Jump to content

Talk:Mental disorder/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

"Mental illness" and "mental disorder" as synonyms

The first sentence says: "A mental disorder (also called a mental illness, psychiatric disorder, or psychological disorder)". I am not sure if it is appropriate to list "mental disorder" and "mental illness" as synonyms, as there are several conditions which are called "mental disorder" but almost never "mental illness", such as aspergers/autism and stuttering. While all mental illnesses are regarded as mental disorders, I do not think it is appropriate to list the two as interchangeable, and I think that listing the two terms as synonyms is a little problematic in that regard. Should a distinction between "mental disorder" and "mental illness" be made in this article?Sega31098 (talk) 02:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

They are used more or less interchangeably from what I have seen. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't call autism a mental disorder.. i would call it a developmental disorder. our article on Autism calls it a neurodevelopmental disorder... Jytdog (talk) 05:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
It is in the DSM though Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Yep,along with other neurodev disorders: DSM-5#Neurodevelopmental_disorders. Should we nuance the lead wrt to "mental illness"? Jytdog (talk) 06:03, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
By definition, "mental illness" and "mental disorder" are synonyms and they're used interchangeably by people who work in the field. It's one of those things that has different connotations colloquially, but then those are poorly defined and mean different things to different people, so it's better to just go with the official definition. —PermStrump(talk) 06:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
For nuances in language, we generally create a Definitions or Terminology section, and, if needed, briefly note the matter in the lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Might replacing "also called" with "sometimes called" be an appropriate fix? —Shelley V. Adams ‹blame
credit› 00:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
It's not just "sometimes"; it's "commonly." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
really, people commonly call autism a "mental illness"? The OP has a point. Jytdog (talk) 03:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
No, but it is called a disorder. A disorder is really just another word for a 'mental illness' which is not a term you see that much in the literature as you do in the popular press. Just like when I was an undergrad I took a course called 'abnormal psychology' and that course today is called 'psychopathology' (and autism is covered in psychopathology books). Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Flyer22 Reborn: I don't even know what a definitions and terminology section would say. I think the only nuance is that people have an arbitrary idea in their mind as to which disorders sound "right" to call a mental illness and which one don't. That is, unless someone has a source for an alternate definition. —PermStrump(talk) 12:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Jytdog, I wasn't suggesting that people commonly call autism a mental illness or mental disorder. After all, our own Autism article uses the word "neurodevelopmental disorder"; according to enough sources, it would be questionable to call it a mental disorder.
Permstrump, there is enough in scholarly sources noting the dispute regarding "mental disorder" vs. "mental illness." This is seen at Talk:Mental disorder/Archive 3#Requested move 7 July 2015, where I listed sources. An ICD-10 statement was also included: "Most international clinical documents avoid use of the term 'mental illness', preferring to use the term 'mental disorder' instead [...] The ICD-10 states that 'the term 'disorder' is used so as to avoid the even greater problems inherent in the use of terms such as 'disease' and 'illness'." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

A Definitions and terminology section seems like the right way to go, to me. As to what would belong there, well, a distilled and sourced version of what we have been talking about here.

I think the example of 'Aspergers' noted above is somewhat of a canard, as far as what terms people employ regarding it. Sometimes colloquial expressions arise out of sympathy, or are avoided out of sympathy, and that may or may not be a good thing societally (intentionally avoiding the PC issue here) but using or avoiding a particular term more than another doesn't affect what the academic definition of the terms actually are, only their frequency of usage among the public, and the sense of public acceptance or opprobrium in the shifting sands of language evolution.

We should report the academic usage, which should be relatively easy to source, and we could report the public usage, including the examples posited above of public avoidance of certain terms with respect to Aspergers and the like, if that can be sourced adequately. My 2¢. Mathglot (talk) 20:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm just thinking aloud here, but I wonder if this is more of a DSM (US) vs ICD (outside of US) difference as opposed to an academic vs colloquial difference, because the US NIH says: "Mental Disorders—Also called: Mental illness" and the DSM, obviously, is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, which includes autism. Yes, it refers to it as a neurodevelopmental disorder, but under the larger umbrella of "mental disorders". So I wonder if there's a source that talks specifically about the the different connotations internationally for "mental illness" and "mental disorder". Tbh, as an American, I have no cognitive dissonance about saying someone with ASD or ADHD, for example, has a mental illness or a mental disorder or a neurodevelopmental disorder in all in one conversation... with mixed company, and I'm fairly certain no one would cringe or react, because I'm pretty sure they do the same. I never really paid much attention before though. (PS I promise I do my best not to say things that might be hurtful or perpetuate negative stereotypes, so when I say I "wouldn't have any cognitive dissonance", I don't mean because IDGAF.) I don't think of "mental illness" as having a negative connotation. I understand the arguments for preferring 'disorder', but all the same, I don't think it has the same connotation at least where I live. —PermStrump(talk) 03:50, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Excellent point. Here are some convenience links one can use to investigate this in major English-speaking or writing TLDs:
Search google for "mental illness" vs "mental disorder" in the XX domain, where 'XX' equals:
(au ca com edu eu gov ie il in nz org se uk us za )       ie=Ireland, il=Israel, se=Sweden, za=South Africa
Suggestion: you might want to right-click/Apple-click to open the search results in a new tab or window.
Have fun! Mathglot (talk) 08:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Psychosis

Schizophrenia results in psychosis and therefore fits well under that heading aswell. We do not need a one sentence section. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I think it's fine under one heading, "Psychosis". I didn't really understand that back and forth. It's true that psychosis can also be a feature of bipolar disorder (and MDD, among others), but JCJC777, I didn't understand why that means there should be separate sections to discuss the different disorders that might have psychosis as a symptom. —PermStrump(talk) 09:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed; the overlap between psychosis (symptom) and schizophrenia, bipolar etc (illnesses) hobbles us here. I'm happy with what you've done for now ; it think it works fine. Maybe at some point we'll need to revisit, e.g. to list only illnesses, and then include psychosis prevention evidence in both 'schizo' and 'bipolar' paras. JCJC777 —Preceding undated comment added 08:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Should be added to 9.4 Perceptions and Discriminations

Having a mental disorder is a risk factor for depression caused by prejudice (i.e. "deprejudice”). When someone is prejudiced against people who have mental disorders and then is diagnosed with a mental disorder themself, their prejudice against people with mental disorders turns inward, causing depression.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.33.77.132 (talk) 17:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Cox, William T. L.; Abramson, Lyn Y.; Devine, Patricia G. (2012). "Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Depression: The Integrated Perspective". Perspectives on Psychological Science. 7 (5): 427–449. doi:10.1177/1745691612455204.

Addition to the Stigma section

[Apologies in advance for any formatting issues, but I'd like to add to the stigma section.]

In the field of mental health stigma research there are three commonly acknowledged components of stigma: stereotype, prejudice, and discrimination1,2.

There are two dimensions of stigma. Public (or social) stigma is the awareness of stereotypes that the public and society holds about people who are living with mental illnesses1. Public stigma also involves prejudice, or ascribing to stereotypes with negative emotional reactions like fear. The discrimination component of public stigma can include social avoidance, denial of employment, etc. Self-stigma refers to the internalization of these stereotypes and applying and agreeing with the stereotypes and prejudices put forth by society1,2,3.

1. Corrigan PW, Watson AC: The paradox of self-stigma and mental illness. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice 9:35–53, 2002

2. Corrigan PW, Watson AC. Understanding the Impact of Stigma on People with Mental Illness. World Psychiatry. 2002; 1 (1): 16-20.

3. Corrigan PW. Target Specific Stigma Change: A Strategy for Impacting Mental Illness Stigma. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal. 2004; 28 (2): 113-120.

I don't know where the 5 sources under here came from or how to make them go away! Sorry I added to the bottom of the page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PsycTerp (talk • contribs) 18:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2016

Please change:

'Various behavioral addictions, such as gambling addiction, may be classed as a disorder. Obsessive-compulsive disorder can sometimes involve an inability to resist certain acts but is classed separately as being primarily an anxiety disorder.'

to

'Various behavioral addictions, such as gambling addiction, may be classed as a disorder. These disorders are often linked with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder; which is an impulse control disorder and which is common in addicts who have subconsciously learned the behavior as a means of self-medicating[1]. Obsessive-compulsive disorder can sometimes involve an inability to resist certain acts but is classed separately as being primarily an anxiety disorder.'


and

'A range of developmental disorders that initially occur in childhood may be diagnosed, for example autism spectrum disorders, oppositional defiant disorder and conduct disorder, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), which may continue into adulthood.'

to

'Developmental disorders initially occur in childhood and include language disorders, learning disorders and motor disorders (such as dyspraxia). Not all mental disorders that tend to present first in childhood come under the definition of developmental disorders. These include autism spectrum disorders, oppositional defiant disorder and conduct disorder, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), which frequently continue into adulthood.'


because the original list is incorrect, and because only 40% of people with ADHD in childhood cease having it once they reach adulthood, and ASD is not expected to cease during adulthood.


Thank you!

References

  1. ^ ""Highlights of Changes from DSM-IV-TR to DSM-5"" (PDF). American Psychiatric Association. 2013. Retrieved October 23, 2013.

Poppyellislogan (talk) 11:22, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Which part of the ref supports the text? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Not done for now: Please provide a response to the above inquiry.  Paine  u/c 23:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Social determinants

Contributors to this page may find the following source useful:

—Coconutporkpie (talk) 15:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Mild schizophrenia?

Is there a section for Mild Schizophrenia, thanks. Severe schizofrenia is not LD. I have Learning disabilities. It is when you have problems controling the environment you are in. It is very noticable. However, I have been indirect contact with two cases of mild schizofrenia. Both are in total control of their environment. However, they are 1.) at times irrational 2.) will hallucinate or see things not there 3.) at times violent or very easily provoked. Severe schizofrenia is when they are highly irrational or not able to control functions. Whether its to please you or simply get you out of the way, people with mild schizofrenia will act unrationally for attention. They will also lack in sensing the emotional areas of the brain such as sensing sorrow, or love for a dead one. Naturally, they will be behind educationally as well. Mild schizofrenia is when they are at most times rational but not able to control action or reaction ie emotional disabilities is meant for mild schizofrenia, and asylums are usually meant for severe cases of schizofrenia. ADHD is not classified as schizofrenia, it should be reclassified under Learning disabilities or a mild case of learning disabilities (actually it may infact mean too many nerve endings to the brain, and be a positive sign of hyperactivity). Because I know at least 1 case with ADHD and that particular person seemed totally normal. Learning disabilities and emotional disabilities are very far apart. Emotional disabilities equates to Mild schizofrenia or a certain loss of brain function whilst learning disabilities equates to loss of neural function where brain activity is not defective, only neuralogical activity is ie reaction time via electronic signals going to the brain such as sense of touch, or feeling. People with LD sense things, but its usually delayed due to loss of receptors rather than skull size eg neuralogical activity or lack of nerve endings going to the brain.!-- Template:Unsigned IP -->— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.30.97 (talk) 21:02, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

It seems like you are asking a question about various diagnoses. This page is for discussing the article. You can ask questions like the ones above at the WP:Reference desk. Jytdog (talk) 23:04, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

more modern picture?

The current picture is 1857 and relates to asylums, a now-outmoded form of treatment/containment. How about an image like http://cdn-04.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/uk/article34513606.ece/546f3/AUTOCROP/w620/PANews%20BT_P-4c1c7b2c-ce24-4af9-922a-c60b024c89eb_I1.jpg? JCJC777 6 Dec 2016

First of all the picture you provide is unlikely to be under an open license.
Second their is no evidence that person has a mental disorder. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks - good points. Could I suggest we use one of the pictures being used here; https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Major_depressive_disorder? I am concerned the current picture immediately disinterests possible readers, as it looks so unlike their current interest. Thanks JCJC777 (talk)

Reverts

Moved from here:

Hi Jytdog, can you please comment a bit more on your revert of my additions? Where did I violate WP:ELNEVER? My edits had nothing to do with external links. What do you mean by "Content added only to the lead and not to the body" and "this content is not about diagnosis per se"?

I was somewhat confused that you reverted my work on really important topics (like quality of life and "symptoms vs impairment"-stuff) because there is much text in the mental disorder article anyway that is either irrelevant or poorly sourced.

If you think that my edits don't belong there, please suggest to me other articles where it might fit. Thanks very much for your clarifications.--Trantüte (talk) 20:14, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

First, thanks for talking! And thanks for wanting to improve the article -- it does need a lot of work.
OK, so... The content you added is here.
Responding now --
  • In general, the argument that "there is a lot of junk here anyway" is not a winner. Each edit stands or falls on its own merits, and there is an endless amount of cleanup/improvement that is needed.
  • There are 2 ELNEVER issues
    • the link to the quality of life paper at U Penn's intranet appears to be a violation of Wolters Kluwer's copyright - the article is available from them for purchase here.
    • the link to the ADHD Report at myadhd.com appears to be a violation of WP:ELNEVER; the article you want to cite is copyrighted and is purchasable here, at the website of the copyright owner. There is no indication that myadhd.com has the right to host that copy of the newsletter, which makes using that link in WP an ELNEVER violation.
  • other issues:
    • The content about quality of life was added only to the lead and not to the body. Per WP:LEAD, the lead just summarizes the body -- nothing should be in the lead that is not in the body, and the WP:WEIGHT that anything is given in the lead, follows the WEIGHT things have in the body.
    • The content added to the lead was not supported by its source, in any case; the source is about QoL in MDD, not mental disorders generally. The extension to all disorders is WP:OR
    • There is also WP:OR in the addition of "impairment" in the diagnosis section. That is not supported by the source that is already there. (this is one way that articles come to have poor quality -- people just add unsourced content in the midst of sourced content)
    • There is also WP:OR in the " Symptoms vs impairment" section. The first sentence there is not really supported by the source, which btw, is what we call a "primary source" (more on this below). The source is more an example of what the content says "e.g. the Weiss Functional Impairment Scale". The next bit is better, summarizing what the article in the ADHD Report says (although it a) attributes it only to one of the six authors, which is odd, and this is not the kind of the source we seek... again more on that below).
So those were the key issues. There is more I want to tell you about editing Wikipedia, but I will do that on your Talk page, not here. Thanks again for talking. Jytdog (talk) 22:33, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Trantüte, I'd just like to add a thought about the "impairment" addition. The "signs and symptoms" are kind of a dynamic duo and basis of diagnosis. As such, "impairment" is both a bit odd man out, here, and also, it's not even clear what you mean by impairment; is it a sign? a symptom? both? neither? It's not that you absolutely couldn't add the word there, but "signs and symptoms" is such a well-understood phrase in this context, that you'd have to be clearer about what you mean when you add "impairment", and of course, be prepared to back it up with a citation to a reliable source. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 23:14, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Life expectancy of the mentally ill

Pls weigh in: Talk:Life_expectancy#Life_expectancy_of_the_mentally_ill. fgnievinski (talk) 02:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Compared to placebos, SSRIs are not very effective in treating mild or moderate depression.

Compared to placebos, SSRIs are not very effective in treating mild or moderate depression.

They are somewhat effective in treating severe depression.

The increased relative effectiveness against severe depression was not because the medication is more effective, but because placebos are less effective in such cases.[1]

References

  1. ^ <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4172306/

Benjamin (talk) 21:21, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

This is extensively discussed, with more nuance, at Antidepressant. This is a very high level article and this level of detail about drugs for one class of mental disorder, doesn't belong here. Jytdog (talk) 21:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Definition update needed

Jytdog The definition section of our article, needs to be completely updated to reflect current terminology of mental disorders. DSM-5 definition of mental disorder is significantly different that DSM-IV. Commentary on DSM-IV once it is updated is obviously, irrelevant. Any objections Jytdog, or others, before I proceed?Charlotte135 (talk) 01:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I have updated the definition based on DSM-5. I have deleted irrelevant discussion of DSM-4. The text I left in the article, is still relevant, and applicable, to the new DSM-5 definition. I'm open to other editors fine tuning this section of our article, but simply reverting to the outdated DSM-4 version of the Definition section, without any participation in the discussion here, is certainly not helpful.Charlotte135 (talk) 03:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree with you that the definition needs updating based on DSM-5, but calling the previous discussion of DSM-4 "irrelevant" is absurd. It is part of the history, and cannot merely be swept under the rug like it never happened. By all means, go back and *add* new information about DSM-5. But if you wish to remove everything that ever happened before DSM-5 (recently) arrived, that's not going to fly. I'm sorry my recent revert removed some of your very valid additions, but as you removed a much larger section of completely relevant, sourced, and appropriate text about DSM-4, I saw no other choice. If you re-add your relevant information about the DSM-5 definition, I'm sure it will remain.
It might be particularly interesting if you can find out about the discussions where they talked about this exact topic, because if memory serves there was some serious disagreement on the committee coming up with DSM-5, and some of it spilled out into the news media. Any light that could be shed on the transition from DSM-4 to 5 would be very interesting, not to mention very relevant, to the article. Looking forward to your next edit. Oh, and btw, please pay attention to WP:OWN, and remember to assume good faith and work to achieve consensus with other editors. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 04:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Are you going to update our article based on the DSM-5 definition of mental disorder then Mathglot? Someone has to. As it now stands the definition is outdated. And as you said yourself you removed my "very valid additions" I agree, yes you did remove my very valid additions. I wish to achieve consensus on this. No-one is "trying to remove everything that ever happened before DSM-5" as you state. And your comment "about the discussions where they talked about this exact topic, because if memory serves there was some serious disagreement on the committee coming up with DSM-5, and some of it spilled out into the news media.' is just not relevant here. It seems to me you have a subjective POV on this new definition that the APA has created for mental disorders. Lots of people of have. However, I am basing my update on what the reliable sources say Mathglot, not my opinion as to whether they got it right. The section I updated was the Definition of a mental disorder. It needs to be based on the DSM-5. Would you mind please putting my "very valid additions" back into our article? Including outdated text on the DSM-4 or indeed earlier versions, in our article's definition section is not helpful.Charlotte135 (talk) 04:49, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Why not take it slower, and separate the rather large edit into smaller, bite-size piecies. For example, you could separate the new additions about DSM-5 from the removals you want to make. I would start with the additions, if I were you, because they are likely to be less controversial. That said, it's worth keeping in mind that the DSM-5, important as it is, is not the be-all and end-all. The DSM is produced by one professional association (the APA) in one country (the USA) although it is certainly very influential worldwide. (That in itself, is worth a mention in the article.) But other definitions, like that of ICD-10 (backed by 193 countries; ICD-11 is due in 2018) are just as important. Secondly, even within that one professional body, its development engendered some controversy. Still, and I can't speak for other editors, but I believe that if you take the additions you wanted to make about DSM-5 and add them to the article, without removing any of the stuff on DSM-4 that are there now, I doubt anyone will object.
Contrary to what you say, I have no bias or POV about DSM-5, either for, or against. Please assume good faith and do not attribute nefarious motivations to me, this is considered uncivil behavior.
I disagree with your comment that "It [the definition] needs to be based on the DSM-5." (emphasis added). I certainly believe that you can include DSM-5 as a reliable source, but it is not the only one, and the definition doesn't need to be based on DSM-5; I would say that that is your opinion. If you would like to put that in the article, then go find some reliable sources that say, "The definition of Mental disorder needs to be based on DSM-5." If you can find those, then I will agree with you. Otherwise, I won't. Other definitions backed by reliable source are also valid and should be considered, and should be included, in proportion to their weight. Certainly, DSM-4 is in that group. Also, it's not for you to say whether DSM-4 is outdated or not. Find some sources that describe why the change happened, attribute them, and then you can add something about that. Otherwise, you can't.
I also disagree that internal disagreements in coming up with DSM-5 are not relevant. Why wouldn't they be, if you want to give their definition such prominence in the article? Mathglot (talk) 06:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Mathglot I'm not adding anything further to our article right now Mathglot, while we discuss your issues with me including the DSM-5's updated definition of a mental disorder. You say "I disagree with your comment that "It [the definition] needs to be based on the DSM-5." I'm wondering if Doc James believes we should not be using the DSM definition. If we are not going to use the DSM we need to remove reference to the DSM-4 as is currently in the article. That's only sensible. So what do you propose we replace the DSM's definition of a mental disorder with Mathglot?Charlotte135 (talk) 10:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Mathglot Are you saying that in your opinion, we should not be using the DSM-5 in our medical articles? Are you saying in your opinion that the DSM-5 is not the updated manual? If you are saying these things, I don't agree. If you are not, could you please clarify what you are saying. But I will be interested what Doc James says. He is the authority on all our medical articles and I will await his guidance.Charlotte135 (talk) 11:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Also, you made this comment - "about the discussions where they talked about this exact topic, because if memory serves there was some serious disagreement on the committee coming up with DSM-5, and some of it spilled out into the news media.' My sincere apology for asking the question, as to you having a subjective opinion on whether or not the APA got it right. I still don't see the relevance of your comment in relation to us using the current DSM-5 definition of a mental disorder, instead of the outdated DSM-4 or for that matter, definitions of mental disorder, found in any earlier versions of the DSM. Perhaps you could please explain how your comment was relevant here, if you say it is not your subjective opinion that the APA got things wrong in the DSM-5 and we should still be using the DSM-4 outdated definition. I really would like you to explain as I certainly do not wish to assume anything from your comments.Charlotte135 (talk) 12:05, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

The majority of research is still based on the DSM4. Some, including the NIMH, have be hesitant to adopt some aspects of the DSM5. I do not think everything from the DSM4 needs removing. But the DSM5 should definitely be reflected and given prominence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Doc James. As to your questions: Clearly DSM-5 is the new manual and should be given prominence. (But don't forget ICD-10, not new, but not mentioned in the Definition section.) I have no opinion whether APA got it right or wrong, and it wouldn't be relevant if I did; we should rely on reliable sources about this topic. To repeat: I think you will have more success with the changes your propose, if you break them down into smaller chunks, and separate the addition of new material based on DSM-5, from the removal of any information you consider outdated. Put in other words, if you add back the sourced info about DSM-5 and don't simultaneously remove anything, I doubt you'll face any significant opposition.
As far as my opinion, I think ICD-10 is underrepresented, but we're all volunteers here, and you don't have to address that, if you don't wish to. I don't doubt your good faith, and if you want to add the DSM-5 definition material, go for it. Mathglot (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I too agree that many have resisted and have criticized the DSM-5 Doc James. And I certainly know of the ICD Mathglot, thank you, but the 'blue book' hasn't been updated since 1992. My question is, do we use the DSM-5 for our definition of mental disorder or leave the old outdated DSM-IV's definition? That's what this discussion is over. Mathglot apparently believes not. I believe we should. What do you think Doc James, or Jytdog, or other editors? Let's achieve consensus on such an important edit. So Doc James, what do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlotte135 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
It's not an either-or situation. There is no Platonic ideal for the definition of a Mental disorder, we only have what various authorities say, and have said, and they are fallible. Go ahead and make your addition for DSM-5. Definitions can be sourced in plain text inline, if you're struggling with how to represent more than one definition. "The DSM-5 edition from yyyy says 'Foo'. This represents an update of the DSM-4 from yyyy which says, 'Bar'." Mathglot (talk) 23:55, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Mathglot. Is this approach good with you Doc James? I don't want to make the change and then have it reverted. Much better to achieve consensus here on our talk page first. Appreciate your final say, when you get a chance Doc James. No rush.Charlotte135 (talk) 05:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
I think including both would be useful. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Doc James and Mathglot. Based on our consensus, I have now added the DSM-5 definition, and left the DSM-IV version as you both suggested.Charlotte135 (talk) 01:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Doc James. Was about to add the source but you beat me to it. Jytdog, please be more patient in future with your reverts, or could I suggest you choose to add a citation needed notation. I was in the process of adding a source, when you so rapidly reverted my edit. This was obviously an ongoing discussion here between Doc James, Mathglot and I, and we achieved consensus on an important edit. I left it here for three days so others could add their opinion but you chose not to participate Jytdog. So I went ahead and made the edit, and was in the process of adding the source. Thanks.Charlotte135 (talk) 03:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi User:Charlotte135, just a friendly tip: I can't speak for Jytdog, but they did leave you an explanation in their Edit summary for the revert. When you added your material, you didn't mention in either of your two edits that you were in the middle of a series of edits for which you planned to add refs later, so to Jytdog or anyone watching the article, it may have appeared to be the addition of unsourced material (which at that point, indeed it was). A revert is not an inappropriate response for that. If you would simply let other editors know what you're planning via the edit summary, then this won't happen again. Try something like: "Addition of DSM-5 material per Talk; refs coming shortly" and then you won't be reverted (as long as you add them reasonably soon after that).
Also, just thought you'd want to know that Jytdog won't necessarily be aware of your addressing them by name above, since the username was unlinked. As long as you link the name, like this: [[User:Jytdog]] (or via {{u}}, {{ping}} or other methods), then they should get a notification, and can then respond if appropriate. Hope this helps! Mathglot (talk) 06:49, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Mathglot, I do realize how to link usernames, but I didn't wish to bother Jytdog over such a minor point. In fact, I have linked your username a couple of times in our earlier discussions, at 11:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC) for instance, don't you remember? Anyway, given a good consensus was reached, which is all I ever try to achieve, and my much needed edit was added to the article, I decided there was no rush, and I knew Jytdog was watching the page. Alerting him to my comment seemed unnecessary. As far as adding my source to the edit, it was only a matter of minutes before Jytdog jumped on it and reverted, that was all. Good luck with your own editing of our articles. All the best.Charlotte135 (talk) 05:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Race and Ethnicity

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BCVhuiXgHM

New Study Shows Mental Health Diagnoses and Treatment Vary Significantly by Race and Ethnicity

Benjamin (talk) 06:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Are you saying you want to add a new section to the article?Charlotte135 (talk) 14:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Unless this should be added to an existing section. Benjamin (talk) 15:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Have you got the reliable sources?Charlotte135 (talk) 03:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mental disorder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:07, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Mental disorder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Mental disorder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mental disorder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:23, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Globalize definition

The Definition section of this article relies heavily on DSM. To reflect a worldwide view, it needs to include definitions from ICD and other classification schemes. —Shelley V. Adams ‹blame
credit› 16:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Issues with the lead

As to my 4 December 2017 edit, subsequent reversion by another editor, and that editor's followup concessions, I here discuss the issue of what a mental disorder is.

- prior version said, "...is a behavioral or mental pattern that may cause suffering or a poor ability to function in life".

- my version said, "..is a mental or behavioral pattern that causes oneself especial distress, dysfunctional lifestyle, or both" [diff].

- extant version says, "..is a behavioral or mental pattern that may cause significant distress or poor ability to function" [diff].

One, there is the issue of overlinking, as the wikilinking of commonly understood words can distract a reader. Otherwise, there were key problems with the prior wording saying that it "may cause suffering or a poor ability to function in life". A mental disorder does not merely "may cause"; it is a definition of what it must cause. Although wording is fraught with ambiguity, it still is a concept of certain essential criteria.

Experts commonly capture the gist by saying that a mental disorder is a pattern that causes "distress or dysfunction" [Cromby J, Harper D & Reavey P, Psychology, Mental Health and Distress (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013), p 13]. And it must be caused to oneself—not merely distress to others. If it generally distresses others, though, then it likely is already one's own dysfunction. Anyway, since my change of "suffering"—a word too vague, encompassing consequences of poverty and abuse—to "distress" was accepted, that issue is moot.

Leaving aside distress as a possibly sole consequence, a mental disorder is not merely "poor functioning", which can easily be read grandly as "general incapacity" or merely as "underachieving". Although a mental disorder involves some especial dysfunction—not explained by culture or subculture—the person may be overachieving, extremely successful, or function extremely well overall. Yet the disorder, nonetheless, causes poor functioning in some area of the lifestyle. So the person may function very well overall, especially via compensations, but the lifestyle shows dysfunction in one area, perhaps food or sex, for instance. — Occurring (talk) 20:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

As an encyclopedia we are not writing for patients and thus the term "oneself" is not appropriate per WP:MEDMOS.
The term "may" is not needed as for a mental disorder to qualify their must be significant problems created. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
The word oneself does not point to the reader. The word yourself, instead, points to the reader. The word oneself merely clarifies that the definitive distress is caused to the person manifesting the mental disorder, whereas distress caused to others is irrelevant. Yet oneself is fair to omit insofar as readers will already intuit it or, as I had not foreseen, conflate it with yourself. — Occurring (talk) 21:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't think we should use "oneself." That is one reason I reverted, although it was a minor reason. "Significant distress" is more accurate than "distress" in this case; so that is why I added "significant." As for "lifestyle," I also did not like this wording. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
I had not foreseen that one reading my talkpage entry would think me arguing that we must say "oneself", delete "significant", or say "lifestyle". Although I did not merely say "distress", anyway, but said "especial distress", I meant that that area was moot, since my replacement of "suffering" with "distress" was accepted: change "especial" to "significant", I don't care, since "suffering" was changed to "distress". Otherwise, I criticized saying "poor ability to function"—which I mistakenly discussed as saying "poor functioning"—instead of using the term dysfunction. How to further clarify the dysfunction is up in the air, since even I had thought that my saying "dysfunctional lifestyle" sounds to a reader like much broader dysfunction than is necessary in a mental disorder. Merely, I think that saying "poor functioning"—or "poor ability to function", rather—even more greatly misleads in that direction. — Occurring (talk) 21:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Moments ago, thinking myself to heed all concerns stated above in this talkpage section, I revised the lead's sentence to say, "... is a behavioral or mental pattern that causes significant personal distress or impairment of an important area of personal function" [diff]. Meanwhile, I cited a single page that confirmed by prior belief [Bolton D, What is Mental Disorder? (OUP, 2008), p 6]. Yet afterward, I read the previous page, too, which contradicts my prior belief: it says that "not all" mental disorders require "distress or impairment".

Although not a relevant professional or scholar, I am quite avid for the history and philosophy of science as well as for the history and sociology of medicine, and have, in earlier years, seen multiple academic psychiatric sources stress the criterion of distress or dysfunction as requisite to legitimize a mental disorder's distinction from a mere abnormality. Yet to respect and cohere with the source that I cited in the lead, perhaps the word usually or other qualifier, ironically reminiscent of, if still differing from, may cause, ought to be added the lead's sentence. — Occurring (talk) 02:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Ref says "with distress and interference with personal functions"
So adjusted to "causes significant distress or impairment of personal functioning"
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Regarding this and this, I am fine with it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

harmful illustration

What is the actual justification or necessity for using, right at the top, artwork based on 19th century diagnostic categories, including supposed 'idiocy', and 19th century forms of psychiatric detention such as strait jackets? Would it not be more appropriate in the history section along with a caveat?

Where is the source for which person supposedly represents which 19th century diagnosis? Why is a 21st century article headed by a 19th century diagnostic picture?

Oshwah in immediately reverting the removal (fair enough) you suggest you don't understand why it's sexist to illustrate mental disorder with eight women. Actually it's described as eight women but where is the source for that? And source for which behavior supposedly represents which disorder? This suggests it's not clear to the public https://www.quora.com/What-characters-in-this-picture-represent-each-condition

I note that also the first sentence in referencing 'poor' functioning in life, wikilinks to 'deviancy' which is also a somewhat dated term I think?? But ironically could be seen as better than 'poor' if incorporates the possibility of a divergence that creates problems in functioning in society (social model of disability as adopted by the World Health Organization, whereas this article assumes from the get-go a simple medical model of disability) Neurohz (talk) 11:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Forgot to add these sources on it feeding into a known sexism in this field, that works against both women and men in different ways: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/how-sexist-stereotypes-mean-doctors-ignore-womens-pain-a7157931.html - https://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/men-and-the-stigma-of-mental-illness-dg/ Neurohz (talk) 12:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

This is the history of psychiatry. Yes things were worse at one point in time. One point of history is so that we do not forget this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
'This is the history of psychiatry' - this isn't an article on the history of psychiatry. Could you clarify your basis in Wikipedia's rules for wanting (you claim) to use a factual/scientific/medical encyclopedia article for social justice purposes to supposedly remind people that pictures used to be 'worse' in some sense? (though there is no indication at the top of the article, how are people who aren't aware of that supposed to realize that from the image there?). Could you clarify whether you have addressed the inaccurate/unsourced description of what the picture is supposed to represent? Jingoizle (talk) 12:13, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Why should this article not cover the history of mental illness? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:09, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


Tryptofish, you're fiddling with the image description to 'make it clearer that the image does not reflect modern medicine' and 'to better convey the historical nature of the image'. Could you clarify why you apparently want to keep this image at the top of this article on mental disorder? Jingoizle (talk) 22:25, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

First of all, it is incorrect to describe the edits I made as "fiddling". I watchlist Doc James' talkpage and saw that there was an issue here, and it seemed to me to make sense to make it clearer that the image is an historical one that does not represent present-day medicine. That's it. I don't care whether the image is kept or not. I was simply doing what I could to improve the page. That said, I've read the other comments here, and I think that the arguments that have been put forth for removing the image are without merit. No reasonable reader would be misled into thinking that the image is an accurate representation of people who have mental disorders, an accurate representation of present-day diagnoses, or an accurate representation of the gender distribution of the disorders. On the other hand, the historical misrepresentation of mental disorders is a very real part of history, and it is entirely encyclopedic to present it. The editors who are offended by it are being overly sensitive. (And before anyone goes off on me for supposedly being insensitive to people with mental disorders, it happens that I am a person with mental disorders.) There is nothing wrong with using an historical image on a page that is not centered on the history of the subject. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


The sources linked above are current sources, these issues are still rife in the diagnosis of mental disorders and these issues need to be highlighted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BerthaLJorkinS (talk • contribs) 21:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
What do you mean, these issues need to be highlighted? Jingoizle (talk) 12:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
If this article was a history of mental illness the illustration might be appropriate but to use this as an illustration for the article Mental disorder is absolutely deplorable. It needs to be moved to the body of the article ASAP. Gandydancer (talk) 15:51, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
So... suggest a better freely available image and move this to the history section.--tronvillain (talk) 18:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Most people with mental disorders look exactly like the rest of us. There is no such thing as a picture of a mentally ill person and if I'm wrong and there is but we don't have one at Commons, we don't use just any old thing we've got, and certainly not this one that shows mentally ill people, not surprisingly women BTW, in a deplorable state. It is not the end of the world to not have a lead illustration. Gandydancer (talk) 18:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
We seem to be living on different planets. I did not see anything acceptable at Commons. Gandydancer (talk) 21:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
It's where I found the DSM book image. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
The history of a disease is an important aspect of the condition. History does not always need to be hidden.
Am willing to consider other potential images. Mental illness has been frequently painted so a fair number of options.
For those who describe this image as "harmful" can you provide a citation for that?
Google says it has more than 22 million uses of this image.[1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:02, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't think that I can find a citation that states that the present image is harmful. But I would think that our WP article would not resort to using an image that is extremely insulting to the many people that suffer from this illness. Gandydancer (talk) 21:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
  • For those who don't like the image, a much more productive approach would be to propose alternative images. You can do that here. Jytdog (talk) 21:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
    • How about File:DSM-5 & DSM-IV-TR.jpg? It's a major source on present-day understanding of mental disorders, and it certainly is not something that could offend anyone. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
      • That's not bad but it is kind of...bookish :) Jytdog (talk) 21:22, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
        • Yeah, I tried for something that would maximize the likelihood of getting consensus. (It does actually say "Mental Disorders" right there on the cover.) In the "in art" category, there are some abstract depictions that might be good. Another possibility is to make a composite image, combining multiple photos of patients in a way that is gender-balanced and using only those that are not particularly "odd" looking. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:28, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
          • "Bookish" is fine and it avoids the problem of identifying people with mental illness with illustrations of mental illness (not surprisingly all from the last century and previous to that). And, I sincerely hope that we don't compound the problem by adding a composite image of artist's conceptions of mental illness (which will actually compound the problem here). Gandydancer (talk) 21:47, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
            • I also am fine with showing the books. I agree that we should not make a composite of artists' portrayals, but we do have the option of using photographs. Among artworks, some are very abstract and may be worth considering. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't believe that abstract art should be used to illustrate a medical condition. This is a medical article. Gandydancer (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
We use art to illustrate lots of stuff. Useful because old art is under an open license. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:00, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Suggested alternative

Mental disorder/Archive 4
Other namesPsychiatric disorder, psychological disorder, mental illness, mental disease
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders categorizes these disorders.
SpecialtyPsychiatry
SymptomsAgitation, anxiety, depression, mania, paranoia, psychosis
ComplicationsCognitive impairment, social problems, suicide
TypesAnxiety disorders, eating disorders, mood disorders, neurodevelopmental disorders, personality disorders, psychotic disorders, substance use disorders
CausesGenetic and environmental factors
TreatmentPsychotherapy, medications
MedicationAntidepressants, antipsychotics, anxiolytics, mood stabilizers
Frequency18% per year (United States)[1]

How about this? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

The elephant in the room seems to have silenced all comments. Gandydancer (talk) 20:04, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
I think we should just go with it. Any objections? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Works for me. Move the existing image to the nineteenth century history section? --tronvillain (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Looks good! Thanks for doing it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Of course, it doesn't help the "do not represent a worldwide view of the subject" complaint, but perhaps someone will think of something better later.--tronvillain (talk) 22:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
I'll object - Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see. Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic. A picture of a book is clearly not a natural representation of the topic and it may be better to have no image. I don't have a problem with the previous image and seems strange to change the image when from what I saw the consensus (or atleast majority) is fine or supportive for the previous image Galobtter (pingó mió) 22:57, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Wait, "They have specifically told use not to use their definitions"? --tronvillain (talk) 16:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Supposedly. Not seen the letter myself. Assume it occurred via OTRS and so we must paraphrase their descriptions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't know about that, but it is more helpful to our readers to use an artist's depiction "showing personifications of dementia, megalomania, acute mania, melancholia, idiocy, hallucination, erotomania and paralysis in the gardens of the Hospice de la Salpêtrière"? Gandydancer (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Personally, I don't care which image is used; I was just trying to be helpful in finding a possible consensus. I think that the editors who say that the historic image is absolutely unacceptable are wrong – and I think that the editors who say that the book image is unacceptable are equally wrong. And anyone who thinks that either image is worse than having no image at all is being downright ridiculous. Honestly folks, this isn't such a big deal. It's not worth fighting over. I suspect that the best course of action is (to repeat myself) to spend a little time at Commons:Category:Mental and behavioural diseases and disorders and its many subcategories and suggest a third option. (That's certainly better than having an adversarial discussion about the two options so far.) And don't anyone say that there is nothing acceptable at Commons. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Charles Meryon in his madness, the night before his removal Wellcome L0026701
DelacroixTasso

Here are two others. I assume that those who oppose the current one will find many of the others objectionable as well. Mental illness is potentially very serious. And the history of the treatment of mental illness is not something we should be trying to hide, even though it is often disturbing Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Mental Illness Silhouette
I threw this together as something that might be a little more neutral, though perhaps people might argue about placement and relative sizes, which I wasn't paying much attention to past the larger ones.--tronvillain (talk) 20:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I like the Delacroix more than the Meryon, because it really presents the person in a very sympathetic way, and it certainly conveys what I assume is depressive disorder. I also like the silhouette. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:27, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
We really ought to pick one of these, and then move on. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Tryptofish for engaging in this issue despite your own views. I believe the info sheet for the image needs to add e.g. psychology, sociology, to the fields this comes under. And as it lists a few main classes of meds, needs to list the main classes of psychotherapy/social interventions (recently deleted by the resident doctor). Jingoizle (talk) 01:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
The silhouette is not unreasonable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Any Mental Illness (AMI) Among U.S. Adults". National Institute of Mental Health. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Archived from the original on 7 April 2017. Retrieved 28 April 2017. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

Conditions:

A mental disorder is a condition stemming from a psychological inconsistency not adherent to social norms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jahansen.28.28 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2018

In the first sentence of the third paragraph, Services are based in psychiatric hospitals or in the community, and assessments are carried out by psychiatrists, psychologists, and clinical social workers, using various methods such as psychometric tests but often relying on observation and questioning. Can you please change it to Services are based in psychiatric hospitals or in the community, and assessments are carried out by mental health professionals such as psychiatrists, psychologists, and clinical social workers, using various methods such as psychometric tests but often relying on observation and questioning.? The reason why is because there are other professionals that give assessments such as nurse practitioners, counselors, and primary care physicians. 2601:183:101:58D0:B51D:E6ED:F403:3C32 (talk) 12:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:24, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Causes: Genetics

Currently, the article states

Although researchers have been looking for decades for clear linkages between genetics and mental disorders to provide better diagnosis and facilitate the development of better treatments, that work has yielded almost nothing

yet in every article on wikipedia that I've read regarding specific mental disorders, such as Oppositional Defiant Disorder, Narcissistic Personality Disorder, and Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder, they all say that those disorders are largely heritable. ADHD actually has a number of genes linked to it. The human mind and mental disorders are much more complex than, say, eye color (which is also more complex than most people think), but that does not mean there isn't a genetic link. So, can we update this section, perhaps lifting the sources from the other mental disorder wiki pages? 67.253.115.246 (talk) 06:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Created user account (couldn't remember old one and had no recovery email), and blegh, protected. I'll edit it later. Anyone have any suggestions? At the moment I'm thinking of just copying some of the sources from the mentioned articles. Corrupted User (talk) 03:11, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
I have updated this section to no longer make this claim. ParticipantObserver (talk) 15:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Emotional disability and Emotional disabilities listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirects Emotional disability and Emotional disabilities. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:59, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Environmental

"Environmental factors" is used in the infobox, but that redirects to Biophysical environment. "environmental factors" would be better, per MOS:SPECIFICLINK. 92.249.211.146 (talk) 09:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 11:57, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Nervous Breakdown

A user is repeatedly removing the redirect to this page from Nervous breakdown here. Nervous breakdown is defined in this article and I believe consensus will be required for the creation of this new article. I invite the user T g7 to discuss here before reverting the redirect again. Polyamorph (talk) 20:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2019 ==

REMOVE "MENTAL HEALTH CAN BE DEFINED AS NO MENTAL DISORDER" FUCKING BULLSHIT offensive 198.180.129.11 (talk) 16:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.Breawycker (talk to me!) 18:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

reply

Thank you for your attention. "Nervous breakdown" is not a medical term whereas "Mental disorder" is. "Nervous breakdown" is a folk concept which is not recognized by any medical authority and which has its own distinct etymology and history. Hence it should not be conflated with "mental disorder." T g7 (talk) 12:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2019

Immediately before the second appearance of "Thomas Szasz" is an unneeded / character. Could you remove it? 208.95.51.53 (talk) 15:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done LittlePuppers (talk) 18:00, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

CP133 2019 Group 29 Peer Reviews

  • I believe that group 30 substantially improved their article by editing the word choice within the article to make it more neutral and to improve the clarity. From examining the sources of the article, it shows that the information was provided in the writer's own words and the information is properly sourced. There is no evidence of plagiarism or copyright infringements within the article. Job well done! Kevinle2 (talk) 21:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC) Kevin Le
  • Group 30 did substantially improve the article particularly in the “Environmental Section” where most of the edits were made. The information is neutral, clear, and in lay-language which makes it reader friendly. I also like the non-pharmacological recommendation under medication section. Is there a reference you guys could add for that? However, like Lisa, I do not believe the group accomplished their goal in the validating the term “nervous breakdown” or “mental breakdown” and was not able to find a chart on DALYs. I hope the future edits would reflect the goals, esp the DALYs because a chart would be a great idea better display the information! In the environmental section, the groups did include verifiable cited secondary sources that are freely available, and I also verified that the information was provided was also present in the literature. I did not see any evidence of copyright or plagiarism. Great job! RHSiu (talk) 06:55, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I think group 30 greatly improved this article by making the language more neutral and adding insightful information about etiologies, risk factors, and the importance of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment of mental disorders. They achieved their goal of improvement which was to increase validity of what was being communicated in this article. In addition, the edits formatted are consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style. Megantsao (talk) 23:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC) Megan Tsao
  • I do not think the current edits substantially improve the article but they are great steps toward accomplishing that. They have not yet accomplished their goals on the talk page so I hope to see those great ideas come to fruition with their next edits. All of the edits made by this group show a neutral point of view. Keep making those unbiased edits because you're doing a great job. Lisa.kasper3 (talk) 00:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

CP133 2019 Group 30 proposed edits

  • I think we should look into the validity of the terms "nervous breakdown" and "mental breakdown" that was mentioned in the definition section of the page. I believe that the definition of mental disorders should remain as factual, unbiased, and science based as possible. Also in the section on disability, I think I would like to see a chart that details the comparison between various conditions' Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALYs). KinyeeFong (talk) 05:52, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • expand on risk factors and add more info/ sources particularly under environmental factors Emoon07 (talk) 17:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • add info on onset of illness under course Emoon07 (talk) 18:00, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • organize list of disorders by listing the name in front of the descriptor, add wiki hyperlinks and update descriptions, remove disorders no longer under the DSM Emoon07 (talk) 08:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • make a table with a list of commonly used drugs to treat various mental disorders and their side effects in the medication section Itsnancylam14 (talk) 07:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC).

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2020

Mental disorder should not equated with mental illness. They are not synonymous and this creates more stigma. A person with a mental disorder is disabled but necessarily mentally ill. Mental illness means that the person is at very high risk of harming oneself or others. Mentally disabled people with a metal disorder are usually not mentally ill in this way. This differentiation is essential for people to get help. Cbinetti (talk) 06:18, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP (talk • contribs) 07:24, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2020

Mental disorders are not all forms of mental illness. This article equates the two. This is inaccurate. Cbinetti (talk) 17:26, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Whether it is or not,  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DarthFlappy (talk) 18:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Reference #94 and unreliable source tag

I would propose that the unreliable source tag be removed from Reference #94. The individual is clearly a clinical and research psychologist, is a fellow in the Women in Public Policy Program at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. There is nothing to suggest that either the author or that Harvard is an "unreliable source", thus it appears that the tag has been abused for ideological or political reasons for which the tag is not designed. If the tag was placed to essentially show that the view is not a majority or minority view, then that objective is met based on the subsection title "criticism". 98.178.179.240 (talk) 02:39, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2020

Under the heading Drug Use: Peer pressure is the main reason why start using substances. -----> Peer pressure is the main reason why adolescents start using substances. 2604:3D09:A281:700:91B2:6207:D3F2:964B (talk) 18:56, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Done.--Megaman en m (talk) 19:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Mental Disorders in Other Cultures

I have noticed that this article primarily focuses on mental disorders in the Western world. I think it would be beneficial to provide some information on mental disorders in other cultures as well. To make the page's treatment of the subject more thorough, I would like to include some information from the following sources in order to provide a more thorough presentation of the subject matter: 

Ikuwaka, Ugo; Gallbraith, Niall; Manktelow, Ken; Chen-Wilson, Josephine; Oyebode, Femi; Mumoh, Rosemary (2016). "Attitude Towards Mental Illness in Southeastern Nigeria: The Contradictions of a Communitarian Culture". Journal of Community Psychology. 44: 182–198.

Forthal, Sarah; Fekadu, Abebaw; Medhin, Girmay; Selamu, Medhin; Thornicroft, Graham; Hanlon, Charlotte (2019). "Rural vs urban residence and experience of discrimination among people with severe mental illness in Ethiopia". BMC Psychiatry.

Njenga, Frank G.; Nguithi, Anna N.; Kang'ethe, Rachel N. (2006). "War and mental disorders in Africa". World Psychiatry. 5: 38–39.ly, l

Is this acceptable?Rumbleisred (talk) 03:29, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello Rumbleisred have just reverted your edits as they were backed up by primary sources where secondary sources such as reviews are needed. I have found the following reviews (there are more) for China: PMIDs 29053392; 31045774; 28780128. and for Africa PMIDs 30004359 and 30075200. best--Iztwoz (talk) 15:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2020

I have an alternative non-primary source for Reference #39 that comes after the text "The extent to which unipolar and bipolar mood phenomena represent distinct categories of disorder, or mix and merge along a dimension or spectrum of mood, is subject to some scientific debate." The new non-primary source I suggest as a replacement is https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/C5F7463D3624B57BB72BE96F01192805/S1092852916000559a.pdf/mixed_features_and_mixed_states_in_psychiatry_from_calculus_to_geometry.pdf. This article is a good summary of the history and changes to the classifications and definitions of unipolar and bipolar phenomena through the ages. It also describes how these changes have affected the treatment of people with mood disorders. Varshav78 (talk) 20:39, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Varsha, added it as an additional source to demonstrate the debate. POLITANVM talk 20:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Mental disorders are not all mental illness or mental illnesses

I have four non-physical disabilities, NLD, OCD, anxiety disorder not otherwise specified and dyspraxia. Two of three of these are mental disorders or mental disabilities or sure and all are in the DSM in some form I believe. I also have a PhD in Political Science and am an aspiring academic. To openly have four disability diagnoses of this sort and be an academic in the US at least is not typical. It is not easy dealing with disability discrimination and stigma as it is. But the recent trend where able people, or at least people without psychiatric disorders pushing the label of mental illness of people like me is deeply upsetting, creating of stigma, and hypocritical. Disabled people have a weaker lobby than transgender or gender non-binary people, so while in New York City it is illegal, but not criminal I think, to call wanting to self-mutilate or dismember yourself due to being transgender mental illness, I probably would not be able to sue for people calling me mentally ill when I am not. Most mentally disabled or disordered people like to just be called disabled or non-physically disabled. Most of us are not mentally ill in any clinical way. Mental illness does exist and conflating us with real mentally ill people hurts both groups. Mental illness is a functional problem. It can be psychosis, the systemic inability to test for reality. It also can be simply a functional breakdown. However, being functional, taking low-level medication and going to therapy does not make you mentally ill or your disorder a mental illness. Calling everyone like me mentally ill stigmatizes mental disorders unnecessarily and can actually create more mental illness as if a normal mental disorder like garden-variety depression or anxiety is not treated, it can turn into genuine mental illness. I take two medications, one to prevent physical illness and one to prevent mental illness, but I actually have neither the physical illness or the mental illness yet. Also, by stigmatizing mental disorders as mental illness, we do make it harder to prioritize people with genuine mental illness. There is a real distinction between them and this article keeps conflating them. There should be two distinct articles, one for mental disorders/disabilities and one for mental illness/illnesses. Also, mental disorders are often called psychiatric disabilities, non-physical disabilities, mental disabilities, cognitive and/or behavioral disabilities or sometimes, just plain disabilities. Thank you, Sincerely, Dr. Christopher Binetti, PhD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbinetti (talk • contribs) 20:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Cbinetti, Can you cite reliable sources compliant with medical sourcing guidelines that draw a distinction between "metal illness" and "mental disorder", please? Your opinion, or mine, is of no value here, to draw this distinction we need good sources, preferably ones that show this is a common distinction in the mainstream of the field. If it is a niche or minority view we can say that, but not present it as accepted fact. But even that needs cited sources. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Also it makes things more readable here to divide them into smaller paragraphs. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree with OP about the distinction, and it is important. The closest sources I could find in support of a distinction is: Disease, illness, sickness, health, healing and wholeness: exploring some elusive concepts by Kenneth M Boyd (distinction between illness, disease; does not mention disability/disorder but it's clear that they are separate when using his definitions); and here is a source regarding how confusing and muddied the concept of "mental disorder" really is (it is often conflated with disability): "What is a Mental/Psychiatric Disorder? From DSM-IV to DSM-V" by Dan J. Stein. 18:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Robot 2020 (talk • contribs)

Creating a section for people in immediate need/crisis?

I would like to suggest adding a section on non-profit/non-affiliated resources for people who are in need of help (for specific illnesses, or for crisis-intervention in general). A lot of people are probably going to be reading these articles, looking for information about particular problems, and having a resource that connects them to professional services, quickly and easily, may help prevent certain problems, and also work as a step towards intervention. For example, articles have a "see also" section for information associated with a topic article, a new section/template could be called "Resources for help" and might connect with crisis-lines, or particular illness-related treatments, etc. Mr Robot 2020 (talk) 18:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 4 March 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. Opposers argue that "mental disorder", while less common, more precisely describes the article scope. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 00:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


Mental disorder → Mental illness – This Ngram indicates that the term mental illness is the more widely used term when referring to mental health conditions. On Wikipedia, we should use the term most commonly used in reliable sources. I think both are used in RS, hence no WP:COMMONNAME. I think this term is more widespread. Interstellarity (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

The article's classification section is also enlightening.[5] We don't say "Anxiety illness." We say "Anxiety disorder." We don't say "Personality illness." We say "Personality disorder." And if we move this page to "Mental illness", are we also going to change every mental disorder subpage, such as Classification of mental disorders and History of mental disorders? Moving this page will mess up a lot of things. And moving it to "mental illness" has also been disputed multiple times before. See the archives. RandoBanks (talk) 22:31, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Those article titles can be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. "Personality disorder" and "anxiety disorder" would obviously be unaffected, as those are the common names of those mental disorders/illnesses. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Those pages using the term "disorder" tells me "disorder" is the common name. The last move discussion before this one is at Talk:Mental disorder/Archive 3#Requested move 7 July 2015. Several years ago, yeah, but what's changed? The last move discussion shows that the ICD-10 has apparently said that most medical authorities avoid use of "mental illness." RandoBanks (talk) 02:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose per RandoBanks, and my own contribution that COMMONNAME does not demand moving to a non-neutral common name. Despite the attempt of a lot of those interminable pseudo-advocacy agencies to popularize it, 'mental illness' is not in the least a neutral or unstigmatized term and many of the people it purports to describe find it strongly insulting. 'Mental disorder' is an imperfect term, but sees more technical use and per RandoBanks is usually used in higher-quality sources with less controversy surrounding it. Moving this article to a stigmatized and insulting term solely because it might come out better under one tyranny-of-the-majority slice would be a deep insult. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 00:20, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose, DSM predominates here over a non-neutral name. Not all “disorders” are “illnesses” (see Tourette syndrome). Maybe we should just move intellectual disability to retard based on the reasoning here? A disorder means your brain works differently; an illness means you’re sick. We don’t need to further stereotypes because they may be in common use. (Interstellarity, might you consider discussing before launching RFCs? This is not the first ... ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose moving the title to the narrower name. If you're interested in how things are named, when people make a distinction, a disease/disorder is something other people (e.g., your healthcare provider) thinks you have, and an illness is your own subjective experience. Thus anxiety qualifies as an "illness" (because it sucks if you have it) but bipolar is often only a "disorder" because you may genuinely be unable to see that anything is wrong (with you; you may be very aware that you experience more difficulties than the average person or that people around you seem to "over react" just because you went on a bit of a shopping spree or couldn't be found for several days). These overlap, but the "disorders" group is bigger and encompasses nearly all of the "illness" as well as some conditions that scholars wouldn't describe as an illness and some others that nobody describes as an illness (e.g., some people with autism). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:26, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
  • support per nom --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose because certain psychiatric disorders are not best described as an “illness” such as antisocial personality disorder, paedophilia, autism spectrum disorder, Tourette’s syndrome, ADHD, etc. An illness can be a disorder and vice versa but the terms do not perfectly overlap. Thoughts from Casliber may be of value, given his expertise in this topic.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 06:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I just read Sandy’s comment which made me think, and intellectual disability would be yet another example of a diagnosable mental disorder that would not be best described as a mental illness, although separate mental illnesses are often co-morbid with intellectual disability such as psychosis, major depression and bipolar, etc.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 07:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose "illness" reinforces dichotomy between "sick" and "well", and "disorder" has broader definition. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:16, 11 March 2021 (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.

The worst thing about mental illness...

...is that you can be mentally unstable/unwell and nobody else will understand it, treating you as a normal person instead, since that cannot be observed from the outside. Especially when your struggles aren’t diagnosable (e.g., ADHD). --Heymid (contribs) 18:36, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I'm proposing a merge of Mental illness denial into this article, Mental disorder. I will refer to these respectively as the denial article and this article. Firstly, a summary of the denial article's history:

  • UTC 13:05, 4 November 2021, Pek~enwiki created the article
  • UTC 15:00, 4 November 2021, Buidhe redirects it to Anti-psychiatry, with the reasoning this is essentially a POVFORK, already covered at the redirect article. This term has much less traction than other "denial": Climate change denial, Holocaust denial etc.
  • UTC 15:18, 4 November 2021, Pek~enwiki restored the article, with the reasoning Undid the changes of Buidhe, there is no single mention of denialism in the article Anti-psychiatry
    • I feel it is pertinent to note here that, while the Anti-psychiatry article does not use the word denial or denialism, that doesn't mean it isn't discussing the concept using different terms.
  • No discussion has occurred on the talk pages of the denial article or of Anti-psychiatry, or of the users mentioned.

From the current content of the denial article, I believe it is trying to cover two loosely related topics.

  1. Anti-psychiatry, per the discussion of Szasz and scientology
  2. Attitudes towards mental illness which lead people to downplay or outright deny the existence of mental illness, i.e. stigma, per the content discussing typical Indian views.

Whether or not connecting those two topics in one article is WP:OR is another consideration. Personally, I am uncertain - we would need examples of reliable sources that connect these two concepts under the term mental illness denial.

Regardless of whether the link between the two can be supported, I still think these topics are better discussed in the context of this article (WP:MERGEREASON, WP:PAGEDECIDE), and they already are (to some extent). Please see Mental disorder#Criticism and Mental disorder#Movements for the first topic I described, and Mental disorder#Stigma for the second.

I'm going to be honest, this will barely be a merge - the only point that isn't already here is about stigma in India.

I am not particularly certain about where, within the article, the redirect of the denial article should point to. I'm leaning towards the Stigma section, because I suspect that is what most people would be looking for through the denial article's name. This could include a hatnote about the redirect which suggests anti-psychiatry as an alternative.


The alternatives for merging, as I see it, are to:

  • Merge here, including creating a new section called "Denial", "Denialism" or (for a section with a broader scope) "Views"
  • Keep the denial article
  • Merge to Anti-psychiatry
  • Merge to Denialism
  • Create a disambiguation page to replace the denial article

--Xurizuri (talk) 01:32, 7 November 2021 (UTC)


I think it should be merged. The topic does not warrant its own article RJJ4y7 (talk) 17:44, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

to clarify I mean merge with anti-psychiatry RJJ4y7 (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Template talk:Mental and behavioral disorders which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:47, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Fall 2016. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cats0864, Nicoleshell23.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 September 2019 and 13 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Emoon07, Itsnancylam14, TekTeklehaimanot, KinyeeFong. Peer reviewers: Kevinle2, Lisa.kasper3.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2022 and 6 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mariept (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Dylansmitt127.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2020 and 16 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rumbleisred.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Equating disorder with illness

cbinetti- I need help editing my edit. I got rid of the equation of mental disorders with mental illness. But I am having trouble with the Itlaics and boldface. So please do not revert this, but make the format the way it is supposed to be. Cbinetti (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

The sources we have appear to treat these terms as synonyms, and Wikipedia should follow what the sources do. - MrOllie (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
They are not synonymous. The elite associations make these decisions without asking actually disabled people. They are not the same thing. This stigamtizes mentally disordered people like me who are not mentally ill. They are not synonyms but separate things. Are you a professional editor? Why is your opinion more valid that a person being stigmatized by this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbinetti (talk • contribs) 21:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
As I just stated, Wikipedia follows what the reliable sources do, such as the Mayo Clinic, already cited in the article. This isn't about my opinion, or about yours. If you want to draw such a distinction, you must cite a reliable source that does so. - MrOllie (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Almost of the people who write about this is journals are non-disabled. How am I goign to find "a rleiable source" when none of the decision makers have the experience of mental disability or disorder? There is a huge difference between someone who is mentalyl disabled ro disorder and someone who is mentally illCbinetti (talk) 22:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)cbinetti
If you have no reliable sources, you will not be able to make the changes you seek. Wikipedia isn't the place to change the medical establishment or the language they use, we follow here, we don't lead. - MrOllie (talk) 22:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

New Information Added

Hi! I just added some new information in the sleep disorder section. If there is any changes that need to be made to that, please do so!Mariept (talk) 00:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Mariept, I've made some copy edits. I've also removed some of the details. It seemed a bit long for a subsection of this article, since Wikipedia already has full articles about most of these sleep disorders. Politanvm talk 03:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I have added additional information in the stigma section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Butterflyy25 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Added new information and citation in the media and general public section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Butterflyy25 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Added new information and citation in the media and general public section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Butterflyy25 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: English 1102 NET 65

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2022 and 20 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Midogfrida (article contribs).

number indicator for reference 180

is a certain code needed to move number indicator into proper position?Scranton (talk) 17:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Religion and mental disorder

Hi editors, I have modified a paragraph to improve the accuracy of representing the academic sources, like this:

In the history of psychiatry, religious experience was considered as delusional, but it is a challenge for modern psychiatry to differentiate nonpsychopathological religious/spiritual/transpersonal experiences from those that are caused by disorders.

If there is any problem, discuss here or it will be implemented there. Lightest (talk) 19:17, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mental_disorder/Archive_4&oldid=1212168802"