Talk:Hysteria

message: There are some issues with jumping beteween the past and present tense in the history section. Also, at one point, the article states "The Freudian psychoanalytic school of psychology uses its own, somewhat controversial, ways to treat hysteria". I have removed this as (despite being a psychologist myself) I have no idea what it refers to. The issues with this statement are that 
1) it is in the present tense, despite the fact that it is in the "history" section and that hysteria is not a recognised condition in the present day
2) The controversies are not clarified. In fact, to my knowledge, psychoanalytic interventions for hysteria were welcomed as a breakthrough. 
3) Not really sure what the "The Freudian psychoanalytic school of psychology" is. It's certainly not a physical location, and if it's talking about a metaphorical school then it is generally referred to as "the Freudian school of psychoanalysis".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.80.129 (talk) 16:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  History Section 

message: What about hysteria in psychoanalysis? What about feminist criticism of the concept of "hysteria"?
:For what it's worth I added some more accurate dates, primary sources, and fleshed out the theories for the early modern uses (Charcot and Freud). --Quinn d (talk) 03:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs improvement 

message: This article does a shoddy job of differentiating between the archaic condition of female hysteria and the modern meanings of individual hysteria (= unfounded overexcitement or anxiety) and mass hysteria (= panic).  Maikel 20:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it's been on my todo list for a quite a while.  I got a start by just adding in some section headings to divide the article up.  — Laura Scudder ☎ 05:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I made some changes that separated Charcot and Freud (as the earliest significant modern discussions of hysteria) from contemporary use, and thus created a new section. I've titled it "Current theories and practices", although I don't know if that is a good title. --Quinn d (talk) 03:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: 'Hysterical' can mean "hilarious", and to be "in hysterics" is a common expression for being overcome with (unstoppable) laughter. But these are definitions and not really relevant to the medical encyclopedic content. Are they worth mentioning? --65.94.170.157 03:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That information is important and should have its own page linked from Hysteria (disambiguation).  I don't think it goes on this page. - Peregrinefisher 05:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Laughter? 

message: what are Frueds for stages leading to hysteria and each stages characteristics.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.20.30.202 (talk) 17:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  stages of hysteria 

message: Freud attended Charcot's clinic in Paris at a time when neither cranial X-ray nor EEG were available to rule out such items as closed-head trauma or epilepsy, both of which in retrospect afflicted many of Charcot's most pivotal cases as he worked up his theory of hysteria.  The infamous Monsieur Log case, that of a man who was injured by a runaway cart, had been severely concussed and was comatose for a time, is possibly one of the worst examples of a neurological misdiagnosis in the history of medicine.  In retrospect, much of what Charcot concluded falls down since it can be explained now very simply as obvious organic disease.  Freud took these questionable learnings back with him to Vienna and, after being nearly laughed out of his profession for proposing a version of the vile repressed memory theory, came up with his conversion theory as "plan B", drawing not only on Charcot's misdiagnoses but also his own failure to recognize what are now plainly obvious as cases of such organic diseases as temporal lobe epilepsy and even cancer.  To what extent this deeply unscientific idea continues to affect medicine adversely is anybody's guess, but there are credible commentators who have observed that hysteria was well on its way to being given the decent burial that it so sorely needed when Charcot and Freud resurrected it on the strength of towering diagnostic error.  By so doing they added immeasurably to human suffering by re-introducing a virulent superstition into clinical practice, i.e. hysteria and all of its euphemistic variants such as somatoform disorder.  These are at best, diagnoses of ignorance. Zzzzzchecker (talk) 17:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The "History" section seems to me to be more an exposition of what Freud thought on hysteria rather than a neutral historical account.  IMO the NPOV in the article is not served by concluding on the merits of hysteria either by Freud or currently.  The article should limit itself, at the very least as far as its history section goes, to detailing what was thought and why at various moments in time by those concerned. Otherwise we are left with a blank page saying something along the lines of: "Hysteria - a silly idea best forgotten about.".  While this may be true it misses the point of having the article. LookingGlass (talk) 20:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charcot and Freud 

message: Such as satan's possession, this disease was and remains to be a fraud.Self-illusioned persons claimde to be with hysteria, such as decades before, in the same places, persons claimed to be under devil's control.This disease never existed.Agre22 (talk) 17:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: This disease never existed

message: BBC used WP's definition today (in describing collective belief England could ever win the football World Cup) - see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8768122.stm
David Ruben  Talk  12:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO the flag should be removed as the humorous piece concerned contained only a passing reference to a "definition" in the wiki article which has subsequently changed.  It was not citing wiki as an encyclopedic authority. The now superceded quote was: "a state of mind of unmanageable fear or emotional excesses. The fear is often caused by multiple events in one's past that involved some sort of severe conflict."  While the first part can be found in any dictionary the (questionable?) sentiment expressed in its last sentence made it apt for mocking English football. Thyat was its sole claim to "fame".  LookingGlass (talk) 19:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: BBC citing definition

message: Is it just my impression that the article would be better without the images? It does definitely belong to female hysteria but even there the image caption could be better.Richiez (talk) 13:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I quite like the pictures, I hope they are authentic... But please edit the caption if you have a better idea! Lova Falk talk 15:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor images 

message: Hysteria vs. DMDD. The difference? Men vs. women, parents vs. kids.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.195.128.252 (talk) 07:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  DMDD 

message: i recognise that it's already been stated that there is, at the very least, a citation needed in that opening paragraph, and that the article needs extensive cleanup anyway.  but would it be excessive to delete that opening and write a new one?  because there are a lot of claims and no citations in any of that paragraph, and most of those claims seem...dubious at best.  while it does seem to be playing on the idea of "mass hysteria", i feel that that's sort of misleading in a more general article.Anshin (talk) 05:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  the entire opening 

message: On Hysteria: The Invention of a Medical Category Between 1670 and 1820 by Sabine Arnaud, University of Chicago Press. "Draws on literary, medical, and other texts in a study of the conceptual origins of hysteria as a pathology linked primarily to the aristocracy and applied as often to men as to women." per Chronicle Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 21:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  book to use in improving the article 

message: I think this page needs to reflect post-1980s scholarship on the early Greek texts which later writers had assumed were 'all about hysteria'. The material in my 1985 PhD thesis was published in 1993 in http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft0p3003d3&brand=ucpress and has subsequently been accepted by scholars in the field. So I've had a go at updating. I am not an experienced editor so I am looking forward to discussion here - my only previous engagement with wikipedia was when I brought to the community's attention some sabotage on the Hippocrates page. But I want to help!
Fluff35 (talk) 15:35, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hippocratic hysteria? 

message: In the section "The Middle Ages and the Rennaissance" it mentions "excess female seed" - it's unclear what this means in context (eggs?) and furthermore I can't find any reference to "female seed" on a quick google search. Perhaps this was a typo?
: Its not a typo.  Keep in mind that in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, microscopes had not yet been invented yet, and therefore people had no knowledge of gametes - eggs and sperm cells. they did know that pregnancies came about from women having sex with men, and they likely knew that it had to be done at an optimal point that was sometime in between menstrual cycles. And, of course, they knew that male ejaculate - known as 'seed' - had to be 'planted' into the woman. As for what 'female seed' refered to, recall again that they had no way of knowing that women only have one single egg available at any given time to be fertilised, while male seed contained billions of individual sperm in a single ejaculation. They logically assumption was that the females contribution was something somewhat similar to the male's, but internal. They also thought that if not cleared out from time to time (whether by pregnancy or by discharge: female ejaculation, &c) that it would build up over time and become hazardous to a woman's health. Firejuggler86 (talk) 03:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear or erroneous wording 

message: Is there any meaningful difference between the subject of this article and the female hysteria article? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no reason why we can't merge the articles.Sjö (talk) 10:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason you're not seeing is in part that hysteria is not a condition exclusive to women. For completeness sake there ought to be a "male hysteria" article, but considering the connotations of "hysteria" one such might be redundant and wouldn't pass the notability bar. Yes the term is a touchy subject, and the touchiness of it is precisely why they shouldn't be merged. 188.150.170.108 (talk) 12:20, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hysteria versus female hysteria 

message: Currently, this article does not mention the misogynistic history of the term and belief in it. However, a simple Google search for "hysteria sexism" shows that this has received significant coverage. PBZE (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You're looking for Female hysteria. This is not that. 188.150.170.108 (talk) 11:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing as most of the historical examples in this article involve women, arguing that sexism shouldn’t be mentioned and that it’s a separate issue (“female hysteria”) seems fairly absurd. It also suggests a pretty incomplete awareness/understanding of the history of sexism in medicine. Hysteria as a medical diagnosis is literally rooted in sexism and I’m not even sure why “female hysteria” is a separate article? 75.83.82.216 (talk) 18:27, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You're wrong. Hysteria properly describes something other than female hysteria. Bringing sexism into this serves only to promote sexism. 188.150.170.108 (talk) 12:09, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article should talk about sexism 

message: — Assignment last updated by LivMourning (talk) 21:53, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: History of Sexualities

message: working with a classmate (only putting my bibliography, but we are talking/working together)
* Alan W. Shindel, Rachel P. Maines, 944: Treatment of “Hysteria” in the 19th and 20th Centuries, The Journal of Urology, Volume 175, Issue 4, Supplement, 2006, Page 305, ISSN 0022-5347, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(18)33169-0. 
** this is very short but it discusses some treatment of hysteria, a little bit for both men and women, unsure about how useful it will be overall, but not discounting it yet
* Martin Edwards, Hysteria, The Lancet, Volume 374, Issue 9702, 2009, Page 1669, ISSN 0140-6736, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61979-6.
** discusses history of the term and uses/relevance
* Macleod A (Sandy). Abrupt treatments of hysteria during World War I, 1914–18. History of Psychiatry. 2018;29(2):187-198. doi:10.1177/0957154X18757338
** discusses hysteria in WW1, chronic examples and those that recovered quickly/randomly, usually on men in this article
* Tasca, Cecilia, et al. “Women and Hysteria in the History of Mental Health.” Clinical Practice & Epidemiology in Mental Health, vol. 8, no. 1, 2012, pp. 110–119., https://doi.org/10.2174/1745017901208010110.
** more in depth history, discusses moral/scientific/cultural/societal biases of history and origin/treatments
* Krasny, Elke. “Hysteria Activism.” Performing Hysteria, 2020, pp. 125–146., https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv18dvt2d.10
** history of the term and use+sexism, goes farther to the present than the others
* Micale, Mark S. “On the ‘Disappearance’ of Hysteria: A Study in the Clinical Deconstruction of a Diagnosis.” Isis, vol. 84, no. 3, Sept. 1993, pp. 496–526., https://doi.org/10.1086/356549.
** history and the movement away from the diagnosis of hysteria
+will likely be adding to these sources Denial2022 (talk) 22:35, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:   History of Sexualities class student, planning to work on sexism 

message: * Briggs, Laura. “The Race of Hysteria: ‘Overcivilization’ and the ‘Savage’ Woman in Late Nineteenth-Century Obstetrics and Gynecology.” American Quarterly, vol. 52, no. 2, June 2000, pp. 246–273., https://doi.org/10.1353/aq.2000.0013.
** In-depth look into racism within the context of of Hysteria for Black, Indigenous, Latin American and Asian people during the 19th century.
* Gilman, Sander L. “WANDERING IMAGINATIONS OF RACE AND HYSTERIA: The Origins of the Hysterical Body in Psychoanalysis.” Performing Hysteria: Images and Imaginations of Hysteria, LEUVEN UNIVERSITY PRESS, S.l., 2020.
** Explains how science backed racist beliefs about Jewish people by labeling their bodies hysterical.
* Krasny, Elke. “HYSTERIA ACTIVISM: Feminist Collectives for the Twenty-First Century.” Performing Hysteria: Images and Imaginations of Hysteria, edited by JOHANNA BRAUN, Leuven University Press, 2020, pp. 125–46. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv18dvt2d.10. Accessed 25 Nov. 2022.
** Return of Hysteria in the 20th century and the collection of feminist who fought against it globally.
Angelwings778 (talk) 18:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hysteria and Race; History of Sexualities 

message: As other topics have discussed, hysteria is a historically misogynistic term. “Hysteria” is derived from the Greek “hystera” meaning “womb” and the Latin “hystericus” meaning “of the womb”. A proper inclusion of the etymology would make clear its misogynistic origin. 92.40.217.0 (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology needed 

message: — Assignment last updated by FluffyTeaPancakes (talk) 07:24, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: The History of Sexuality