Talk:Hypergraphia

message: As a psychiatric patient of 6 years, I was always told I suffered from Depression and schizophrenia. 
Recently, upon meeting with my new psychiatrist, I was told what I "suffer" from might actually be Hypergraphia. Everything I've read thus far on the illness is exactly me, but I am having trouble finding in depth inormation as opposed to defination.
If anyone has any info, or knows where I can get some, your help would be entirely appreciated.
* The main character of Quills (film) could be said to have Hypergraphia. -- Sy / (talk) 01:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment 1

message: I've made this topic a stub. The recent use of this in CSI:NY got me interested, but there is not enough information on Wikipedia. 
Hope someone can expand on it
And I've added the causes of Hypergraphia too...not completely, but halfway thru. Not too free now. Can someone be so kind to help out?
p/s: Add a content box at the top too.. I don't really know how to do that
Chewxy 06:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stub 

message: I was, for several years, very hypergraphic, while at the time I was taking Risperdal for my schizoaffective disorder.  A few months ago, I switched to Zyprexa instead.  It works better at relieving my symptoms, but I notice that I don't write much anymore.
My wife would say that's a good thing :-/ but I'm not sure I like it.
I also recently bought Alice Flaherty's book The Midnight Disease, and have read enough of it that I can recommend it to anyone wanting to know more about Hypergraphia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MichaelCrawford (talk • contribs) 02:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Experience With Medication 

message: This article is interesting but cites absolutely zero references. I'm paticularly interested in knowing if this is accurate:
"Additionally schizophrenics and people with frontotemporal dementia also experience a compulsive drive to write."
What kind of schizophrenics? Is this the majority or minority?
88.111.70.96 18:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does not cite sources? 

message: On Tuesday January 13th, there was a premier of an episode of Law & Order SVU called Hothouse. There is a girl in it, who due to being pushed to overachieve in college, starts taking ADHD medication without prescription. They mention one of the side effects of people who take off-prescription ADHD medication, is Hypergraphia.Violet yoshi (talk) 12:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hothouse episode of Law & Order SVU 

message: Citations should be found for allegations of hypergraphia being used to criticize or suppress surrealism in light of Andre Breton's statement that there is no subject about which one should refuse to speak and write voluminously, and in light of surrealist automatism.  --Daniel C. Boyer (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surrealism 

message: Is it possible that Joseph Smith, founder and Prophet of the LDS Church, experienced hypergraphia while composing the Book of Mormon?  Historical accounts of the process by which the BoM was created suggest that Joseph Smith might have been experiencing hypergraphia.  The rest of Joseph's life was also typified by behaviour symptomatic of bipolar or maybe schizoaffective disorder? Impossible to diagnose the deceased of course, but interesting and Joseph Smith undoubtedly an important historical figure who has influenced millions of people worldwide.
Sourced:
Richard Bushman, *Rough Stone Rolling* (will come back with biblio)
Fawn Brodie, *No Man Knows My Name*  (will come back with biblio)
Keep sweet (talk) 05:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical examples 

message: Unless I am missing something, the definitions in wikipedia are the same:
*"Hypergraphia is an overwhelming urge to write."
*"Graphomania (from Greek γραφειν — writing,[1] and μανία — insanity), also known as scribomania, refers to an obsessive impulse to write."
The only difference IMO is the second one being more hypergraphic :-) Staszek Lem (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[graphomania]] suggestion 

message: For my undergraduate neuroscience class, my partner and I are going to be updating this page for a final project.  We will be working on it for about 2 months.  If anyone wants to check out what we're doing, you can look at our sandboxes.
Hannahgrotz (talk) 18:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see WP:MEDMOS#Sections; I've moved some things back where they belong, and am very glad to hear you didn't write the dismal "Famous Cases" section.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Neuroscience Students

message: ====Peer Comment 1====
Nice work on this article, a very interesting piece.
Hopefully I can offer some constructive feedback. Before I begin, a note: I'm not sure how much of this you two have written, and how much already existed. 
On citing: I may be wrong, but you may be able to take out your parenthetical citations and instead just stick with the wiki citations.
On the introduction: I think you might be able to better use this space to frame the rest of the article. Perhaps allude to the structure of the article –– when I read an introduction, I'm looking to pull out the most important points and have a decent road map for the rest of the article.
More generally, I think the introduction could be written more clearly. If it's not a disorder, what is it? A symptom? Can you be more explicit?
On characteristics: You make an impressive number of interesting points. That being said, I think you could do a better job tying them together with a little more structure. I'm thinking along the lines of more explicit topic sentences for each paragraph, as well as transition sentences. Otherwise, lots of solid material here, surprisingly fun to read!
On causes: I think you could make some more solid contributions to this section. I'm not sure if it is a consequence of a dearth of material and/or research, but it seems as though you could more clearly identify a cause or number of causes. 
In the introductory part of this section, you name a few possible causes, but you are lacking analysis, and in lieu just making a list. Which cause is the most probable? Have researchers come to a consensus? How do these things relate?
On temporal lobe epilepsy: It seems like this section is the meat of your research, but I'm not sure. Some good technical information here, but can you put it in better context for the reader?
On Geschwind syndrome: Maybe if you only have a sentence or two to write, you could incorporate this into another section?
On pathophysiology: This is a strong section. I think (like most writing) the language could be tightened up, and I did notice a few grammatical errors (e.g. "associated to" instead of "associated with"), but the content is otherwise presented clearly.
On famous cases: Nothing to say here; just a nice list of notables. Good work!
Overall, I offer quite a few comments, but please don't mistake me for being too harsh, just hoping to help a little! Take each with a grain of salt, feel free to dismiss any one, and/or write back in this forum if anything needs clarification! Nice work folks. Rowettb (talk) 23:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review

message: Nice work on this article, a very interesting piece.
Hopefully I can offer some constructive feedback. Before I begin, a note: I'm not sure how much of this you two have written, and how much already existed. 
On citing: I may be wrong, but you may be able to take out your parenthetical citations and instead just stick with the wiki citations.
On the introduction: I think you might be able to better use this space to frame the rest of the article. Perhaps allude to the structure of the article –– when I read an introduction, I'm looking to pull out the most important points and have a decent road map for the rest of the article.
More generally, I think the introduction could be written more clearly. If it's not a disorder, what is it? A symptom? Can you be more explicit?
On characteristics: You make an impressive number of interesting points. That being said, I think you could do a better job tying them together with a little more structure. I'm thinking along the lines of more explicit topic sentences for each paragraph, as well as transition sentences. Otherwise, lots of solid material here, surprisingly fun to read!
On causes: I think you could make some more solid contributions to this section. I'm not sure if it is a consequence of a dearth of material and/or research, but it seems as though you could more clearly identify a cause or number of causes. 
In the introductory part of this section, you name a few possible causes, but you are lacking analysis, and in lieu just making a list. Which cause is the most probable? Have researchers come to a consensus? How do these things relate?
On temporal lobe epilepsy: It seems like this section is the meat of your research, but I'm not sure. Some good technical information here, but can you put it in better context for the reader?
On Geschwind syndrome: Maybe if you only have a sentence or two to write, you could incorporate this into another section?
On pathophysiology: This is a strong section. I think (like most writing) the language could be tightened up, and I did notice a few grammatical errors (e.g. "associated to" instead of "associated with"), but the content is otherwise presented clearly.
On famous cases: Nothing to say here; just a nice list of notables. Good work!
Overall, I offer quite a few comments, but please don't mistake me for being too harsh, just hoping to help a little! Take each with a grain of salt, feel free to dismiss any one, and/or write back in this forum if anything needs clarification! Nice work folks. Rowettb (talk) 23:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Comment 1

message: Overall, the page looks great. The images are integrated well with the textual information that is included. In reading over the page and looking into information concerning hypergraphia, I have given you some feedback that I hope will help with revisions:
In terms of citing, I think that you guys can take out the parenthetical citations and just use the wiki template for referencing sources used in the article. I think that the page might have a better "flow" in terms of understanding the information presented if the “geschwind syndrome” section were integrated with the “temporal lobe epilepsy” section/paragraph. Also, the information below the "causes" heading, especially the first block of text seems like it could be very easily worked into the "pathophysiology" section. If the "pathophysiology" section were above the "causes" section, I think the disorders associated with the condition (in the "causes" section) could be better understood in-context of the pathophysiology.
I think that adding more information about the connections between hypergraphia and bipolar disorder and hypergraphia and schizophrenia could enrich the "causes" section of the page. Also, if you wanted to tweak with the heading for the "chemical causes" section to make it more specific to the neurotransmitters dopamine and acetycholine discussed in the section, it might help readers understand the section a bit better from just reading the section heading/title.
In terms of wording suggestions, the sentence in the “temporal lobe epilepsy”, the third sentence (“In temporal lobe epilepsy patients, they may exhibit…”) could be rephrased a bit.  Also, the last sentence in this section confused me a bit with the use of the term “syntax”.
Take all of my comments as helpful suggestions. It looks great!  --Ephlegar (talk) 21:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Comment 2

message: So in general I think you did a great job on the page, I don't know how much exactly is yours but good work. These are some of the things I found you might want to address, and I hope my feedback can be helpful. 
I feel like you need a more detailed introduction here, a more general overview of what hypergraphia is. Also I would add a sentence or two about graphomania and to how it is different to hypergraphia, because they are very similar and a distinction between the two might be helpful to have.
Regarding the characteristics section, I believe a better organization could be made. I feel like it doesn't fit into the article as well as the rest of the sections. Maybe grouping the characteristics prior to mentioning the studies. Also I wouldn't use the references in the format (Waxman and Geschwind), I would take that out and just stick with the wiki referencing style.
In the causes section I like the introductory paragraph, its a good overview, I would add a sentence or two more about writers block and hyperlexia. Also the temporal lobe epilepsy, as well as the chemical causes are very detailed and nicely done in my opinion. However I would maybe expand a bit more on the geschwind syndrome and the mood disorders, by adding a bit more information. I aware that finding research articles on some topics is hard and there might not be much information on these to expand.
I really enjoyed the last section, famous causes. I found this part very interesting and very well constructed. It gives a kind of a different dimension to the whole article as well as a interesting look into how something that you might not want to get can be used to your benefit. Can't say I wouldn't mind having hypergraphia when it comes to writing those long 7, 10 and 15 page papers.
Again, I hope my feedback helps, and great job again. Gumovnik (talk) 04:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Comment 3

message: Thanks to everyone for the helpful comments! We added more information to the introduction section, and moved a small part from our causes section to the introduction.  We also added more structure to the Characteristics section (two sub headers) and a few introduction sentences.  The Causes section underwent a lot of changes.  We moved the Pathophysiology section to a subsection under Temporal Lobe Epilepsy and moved the Geschwind Syndrome subsection out of Causes and into the introduction.  We also took out the intro section to Causes and replaced it with a new paragraph that incorporated/rephrased what was already there.  We did not write the Famous Cases section so we let that be.
Thanks again for the feedback!
--Hannahgrotz (talk) 22:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see WP:MEDMOS#Sections; I've moved some things back where they belong, and am very glad to hear you didn't write the dismal "Famous Cases" section.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to Peer Reviews

message: Please see WP:MEDMOS on notable cases.  None of these say they had the condition, all is original research.  Also see WP:NOT and WP:TRIVIA.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speculation removed 

message: "Functional MRI scans of other studies suggest that rhyming behavior is produced in the left hemisphere, but Mendez proposed that hyperactive electrical activity of the right hemisphere may induce a release of writing and rhyming abilities in the left hemisphere.[3]"
The article suddenly blurts out this name without first introducing him or her. 184.57.129.13 (talk) 02:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: When this happens you can place a [¿who?] next to a name (or general referentiation to a party such as "some"). Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 00:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who in the hell is Mendez 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hypergraphia. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140111210524/http://www.rbana.com/Robert%20Burns%20and%20the%20Medical%20Profession.pdf to http://www.rbana.com/Robert%20Burns%20and%20the%20Medical%20Profession.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified