Talk:Dysphoria

Gender Dysphoria[edit]

It seems like Gender Dysphoria is the larger focus of this article, nearly exclusive to the negative effects of disease or psychedelic use.

Citation #4 Metcalf & Coop[edit]

Hey guys, what's up with this? Why no link? Why the shoddy citation? Why is it abbreviated?

Gender?[edit]

Is it really true that gender dysphoria is the most common? Seems like this should be checked... BryanD 16:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Try a search on google for "Dysphoria" and you only get five hits higher than this article page. This article is going to be a pain in the posterior to cite for. --The1exile - Talk - Contribs - 22:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else heard of post-doctoral thesis submission dysphoria? Those poor acedemics, :-( what will they do now?? Martinq22 16:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Things aren't the way they are supposed to be[edit]

A person suffering from dysphoria will feel that "Things aren't the way they are supposed to be." "Things aren't the way they are supposed to be." seems to be a core concept of most religions. Hackwrench 04:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greek etymology[edit]

The Greek etymology was provided by Wareh at WP:RD/L. Thanks! --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 14:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hypoglycemia[edit]

I don't believe the term 'hypoglycemia' is being used by the standard, recognized medical definition here as a cause for dysphoria. At best it's a controversial interpretation of 'hypoglycemia' and at worst... I've only seen it stringently applied to things like depression, addiction, dysphoria by individuals that stand to profit by selling miracle-type products/treatments by claiming 'hypoglycemia' is a cause for all such things and is correctable by dietary changes (usually a product/diet/'treatment' they are selling). The lack of a citation or being supportable is also very shoddy at best.

No advertising[edit]

User:96.245.189.195, on numerous occasions you a have added a link to [NativeRemedies]. As several of us have explained on your talk page this is an advertisement and so is not permitted in Wikipedia. If you continue to add this link you may be blocked from editing without further warning.

Please - take a moment to read your talk page and to study the policies listed there.

VinculumMan (talk) 10:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The user has re-added the link [1] I have reported this to ANI. Anthony (talk) 07:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gender dysphoria[edit]

Having made an over-hasty [2] disambiguation with Gender dysphoria, I felt that it might be more appropriate to have a separate section on the term: #Gender_dysphoria. But I'm not at all sure that's the right decision either... 86.140.51.65 (talk) 15:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dysphoria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dysphoria as shorthand for Gender Dysphoria[edit]

Laypeople generally only use this word when referring to gender dysphoria, and typically omit the 'gender' part for the sake of shorthand. Thus, I've restored a previously-deleted section of text that said so and added a citation that supports this.

However, I'm pretty sure we should simply have something at the top that indicates this more formally. I'm not super-experienced in wikipedia editing, so I'm not sure how best to do this. I'm pretty sure I've seen preface lines something like "Did you mean gender dysphoria?", but I'm not sure of the exact syntax. I think that would probably be ideal, if anyone knows the proper way to do it. Felice Enellen (talk) 19:36, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of gender disphoria?[edit]

Who do we feel about this diff? I think the removal seems unjustified but it does raise the question of whether this content is in the correct location within the article or whether there are any other specific types of disphoria that should also be covered alongside this. Thoughts? DanielRigal (talk) 10:21, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RSD[edit]

> defined as emotional deregulation or unbearable RSD "rejection sensitivity dysphoria"

Calling into question the term 'emotional deregulation' which I believe may have been meant as 'dysregulation' as well as the validity of RSD as a component of ADHD.

RSD is not a diagnosable condition. It is not in the DSM-5 and has no real evidence in support of it. It's existence is highly contested and almost entirely based on one article and popularity within ADHD communities. AKADDK (talk) 04:44, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Science Communication[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2023 and 10 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alexro25 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Alexro25 (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please can somebody check this edit?[edit]

I am unsure as to whether this edit should be reverted? It seems to add content of dubious relevance but maybe I am missing something? DanielRigal (talk) 12:07, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As it was completely unsourced, I reverted it. I believe the editor means well but I think in a scientific/medical article like this, sources are a must. Fred Zepelin (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]