Talk:Bipolar disorder/Archive 3

message: I've moved this from the article. Does anybody think it belongs there? It was moved from Bipolar disorder support groups. --  Barrylb 01:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of support groups 

message: The additions I (User:70.95.218.47 and User:Rob.towers are the same individual) made are for this article are intended to increase the pages timeliness, readability, usefulness and higher ranking in search engines such as Google.
Additions from others are both welcome and helpful.
Rob
: Is there a major focus of how a page ranks in search engines? I have never seen that as a justification before. Sparkleyone 06:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  re changes 

message: I have a concern about this article. First, this subject is continually evolving because it is a very hot topic in the psychiatric literature right now. So there's really a lot of information. In particular, this page seems to be very broad. I've looked at the "Diabetes" page and it is organized quite clearly and cogently. I have decided to stop making adjustments to the page because I need more input from others.
Contents [hide]
1 Etiology or causes 
2 Two personal descriptions of the bipolar experience 
3 History of the bipolar disorders 
4 A new epidemiology: bipolar spectrum disorder 
5 Domains of the bipolar spectrum 
5.1 Bipolar depression 
5.2 Hypomania 
5.3 Mixed state 
5.4 Mania 
5.5 Rapid and ultradian cycling 
5.6 Cognition 
6 Misdiagnosis and the treatment lag 
7 Avoiding misdiagnosis and the current diagnostic criteria 
8 Current diagnostic criteria for bipolar disorder 
9 Suicide risk 
10 Treatment of bipolar disorder  *****[should be removed]
11 Comorbid or co-existing conditions 
12 Treatment of bipolar disorder   *****[placement here makes sense]
13 Prognosis and the goals of long-term treatment 
14 Avoiding relapse 
15 Research findings               *****[candidate for a related article ? ]              
15.1 Heritability or inheritance of the illness 
15.2 Recent genetic research 
16 Current and ongoing research 
16.1 Medical imaging 
16.2 Personality types or traits 
17 Research into new treatments 
18 Bipolar disorder and creativity ***** [important but candidate for a related article ? ]
19 Sources 
20 References 
21 Further reading 
22 See also 
23 External links 
For people who would like to edit this further I'd be interested as well. I'm a first-timer at wikipedia. So any help would be appreciated.
Thanks.
rob
: Surely you need to have a description of the disorder before you launch into personal accounts, etiology and history? I would propose that you have 
- Brief history
- Domains of bipolar spectrum
- DSM-IV diagnostics (with sub-section 'Reasons for possible misdiagnosis' with a more NPOV take)
- Etiology
- Treatment (with sub-sections 'prognosis', 'avoiding relapse', 'suicide risk' - Wiki is not a self help book, there doesn't need to be half a page of "what to do if you're feeling suicidal")
 
:The research stuff should be in it's appropriate sections - e.g. do we need a whole section on research in heritability when these findings could be discussed in the etiology section?
:Oh, and surely we don't need all of 'sources', 'further reading', 'references', 'see also' and 'external links'? Can't we have some nice shiny footnotes like other articles use?
:This page is a shambles, and thank god the millions of edits have ceased. I'm all for reverting back to the article the way it was a few weeks ago, there was a great order and flow then. Okay, rant over. Sparkleyone 05:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes to unify article

message: i have removed the following section from the article, as the reference does not have any of the stated findings. can anyone provide the correct cite? I have done a fair search for this guy, but none of the research from his team seems to have these conclusions that I could see. Sparkleyone 03:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is also a well-supported clinical view that clinical depression become bipolar disorder over time. In a 2005 study, Jules Angst and his colleagues at Zurich University tracked 406 patients with major mood disorders over a 20-year period. Of 309 patients presenting with depression, 121 (39.2 percent) eventually manifested as bipolar (24.3 percent to bipolar I, 14.9 percent to bipolar II). In all, more than 50 percent of the study population turned out to have bipolar disorder. This supports the view that most cases of bipolar disorder are initially misdiagnosed as depression.
This section contradicts itself.  "...clinical depression become[s] bipolar disorder...."  vs "...most cases of bipolar disorder are initially misdiagnosed as depression." [emphasis mine] Ted 13:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The apparent contradiction may stem from the fact that clinicians tend to believe that their initial diagnoses are correct and bipolarism happens later, whereas patients tend to believe that they were always bipolar and they were initially misdiagnosed. Anarchist42 17:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Angst study 

message: The following sentence seems to be oddly worded, and I have changed it:
:The prognosis for bipolar disorder is, in general, better than that for schizophrenia, but some individuals with schizophrenia respond remarkably well to the atypical antipsychotics which are also used in bipolar disorder.
"Bipolar disorder" at the end of this sentence should be changed to "bipolar mania," as there is no evidence that it helps treat bipolar depression. This sentence also might lead some to believe that atypical antipsychotics were first developed for bipolar disorder. This is patently untrue, at least in the United States, where the indication for bipolar mania of the atypicals came fairly recently. Frankieist 08:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article change re bipolar disorder and atypical antipsychotics 

message: Im removing this section for a couple of reasons. 1) obviously original research. 2) what isn't is redundant. 3) has not been thoughtfully added - it's a direct copy and paste from an online message board in a poor choice of section, and most of it is unreferenced and often irrelevant. If anyone wishes to revert me please do so, but please please please clean it up a lot before you leave it.Sparkleyone 09:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you include the "stuff your doctor probably hasnt seen" in the article itself and provide these links as references. -- 14:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WHOLE PERSON HEALING: LETTING GO FOR LIFE 

message: I've just made a minor change to the page. There were three main headings near the bottom of the page that concerned diagnosis (two of them were just 1 paragraph long!). I've created a new section, "Diagnosis" before etiology and incorporate all three as sub-sections. Apart from a duplicate sentence, the content remains identical. I think the same should be done for research, but I can't be bothered :) Matt Peacock 23:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: My changes to Diagnosis

message: The following paragraph (fourth up from the bottom in the 'Etiology or causes' section) has an odd unrelated sentence at the end; (questionable text in italics)
"Seasonality or exposure to daylight also affects mood in bipolar disorder. In untreated individuals, the bipolar cycle tends towards mania in the mid-to-late-summer, followed by depression in autumn and winter (due to decreasing natural light). There once was a man who liked to suck on straws because he was fixated at what Freud would call the "oral" stage."
Anyone else think it sounds a little strange and should be removed from article?   --Smitten 11:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Found unrelated off topic sentence. Should it be removed? 

message: An evolving literature exists concerning the nature of personality and temperament in bipolar disorder patients, compared to major depressive disorder (unipolar) patients and non-sufferers. Such differences may be diagnostically relevant. Using MBTI continuum scores, bipolar patients were significantly more extroverted, intuitive and perceiving, and less introverted, sensing, and judging than were unipolar patients[citation needed]. This suggests that there might be a correlation between the Jungian extraverted intuiting process and bipolar disorder.
I thought bipolars were more introverted than most. Isn't this the case?
--A Sunshade Lust 23:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extro/Introverted 

message: I'm reverting all of these massive section deletions until justifcation is provided on the talk page - yes, the article is too long but taking out all that work without discussing it doesn't sit well with me.Sparkleyone 02:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  large-scale deletions 25/7 

message: Hey, this is my first post or anything on here so I don't really know what your mean't to do. But I wanted to suggest adding a link to this site:
http://moodgym.anu.edu.au/
Its a bit like an online councilor and I've found it very useful, I'm not sure if everyone would but maybe its worth putting the link on for people to have a look at.
I suppose I could just put it on myself but I wasn't sure if thats what your mean't to do.
Any thoughts would be cool!
--Rasclart1 20:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Website Called Moodgym... 

message: This article is in much better shape than when I first started working on it in 2000. I think we should model it after the schizophrenia article that is a feature article. What do you think?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob.towers (talk • contribs) 09:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. my idea precisely, and I did rearrange it a while ago. Just need the time and inclination to really gt stuck into it...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: article model

message: There is a sentence in the "Diagnosis" section that begins, " “…[M]utations in...." The ellipsis at the beginning is improper (I put the one at the end). Ellipsis is not used at the beginning of a quote, even where the quote is only part of a sentence. Readers know you're not quoting everything the source said. I would make the correction myself but the article is locked.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.60.120 (talk) 04:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ellipsis

message: Since my entry thus designated was speedily deleted because it "provides no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent", a friend who had happened upon it before it got gonged and found it useful asked me to re-instate it, so I append my point in this article. However, many of us m.d.s prefer "manic depressive" as being more accurately descriptive of the condition.
"What's the 'F.N.' stand for?" I'm frequently asked. 
"Frequently Normal," I tell 'em.
--F.N. Wombat 15:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: bi-polar illness

message: I have some concerns about this statement: "People suffering from the disorder may be periodically disabled, but many live full and productive lives whether or not they receive adequate treatment." This statement has been chopped around recently till it has reached this state. I'm not so sure that people can live full and productive lives whether or not they receive adequate treatment. It just doesn't make sense to me. --WikiCats 22:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I read this article out of curiousity because I have BPII and this statement struck me as contradicting most of the rest of the article.  Besides, how can you say that untreated bipolar sufferers may lead full productive lives (whatever you define that as) when someone who has been diagnosed will, in all likelihood, receive some kind of treatment?  If someone has a reference for this, fine, but this contradicts both my personal experience as someone suffering since childhood but not diagnosed until my mid-30's, and everything else I've read about bipolar disorder.Grrrlgeek 21:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that the "whether or not they receive adequate treatment" is meant to suggest that bipolars can "live full and productive lives" without resorting to psychiatric treatment (ie.      lusion to the belief that psychiatric treatment fails to satisfy many bipolars). Anarchist42 22:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But does    "  lusion to a belief" belong here?  And when I read "treatment" I didn't necessarily think psychiatric; even self-treatment is treatment.Grrrlgeek 03:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. I believe that, in general, psychiatrists do not regard self-treatment as appropriate and claim that they are very successfull in treating bipolar disorder using pharmaceuticals (a claim that is disputed by many patients). The statement in question evolved as the two sides tried to emphasize their opposing beliefs, until a balance was achieved. Anarchist42 19:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: If it refers only to psychiatric treatment it should say so.  What I really think is that the sentence is opinion only and has no place in an encyclopedia article, but that is opinion only as well ;}.  The article is marked for cleanup anyway so hopefully someone with more experience in these apparently delicate matters will have a chance to work on it.--Grrrlgeek 19:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ...whether or not they receive adequate treatment? 

message: "Leading bipolar specialist, Gillian Townley, has researched the effect of the Ferret Rabbit process."
I can't find anything on the web about that, and "ferret rabbit" sounds suspiciously like something someone would consider a joke in an article about bipolar. Anyone got a cite or just confirmation that it's not a lie?--Nyxxxx 03:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am 99% sure it is not true. There is no web reference for "Gillian Townley" apart from the other pages which have copied wikipedia. Cas Liber 20:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like someone removed it. I didn't want to unless I could be sure it wasn't true. --Nyxxxx 23:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this a joke? 

message: Bipolar is considered to be pretty rare before late teens. As the article is very long it may be better to move this section. As well there is some pretty controversial (well, more controversial) material in this section. cheers Cas Liber 20:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. More of a summary of the key issues/controversy would seem to suffice in this article EverSince 21:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length of article -removing bipolar in children bit 

message: Does this article seem to change around quite a lot and be relatively disorganized? Currently a lot of points are duplicated in different personal-seeming wording, and the various headings seem quite disparate with an unclear flow. Would it help to establish some kind of agreed basic organization on this talk page? I'm wary of spending time trying to organize the article otherwise, in case it's wasted. The structure of other psych pages would seem to suggest something like:
* simple intro/overview 
* diagnosis (incl. subtypes and comorbidity)
* symptoms/features 
* history 
* epidemiology (e.g. prevalence)
* etiology (causes/influences/models)
* treatments and services
* self-management/society/recovery
* controversies? 
Any other suggestions? Just noticed there's been a similar discussion to this already, middle of last year, but seems that it would still be useful to get a basic heading structure clearly listed EverSince 04:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent idea and I'd like to help if I can. Thanks, EverSince.  24.68.236.106 00:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to archive some of this talk page, as quite dense and takes a while to load on a slower connection. Not sure where up to exactly (or perhaps whether to extract just the oldest/least relevant conversations) but I'll have a go soon unless any other suggestions EverSince 11:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organization 

message: "Some do not experience full-blown mania, and will display milder symptoms, known as hypomania." Seeing as hypomania has alreaddy been mentioned twice in the first section, isn't this a bit redundant? --Scorpios 13:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hypomania

message: ***Please don't delete again without discussing here first***
Added paragraph:
It's important to note, however, that currently bipolar diagnosis is made solely on the basis of a psychiatrist's judgement.  No medical imaging or any other modern technology is able to objectively diagnose any mental illness.
:I suggest changing this to the following: The diagnosis of Bipolar Disorder is made based on the assessment and evaluation of a mental health professional.  The assessment may include clinical judgement, various psychological tests, a review of history, and a comparison of presenting symptoms with the DSM criteria.  There are no biological tests for this disorder  The words "solely" and "modern" present a slant that isn't particularily neutral.  Furthermore, a variety of mental health professionals can diagnosis and the basis for a diagnosis is ususally multi-modal.  DPetersontalk 13:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the suggested rewording. A minor point, we recently seemed to come to a consensus on the schizophrenia talk page that the term "laboratory test" might be best, or personally I think "medical test" is more clear/standard than "biological test." EverSince 18:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Either word is fine with me.  I used the word "biological" and not "medical" since a psychiatrist is a medical professional and a psychiatrist might (I'm guessing here since I am not a psychiatrist) say that the procedures used are "medical."  DPetersontalk 22:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  added under "medical imaging"  

message: Iatrogenic (illness caused by medical treatment) bipolar disorder is a relatively common response to standard treatment (SSRI antidepressants and/or electroshock treatment) for unipolar depression.  Some feel this danger warrants the addition of mood stabilizers into the drug regime. 24.68.236.106 00:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You will need to have a verifiable citation to support this statement. DPetersontalk 13:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  added under "aspects of bipolar disorder" 

message: Added paragraph:  Currently, there is no evidence of any kind of pathology (e.g. chemical brain imbalance or structural dysfunction in the brain) underlying this (or indeed, any) psychiatric diagnosis.  24.68.236.106 00:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see the sorts of points you're trying to include but these come across to me as POV and unsourced, rather than something balanced and sourced on the the findings re neurotransmitters/neurocognitive funcioning etc, and diagnostic practices.... EverSince 10:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Re the utter lack of verifiable chemical imbalance or other physical characteristic for bipolar disorder or any other psychiatric condition, you don't have to take my word for it.  The American Psychiatric Association is very honest on this point.  There is NO objective test for any mental illness. 70.66.128.222 19:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  added under "heritability" 

message: I have deleted several lines and sections that have had a  or  tag for quite some time.  Unless someone can provide a reliable citation to support the statements, please leave them deleted as they are just opinions without appropriate references to support those statements.  There are other lines that should also be deleted unless references can be provided to support the contentions.  I will remove those at a later date.  MarkWood 23:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sections marked citation needed should be deleted after awhile if no one can find appropriate sources. DPetersontalk 17:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted sections

message: "A number of recent studies have observed a correlation between creativity and bipolar disorder,[2][3][4] although it is unclear in which direction the cause lies, or whether both conditions are caused by some third, unknown, factor." Very funny indeed as it to me (a certified bipolar AND artist) seems to label creativity as an illness. I know that my bipolarity and my creative urge go hand in hand to a certain degree. Many bipolar people are completely uncreative, but a vast majority of the creative people that I know are bipolar, ranging from lightly manic (productive) to full blown manic depressives (unproductive). I´m not keen on people labeling bipolarity an illness either. Its an exaggerated state of mind for sure, and can lead to disabling psychosis if spun out of control, but please note that many bipolar people would not give it up for anything.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wondering Spirit (talk • contribs) 13:10, August 30, 2007 (UTC) 
Contrary to popular belief, disabilities -- of any kind -- do not make people more "creative."  Stevie Wonder is not more "sensitive" to sound because he's blind -- he just has on of the finest ears for rhythm and melody in recorded history.  Likewise with bi-polar disorder -- even though we have these myths about the "sensitive," "melancholy" artist, bi-polar disorder does NOT make one "more creativity."  It is a crippling illness which leads to feelings of worthlessness, apathy, and eventually suicide.  bi-polar disorder is not just a few "sad feelings" in someone's "head" -- it is an illness as real and verifiable as cancer -- therefore to attach some kind of 'mystique' to it is completely inexcusable.  So, for the self-appointed expert who placed the silly "Depression and creativity" section in the article on bi-polar disorder, I have just this to say: Van Gogh's bi-polar disorder did not cause him to paint the "Starry Night" -- but it did cause him to shoot himself.  Think before you post such ignorant garbage on Wikipedia.
:Surely the correct way to proceed is not to simply nuke the section. It's a fairly common belief that bipolar disorder is somehow connected to creativity. Now it may very well be hogwash but there have been studies on the subject and there's more than enough reason to keep this section and address the issue. Pending discussion here, I will revert your deletion which, incidentally also added a sentence to the effect that bipolar disorder was the explanation for a majority of suicides, divorces, and employment terminations. That last statement is dubious at best. Pascal.Tesson 19:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section has had  for quite sometime and no one has provided any reliable citations that meet the wikipedia standard of being verifiable.  I suggest the section be removed unless citations can be provided to support the statements. DPetersontalk 21:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm all for removing anything that's uncited but removing the section won't solve anything. The article should address the issue: if there's no conclusive evidence then that's what the article will say but there's clearly a wide belief that creativity has some relation to bipolar disorder. This is often said and has been the subject of various studies (random example: ) so it should not be simply zapped. Pascal.Tesson 22:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section does need to be cleaned up, properly cited and tightend but it should not be deleted. This is just a summary of a more detailed main article on the subject: Creativity and bipolar disorder.--Grace E. Dougle 22:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, until someone who is interested adds citations and cleans it up, it should be removed.  I will delete it and put it in the sub-section below so that if there is an editor who is interested that person can make the edits as suggested above. DPetersontalk 23:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not currently interested in cleaning up that section, I don't really have the qualifications to do so and I will certainly not get into an edit war over this. But for the record, I think that deleting the section is a bad, lazy choice. Why not simply write a few lines simply saying that a connection is often claimed and that current studies are inconclusive in that respect? Pascal.Tesson 23:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, if you or someone who has an interest in adding, deleting, or editing the section to fix it does so that would be great.  In the mean time, the section is not encyclopedic in nature as it does not have citations that meet the wikipedia standard of being verifiable. DPetersontalk 00:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue discussed in this section is encyclopedic. We will edit it in the main article text as is usually done on Wikipedia. Also, not all of it is unreferenced. Additional sources have been given in this thread a few posts further up by Pascal.Tesson. We should only remove text when it is likely that there are no references ever to be found. The connection between creativity and mania has been discussed for quite some time.--Grace E. Dougle 09:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I guess the issue with both the BPD and bipolar articles is that both have swollen to huge sizes with numerous sections over the past year or so and rather then bloating again people are trying to be judicious about what goes in. I feel this bit really isn't part of teh core issue about the illness and the bet thing would be a link (plus a very brief summation) to an article on a separate page. cheers Cas Liber 10:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The "reference" "Kay Redfield Jamison. Touched with Fire: Manic-Depressive Illness and the Artistic Temperament. " is of dubious value.  First, it is old, 1970's, second, it is not an empirical study.  Unless some empirical evidence in a professional peer-reviewed publication can be cited, then this section should be removed. DPetersontalk 21:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current content (of the section) is not a summary of what is on the main articel about creativity and bipolar and should be moved there with  a 1-2 sentence intro. Cas Liber 23:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have copied the text from here to the subarticle Creativity and bipolar disorder. The section here should be shortened to about half its length, imho.--Grace E. Dougle 16:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The book is interesting, but it is not an empirical study of the subject.  It is more of a "think-piece."  She presents interesting material, but not empirical evidence. DPetersontalk 00:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: samba6566 - 3 Masters degrees and 2 PhDs (all in the social sciences) puts me a bit ahead of Ms. Jameson.  She is what is referred to as an expert patient...not a crediable source until she's got a genuine study upon which to base her postulates and premises.  Game to DPeterson. Empacher 01:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's Professor Jamison, to you. If you're really that experienced, I'm surprised you haven't heard of her. Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins, MacArthur Fellowship recipient, NIMH Styron Award recipient, co-author of the standard medical text on bipolar, author of over a hundred papers on bipolar. I could go on. --ascorbic 18:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who said I hadn't?  Given your list of contributions, it appears as if you've dropped in here only to snark.  I am more than certain the good Professor/Doctor/Ms. Jameson does not need you to defend her.  And, pedigree or not, she's still an expert patient.  I, personally, have a problem with that.--Empacher 18:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the ignorant section about "Bi-Polar Disorder and Creativity." 

message: To get a sense of what editors think about this section, a poll might be in order.  Please put your vote and reason below regarding deleting the section for now.DPetersontalk 13:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The book is interesting, but it is not an empirical study of the subject.  It is more of a "think-piece."  She presents interesting material, but not empirical evidence. DPetersontalk 00:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: samba6566 - 3 Masters degrees and 2 PhDs (all in the social sciences) puts me a bit ahead of Ms. Jameson.  She is what is referred to as an expert patient...not a crediable source until she's got a genuine study upon which to base her postulates and premises.  Game to DPeterson. Empacher 01:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's Professor Jamison, to you. If you're really that experienced, I'm surprised you haven't heard of her. Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins, MacArthur Fellowship recipient, NIMH Styron Award recipient, co-author of the standard medical text on bipolar, author of over a hundred papers on bipolar. I could go on. --ascorbic 18:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who said I hadn't?  Given your list of contributions, it appears as if you've dropped in here only to snark.  I am more than certain the good Professor/Doctor/Ms. Jameson does not need you to defend her.  And, pedigree or not, she's still an expert patient.  I, personally, have a problem with that.--Empacher 18:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll

message: Sometime between the split of Bipolar disorders research from this article, the link to it was removed. Can anyone look into the article and see if they can link back to it from this article? Squids_and_Chips 00:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. DPetersontalk 13:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bipolar disorders research 

message: The section was a mess, and filled with non-notable link-spam.  Rather than playing favorites, I removed them all, and replaced with the dmoz template.  I am suggesting that the addition of any additional links should be discussed here. Leuko 03:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO, we should not link to this blog since it is not a WP:RS, and per WP:EL links to blogs and personal websites should be avoided. Leuko 03:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links

message: There has been talk of adding this blog of a personal/educational account of bipolar disorder:
http://thesecretlifeofamanicdepressive.wordpress.com
What do you think?  I think under "Further Reading" it's acceptable.  It's written in a literary fashion and is being published as a book.
Razamatazz 03:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO, we should not link to this blog since it is not a WP:RS, and per WP:EL links to blogs and personal websites should be avoided. Leuko 03:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bipolar blog 

message: I would like to add a link to http://psycheducation.org/index.html .  It is a comprehensive, well-referenced site from a psychiatrist and his studies specifically about Bipolar II.  This type of mood disorder is being diagnosed more and more (POV AFAIK).  In my case, they treated me for depression and anxiety for years with no success.  However, ceasing antidepressants and going on Lamictal has helped immensely.
Back on topic, I submitted the link to http://www.dmoz.org and think it would be a valuable link on this site.  Thoughts? DeeKenn 18:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bipolar II, Mood Swings without Mania 

message: Bipolar disorder is a severely disabling medical condition. In fact, it is a leading cause of disability in the world, according to the World Health Organization.[citation needed]
This is not true.  Bipolar disorder is the sixth, not first, leading cause of disability in the Western World.
''
I can't find an exact citation but here is some info:
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/publicat/burden.cfm 
Razamatazz 03:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I removed the stmt since no citation has been provided. DPetersontalk 13:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Leading cause of disability" 

message: I put in a request for semi-page protection, given the frequent vandalism by IP addresses.  See   DPetersontalk 23:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is done now...I hope this helps. DPetersontalk 13:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. EverSince 15:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Semi-Page protection

message: I've perused this page and the talk page archives, and I can't for the life of me find why this page is tagged as biased towards world-northern views.  Does the psychiatric community outside of the Northern Hemisphere subscribe to some different form of science?  This tag should be justified or removed.
Ohm 813 18:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My thoughts for a while...I have removed it now.  DPetersontalk 21:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worldwide view / Northern Hemisphere? 

message: The 'Flux' link under 
 Diagnosis
   Diagnostic criteria
as you can see, points to   Flow_%28psychology%29.
'Flux' implies a cycle of mania/depression, while flow is a state of concentration which might be experienced while manic.
RaLuc 21:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flux link invalid 

message: Letting everyone here know that I have filed,
Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/DPeterson --Mihai cartoaje 00:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment 

message: I'm doing a report on bipolar disorder and just wanted to write a comment.
:Do you need any help? DPetersontalk 22:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Writing a Comment 

message: The section on bipolar disorder and divorce rate is superfluous and should be deleted or added to another section; or perhaps a note can be added to a wikipedia page about divorce.  Here the section is short and insignificant.  The illness causes substantial additional burdens on every aspect of life, not just marriage, so making a special comment about divorce is pointless.
:But the statistic is valid...maybe just moving the material to another section? DPetersontalk 22:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Divorce comment should be reconsidered 

message: I'd like to suggest that in this section it be made clear that often there is no discernible trigger for relapse.  As it reads now, it sounds almost as if there is always or usually an identifiable behavioral or situational trigger.  This is incorrect. 71.234.195.253 08:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What specifically would you suggest? JonesRDtalk 18:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 71.234.195.253, you are correct in your perception.  Bi-polar does not lend itself to relapse, it recurs.  The terminology used here is incorrect, and has been addressed. --DashaKat 19:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relapse 

message: Why is this page in the personality disorders category? I thought that in the DSM-4 at least, it was not a personality disorder. I couldn't find an explanation in the article. 72.83.127.85 22:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well spotted. will fix cheers,  Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 23:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personality disorders 

message: I've something of a problem with this phrase in the first sentence and this disam page.  Particularly since the first sentence in the Clinical Depression article clearly states that the phrase refers to MDD or unipolar depression, but NOT bipolarity.
Would suggest a change to something like "depressive phase".  Am always hesitant to edit articles like this though, where there I haven't stepped in before.--Mrdarcey 14:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clinical Depression? 

message: *Aspects/Signs and Symptoms section needs a cleanup. Most other psych articles have DSM IV TR criteria here. Question is, would it make the article too big?? cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should list DSM criteria, would be better to have it more accurate but longer. --Murmur74 19:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the problem with that.  The APA strictly forbids the reproduction of the DSM criteria by non-sanctioned organizations.  About 2 years ago there was a huge ta-do around Wikipedia's inclusion of DSM criteria on its pages.  The request to cease and desist was appealed by several editors, and all were vociferiously denied.  The reason that this page does not include the DSM criteria is because it is a hold over from the time when all of the criteria were removed from all of the psych pages.  --DashaKat 23:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gawd, there are an awful lot of pages now with them on....we'll have to look up the archives...cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: To-do list

message: I edited the subcategories from Bipolar I, Bipolar II Rapid Cycling and cyclothymnia.  Both Bipolar I and Bipolar II can encompass rapid cycling and rapid cycling is not a subcategory, it is an acceleration.
::good call - sorry I missed it. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rapid Cycling 

message: Lead on original research...
The lack of focus on 'organic causes' ie undetected bacterial infections of the intestinal system, ie giardia, or lymes disease can cause symptoms that may be taken as being some type of labelled mental illness. 
The illness is impacting the mind, it is a mental illness but caused by toxins created by the infection, and/or the infection that corrupts the needed biochemical reactions.
There should be a cross link to the reality that such labels while true, ignore a most likely cause.  half-truths
Hopefully someone can google this lead to find other researchers who can provide the necessary links...
Former Chief of Psychiatric Assocation and views on bacterial infections
--Caesar J. B. Squitti  :  Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 03:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cue to identical confused talk page post on Talk:Schizophrenia. JFW | T@lk 03:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The missing link: 

message: There can be very sever rapid cycling.
P. Thomas, The many forms of bipolar disorder: a modern look at an old illness, Journal of Affective Disorders, Volume 79, Supplement 1, April 2004, Pages 3-8.
doi:10.1016/j.jad.2004.01.001  
Normal rapid cycling definition is four or more cycles in a year.(citation needed). Ultra-rapid and ultra-ultra rapid cycling means shorter cycles. 
There is some scientific references to ultra-rapid cycling.
Mackin P, Young AH. Rapid cycling bipolar disorder: historical overview and focus on emerging treatments, Bipolar Disorders, 2004: 6: 523–529.
doi:10.1111/j.1399-5618.2004.00156.x
Also ultra-ultra rapid cycling has some support.
DF Papolos, S Veit, GL Faedda, T Saito, HM Lachman. Ultra-ultra rapid cycling bipolar disorder is associated with the low activity catecholamine-O-methyltransferase allele, Molecular Psychiatry, (1998) 3, 346–349.
Abstract:
http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v3/n4/abs/4000410a.html
Ultra-ultra rapid cycling means distinct shifts in mood within a 24-48 hour period.
DF Papolos, S Veit, GL Faedda, T Saito, HM Lachman. Ultra-ultra rapid cycling bipolar disorder is associated with the low activity catecholamine-O-methyltransferase allele, Molecular Psychiatry (1998) 3, 346–349.
Abstract:
http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v3/n4/abs/4000410a.html
It is generally quite complicated to find difference between unipolar and bipolar depression or differentiate manic and depressive phases.
Charles L. Bowden. A different depression: clinical distinctions between bipolar and unipolar depression, Journal of Affective Disorders 84 (2005) 117–125.
Therefore diagnosing ultra-rapid or ultra-ultra rapid cycling bipolar patient in practical clinical settings can be problematic.
There is some speculations that different medications, e.g. antidepressants, could induce rapid cycling.
Mackin P, Young AH. Rapid cycling bipolar disorder: historical overview and focus on emerging treatments, Bipolar Disorders 2004: 6: 523–529.
doi: 10.1111/j.1399-5618.2004.00156.x
For some rapid-cycling patients lamotrigine has been helpful and therefore effect of lamotrigine for ultra-rapid and ultra-ultra rapid cycling patients could be studied in a scientific way.
Charles L. Bowden, Joseph R. Calabrese, Susan L. McElroy, Linda J. Rhodes, Paul E. Keck Jr., John Cookson, John Anderson, Carolyn Bolden-Watson, John Ascher, Eileen Monaghan, Jing Zhou. The Efficacy of Lamotrigine in Rapid Cycling and Non–Rapid Cycling Patients With Bipolar Disorder.
Biological Psychiatry, Volume 45, Issue 8, 15 April 1999, Pages 953-958.
doi: 10.1016/S0006-3223(99)00013-X 
Yuccara 17:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ultra-rapid cycling, ultra-ultra rapid cycling, ultradian cycling 

message: Comorbidity of anxiety disorders with bipolar disorder is very common.
Keming Gao, Antipsychotics in the Treatment of Comorbid Anxiety in Bipolar Disorder, Psychiatric Times, 1 August 2007.
http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=201201862&CID=rss
(Somebody fluent in that language can say which is Keming Gaos forename and surname. That information is important when adding a reference. There is no discrimination here since author is fluent with badly broken English.)
According to Keming Gao there is not yet systematic studies study designed or done for a cohort of patients with bipolar disorder and a specific comorbid anxiety disorder. She/He(?) proposes series of studies of atypical antipsychotics when patients have bipolar disorder with specific anxiety disorder.
Yuccara 18:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comorbid Anxiety in Bipolar Disorder 

message: In the absence of any references to peer-reviewed medical literature, I have removed this whole subsection from the article. -- Karada 16:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Bacterial infections" section 

message: First section: Wouldn't it be better if the phrase "Most people" was replaced by a clearer one? -- 213.6.23.64 09:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A minor thing 

message: I am not one to normally edit articles like these, but I'm quite the (OCD) grammar nazi, and I couldn't help but to notice that the title of the page isn't capitalized correctly. The "disorder" in Bipolar Disorder should be capitalized, being the title of the article and all. Is there any way to do this? Also, requesting to archive the talk page again? It's quite... long. Thanks again. Anonymous~Source 16:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few things...

message: This external links were listed at Bipolar, which is supposed to be a disambig page, as far as I can tell. I understand it is best to discuss links before posting them to an article of this nature. Thus, here are the links removed from Bipolar and subsequently proposed for inclusion in [[Bipolar disorder. Please feel free to propose more appropriate locations for them, or chuck them, as I am only "moving" them and have not reviewed any of the links.
ZueJay (talk) 01:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NAMI is an important resource for people with mental health issues and caregivers, this should be on almost any article about a mental disorder, especially the more severe diagnoses, including this one.  Steve CarlsonTalk 17:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links from [[Bipolar]] 

message: The Course section does not read smoothly, to say the least.  I plan to rewrite it so that it makes sense and matches the information the cite's provide.
Also, is it just me or does this encyclopedic article read like it's from a medical journal?  If you were 14 years-old and doing a book report on bipolar disorder, would you really get a good grasp on the disorder by wading through this muck?  There is far too much information here in my opinion.  Most of the information in this article could, and should, be condensed.  As shocking as it may seem to the amateur and professional contributor, it is entirely possible (and desirable) to be both comprehensive and concise. DeeKenn (talk) 15:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with you on the last point. Note that in longer articles (well theoretically all articles anyway), the lead summarises salient points in the whole text. Therefore hopefully a reader can glean all they need to know on a cursory glance from that. Don't be afraid to be bold, but schizophrenia is an example of a Featured Article for comparison. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Many thanks for your response.  DeeKenn (talk) 23:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking from the perspective of a high school student who is doing a report on Bipolar Disorder, I think that the plethora of information found in the article is actually very helpful and that most 14-18 year olds should be able to easily get through this density of information.  A wide variety of statistics to cite in a report is a good thing. Jacobadenbaum (talk) 02:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Course Section and Other Observations 

message: While researching the history of Bipolar Disorder, I noticed some stark similarities between the section on the history of the disorder and the web page http://www.k12academics.com/bipolar_history.htm .  I do not know whether this site plagarized wikipedia, or if some contributor plagarized this site, but this seems like something that should be addressed.  I recognize that I am relatively new to Wikipedia, and am not entirely familiar with all of the regulations, but I am relatively sure that I am on solid ground here.  Can someone plese look into this.  Jacobadenbaum (talk) 01:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect that site came from this one. You'll see alot of wikipedia material floated around on other sites :) cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Plagarism - History Section 

message: Hypomanic episodes do not go to the extremes of mania (i.e. do not cause social or occupational impairment, and without psychotic features), and a history of at least one major depressive episode.  Bipolar II is much more difficult to diagnose, since the hypomanic episodes may simply appear as a period of successful high productivity and is reported less frequently than a distressing depression. 
That is clumsily written and I will reword it. 
The bit about not causing social or occupational impairment is false.  The GAF (Axis V) is on a continuum much like mood disorders.  Individuals with bipolar II may very well be impaired both in the workplace and socially.  If someone wishes to point to some studies, not published opinions, that indicate otherwise please do so.
The entries here at Wikipedia that define and describe mental illnesses must be treated with extreme care.  While Wikipedia entries do not serve as a diagnostic tool, poorly worded articles and statements without proper referencing can do more harm than good. This entry glosses over bipolar II to the point that it could be seen as barely an illness. DeeKenn (talk) 17:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bipolar II Section is Inaccurate