Talk:Intrusive thoughts/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

spelling[edit]

Isn't it an "Obsessive-compulsive disorder"? I think there is a spelling mistake on your main article.

Some sources[edit]

Beginning to add some info here for future ref - this article needs a complete rewrite: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To do[edit]

  • Update information on CBT - Baer book is outdated on CBT.
  • Write 3 sections describing:
    • inappropriate aggressive thoughts,
    • inappropriate sexual thoughts, and
    • blasphemous religious thoughts.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent job by whoever wrote this article, it's important to have an article about this that's separate from the OCD article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.247.88 (talk • contribs) 09:01, January 17, 2007

Helpful article[edit]

Just a comment that this article has been helpful. It's a very good starting place for people trying to figure out this kind of thought pattern. This information isn't easily found elsewhere, particularly in such understandable language. Adm58 19:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you found it helpful; this is what it was before I reworked it. Actually, the Baer book is a very quick, easy read. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thinking of patients I know suffering from OCD on hygiene or illness, and others suffering from intrusive thoughts of harming loved ones, wondered if the thoughts could be better described as 'nightmare' (not real, not true) thoughts, or anxious/disaster/what if/catastrophic thoughts, rather than 'bad' thoughts? also, rather than 'anxiety provoking', in the patients I know, they have often been the result of nervous breakdowns or anxiety so bad that it has become an illness - I wondered if the emotional nature of the thoughts might help with a better description? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.70.157.55 (talk) 10:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to compliment the writer on the clarity and succinctness of this article. Thank you for your work. I'm a little surprised at the 'start' rating, but I'm not sure how to recommend raising the rating. MJ_Skopje Mj skopje (talk) 12:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why, thanks; it was an easy little article that came to my attention when I saw it mentioned at WP:LOCE. Since I wrote most of it, I can't raise the rating to B, but anyone else can if they believe it meets the criteria. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blasphemous religious thoughts[edit]

I am concerned that this section is a bit 'POV'. The idea that 'blasphemous thoughts' are 'intrusive', or otherwise bad, seems a bit manipulative. If people have doubts about their religious views, then positing such doubts as a psychological defect is just a clever way of keeping them religious. This should probably be acknowledged in this section; if religious belief is incorrect, then the idea that blasphemous thoughts are 'intrusive' is moot. Spandrawn (talk) 22:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An unwanted blasphemous thought can cause anxiety though. Regardless of if any religion is correct, such thoughts can still be intrusive and can cause anxiety that could make people want to follow compulsions. It also need not be a fear that their religion might be false.

Intrusive thoughts[edit]

Ok, I have an issue with the start of the article. Intrusive thoughts are involuntary and unwelcome thoughts but are not necessarily negative.

They can in fact be split into three categories: 1. positive. 2.neutral and 3. negative.

For example, if I am eating and I get an urge to call my parents who are away on holiday to check if they are well, that is a positive intrusive thought.

It is a positive helpful thought but is still intrusive as I did not specifically want to have that thought before I had it-it came into my mind without me purposefully thinking about it-does that make sense? April 09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.159.13 (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tetris[edit]

Just thought this'd be interesting, and perhaps useful for the article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7813637.stm  Aar  ►  23:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citation style in use in this article – clarification needed[edit]

As I have been reverted for an alleged change in citation style can I clarify that we're using the Vancouver style for the journal citations on this page? Rjwilmsi 13:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid further confusion, I will adjust all of the citations to the Diberri format as soon as I have time (I'm not sure when citation templates got added, but I hate them and don't use them). The citation style you had changed to was just awful, as it used multiple author fields instead of one author field as used in the Diberri format on other medical articles, which chunks up the article something awful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rj, it's not necessary to do this; when I convert them all to the Diberri format, which is used in all medical articles, the Diberri template filler will generate this info automatically. You should know that is the format used on most medical articles, but that you should not be changing established citation style. I will fill these in with Diberri as soon as I have a moment, unless you get to it first. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When you say Diberri, this is using the tool of that name to generate a {{cite journal}} based on a given PMID? So your concern on citation style in these articles is over the use of a single {{para|author} or multiple last1/first etc.? Rjwilmsi 16:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it's yes to that then the better solution is to use last1/first1 because of the extra metadata, then have |author-separator=, | author-name-separator= to get the simplified display that's preferred in these articles. Rjwilmsi 16:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and made the change that I believe we've agreed on: existing author formatting kept, {{cite journal}} used, more DOIs from citation bot. Rjwilmsi 19:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, we didn't agree to that, and your citation style change here is against WP:CITE guideline, and created quite a bit of work for me. Before your unilateral changes, the article had a consistent citation style and one wayward cite journal template which followed the Diberri format. You converted the article to citation templates (wrong), and didn't follow the Diberri format (wrong twice). I have kept the citation templates (against my wishes, but since you already did it, no point in going back), but restored them to the Diberri format which was originally in the article and which is used across all medical articles. [1] ease refrain from changing citation style on other medical articles without consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SandyGeorgia (talk • contribs)
Your changes didn't seem to make much difference. You used full months rather than three letter abbreviations, fine I can do that as well (I kept the original format of abbreviated form). Your author conversion removed some names for et al., it wasn't clear what the rule is on when et al. is preferred. The rest of your |author= conversion didn't change the display of author names, already was showing as per the Diberri format, so I'm not really clear what the benefit of you doing it was. Rjwilmsi 22:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All right, I'll repeat. First, you should not have changed the style at all; the article used a manual citation style and no change was needed. You changed to citation templates for no reason, and did not follow the Diberri format of the one citation template that was there. I (and many others) do NOT like having articles gummed up by lengthy citation templates, but that was done, so I kept it. But I will not keep the lenghty author parameters, which gum up editing. If you are not aware that citation rendering is not the only objection to citation templates, then you shouldn't be running a bot, and if you continue to do this, I will seek to have your bot blocked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)s[reply]
The purpose of the formatting update is to add PMIDs, DOIs, JSTOR links and the like. The formatting effort on this article added about 19 DOIs, which does seem very worthwhile. I've no objection to the Diberri format with comma separated authors, but the way I'd done it results in more meta data, your way doesn't. I would rather keep the meta data and have a slightly longer citation format. Rjwilmsi 23:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I (and many others) wouldn't. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that citations should be structured such that the elements that comprise them are discrete, which would seem to be Rjwilmsi's goal here.
SandyGeorgia, your issue of 'hating' this sort of approach is short sighted. We are building a database that contains an encyclopaedia. See WP:5P; the first pillar: Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. I added the word 'online' some months ago, but I took it directly out of the opening of WP:NOT. And we all know that 'Wikipedia is not paper.' So, we have an inherent tension between the actual content, that could be printed on paper, and the online database-driven website that allows us to edit it and readers to read it on an every expanding array of non-paper platforms. I see the goal of hewing closely to pure plain text for references as clinging to a paper paradigm. You state just above that citation templates and their discrete fields 'gum up editing'. I'll grant that they do, and that's why I favor list-defined references and concise templates such as {{sfn}}.
The solution is not to cut the structuring of citation elements, but to shift it out of the prose and into the references section. I believe that citation templates are effectively a de facto standard on this project. The usability initiative is pushing new tools that facilitate noobz entering cite templates via forms. Large numbers of tools have been developed to facilitate their creation, conversion, and maintenance. There is also the proposal to enhance the ref tag syntax to allow all the citation elements to be directly specified there (<ref last="Golding" first="William" title="Lord of the Flies" style="Vancouver" />); this cuts the goop down a bit and will allow all manner of styles. It will also solve the issues with really large articles taking a while to render. All of these approaches to structuring cite elements and centralizing formatting details such as italics are about improving the maintainability, accessibility and consistency of citations. Really; the coders know a lot about information architecture.
The future of this project is going to be far more structured; it's a given, it's what the internet is. Please work with those seeking to take this project forward. Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First, anyone who thinks "the future of this project is going to be far more structured" will have a hard time being taken seriously by me. Second, if you have a problem with the WP:CITE guideline, please take it there, where you will find many editors agree with me. Third, I seem to recall you causing many problem for Gimmetrow/Gimmetoo, with claims and counterclaims, but here, you have most clearly come to an article that I have long edited and you have never edited to advance your cause, and I'm not about to take that lightly, so please don't consider altering citation style on any articles I have long edited. I will not have my articles I have long edited filled with useless citation templates, against guideline, just because you for some reason have shown up here and happen to like them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about this article. I recalled some ani comment you made while I was traveling that I didn't get to respond to. When I saw this thread, I noticed an editor, Rjwilmsi, expressing much the views I have. This is about structure because structure matters. Interesting that you mention WP:OWNERSHIP, as that's exactly the problem with WP:CITE holding things back. Lots of articles were done one way, long ago, and subsequently get brought up to current practice; see this example from today. Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jack, we've already been through this at an RfC you started here and in another discussion here. Please go to WP:CITE if you want to change the guideline, but until then please stick to it. People oppose the addition of templates for good reason. You may disagree, but it's not fair simply to ignore their concerns and the guideline. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 23:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

L'appel du vide[edit]

Today i learned that the feeling many get when standing near an abyss is called «L'appel du vide» in french, which means “call of the void”. Should we mention that as a special case of intrusive thought? – Flying sheep (talk) 00:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Intrusive_thoughts/Archive_1&oldid=1136823036"