Talk:Male hysteria

This article was nominated for deletion on 7 November 2015. The result of the discussion was keep.

	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).

Untitled

This was an interesting read on a subject that I did not know a lot about. I would check the grammar at times but other than that it was a good article! LauraBou (talk) 02:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)Laura Bou[reply]

Sometimes the grammar is a bit off, there are a few articles missing here and there like “a” and “an”. I think you should explain Railway Spine because it would add more to the comparison you made. I think there are a few terms in here that should be italicized or underlined. The relationships of certain people to the topic is interesting, but I’m wondering if links to their pages suffice or if maybe this info for each of them should be added to each of their wiki pages. Haley Wendt (talk) 10:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dghosh5. Peer reviewers: LauraBou, Lpoisson14.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

Hi! First I just want to say that I think you did a great job expanding this article. In addition to what the other posters said, I think that you could reword the opening sentence so that the subject of the article is placed at the beginning. In addition, I think breaking down the History section into subsections would make it easier for readers to parse and/or jump to the part that they are interested in. I think there might be a problem with your citations also, because each of them has like a colon and another number after the closing bracket. This might just be something completely legitimate that I've just never seen before, though. One last thing would be the paragraph in which you talk about Freud. I think that this could possibly use a sentence or two at the end discussing to what extent this view was accepted. My understanding is that a significant amount of Freud's work was essentially debunked by later psychologists, but were his views on hysteria treated the same way? Again, great job! Lpoisson14 (talk) 21:18, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful job! I think it's a fascinating topic and I enjoyed learning more about it with your article. I agree with other peer reviewers that the history section could be broken down into smaller subsections, and I think you could check over for a few small grammatical notes. I'm intrigued that it's coined "male hysteria." Did all the negative connotations of female hysteria transfer over to their conception of PTSD? Interesting! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnpacyna (talk • contribs) 12:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is extremely interesting, I had no idea that the topic of male hysteria had a decent amount of things to talk about. I probably would have picked this topic too if I had thought about it. It would have been nice to know more about the theories connected to PTSD without having to click on the article, but it makes sense to do it that way. Some of the people discussed in this article are only talked about for a few sentences, and I don't think this is enough to understand how these individuals truly felt about male hysteria. It would mean more if there were a few more sentences devoted to these perspectives, such as John Eric Erichsen or Herbert Page. Also, I think there are a few places where this article could be linked to other articles to give it a more holistic explanation if people want more information. Haley Wendt (talk) 20:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Do you have links to Charcot's study of 525 male patients? I couldn't see a footnote for it, or any of his notes/records or would be great to see the photos for comparison between female hysteria and treatment, it would be great to expand it to understand the origin/history of male hysteria more. Peter Rorke (talk) 03:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prevalence of War Neurosis in Officers.

In the last section, reference #12 the article includes a slightly "personal essay worded" conclusion that, because British Officers were expected to maintain absolute decorum and manliness in the face of the same trials as enlisted soldiers:

"It does not come as a surprise that war neurosis occurred four times more in officers than ordinary soldiers."

I'm not dismissing that hypothesis at all but there would be another fairly clear reason for that ratio. They're officers.

They enjoyed preferential and relatively sympathetic medical attention beyond what the enlisted soldier would have experienced.

If the article is going to speculate so broadly on reasons for the severity of specific and still relevant psychological trauma cases that subject should be expanded and examined more critically because "War Neurosis" under a different name is a contemporary and sometimes very divisive subject in regard to proper government policy and public perception. FusionTorch (talk) 12:48, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- - Sorry, reference #11 not 12 FusionTorch (talk) 12:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]