Talk:Abnormality (behavior)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 April 2021 and 11 June 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Parkerpons. Peer reviewers: Roggemaj.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

Describing the flaw as "obvious" is POV. Moreover, it assumes that abnormality is always negative, and I think this is very far from being a settled point. --Daniel C. Boyer 23:24, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

Discusses only in terms of psychology. Should be discussed more broadly as well. --Daniel C. Boyer 23:24, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you. DarkestMoonlight (talk) 13:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): DG162704.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

dicdef

Isn't this a bit of a DICDEF at the moment? --Excession 5 July 2005 14:23 (UTC)

would being tall also be classed as abnormality? and wot height is considered normal considerin it veries between men and women —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.195.115.210 (talk) 11:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The word dysfunctional is redirected to here for abnormality, the word are not the same. The word dysfunctional would better work stand alone, especially as related to the dysfunctional family. Andy Lee Graham (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

This article really seems more like a bunch of opinions. I took out the bit "not to mention one's self dignity." For the example of being nude in public under social norms. 216.67.56.185 (talk) 12:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Statements on this page do not have sources to back them up. Seems like a lot of this is based off personal info/ opinions.Michellewittwer (talk) 17:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

This page needs more clear psychology evidence. It does read too much like a personal reflectionLmickler (talk) 04:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmickler (talk • contribs) 17:31, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

On the lead paragraph I would like to add, or amend, that people should not be labeled by an abnormality. The person isn't abnormal, their behavior is abnormal. Putting a label on a person is hurtful and they should not be identified as "being" their behavior. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? I am thinking of making some other editorial changes to other parts of this page and I believe it is important to avoid labels. Thank you! DG162704 (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

DG162704 mentions how "a person isn't abnormal, their behavior is abnormal" I am unsure if I agree with this statement. There is another way we need to think about this idea. The question that comes to my mind is "what is considered abnormal behavior" each person could find themselves to be "normal". Dusavage2012 (talk) 17:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I think overall this article is missing some sources and citations. There does not seem to be a lot of information about the topic. Some of it could also be worded differently for an easier read. More ideas of abnormality should be added such as the history of it. Abby rucks (talk) 04:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I believe that this article has a good amount of information in it, but I would have to agree that the article is a little personal with opinions. I will be helping reword things to make it more factual and getting citations for the information that needs it while making sure that the information is not just copied and pasted from another website. Dusavage2012 (talk) 17:11, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Everything in this article is relevant to the article topic because the article is about abnormality and there is a lot of information in the article to help prove the topic. Each fact seems appropriate because they are all referenced with citations but there does seem to be a lot of opinionated examples of abnormality in the article. For instance, I would take out some of the examples because they don't really seem like reliable examples because they aren't cited, they seem to be more opinionated. The article doesn't sound neutral to me just in the case as I said before that it seems a little biased because of all the examples being used. Miahardesty (talk) 03:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with what a lot of the past users have been saying. It has some good information in it, but it could use more content. Right now, I see a lot on what classifies as abnormal behavior and not a lot on broader perspectives--for example, the diversity of views on what really is abnormal behavior, how the field has changed its perspectives over time, and generally what is vs what is theorized, if that makes sense. Abnormal behavior does not always point to mental dysfunction, but this article tends to take on that view, in my observations.Grackee (talk) 02:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Broken reference 15

"How prevalent is mental illness in the USA" links to a 404 page. Don't have the time or know how to fix but I thought I would mention it. 204.209.49.31 (talk) 02:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for pointing that out. Camholl (talk) 19:05, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

The very first source I clicked on, "Classification and Assessment of Abnormal Behavior" did not work and many of the other sources are not recent. Many spots including the section about culture does not include any citations and seem more of an individual fact without any source to back it up. (Bohoshenanigans101 (talk) 13:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC))

Reference 3

I'm concerned about reference 3. There is no information on a source other than what I'm perceiving is the title of the study. I would like to either delete that or to edit and add a different source. Grackee (talk) 17:10, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Adding a "controversy" section

Hey everyone, I am currently working on a controversy section for this article because that is a massive part of abnormality and its research. There are so many differing opinions and changes that take place within the field of abnormality, especially pertaining to behavior, so I would like to include that here. I will probably add it today or tomorrow, and I would LOVE some feedback/edits from people who are well-versed in abnormal behavior! Grackee (talk) 00:23, 25 November 2024 (UTC)