Talk:Rage syndrome

Very strange phrasing in the last bulletpoint of the English Springer Spaniels section

 * "When a Springer enters into this heightened sense of play, it can be one of the most entertaining features of any dog breed. If you are willing to get some scratches and assorted nips and scrapes, then by all means, play with your dog! A word of caution: This dog is in a very agitated but still coherent state, but WILL NOT differentiate between anyone else in the room as being an invalid target for the dogs play and affection. If there are small children in the room, it is unwise to instigate the dogs playful behavior. Also, the term "Bull in a China Shop" holds very heavy meaning here, as the dog will jump onto couches, chairs, people, and other assorted objects to retreat from play temporarily and come charging back in, ready for more attention. It is not uncommon for the dog to use furniture and human appendages to springboard their way into the air and onto you, so be wary of an airborne, furry missile during play, as this moderately sized dog will hit you with a surprising amount of force!"

Is this from the [8] source? It reads like a blog post or instruction manual, doesn't feel like it fits with Wikipedia's usual style. -- Kazerniel (talk) 12:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. That whole section doesn't cite any sources and needs to be eliminated.

Adding a 'See also' section
I'm interested in cleaning up this article and adding a See also section which links outward to 'Dog health', 'Fatal dog attacks', 'Causes of seizures', and 'Animal euthanasia', subject to change (e.g. by improving link density within the article). I'm including 'Causes of seizures' due to more recent research (which should be added to the article - e.g. the UC Davis studies) pointing to Rage Syndrome being a form of seizure disorder. SkrikerandTrash (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Removing original research
Several users have in good faith added breeds to the breed list based on original research (their own experiences) without citing sources. I'm removing these breeds unless someone can provide a valid citation. SkrikerandTrash (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Collapsing breed information under a single heading
Since one breed-specific section is only four words long, I'm adding it as another paragraph under the heading "Specific breed issues". SkrikerandTrash (talk) 22:44, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Adding infobox
Since this article is missing an infobox, I'm adding one under the medical condition template. All information in the infobox is sourced to multiple studies, and in accordance with the Manual of Style I'll add it to the body of the main article next. SkrikerandTrash (talk) 21:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

New parameters for medical condition infobox
I think it's important to provide both a parameter for how the condition is managed (in addition to treated) and the typical breeds associated with it, but don't know how to do this. I'd like specifically to add a "Management: Muzzle, barrier usage, lifestyle changes" and "Associated breeds:  Cocker Spaniel, Springer Spaniel, Belgian Malinois" parameter. Does this qualify as an adequate reason to create a new infobox template? SkrikerandTrash (talk) 21:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Changed "Treatment" to "Management" permanently since the condition isn't technically treatable. SkrikerandTrash (talk) 21:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Removing unreliable sources
An issue has been raised with some sources being unreliable and not in accordance with Wikipedia's basic criteria (e.g. they are self-published original research). When their information isn't otherwise verifiable I'm removing them and the information attached to them. This will remove much of the text from the page; I'm planning to write more to replace it with reliable sources. SkrikerandTrash (talk) 05:46, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

( Important: ) Identifying reliable sources
Please note that as an article on a medical condition with rapidly-evolving research, several previously-reputable but now-outdated sources floating around (that can be "outdated" in the context of new research despite being less than 5 years old!), and potentially dire consequences for patients in the event of misinformation spreading, sources should be chosen carefully in accordance with the guidelines for all medical articles.

Identifying reliable sources (medicine) specifies:

Ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers; and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies.

Ultimately it is important to be bold and mistakes can be corrected, but it is important to keep the guideline in mind while choosing sources - even though sources that don't fit the guidelines are easier to find. SkrikerandTrash (talk) 04:37, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Further reading section
Since there are a handful of more influential studies and a wealth of less influential studies or studies/books that only briefly cover Rage syndrome, I've added a Further reading section. I chose to arrange it in reverse chronological order so that someone not looking closely at publication dates will automatically see the most recent research first, although studies added here should still be useful modern references (not deprecated or later disproven). SkrikerandTrash (talk) 20:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * The wikipedia entry on Malinois mentions genetic testing. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:E101:4F00:8714:1DFE (talk) 05:16, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Non-biomedical sources for non-biomedical claims
I am about to add a cultural note to the article and am citing Pat Miller, who has written books and articles on Rage syndrome, as a reference for a quote. This is following Wikipedia's guideline WP:MEDRS that even in medicine-related articles, non-biomedical information only requires ordinary RS. SkrikerandTrash (talk) 17:39, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Confusing primary article image
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MalinoisMWDwithHandler.jpg

If you can't see the caption provided with it in the infobox (like on mobile or in the article preview), this photo seems to illustrate the opposite of a rage episode. Maybe it should be swapped for something more like what Dog aggression has? &mdash;nikk_caT 01:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Since one of the defining characteristics of the syndrome is that most of the dog's behavior is typically normal and friendly, and any aggression is brief and severe - and presents differently from other dog aggression - my concern would be that it would be misrepresenting the illness to pull in a photograph of "normal" aggression (a previous version of this article included a photo of a solid-colored Cocker Spaniel engaging in resource guarding, which is the most common misdiagnosis and differential diagnosis). A photograph of an injury from a confirmed Rage case (which might be more accessible than a photograph of an episode) might also violate the standard that lead images should be of least shock value.
 * However, it may be possible to find a photo either of a different temporal lobe seizure in dogs (which would be closer to the appearance of the aggression than a photo of non-medical dog aggression) or of an EEG (either in progress or a trace from a patient). SkrikerandTrash (talk) 02:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)