Difference between revisions of "Talk:Bipolar disorder"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Medication)
Line 44: Line 44:
 
I am assuming that providing a source of support and aid for a person who feels he/she may be displaying symptoms is more important than scoring a political viewpoint.  
 
I am assuming that providing a source of support and aid for a person who feels he/she may be displaying symptoms is more important than scoring a political viewpoint.  
 
[[User:Markr|Markr]] 18:07, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
 
[[User:Markr|Markr]] 18:07, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
 +
:You are also assuming there are actually people who use Conservapedia for medical advice. [[User:BrianH|BrianH]] 18:14, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Revision as of 22:14, September 16, 2008

Source

Source is a redirect that doesn't redirect. I think the claim that Bipolar disorder is linked to socialism/liberalism in a backhanded way deserves a citation. Jeffrey W. LauttamusDiscussion 17:55, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

See the link at the bottom of that section. Bugler 18:00, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
The "See Also" or the external link? The external link is the one that I'm talking about. Jeffrey W. LauttamusDiscussion 18:06, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
The wikilink makes no mention of bipolar disorder. Jeffrey W. LauttamusDiscussion 18:12, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Edit war

F.A.O. Bugler. Your edit summary said "do not edit war". I'm not sure who this is addressed to, but my own contributions regarding the treatment of BPD & famous sufferers were factual & encyclopedic, & addressed an area not previously covered in the text. You have deleted these twice without explanation, so I am now going to restore my version of the text. Please heed your own advice and do not edit war. If you have a problem with my contributions, please discuss it here.

As for your suggestion that BPD is caused by environmental conditioning &/or socialism, please provide a citation for this, preferably from a respected scientific source, or some statistics, as it contradicts the general consensus that it is a largely genetic disorder. Thank you. Sideways 16:21, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Thank you to HelpJazz for reverting. I was about to do it myself. Sideways 16:22, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

I can't state my case any clearer. Anything that is defined as a mystery (by Andy himself, Bugler, since you seem to make edits on his behalf) by definition can't be included in an encyclopedia article. HelpJazz 16:53, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

That part is out. Its listed as an external link. What are the other issues? HenryS 17:00, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
That whole paragraph should be removed, unless it can be backed up with reliable citations (which I find unlikely). It suggests "pressing evidence for environmental conditioning" but provides no evidence at all. The referenced "mystery" article mentions bipolar disorder once and states explicitly that it is a hereditary condition. Sideways 17:17, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Moved from User talk: HelpJazz

Thank you for clearing up the causes of bipolar disorder on the article. I understand that there are certain ideological standpoints on this cite, and I don't want to get in the way of that. However, that outlandish of a claim does require a citation. I didn't want to revert the edits of a sysop (at least I think he's a sysop). So, thanks again! Jeffrey W. LauttamusDiscussion 15:59, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Bugler's not a sysop, he just acts like one. He would have probably blocked you if you undid it though. HelpJazz 16:01, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
Which is why I didn't do it. I think I'm in pretty good standing so far, and I don't want to rub anyone the wrong way. Thanks again. Jeffrey W. LauttamusDiscussion 16:06, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
Bugler just reverted it back to his version. I have undone this as I had made substantial contributions re treatment of BPD which he had deleted. Sideways 16:13, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
Look at Andy's Liberal teachings/mental illness article. The link is clearly demonstrated. Add your bits as theory, but don't remove what I have contributed on approved lines. Bugler 16:15, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
It's called a "mystery", so it doesn't belong in a factual encyclopedia article. HelpJazz 16:16, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
The link isn't clearly demonstrated. The only mention of bipolar disorder in that essay is in relation to Stephen Fry, and it says quite explicitly that "Specifically he is a sufferer of bipolar disorder, a largely hereditary disease". I strongly suggest removing the 'liberalism/socialism causes bipolar' implications from the BPD entry, as it pollutes the quality and balance of the article. Sideways 16:35, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
I inserted fact tags, because I know if I reverted again then Bugler would revert me, ad nauseum until someone runs to Andy. Instead I expect to see some sources or it can't stay in the article. HelpJazz 16:36, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Your belief in 'Big Science' astounds me. There is no demonstrable, factual basis in any real sense for psychology/psychiatry. The practitioners are just feeling around in the dark, learning on an empirical basis that some drugs help here and there, but no proof of what causes anything - just as Darwinians have no proof. Bugler 16:43, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

He's reverted you anyway. Where do we go from here? Sideways 16:39, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
My belief in big science? Bugler, aren't you supposed to be convincing people that you aren't a parodist? Unfortunately, Sideways, there's not a lot we can do unless a sysop intervenes, since he has blocking rights. HelpJazz 16:49, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
I don't block for ideological reasons, as you well know, though I would be within my rights to block for that disgraceful insinuation. As for 'Big Science', what is wrong with what I said? Do you believe that scientists are incapable of lying, are incapable of twisting results, are incapable of being influenced by prior agendas? Just look at the way that nutritional advice changes from one month to the next - and always backed up by the best scientific credentails. And psychiatry/ology is the worst of the lot. One day Freudianism is the flavour of the month, then we're all Jungians; now CBT (dog training, as I prefer to think of it) is the panacea. If you attach 'fact' tags to what I wrote, then each of your assertions should have ten! Bugler 16:53, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
You'll never guess what I found in my sock last night! Go ahead, guess! HenryS 16:54, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
Ohhh what'd you find? Bugler: the insinuation was that you could unblock yourself. That you thought I was insinuating that you would block someone on ideological reasons is, well, pretty telling. If you think that change isn't part of science and makes science wrong, then you really have a lot of learning to do. HelpJazz 16:56, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
The insinuation that I am not genuine, which I resent greatly. Bugler 17:03, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
I'm astonished. I don't know what the phrase 'Big science' is intended to mean, but is it really the intention of this site to discredit such well established and successful sciences of psychiatry & psychology? You say they are just feeling around in the dark, Bugler. Why? The sciences are built on observed causes and results. Bipolar disorder is believed to be hereditary, not just because it's a convenient theory, but because of the overwhelming burden of cases suggesting this. You seem to reject this, while also trying to apply the same methodology yourself, in your claim that there are correlations between bipolar disorder and political views, and you have provided no evidence for this. Sideways 17:02, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
To be clear, Sideways, yes: I do believe that both psychiatry and psychology are speculative in the extreme. I don't think even their most ardent fans would claim that they have concrete standards of proof. And to pretend so in this encyclopaedia would be to do our users a very grave disservice. Bugler 17:05, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
So the only concrete proof we have is that liberal education is a major cause of BPD? BrianH 17:39, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

(unindent)So instead we make up our own theories that have absolutely no clinical correlation whatsoever? Yeah, psychiatric medicine can't explain a lot of the causes of these illnesses but inserting this nonsense isn't doing it any justice either! Psychiatry is not feeling around in the dark, nor is it "speculative in the extreme." Millions of dollars are contributed every year to find the causes and treatments for these disorders. Dollars that go to case studies and drug research—by those big pharmaceutical companies that I'm sure you (Bugler) endorse (strawman intended). I didn't ask for much; just a citation. You can't provide one. The claim should be removed until proper citation is found and verified to be a reputable source. Otherwise, you are just as guilty as you claim "Big Science" to be. Jeffrey W. LauttamusDiscussion 17:45, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Medication

Could someone add an item that explains the need to CONTINUE MEDICATION even when feeling good ? Failure to keep taking medication is a fairly common error. An entry on places to seek help with this condition would be good too, such as College clinics, youth help lines etc. . I am assuming that providing a source of support and aid for a person who feels he/she may be displaying symptoms is more important than scoring a political viewpoint. Markr 18:07, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

You are also assuming there are actually people who use Conservapedia for medical advice. BrianH 18:14, 16 September 2008 (EDT)