User talk:Mpreter

(I am) new to this. (I'm) not sure what is going on with my edit of (Neuropsychiatry). Please advise. many thanks, mp mp*****@**t.*** (*=blanking to protect privacy)

Here is my commentary on what you had added to the article, and why I believe it was a problem: ''Historically, all neurologists were fully trained in psychiatry, and all psychiatrists were also neurologists (see Freud, who originally was a child neurologist, and Charcot). This were the classic "neuropsychiatrists".''


 * I believe your use of the word "all" and "fully" give this statement a non-neutral point of view, because to disprove it one would only need to find 1 psychiatrist who was lacking anay one facet of training in eather subject.

For reasons perhaps more related to academic politics than to science, the two disciplines split into "neurology" and "psychiatry", as if one could understand (and diagnose and treat) the brain and the emotional mind independently.
 * This statement appears to be in response to another party's point of view on an argument, even though the other side of the argument is not presented. If you simply state the fact that the disciplines were split, and perhaps add the year that this occurred, without providing your own commentary on why the split ocurred and why it was wrong to do so, it might be includable.

Recent scientific advances - e.g., the possibility to "visualize" if ever so primitively certain emotional processes as they are taking place in the brain - as well as the realization that this hyperspecialization may be harmful to patients suffering from complex mind-brain disorders (e.g., epilepsy, chronic pain), may have contributed to a certain rapprochement.


 * This statement perports to state one side of an argument as being "obvious", while acknowledging that there is another side of the argument. This is clearly not a "neutral pioint of view".

A small, but now again increasing number of physicians are both fully trained neurologists and psychiatrists, and arguably most qualified to diagnose and treat patients suffering from these "overlap" disorders: Epilepsy with co-morbid mood disorders, the differential diagnosis of non-epileptic seizures, Parkinson disease with depression or dementia, psychosomatic disorders, chronic pain, and others.


 * You are here pushing the same point of view as above, and stating that it is a low percentage of professionals who believe this way, but seem to be stating that these are the progressive or righteous few.

''Currently defined by many psychiatrists as a subspecialty of Psychiatry, for a number of reasons alluded to above, Neuropsychiatry, is the branch of medicine dealing with mental disorders attributable to diseases of the nervous system. It is closely related to the field of Behavioral Neurology, which is a subspecialty of Neurology that addresses clinical problems of cognition and/or behavior caused by brain injury or brain disease. Indeed, Behavioral Neurology / Neuropsychiatry is recognized as a single subspecialty by the United Council for Neurologic Subspecialties (UCNS).''


 * Here is the first paragraph that provides any non-neutral point of view, although it is also polluted with weasel words ("many psychiatrists"), and seems to include a greater context not cited ("alluded-to"). This paragraph does provide good content which could be preserved, however.


 * OVERALL SUGGESTION:
 * Find an authoritative reference which discusses this classical professional argument, and simply state in the article that both points of view exist, and reference the external document, allowing the reader to do his own research and come to his own opinion on the subject.

Jerry lavoie 22:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * very helpful. i wonder how you are able to keep track of all these entries.. ;-)
 * re content:
 * neuropsychiatry has a long history and is much more than a "subspecialty of psychiatry
 * My edit was at least in part a response to what I feel is an overly simplistic article whose knowledgebase seems limited to party line publications of ONE professional organization in ONE country of the world.
 * so i wonder, why was this acceptable?
 * not sure how to resolve this issue.
 * your thoughts...
 * best, mp mp*****@**t.*** (*=blanking to protect privacy)

I would suggest something to the effect of:
 * Neuropsychiatry has been a medical discipline since ____. The medical community combined this into psychiatry in ____.   Neuropsychiatry itself dealt with (aspect a) as well as (aspect b) and (aspect c) of (medical generality), where psychiatry in its strictest form dealt solely with (aspect a) and (aspect b).  This occurred amidst some controversy in the medical community, as described in the book _______________________ by ___________, published in ____.  In recent years, new developments, such as (develoment a) and (development b) has given rise to a renewed discussion over the two disciplines and wether they should again be split.  This is described in book _________________________ by ________________ published in ____.

You may wish to review and cite Neuropsychiatry Online; it seems to discuss the issue at hand. This is far beyond my PATC (Electrical Engineering), so I don't think I can help you with context, but I am willing to help with formatting, citation, and achieving neutrality.

You may also want to reference This White Paper. Jerry lavoie 23:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Advertisements
Regarding the external links you added to (and I deleted from) Forensic psychiatry, Neuropsychiatry, and Erectile dysfunction: Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. =Axlq 23:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe these were well-intentioned additions by a new user. Please refer to WP:AGF and WP:BITE. Jerry lavoie 23:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, they were well intentioned, that's why I used a single level 1 explanatory warning (which is worded to be informative and friendly compared to other warnings), and didn't escalate for every infraction. =Axlq 23:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)