Talk:Abnormality (behavior): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:27, 3 March 2017

Psychology Start‑class High‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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 (article contribs). 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 Thank you! [[User:DG162704|DG162704]] ([[User talk:DG162704|talk]]) 17:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
- [[User:DG162704|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" what each person to themselves could be "normal". [[User:Dusavage2012|Dusavage2012]] ([[User talk:Dusavage2012|talk]]) 17:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
+ [[User:DG162704|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". [[User:Dusavage2012|Dusavage2012]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Abby rucks|Abby rucks]] ([[User talk:Abby rucks|talk]]) 04:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)