Talk:Insanity

"Parental authority"
Removed the first-sentence reference of the refusal of 'parental authority' as an indicator of insanity- having problems with your parents is a symptom of being a teenager, not of being insane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.51.200 (talk) 08:09, 5 March 2008‎ (UTC)

Early discussion
A recent discovery of "Indigo Children" has given another context to the term "insane", redeclaring the long-thought ideology that the ones deemed insane by society are truly gifted by God, and misunderstood among the unbelieving masses.

. . . Huh? What is this supposed to mean? 65.116.19.243 19:53, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Nonsense, I assume. I deleted it. Sietse 19:56, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I've put it back (slighly modified) because someone objected to its deletion. Sietse 15:57, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think people who believe in indigo people should have to take care of these gifted people and be responsible for their actions and well being. If the "insane" or the "gifted" person commits a crime under the believer's care, then the believer is liable to receive the same punishment as the offender. If Abby says your insane then you automatically are insane. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.245.249.133 (talk) 05:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Pat Robertson is linked on the page. Although I wouldn't necessarily disagree with the implication, it seems a bit...politically motivated. An abuse of Wikipedia, if you will. 11:04 a.m. Friday, Nov. 3, 2006

insanity
use any bigger words and you'll make me feel even more intellectually inferior. although mental health is a fascinating subject. Hey, insanity is not the disease!, sanity is! (yes, i am serious)


 * ...Makes sense.Maxwell&#39;s Daemon 03:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

cleanup
Hey folks,

I "object" to the "multiple uses" of "quotes" in this article, and also to the use of the pronoun "you", so I've slapped the article with a cleanup. --  &mdash; I. Neschek |  talk 21:31, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Hum. I object to that cleanup tag for something so minor, so I sort of went crazy (har har) and rewrote the entire thing. Notes:
 * I've removed the reference to indigo children. This theory is not based on a rejection of modern ideas about insanity, but on the rejection of what mainstream theory calls Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. A single mental disorder is not the same thing as insanity; even if the theory is broader, the discussion arguably belongs at mental illness.
 * I've removed this: "some such as Aldous Huxley commented that some kinds of "insanity" are possibly alternative modes of awareness which were commonplace and respected in other times and cultures, and have a place in human nature." This should be sourced, because I can't take it on faith, and neither should the reader. Huxley certainly commented on the relativity of sanity and insanity in general (Brave New World being the defining example), but something as specific as this deserves a reference. I'm no Huxley scholar, and I'm not saying it's false, but there's no good reason to believe it's true either, so I'd like one.
 * This better? If not (I may have gone a little overboard), I can only say: . Cleanup tag removed. JRM · Talk 00:31, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

Excuse me
maybe I missed it, but does it actually have what insanity is? the definition seemed to be pretty vague (first line) -Vellocet Malchickawick
 * "Insanity" is such an insanely broad and nontechnical term that it's very hard to give a definition that's not "pretty vague". Compare, that starts "a deranged state of the mind usually occurring as a specific disorder (as schizophrenia)". The rest of the article tries to establish what insanity is by describing how it is perceived and reacted to, which I think is pretty much all you can hope for. I'd love to be proven wrong, of course. JRM · Talk 21:00, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

Proposed Merge
I must oppose the proposed merge to Criminal insanity. The latter concept is deliberately more restrictive than common speech. Typically, criminal insanity is determined by a subject's ability to distinguish right conduct from wrong conduct. On this basis, for example, Jeffrey Dahmer was found not criminally insane. Notwithstanding this decision, it is common practice to consider Dahmer (as well as anyone else who stores human heads in a freezer for later elective consumption) insane. To eliminate the fundamental distinction which gave rise to the stricter legal definition is inaccurate and misleading. Xoloz 11:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I support the merge with Criminal insanity. The reason for my choice is: the term "Insanity" only exists under legal standards, and not under psychological standards. Although many people may consider individuals suffering from schizophrenia to be insane, they are not. (That is, unless they have provided clear and convincing evidence during the course of a criminal trial). ILFoxtrot 19:07 hrs, July 20, 2005.
 * While the definition of common insanity is notorious difficult to ascertain (and changes with time), there can be no doubt that, all throughout history, "insane lunatics" have been subject to social stigma quite apart from any legal meaning. Insanity did not begin in the 1820's (when the first Anglo-American legal definitions were made) and to limit a discussion of insanity to "legal insanity" merely because it is a more precise meaning would be a disservice to history, and to those thousands throughout history who (rightly or wrongly) were deemed "insane" without the benefit of a legal or psychological evaluation. Insanity has an historical meaning which cannot be discounted. Xoloz 02:22, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * That is an apt point. Based on it, I am persuaded to change my view on the merge.   If the page in question did contain more of a historical perspective, I would be convinced.  ILFoxtrot  23:04 hrs.  July 20, 2005.

I oppose the merge. Insanity can be a civil or a criminal matter depending the nature of the person's problem. Not everyone who is deemed "insane" has committed a crime and that is why mental health legislation has separate parts to deal with people who have committed a crime, opposed to those who have not. Saying that, criminal insanity is an inappropriate and stigmatising term (as is highlighted in the article). If the article needs to go, perhaps it could be incorporated into the article on forensic psychiatry, instead--Vincej 12:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Oppose on the grounds that criminal insanity is a specific legal concept, while "insanity" is a much broader, general concept. I'll readily admit this article is hardly complete on the matter, let alone well researched, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have an article on insanity in general just because the other articles are easier to write. The argument that "the term 'insanity' ... [does not exist] under psychological standards" is a red herring. Who says either criminal law or psychology need to be the final word on it? Insanity as a concept existed long before anything resembling modern psychology or psychiatry, and criminal insanity is specifically restricted to the question of whether a suspect is culpable. There may yet be something somewhere this article should be merged with, but I don't believe criminal insanity should be it. In fact, now that I look at the articles, I doubt whether criminal insanity (or as it currently redirects, criminally insane) should be an article at all, rather than a redirect to insanity defense, which is a lot more... sane, pardon the expression. I do not think this article should be merged with that, either. JRM · Talk 18:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I oppose the merger. As stated before, criminal insanity is a different definition than "regular" insanity, and I'd think that this would be better merged into Mental illness vice Criminally insane. Regardless, this article has merit and needs to be Expanded, instead of merged.--Mitsukai 17:12, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I oppose the merger. Criminal insanity is about the popular stereotype of violent psychosis, which is far from what insanity is about. To merge the articles would be to suggest that all insane people are also violent, something which is very clearly wrong. They talk of two different things, and one of the two might not even exist as it is portrayed. (The criminally insane article) -- Harpalus

Oppose for the reasons stated above. They are different things. i support the merge of insanity and sanity they explain each other and they both need help.

I Oppose, but perhaps the opposite should occur: Sanity should remain the title of the article and insanity should be merged into it. --216.233.171.165 21:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I Oppose on the pure and simple basis that Sanity =/= Insanity, and therefore their respective articles should be kept separate. Besides, Insanity/madness are antiquated terms, whereas Sanity may easily be used in a modern context.

I oppose the merger of sanity into this article. LLBBooks 10:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. I think, the final word on this has to be that sometimes the prefixes "in-" or "un-" do not signify a partition into directly opposite meanings. (Has anybody else ever wondered how many people there might be that do not exactly possess an intuition for language logic?). I will now remove the merge tag once and and for all hopefully. -- Kku 08:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Historical Perspectives
One might remark in here that in Shakespeare's day people evidently thought that the correct way to cast out the demons was to torture the insane person until the demons felt like leaving. Thus in As You Like It III.ii., he has Rosalind say:

"Love is merely a madness, and, I tell you, deserves as well a dark house and a whip as madmen do; and the reason why they are not so punished and cured is that the lunacy is so ordinary that the whippers are in love too."

See also the somewhat harsh treatment that Malvolio receives in Twelfth Night because he is suspected of being insane.

See also the article on Psychiatric hospitals.

Any German speakers?
The German article on this topic is a featured article, and appears to be significantly more thorough than this one. Unfortunately my German reading is passable at best, and not up to the task of translating an article of that length and complexity. Can anyone with better German move over some of the good parts of that article that are missing here? We have pretty good articles on the more specific medical and legal topics of mental illness and criminal insanity respectively, but the cultural-historical-sociological aspects of insanity are poorly covered on the English Wikipedia. --Delirium 21:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

*
There's an asterisk * with no note- am I missing something? It's after dippy.

Religious Connections?
These days, if someone says that they hear God speaking to them, they are medicated and institutionalized. Before mental disorders were addressed this way, such people were made into prophets and the like, whose teachings some of us still follow today. If we were to meet them in the street, however, we might say that lithium is in order. William Blake and John the Baptist sound a great deal like schizophrenics, Catherine of Siena was bulimic. Perhaps something about the cultural shift involved there might be good to have in this article?MerricMaker 05:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you could find RSs, sure. I think it'd be entirely appropriate to talk about how society's views on the insane have shifted over time, and how religion has interacted with it - some of the insane have been seen as religious luminaries or become religious leaders, while others were regarded as satanic or cursed or cast away from god. Always fun. Titanium Dragon 15:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

G@m3r d00d
I've deleted the Gaming section under the impression that it's patent nonsense. I've never heard it used this way and I do a LOT of fragging. The only uses I've heard are within the "foolish" catagory, indicative of performing deeds so nominally unlikely to succeed as to indicate that the doer of said deed must have been somewhat lacking in sanity in order to attempt such a thing, in spite of its success (or not, as is most often the case). C.F. Crazy Good. 207.177.231.9 15:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

"Batsh*t" search
When one queries the word "batsh*t," Wikipedia's search engine redirects to the insanity article. Not sure of the relevance, but I found it humorous. --67.177.170.218 23:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Someone's idea of fun but a kid on a school project (about bats &/or bat guano) might find this unhelpful. I'll get the redirect removed. Also, WP is not censored for minors, so there is no need to be coy about language --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 23:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, this now redirects to Fertilizer, where it is of most use. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 00:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Batshit is a normal term for insanity and should redirect here, bat shit should redirect to the fertilizer article.--The Dominator (talk) 20:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "Bat shit" already redirects to Fertilizer, changed redirect for "batshit" to point here. I hope nobody's confused but nobody's mentioned it before. -- Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 20:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Consider creating a disambiguation page. Of course, it'd consist mostly of guano and this page.  I'd say that guano is the more proper of the two, as bat shit accurately describes guano, while the insanity reference is colloquial and could be restricted in an international context.  WLU (talk) 20:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That seems OK, I've thought about an tag but someone coming to this article some other way would probably find it confusing to see "for other uses, see Organic Fertilizers" at the top. I suppose a DAB page wouldn't strain the server since it's unlikely ever to expand. I'll do it if nobody objects. -- Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 21:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)-- Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 21:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not appropriate to have this at the top of the page. I don't think "Bat shit" or "Batshit" is commonly used by anybody that we need to worry about it.  But it's insensitive to include it at the top, and unencyclopedic.  -- David  Shankbone  21:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not an ideal solution, I would agree. Would a DAB page work better after all? Just trying to find an efficient solution. -- Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 21:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think a DAB works best. -- David  Shankbone  21:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Which the redirect page has now become. -- Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 21:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Now the real question - should bat shit redirect to the DAB page, or to guano? I leave this a question for the experts, but I'd say it should redirect to the DAB page.  WLU (talk) 21:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Odd. There's a page for Bat Shit, but not bat shit.  That shouldn't be a redlink.  WLU (talk) 21:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Convention is that apart from proper names, only the first letter of a title is capitalised, so bat shit is out of spec, whereas Bat shit is a proper article name but is still a redlink. People can type all variations in the search box and I'm not sure how that is normally dealt with. Both Bat shit and bat shit redirect as Bat Shit does, so that's OK, there is no need to deal with them. But the Bat Shit page needs to be moved to Bat shit anyway. I'll do that in a little while after all interested parties have commented. -- Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 22:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

<-- Now redirected, which has fixed all the former redlinks above. -- Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 00:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

"insane" is being daringly unconventional
Insanity is often used to mean irrational, or not behaving in one's own best interest. Or behaving in random ways. The following quote is not an example or alternative definition of insanity-- Notice Thoreau is suggesting the man IS NOT INSANE, but only SEEMS to be insane (to some). This use of insane is illustrated by the following quote from Henry David Thoreau's A Plea for Captain John Brown, an essay supporting the well-known militant abolitionist:

I have deleted the quote. The links to other Wiki articles here, also, do not elucidate anything about different views of insanity or historical perspectives on insanity but simply link for the sake of being linkable.

Quotations or better yet, citations that elucidate "insanity" as behaving randomly, unpredictablely, would be more appropriate. Cuvtixo (talk) 02:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This sort of edit requires consensus to be established. But since you raised it, I'm sure other editors will voice an opinion. -- Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 03:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to admit that I do not find that quote helpful at all and agree that if a quote is used, it should more clearly delineate an alternative or past usage of the term, preferably not in outdated English. English is my first language and I can barely understand what that quote is trying to add to the understanding of the term "insanity".  Mattisse  18:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Mitigating factor
Insanity is never a mitigating factor so I removed that section. Perhaps this stems from a confusing of "insanity" with "mental disorder". Insanity is a purely legal term when used in courts of law in the United States and has no medical meaning. Insanity can be used as a defense and if successful, the person legally is not guilty. Mental disorders, which are terms medical/psychological conditions, can be used as mitigating factors. Mattisse 18:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protect?
It may be time to semi-protect Insanity. Virtually all the edits in my watchlist on this page are vandalism and rvv's; it is a frequent target for IP vandals desiring to bash someone (e.g., Insanity is John). This isn't the most active page, and with all the vandalism, it doesn't leave us much time to improve the article. Thoughts? -- Mizu onna sango15 / 水 女 珊瑚15  17:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Semi-pp'd for a month. We have better things to do here, I think. -- Rodhull andemu  18:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! -- Mizu onna sango15 / 水 女 珊瑚15  18:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Whoever wrote this is insane
First sentence: "a danger to HIMSELF and others"? What, women don't go nuts? 220.235.171.197 (talk) 17:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not intended to convey a distinction. The encyclopedia is normally written so that references to the male includes the female unless a contrary meaning is intended. To try and write it with constructs such as "himself or herself" or "him/herself" is a barbaric use of language and unhelpful to the reader. And "nuts" is something of an archaism here. -- Rodhull andemu  18:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

"Well Known Quotes"
Why is this even in the article? This is only one quote mentioning insanity, not a collection of well known quotes doing so. And even if it were a collection of well known quotes regarding insanity, it still would have no place here. It's completely irrelevant that Albert Eisenstein said this.

I think quotes from famous people enhance the experience of an article. This particular quote defines the topic of the article, and oh, it is by the smartest man who ever lived. Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 16:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the quote is not by Einstein, it's by John Dryden from his play "The Spanish Friar" in 1681. Einstein might have said it, but he didn't create it. It's been removed a number of times and re-inserted under the guise of "reverting vandalism", but I'm more inclined to side with those removing it, which I'm doing, as there's no point having a random quote of Einstein quoting another author, especially when there are original quotes from Friedrich Nietzsche, T.S. Eliot, Oliver Wendell Holmes that are omitted. --Komrade Kiev (talk) 22:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree, quotes are irrelevant to the topic and would be a magnet for trivia. Let's keep them out, please. -- Rodhull andemu  22:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Disagree. If anyone has a better citation, maybe we can verify the claim that someone said it before Einstein. But, like it has already been said, the quote defines the topic. Please don't take this personal. If you want the edit removed, maybe an admin should make the call. Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I am an Admin, but Admins do not adjudicate in content disputes. What you are looking for is dispute resolution, maybe by seeking a third opinion. Meanwhile, it would seem that consensus is currently against inclusion. -- Rodhull andemu  21:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Consensus? You mean the people that don't like the addition out number the people who don't have a strong opinion either way? You are wrong. Just because some who think they control this area are outspoken doesn't make a consensus. The addition is relevant, very notable, and verifiable. The edit will stay unless found otherwise in a formal dispute. Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 17:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't work like that. OK, if you want an independent discussion, you shall have one. I will request a third opinion, bearing in mind that the onus is on an editor seeking inclusion to justify it. I don't rule out other editors reverting you either, but I am not going to do so out of respect for the encyclopedia and its processes. -- Rodhull  andemu  17:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, it does work like that. This world is not yours just because you are an admin. Out of respect for the encyclopedia and its processes? Are you for real? How about respect for human beings? Stop reverting my edit! There should be no problem with me being able to edit this page. As an admin shouldn't you be on the outside of the argument and not part of it? Do you like being an admin? Should admins be the ones requesting third opinions? I think you may have over stepped your bounds here. Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 18:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem to be confusing my role here as an admin with that as an editor. I doubt that I am. I have not, and cannot, protect this article, nor will I block you, although I do have an opinion on that matter. I reverted your edit per the emerging consensus set out above, and in which you represent a minority point of view. I did that as an ordinary editor, albeit one with some experience of writing good content, and not as an admin. Please address content, not other editors. Any editor as such may request an outside view. To suggest that admins cannot do that is ludicrous. Meanwhile, you are trying my patience. Let the consensus develop, and prevail as is normal throughout this encyclopedia. -- Rodhull  andemu  18:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We don't need a a quote or collection of quotes here, regardless of who said the quote. That's what Wikiquote is for. OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Seconding the recommendation of Wikiquote. Quotes are useful if integrated into an article.  The inclusion of a section for quotations is a big flag indicating it should be taken to Wikiquote.  TJRC (talk)
 * Agreed. A stand-alone section of quotes is almost never appropriate, and certainly not in this specific instance. And JeffreyPierceHenderson needs to lay off the ad hominem arguments. — Satori Son 19:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Ohnoitsjamie has appeared again. Stalking my edits. Please! Can I get some relief from this admin? Will someone investigate this guy and expose what he does to editors? Please? Is there an admin that cares to look into the way this ohnoitsjamie follows me around like a fat ex-girlfriend? His RULING is always the opposite of whatever I say. Isn't this wrong? Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 19:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Last warning for personal attacks; the next time, you'll be blocked without further comment. OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. All this user does is argue with other editors. And for the record, I agree with the original poster, the quote doesn't belong. -- Quar te t  05:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We are Wikipedia, not Wikiquote; quotes are generally not important here. This is an unnecessarily acrimonious discussion - what does a quote add to the page when it's coming from a non-expert in the field, be they Einstein or Dryden?  JPH - please calm down and stop making this about Ohnoitsjamie or other admins.  This is a routine discussion that has gotten way out of hand for no good reason.  It is now over.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 11:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Asylum (2008 film)
An apparent version of this article on Insanity (beginning "Insanity, or madness, is a semi-permanent, severe mental disorder typically stemming from a form of mental illness.") appeared in this film at about 55:33. The Hogarth engraving of Bedlam can be seen. There are two typos, "sever" for "severe" and "sympton" for "symptom" though! Шизомби (talk) 20:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

i feel the need to say *diddo* — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.184.35.235 (talk) 20:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

yeah, i want some art references
that is all, maybe a section with picassos blue period and PKDs VALIS or movies, faucaults book some religious depictions etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.158.136.36 (talk) 18:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Page Name Change
Could I suggest changing the name of this article to "madness" and making it about the social, as opposed to medical or narrowly legal (as in insanity defence) definition of madness? Freekra (talk) 04:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add something,
Senile Insanity : States of mental enfeeblement are always the result of failure of development or of structural changes in the cortical grey matter of the brain. If the enfeeblement is due to failure of development or brain damage occurring in early life, it is spoken of as idiocy or imbecility. Every form of insanity which occurs after a certain period of life is apt to be regarded by some observers as senile, but although the failing mental power may color the character of the symptoms it cannot be regarded as correct to designate, for instance, a recurrent form of mania as senile merely because it necessarily manifest itself in a subject who has lived into the senile period. On the other hand, many persons first suffer from mental derangement at an advanced period of life without at the same time manifesting any marked failure of mental power, while others only manifest their insanity as a result of the decay of their mental faculties."

http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/SCY_SHA/SENILE_INSANITY.html

Szaszian criticism?
What about adding some Szaszian criticism to this article related to madness and/or the insanity defense? EME44 (talk) 06:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not opposed to it per se, but I think most of that would better go in more specific articles, such as: Anti-psychiatry, Insanity defense, and Mental illness. --Delirium (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the article is bias from that start when it states "insanity, has been recognized throughout history in every known society" there is no proof of this. In our past history we had religion, and in religion people were susceptible to sin. Today sin is called mental illness or insanity. Gluttony for example used to be a sin coming from choice/freewill, now it is a medical disease called morbid obesity and can be treated with Gastric_bypass_surgery.

“In our fervor to medicalize morals, we have transformed every sin but one into sickness. Anger, gluttony, lust, pride, sloth are all the symptoms of mental diseases. Only lacking compassion (kindness) is still a sin.” Thomas Szasz.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 18:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

V-I-O
Nobody should pushNPOV, right? Gill run H20 (talk) 17:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Thinly veiled advertisement
"A notable example has been the use of the phrase 'insanely great' in the launch of the Apple Macintosh, subsequently also used to describe one of its developers." What relation does Apple have with insane people? Besides, its citations prove nothing, merely that the word "insane" was used in that sense in one particular situation. It would be much better to find perhaps a source from a thesaurus or a similar source indicating that "insane" has become a slang word for good. I suggest removing product references until this is done. 93.139.75.10 (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree, and I'll remove it.  Lova Falk     talk   19:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Makes no sense to have a separate, poor, page on sanity. Neurohz (talk) 21:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Then again the issue is should it all be under 'sanity', since that's the concept of which insanity is an aspect? Neurohz (talk) 21:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Makes more sense to me to combine them as Sanity. What does the Mental illness article look like, BTW?PopSci (talk) 02:09, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Mental illness redirects to Mental disorder. That is the article that this would redirect to if people were looking for information on "insanity" itself.  This article seems to be about the concept of insanity, which could be merged with the concept of sanity.  Not sure if I'm making sense.PopSci (talk) 02:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2017
The term "barking mad" redirects to this article. A redirect disambiguation hatnote should be added pointing to the article for the television program Barking Mad. 2600:1702:4C0:9B60:3169:6D85:26F3:31F3 (talk) 05:12, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done &thinsp;&mdash; Ammarpad (talk) 05:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Just saying. I'm no policy expert. But that has the effect of putting a promotion for the TV show on the top of this page, along with the other hatnote for the opera.PopSci (talk) 02:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2018
Insanity is a psychological inconsistency independent of behavior. Jahansen.28.28 (talk) 23:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ❌ No specific change requested. Natureium (talk) 23:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Madman (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Clarity concern: “lit.”
Context:

“Another Latin phrase related to our current concept of sanity is "compos mentis" (lit. "sound of mind")”

I assume this stands for “literally”. Is this a known term I’m not familiar with? I feel that although it isn’t indecipherable, enough readers wouldn’t “get it” that a change could/should be warranted.

Thoughts? UsersLikeYou (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Insanity
Crazy 24.147.46.144 (talk) 05:13, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

"🤪" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%F0%9F%A4%AA&redirect=no 🤪] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 12:08, 27 August 2023 (UTC)