Talk:Mental disorder/Archive 2

Berlin Wall Mural Image

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)

Image used

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.[1] 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)

Berlin Wall Mural Image

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)

Moving to title "mental disorder"

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

There's been a couple of fairly long-standing suggestions to change the title of this page to "Mental disorder" (i.e. move the content to that page, with a redirect left here, rather than vice versa as currently) to reflect the most inclusive and common modern usage (including in the DSM). In the absence of any objections or alternative suggestions, I'm planning to do this soon. EverSince 15:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd reccomend presenting some actual evidence that "mental disorder" is in more common use than "mental illness", because in my experience the very opposite is true. siafu 15:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I think any examination should be of the rationale/evidence for each term, on a level playing field. Otherwise whichever name happened to be chosen first is advantaged. The help page on Naming conflict seems to give the guidelines for this:

1) Common usage. Googling "mental illness" in English-language sites excluding Wikipedia term gave 1,800,000 pages. "mental disorder" in English-language sites excluding Wikipedia term gave 1,150,000 pages. Equivalent terms that currently redirect to this page showed "psychiatric illness" 999,000 versus "psychiatric disorder" 995,000, and "psychological disorder" 338,000 versus "psychological illness" 114,000.

2) Official usage. As already noted, the American Psychiatric Association's DSM uses the mental disorder terminology. The World Health Organization's ICD uses "Mental and behavioural disorder". All the specific problem pages linking to this one are termed something "disorder".

3) Usage by those described by the term. This would take some more time to examine, I think. It is the case that a significant proportion of service users avoid the term "illness" and associated "medical model", while others do commonly use the term.

There may be differences is popular/clinical usage between different countries, of course. EverSince 16:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The DSM uses the term "mental disorder" in the specific case, i.e., this or that disorder, and actually uses the term "psychiatric illness" in the general sense. siafu 17:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how that is the case, without a specific example. The intro, as with the main body of the manual, appears to use the term "mental disorder" throughout, including in general terms in the "Cautionary Statement" and sections on "Distinction Between Mental Disorder and General Medical Condition" and "Definition of Mental Disorder". EverSince 18:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved.--Stemonitis 17:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to note here, I clarified the above decision and it was based primarily on the view of the editor who took up the move request which was that since the "mental illness" term was in significantly more commonly general usage than "mental disorder" (according to those Google stats), there needed to be a compelling case established for the latter to be used, as per WP:NC(CN) (or WP:NCON). This could be addressed again after a reasonable period of time, 6 weeks by standard apparently. EverSince 14:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Recent addition of two paragraphs about PPA

Here [2] 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)

Agree. Perhaps a valid point about misdiagnosis in there somewhere but obviously would need generalizing EverSince 14:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Patient advocacy

This section needs serious work; citations, first off. It does not read like an encyclopedia article but often more like a medical advisory plea. --Agent of the Reds 16:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I just moved this comment from the top of the page to the end here, where new comment sections should be made, hope doesn't cause any confusion. I agree about the advocacy section.

A lot of the causes section looks similarly unencyclopedic. The whole article, for such an important subject, is poorly sourced and poor coverage. I'm personally planning to help try to really NPOV and source and expand it soon EverSince 19:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Disputing statements, lack of sources

The "causes" section makes it sound like mental illness isn't real, and instead a fun puzzle game for mental health professionals. Not only does this section imply that mental illness is not a true condition, but it only uses (basically) one source to explain this.

This section needs to be corrected and referenced. I'll try to do what I can to upgrade it over the next several days. Chupper 10:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not mental illness is real, that is, as a genuine medical condition and not simply a designation for undesirable behavior is a widely disputed topic. However, this (the artical) is not the place we should make such debate. The current definition in common usage by heath and government agency's is what should be used, but other theories included as well. There should be statements explaining that the topic is of dispute, but based on current handling of the issue, mental illness is caused by... Agent of the Reds 14:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The causes sections needs major clean up. I'd do it myself but we are asked not to do so before reading discussion. I'll do one better and post in discussion. Fred Baughman has been a major pusher of the idea that mental disorders don't exist because there is no test for any disorder and his ideas are often posted in Wiki articles. He confuses the idea that a disease and a disorder are not the same thing. Disorders generally are with you from birth and are genetic in nature. Diseases are caused by a pathogen after you are born. If no one objects I'll clean up that section shortly. scuro 03:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The formal definition and common usage of terms like (mental) disorder/illness/disease is subject to significant ongoing academic, clinical and popular debate. Different professions and different stakeholder groups tend to hold different views/paradigms, of course, and to stress different aspects of research findings and methodologies. I would say the article should summarize this from NPOV, and overall its coverage should be in proportion to the usage out there. EverSince 11:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

There is not a lot of debate about this between government institutions and researchers. The genetics of most forms mental illness is not questioned by any minority academic group or group of researchers. If you believe there is such a group please supply citations.

Thus we don't even have a minority viewpoint that questions this. Social critics such as Baughman and other Antipsychs, stray far from the general consensus and this viewpoint should clearly be identified as a controversial viewpoint and not minority viewpoint. At best such a viewpoint should get a line or two on an article. There are some other "camps" such as the "neurodiversity" theory, that is not supported by major government institutions nor researchers. Consequently I believe that terms can be clearly defined and if there are minority viewpoints they too can be identified. --scuro 17:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I never mentioned anything about etiology. There is of course pretty widespread scientific consensus that genes generally play at the very least a significant role. There is also widespread debate about specific findings or general theoretical context and interpretation.

I've only talked about the definition and classification of mental disorder/illness. This Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry seems to give one philosophical kind of overview of some of the central issues and debates. There are many recent academic/clinical review articles and books that can be cited on this. Even the DSM-IV-TR intro states: "Moreover, although this manual provides a classification of mental disorders, it must be admitted that no definition adequately specifies precise boundaries for the concept of "mental disorder"...different situations call for different definitions" - and the DSM-V planning committees are actively addressing numerous definitional/classificational issues, incl. category vs continuum/spectrum schemes (esp. for the personality disorders) and medical vs social models of disability. EverSince 20:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Granted mental health is a new field. Yet, in the clinical world and the world of research...they have gotten beyond the question of whether the major subtypes of mental illness exist. There are many studies about each specific disorder which examines this exact question. Over time a wide body of evidence from many different vantage points supports the notion that each major disorder does in fact exist. They have gotten beyond the point of questioning whether most mental illnesses are diseases or disorders. What they have done is classify abnormal behaviour that varies to such a degree that adaptive functioning is highly impaired. There is still debate on whether the classification of psychiatric disorders is objective and exact. Current studies will lead to greater accuracy in the future. There will be refinements with time even after the DSM-V comes out 2011. Some disorders will get new subtypes and new disorders will be coined in the future. In the past they tackled the obvious disorders first.

Back to the original objection that others and I made. Disorders are real and of a genetic nature, their classifications are accepted by those who work in the field and those who study these entities. There is no real debate about these points either clinically or by researchers. Now a Philosopher may want to debate the metaphysical properties of psychiatry...but in a nutshell no one cares. They simply won't look at belief systems that can not be studied empirically...and nor should the Wiki Mental illness article give any significant weight to this either, that is unless a seperate article is written about the topic. --scuro 01:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Obviously this is true and I agree in spirit but alot of people reading this article will not have clinical backgrounds and will care about the philosophical aspects. Surely this article shouldn't be about philosophy but it should provide a little context. -- Diletante

The article definitely needs to address why mental disorders are different than physical disorders. It also needs to adress previous diagnoses that are now thought to be incorrect, and the difficulties in making diagnoses. I think that the edit [3] Scuro made, while it is an improvement, sounds to much like a direct defense of the points made in the earlier revision. Which doesn't adresses the real problem IMO namely that the section is too long and is unsourced.

I am not anti-psychiatry by any means, and I am not familiar with all the memes and arguments they use. I know we can adress these issues in a neutral way. I don't have any good sources on hand as I sold back all my college psych books hehe.

-- Diletante 23:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

looking through the article again I now see that the anti-psych folks get more space than i realized. --Diletante

To clarify, I also made the original objection about the POV state of the causes section. However, I agree with the points just made about what nevertheless needs to be addressed in the article. And some of the sweeping statements above represent unsourced personal argumentation and speculation that goes too far the other way and in many cases is demonstrably untrue. E.g. a book like Defining Psychopathology in the 21st Century (2002) covers some of the key issues, including four chapters on "definitional tensions" including critical articles by leading figures like Kendell, Spitzer and Wakefield (the latter two referring to a diagnostic "crisis" due to the ECA and NCS epidemiological survey results). And four chapters on alternatives, including how genetic and neuroimaging research might be hindered by current schemes. There are many other articles and books from clinical, professional and research perspectives, random examples: Spectrum concepts in major mental disorders, a 2002 special issue of Psychiatric Clinics of North America devoted to non-categorical approaches; a special edition of the Journal of Abnormal Psychology Toward a Dimensionally Based Taxonomy of Psychopathology (2005) covering similar ground from more of a clinical psychology as well as psychiatric perspective; Prejudice and schizophrenia: a review of the 'mental illness is an illness like any other' approach (2006) deals with the public health and stigma issues related to this. Diagnostic issues and controversies are notable aspects of the media discourse generally of course, random examples: Depictions of mental illness in print media: a prospective national sample (2002), random UK example, random UK example although actually the book Madness Explained is also based on scientific work by a clinical psychologist that was awarded the British Psychological Society's book prize in 2005. Clinical psychologists, social workers and sociologists etc often don't use the same models and diagnostic/assessment practices as (many) psychiatrists of course, e.g. described in A Sociology of Mental Health and Illness (2005) or e.g. Symposium on outcomes in the sociology of mental health and illness.

I go to some lengths to outline and support the above, in addition to the original accessible source that was denigrated, to prevent some kind of a priori exclusion or minimization of important relevant issues, not to deny other issues or dominant diagnostic schemes and paradigms. Incidentally the article is also totally US-biased (the global WHO's ICD isn't even mentioned, let alone the Chinese CCMD). I think it is important to note that the article will and should take the form it takes through collaborative editing reflecting verifiable notable issues and sources, in line with NPOV not talk page rhetoric. EverSince 11:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Causes of psychiatric disorder article should be merged into this article

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)

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)

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)

reshuffle

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)

That article just looks ugly now.

This is the way Wiki would want it ordered. [4]

• Classification
• Signs and symptoms
• Causes or Genetics
• Pathophysiology or Mechanism
• Diagnosis
• Treatment or Management
• Prognosis (social impact may also be discussed)
• Prevention or Screening
• Epidemiology
• History (not patient history)
• Cultural references
• See also (avoid if possible, use wikilinks in the main article)
• Notes
• References
• Further reading or Bibliography (paper resources such as books, not web sites)
• External links (avoid if possible)

--scuro 02:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

better layout, lack of good content and lack of citations still a major weakness of article

This article has a long way to go to be considered good. --scuro 13:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

New organization of causes section

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)

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)

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)

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)

Signs and symptoms

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)

DSM infobox

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)

Any opinions on this infobox? If there's going to be one, is it NPOV to restrict it to just the DSM? Is the lst column useful/accurate?. It's quite a big box and disrupts the flow of the article. I wonder if it wouldn't be better without it - and just describe within the text the main groupings in common usage (could link off to an offshoot article - Classification of mental disorder (or something) - which could contain the tables. There is already a big list of individual disorders at the end of the article of course. I'll probably have a go at something like that unless other suggestions. EverSince 18:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

opening paragraph and including the kitchen sink

Compare the Surgeon general's piece on MI to Wikipedia. http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/mentalhealth/chapter2/sec2.html It's like the Wiki article is trying to include every term...every cause, and every possible treatment. What you get are shopping lists that don't matter. The important stuff gets lost because sentences such as the following example simply stop all neural activity cold and allow spiders to build cobwebs between the ears,...."Alternative terms for mental disorder may include psychological or psychiatric disorder or syndrome, emotional problems, mental health problems, emotional or psychosocial disability, madness, or insanity". I could come up with a dozen more but who cares...nine terms...we don't need to know nine terms. Stick with the ones most frequently in use, the ones that are in majority use.

Do we need to put the kitchen sink in the treatment section? Simply state the major forms of treatment that have been shown to be clinically effective. We don't need to know about advancing different perspectives in the treatment center. If antipsychiatry has a clinically proven method of treating mental illness, then put it in as a minority treatment method. But they don't even believe that mental illness is real so what are they doing in the treatment section? At best they should be shunted to the end of the article under controversial viewpoints/ and treatments. Any seconds to this motion?--scuro 03:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that sentence on alternative terms doesn't seem particularly helpful (or accurate). I think issues of terminology and definition need to be addressed in a section in the text though, as the 1999 US Surgeon General's report does at different points.

Regarding treatments, I think the section has to cover significant practices and points of view under WP:NPOV, in proportion to their prominence. I agree that the evidence (and there will be differing views on that evidence) should be made clear, bearing in mind that Wikipedia is not just a treatment textbook or manual.

Antipsychiatry isn't included in the treatment section as far as I can see, but under 'movements'. You perhaps advance a stereotype of the movement when you say "they" don't even believe mental illness is real - as I understand it this is one belief advanced by some. EverSince 10:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is Antipsychiatry even mentioned in the opening blurb? It has no place there. You could do me a real favor by posting the reasoned side of antipsychiatry. I have read a fair bit in that field and at best they will state that behaviours can be caused by a poor environment. I'd like to see a link to a antipsychiatry website which states that any mental disorder is neurological in nature..or anything even remotely confirming that genetics has a role in mental illness. --scuro 02:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I personally think it's a notable aspect of this topic and on that basis can be mentioned in the lead, even if thought to be an entirely wrong and misguided aspect. I do think it should only be mentioned there though, and it does depend on how the article takes shape since the lead should reflect that...

The problem with representing antipsychiatry is what counts as antipsychiatry. Historically the phrase that mental illness doesn't exist or is a 'myth' is most associated with a Ssaszian approach, while others like Laing sometimes equivocated (social construction vs social causation) and my sense is that there is equivocation today, but I have to say I had a look today and could'nt see the kind of websites you mentioned! (sure I've seen stuff before though, saying things like genetics/neurochemicals may be involved as with anything but that doesn't mean....etc, perhaps something like that will turn up). Regarding the reasoned side, this article (free sign-up) Paradigms of Psychiatry: Eclecticism and Its Discontents says: "Other predecessors, often grouped in the term 'antipsychiatry', include Laing[19] and Szasz.[20] While not overtly rejecting the concept of mental illness, as does Szasz,[20] many of the views of the antipsychiatry movement have been reformulated by contemporary critics." (this souce, incidentally, seems to be very good on the prevalence of different models of mental illness too, whether biopsychosocial, biomedical, evolutionary, pluralistic etc)

This article The emancipation of nursing practice: applying anti-psychiatry to the therapeutic community. says: "Hence, the anti-psychiatry/existentialist approach aimed at freeing up patients by enabling them to exist as human beings rather than being seen and related to as patients or ‘labels’ that were devoid of any social, cultural, and personal attributes. To this extent, anti-psychiatry remains a useful concept when re-evaluating the way we work with people living with mental illness in the community.."

Organizations like MindFreedom International and WNUSP are involved in reasoned disability rights work, for example in the United Nations, e.g. [http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/wgcontrib-wnusp.htm Contribution by World Network of Users and Survivors of Psychiatry] to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (now adopted). EverSince 18:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

antipsychiatry in the opening paragraph must go

In the opening paragraph under treatment antipsychiattry is mentioned as an alternative treatment. It is neither the majority view treatment or the minority view treatment. This is very biased in that it is way overweighted and also even but in the opening paragraph. --scuro 02:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree it shouldn't desribe antipsychiatry as a treatment, is it doing that? Could it not be reworded? Would you be OK if the intro just referred to criticism of psychiatry or something? (indeed some antipsychiatry has evolved into "critical psychiatry" or "post-psychiatry")

Or do you not think antipsychiatry has any significant notability? You said you've read quite a lot of it. It seems to have some national and international prominence - both diplomatically as noted re the United Nations (and European Union), and in terms of media controversy (e.g. Hunger Strike Leads to Ongoing Debate with American Psychiatric Association, President of the American Psychiatric Assocation meets with hunger strikers protesting against the mental health system) as well as significance in the peer-reviewed literature - e.g. those already listed + e.g. Evolution of the antipsychiatry movement into mental health consumerism. including all the follow-up controversy, much arguing that it hasn't evolved into consumerism + separate personal view Call me antipsychiatry activist--not "consumer". + historical view (Notes on antipsychiatry) - while the latter suggests the movement has diminished relative to its previous large influence, the full text neverthless states: "Yet in certain countries, the antipsychiatric movement still retains a tenacious admiration, influencing even in the third millennium many mental health policies and laws." and "Antipsychiatry’s legacy is likely derived much more from the absorption and incorporation of its criticisms by mainstream psychiatry than from the direct application of its fundamental tenets."

EverSince 16:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

A mental illness article shouldn't have much to do with antipsychiatry, survivor groups, crystal healing, or what not...that is unless it is part of the majority viewpoint. It should be about mental illness. One may argue that crystal healing is the best way to deal with mental illness. Even if crystal healing cured all, it should still receive little prominence in the article and most likely have a separate page. That is because crystal healing is not a part of the majority or minority viewpoint on mental illness. It is an alternative or controversial healing method. Likewise the antipsychiatry viewpoint or treatment beliefs is neither the majority or minority viewpoint. It is an alternative or controversial viewpoint and/or treatment idea. As such it should be relegated near the end of the article and be given little weight. You could link to Antipsychiatry from the mental illness article. As an example see the ADHD article. Some do not believe ADHD exists or that it really is a symptom of some other problem. These viewpoints have been aired out in the controversies about ADHD article which is linked to the main ADHD article. --scuro 22:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The ADHD lead seems to give four sentences over to discussing questions over diagnosis/functional ability. And the main text has two sections on it, as well as linking to a separate article on controversy around that.

I don't know anything much about crystal healing. Does it have, as sourced for antipsychiatry, mandated representation on mental health in international bodies, national press coverage on this topic, prominent proponents and peer-reviewed coverage in psychiatry, clinical psychology and other mental health professions etc, and influence on mainstream mental health practice?

I agree the article should focus as clearly as possible on mental illness itself, and link away to offshoot articles as appropriate. But articles should "represent fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)"...in proportion to "the prominence of each" or "their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties" or their "significance to the subject" (NPOV - Undue weight). That page distinguishes between a "majority"; a "significant minority" with some prominent adherents; and a "tiny" or "extremely small" or "vastly limited" "minority" (with an example being flat earthers). Personally it seems to me that antipsychiatry currently falls somewhere in the middle category, with the exact point to be determined by consensual editing/sourcing over time in the context of the overall article I guess. EverSince 11:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite of lead section

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)

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)

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)

Your recent edits, Chupper, are positive. ThanksDPeterson^talk 22:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Added content.

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)

Deleted unsourced content

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. DPeterson^talk 22:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Why do you say it is unsourced? Have you read the source? EverSince 07:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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. DPeterson^talk 11:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

Move stuff around...?

Before I begin - Eversince has done and continues to do an amazing job getting this article rewritten. It is already 300x better than it was before.

I wanted to propose a few things:

1. Rename "Categories/dimensions of disorder" to "Categories and dimensions of disorder"
2. Subsections of "Categories/dimensions of disorder"; either:
   • Remove all the sections and covert it all into prose. We have a decent amount of text there already and 15 subsections just seems huge, especially as these sections expand. or
   • Reduce the number of sections.
3. Make the sections "Movements", "Laws and policies", "Violence", "Media coverage and cultural references", and "stigma and discrimination" into subsections of a new section called "Social impact" or something else.

Of course, feel free to disagree or change... I would like to hear thoughts. Thanks, Chupper 13:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree about the section on the different disorders (and/or dimensions of mental functioning or whatever) and I've been trying to think of different ways of organizing it. I imagine the number of subsections couldn't be got below about 10 or so, if keeping any kind of accuracy and inclusiveness - I guess that might be OK since it is the core of the topic in a sense, and would help people see the area of disorder they might be most interested in jumping to (or I believe there are ways to set the Table of Contents so it doesn't show lower levels of heading). Or maybe prose would be best as you say - might allow easier coverage of the different frameworks that might not split or link things in the same ways.

I probably don't agree about the 3rd idea personally, though I can see it's quite 'busy' down there and perhaps some of them could be subcategorized in some kind of NPOV way. I guess 20 top-level headings is about OK for such a big and diverse topic, not sure. Perhaps could see how/if those subjects develop over the next while... EverSince 16:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Be good to get any views on the subsectioning of the causes section too - titles, order, whatever. I guess it's imposssible to suit every scientific and philosophical stance on their order of importance and relation to each other, but just to try to be as NPOV and neutral as possible EverSince 12:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I like the ideas for changing format/sectoins. It is pretty busy in the last part of the article and a bit hard to follow...What about Heading the section with a title like, "Mental Illness & Society" Just a thought. MarkWood 13:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I really like the current setup, with EverSince's changes as of yesterday (June 5). I like keeping movements and laws & policies as their own sections. The way it is now looks perfect to me. Chupper 12:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Good I'm ok with that format too. I'd like a paragraph on disability and abilities somewhere, as a major issue and question in this area, and I guess I'll start that somewhere around that part of the article at some point. EverSince 18:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Mental hygiene merge

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". [5] 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)

Categories/dimensions of disorder

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)

"Sub articles"

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)

Very nice work. I'll chip in when I can. Thanks. The article is much improved. DPeterson^talk 00:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

I'm wondering whether it's right per Wikipedia that nearly the whole of the causes subsection has been moved off to the separate page, leaving very little here including no sources? EverSince 13:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.