This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Pharmacology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology 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.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Medicine: Psychiatry Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Psychiatry task force.

@ Iztwoz: For reference, can you please quote the specific passage in Anatomy of an Epidemic that alludes to Whitaker's popularization of the term here?― Biochemistry🙴❤ 19:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC) reply

I just provided the ref to the book section; I can see no justification for the use of popularization or indeed for the inclusion of the paragraph as it is; the original investigators of Chouinard and Jones are not mentioned; think a better section could be a History section to mention these and maybe a line added about the suppport given in the book.-- Iztwoz ( talk) 15:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC) reply

That's a good idea; I think we could use a History section for the development of the hypothesis. What do you think about including the Whitaker sentence within a Society and Culture section, as I've just done?― Biochemistry🙴❤ 03:06, 15 July 2020 (UTC) reply

That's a definite improvement.-- Iztwoz ( talk) 07:59, 15 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Yep a history section would probably we useful, as would presenting the originators of the hypothesis. Publishing an award-winning and widely discussed book, and going around the speaking circuit probably counts as popularization, but I agree that this is difficult to quantify. -- Talpedia ( talk) 15:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC) reply

@Biochemistry&Love Whoops, I think we were editting at the same time. I've merged my edits into yours as best I can, but I'll leave you do it for now. It's good that this page is getting filled out. I'm probably going to try to add "iatrogenic" somewhere in the lead or early on, because it gets used in one of my quotes later. Have fun. -- Talpedia ( talk) 19:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Talpedia: No worries! I'm taking a break; let me know if you have any additional suggestions for how to include the page, or if you have any questions regarding my edits. I've tried to write everything for a lay audience, but please let me know if you think anything is written at too high of a level—I'm always trying to improve the clarity of my writing.― Biochemistry🙴❤ 20:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Saying TD is a “rare disorder” needs to be changed, as the statement is incorrect. 20 -30% of people get TD within a few years on neuroleptics/antipsychotics, and it’s thought if taken long enough everyone will develop TD. (See Wikipedia page on TD.) 97.71.193.67 ( talk) 14:38, 23 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Can you get me a source, for that I'm feeling lazy. Assuming this is accurate maybe something like

rare condition which is a frequent side effect of chronic AP use

. I need get me a list of what "rare", "common", "frequent", "occassional" etc mean as rates. Talpedia ( talk) 18:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC) reply