Talk:Ganser syndrome

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Ganser syndrome.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine: Psychiatry Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Psychiatry portal This article is supported by the Psychiatry task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Why

Why is this named Ganser syndrome? Who is the namesake?--Hraefen 08:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

prevalence of true psychosis in prisons

I think it would be helpful to point out the true association of psychosis in prisons which five times the population rate. The results of this study have been confirmed by others: http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/162/4/774 Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 20:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Children as young as 10 have been diagnosed with this disorder - see Nader v Urban Transit Authority of New South Wales (1985) 2 NSWLR 501 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bear77star (talk • contribs) 13:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that many of the names that Ganser syndrome is also known as in the first paragraph are unfounded. Prion disease is a well-categorized neurological illness due to aggregation of malformed peptides. Other names in this list are also untrue or wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.118.116.156 (talk) 02:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gange syndrome is a disorder, not 'fake'

The article currently reads:

"This last name, prison psychosis, is sometimes used because the syndrome occurs most frequently in prison inmates, where it may represent an attempt to gain leniency from prison or court officials."

If it was an attempt at gaining leniency, it would not be a disorder. This statement makes absolutely no sense.

Epidemiology: proportions

The current article says, "The syndrome tends to be more common in men (75%), with a male to female ratio of 4:1." Actually if 75% of people diagnosed are male, that's a ratio of 3:1, not 4:1. I don't have access to the 1967 British Journal of Psychiatry to check what the actual numbers are, or rather were 50 years ago.IAmNitpicking (talk) 19:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orginization needed

At the current state this article is at, its a mess, the contradiction of it being reffered to as a disorder, but then being assumed an excuse for prison inmates is confusing and messy, if one cannot be decided to be the actual definition, then the article needs to be divided up into the two different classifacations (dissociative and factitous, however the factitous part needs much clean up, as currently its very informal). if anybody has any other ideas please respond with them! ¿V0id? {have a great day!} (talk) 14:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright

As the banner suggests, this article is quite similar to an article from the UIA[1]. Specifically, the UIA article is identical to a revision from 2017[2] Despite this, the risk potential here should be quite low. But frustratingly, it is not zero.

The Wikipedia article traces a clear lineage from its very earliest revisions. If this article really does copy from the UIA, that would mean that multiple editors over the years independently found the same semi-obscure source and made the article progressively more and more similar to it, until one day, they managed to make it completely identical. After this process was complete, the edits would then have had to do it in reverse to get to the current state of the article. While this process is technically possible, I find it quite unrealistic.

So if anyone's up for emailing the UIA to ask them when they created the description of Ganser's syndrome, knock yourself out. If they did so after the creation of the revision[3], that would confirm it. If you succeed, please add the backwards copy template to the talk page. Dieknon (talk) 16:59, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent a message through their website. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 17:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dieknon: Seems like a likely backwards copy, as the development of our article seems pretty clear.

For example, in a Jan. 24 2022 archive, one of the sentences reads "The discovery of Ganser syndrome is attributed to Sigbert Josef Maria Ganser (24 January 1853 – 4 January 1931)," which matches our version from Oct. 22 2021. On Oct. 16 2022, an IP editor changed the sentence to "The identification of Ganser syndrome is attributed to German psychiatrist Sigbert Josef Maria Ganser (1853–1931)." This also performed on the UIA article, according to this archive from a few days later, on Oct. 22 2022. We also didn't copy it from the physical version, per my resource request on WP:RX.

As such, I'm removing the tag. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 20:21, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Modernizing terminology

The term "hysterical" is outdated (and moderately offensive).

Suggest revision to replace with more modern term and/or note regarding terminology + internal link to page on hysteria. - Peach (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]