Talk:Olfactory reference syndrome

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
* Support as nom-- it is my understanding that unless it is a proper noun we should use sentence case? Lesion (talk) 18:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I recently changed my Wikipedia "skin" to modern from vector, and although everything is pretty and blue now, I am still getting used to the new layout, apologies. Lesion (talk) 03:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: * Convert lists to prose
* A table to illustrate variation in basic epidemiologic data as reported by the 4 reviews on this topic Lesion (talk) 17:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  To do list 

message: Currently I have not encountered a source which mentions these issues in relation to ORS, yet I feel they are important to raise, whether only on the talk page or in the article when suitable sources are available:
* I have added the qualifier "abnormal" body odors, since arguably it is normal to have a degree of body odor. Lesion (talk) 18:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suggest the phrase "foul or offensive body odor", which a good number of the researchers use. Mark D Worthen PsyD 10:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for feedback. While we should ordinarily state exactly what the sources are saying, I feel the addition of the qualifier "abnormal" is a "You don't need to cite that the sky is blue" situation. Normal body odors may be considered "foul" and "offensive". The suggested diagnostic criteria for this condition state that medical conditions which cause abnormal body odors negate the diagnosis. Therefore, it follows that someone may have ORS while having entirely normal body odors. Advertising has warped the public's idea of what is normal. Lesion (talk) 11:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. You persuaded me. :o) - Mark D Worthen PsyD 01:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Gaps in the psychiatric literature on ORS

message: Not sure if we should keep these. It would be nice for people to have some links to seek treatment, but I suppose we should not give any commercial links. Not sure how others feel. Lesion (talk) 01:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a problem with these links. They are very reputable treatment centers in general. Plus you found the links doing your research, as opposed to a representative or doctor associated with a center posting a link. Mark D Worthen PsyD 10:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure who added these links, they were here before I came to the article. Usually it is just someone trying to be helpful rather than someone with a COI in my experience. Lesion (talk) 11:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: Purely based on the definition in this article, I believe it is indistinguishable from ORS, however I have yet to find any source to explicitly state this. Lesion (talk) 21:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: Begum 2011  does treat these as synonyms. I will merge the article as I believe it is noncontroversial. Lesion (talk) 03:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Bromidrosiphobia]]