Talk:Munchausen by Internet

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Geometry guy (talk | contribs) at 00:15, 13 August 2009 (Move material from GA1 page which was closed at 20:18, 12 August). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 00:15, 13 August 2009 by Geometry guy (talk | contribs) (Move material from GA1 page which was closed at 20:18, 12 August)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

The good article status of this article is being reassessed by an individual editor to determine if the article meets the good article criteria. Please add comments to the reassessment page, but the decision to list the article as a good article should be left to the editor initiating this reassessment.

Munchausen by Internet was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (August 12, 2009). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Internet

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet

Computing

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing

Psychology

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Munchausen by Internet appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 3 August 2009 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know
- ... that Münchausen by Internet is a pattern of behavior where people feign illnesses in online forums to gain attention and sympathy?
A record of the entry may be seen at Misplaced Pages:Recent additions/2009/August.

Misplaced Pages

"Kaycee Nicole"

Many of these links, except ones to the Wired article and to a blog, appear to be dead.99.240.139.189 (talk) 06:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Melanie Johnson

While reading this article I noticed something curious - the line "In 2008-9, 16-year-old Melanie Johnson from Thunder Bay, Canada claimed to suffer from many diseases through MSN." seemed to have nothing at all to do with the citation given. Reviewing the history, it would seem the user Imissyoumostofallmydarling inserted the line after the information the citation was meant to refer to. The actual information, then, was ironically removed for being uncited. I have since reversed this error. My money's on Imissyoumostofallmydarling actually being Melanie Johnson, and I will be watching this page just in case. --74.170.53.76 (talk) 08:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

My concern is that losing one's spouse isn't a class case of Munchausen--which is usually more about faking an illness. There are other good refs n that Viillage voice article. Maybe discuss one of the others?

More broadly, I think we don't want to list every person who fooled people and get into tabloid-ish details. We want to describe the phenomenon more neutrally and clearly.

Asbruckman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC).

Sources, sources, who's got the sources?

The following paragraph in the article has no sources, but makes remarkable allegations about persons (or personas, anyway) that may be living persons:

Emma revelled in the sympathy of other mothers, despite the person who invented her not having any children of her own at the time. Emma Bowyer claimed to have a ten month old daughter while imminently expecting twins, which had been conceived shortly after the daughter was born. As the twins came to term, Emma claimed to have complications and one of the twins died. She later gave birth to the other twin. Later, her second twin died, and soon afterwards, Emma was pregnant again, with yet more twins. This caused people to become extremely suspicious and ask questions, and soon the story started unraveling. By this time, a "friend" had posted in her own name, on Emma's behalf, and a Robert Bowyer, supposedly Emma's airline pilot husband, posted to update members on her progress. Robert Bowyer, as was later discovered, didn't exist either. Emma's inventor also signed up to the site under other names - Jo74 and Kerrytwinkle.

Can anyone justify the presence of such an unsourced paragraph, apparently entirely net.drama, in a Misplaced Pages article? --FOo (talk) 06:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree it needs more sourcing. I've looked through all of the sources for the Emma Bowyer section and none of them look like reliable sources to me. I've removed all of the Emma Bowyer info from the article. –Megaboz (talk) 17:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Possible defacement (or really poor use of english)?

"claimed her husband had been killed in a plane crash to garner an orgasm."

No 'orgasm' is in any source material. Defacement, or really poor grasp of english? I'm not sure but I'm guessing this doesn't exactly belong —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.120.80 (talk) 08:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

"was first coined"?

A minor point, I know, but still. The 'Characteristics' paragraph tells that the term "was first coined in 2000, by Marc Feldman in an article". That should be rephrased. With all respect for Feldman, he was the nth person to invent the term (I saw it between 1995 and 1997, but guess it's almost as old as the newsgroups). A possible solution may be to state that this was the first use of the term in a scientific article, or something along those lines - if this is indeed the case. Wurdnurd (talk) 12:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I hate the word "coined" anyway. I adjusted the sentence to reflect when it was first published in medical literature. I'm sure you know unless a source states when the term was first used, I have to go with the most reliable source. --Moni3 (talk) 12:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Münchausen by Internet/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Unclear writing. Way too formal. In short, hard to read. The second paragraph has no references (perhaps OK in a short lead, when the info is reffed below, but not in a long lead). It looks like the bulk of the article is based on the work of a single person (Feldman), but that's not clear from the beginning. The main need is for more natural language. Noloop (talk) 20:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, in simple language, this subject is: Making up stories of serious medical conditions, presumably to get attention. And doing it on the Internet. So...1) That can be said in a way that is easy for readers to understand quickly, but this article doesn't. 2) Why isn't this a section in the article on Munchausen syndrome generally? Not sure it needs its own article. Enlighten me! Noloop (talk) 20:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment and other comments

It has been suggested via WP:Psychology talk page and my talk page here that this should be treated as a medical/psychology article. I worked rather diligently to ensure the writing is accurate and professional, not informal. I do not believe the language is unnatural. Which part is unclear? I have asked advice from Wikiproject Psychology and Wikiproject Medicine who have not stated the writing is unclear.

If you are referring to the second paragraph in the lead, citations are not required for leads per WP:LEAD. If you are referring to the list of characteristics, the list was paraphrased from a single source, which is cited.

If you want to start a merge process, you are free to do so, but that is separate from the GA review. I would disagree, as this is a specific manifestation of Munchausen and Munchausen by proxy. It has enough sources that are specific to computer/internet culture to give it its own article. Such emphasis on internet culture in either Munchausen article would be distracting, in my opinion.

Further, I am concerned with the suspected banned sockpuppet banner on your talk page. I am going to refer this GA review to the GA talkpage. --Moni3 (talk) 20:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with fail - I agree with the reviewers comments. My concern is that it is unclear who uses this term "Münchausen by Internet" other Marc Feldman et al who apparently coined the term, and perhaps a few online sources who picked up on the novelty of the term and the current fad for Münchausen disorders, which are informal names for legitimate psychiatric disorders. The general psychological/psychiatric disorders are known as Factitious disorders. Naming conventions for medical conditions are quite clear that the medical diagnostic term be used. See Medicine-related articles - Naming conventions. Further, the article refers repeatedly to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, published by the American Psychiatric Association , the standard diagnostic manual for psychiatri disorders but which does not mention this disorder. This is misleading and seems to be legitimizing the use of this term by relating to standard medical sources. The linked article Münchausen syndrome by proxy probably should not exist either, and is a collection of trivial, OR, and a similar attempt to legitimize a slang or lay term. If someone wants to write an article on Feldman and his attempts to set forth standards etc. fine. But to write an article posing as a psychiatric disorder, while referring DSM is not ok, in my opinion. The rest of the article concentrates on Feldman's ideas, and perhaps becomes OR as it attempts to relate Feldman's ideas to the internet community/culture in general. Like other psychiatric disorders, eg Major depressive disorder, this article should use the sourcing standards of WP:MEDRS if it is to pretend to be a psychiatric/psychological diagnosis. If it is going to be a popular cultural article, it should not pretend to be a psychiatric diagnosis, and admit it is engaging in pop psychology. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 22:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The article reflects the bulk of material printed about a phenomenon straddling internet culture and psychology/medicine. GA criteria demand that information is cited to reliable sources, neutral, and well-written. You have not addressed these issues.
The DSM is integral to understanding how Munchausen by Internet is related to factitious disorder and factitious disorder by proxy. However, the lead is clear: Münchausen by Internet is not included in the DSM as of 2009, but it has been described in medical literature as a possible manifestation of factitious disorder or factitious disorder by proxy.
I agree that it would be swell to have more than Feldman's opinion, but JAMA, Southern Medical Journal, and Psychosomatics have printed his articles and opinions. Your issues seem to be related to deleting or merging this article, not GA criteria. If you are claiming issues of notability and fringe science, you should initiate those processes.
Munchausen by proxy is included and described by the DSM and widely discussed in reliable medical literature. That issue is irrelevant here, however. --Moni3 (talk) 23:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Please provide some evidence that "Munchausen by proxy is included and described by the DSM". You do not have any links in the article showing that. Rather, you misleadingly link to Factitious disorder diagnoses. This is a fork if you are saying this is the same thing as a Factitious disorder. One man does not a theory or a diagnosis make. You should show multiple sources validating this is a legitimate term, separate from the Factitious disorders. And that it is in the commonly used diagnostic manuals, DSM and ICD. —mattisse (Talk) 00:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Categories: