Talk:Mental disorder/Archive 2

message: ===Picture?===
Does anyone understand why that Berlin Wall mural is captioned "Mental illness"? Perhaps the photographer interprets the mural as such, it could even be the name of the original artwork for all I know, but does it really belong on this article? Mrmctorso 16:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just moved the above three comments about the picture into one place at the end of the discussion page, as per guidelines - hope no one minds. Personally I like the picture in itself but do agree it probably isn't suitable given that it's not described as being about mental illness. EverSince 10:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Berlin Wall Mural Image

message: Does anyone understand why that Berlin Wall mural is captioned "Mental illness"? Perhaps the photographer interprets the mural as such, it could even be the name of the original artwork for all I know, but does it really belong on this article? Mrmctorso 16:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture?

message: Can I ask why this image is appropriate for this subject?  It is very compelling, but it has no relationship to mental illness, it is a detail shot taken of a political mural showing a mass exodus streaming through a gap in the Berlin Wall.  Maybe its imagery lends a poignant tone to the article's subject, but that is editorializing, subjective, and potentionally I think it can be very deceptive for an encylopedia.  This mural is not named mental illness. I don't know if it has a name.Professor marginalia 18:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image used

message: What image, drawing or photograph could go with an article about mental health? Would real faces of actual patients better reflect the nature of mental illness?
While this original photograph of a Berlin Wall mural may not explain or describe mental illness itself, I felt the sea of faces somehow captured the complex nature of this sensitive subject material. 
Instead of starting a battle over such a minor issue, I had no problem removing it from the article. Thank you for seeking opinions instead of just removing it from the page.  
Take care and have a great Wikipedia day! 
v/r
Peter Rimar
March 10, 2007
:I've just moved the above three comments about the picture into one place at the end of the discussion page, as per guidelines - hope no one minds. Personally I like the picture in itself but do agree it probably isn't suitable given that it's not described as being about mental illness. EverSince 10:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Berlin Wall Mural Image

message: Here  is the diff that shows the paragraphs I am talking about. Obviously they were added in good faith but I think these paragraphs are inappropriate because they are way to specific and I have a hard time understanding what that are saying.  I am sure we could mention hundreds of drugs and their relations to diagnoses of mental illness.  I will remove them in a week or two unless I see consensus that they should be included. -- Diletante 17:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Perhaps a valid point about misdiagnosis in there somewhere but obviously would need generalizing EverSince 14:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent addition of two paragraphs about PPA 

message: Why is there a seperate article for Causes of psychiatric disorder? It should be one of the major subtopics of this article. --scuro 11:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree, but lets hold off on a merge and try to import all that info into here and see how big the section gets, then if it is to big we can move it back to its own article and just summarize here. -- Diletante 23:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Considering the length of this article (currently 80kb) and Wikipedia's policy on this matter (Wikipedia:Article size) I would say we should keep that article, Causes of psychiatric disorder, and move the bulk of the information from that section here to that article and keep a summary here.  I've already went ahead and moved that page from Causes of psychiatric disorder to Causes of mental illness.  Anyone else feel, based upon this article size that keeping that section split would be a good idea? Chupper 23:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Causes of psychiatric disorder article should be merged into this article

message: I've reshuffled the sections around and moved paragraphs into appropriate sections.  This should make it easier to remove redundant material and notice what areas need to be expanded or pruned. I also exported the long art and lit section to its own article mental illness in art and literature I didn't delete anything but the PPA paragraph I mentioned earlier. I merged the causes article into this one. -- Diletante 00:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep its ugly all right, the point was to move all the ugliness to the proper section so it can't hide, please help cut out the fat and polish the good parts. I've renamed/moved sections to meet the above MOS recommendations.  -- Diletante 03:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The link above (I've just fixed it so it shows) is to the proposed style guidelines for editing medical articles. Can I just point out that this article is part of wikiproject psychology, as well as medicine. EverSince 11:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: As you can see I've done some major reshuffling and chopping, trying to reword or lose all the personally-argued essay-like unsourced stuff (but keep the issues covered) and get sections and subsections in place to develop along more encyclopedic lines. Please feel free of course to reinstate anything. Going to pretty much pause for a while, I didn't quite mean to do all that at once but really wanted to get it managemeable and organized to build up properly..... EverSince 00:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved Scuro's template of sections into the article, with a couple of minor changes.  I agree with Eversince, since this is a psychology and medicine article we should keep that in mind.  I think the Psych wikiproject wouldn't mind using terms such as prognosis, diagnosis, etc, however.  I do feel the article could use some more psychological input, but beyond that we should be ok. Chupper 15:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: reshuffle

message: This article has a long way to go to be considered good. --scuro 13:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: better layout, lack of good content and lack of citations still a major weakness of article

message: Sorry I haven't had a chance to look at this.  For those "worried" about editing due to the "Please read the discussion on the talk page before making substantial changes" - if you've read or stayed current on the discussion here nothing should stop you from making bold edits.
I kind of like the new edits, a little bit, but I propose renaming and reordering the sections based off of current ideas in the field.  Let me know your thoughts:
Causes [sections]:
* Neurological [Used to be "Neural functioning"]
** Brain anatomy
** Genetics
** Bodily or infectious causes
*Psychological
** Early development
** Personality
* Anthropological [Used to be "Society and culture"
Sorry I haven't been editing this like I've wanted to.  I've just been slammed with midterms.  I'll see if I can't add in references and more content into this section. Chupper 13:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: hehe I have a feeling that most wikipedia editing happens when editors should be doing something else, especially exams.  I think Neurological should be Physical, because those subsections aren't exclusively about neurology. I think that maybe Anthropological should be Societal just because its simpler and more clear, we can use the word anthropological within the section. -- Diletante 15:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My concern would be to try to avoid building assumptions into the structure of the headings. For that reason I wouldn't try to force the subsections into hierarchical groupings (which are dualistic and most fall into more than one). I think each topic of study, or method of study, should just have its own subsection - evolving naturally as coverage and sources are developed. EverSince 18:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eversince, I agree. I like it better with them all in their own subsection, rather than subsections in subsections for the reasons you stated. Chupper 23:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New organization of causes section 

message: I think if a section like this is going to be used (and I wouldn't personally) it needs to actually stick to standard usage of the terms "sign" and "symptom", and clarify/source how what is included is covered by this terminology. For this reason I don't think the stuff on "violence" should be put into this section. It isn't even particularly or directly linked to mental illness, as the paragraph and sources themselves make clear. EverSince 14:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Signs and symptoms 

message: Perhaps categories of mental illness should be summarized within a paragraph, saying which categories are used by who, rather than listing only DSM ones in a big unsourced box (which incidentally is introduced by reference to "13 groupings" but then lists 17). I think this would improve flow and NPOV and allow other non-DSM categories and disorders to be given space. Incidentally I disagree with the globalize tag being removed - although I've added some non-US sources and issues, some important sections are still entirely US-specific (e.g. epidemiology) and there is only one sentence on any "culture-bound syndrome" (as the DSM somewhat un-self-reflectively calls them), let alone anything on non-Western conceptutalizations of this topic. EverSince 15:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As you can see I've moved the DSM infobox to a new Classification of mental disorder page. Hope this is OK. In its place I've made an NPOV section for describing the different types of disorder that are widely recognised/accepted (makes the table of contents even longer..perhaps does need to be tabulated in some way?) I don't think it should necessarily assume DSM organizatoin and terms, or ICD terms, or assume categories rather than dimensions, or whatever. Perhaps needs some objective criterion for inclusion or order of listing, like prevalence rates or research/media coverage etc (although will vary internationally). My hope is this will help to develop more coverage in this article of the actual nature of mental disorder itself, without adopting any one point of view on that - though obviously there has to be some rational/scientific organization. Any objections or alt suggestions welcome. EverSince 20:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I've hopefully done enough to show the direction this is going in now, so I'm going to pause for a bit to see if anyone thinks it seems like the wrong direction, or has any ideas on how to improve or rationalise it. EverSince 23:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like, I like, I like :).  I hope you don't mind that I moved Classification of mental disorder to Classification of mental illness.  I like the box there much better.  I feel like this article would be best just with prose and not huge long boxes.  If someone wants specifics on classifications, now they can head over to that article and use that handy dandy little box. Chupper 23:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DSM infobox 

message: I've rewritten the intro section per WP:LS.  I've included 24 references.  Important things I kept in mind during the rewrite:
*Per WP:LS, the lead section should essentially be an intro to the article.  There are elements of the article that still need work, but hopefully the intro is representative enough of what is already here or what should be here.  All the major parts of the article should be mentioned in this section.
*To make sure we are reference I added 24 references, including 9 references backing up the validity and existence of mental illness as a term in today's society.  This may seem like overkill, but with the insane amount (no pun intended) of opposition I've been getting over at psychiatry just for that article's existence, I thought it would be wise to include it.
*I did leave in a mention of anti-psychiatry.  Now most of you guys probably know that I'm not a big fan of anti-psychiatry, but it still, in my opinion, should be mentioned.  Most psychology/psychiatry classes I've attended in an academic setting don't support, but usually mention the existence of anti-psychiatry or mention that there are some who challenge the existence of mental illnesses.  I hope I wrote it in a way that will make all parties happy.
Because the section has been rewritten, I took off the NPOV tag.  I know the remainder of the article still needs a lot of work, but I hope the big concerns are taken care of...
Feel free to proofread/change.  I don't use spell check and I'm sure I made some grammar and/or spelling errors.  Also, feel free to leave comments here. Chupper 23:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's getting more towards being a proper overview of the topic and article now. Good to have an image (isn't there anyone more miserable looking?;) ) I think some of the points and sources  could be well raised and addressed more within the relevant sections of the main text first, to still be summarized in the lead. The points on diagnostic methodologies - the reference doesn't seem to source or address that issue, unless I've missed something? A section on Definition and Terminology is still needed (incl. the accepted and questioned nature thereof) as previously mentioned, and the section on Classification needs to describe each broad kind of mental disorder rather than just list links in the infobox as previously mentioned. Also we need a section on the mental health professions as well as movements (with the lead now covering the former but potentially giving antipsychiatry too much prominence as the only movement/alternative mentioned). I'll try to go down that road unless any other suggestions, and also continue through the causes section as genetic/brain/bodily aspects now fairly broadly covered & sourced but not the rest. EverSince 09:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points Eversince.  I did look back at that reference and if you scroll down it talks about methods to diagnose depression, but not mental illness in general.  I found a couple books which briefly talk about diagnostics and detection of mental illness.  I've added those references.  Also, feel free to add to the lead section - as you mentioned more is needed on movements, classifications, etc. Chupper 14:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your recent edits, Chupper, are positive.  ThanksDPetersontalk 22:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite of lead section 

message: I. MODELS OF PSYCHOPATHOLOGICAL DYSFUNCTION
•	Biomedical model- treat physio/neural disorder
•	Psychodynamic model- bring unconscious conflict to awareness = emotional insight
•	Behavioral model- change maladaptive behavior through the principles of learning
•	Cognitive model- change thoughts and feelings which cause maladaptive behavior and mood
II. SOMATIC THERAPY 
•	 Electroconvulsive therapy- memory loss, brain damage depression
•	 Psychosurgery e.g., prefrontal lobotomy
•	Chemotherapy
III. PSYCHOTHERAPY
•	Insight-Oriented Psychotherapy 
•	Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy
:I'm moving this here as it doesn't really fit into the lead section. I also don't understand why "psychiatric medication" isn't in "section II".  It would be much better to add such content into the existing prose, and not develop a new list. Chupper 12:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added content. 

message: I deleted the lines: There have been fewer studies of prevalence in young children, partly because of greater assessment complexity and partly because diagnosis in such cases has been controversial and not widely accepted. because this is an opinion.  It should have a citation if it is to be reinserted.  "Fewer?"  "Greater assessment complexity?"  What controversay? etc. DPetersontalk 22:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you say it is unsourced? Have you read the source? EverSince 07:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: e.g. "there is still considerable resistance to the notion that infants and toddlers can exhibit serious and persistent psychopathology that disrupts developmental adaptation". "parents, day care providers, teachers, pediatricians, and mental health care providers often avoid discussion of children’s mental health needs.". "Defining and assessing social-emotional problems and psychopathology that emerge in infancy, toddlerhood, and preschool is a challenging process...Four factors that complicate the task of developing age-appropriate assessment strategies are:..." EverSince 07:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is unsourced because there is no citation to support the statement.  What is the source for your "quotes?"  Furthermore, I take exception to the statement as just not true.  For example, see the book, Infant Mental Health edited by C. Zeanah, Guilford Press. DPetersontalk 11:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I should have clarified - the source is there in the text, at the end of the paragraph that you deleted the start of (it's not always possible to write everything in one long sentence, and doesn't usually read well, so sources may cover a paragraph). Please feel free, of course, to reword my summary of the source, and to add additional sources and points of view of course. EverSince 12:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted unsourced content

message: I think the 'Mental hygiene' article (it's talk page redirects here) should be merged with the mental illness article...
Fizz69 2:39, 17 May 2007 (IST)
:I've turned the Mental hygiene article back into a redirect pointing to mental health.  Johns Hopkins as well as other institutions and sources see it more as a historical term which today is similar to "mental health".   If the mental hygiene article would be developed into its own article, it could probably deal with mental hygiene as a historical idea, rather than its own "new revolutionary" idea. 
:I have not merged the information there into this article because it was biased, borderline spam, and/or incorrect.  Mental hygiene is not a concept created by Mr. Peter Holmgren in 2003. The phrase has existed for a long time,  perhaps even prior to the 1800s. 
:Thanks for pointing this out though Fizz.  Hopefully these moves and redirects make better sense now. Chupper 17:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mental hygiene merge 

message: I've combined these tiny sections into one section.  I feel like good old prose can tackle information on this topic just fine, without the need for tons of sub sections.
Now, this section does need significant work.  We should probably try to combine things into normal, understandable paragraphs.  They don't have to be specific to a certain type of dimension, but the topics in each paragraph should probably be somewhat related. Chupper
:I think it is better like that now, and we can see how it develops. Does need a lot of work. EverSince 18:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories/dimensions of disorder 

message: I've organized and made the following article names, if they weren't already, consistent with this article.  All "sub" articles for this article are:
* Causes of mental illness
* Treatment of mental illness
* Classification of mental illness
* History of mental illness
With sections that have the above "sub articles" we should move the bulk of the content to the appropriate "sub article" and summarize the information in the sections here at "Mental illness" per Wikipedia:Article size.  In addition those "sub articles" will probably need a lot of work, especially "treament of".  I'll get to work as soon as I can, but any other help would be appreciated.  Thanks, Chupper 23:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very nice work.  I'll chip in when I can.  Thanks.  The article is much improved. DPetersontalk 00:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to wait for a bit more development of this article if possible, to be able to judge better how much needs to be moved away, and perhaps have a little debate about what needs to move. Incidentally I have to say I wouldn't have agreed with changing the name of the classification article if you'd proposed it, since according to the World Health Organization (see source used within this article) the term "disorder" is used in preference to the "illness" term by most schemes and international documents, including the ICD and DSM. EverSince 18:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about changing the name of the sub article there, EverSince.  I actually don't mind whether we use "disorder" or "illness", my main concern is just keeping it consistent.  If the main article uses disorder, we should use disorder - if the main article uses illness, we should use illness.  However, if you feel like the subarticle should just be disorder, feel free to change it back, it is your article after all!  Thanks for your hard work, Chupper 00:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I could appreciate your rationale for retitling Chupper - just wanted to raise (as above on this talk page) the view that the 'disorder' term is possibly more appropriate. It's not my page of course and Wikipedia is only what it is through joint efforts, and I appreciate yours. EverSince 18:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Unless I misread Wikipedia:Article size#Splitting an article states "When you split a section from a long article into an independent article, you should leave a short summary of the material that is removed along with a pointer to the independent article." Chupper 16:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sub articles"