Talk:Postorgasmic illness syndrome

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Forum as a source

A forum is not a reliable source, so I have removed all material that was sourced to this forum. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The summary of all known cases is simply a more accurate characterization of this condition. It is based on hundreds of cases, rather than only a few. These hundreds of cases could just as easily be published as the two in Dr. Waldinger's article. The article takes no position about the credibility of the UK Naked Science forum, but summarizes some of the information there, since it is critically relevant to any discussion of this condition. Counterpoints (talk) 22:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter. The forum does not meet Wikipedia's standards. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does matter if a summary of 300 cases is more accurate than a summary of 2-3 cases. It doesn't matter about the forum not meeting some standard. It is extremely relevant in this case, and it should be mentioned. Any discussion of POIS, should include that thread, since over 99% of reported cases are found there. Any sensible POIS researcher consults that thread. Also, information from forums is OFTEN summarized on Wikipedia, if it's relevant. In this case, it is. Counterpoints (talk) 15:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't matter to Wikipedia. Wikipedia's contents must meet Wikipedia's standards. The forum does not meet Wikipedia's standards for sourcing; it may not be used as a source on Wikipedia. If you want to use the forum as a source, then you'll need to get your own website, where you get to set the standards. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


One source

I think that the {{onesource}} tag may still be justifiable. There's the Dutch paper, a book that relies very heavily on the Dutch paper, and two "articles" that are little better than re-typed press releases about the Dutch paper's publication. The final source, a regular column in The New York Times, doesn't use this name for the condition, and speculates on a different mechanism, with the result that it may prove to be a different condition. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful of unnecesary scrutiny

It dawned on me today all this discussion about POIS and what is allowed in the WIKI article is a PRIME EXAMPLE of a possible reason why POIS hasnt been properly researched: the taboo about sex?. What delivered this revelation to my brain today was this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_fanaticism It is a WIKI article about one of the most relevant topics in history, about something that involves the backbone of terrorism and the current wars waged upon this planet. This article is so full of "non-sourced opinions" that I'm completely astounded SO MUCH ATTENTION was paid to the POIS wiki article, but not to something that is so utterly important, that should be gone over constantly to ensure the WIKI guidelines are followed and this UITTERLY IMPORTANT INFORMATION is not filled with bias. My point is, before you may decide to lift another finger in objection to the information on the POIS article, consider the real motivation and ensure that you are truly doing WIKI a service and not pushing forth a non-academic agenda. cleverwisdom (talk) 18:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

please make this article redirect from post-coital/orgasmic depression too —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.202.13.141 (talk) 23:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Article in a UK tabloid about all this: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3355930/Mystery-illness-is-orgasm-allergy.html

It has Marcel Waldinger, professor of sexual psychopharmacology at Utrecht University in the Netherlands talking about evidence that it's caused by an allergic reaction to their own semen. I thought of you guys. Good luck with it all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.83.172 (talk) 01:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Male? Female? Both sexes?

Nowhere that I can see is this made clear in the article. In fact, it's not made clear whether it has been observed in other mammals either. Particularly the gender issue needs to be established in the text. --Nigelj (talk) 11:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few girls (like 3 or 4) at the naked science forum, but the vast majority seem to be male.- Vincent Marcus (talk) 22:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the symptoms are normal?

I think so. If very severe, then it sure can be some deficiency. I´ve found that some of the symptoms described, such as changes in mood, muscle discomfort and tiredness can be avoided with fairly low doses of zinc taken before... whatever. Really works.

Meybe the symptoms are natures way to limit overgrowth of population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.251.37.150 (talk) 23:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My POIS symptoms are severely debilitating mental & physical pain and have not responded to any change in diet. The only thing that stops the pain and exhaustion is abstaining from orgasm for a number of days. I want to reiterate the point that abstaining from orgasm always works to alleviate symptoms for anyone with this disease.-Vincent Marcus (talk) 22:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

POIS may be connected with undertreated Chronic Pelvic Pain and prostatitis III & IV

I have POIS. Talked to nurse at U of Washington speaking for Dr. Kreiger and they were finding Lyrica to be effective for prostitis III & IV which have baffled urologist. I spent years on Cipro unnecessarily until trying Lyrica!

See http://www.prostatitis.org/uwashpage.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.57.206.245 (talk) 21:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page is NOT a forum

Stay civil (no profanity) when posting here. This page is NOT a forum!.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Year that post orgasmic illness syndrome (POIS) was first described

If post orgasmic illness syndrome (POIS) was first described in 2002, like the lead of this article currently states, then why is the source for it that is currently used to support the statement that "POIS could affect between 0.25% and 1% of the population" from 1992? Does that mean that this syndrome was apparent to researchers before then, but they had not properly described or named it? Or does it mean the source used to support that line is not about post orgasmic illness syndrome? Any idea Jmh649 (Doc James)? I see that you edited this article on February 20th of this year. How about you, Lesion? I see that you added this hours before Doc James edited the article. Flyer22 (talk) 17:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A primary source from 1992 which is not about the subject in question. Deleted. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, James. Flyer22 (talk) 17:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added the see also link to La petite mort as it sounded like a related subject after I read this article, but I did not carry out any literature search to support this. That phrase would have been around long before 1992 I'm guessing... but it's probably safe to state it is not a medical term. My reading of La petite mort is that it does not describe any medical condition, but is entirely normal. Feel free to remove. Lesion (talk) 17:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moved here

Not sure what this means? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of possible factors

References

Please follow these practices to make references cleaner and clearer.

In the text, only use ref's without content, such as <ref name=Waldinger2002 />. Place the content of the ref inside the appropriate {{reflist}} tag at the bottom of the article.

Use these ref groups. For example, <ref name=GARD group=s />

  • (none): peer-reviewed papers, such as from PubMed
  • s: secondary sources, such as books, references, on-line encyclopedias
  • m: media, such as newspaper articles
  • w: websites, such as forums

Use ProveIt to write ref content. http://proveit.wmflabs.org/ Or, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets and place a check next to ProveIt.

For ref names, use the NameYear format, such as <ref name=Waldinger2002 />.

Do not use spaces in ref names or group names. Do not use quotes around ref names or group names. (Quotes would only be required if you used spaces.)

Also see:

POIS22 (talk) 17:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above is now deprecated.
When I originally rewrote this article, it was easier for me to separate out the references into several groups -- peer-reviewed papers, secondary sources, and so on. However, no other article does this. I am therefore removing this separation, to make the reference organization like that of the other articles on Wikipedia. --POIS22 (talk) 18:01, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

for improvement to GA article

  • get a good copyedit
  • remember to follow manual of style in regards to the references, (it might need a causes section)
  • it could use an image or two

generally I think you have a very good article,and an interesting topic, however I'm certain following a few basics for GA you'll have an even better article, good luck--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of a recent case report

User:Jytdog, you just removed a reference to a presentation at a medical conference. Why? How is it not encyclopedic? POIS is a newly described rare disease with no known treatment. I think a case report from a medical doctor that is presented at a medical conference and that describe possible treatments is encyclopedic. --POIS22 (talk) 18:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi POIS22. Thanks for talking! This is an article about a health issue, and Wikipedia has a guideline for sourcing content about health - it is here: WP:MEDRS. If you look at that, you will see that content about health should be sourced to reviews in the biomedical literature or statements by major medical/scientific bodies (like the NHS in the UK or the AMA or NIH here in the US). Case reports are primary sources and we generally avoid primary sources. If you are uncertain as to why we strive to keep health information well sourced, (and you are willing to take a few minutes), please see the essay: WP:Why MEDRS? Jytdog (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
NB: I just added a box to the very top of this page that automates a search for reviews in Pubmed, that is meant to help editors find sources that meet the criteria of MEDRS... Jytdog (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with and appreciate WP:MEDRS. The problem is that this is a recently described rare disease. There are no reviews. There are no statements. Yet, it's a real disease. As the article says, "the frequency of POIS "in the population may be greater than has been reported in the academic literature",[1] and that many POIS sufferers are undiagnosed.[2]"
I have cited in this article over 10 references in the academic literature that. There has to be some flexibility in WP:MEDRS for recently described rare diseases. I am not presenting anecdotal descriptions or media reports. I am citing peer-reviewed journal articles and conference presentations from many different doctors from around the world. --POIS22 (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am sympathetic to the lack of good sources. But one of the controls for content is exactly that - if there is a lack of sources, then there is a corresponding lack of content. Everything - literally everything, in the content of Wikipedia is determined by what reliable sources say. This includes whether an article exists at all. For whether an article exists, please see the WP:Golden rule which is WP:NOTABILITY in a nutshell, and for content within an article, please see WP:NPOV, and please read them with the role that sources play in them; you can just do a word search on "source" and you will see that it all comes down to sources. One way that advocates ~tend~ to edit when the object of their passion is something not deeply studied, is they reach for any source that mentions the topic, and articles end up all bent and not following NPOV anymore. Please do mindful of that temptation. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New secondary source

I will be adding a new secondary source that was just published earlier this year. --POIS22 (talk) 16:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TODO: 7 clusters of symptoms

Waldinger2016 lists seven clusters of symptoms. Someone should add this list to the article. POIS22 (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR

The following is OR. Please do not do this. Thanks.

One study describes 45 Dutch males with POIS.[1] POIS has also been documented in the United Kingdom,[2][3] Colombia,[4] Egypt,[5] Australia,[6] the United States,[7]

[8] and China.[9]

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Waldinger2011a was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Ashby2010 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Dexter2010 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Puerta Suárez J, Cardona Maya W. (Oct 2013). "Postorgasmic illness syndrome: semen allergy in men". Actas Urol Esp. 37 (9): 593–594. doi:10.1016/j.acuro.2013.03.002. PMID 23684345.
  5. ^ Cite error: The named reference Attia2013 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference McMahon2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ Kubota T. "9 Ways Orgasms May Benefit Your Health". Men's Journal. Retrieved 4 August 2015.
  8. ^ "Post Orgasmic Illness Syndrome". The Doctors. Retrieved 4 August 2015.
  9. ^ Cite error: The named reference Jiang2015 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

- Jytdog (talk) 20:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific? How specifically is it OR?
Do you mean that it is WP:SYNTHESIS? I don't think so. "SYNTH is when two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis that isn't verifiable from the sources." Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not
There is no new thesis here. I am simply listing the countries in which POIS has been documented. Can I say that POIS has been documented in the UK? Yes, I have a source. Can I say that POIS has been documented in Egypt? Yes, I have a source. Can I can that POIS has been documented in the UK and Egypt? That is all I am saying -- it has been documented in the UK and Egypt. There is no other thesis. POIS22 (talk) 17:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are going around and gathering case reports and building a story about epidemiology here in WP that apparently exists no where else. Wikipedia editors don't do that. That is not what WIkipedia is for. Jytdog (talk) 18:40, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

‎Epidemiology

User:Jytdog -- you cut the following with the comment: "we do not include this kind of speculation in WP". What rule does this break? If you don't like the word "speculate", this can be reworded. These are cited opinions of medical doctors who are studying this disease. I see no basis for cutting this.

Some doctors speculate that the frequency of POIS "in the population may be greater than has been reported in the academic literature",[1] and that many POIS sufferers are undiagnosed.[2] Though it's not described often in the academic literature, thousands of people have publicly claimed to have POIS.[1]

References

  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Ashby2010 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference McMahon2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

POIS22 (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

POIS, thanks for asking. The mission of Wikipedia is to present the public with "accepted knowledge". This is described in WP:NOT. We discussed the dangers of advocacy in WP; your efforts to provide every scrap of stuff out there about this condition, the WP:SYN you are doing, is the kind of thing that advocates do when they come to Wikipedia and want to use WP to raise awareness. Please try to honor the mission. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT gives some examples of what is forbidden. "Personal essays that state your particular feelings about a topic (rather than the opinions of experts)." It also says that "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view."
I am giving opinions of experts. You delete them.
You have decided that me saying that the disease has been documented in both the UK and Egypt is somehow WP:SYN. I disagree. I present no new thesis, it is not WP:SYN.
You do not write in the talk page before cutting. You just cut. That's against WP etiquette.
From the moment you saw my username, you decided that I have some sort of a hidden agenda. I do not. I only have one agenda -- to make this into a WP:GOOD article. That's my only agenda.
Would you like to make this into a GA too? How do your edits, and you deciding that I am a bad actor, help turn this into a GA? POIS22 (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I personally don't care about status things like GA or FA. I just want to work on good content. My work will help you get there, but I have no such goals.
About this content. The way we are supposed to edit, is that you go find reliable sources for the topic, you read them, and you summarize them here. For anything about health, the criteria are in WP:MEDRS; for content not about health, the criteria are WP:RS. Per MEDRS we rely on reviews and statements by major scientific and medical authorities. It is not OK to build up health-related content from primary sources. That is what you are doing. And as I wrote above, in general we do not create new syntheses of information here in WP. If you were a doctor writing a review article to be published in the scientific literature, it would be fine to do what you are doing - that is what reviews do. We are writing an encyclopedia article - we build on the syntheses that are already in the literature. It is not OK to create that yourself. It is not what we do. What you were doing by gathering those creates reports and assembling them here, was creating here a picture (that apparently exists no where else) of all the places where POIS has been document. You can't do that here. It is not OK. Jytdog (talk) 20:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for helping out with this article, Jytdog. At the time of the #Year that post orgasmic illness syndrome (POIS) was first described discussion above, involving Lesion, Doc James and myself, I didn't see too many good sources for this topic, which is most likely due to the fact that it's a rare condition.
POIS22, I also thank you for your help with this article. Although Jytdog can be strict with sourcing, he knows what he is talking about when it comes to good medical sources. It's better to listen to him (though you don't have to agree with him), and try to work with him. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why was psychological added?

Correct me if im wrong, but stated literature only demonstrates a condition with physiological or cognitive (as a result of physiological) effects. Psychological components arent related to the specificity of this condition, according to literature. Not sure if this is what jytdog is talking about, but it smacks of someones opinion drawing non-literature cited conclusions. If thats being done, they would add "psychological" to everything from foot fungus to cancer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cleverwisdom (talk • contribs) 00:11, 7 July 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

User:Cleverwisdom, what particular quote from the article are you talking about? --POIS22 (talk) 17:34, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References old and new

For the record, below are all of the references from a previous version of the article -- some of these have been deleted by User:Jytdog due to WP:MEDRS.

I also noticed that there are now new references references available that should be acceptable under WP:MEDRS. Yey! I will go through them soon.

Here is the funny thing. The updated GARD, which is allowed under WP:MEDRS, cites a new paper by McMahon and one of the Waldinger 2011 papers. I can now just cite GARD.

Cite error: A list-defined reference named "Shah2001" is not used in the content (see the help page).
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "Waldinger2002" is not used in the content (see the help page).
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "Dexter2010" is not used in the content (see the help page).
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "Ashby2010" is not used in the content (see the help page).
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "Waldinger2011a" is not used in the content (see the help page).
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "Waldinger2011b" is not used in the content (see the help page).
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "Farley2011" is not used in the content (see the help page).
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "Attia2013" is not used in the content (see the help page).
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "McMahon2014" is not used in the content (see the help page).
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "Jiang2015" is not used in the content (see the help page).
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "Berger2002" is not used in the content (see the help page).
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "Balon2005" is not used in the content (see the help page).
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "Wylie2015" is not used in the content (see the help page).
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "GARD" is not used in the content (see the help page).
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "orpha" is not used in the content (see the help page).
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "Waldinger2016" is not used in the content (see the help page).
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "Reuters2002" is not used in the content (see the help page).
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "Friedman2009" is not used in the content (see the help page).
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "TLC2011" is not used in the content (see the help page).
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "Goldstein2011" is not used in the content (see the help page).

Cite error: A list-defined reference named "Burri2011" is not used in the content (see the help page).

POIS22 (talk) 21:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New study

There's a new study from June 2019.

--POIS22 (talk) 19:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Postorgasmic_illness_syndrome"