirm it. We will do the calculations just to give hope to the patients, if they read the article, that they should not trust the diagnosis because it might be wrong. 93.34.129.144 (talk) 13:37, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it is the point. Wikipedia's core policy requires all content to be properly sourced, and yours isn't. MrOllie (talk) 13:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This is ridiculous. I think simple aritmetic and logical inference should avoid the source claim. Do you think that those people who wrote the Encyclopedia Britannica consulted journalists, or did they went straightly to scientists? So, Wikipedia is not a collection of useful knowledge about the real world but about what is said in media or scientic journals about the real world. Futile layer that just complicates matters. 93.34.129.144 (talk) 14:00, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * but about what is said in media or scientic journals about the real world. Yes, that is exactly correct. Wikipedia only summarizes what is in such sources. Glad you finally understand. MrOllie (talk) 14:03, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * In that case, in my opinion, people are writing these articles from a wrong point of view. There should be articles only about media and journals that summarize which media and which journals hold which specific view point or agenda. For example: Nature does not publish any articles about paranormal research, so it does not exist to them at all. Whereas to Journal of Personality and Social Psychology editorial board precognition does exist. Example:
 * Nature
 * 1. Biology but only if it supports evolution theory
 * 2. Medicine, can we talk about psychiatric illnesses and Bayesin probablities normally like in any other other field or is it too controversial and patients start getting weird ideas into their heads about demanding the evidence?
 * 3. Astronomy, not aliens or ufology used as a proof of life on other planets
 * 4. Chemistry, that Thalidome though
 * Sorry, I have to say it:"And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”
 * ― Friedrich Nietzsche 93.34.129.144 (talk) 14:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If you think Wikipedia's policy should be changed, the place for that is WP:VPP. Arguing about it here will accomplish nothing. This will be my last response on this topic. Feel free to take the last word if you feel you need to. MrOllie (talk) 14:21, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You can have it. 93.34.129.144 (talk) 14:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)