Talk:Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States/Archive 1

Name for page?
What do you think we should call this page when we move it to the main space? Should we go with what we originally had or make it specifically PTSD? "Veterans' PTSD Benefits in the United States"? AnandJRao (talk) 04:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

dee's comment
this is a great resource for veterans. i have family members who are veterans and know first hand how difficult it was for them to obtain accurate information on how and where they could access benefits. regarding your title question, i also have a long title - perhaps baruch can weigh in on whether a detailed title or a more basic title will make it easier for your article to turn up in search engines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deefalvo (talk • contribs) 20:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Heather's Comment
Great article. I like how you provided links to the forms required for veterans benefits...that's a really nice touch that I think people who go to your site looking for informatin on how to enroll will appreciate. I don't have any criticisms, although the box with "Criteria for PTSD" takes up a big chunk of the page, so it might be a little distracting to some readers. It might look better in a bulleted list under a separate sub heading? Just a thought... Overall, great job. I think a lot of people will get helpful information from your article! (Hmring (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC))

Aaron's Comment
Echoing the earlier comments, I think you guys did a great job: it's clear and concise in laying out the basic facts and the "how-tos". It seems your intent, based on the class presentation, and the article itself, is clearly to serve as a resource for veterans with PTSD (or for family and friends of those suffering from PTSD). Very well done in that respect. One thing missing is the existing discussion and analysis of the US policy itself and its effectiveness...this may be outside scope and tricky ground for wikipedia and its neutrality focus (believe me, I know). Just a thought.

And I think the title's good, what about rearranging to "PTSD Benefits for US Veterans"?

Stephanie's Comment
I'm a big fan of the fact that the article you all are doing can really serve to help people - kudos for a great topic pick and a well-laid out article. I guess on a policy front there could be some more information on the actual US policy that relates to coverage for veterans. I'm doing some work with a veterans outreach center and one thing they mentioned is that reservists don't receive the same benefits - maybe this is something you could provide more detail on - what are the specifics of the policy covering veterans' benefits? Also, I like your pie chart because it gives a sense of the scope of the problem, but I found the key a little small. I like the title as is - I wouldn't change it as suggested above because that sounds like PTSD has benefits, whereas your title is more clear. The economics part of the article was fantastic - putting the issue in actual dollar terms was very powerful. Great job, you guys!--Saehawkins (talk) 19:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Dan's Comment
Nice article! One potential area of further research - in the diagnosis section, you mention that PTSD symptoms can appear shortly after or even years later following a traumatic event. Are there any mandatory screening processes or periodic check-ups required by the US military or is it up to veteran's themselves to get checked out? Dross33 (talk) 12:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * When I was returning from Iraq in 2004, it was policy that all soldiers receive a brief screening. If you search through the press releases from DoD and HVAC you should find suitable references. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  22:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Naming convention
I've moved the page to bring it in line with our naming conventions (specifically, capital letters and abbreviations). However, the current article name is inappropriate, IMO. It is an extremely narrow topic that does not explain why it merits being spun off from the main articles on veterans benefits in the U.S. or that on PTSD. I realize you all are still working on the page, but you might want to think about whether it would be better suited as part of an existing article, or as a more broadly focused article (perhaps simply a section within Veterans benefits in the United States. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  23:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Response to Naming convention
We would be welcome to making this page part of a larger, broader discussion page. However, one such page does not exist. This page was created as part of an assignment of a Public Policy class at the Boston University Graduate School of Management. For sake of this assignment, we limited the scope of Veterans' benefits to those pertaining to PTSD. To go through the process of creating a page dedicated to all benefits to US Veterans is once which is (a) currently outside the scope of this assignment and (b) one which requires more time than the team responsible for the PTSD benefits page can currently dedicate.

I would welcome a discussion of collaborating efforts with others in the Wiki universe to help create this page and would gladly share this material in the context of such a page. Bruindre (talk) 17:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, there's nothing wrong with making the broader page, but only including the PTSD issues for now. With regard to your class, you could continue to focus solely on the PTSD benefits aspect of the page, while others take care of the rest of the page. Functionally it would not be any major change for your class, but in my opinion it would significantly decrease the likelihood that a deletion or merging discussion is started on the article as well as increase readability. For instance, if this article were merged into Veterans benefits, the resulting article would likely be smacked with a cleanup tag for being too US-centric. But as it stands, it's far too narrow, since the logical parent topic Veterans benefits in the United States hasn't been created yet. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  22:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Given the length and detail of this article, I don't think that it would be practical to use it as the core of a broader veterans' benefits article. Such an article would be wildly unbalanced&mdash;it would probably have mere sentences on non-PTSD benefits to compare with the pages already in this article&mdash;and the PTSD material would have to be split out again as soon as those other sections start to be filled out.  Sure, this topic is fairly specific but so are many articles, and this one is definitely long enough and sourced enough to meet WP:N.


 * As far as the title, something like Veterans benefits for post-trumatic stress disorder in the United States might be more standard, and is slightly more compact. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 21:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions
Hi all! I'm one of the new Campus Ambassadors for your class and I've been assigned to help your team with this article. I can see you've done a very thorough job so far so I have only a couple of suggestions.


 * As far as content, there are a couple of paragraphs spread throughout the article which lack wikilinks, and it would be good to add a few more in those places. Also, I agree with the comment above that DSM definition box is unnecessary, as the text summarizes it well enough already.
 * The professor wants you to solicit feedback from other Wikipedians; the best way to do this is to leave a note on a relevant WikiProject's talk page. I'd suggest WikiProject United States and WikiProject Military history, which have already included this article in their projects (see banners at the top of the page), as well as WikiProject Psychology and WikiProject Medicine, which are listed on the main Posttraumatic stress disorder article.

In all, you all have done a great job so far! Please let me know if you have any questions or need any advice. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 17:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

PTSD definition box
I feel that the large box with the DSM definition for PTSD is a distraction to the page. The definition could be (and, I think, is) linked to within the article, making the box unnecessary. I think the page would be more readable without it there. Dglasser13 (talk) 02:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I strongly agree with getting rid of the big box :-) More comments tomorrow. So far so good.
 * Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 00:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion
I think this is a very good article so far, I don't have any major comments but I did want to mention that its normally discouraged to use external links within bodies of text which I see done in several places on this article. I would recommend converting those to inline citations. Other than that well done. --Kumioko (talk) 01:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

A few more suggestions
Here are a couple more notes as I read through the article a little more carefully today. I hope this helps
 * The lede currently contains several inline citations. Usually having inline citations in the lede is discouraged because the lede only summerizes information already contained in the article and that info would be sourced.
 * I added a couple of links in the See also section to a couple of military related articles relating to the topic. It might be good to add some info to the article about organizations that assist veterans with problems relating to combat stress and PTSD. The Navy and Air Force also have programs but Wikipedia does not have articles for those yet.
 * The article does contain any pictures and I think that we should be able to find at least a couple.
 * Again the use of External links in the hbody is usually discouraged. An example of what I am talking about here would be the places where it says The full 2005 Act is available here. If this is used as a reference just link the reference and if they want to view it they can click on the applicable reference. --Kumioko (talk) 18:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Late 2012 Edits
First of all, I have to say I was very impressed with the work the students did to create this page. It contains some very helpful information and this was, IMHO, a much-needed page. Veterans and their families look for PTSD disability benefits information all the time and, given that Wikipedia is a primary resource for so many people, it is a great service to have one page with the essential information and links to all the details Veterans and their loved ones need.

And now, having established the page with some very good content, it looks like it's time for 'stage 2'--a thorough edit from folks with in-depth, detailed knowledge about the topic. My intention is to edit what I can based on my knowledge base and solicit help from other experts in this area.

 Mark D Worthen PsyD  17:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Coverage of MST (Military Sexual Trauma)
I took out a section that had recently been added and read as follows: Related law The Ruth Moore Act of 2013 is a bill that was introduced into the 113th United States Congress and passed the United States House of Representatives on June 4, 2013. The bill would change some of the rules regarding mental health medical coverage for veterans to treat claims related to military sexual trauma more leniently with respect to requiring proof of such sexual trauma. This would include changes to cases involving Posttraumatic stress disorder.

I didn't think that one piece of proposed legislation, which addresses one aspect of PTSD disability compensation, merited it's own Level 2 section.

However, a Level 2 section on veterans' claims of PTSD due to MST would be a superb addition and we would certainly want to reference the Ruth Moore Act in such a section, along with describing the current adjudicative process and associated regulations for such claims. I am personally in favor of the Ruth Moore act, for all the reasons its articulate advocates have put forth, although there are some significant implications for the C&P exam process that I don't think advocates are aware of.

So, if you have knowledge in this area, please jump in and add a section on PTSD caused by MST.

 Mark D Worthen PsyD  07:43, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Introduction
IMHO this article is close to A-class. I have done everything I can think of to move it up to A-class, but I am sure there are some aspects of the article that could be improved that I do not see.

On 30 JUN 2015 or shortly thereafter, I plan to submit the article to the Military History WikiProject for A-class consideration. Note that WP:MIL has specific A-class criteria that supplement the standard Wikipedia A-class definition.

Visitors to the Article
The graph to the right shows the number of visitors to the article since JAN 2012 based on the wonderful Wikipedia article traffic statistics provided by User:Henrik. (Click on the graph to see a large version.)

My background
I work for the United States Department of Veterans Affairs as a C&P psychologist, i.e., I conduct psychological evaluations with veterans who have filed a VA disability claim for PTSD. In addition to my regular job duties I am also active nationally with regard to education and training of C&P psychologists, improving the reliability and validity of PTSD C&P exams, helping veterans to understand the scope and purpose of the C&P exam, etc. Consequently, I have a fair amount of background in the area.

Advice from Experts
I asked some experts to review the article and offer suggestions (or make changes themselves, but none of them took my 'I want you to become a Wikipedian' bait ;o). I received very helpful advice from a former VA medical center chief of mental health services; other C&P psychologists; senior Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) staff, e.g., 'Raters' (Rating Veterans Service Representatives), quality review specialists, and Decision Review Officers; leading social science researchers in the area (who do not work for VA); the chief Legal & Policy Analyst for the VBA; and the head of Policy & Legal Analysis for the Board of Veterans Appeals. I have incorporated their suggested edits into the article.

Disclosure
I am on the Board of Directors of the Association for Scientific Advancement in Psychological Injury and Law (ASAPIL), the nonprofit professional association that sponsors the academic journal Psychological Injury and Law. I co-wrote one of the journal articles cited (more than once) in Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States:


 * Worthen, M. D. & Moering, R. G. (2011). A practical guide to conducting VA compensation and pension exams for PTSD and other mental disorders. Psychological Injury and Law, 4(3-4), 187-216. doi:10.1007/s12207-011-9115-2

Specific Concerns
I have endeavored to maintain objectivity as I have edited the article over the past three years, but it is usually hard for people to identify their own biases, and I am no exception to that rule. Therefore, please tell me if you detect anything that comes across as biased in the article (or just make the necessary changes).

Although I work for the VA, I have worked hard to not be a VA cheerleader. But I might have blind spots, so please check for any bias in this regard.

I am not a veteran, but like many Americans I highly respect the men and women who risk their lives to protect the rest of us. I like to help veterans. I suspect that many visitors to this Wikipedia article are veterans or family members seeking information about disability benefits for PTSD. I therefore have sought to include information and links that will prove helpful to veterans and their families. At the same time, I worry that despite my good intentions I may have added some information, or worded some sentences or paragraphs in an instructional manner, as opposed to an encyclopedic manner. Therefore, please let me know (or simply change) anything that falls under What Wikipedia is not.

Thank you very much,

 Mark D Worthen PsyD  22:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Reverted edit by User:Mikemmlj
I reverted an edit by Mikemmlj (diff), who had indicated he/she was "Eliminating clear bias" by deleting this sentence: "For example, current efforts at change or reform include urging the VA to place more emphasis on vocational rehabilitation and treatment versus cash payments; revising the General Rating Formula for Mental Disorders to better reflect problems experienced by veterans with PTSD; establishing a balance between efforts to decrease claims processing time (productivity) with the need for consistency and accuracy of examination results and rating decisions (quality); and considering a veteran's quality of life as a factor in determining the disability rating."

I am open to feedback about a possible bias I might have, which I do not recognize. Please let me know.

At the present time, I do not detect bias in the sentence. By way of explanation, allow me to describe the constituencies supporting or opposing each change effort:


 * urging the VA to place more emphasis on vocational rehabilitation and treatment versus cash payments - Advocated by some legislators, e.g., Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC), scholars, e.g., Harvard professor Richard McNally, and combat veterans/scholars, e.g., LTC Daniel Gade. Opposed by almost all veterans service organizations.


 * revising the General Rating Formula for Mental Disorders to better reflect problems experienced by veterans with PTSD - Advocated by almost all veterans service organizations, and does not seem to have any substantial opposition, especially since the Rating Formula is so dated (it was written in the 1940s).


 * establishing a balance between efforts to decrease claims processing time (productivity) with the need for consistency and accuracy of examination results and rating decisions (quality) - This is a perennial challenge for not only disability compensation programs, but several other government functions, e.g., processing tax returns. Various groups or individuals argue on one side or the other--or, more often, argue for a compromise position along the continuum--but the tension between quality and quantity/productivity exists regardless of one's political or personal views.
 * considering a veteran's quality of life as a factor in determining the disability rating - Primarily advocated by veterans service organizations, although my sense is that many mental health professionals, scholars, and politicians support the idea. The challenge is a common one: Most agree that quality of life should be considered, but doing so will substantially increase expenditures, probably in the billions of dollars, therefore how would we (the country) finance such a reform? There are various financing ideas floated by different groups, all with pros and cons, and therein is where most of the debate occurs.

 Mark D Worthen PsyD  13:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Removing the HowTo Cleanup Template
I deleted all the "how to", instructional, and advice-giving text I could find in the article, based on the excellent advice I received from AustralianRupert. Therefore, I believe it is appropriate to remove the 'howto' cleanup template, which I just did (diff).

If you disagree, please either make the appropriate changes to the article, or point me to the part of the article that you believe violates WP:NOTHOWTO. I strive to maintain an open mind. :O)

Many thanks -  Mark D Worthen PsyD  14:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Good Article nomination
I nominated this article (Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States) for Good Article (GA) designation. If you are reading this, I assume you are either conducting a GA review of the article (thank you!), or you are otherwise interested in the article.

If you are conducting a GA review, please note the following:


 * I submitted the article to WikiProject Military History for an A-Class review (which has even higher standards than a Good Article), which was not approved, but I received some superb suggestions from AustralianRupert. I have endeavored to make all of the changes he recommended.


 * Also, please see the three previous entries on this Talk page, starting with What is needed to make this an A-class article? for additional information that will hopefully aid in your review.

If you are not conducting a GA review, but you would like to help improve this article's quality (thank you!):


 * Please review the Good Article criteria as a guide to possible enhancements.


 * Or just edit in any way you believe will develop the article further. :O)

Many thanks -  Mark D Worthen PsyD  16:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Not GA at this time
Unfortunately, the article was found to be not GA at this time.

Recommendations to take, before nominating a 2nd time, may be found at Talk:Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States/GA1.

Strongly suggest you make a good-faith-effort to address all recommendations at the GA Review subpage, Talk:Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States/GA1, and also please try to address all recommendations from the prior WP:MILHIST A-Class Review, at WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States.

Good luck,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 17:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121002055831/http://www.va.gov/healthbenefits/resources/publications/IB10-185-health_care_benefits_overview_2012_eng.pdf to http://www.va.gov/healthbenefits/resources/publications/IB10-185-health_care_benefits_overview_2012_eng.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121002055917/http://www.va.gov/healthbenefits/resources/publications/IB10-465_Veterans_Health_Guide2012_508.pdf to http://www.va.gov/healthbenefits/resources/publications/IB10-465_Veterans_Health_Guide2012_508.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120915083718/http://www.nvlsp.org/images/Survival%20Guide-102309.pdf to http://www.nvlsp.org/images/Survival%20Guide-102309.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111124213739/http://nvlsp.org/images/CHAPTER%201%20FINAL%20TCC%202011%20-%20REV.pdf to http://www.nvlsp.org/images/CHAPTER%201%20FINAL%20TCC%202011%20-%20REV.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.ptsd.va.gov/public/pages/fslist-ptsd-overview.asp
 * Added tag to http://www.ptsd.va.gov/public/pages/va-ptsd-treatment-programs.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I fixed the two dead links.  Mark D Worthen PsyD  08:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Title is unwieldy
Yes, I know that the title is accurate. Nor am I making the argument that the title is too narrow. I do believe that the title is just too long. It is awkward and weird on category pages. It fails CONCISE. In earlier discussions, some students have suggested better titles. We should really look at them. --Mr. Guye (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree. However, I am not familiar with the pros and cons of changing an articles title. I will seek advice and post what I learn here.  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)  04:28, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, I did a little research and it turns out this is (IMHO) probably the best title. In terms of the words or phrases (keywords) people might use to search for information covered in the article, the top five are below. I used a keyword research software program to search several different word combinations.
 * disability benefits
 * post traumatic stress disorder
 * va benefits
 * military veterans
 * veterans benefits
 * The Wikipedia article on PTSD uses the official terminology, posttraumatic stress disorder, but folks search for the hyphenated version much more often, so in terms of reaching a larger number of people, the current title is better.
 * We could take out "in the United States", but see the discussion above regarding where this article fits in general. And the article is focused on the U.S., so it seems appropriate to specify such in the title, particularly since it's not causing problems.
 * We could change "Veteran" to "VA", but in my experience (I've searched VA-related terms literally thousands of times) "VA" often refers to "Virginia" in many searches, so I would be hesitant to use an acronym that could be confusing. Also see WP:NCA.
 * Pageviews have increased steadily.
 * Finally, reading this Talk page, it appears the Boston University MBA class that launched this article discussed the name a good bit and decided this title was a good one.
 * In conclusion, I believe the title strikes the appropriate balance as discussed in WP:PRECISION: "Usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that."
 * Thus, I do not support changing the title without a compelling reason other than its mere length. I'm an open-minded guy, so if you have such a compelling reason, please post your argument. :O)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)  06:28, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Service Animals
If you have tried to add information about service animals to the first paragraph of the article, please read my messages to you on this page. Thanks! - Mark D Worthen PsyD  (talk)  23:40, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

---

Adding vital information
I think this is great article for someone who is starting the process. I found it very important to know that my claim would go faster if I obtained all of the medical records from the doctor offices myself and turned them in with my claim. While the VA is making a commitment to make a final decision within 30 days, that time doesn't start until all of the paperwork in complete. The VA has 30 days to make a request, the dr's office has 30 days to respond, and then the VA has 30 days to update it and add it to your claim.

Also we should add the information for the VA's Decision Ready Claim that applies if you go through a accredited VSO. Reference: https://www.benefits.va.gov/compensation/drc.asp

I believe this would greatly help those who seek advice on how to deal with the VA. What do you think about me adding this to the page?Kiraco0213 (talk) 06:51, 19 September 2018 (UTC)


 * That would be great. :O)  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)  23:44, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 27 August 2019

 * 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Do not change title (do not move).  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)  (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 02:37, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States → Veterans benefits for posttraumatic stress disorder in the United States – Why is removing the hyphen in "post-traumatic" important? Because terms used in titles should be consistent, particularly for a term that is so often spelled with—and without—the hyphen. Our primary article on PTSD is titled Posttraumatic stress disorder. Please also see the following:


 * Posttraumatic stress disorder
 * The edit notice for the above article.
 * Article titles
 * Consistency in article titles

- Mark D Worthen PsyD  (talk)  (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 16:20, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I posted a notice about this requested move (title change) on the Talk pages of the four WikiProjects associated with the article (see the top of this Talk page).  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)  (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 17:28, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. I actually think that the main article should be moved to Post-traumatic stress disorder. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:45, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Why? (Just curious, not meaning to be confrontational.)  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)  (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 17:49, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Because I think it's the more common spelling. "Post-traumatic stress disorder" returns over 13 million google search results but "posttraumatic stress disorder" gets less than 4 million. And per WP:HYPHEN, as the hyphen makes it more grammatically correct in English. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Good point! Thank you. :0)  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)  (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 01:57, 28 August 2019 (UTC)


 * There are currently 8 articles with "posttraumatic" in their title, and 9 with "post-traumatic" (including this one - see search results). WP:CONSISTENCY might favour using one form across the board, but it doesn't seem to currently favour either specific spelling. This RM may also be of interest - it failed to find consensus to move Complex post-traumatic stress disorder to Complex posttraumatic stress disorder. Colin M (talk) 20:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Another good point—thanks!  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)  (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 01:57, 28 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose, but seek wider consensus, probably at the parent article; Posttraumatic stress disorder, possibly via WP:RM. Harrias  talk 21:10, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I had not thought of that option. Your recommendation makes good sense. Thanks! :O)  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)  (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 01:57, 28 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment this spelling without the hyphen would appear to be an Americanism, so should only be considered for American-only articles regardless. The hyphen is much more common in BritEng/AustralianEng. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:43, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose First, I wonder about 's statement that American spellings should be restricted to American-only articles - that's not how WP:ENGVAR works, as I understand it. Second, as an American, I favor the hyphenated form. &mdash; soupvector (talk) 00:25, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I may not be in line with ENGVAR, and AustEng may be quite flexible as regards these things, but AFAIK, compound adjectives with the same letter at the end of the first word and the beginning of the second word are generally hyphenated in AustEng, and I believe the same holds true for BritEng. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:29, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, speaking as an American, "posttraumatic" without a hyphen also looks very strange to me. Generally, a compound adjective such as this should be hyphenated, even in American English, and the double T makes it look even more awkward without the hyphen. I don't think this is a case of an Americanism, I think this is the editors of the DSM for whatever reason decided that they just didn't like the hyphen and decided to leave it out. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:27, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * In general, including "optional" hyphens also makes words easier to process for people who aren't native English speakers. If we're going to standardize, we should standardize on the one that helps people read the word.   WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * oppose per soupvector rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:41, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: as a side issue, Why isn't the title "Veterans' benefits ..."? It would seem to me that, grammatically, the apostrophe is required. --RexxS (talk) 01:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * In this instance “veterans” is an adjective, similar to “Veterans Benefits Administration”. IMHO the possessive noun, “veterans’” would be equally acceptable. I would guess that the students who created the article used the adjective because that is how the VA usually does it. Interestingly, Congress uses the possessive noun for their Veterans’ Affairs Committees.  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)  (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 16:44, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd have to say that by no stretch of the imagination can "Veterans" be an adjective. It's a plural noun. There is an adjective, 'veteran', but that's not it. Although English does admit compound nouns, it's very poor style to try to conjure up a compound noun when a simple possessive does exactly the required job. Maybe I'm just old fashioned, but "Veterans’ Affairs Committee" looks exactly right to me, while I find “Veterans Benefits Administration” jarring. Still, I guess English evolves and the sources determine what is acceptable. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 01:20, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Good points. :0)  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)  (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 02:04, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposal Author Comment - You all have persuaded me that we should not change the title. As Harrias suggested, we should address the inconsistencies across all the articles that use posttraumatic or post-traumatic in the article’s title. - Mark D Worthen PsyD  (talk)  (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 16:52, 29 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Pageview Analysis
Pageviews Analysis graph for Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States, from May 2015 to May 2018 1 Jul 2015 to 31 Jul 2019. Graph created with Pageviews, a Wikimedia Toolforge analysis tool. Wikimedia Toolforge code is licensed GPLv3+, and Wikimedia Toolforge docs are licensed CC BY-SA 3.0. Options selected for this Pageviews analysis: Line graph; logarithmic scale; Bézier curve. - Mark D Worthen PsyD  (talk)  11:07, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Pageviews graph: 1 Jul 2015 to 31 Jul 2019


Click here to view the graph on the Toolforge site where you can adjust the time frame and modify other options if you wish. - Mark D Worthen PsyD  (talk)  (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 02:53, 30 August 2019 (UTC)