Talk:Menstrual psychosis

Untitled

Thank you very much for accepting this article. I will supply some links, first of all to postpartum psychosis, but it is necessary to modify that annotation first. Son of Fraser and Joyce

I have put in the links to puerperal psychosis, and also some missing accents. Son of Fraser and Joyce

Review

We have a review article here [PMID:9638603] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Major edit

I have just seen the revision of my entry of 2009, by an American author (December 2019 and January 2020), who has removed most of the detail about menstrual psychosis, including two illustrative cases and much interesting clinical detail, and replaced it by her views on the premenstrual exacerbation of established psychoses (such as 'schizophrenia'). This is a mistake. The effect of oestrogens on psychosis is, no doubt, important and may well justify a wikipedia entry on its own account. There is no case for squeezing out details of menstrual psychosis. I shall replace the missing material, eliminate paragraphs of distant relevance, and update my entry, using the re-analysis I conducted for my monograph 'The Psychoses of Menstruation and Childbearing". Son of Fraser and Joyce (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)Son of Fraser and JoyceSon of Fraser and Joyce (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Stewards! I am afraid I have had to replace the current entry (as the author replaced mine, without explaining why on the talk page), reinstating my 2009 account and bringing it up to date. I do not want to start a game of ping-pong and hope that stewards will afford me some authority on a disease, on which only one other person has written a monograph – v. Krafft-Ebing in 1902 – and I have written two (2008 and 2017). I was the person who introduced this subject to Wikipedia in 2009. I have obtained and read about 85% of the literature known to me, and have a personal series of over 60 cases. I have had to cite my two books, but my interest is in drawing public attention to the works of others, and giving information to sufferers who cannot get help from their psychiatrists.

My best guess is that the author of the current entry is Canadian: from her kraepelinian stance, she has a 30-year interest in the effect of menstruation and oestrogens on ‘schizophrenia’. An approximate line count shows that 51 lines and 23 references were devoted to these effects, 47 lines and 25 references to menstrual psychosis, and 30 lines and 10 references to other disorders, such as premenstrual tension. Menstrual psychosis, that is periodic attacks of acute psychosis in women hitherto free from mental illness, is quite different from the influence of menstruation and its hormones on chronic psychosis. If she thinks there is sufficient evidence, and that the general public should be informed, she could write another Wikipedia entry on that subject, instead of cookoo-laying her material into an entry on menstrual psychosis, chucking out much that is important and heuristic.

Son of Fraser and Joyce (talk) 09:46, 13 February 2020 (UTC)Son of Fraser and JoyceSon of Fraser and Joyce (talk)

Major edit again

This entry was accepted by Wikipedia on May 26th 2009. Shortly afterwards my account was blocked for breach of copyright. On February 11th 2020 I was unblocked, and discovered that major changes had been made, adding material of remote relevance and removing much detail about menstrual psychosis.

The changes were probably made by a distinguished Canadian scientist, who has a 30-year interest in the effect of menstruation and oestrogens on schizophrenia. An approximate line count shows that 51 lines and 23 references were devoted to these effects, 47 lines and 25 references to menstrual psychosis, and 30 lines and 10 references to other disorders, such as premenstrual tension. I should explain that, in the classification of the psychoses, the cornerstone is the distinction made by Kraepelin, at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, between chronic psychoses, which follow a pernicious or malignant course, and relapsing psychoses, from which (whatever their episodic severity) there is full recovery. This is Kraepelin’s Zweiteilungsprinzip (two-entities principle). Schizophrenia is the most important member of the first group and manic depression (bipolar disorder) of the second; menstrual psychosis - that is periodic, acute and brief psychoses in women who otherwise enjoy good mental health, is at the other extreme from schizophrenia. Introducing material about menstrual effects (or oestrogen) on schizophrenia is a radical change – it alters the theme of the entry. Wikipedia (How to edit a page, as written in May 2009) advises that “any change that affects the meaning of an article is major (not minor), even if the edit is a single word’. The alterations made to this article were swingeing,. Yet I have not been able to find any explanation at all - there is no note on the talk page or history of when or why this drastic change was made. If Wikipedia has a fair and consistent policy to reject major changes made without explanation, why did staff allow it to survive?

My first alteration, therefore, has been to remove these invasions, which are irrelevant to the theme, and disturb the clarity of the article. If this contributor considers that there is sufficient evidence on menstrual effects in schizophrenia, and that the general public should be informed, she could submit another Wikipedia entry on that subject,

On February 11th, I published an entry which updated my 2009 article, and removed the intrusions. I was careful to fill in the edit summary, and explain the reasons for these major changes.

This article survived until February 25th, when Mvolz removed it. He wrote,

      I noticed that you recently removed content without adequately explaining why … If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on Mvolz|my talk page.

I posted my 500-word justification to Mvolz by e-mail, with a note on his talk page drawing attention to the explanation, which can be found on the talk page.

The present submission, accompanied by a rather longer explanation, is similar to my 2009 entry in style and format, so, if Wikipedia is consistent, it should be considered sufficiently ‘encyclopaedic in manner’. It contains no unpublished research. All information is based on secondary reliable sources. I hope, therefore, you will allow it to survive. There are many women, who suffer from this disorder and cannot get help from their psychiatrists, who turn to Wikipedia to obtain the information they need.

Son of Fraser and Joyce (talk) 09:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)Son of Fraser and JoyceSon of Fraser and Joyce (talk) 09:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC), February 28th 2020.

@Son of Fraser and Joyce: I have reverted your complete re-write of the article, as I have the following concerns:

1. You have replaced the lead with a less summative one, making an editorial judgement unsupported by secondary sources.
2. You have completely altered the structure of the article, removing sections that are expected by MOS:MED, and adding others that are unencyclopedic. We do not write medical articles by "examples".
3. Your writing style is not suited to an encyclopedia: you use bulleted fragments instead of prose, and address the reader directly. This is not a lecture presentation.
4. You make far too many value judgements unsupported by reliable secondary sources. In fact, far too much of your text is completely unsupported by sources.
5. You make value judgements and assessments of sources in the article, based only on your own opinion. You are not competent to make those judgements.
6. You write in the first person, and speculate at statistics, again without sources.

I am concerned that you are emailing another editor to discuss content changes. Wikipedia is a transparent project, and discussion takes place here, on talk pages, not in private correspondence. I am further concerned that you have too strong a focus on your own view of this topic and not on the job required for a Wikipedia editor: that of finding and accurately summarising the best quality reliable sources, in a neutral manner. This is not the place to right great wrongs, and you cannot simply tear up what many other editors have taken a great deal of time in contributing, simply because you want the article to reflect your point-of-view.

I have no interest in debating other editors here, other than to remind you that if you have any conflict of interest {not just financial) with this topic, or with the sources in this article, you should declare it. This page focuses on the content of the article and improving it. Your changes so far are not an improvement. Nevertheless, if you have better sources to add to the article, or have legitimate concerns about sources present in the article, then please feel free to bring them here and discuss them.

I have, unfortunately, also felt it necessary to revision delete your edit because you included identifiable personal information. Please don't do that again. --RexxS (talk) 00:12, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Update: On advice from Oversight, and to assist discussion, I have restored the edit's visibility in the page history. --RexxS (talk) 15:18, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

This article would benefit from using more recent sources. I suggest that this article be WP:Based upon sources such as:

• Brockington, Ian (2017-08-11). The Psychoses of Menstruation and Childbearing. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-316-72076-9. (entire chapter on the subject)
• Henn, Fritz; Sartorius, Norman; Helmchen, Hanfried; Lauter, Hans (2013-11-11). Contemporary Psychiatry. Springer Science & Business Media. pp. 188–189. ISBN 978-3-642-59519-6. (section 1.3)
• Ward, Heather Burrell; Greenberg, James A.; Almeida, Marcela (2019-06-03). "Perimenstrual psychiatric hospitalization: case report and literature review". Archives of Women's Mental Health. doi:10.1007/s00737-019-00967-3. ISSN 1435-1102. PMID 31161260.
• Susser, Leah C.; Hermann, Alison D. (April 2017). "Protection against hormone-mediated mood symptoms". Archives of Women's Mental Health. 20 (2): 355–356. doi:10.1007/s00737-016-0702-9. ISSN 1435-1102. PMID 27987053. (case study with some background information – typical of a rare disease)
• Seeman, M. V. (May 2012). "Menstrual exacerbation of schizophrenia symptoms". Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica. 125 (5): 363–371. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0447.2011.01822.x. ISSN 1600-0447. PMID 22235755. (slightly older but still valid review article)

WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:30, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Dear WhatamI doing. Thank you very much for these comments, which I shall study carefully. I am keen to avoid conflict and achieve a legitimate entry. Please give me a few days to consider my reply. 2A00:23C5:EC0A:5800:A919:32F5:3818:E660 (talk) 22:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)Son of Fraser and Joyce2A00:23C5:EC0A:5800:A919:32F5:3818:E660 (talk) 22:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC), February 29th 2020.

Dear RexxS,

In the last 24 hours, I have given some thought to your most helpful critique of my submission on Menstrual Psychosis. It is best to seek a compromise with the person who wrote the present version. Under a revised title, Menstruation and Psychosis, I could prepare a submission that starts with menstrual psychosis (mentioning menstrual effects in bipolar disorder), and then adds her material on menstrual effects in schizophrenia. Is that acceptable to you?

I have also been offered help in achieving an ‘encyclopaedic style’ by an experienced Wikipedia staff-member.

I should also be able to make the other alterations you have indicated – a more comprehensive introduction, more citations, use of third person, no bullets and less opinion.

I have, as far as I know no conflict of interest, financial or otherwise.

If I am collaborating with this other editor, I should remove much of my explanations, at present posted on the talk page. Am I allowed to do that?

All this will take some time – weeks rather than days.

What should I do with this revision? If it is rejected a third time, I risk another ten years of ‘blocking’. Can I run it past you, before submitting it?

Many thanks for your patience.

Ian Brockington, March 1st 2020. 2A00:23C5:EC0A:5800:E8B3:8353:1E8:E69A (talk) 17:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC)Son of Fraser and Joyce2A00:23C5:EC0A:5800:E8B3:8353:1E8:E69A (talk) 17:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Dear Whataam I doing,

I have checked through this list of suggested reading. The two articles by Ward and Susser in Archives of Women's Mental Health are case reports on menstrual psychosis; there are about 28 other case reports written in this century; the most interesting is the Romanian paper cited in my article, with 57 episodes. As for the book Contemporary Psychiatry (German version, Die Psychiatrie der Gegenwart) Editors F Henn, H Sartorius, H Helmschen, H Lauter, Berlin Springer Verlag; I wrote a chapter on Women's mental Health with Lanczik in 2001, but that may have been replaced in the 2013 edition. I have a copy of Professor M V Seeman's article on the menstrual exacerbation of schizophrenia symptoms, and will cite it in a revised article on Menstruation and Psychosis (as proposed to RexxS) together with her other papers on the subject. I wrote The Psychoses of Menstruation and Childbearing. All best wishes, Ian Brockington, 2A00:23C5:EC0A:5800:E8B3:8353:1E8:E69A (talk) 18:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)Son of Fraser and Joyce2A00:23C5:EC0A:5800:E8B3:8353:1E8:E69A (talk) 18:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)March 1st 2020.

@Son of Fraser and Joyce: thank you for your tolerance of our ways, and for your persistence. I have created a workspace – a sandbox or draft, if you will – at User:Son of Fraser and Joyce/Menstrual psychosis for you use to work in as you produce your revised draft of what you feel the article should contain. That is yours, in your userspace, and nobody will interfere with your work there. If you look at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Menstrual_psychosis&action=history you can see every version of the article since it was created. You only need to click on a date to see how the article looked at that time. No work is ever lost. When you have something you'd like to run past other editors, just make a comment here and give a link to your workspace, and we can ask multiple editors to advise on it. Please don't remove things from a talkpage; the conversations always move on to the newest sections, but having older sections available to refer to can sometimes be valuable. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 20:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Dear RexxS. Thank you for your prompt reply, tolerance of my inexperience and kind suggestion. I am nervous about producing a revised draft. I think it is better to work with the present article, giving the other editor(s) plenty of opportunity to object or contribute. The present entry contains two components – ‘menstrual psychosis’ (that is, a periodic psychosis related to menstruation) and the premenstrual exacerbation of other psychoses such as bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. At present these are not clearly separated. I propose to improve the coherence of the article by altering the headings, without removing any material or references. I will delay these changes for a month to give the other editor(s) an opportunity to object to these minor changes. Has anybody any objection to this rearrangement? Thanks again. 2A00:23C5:EC0A:5800:C0B4:74DD:A129:56DE (talk) 08:46, 2 March 2020 (UTC)Son of Fraser and Joyce2A00:23C5:EC0A:5800:C0B4:74DD:A129:56DE (talk) 08:46, 2 March 2020 (UTC), March 2nd 2020.

The way we would normally separate those two is with a Wikipedia:Hatnote. It would say something like "This article is about a very rare disease. For menstrual effects on other conditions, such as bipolar and schizophrenia, see <link>". The information about how bipolar (for example) is affected by menstruation belongs in the main article about Bipolar disorder. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Dear WhatamIdoing,

Many thanks for that. I looked at Hatnote and found it difficult to apply to what I want to do. I am planning to make a simple change to the headings, with some rearrangement under them. This is in the aid of coherence. I shall not be deleting anything - text or references. It is in my diary for Monday April 5th, giving other editors 5 weeks warning. It would be very helpful if you had a look at the article after I have done it, to make sure it is legal. In the interests of diplomacy, I have deleted a few lines of my earlier talk. I hope this is legal; if not I have a copy and can replace them. By the way, how did you know about 'The Psychoses of Menstruation and Childbearing? It was published quite recently, and has only been reviewed once. Best wishes, Son of Fraser and Joyce (talk) 17:53, 2 March 2020 (UTC)Son of Fraser and JoyceSon of Fraser and Joyce (talk) 17:53, 2 March 2020 (UTC), March 2nd 2020.

If you want to achieve an effect with a Hatnote, but can't figure out how to do it, then you can ask User:RexxS for help or ask at the Wikipedia:Help desk.

I found all of these sources by searching. Google Books and PubMed were the most useful.

This is such a rare condition that some of the best available journal articles will be the combined "case study with literature review" sort. The literature review part is more useful (in Wikipedia's view) than the case study part. If we were talking about, say, hypertension, the goal would be all about the meta-analyses, but you can hardly expect to find a meta-analysis on such a rare disease. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:11, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Dear WhatamIdoing, Many thanks for that helpful note. At the time of writing we are in the early stages of a pandemic (coronavirus). Since I am in the highest risk group, I think I will shorten the warning time, which, on March 2nd, I said was 5 weeks. The change I want to make is only to rearrange the present entry under new headings. I plan to do this next week. 2A00:23C5:EC0A:5800:31DC:CF87:2268:17BD (talk) 06:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Son of Fraser and Joyce2A00:23C5:EC0A:5800:31DC:CF87:2268:17BD (talk) 06:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC), March 9th 2020.

In accordance with my proposal on March 9th, I have subdivided this article into two main headings. I have also converted the bullet points of 'definition' to prose. Next week (subject to the views of other editors) I would like to modify the history section. Son of Fraser and Joyce (talk) 07:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Son of Fraser and JoyceSon of Fraser and Joyce (talk) 07:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC), March 16th 2020.

Sorry, Son of Fraser and Joyce but I don't agree with the two subdivision scheme you used. This article is about "menstrual psychosis" and therefore its classification, symptoms, causes, mechanism, diagnosis, treatment, prognosis, epidemiology, and history should necessarily be level-two headings. It is reasonable to discuss the context of other diseases that may be linked to the menstrual cycle, but that is no more important to this topic than any of the other headings I outlined. Guidance on article structure is available at WP:MEDSECTIONS as part of MOS:MED, and you moved the history section to the top, in breach of what is normally done, without any justification. It may well be that the history of a condition is of interest to an academic, but the lay reader is far more likely to want to read about the presentation and treatment. I think you need to explain here why the normal structure for medical conditions should not apply to this article, otherwise I propose to return the history section to a much less prominent position in the article. --RexxS (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Dear RexxS, Thanks for your prompt response. I agree that the focus should be on menstrual psychosis and not the effect of menstruation on other brain diseases. But, if you look at the history of this entry, you will see that another editor inserted material about the effect of menstruation on schizophrenia, and it was in the interests of compromise that I suggested this subdivision. Guided by you, I will now prepare a level-two heading on 'clinical features and nosology' - this covers classification and signs and symptoms, which are the first two items in WP:MEDSECTIONS list. I will then work down the list of level two headings, reaching eventually history and other diseases linked to the mesnstrual cycle. I will delay for a week to give the other editor a chance to comment, if he or she is still in touch. Are we agreed? Son of Fraser and Joyce (talk) 19:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Son of Fraser and JoyceSon of Fraser and Joyce (talk) 19:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC), March 16th 2020.

In accordance with my note of March 16th, I have inserted paragraphs on clinical features and nosology. I have also moved the history paragraph further down , before 'Menstruation and other brain diseases'. Next week, subject to the views of any other editors, I will insert two paragraphs under the heading 'Onset and course of the illness'. Son of Fraser and Joyce (talk) 07:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)Son of Fraser and JoyceSon of Fraser and Joyce (talk) 07:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC), March 23rd 2020.

Thanks, Son of Fraser and Joyce, I think your last edit is starting to provide a much better 'shape' to the article as an encyclopedic subject, and I'm really glad that you've picked up the way that we write on medical topics. I look forward to your next improvements to the article, and I'm always available to give any advice you think you might need. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 14:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks RexxS. That is most encouraging. I have added the brief section on the onset and course of the illness. Next week, subject to the views of any other editors, I will insert three paragraphs under the heading 'Clinical investigation and treatment'. Son of Fraser and Joyce (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2020 (UTC)Son of Fraser and JoyceSon of Fraser and Joyce (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2020 (UTC), March 30th 2020.

I have replaced the sentence on 'treatment' with a paragraph on 'clinical investigation and treatment'. Next week, if acceptable to other editors, I will add a section headed 'Epidemiology and cause'. Son of Fraser and Joyce (talk) 07:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)Son of Fraser and JoyceSon of Fraser and Joyce (talk) 07:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC), April 6th 2020.

@Son of Fraser and Joyce: MOS:MED specifies that sections on cause and epidemiology should be separate. I understand that you perceive a relationship between them, but I would strongly advise you to discuss cause first and then move on to epidemiology in a separate section. That will allow further sources in the future to be used to expand these sections without having to unpick any interrelated flow that your contribution makes. There is a benefit when writing for a collaborative encyclopedia in trying to compartmentalise sub-topics, and I'm sure you're capable of making that adjustment. In any case, other editors are very likely to inexpertly separate a single section titled "Epidemiology and cause" into two sections just to comply with MOSMED. --RexxS (talk) 18:02, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Dear RexxS. Thank you, I have followed your advice. Next week, if acceptable to other editors, (before revising the paragraph on epidemiology) I will revise the paragraph on history. Son of Fraser and Joyce (talk) 08:40, 13 April 2020 (UTC)Son of Fraser and JoyceSon of Fraser and Joyce (talk) 08:40, 13 April 2020 (UTC), April 13th 2020.

I have revised the paragraph on history, replacing the sentences relevant to menstrual psychosis. Next week, if acceptable to other editors, I will revise the paragraph on epidemiology. Son of Fraser and Joyce (talk) 20:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)Son of Fraser and JoyceSon of Fraser and Joyce (talk) 20:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC), April 20th 2020.

I have revised the paragraph on epidemiology. Next week, if acceptable to other editors, I will begin the revision of the section headed 'Menstruation and other Brain Diseases', which I propose to change to 'Menstruation and other Psychiatric Disorders and Brain Diseases'. Son of Fraser and Joyce (talk) 05:48, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Son of Fraser and JoyceSon of Fraser and Joyce (talk) 05:48, 27 April 2020 (UTC), April 27th 2020.

I have started to address the section on 'Menstruation and other psychiatric and brain disorders'. I have written a brief paragraph on premenstrual dysphoric disorder, and arranged the present relevant material under the headings of bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. Next week, if acceptable to other editors, I will continue this revision. Son of Fraser and Joyce (talk) 06:41, 4 May 2020 (UTC)Son of Fraser and JoyceSon of Fraser and Joyce (talk) 06:41, 4 May 2020 (UTC), May 4th 2020.

I have continued this revision, adding a paragraph on menstruation and bipolar disorder. Next week I will attempt to revise the paragraphs on menstruation and schizophrenia. Son of Fraser and Joyce (talk) 08:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC)Son of Fraser adn JoyceSon of Fraser and Joyce (talk) 08:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC), May 13th 2020.

I have studied most of its sources cited in the earlier version of this article; its long list of references included many that were concerned with acute or periodic, not chronic psychoses. It was too detailed, offering Wikipedia users single cases or unreplicated research. I have attempted to present a balanced overview of this subject, brought up to date. No doubt other editors can correct my errors. Next week I will add a section on menstruation and other brain diseases, as well as making slight changes in the text and references. Son of Fraser and Joyce (talk) 07:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)Son of Fraser and JoyceSon of Fraser and Joyce (talk) 07:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC), May 21st 2020.

I have inserted the paragraphs about menstruation and other brain diseases, and read through the text, correcting minor errors and eliminating dupication. This completes my revision of this article, though I may return with more details. Son of Fraser and Joyce (talk) 18:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)Son of Fraser and JoyceSon of Fraser and Joyce (talk) 18:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC), May 25th 2020.

Needs a major review, again.

The article once again has too many unsourced claims, has conclusions based on synthesis of two or more articles (might or might not be original research) and doesn't speak strongly to the lack of high quality review articles. It really needs a complete re-write again. Sydney Poore/FloNightUser talk:FloNight 00:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• The definition doesn't have a reference. It would be a good starting place for there to be a clear definition that is supported by several textbooks commonly used to educate physician, nurses, etc. Sydney Poore/FloNightUser talk:FloNight 00:44, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I looked through medical literature to find the best way to explain the current view of this condition and added it to the lede. I'm still not sure that this adequately alerts the reader to the skepticism and lack of definition for a Wikipedia article that is a top search engine result for this topic. Sydney Poore/FloNightUser talk:FloNight 01:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Sydney Poore. There will be no problem in providing the additional references to high quality review articles. I will do this in the next few days. 2A00:23C5:EC0A:5800:E8BF:6CA2:58D4:48D8 (talk) 20:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC) Son of Fraser and Joyce.

These seem to be the lot,[1] and they aren't cited at all. If you aren't citing to these (and the 2017 Brockington book), the text is not likely to stand. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I thank Flonight, Sandy Georgia, Chris Capoccia, Anomie BOT and WhatamIdoing and others for their contributions, and will attempt to improve the article in the next few days. I will supply references, where required, to my review in World Psychiatry (one of the ten medical journals with the highest impact) and my 2017 book, published by Cambridge University Press. In the introduction, I have eliminated the sentence ‘Many psychiatrists do not recognize the syndrome as a distinct condition’ because this cannot be referenced, and may no longer be true; although I referred to the lack of knowledge of many psychiatrists in my World Psychiatry review, there are no scholarly articles expressing scepticism over the value of this diagnostic category. I have modified the subsequent sentence, beginning ‘There is little published evidence’, because the literature extends to hundreds of papers, and at least 119 cases have substantial evidence. With respect, some of the early references are not appropriate, their only merit being their recent publication: the article by Vengadavaradan (2018) is a case report with 8 references. The case reports of Thippaiah (2018) and Ward (2020) are poor reviews; they are cited among the list of articles published in this century. Ward and colleagues (2020) were responsible for the statement that only 80 cases have been described (based on my 2008 book), and they missed many of the cases published since 2000. The article by Reilly (2020) is an authoritative meta-analysis of hospital admission data, and has already been cited in the paragraph on ‘schizophrenia’ (reference 56). In the next few days, in addition to providing the required references, I will make the following further changes: (1) I will transfer the sentence ‘The diagnosis can benefit patients as well as opening promising avenues of research’ to the paragraph about clinical features and nosology. (2) I will transfer the sentence, formerly in the paragraph headed ‘Cause’, about the association with amenorrhoea etc. to the previous paragraph on investigation and treatment, because it is well established, and explains why a gynaecological opinion is advised. (3) I accept Flonight’s reservations about the epidemiology paragraph, but have replaced the final sentence, and hope this is acceptable. (4) A citation is requested for the statement that over 35 cases have been published in this century. Since these have not been systematically reviewed (and I can see the need for this), I can only list them all in the references. I hope soon to replace this by a single review article. (5) In the section on ‘Menstruation and brain diseases’, paragraph on ‘bipolar disorder’, there is a box saying that this article may be confusing or unclear to readers. The first paragraph, starting, ‘Premenstrual exacerbation’ is also unclear to me; it was part of an earlier article, by an unknown author, and I left it in out of respect to her. Subject to the views of other editors, I will remove it now. Will that help? Son of Fraser and Joyce (talk) 08:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I have supplied most of the required references. The long list of recent case reports (for which a citation was required) includes a few 'predatory oopen-access journals', and I am happy that these will be automaticallly removed. Son of Fraser and Joyce (talk) 08:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I have replaced a couple of sentences under the heading of epidemiology, and hope this is acceptable to Flonight. Tomorrow I will tackle the sections on menstruation and other psychiatric disorders, and brain disorders. Son of Fraser and Joyce (talk) 10:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

There are various points to be made about SandyGeorgia’s rewriting of the text. (1) It is not true that menstrual psychosis was ‘proposed’ by the 2005 review; the diagnosis has been in use since the second half of the 19th century, and v. Krafft-Ebing’s monograph (1902), with about 60 cases, is a classic; I have added his book to the references, for emphasis. (2) It is not true that there are 200 proposed cases. The 2017 monograph identified 119 with substantial evidence (and there have been a few since then), together with 206 cases that only had 3-4 episodes (‘possible cases’); almost all recent case reports are in that category, making a total of about 350 ‘proposed’ cases. Perhaps we could compromise with the statement that there are over 300 ‘proposed’ or claimed cases, of which 120 have substantial evidence. (3) It is not true that premenstrual dysphoric disorder, which it is severe in about 5% of women, is twice as common as menstrual psychosis; it 500 times more common. (4) The section headed ‘Menstruation and other mental disorders’ has been abolished, and a couple of paragraphs transferred to ‘differential diagnosis’. This is indeed very confusing, and I have eliminated those paragraphs. It is a pity that the authoritative meta-analysis by Reilly and colleagues (2020), which found an increased hospital admission rate (mainly of schizophrenia) during the premenstrual phase, goes with it. I will try to find somewhere else to cite it, and would like to add some more key references, supporting reviews. Son of Fraser and Joyce (talk) 09:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Notes

• See MOS:CITEPUNCT; references go AFTER punctuation, except dashes.
• See WP:SYNTH; when we have secondary reviews, we should not be/need not be stringing together primary sources to draw conclusions.
• Other topics do not need to be explored in this article in depth-- that's what wikilinks are for.
• I do not agree that WP:MEDORDER must always be followed, but this article was all over the place, with no apparent structure, so I have installed that order.
• Please take care with WP:PUFFERY and WP:WTA. This is not a recognized condition or established disorder, and some of the language was stronger than warranted by the limited number of secondary sources available.
• WP:MEDRS; secondary reviews are preferable when they are available. Ancient primary sources are rarely useful (except in History of Society and culture).

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Cleaned up

There is much repair needed in this edit: [2] I suggestusing smaller, step by step edits, so that individual problems can be discussed and addressed. Incomplete citations are given, and please stop inserting spaces between and before refs. Worse, the one recent independent review, Reilly, is now gone: I have reinstated. Please see WP:MEDMOS and avoid constructs like “suffering from”. And the term does not describe a recognIzed diagnosis, and is using very dated sources. The Reilly review is recent. Please review WP:MEDDATE. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

COI

Tjis article is too affected by COI. According to the bio at Ian Brockington, he founded the publisher of one of his books, and is integrally involved with the org that published his studies. There is limited independent work here, and the article is largely self-cited by Son of Fraser and Joyce. SandyGeorgia (Talk)

Very poor editing

This needs to stop; since it hasn't, I am unwatching. This ignores what Reilly says, alters the text not in conformance with the sources, continues with use of ancient sources, continues with poorly formatted text, and introduces uncited text, and continues with editorializing and original research. After a point, and continual reminders, this is disruptive editing and a behavioral problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Son of Fraser and Joyce, I think you need to stop editing this article entirely. If you can't stop editing it, then you need to abide by the following rules:

1. Do not cite anything that you have personally written.
2. Do not cite anything that is self-published (e.g., the author starts a publishing company, and then publishes his own book).
3. Do not cite anything with a copyright date more than 10 years old.

Do you think that you can manage to follow these rules? Do you have any questions about what these rules mean? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@Son of Fraser and Joyce:, I concur with SandyGeorgia and WhatamIdoing that you need to change your approach to adding content to this article. Wikipedia has core principles that exist to ensure the reader has access to content that is unbiased and reflects the best available information from high quality sources. To achieve this content contributors are asked to follow policies and guideline. Both SandyGeorgia and WhatamIdoing have shown you the relevant policies that you need to follow if you are adding content to a medical article. They are both experienced at creating medical content and I recommend you following their advice. Sydney Poore/FloNightUser talk:FloNight 18:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

"Ignores what Reilly says"? Reilly and colleagues, writing in 2020, based their enumeration of cases on my review article, written in 2005. 2A00:23C5:EC0A:5800:2124:815E:A0B5:1A26 (talk) 07:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I publish my own books. Because publishing companies must make a profit, and cannot afford to accept monographs on recondite disorders, I have published books through Eyry Press, which I research, write, print, bind and distribute myself. These include monographs on the organic psychoses of childbearing (2006), menstrual psychosis (2008) and the non-organic puerperal psychoses (2014). All three have more than 1,000 citations, and forewords written by distinguished psychiatrists. In 2017 Cambridge University Press published The Psychoses of Menstruation and Childbearing, an abridgement of this trilogy. No books are peer reviewed and the only difference between the Cambridge book and Eyry Press books is that, before accepting it, CUP canvassed opinion from leading psychiatrists. At the proof stage it was read by Mario Maj (a recent President of the World Psychiatric Association), who approved the text and wrote the foreword, expressing his view of my standing in psychiatric research. Since the quality of a publication belongs to its content, not its publisher, I was surprised to hear in February that my “self-published monograms from Eyry Press do not meet the standards required by WP MEDRS for reliable sources”. But I could overcome this difficulty by citing the less detailed Cambridge monograph. I was astonished to read, a few days ago, that, because I had also published my own books, I was subject to a Conflict of Interest alert. It seems absurd that a clinical scientist, who has established a reputation through books published by prestigious companies, and many articles in leading medical and psychiatric journals, should have his ‘reliability’ downgraded because he has published books himself. That makes no sense at all.

I am advised not to cite what I have written myself. But every statement has to be supported by a citation, and I am the only person who has published substantial work on menstrual psychosis in the recent past. It would, therefore, be impossible to compose this Wikipedia article, which will provide much-needed information about a disease that affects about 100,000 women worldwide.

You are wrong to exclude publications with a copyright before 2010. Our knowledge of disease is obtained from the medical literature, accumulated over centuries by publications in many languages. Scholarship discovers, in this enormous data base, some well-described case reports, sedulous investigations and occasionally thorough multilingual reviews; this requires obtaining the publication, reading the text (not just the title and abstract), critically examining the methodology, and finding out (from the bibliography) the sources of the authors’ information. Many publications in the past are of a higher quality that those of this century. For example, the monograph written by v. Krafft-Ebing in 1902 was outstanding: his literature review was relatively thorough, he proposed a classification and, among his 60 cases, were ten of the highest quality. Furthermore, citing his work underlines the fact that this disorder is of ancient provenance, and was in use before the concepts of bipolar disorder and schizophrenia were developed.

You are wrong to rely on reviews. Ideally these should leapfrog each other, so a review in 2020 builds on a review in 2005. But they do not. I conducted a citation analysis on more than 2,000 works on a related disorder, of which 400 were reviews. After my own (92%), the next highest was 19% of the literature published at the time; only one had more than 100 references (14%). The effect of most reviews is to bury the primary publications, with the loss of valuable knowledge.

To raise Wikipedia articles in psychiatry to the high level found in some other areas, you must have the help of experts, and respect for scholarship and for accuracy, on which the reputation of an encyclopaedia depends. Son of Fraser and Joyce (talk) 11:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

When only one person has written about a subject (any subject at all) in the recent past, then Wikipedia probably shouldn't have a separate article on that subject. It is not possible to write what we call a "neutral" article (one that fairly represents multiple viewpoints) when all the information comes from one individual human. If you are the only researcher interested in this, then you might look into b:Wikibooks as an alternative venue. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

See Talk:Ian Brockington#Merge discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

That seems like a good solution. My conclusion after reading the sources is that there is not widely accepted definition of Menstrual psychosis. Merging the content into Ian Brockington's article will best reflect the current medical literature. Sydney Poore/FloNightUser talk:FloNight 01:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)