Talk:Electroconvulsive therapy

Seemingly Pro-ECT Bias, Confusing structure, unclear wording, and a few grammatical errors.

Hello, If no one will pick this up giving a valid comment disproving my points or someone will work on it, well, the title is quite self-explanatory. I'm too lazy to right now but I can provide from which parts of the article it seems like that.

However, I am simply repeating this for clarity. The way this article is worded is first of all quite confusing, having a weird structure that makes it difficult to understand (kinda), having unclear wording, grammatical errors in a few places, not to mention the biggest issue is it's consistent Pro-ECT bias. While the "benefits" of this treatment are plastered everywhere it's negatives are only given a few times.

While I do have to admit that I am against ECT being in use in most cases, Wikipedia should still be unbiased and helpful, which this article is not.

Again I hope someone more qualified than me will pick this up or give a valid argument against my points, but if not I will probably work on this myself. Thanks.

Hamb1y (talk) 10:50, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I will be working on it myself now. Hamb1y (talk) 12:25, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Even if one accepts your points as correct that the article has a "seemingly pro-ect bias," you don't have the right to make changes without seeking consensus first that evokes a seemingly anti-ect bias, which you admit to having yourself in your comment. ~2026-42666-48 (talk) 07:40, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

You say that wikipedia should be "unbiased and helpful," and it appears that your contributions are neither unbiased nor helpful. I agree that the criticisms and potential side effects of the treatment should be highlighted as equally as the benefits, but your contributions do not seem to do that. Calling it a "controversial psychiatric treatment," in the lead is biased; it should be written as descriptive: a "psychiatric medical treatment" and it should be clarified later in the article of its controversy in the field.

The sentence, "A claimed 'positive' side effect" does not state who made the claim.

The article will unfortunately require significant changes in order to qualify for the neutrality and utility that you are trying to achieve. ~2026-42666-48 (talk) 07:53, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of a cited source

Borgers T, Enneking V, Klug M, Garbe J, Meinert H, Wulle M, et al. have their paper deliberately misinterpreted in the adverse effects section, with the false claim backed up by an unrelated reference:

"Two years after ECT, the structures which were "enlarged" immediately after ECT are significantly reduced in size below what they were before ECT, indicating a significant decrease in gray matter volume. A significant decrease in gray matter volume is a primary indicator of brain atrophy."

This is completely contrary to the paper's actual findings, which state that the gray matter volume significantly reduces back to baseline after a transient increase post-ECT. Furthermore, the authors conclude that the increase in gray matter volume is largely due to the seizures rather than any kind of helpful neural growth--so I'm not sure why the obviously biased claim was needed in the first place. ~2026-43540-62 (talk) 04:06, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

New reference needed

A Critical A-z of Electroshock is published by Real Press ~2026-43981-61 (talk) 21:45, 9 August 2026 (UTC)