Ok folks, the main raison d'etre I can see for this task force would be intensive collaboration for psychiatry articles. Having now sent quite a few articles down the FAC gurgler, I can safely say that medical ones are alot more challenging to get over the line, and that it is important to get everything as sorted as possible before FAC. Many psychiatric topics are controversial, and many people hold strong views, which has the potential to make these messy affairs and subject to post FAC erosion - schizophrenia has had two FARs already.

Anyway, I was lukewarm on the idea of a task force until I saw potential for a coordinated multieditor attack on some psychiatry articles to get them to GA and FA, the major difference to other articles being rigorous assessment of sources - i.e. recent ones, reviews etc.

The idea being we discuss a few candidates and decide on one or more to improve - then, we can take turns in check and hunting sources etc.

OK, I will list a few below:

• bipolar disorder - pros - ambitious and high profile, cons - I have some reservations about scope (bipolar I vs bipolar grp, how much of manic episodes to include)

• borderline personality disorder - more well defined one. Another high profile one.

• dissociative identity disorder - more esoteric, but a frequent target for fringe theories so potential benefit in really tightening it up.

• psychiatry - core subject, but might be a little dry.

• chlorpromazine - first antipsychotic

• clozapine - fascinating drug, and well-defined topic. Might be easier.

• delusional disorder - article in bad state, would be smaller and maybe easier to do.

• fluoxetine - will have some other broader literature, thus making an interesting contrast to a drier pharm article.

Game Plan - check comprehensiveness, check sources, check comprehensiveness again, copyedit - GA - FA. Done and dusted. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Casliber. Sounds good. The challenges are (1) getting good references (it's a lot easier if you're working in the field of the article concened), and (2) dealing with editors with strongly held but misinformed views (and a critical mass of well-informed editors will help with that). Unfortunately some articles nneed more than just checking sources, copyediting etc, they need to be fundamentally restructured. I'd like to throw in a few more suggestions:

• Assessment of suicide risk
• Antidepressants (important because of great public interest)
• ADHD (also of great public interest; a bit of a minefield)
• Child and adolescent psychiatry (a mess; I've just started trying to fix it)
• Forensic psychiatry
• I agree with the suggestion of borderline personality disorder. I've done some editing on that a while back and would be happy to come back to it.

--Anonymaus (talk) 05:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Contents 1 Best wishes for your future 2 ICD-10 Chapter V: Mental and behavioural disorders 3 Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology/Psychotherapy 4 RfC on the Rorschach test: fresh eyes needed 5 Question on merging 6 History of Psychiatry 7 Psychiatric Hospital 8 Asian fetish

[edit] Best wishes for your future

I hope it all goes well for this venture :) I see your looking for articles to get your teeth into, and Huntington's Disease is listed among your GAs - as it happens User:Garrondo and myself are planning to nominate this article soon after he's back from hol's ( July 17th ), article achieved GA a couple of months ago and we are ( confident / fairly confident ) we can fend off FA requirements, but I couldn't say how strong the pyschiatric aspects of the article are. Anyway it might a good starting block for you as it's in pretty good shape already ... ? Best wishes L∴V 13:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Aha, we made it ... so that's another of your listed GAs to FA :) L∴V 22:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] ICD-10 Chapter V: Mental and behavioural disorders

Firstly, can I congratulate those that have been involved in creating this task force - a worthy effort!
I've noticed that the ICD-10 Chapter 5 article has a lot of broken links to (presumably) articles that haven't been created (in comparison to the DSM-IV Codes article which seems cleaner in appearance). I'm sure that many links could be removed or redirected to more general articles, but does anyone think it may be work creating new articles for certain disorders? As someone who is new to the task force, i'd value your advice. MacarismTalk to me 11:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm you're right. I think that many of the broken links can be redirected to general articles, for example all the red links under (F31.) Bipolar affective disorder can link to bipolar affective disorder or sections of that article; conversely some disorders (such as atypical bulimia nervosa and psychogenic syncope) probably deserve short articles, or stubs at least. There are some gems in there which are almost irresistable, such as excessive masturbation, abuse of non-dependence-producing substances, lack or loss of sexual desire and trance and possession disorders. Enjoy! Regards, Anonymaus (talk) 09:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

--

I'm all for free and ready information, however, psych editors must realise the ethical considerations inherent to this sort of information being freely available. Seriously, this stuff can hurt sufferers of mental illnesses if it's not handled well. Reciting DSM criteria from the DSMIV (a text that's formulated specifically for psychological and psychiatric practitioners and sold through specialist bookstores - I worked at one) isn't perhaps as tactful as it could be.

Take a look at this, and compare to the wikipedia article. Bear in mind that I suffer from BPD, and know full well how devastating the language of a Wikipedia article can be.

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/borderline-personality-disorder-fact-sheet/index.shtml

And this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borderline_personality_disorder

I have severe doubts as to the ethical nature, and practicality of such articles in providing useful and clear information to the masses. If anything, the current wikipsych project is promoting stigma and misguided attempts at self-diagnosis. I suggest that this entire area needs a massive rethink, and some attention from WikiHQ. And I'm hoping that all you psych editors understand why ethics are so important in this field. I note that BPD is listed above, but I do think that this is a point that needs to be addressed generally throughout psychology, and psychopathology especially. As it is I've already had to alter the article so that it doesn't, outrageously, claim that all BPD sufferers were sexually abused. Ethics are an important part of quality, and I'd suggest that some guidelines need formulating around this. 203.206.250.184 (talk) 16:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology/Psychotherapy

FWIW, there's a task force at the psychology wikiproject called "psychotherapy"

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology/Psychotherapy

76.66.192.64 (talk) 08:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] RfC on the Rorschach test: fresh eyes needed

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rorschach test images. Should Rorschach test display all ten images used in the test and the common responses, or should we act on psychologists' concerns that doing so undermines the test? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Question on merging

A user is wondering whether Solipsism syndrome should be merged into the derealisation article. See here. Talk:Derealization#Derealization_.3D_solipsism_syndrome.3F--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] History of Psychiatry

Hi, I'm not part of this task force and I don't know if it's appropriate for me to post here (please delete if it's not) but I was wondering if there was any reason why certain elements from the history of psychiatry - particularly the asylum era - are not part of the Psychiatry Wikiproject? For instance lobotomy. I realise the project is already covering a very wide topic but I think some consideration in regard to the history of the discipline might be appropriate. Thanks Freekra (talk) 11:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Great idea - a mere oversight on our part and you are welcome to add the appropriate templates :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Psychiatric Hospital

Hello again. Psychiatric Hospital: this page is a complete mess. I've started to re-edit it and removed some of the more eggregious errors but it's still full of opinionated, unsourced gibberish. It lacks tons of relevant information on the history and development of the asylums/mental hospitals/psychiatric hospitals. It needs a complete re-organisation and re-write. It's marked as top importance for your task force. Any chance of having a look and doing a few edits? Thanks Freekra (talk) 03:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Asian fetish

There is a Talk:Asian fetish#Request for Comment and a Talk:Asian fetish#Proposal which may benefit from attention from interested and informed editors. Please comment there if you wish to participate. Шизомби (talk) 04:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)