Talk:Mental disorder/Archive 3

Summarizing sub articles
The largest priority item right now is probably getting all of the sub articles summarized on this page, and moving most content to the sub article. Eversince, is it alright if I get to work on those articles you created? Chupper 02:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry I've been away from W since I suggested waiting for more development of the article to get a better idea about this. I think I only created one of those subarticles btw and that wouldn't mean you needed to ask me specifically anyway of course. I'd just suggest that Article size and other pages say significant moves of content should be mentioned in advance so other editors can comment e.g. about which sections need cutting and by how much? What are you thinking roughly? One thing I'd like to suggest is that the causes section could benefit from a little bit more summary coverage than it now has, though it certainly did need a lot of filtering down? EverSince 10:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Having said that, maybe can just agree that the subarticle-ing and summarizing needs to be done and can just see how it goes...maybe leaving two or three paragraphs and key sources for each section. EverSince 13:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the delay EverSince. Whenever I've written articles, with sub articles, I've often written a summary of the sub article in the appropriate section relating to the main article (Like DuSable Park in the Chicago Spire article).  And keep in mind there are two different things at work here - what I've done, and what I'm hoping the article will become.  What I'm hoping these sections become is probably right down the line of what you want, Eversince.  While Article size states that its ok to leave a short summary in the section, I was hoping for something 2-3-4 paragraphs in length.  As an example the "Classification schemes" section seems to be on target (maybe a little on the longer side) of what I would expect for a section with a sub article.
 * The main concern I have is are we adequately summarizing these sub articles. I would see the first priority to be at least getting the sub articles to a Start or B quality class (not that we need to wait for an assessment, I just mean estimates).  Next I would think the summaries should be written or reformatted for this article.
 * Bottom line - we do, IMO, need more summary coverage on sections like "Causes" - a lot more in fact. I would think we could get right to work on this.  Again,  I really think my main concern is keeping the summary section relevant to the sub article - just so they aren't two totally different things. Chupper 13:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean, sounds good. And will have to update the intro to reflect changes to the main body too, after that I guess. I'll personally start doing more again soon. EverSince 15:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I merged the definition & classification stuff while summarizing it, to cut down on the number of subsections - don't know if that seems to work or not. I'm thinking the Prevalence stuff is long & detailed enough to go to a subarticle, so I'll do that shortly (could come under Epidemiology I suppose but that seems a lot less user-friendly). EverSince 15:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Unless the issue of article naming needs to be revisited first... the prevalence studies describe themselves as being about mental disorder, rather than using the term mental illness, so it would seem strange to use the latter for the article name. EverSince 08:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Stigma as a barrier to mental illness treatment
A large proportion of individuals who suffer from the symptoms of a mental illness will avoid seeking treatment for their symptoms because of the social stigma[] associated with having a mental illness. The US Surgeon General acknowledged this in 1999: Powerful and pervasive, stigma prevents people from acknowledging their own mental health problems, much less disclosing them to others. As a result people feel the need to keep their mental illness a secret, and will deny the symptoms that they are experiencing. Two thirds of the people who would benefit from treatment for a mental illness do not receive treatment. As with many physical illnesses, the prognoses of a mental illness can worsen the longer that a mental illness remains untreated. The added anxiety of fearing a mental illness diagnoses can also be detrimental to an individual's mental health, this effect can greatly exacerbate an anxiety disorder or mood disorder. Efforts are being undertaken worldwide to eliminate the stigma of mental illness. --19:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)TallDudePaul (talk)

Two important related matters missing. Prescription drugs, and physical illness.
Thank you for the opportunity of submitting two suggestions for expanding and improving this topic.

My research (not original) shows that there are two related areas that are currently not in this topic.

This deals with the 'causes' or 'potential causes' of mental illness.

1. A physical illness that impacts the brain. Ie a high fever, an infection, that creates toxins that impact the brain.

2. Prescription drugs, or  street drugs. The over the counter cold medication, PPA was taken off the shelves 'recently' however the following  can be found.


 * PPA Side effects.

"A scientific study[1] found an increased risk of hemorrhagic stroke in women who used phenylpropanolamine, although it is not clear which isomer is to blame. A study at the Yale University School of Medicine in 1999 had produced similar results.[1] Reports of cases of hemorrhagic strokes in PPA users had been circulating since the 1970s.

A report from the Dept. of Psychiatry, F. Edward Hebert School of Medicine, Bethesda, Maryland in Pharmacopsychiatry[2] states:

We have reviewed 37 cases (published in North America and Europe since 1960) that received diagnoses of acute mania, paranoid schizophrenia, and organic psychosis and that were attributed to PPA product ingestion. Of the 27 North American case reports, more reactions followed the ingestion of combination products than preparations containing PPA alone; more occurred after ingestion of over-the-counter products than those obtained by prescription or on-the-street; and more of the cases followed ingestion of recommended doses than overdoses.

Failure to recognize PPA as an etiological agent in the onset of symptoms usually led to a diagnosis of schizophrenia or mania, lengthy hospitalization, and treatment with substantial doses of neuroleptics or lithium. "

The communication of these two causes would go along way to aleviate the 'stigma' surrounding 'mental illness'. The obvious lack of communicating this information begs the question  why ?

--Caesar J. B. Squitti :  Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 04:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Related orphaned article
Drift Hypothesis Emesee (talk) 15:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, for now I put it into the Causes of mental disorder. EverSince (talk) 10:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Subtopic on 'Other' under Treatments
There are a wide variety of therapies in the past and present not currently mentioned here, from insulin shock and wet wraps as widely used in the past. Also, in at least one country, a reasonably successful result is found in centers where the afflicted person, accompanied for the stay by a family member, has not drug treatment, no psychotherapy or procedures. What is provided is a calm soothing environment, away from the home environment, with pleasant surroundings and encouragement to garden and be productively engaged.

This comes exceptionally close to the expensive private hospitals offered for many decades prior to the development of the much cheaper medications. They provided the patient a place of calm away from any triggering and aggravating, causative factors found in the home environment. Emphasis was on good nutrition, peaceful surroundings, structure of the day (keeping patients up out of bed and engaged), and supportive nurses and a chance to visit regularly with therapists.

I do wish I had the full citation on that last, but it has been some years since I encountered it. It was either in India or one of the countries to the east of India. The healing centers were provided as a service by the monks of some order. If I recall correctly, the length of the average stay did not exceed two months. Nurses were not needed as any care-taking, dressing, grooming, et al, was provided by the family member.

I think it would be valuable, too, to deal with the US de-institutional movement in the early 70's and how it led to most of this nation's homeless being mentally ill, on no medications, receiving no therapy, and unable to even get on disability and thus gain housing or food stamps - tho I realize this may already be the subject of another article. Please be sure to link that article to this sub-topic. Spotted Owl (talk) 11:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think most of the above good points about the mental health merry-go-round, including de-inst in the West, are now covered/linked in the history section and its related full article. The WNUSP guide I just cited below talks about healing centers in a region of India that might be what you're referring to - "Health and Healing in Western Maharashatra: The role of traditional healing centers in mental health service delivery" which seems to be documented on this website There's also various peer-run non-medical consumer/survivor healing/recovery centers in various countries around the world of course. I agree it would be good to mention this aspect under other as you say. Bearing in mind that Western psychiatry isn't necessarily "the" and everything else "other"...the reports above point out that it's not always clear which is the preferred/mainstream. This paper on Urban Tanzania includes these statements in its discussion:


 * "In contrast to traditional healers, staff in primary care clinics are often found to show little concern or respect for their patients. ... There is little time, particularly in primary health clinics, to explore the possible psychological basis of these complaints, or to investigate the wider family and social context of the disorder. Traditional healers may be better placed in this respect; it would certainly be interesting to know more of their approach to these cases in terms of their formulation, their management and the treated outcome. Naturalistic prospective studies are indicated. These may suggest opportunities for productive alliances between Western and traditional medicine (Green, 1988). With the support of the formal health system, indigenous practitioners might become important agents in organising efforts to improve the mental health of the community. Better understanding of the prevailing indigenous models and idioms of expression for common mental disorder should aid diagnosis and treatment. Traditional healers may have much to offer, and could usefully participate in joint training programmes in medical schools and with primary health care workers. ... Tanzanian biomedical practitioners tend to view this communication as a one-way street, aiming only to train poorly educated traditional healers and recruit their support in the pursuit of public health goals. True collaboration will occur when each is ready and willing to learn from the best of the others’ practices."


 * It seems that the article could also do with a paragraph on culture, as it points out that it's considered part of defining what counts as a disorder but doesn't really elaborate on it. EverSince (talk) 00:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Infobox
Why does the article on mental disorder itself have an infobox? Clark89 (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

2009 NAS report on preventing mental disorders
Free full-text available for reports like this. II | (t - c) 23:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Whoo this is amazing. :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.233.132.67 (talk) 00:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Mention Holistic/Alternative treatments for Mental Disease?
WEonder if in article Mental Disorder or Illness(which is it by the way?)Could a mention be made of Alternative Holistic treatments for the conditions? i.e Trans Magnetic Stimulation useing magnetic impulses to treatd O.C.D., Hypnosis, (a long time "treatment' for brain function problems)even Faith healing!Thanks! JANUSROMA (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Article intro is is about IED, not mental disorders in general!
Somehow the intro to this article has been changed from an intro to mental disorder to an intro about Intermittent explosive disorder (IED)?! Google's listing for the article, and its cached copy, has the following on-topic intro which I assume should be restored:

A mental disorder or mental illness is a psychological or behavioural pattern that occurs in an individual and is thought to cause distress or disability that is not expected as part of normal development or culture. The recognition and understanding of mental health conditions has changed over time and across cultures, and there are still variations in the definition, assessment, and classification of mental disorders, although standard guideline criteria are widely accepted. Over a third of people in most countries report meeting criteria for the major categories at some point in their life. The causes are often explained in terms of a diathesis-stress model and biopsychosocial model. Services are based in psychiatric hospitals or in the community, and mental health professionals diagnose individuals by various methods, often relying on observation and questioning in interview. Psychotherapy and psychiatric medication are two major treatment options as are social  interventions, peer support and self-help. In some cases there may be involuntary detention and involuntary treatment where legislation allows. Stigma and discrimination add to the suffering associated with the disorders, and various social movements campaign for change.

Superskydog (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(I have now restored the above text, so ignore this post). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superskydog (talk • contribs) 21:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That was the anonymous editor who changed the lede a few hours before you spotted it. Nice catch and thanks! (Ronz has restored a version with proper wiki-links) Franamax (talk) 23:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Reference
I found a web site which may truly be a clue to understanding mental illness. In genereal, it is a very interesting read:  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donkeykongah (talk • contribs) 09:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi! It may be interesting to need, but it can not be used as a reliable reference...  Lova Falk     talk   08:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Moved from article to here
This good faith edit was recently inserted but needs work and discussion before re-inserting."My name is Rotem abarbanell weiss!!Psychotherapy and psychiatric medication are two major treatment options as are social interventions, peer support and self-help. In some cases there may be involuntary detention and involuntary treatment where legislation allows. Stigma and discrimination add to the suffering associated with the disorders, and have led to various social movements campaign for change. Most recently, the field of Global Mental Health has emerged, which has been defined as 'the area of study, research and practice that places a priority on improving mental health and achieving equity in mental health for all people worldwide'."Anthony (talk) 10:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Userbox
This userbox has just been created. Please help show your support by considering posting this on your User/User Talk pages. To post this on your User/User talk page, just enter on either page. Thank you. :) Ink Falls   06:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * what does the fight against mental illness mean ? Earlypsychosis (talk) 07:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Same thing as the fight against breast cancer and the fight against violence of course. :P You may not be aware but there is always a battle going on to combat mental illness, measures are being taken everywhere to combat it. For example, the #1 most likely profession to commit suicide is doctors, so at Med schools across the U.S. they have begun free counseling services, and to support people going there they have made taking these services anonymous so that people aren't afraid of it ending up on their record and making them less employable(a big deal to doctors). Also, on college campuses there are usually counseling services, and just earlier this year I signed a petition to keep funding going to them. There is always a fight to set up counseling services, keep costs affordable, help out the mentally ill homeless, and do all sorts of stuff to combat mental illness, and this userbox helps make the mentally ill feel more welcomed and accepted here at Wikipedia by showing your support for their struggle. The fact is that there is a real fight going on to combat mental illness, and this user box allows you to show your support for those fighting it. Ink Falls   18:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

..or culture
The lede sentence currently reads:
 * "A mental disorder or mental illness is a psychological or behavioral pattern associated with distress or disability that occurs in an individual and is not a part of normal development or culture."

In general, its good form to prefix the lede concept with the context, of the form:
 * ''In psychology, a mental disorder is...

It is recommended here, as the term is a concept from what is obviously psychology. But that conceptualization draws attention to an idiosyncrasy with the added "or culture" term at the end, which is not particularly within the domain of psychology, and as cultures vary and encompass broadly different norms, is in fact too broad and general a term to reference here in this way. That said, culture is relevant here, as certain concepts of "disorder" derive from what appear to be cultural conventions. But perhaps "sociology" is the actual term that's relevant here, and in that context the main context for this term may be best referenced as:
 * ''In psychology and sociology, a mental disorder is a..."

Which allows for terms like "psycho-social disorder" which 1) localize the concept of disorders to social and sociological ones, and 2) (at the same time) generalizes the concept of a "disorder" beyond its objective psychological definition into sociology (~object abstraction). This conceptualization thus can accomodate references such as the above to "culture." Note also that behaviourism is an outdated concept, and referencing a term like "behavioral pattern" in this way at least needs qualification and linking.-Stevertigo (w | t | e) 17:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC) I would recommend starting the lead with:
 * Actually, of course "is not a part of [...] culture" is within the domain of psychology. Assessment of mental disorders should always take culture into account. No psychologist would diagnose a Swedish teenager with Obsessive–compulsive disorder because she just has to check messages on her mail and cell phone every half hour - just to name an example.
 * In psychology and psychiatry, a mental disorder is...
 * Furthermore, I don't know if sociology has its own definition of a mental disorder...  Lova Falk     talk   17:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well that's interesting, but what you are saying is that the term has properties fundamental to its definition which are localized to the local culture. A field of actual science would adhere to and uphold universal concepts and principles. A field that substantially variates its diagnoses according to different ethno-cultural contexts is not a science.
 * Psychology is largely geared toward therapy, and as such it is largely a healing art. If that is the explained context, then its natural to include variated cultural factors and aspects as relevant to a diagnosis. Without that conceptualization, psychology and psychiatry put on the airs of an actual science, and the question becomes 'where and how exactly can variated cultural factors be incorporated into a science?' Lova wrote: "I don't know if sociology has its own definition of a mental disorder..." It would appear to deal with sociological pathologies, which at the individual level have psychological definitions. Hence sociology is relevant here if only for its generalizations. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 04:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Mental disorder vs Mental illness
Some of the reasons that have cropped up suggesting this article and its subarticles might be better using the term "Mental disorder" rather than "Mental illness":

Although Mental illness may be the more common phrase in general usage, the ICD and DSM only use the term Mental disorder. The World Health Organization PDF reports that "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”." Scientific research, for example the international prevalence studies, also tends to use the term mental disorder. There seems to be more disagreement or vagueness about what conditions the term Mental illness refers to. In addition, the phrase Mental disorder appears to represent more of a neutral point of view, for example WordNet: "'Mental Disorder - (psychiatry) a psychological disorder of thought or emotion; a more neutral term than mental illness'." The WHO reports that: "A number of consumer organizations oppose use of the terms “mental illness” and “mental patient” on the grounds that these support the dominance of the medical model." I would say some also very much embrace the illness terms though, i.e. organizations committed to a biomedical understanding.

I don't know if anyone disagrees, or has other points. I gather there needs to be some sense of consensus before an admin would undertake a name change. EverSince 13:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the delay in response. For the reasons which you have clearly mentioned above, I also agree it, and all of its supporting pages be moved using "Mental disorder" as the title.  I'll see if I can't get an admin to move the page or delete the redirect.  We can move it at that time. Chupper 23:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The page has been moved. Chupper 23:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

EverSince, you make a great point. The legal system (in Canada, anyway) uses the term "disorder," not "illness." This seems accurate because whether or not it turns out to be a disease, it will still be a disorder. 208.181.100.67

20:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that Psychological Disorder directs to Mental Disorder or Mental Illness. I find that in psychology textbooks ussaully refer to the same subject as Psychological Disorder, where as Psychiatric Textbooks will refer to it as Mental Disorder or Mental Illness. Instead of a redirect; should there not be a disimbiguation?--Recovery Psychology (talk) 04:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Mental Aberration would be more accurate for the most common mental problems as most are value deviations or excessive weighting of values from what society deems constructive to society and personal survival. There is probably call for more than one term as really there are different issues which really should NOT be the subject of one type of doctorate degree. Frankly the field still is not clear on the separation of organic brain structure diseases, pure biochemistry issues, and the experiential value development abberatio. Mental Disorder implies chaos or deviation from a natural organic order...neither of which is dominate in classification of symptoms. Mental Illness again implies a natural organic standard as well as the idea that the proper external means can easily fix problems as soon as someone discovers the vaccine, surgery, or anti-problem pill...which more and more looks like a tale of limited application. 65.26.139.168 (talk) 09:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I have downloaded the article for the first reference, "Rethinking mental illness", and I believe that it has been mis-cited. The article explains mental disorder in terms of "genetic experience", meaning epigenetic DNA modification (such as imprinting, etc.) as a source of gene silencing. The citation makes it seem like it is referring to actual experiences, which, given the quality of the mental vs. physiological debate for mental illness, is misleading. 69.172.92.173 (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

"Child sexual abuse alone plays a significant role in the causation of a significant percentage of all mental disorders in adult females"
"Child sexual abuse alone plays a significant role in the causation of a significant percentage of all mental disorders in adult females, most notable examples being eating disorders and borderline personality disorder."

This statement is making a *very* strong claim that seems highly suspect to me (it is makes it using rather weaselly phrasing); particularly the part about "...all mental disorders in adult females." It should be removed if it can't be backed up.

Sleepmonths (talk) 04:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Removed. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Redirecting from "Transsexual" to "Mental Disorder"
I seArched for "Transsexual" and was directed to this page. Someone do something please. This is a disgrace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.136.107.3 (talk) 23:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * FYI Redirect was vandalized. Redirect was reverted to Transsexualism. Vandalizer was blocked. Jim1138 (talk) 08:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

A search for "Transvestite" redirects here, but I think Transvestism would be a better page to redirect to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.97.236 (talk) 18:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect was vandalized. Reverted.  Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 01:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

"Transsexual" still redirected here as of noon on Jul 15 2001. I think I changed it, but if anyone wants to watch the redirect... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.32.127 (talk) 16:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Transsexual redirect was vandalized again on 14 July 2011. You can check the history [Transsexual History] to see when Transsexual was modified. It might be nice to have a bot notify a user list when a change or addition of this nature occurs.   Jim1138 (talk) 02:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I have gone ahead and requested for page protection here.AerobicFox (talk) 02:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Page has now been indefinitely protected from anonymous IP edits.AerobicFox (talk) 07:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please explain why we are protecting this page. Does protecting this page prevent editors from redirecting other pages to it or is there some other problem that protection is attempting to address? Joja  lozzo  14:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We generally semiprotect pages that receive a lot of IP vandalism. Since this is a redirect and will not foreseeable require future editing there is no downside to locking it to prevent vandalism. Oh, and yes the protection prevents redirecting the page to other pages.AerobicFox (talk) 18:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. My question related to the topic of this section which is vandalism of other pages by redirecting them here. I was checking my assumption that protecting this page is useless for such problems. Joja  lozzo  18:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Resource
From Talk:Epigenetics ... Epigenetics Offers New Clues to Mental Illness "Experience may contribute to mental illness in a surprising way: by causing "epigenetic" changes—ones that turn genes on or off without altering the genes themselves" Scientific American November 30, 2011 by Eric J. Nestler; excerpt ... 99.35.12.139 (talk) 07:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Podcast ... http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=the-minds-hidden-switches-11-11-22 "Eric J. Nestler, director of the Friedman Brain Institute at the Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York City, talks about his article in the December issue of Scientific American magazine on epigenetics and human behavior, called "Hidden Switches in the Mind"". 99.109.124.130 (talk) 02:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Seems the paper detailing some quite specific lab findings could be used in the subarticle Causes of mental disorder maybe where some similar points are covered. It was nice to see that the author's (institutional) webpage has a transparent statement of financial links to industry btw, sign of progress maybe. I think this article could mention the epigenetics aspect as well as e.g. neuroplasticity which is in the Causes article. Eversense (talk) 00:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Citations definitely needed
"Mental disorders have been found to be common, with over a third of people in most countries reporting sufficient criteria at some point in their life."

This is a very important point, but no citations are given to back it up. If anyone knows of any, please add. 84.9.75.24 (talk) 17:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Also:
 * "guideline criterion listed in the ICD, DSM and other manuals are widely accepted by mental health professionals" is contentious given the list of mental health professionals provided in the embedded link, and so this requires either a citation or removal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.189.108.119 (talk) 12:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The claim about a third of people displaying symptoms of mental disorders is still unreferenced despite the above comment warning about it more than four years ago. I'm assigning it reference [29] from the epidemiology section. It should probably be qualified also that this estimate is from one particular source with its own standards of classification, the WHO. --BuffaloBill90 (talk) 11:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Why is the history of the term the lede?
There is a set order for articles and history is way down on the list. Should the article not start with the intro paragraph?--scuro (talk) 16:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Think this must have been dealt with but I'd like to suggest actually that the picture currently in the lede, a drawing from 1857, be moved down to the history section. The actual description of it contains terms that would today not be considered mental disorders and/or would be considered offensive. I'll move it down in a while unless anyone objects. Seems pretty hard to find a suitable one for the intro that's free use, it doesn't have to have one there, don't know if anyone else can... Eversense (talk) 04:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I consider images in the lead to be important. Mental illness has a long history and thus I do not feel a historical image is inappropriate. I think I readers will realize that mental health / science is not static and take this into account in the interpretation of the picture. I am happy to consider other images if they can be found but as you say this is difficult especially for mental health... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think lead images like this one add a cartoonish, Hello Magazine style to important articles like this and I'm fine with the image moving down into the European history section. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

How about one of the most famous painting of mental illness by an artist who suffered depression much of his life? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * How about no image in the lead? This isn't Chair. It's a complex, multifaceted and shifting notion. I don't think there is an image that can represent "mental illness", and actually believe having no image is both a better look, and less likely to mislead, confuse or offend than any image we throw up there. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has a strong preference for images. An image does not need to illustrate the entire topic just some facet of it which both of these images do. Thus I guess we have a differing philosophy on this. I guess we could create a RfC. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's see what others have to say here first. I'm in no hurry. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems there's a number of sections in this article that could benefit from an image but personally I do also view the overall concept as pretty hard to capture in a way that isn't misleading or offputting at least to some. Articles on similar concepts don't seem to have an intro image, don't know if anyone else has a strong view here. Eversync (talk) 04:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Classification section issues
Please stop edit warring in the Classification section. Instead, please discuss the issues here and arrive at consensus before making further edits. Joja lozzo  22:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe that it’s a very important information to keep it in the article “Mental disorder” and learn when and how mental disorders were included in modern classifications. The information is based on the scientific journal World Psychiatry published by the World Psychiatric Association. I’ve made the only one revert on a single page within a 24-hour period. has made the two reverts  on a single page within a 24-hour period. --Psychiatrick (talk) 04:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I made a single, ONE revert and was accused of 'edit warring'. Anyway, I guess we should determine the importance of the material added, but frankly, I am rather turned off of looking at the page ever again.  One revert is not an edit war.  I was simply following WP:BRD Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Basing the first paragraph of the classification system on two recent editorials from a journal is WP:UNDUE. So no, I was not edit warring I was following policy, WP:BRD and WP:UNDUE.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, in a broad entry-level article like this, placing so much emphasis to two short recent editorials is completely undue. Why are the opinions of these authors so important that they need to be placed in such a prominent position?  I think we should trim the attributed material until we can source it to a more appropriate source, and think about combining the "Classification" and "Diagnosis" sections as there is too much overlap between the two. Yobol (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there any consensus then to add the material? If not it should be reverted.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the new material includes excellent points that are very relevant to the core of this topic, though I agree it gives undue weight to a viewpoint per editorial sources. Personally I'd like to see it integrated into the branch article Classification of mental disorders and then re-summarized back here (including also what's currently under 'Views about the concept'). Eversync (talk) 02:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Eversync is right: The passage in question is an awesome counterpoint, but it's still a counterpoint, and a counterpoint shouldn't be more prominent than the initial point; otherwise it's not really a counterpoint anymore, and it starts to look like it's competing with the article's own title for topical dominion (e.g., "mental disorder" vs. "problems with psychiatric nosology". Classificatory problems are, of course, real and relevant to the topic, but they need to be presented and elaborated in context, simply as a matter of effective writing: Perhaps a one- or two-sentence summary of the issues in Mental_disorder; alternatively, a three- or four-line counterpoint in a yet-to-be-created "Criticism and critique" or "Challenges" subsection of Mental_disorder; or instead, perhaps five or six sentences about the issues somewhere in the extant Mental_disorder section. In any case, the paragraph as it exists now (i.e., the long elaboration) in the classification section does seem better-suited for the main article (i.e., Classification of mental disorders). Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. I do have one major issue with the counterpoint per se, though. It needs either to be paraphrased much more thoroughly than it is, or to be copied verbatim from the sources and put in quotation marks and/or block quotes. Consider, for example the following two lines:
 * "These diagnostic categories are actually embedded in top-down classifications, similar to the early botanic classifications of plants in the 17th and 18th centuries, when experts decided a priori about which classification criterion to use, for instance, whether the shape of leaves or fruiting bodies were the main criterion for classifying plants." (from the article, emphasis mine)
 * "In fact, they are embedded in top-down classifications, comparable to the early botanic classifications of plants in the 17th and 18th centuries, when experts decided a priori about which classification criterion to use, for instance, whether fruiting bodies or the shape of leaves were the essential criterion for classifying plants." (from the source, emphasis mine)
 * The wording is so incredibly similar, and the variations (in boldface) so incredibly minor (e.g., flip-flopping words in "the shape of leaves or fruiting bodies" vs. "fruiting bodies or the shape of leaves"), that any peer review (including WP:PR) would flag it as outright plagiarism. I can't write "Existence, or non-existence, that is the question" and pretend that I didn't just shamelessly co-opt a line from Hamlet. If nothing else, I'd have to write it as, "[Existence], or [non-existence], that is the question." The editorial research behind the classification-problems paragraph is, to be sure, outstanding--like I said, it's a great counterpoint (IMHO). The reporting, however, needs some tweaking for proper attribution. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Good points, I missed that. Eversync (talk) 06:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Nutrition
I removed this large addition of information on nutrition as undue weight on the topic and original research. The references might be useful here or in related articles: --Ronz (talk) 20:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hammersley, R., et al. (2007) How may refined carbohydrates affect satiety and mood?, “Nutrition Bulletin” Vol. 32 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-3010.2007.00605.x/abstract


 * Soh, Nerissa L., Gary Walter, Louise Baur, and Clare Collins (2009) Nutrition, mood and behaviour: a review, “Acta Neuropsychiatrica” Vol 21.5 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1601-5215.2009.00413.x/abstract

Prevention section
I have (twice) reverted a new section about prevention. I think we would need WP:MEDRS refs. Please weigh in. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The intent here is to try to reduce future mental health suffering by enabling and encouraging better debate now about prevention programs. Below is my proposed initial text - would welcome any views - including (a) which if any of these refs are acceptable? (b) does anyone have any similar references that are acceptable?

Prevention

The 2004 WHO report "Prevention of Mental Disorders" stated that "Prevention of these disorders is obviously one of the most effective ways to reduce the [disease] burden." http://www.who.int/mental_health/evidence/en/prevention_of_mental_disorders_sr.pdf

A 2011 review of Institute of Medicine research said 'A scientific base of evidence shows that we can prevent many mental, emotional, and behavioral disorders before they begin' and made recommendations including supporting the mental health and parenting skills of parents, encouraging the developmental competencies of children and using preventive strategies for children at risk, such as children of parents with a mental illness or children with family stresses (such as divorce or job loss). William Beardslee, Peter Chien, Carl Bell http://ps.psychiatryonline.org/data/Journals/PSS/3936/pss6203_0247.pdf The 2008 EU "Pact for Mental Health" made recommendations for youth and education including programmes to promote parenting skills, integration of socio-emotional learning into education curricular and extracurricular activities, and schemes for early intervention throughout the educational system. http://ec.europa.eu/health/mental_health/docs/mhpact_en.pdf

Such programmes could reduce known risk factors for mental illness including parental rejection, lack of parental warmth, high hostility, harsh discipline, high maternal negative affect, parental favouritism, anxious childrearing, modelling of dysfunctional and drug-abusing behaviour and child abuse. http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12480&page=530 http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/June10/MomsFavorites.html Prevention in one generation could lead to prevention in following generations as better awareness and parenting skills are passed on, giving large long-term societal returns on the initial programme investment due to future reduced healthcare costs and greater workforce participation.

Prevention remains a very small part of the spend of mental health systems. For instance in the UK prevention is less than 0.001% of the mental health budget. "While mental illness costs the economy more than £105bn a year, with £10bn spent on the NHS, less than 0.001% of the mental health budget is spent on prevention." Professor Kamaldeep Bhui is president-elect of the World Association of Cultural Psychiatry, director of the Cultural Consultation Service and the public health lead at the Royal College of Psychiatrists, http://www.guardian.co.uk/social-care-network/2012/mar/09/serious-tackling-mental-health-young?newsfeed=true In the US the 2011 National Prevention Strategy includes mental and emotional well-being and recommendations including better parenting and early intervention programmes http://www.healthcare.gov/prevention/nphpphc/strategy/report.pdf, although the NIMH is only pursuing suicide and HIV/AIDS prevention research programmes. http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/prevention-of-mental-disorders/prevention-of-mental-disorders.shtml An example of more local government strategy is Manitoba (Canada) which produced a 2011 mental health strategy including elements of prevention such as intents to reduce risk factors associated with mental ill-health and to increase mental health promotion for both adults and children. http://www.gov.mb.ca/health/mh/docs/challenge.pdf

JCJC777 (talk) 23:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the NIMH one is probably good, as is the WHO one. The ones from say the Guardian are probably not good.  CHeck out WP:MEDRS.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think a section on prevention is a good idea JCJC777, but Dbrodbeck is right, for your text to remain, it will need to be supported by sources that conform to WP:MEDRS. This may restrict the amount of information you can add if you can't find appropriate sources. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that it would be best with MEDRS sources. Another option might be to trim down the medical claims and frame it more clearly as a position statement from WHO. --Ronz (talk) 17:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the inputs - let me think and work on these.... and any more very welcome  JCJC777 (talk) 22:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it's much improved. However, it seems like the new version might be getting into too much synthesis and taking up the WHO position rather than just reporting it. --Ronz (talk) 15:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Ronz. I have now tried to pare out any synthesis. JCJC777 (talk) 22:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Glad you have the time and energy to work on this.
 * It would be easier to evaluate if the citations were all expanded with citation information like most others in the article. --Ronz (talk) 19:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ronz - apologies have been busy - will do JCJC777 (talk) 10:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. I didn't mean it to sound like a criticism, just a suggestion on how to make it easier to review. --Ronz (talk) 15:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Reproducing citation information here seems hard work, and out of kilter with the internet age; surely folk can just click on the link and see all the detail for themselves? Best wishes JCJC777 (talk) 13:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Is an intellectual disability (e.g. mental retardation) a mental illness? Or epilepsy?
My understanding of how the terms are normally used, is no. Those with intellectual disability (mental retardation) are not commonly called "mentally ill", unless they separately happen to have a separate mental illness. You can find many sources which assume they are distinct, especially those talking about "dual diagnosis", of both intellectual disability and mental illness at the same time, see e.g. this - if intellectual disability was a form of mental illness, this kind of language would not make sense. And yet, reading the definition in the article "A mental disorder or mental illness is a psychological pattern, potentially reflected in behavior, that is generally associated with distress or disability, and which is not considered part of normal development of a person's culture", it's not clear how intellectual disability is excluded from the definition. And some people - I think this is a minority or even incorrect usage, but I've encountered it - seem to think that intellectual disability is a mental illness, possibly driven by such vague definitions. Also many neurological conditions are not considered mental illnesses - for example, no one considers epilepsy a mental illness - but the definition does not clearly exclude it (is epilepsy a psychological pattern? are not seizures part of the epileptic's psychology?) So my suggestion is we tighten up the definition, or at least add notes that intellectual disability and neurological conditions such as epilepsy are usually excluded from the definition of "mental illness". Psychiatrists are not the primary specialists for these conditions, and they are not primary topics of psychiatric manuals or textbooks. Maratrean (talk) 10:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality: Inclusion of the view that mental illness does not exist
It is important that somewhere in this article it is pointed out that some parties maintain that there is no such thing as "mental illness", and that there cannot be any such thing as a "mental illness". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickyfann (talk • contribs) 16:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

//I completely agree. Every single person on earth has a brain with different composition and operation from another, just some people more than others. I guess it's part of society's hypocrisy "be yourself, but not too much" kind of thing.

Different, and your independant...too different, and you have a mental disorder. Some fucked-up shit. //


 * There used to be a whole section on this. Perhaps we should take a look in the edit history and consider re-adding it? Amillion (talk) 03:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see that the article still contains the following statement: "An antipsychiatry movement fundamentally challenges mainstream psychiatric theory and practice, including the reality or utility of psychiatric diagnoses of mental illnesses." Perhaps we just need to elaborate a bit on that?


 * I'd also like to add that mental illness is not just a matter of being "too different." In addition to being deviant from one's culture, it also must cause significant distress and dysfunction. In other words, it must actually be interfering with your ability to live the kind of life you want to live. Amillion (talk) 03:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The notion the mental illness does not exist is not a mainstream idea. It is neither majority or minority opinion and would probably fall under the classification of fringe theory. WP:FRINGE. As such, it should be treated that way.--scuro (talk) 10:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, but it is not just the belief of isolated individuals. It is in fact a movement, and as I recall it has organizations, advocates, websites, etc. According to the Wikipedia policy on fringe theories, I believe it should be given a bit more coverage than a single sentence. It is not accepted by the scientific community, and we should state that, but as it says in the fringe theory policy page, "...ideas should not be excluded from the encyclopedia simply because they are widely held to be wrong.". Amillion (talk) 03:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC) and also on other timelines


 * Agreed, have a conversation with any individual who has the symptoms of severe depression, bipolar disorder or Schizophrenia and you will have no doubt that mental illness exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TallDudePaul (talk • contribs) 19:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The following was written: "...have a conversation with any individual who has the symptoms of severe depression, bipolar disorder or schizophrenia and you will have no doubt that mental illness exists." But a conversation with someone could never possibly prove the existence of an illness, surely? Only biological evidence could prove the existence of an illness. Also how would you tell if the person you were talking to was not merely dejected by a recent bereavment, and not suffering from "depression"/severe unhappiness? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickyfann (talk • contribs) 19:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * With all fringe theory attribution is important...who states what. More important are secondary sources that cover the topic. I have no doubt there are a multitude of websites that deny the existence of mental illness nor do I doubt that there are movements and even religions that deny it's existence. Still, is this a mainstream idea? Do any experts in the field believe this idea? Are there any government institutions in the world that believe this idea? does the media cover this viewpoint? If the answer is no to all of the questions, then I believe we have a fringe theory. If no secondary sources cover this viewpoint then one really has to question why it needs to be in the article no matter how much bandwidth a multitude of websites take up on the internet.--scuro (talk) 23:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The fact that something is a fringe theory is not a reason to exclude it from this encyclopedia. Read WP:FRINGE. Amillion (talk) 06:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Your "fringe" ideas are integrated into college classes. Emesee (talk) 01:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As for whether or not there are enough third-party sources to prove notability, the antipsychiatry article was tagged for that very reason in 2007, but after a brief look at the reference section it does appear that they have several now. I should be especially easy to find third-party sources discussing the antipsychiatric beliefs of religious groups like Scientology, because they've gotten a lot of press. Amillion (talk) 07:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this issue is important and needs to be covered well (from all significant points of view). I would however say that although the particular phrase "mental illness doesn't exist" is associated with antipsychiatry (or with the Szasz-type approach at least) the general issue doesn't have to be. For example, compare to: "Furthermore, many of our psychiatric syndromes may not exist in nature as highly discrete entities easily separable from subsyndromal conditions" from a leading psychiatric geneticist. Some of these technical issues are hinted at in classification, diagnosis, professsions and fields etc, as well as being mentioned in the movements section (which needs expanding somewhat anyway, as does the professions and fields section - I think they could be merged). EverSince (talk) 13:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. This article does not seem entirely neutral. Emesee (talk) 01:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I started this thread. Thanks for the comments. It is affirmed by authorities in this area that there is no such thing as "mental illness." Another point is: why is there at present a prominent picture of a brain next to the article when that would imply that it is dealing with biological brain disease? So-called "mental illness" is about behaviour not biological brain disease. A picture of a brain ought logically to appear next to an article entitled "brain disease", not necessarily next to an article about supposed "mental illness". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickyfann (talk • contribs) 15:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC) Nickyfann (talk) 13:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I was wondering about that myself--from my perspective mental illness are in fact primarily biological disorders, but the total situation does involve social and philosophical issues, and the image of a brain seems not really appropriate.  Any suggestions? DGG (talk) 11:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

So-called "mental illnesses" - if they existed, and I don't think they do - should of course involve the brain. But this must be proven. For example, someone who has a "delusion" may simply be mistaken which doesn't necessarily involve a brain lesion, unless you can prove that. The attempt to say outright that they are all "brain diseases" without evidence for this is, amongst other things, propaganda for social control. As for an image, well for a start strictly speaking the brain is part of "the brain and central nervous system" and shouldn't necessarily be seen in isolation. Also there is a big distinction between the upper cortex and the lower "reptilian" brain. So an image for mental illness? Well the mind is perhaps just a concept. Why not a person with a thought bubble coming out thinking something? Or better still no article at all except as the history of a collective delusion? Nickyfann (talk) 16:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There are thousands upon thousands of peer reviewed papers identifying neurobiological abnormalities associated with specific mental disorders. In addition, treatments for mental disorders, whether psychotherapy or medication, have neurobiological effects.  Perhaps go to your local library use an academic search system?  Even though there are these abnormalities, I can still recognize the belief that the construct of a "mental disorder" isn't real.  I also recognize, as you have stated before Nickyfann, that there are lots of people who share this view.  Perhaps more information could be included in the article, but this view is in the minority, so an appropriate length should be determined.  Chupper (talk) 20:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

One thing that I would say is that changing the name of "mental illness" to "mental disorder" - as this article seems to have done - is a step in the right direction if you ask me. A disorder is not the same as an illness. "Illness" implies biological lesion of some kind or metaphorical illness. Disorder implies neither.Nickyfann (talk) 18:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The idea that mental illness does not exist is at best pseudoscience and belongs with the theory that the world is flat. I personally have previously never even heard of such a theory and Wikipedia is not the place for POV or original research. WriterHound (talk) 00:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree with it or not (and personally I think it can be misleading, but then so can the phrase mental illness), many reliable sources cover the view and its notable if marginalized proponents (e.g. the encylopedia entry cited in the classification article here, and other works) as well as many of the same issues addressed in current mainstream debate without that particular phrasing, e.g talking of medicalization or essentialism. Foundational criticism is naturally more apparent in sociology/social work and sometimes clinical psychology than in psychiatry, but also exists in the latter. Some challenges are specific to the term "illness" while others apply equally to the term "disorder"; some rest on disputes over the neuroscientific evidence, others only on its interpretation and labeling. The above sources are a kind of ivory tower perspective; many consumers/survivors who have been at the hard end of severe illness-label-based forced "treatment", objectification, prejudice and exclusion, including notable human rights organizations officially involved in US, EU, WHO and UN consultations and protests[] often deplore the term mental illness and conceptualize the difficulties and disabilities in different ways. The wider disability rights movement has no problem with a social rather than medical model. It's worth noting that legal professionals often criticize psychiatric diagnosis too, including for causing misleading, obfuscating and prejudicial assumptions by appearing to embody a traditional medical model of illness when in fact illness-like attributes prove to be limited.

WriterHound: The fact that you are ignorant of an important part of the history of psychiatry in the 1960s and 1970s does not make you correct. It has been several months since this discussion and still no progress has been made on this issue. Regardless of whether you personally agree with the theories of Szasz, Laing, and the like, it is important to recognize that they have played an important part in the history of psychiatry in the latter half the 20th century. To the people who say that anti-psychiatry is a fringe theory: Read the fringe theory policy, it does not exclude fringe theories, and explicitly states "A fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory." The work of many in this field certainly can be described in this way. Also, some of you have said that the majority of the scientific community agrees with the existence of mental illness. This is a patently absurd and unverifiable claim. While it may be true that the majority of active psychiatrists believe in the existence of mental illness (and I posit that of course this is the case, as there is no beneficial reason for anyone who does not believe in the existence of mental illness to go into the field of psychiatry today) this is hardly enough to consider the entire scientific community as being on board as well. Thus I request that a section about the non-belief in mental illness be added as well, or at least seek consensus so that I could add it myself, if need be (although that is not what I want, I am not an expert in the field). Metsfanmax (talk) 06:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

your sources are excellent - add it in as per WP:BOLD Earlypsychosis (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Linguistically it matters what we call things, are we speaking of illness as in being angry and upset, or illness as in disease a whole different thing, an illness as in disease is not what most mental issues are, there is no pathology or contagiousness to them, we speak of laughter as being contagious and moods can affect others, but that is not really contagiousness, so subjectively and objectively and concretely are all very different words and need to be taken into consideration when we talk about what we know about mental health and mental illness, and non pathology and pathology. I think that must be emphasized some where in the main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.63.9.122 (talk) 22:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Small Typo?
Suggest minor typo: The social stigma associated with mental disorders is a widespread problem. Some people believe those with serious mental illnesses cannot recover or are to blame for >>>their(?)<<< problems. Apologies if I have missed the point there. (HammerHeader (talk) 01:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC))
 * Hi HammerHeader, thank you for telling us! I removed this sentence completely, because it didn't have a reliable source, and it is about what "some people believe".  Lova Falk     talk   08:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Etymology please
I need an etymological lookup. Thank you. If you don't know what an etymology is. It's an origin / history of the word. Usually Latin or Greek. Thank you. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hhhaaabbb (talk • contribs) 22:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Hhhaaabbb! The Talk page is for discussing the article, not for answering questions. Maybe you should ask your question at the Reference desk/Language.  Lova Falk     talk   11:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 April 2013
Hi there I just have a couple requests for the "Mental Disorders" wiki page. The first is with the title itself. I googled "Mental Illness" and the first wiki page to come up was "mental disorder." The term "mental disorder" has a very negative connotation to it and is very stigmatizing. If you are able to change the "mental Disorder" title to mental illness instead this term brings to mind that it is an illness of the brain, which is in fact is what mental illness actually is. The second request is changing the picture that is on the "mental disorder" page as the current one is very stigmatizing as the women crying in the photo look sad and helpless, but in fact most people with mental illness have successful recoveries. Replacing this picture with a picture of a brain would be less stigmatizing and again bring to mind that this illness is caused from physical and chemical changes of the brain itself, not by choice of the individual. As a health care professional I think that these changes would help make a public shift toward thoughts surrounding mental illness and help it be seen as a an illness or sickness rather than a stigmatizing disorder.

Thank you!

67.193.245.114 (talk) 14:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * How would a picture of a brain illustrate anything? As to your first point, I imagine many would find illness an even more pejorative term.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done:
 * Your first request would require a request per the policy at Requested moves, in which case the article will only be moved if there is a consensus to do so.
 * Your second request also requires consensus to implement. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 21:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Sleep disorders don't belong here
Referring to sleep disorders as mental disorders is not accurate. Although sleep problems can be a sign of mental disturbance in some cases, a sleep disorder by itself isn't a mental illness/disorder. These are separate health issues. It's misleading to list "sleep disorders" along with eating and depressive disorders, and it could cause confusion. Insomnia and tiredness due to psychological distress are unrelated to physical sleep disorders. Isolated sleep disorders are chronic and usually lifelong despite treatment while the type of secondary insomnia/tiredness this article refers to could potentially be eliminated upon treatment of mental distress."Sleep disorder" more often refers to narcolepsy, sleep apnea, and idiopathic hypersomnia, all of which are physical/neurological, and none of which can be caused by psychological problems. Sleep-related SYMPTOMS are one thing, but fully developed chronic sleep disorders are separate physical (typically neurological) problems that have no basis in psychological or emotional health and cannot be treated in a psychological setting. The inclusion of them on this list is especially odd because other pages on sleep disorders on this site plainly and repeatedly state that sleep disorders are not related to mental disorders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmsmith5 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Lmsmith5, thank you for your remark! We go by what the sources say, and sleep disorders are part of the DSM, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, so it is fully correct to mention them. It doesn't matter to the DSM if mental disorder has a medical reason or if it only can be treated with medication, or not at all. For instance, dementia is also part of the dsm, even though it usually has a physical/neurological cause, and cannot be treated in a psychological setting.  Lova Falk     talk   09:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Introductory sentence couldn't be much worse
I know how I would rewrite it, but I hate to walk into an a new article and not start out on the talk page. Below, I copy the awkward, misleading/meaningless sentence. Why don't some of you guys look up some the definition at the Mayo Clinic (http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/mental-illness/HQ01079) or some other professional authoritative source Spotted Owl (talk) 10:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC) Mental disorder or mental illness are terms used to refer a psychological or physiological pattern that occurs in an individual and is usually associated with distress or disability that is not expected as part of normal development or culture.
 * quoted sentence*


 * That phrasing pretty much reflects the DSM intro, minus a load more convolutions and caveats. I agree it's awkwardly abstract but it's admitted that there's no single agreed definition that adequately covers all the different issues lumped together under these terms. That Mayo Clinic paragraph falls on another problematic term, "condition", in its attempt. I think the sentence should be edited in the usual Wiki way to make it as user-friendly yet theory-neutral as possible. EverSince (talk) 02:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

STRONGLY AGREED - The quoted sentence appears to be original research by the author. If it is not then a reliable source should be cited. If no reliable citation source can be found then the sentence is controversial, misleading and it is challenged and must be deleted. 71.3.97.37 (talk) 22:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC) by HenryHall
 * Hi Henry! We cannot just delete the definition. Could you propose a better one? With friendly regards,  Lova Falk     talk   09:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * WE can find a reliable source (if there is any source, if it is not complete fiction) or delete the definition and fall back on the definition that follows - "Mental disorders are generally defined by a combination of how a person feels, acts, thinks or perceives.". Which definition (unlike the bad definition) is not extremely controversial and stigmatizing.
 * At the very least, the editorial mark "Citation needed" should be added to the main text thereabouts and without delay. 71.3.97.37 (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC) HenryHall
 * Hi Henry! Your definition is not specific enough for mental disorder. Wellbeing is also "generally defined by a combination of how a person feels, acts, thinks or perceives." Actually, could you explain the "extremely controversial and stigmatizing" part of the definition, because I don't see it.  Lova Falk     talk   17:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I cleaned up the introductory sentence in an edit today. I used the existing definition while clarifying that psychology is the study and the mind its subject, and that norms are social not behavioral. What do you-all think of it? Svend la Rose (talk) 22:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Svend la Rose! It looks fine to me, apart from one tiny remark: "This is a term for that" is unnecessarily wordy. Most of the times, it's better to just say "this is that". With friendly regards,  Lova Falk     talk   13:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Educational assignment
Hello I am a student at Guttman Community College in New York City, we are currently working on adding and creating Wikipedia pages for a final project in our English class. For my topic of choice is the stigma associated with mental disorder and disease. I will be adding it to the Stigma portion of this article. I am writing a brief summary here just to jump start my thinking process. Cortiz86 (talk) 17:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Please do not delete my recent addition it is for an  thank you!! Cortiz86 (talk) 04:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Cortiz86, and welcome to Wikipedia. Any edit can always be edited or erased. If you want to write something just to jump start your thinking process, it is much better to use your sandbox. And if you edit does get erased, you can always show your teacher the history of the page, so s/he can read what you wrote. With friendly regards,  Lova Falk     talk   12:22, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2014
The validity of psychiatric diagnosis is questioned by Texas lawyer Wayne Ramsay in "The Myth of Psychiatric Diagnosis" (wayneramsay.com/diagnosi.htm)

71.168.101.186 (talk) 04:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: This does not seem to be a reliable source for medical subjects. The author is a Juris Doctor, not a medical doctor.  Anon 126   (talk - contribs) 05:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2014
The introductory clause “A mental disorder, also called a mental illness or psychiatric disorder …” should be amended to include the clinical/scientific nomenclature “A mental disorder, also called a mental illness, psychiatric disorder, or psychopathology …”, c.f. Oxford American Dictionary

Carsonkahn (talk) 01:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: I've added a sentence about Psychopathology to the end of the first paragraph, but not to the introductory sentence because the term "psychopathology" refers to the scientific study of mental disorders--not to a mental disorder itself. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Mz7 (talk) 02:04, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2014
The sentence added to the lead about 'psychopathology' is a step in the right direction, but should also include a clause: "… not to be confused with psychopathy" (in the same vein as neuropathy/neuropathology).

Carsonkahn (talk) 18:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: I don't think that's necessary there. If you click on the psychopathology link, that page includes a "Not to be confused with Psychopathy." note. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

You definitely need to address that mental disorder is largely a temporary divergence from a healthy neurological transition
Hi there,

Look, I don't have sources for this, it is more of a philosophical statement, but you fundamentally cannot call mental disorder a dead-end and still square it with the fact that healthy, highly intelligent people manifest mental disorder at various times in an expedient attempt to maximize their neurological potential.

Someone who is bullied gets depressed because they have a bunch of nerves that don't need to respond to people who are bullies. Someone who is living in a city gets schizophrenia as a way of staying motivated in a small space. Someone who is constantly at work gets bipolar as a way of maintaining a strong work ethic outlook (emotionally).

These things are not mysterious dead-ends to the human psyche, they are deliberate causally relevant divergences from normal functioning designed to meet a specific goal. Applying the knife of function/dysfunction to everything that may or may not be normal is counter-productive and in the context of wikipedia, effectively disinformation.Gottservant (talk) 05:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Mental Health Stigma
Hi All, I am interested in doing some work to create a page on Stigma of Mental Illness. At the moment, a somewhat small section exists on this page, however I feel that the topic is deserving of expansion. Any thoughts on the matter would be appreciated!

Jpoles1 (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion: start with the wisdom that completely removing stigma is impossible and that making light of it, is about the best you can hope for. For example, are old people uncool because they cannot do what young people do or are old people uncool because if they were cool like young people are, they would definitely suck the way young people do when they try to be old?Gottservant (talk) 05:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Mental Illness is Biological?
Hello everyone,

I thought the definition for Mental Disorder (illness) was vague, but good without clarifying any one illness. I was surprised to read that "Transgender" was redirected to Mental disorder. I did think we live in more educated times and seeing that was a disappointment. I just finished writing and submitting my final paper for my Comp. class and the third line in reads 'Pver the years, historically, being socially different, such as homosexuality has been considered an illness". As stated, I thought that was in the past. Anyway the main discussion of my paper is the fact that NIMH (National Institute for Mental Health) is working on revising their definition of Mental Disorders. "One of the biggest changes in their proposed definition is the statement that a mental disorder 'reflrects an underlying psychobiological dysfunction." (qtd. Dan Stein, January, Psychological Medicine)

NIMH is trying to define disorders based not only on their symptoms, but across several domains, including genes, neural structures, and behaviors. This NIMH project may take a decade to complete, but will offer some exciting information for the future. They will be looking into the chemical and/or the structural changes that happen in the brain when someone has mental illness. Thanks to modern science we can finally do this and I am really excited about hearing the results in years to come. Just imagine what can possibly be cured. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bandraoii (talk • contribs) 21:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "I was surprised to read that "Transgender" was redirected to Mental disorder." I don't understand this. Transgender is not redirected to Mental disorder, it has its own article: Transgender. And in the article Mental disorder, there is no mention of transgender.  Lova Falk     talk   11:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The Transexual redirect page was vandalised . As an aside whatever biological findings the NIMH or any other project may arrive at to be meaningful they'll have to relate them to subjective states. It's tricky and can be misleading, particularly in terms of causality, to materialise subjective states in this way (for either "normal" or "abnormal" populations).FiachraByrne (talk) 23:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Mental illness causal factors (see Mental_disorder) include genetic predisposition (indicated by e.g. family history of mental illness), but also include life experiences (e.g. abused as a child, or poor attachment with mother) and drug use (e.g. cannabis -> psychosis and bipolar). So one can't just say it is biological. Best wishes (JCJC777 (talk) 12:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC))

Mental illness or a mental disorder is not biological as there are no biological tests to confirm or deny chemical imbalances. Is it in the DNA ? Geneticist Dr. Benno Müller-Hill http://ctr.concordia.ca/2003-04/may_6/14/. Dr. Joanna Moncrieff wrote May 1, 2014	 http://joannamoncrieff.com/2014/05/01/the-chemical-imbalance-theory-of-depression-still-promoted-but-still-unfounded/ --Mark v1.0 (talk) 12:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Why is it not possible to edit this page?
I would like to add a few updates relating to mindfulness research. Please let me know how I can do that. Thanks. 96.52.36.115 (talk) 16:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Click on the WP:SILVERLOCK at the top right of the article page (or just the link I have provided) and all will be explained. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2015
Third sentence, "This may be associated with particular regions or functions of the brain or rest of the nervous system, often..." Please, place a "the" between "the brain or..." and "rest of the nervous...". Thank you

Jsurgailis (talk) 19:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC) Haha
 * Yes check.svg Done Stickee (talk) 01:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

"Mental disability" vs. "Mental disabilities"
I noticed that mental disability and mental disabilities still do not have a consistent target. "Mental disability" redirects to developmental disability, but mental disabilities now redirects to mental disorder. To which page should they be re-targeted? Jarble (talk) 19:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Jarble, that's not the case, which is why I made this comment. "Mental disability" has redirected to the Developmental disability article since 2013. And "mental disabilities" has redirected to the Developmental disability article since 2008. Flyer22 (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I was confused because Mental disabilites (but not mental disabilities) still redirects to Mental disorder. These pages have similar titles, but one of the titles contains a typographical error. Jarble (talk) 20:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * If we are to keep the typographical error redirect, then it should redirect to the Developmental disability article as well. Flyer22 (talk) 21:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, I considered that you must be referring to some other spelling. Flyer22 (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

General Health Questionnaire
Dear editors, I have just created General Health Questionnaire which you might like to assist with and link to here? Tayste (edits) 01:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Confusing redirect pages: "Emotional disability" vs. "Emotional disabilities"
These redirect pages do not point to the same article. One of them redirects here, but the other one redirects to emotional and behavioral disorders. How should this inconsistency be resolved? Jarble (talk) 03:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Correction/rephrasing to epidemiology section
Hey all, I don't remember my account password and am not feeling like figuring that out at the moment, but could someone make a prudent edit for me? In the Epidemiology section, when talking about women being more likely to suffer from depression, it is mentioned that suicide is a leading cause of death for women. This is incredibly misleading because it is well-documented that in almost all cultures, men successfully kill themselves at a much higher rate than women. It seems that little factoid is being used rhetorically as backup for women being more depressed than men but it doesn't hold water.

Additonally, I think it bears mentioning that women are much more likely to seek treatment or speak to others about their mental disorders, which is acknowledged by many sources to skew most of the numbers we have available. It is likely that there is no difference and people just hold onto the idea because they (whether consciously or unconsciously) enjoy the idea of having data to show women are more "feeble-minded"

- 71.87.82.212 (talk) 06:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Question
This appears to be about treatment rather than prevention. Not sure why it is in the prevention section "Computerised CBT has also been found effective. " Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 11:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The reference is about prevention I think; so should say "computerised CBT has also been found to be effective in prevention."


 * More generally why are you taking out the refs, e.g. on depression prevention? This is the key place on the web for people looking at the evidence for prevention. This section of wiki is much weakened and diminished in reference value by what you have done. I appreciate your editing of this are of Wiki very much - thank you - but I feel what you have done here in this instance is definitely wrong. Thanks   User:JCJC777
 * I am trimming the masses of primary research that have been added to this article to emphasis the recent high quality secondary sources. Please read WP:MEDRS.
 * So for http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/25093485 it is "A Meta-Analysis of Computerized Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for the Treatment of DSM-5Anxiety Disorders". Where does it indicate prevention? Can you provide a direct quote from the piece that mentioned prevention? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 7 July 2015

 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus. After nearly a month and two relistings we are no closer to a consensus one way or another, let alone a consensus to change the status quo. Cúchullain t/ c 13:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Mental disorder → Mental illness – A very simple rationale here: WP:COMMONNAME.

Both informally, from my own experience (I have very rarely heard the term "mental disorder", whereas "mental illness" is in common use. And also from an ngram search:, "mental illness" has been several times more common in books than "mental disorder" for at least the last 40 years. This was originally moved as a result of a rather short dicussion at Talk:Mental_disorder/Archive_3 in 2007, with those discussing it at the time acknowledging the common name issue, but reasoning that some health organisations prefer the term disorder. But our policy is to go with the common name in reliable sources, not to prefer anything just because it has more WP:OFFICIALNAME status, therefore I think the argument used at the time was contrary to policy. Thanks. --Relisted. Cúchullain t/ c 18:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)  Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 13:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC) &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. The Ngram stats clearly support the proposed title as the WP:COMMONNAME. Zarcadia (talk) 16:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. The concept of "mental disorder" is broader than that of "mental illness", but the lead sentence makes it clear that the latter is what's covered in this article. Moreover, use of the term "mental disorder" risks descending into euphemism rather than discussing the topic neutrally. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 22:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment/Oppose: I somehow overlooked this discussion. Amakuru, I don't understand how you have "very rarely heard the term 'mental disorder.'" Mental disorder is also in common use, as is indicated by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD), World Health Organization (WHO) and various other medical sources. In fact, these days, it is the more common term. The alternative term mental illness is more so outdated, going back to when things (such as homosexuality) that, these days, are no longer considered a mental disorder by the vast majority of the scientific community were termed "a mental illness." While medical sources still use the word mental illness, it is more common for them to use mental disorder. With regard to the IP's argument, it is more so the case that mental illness is a euphemism for "mental disorder." Like Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles, states, "The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources, rather than a lay term (unscientific or slang name) or a historical eponym that has been superseded." So I oppose Just Chilling having moved this article based on the two support votes above. I'll go ahead and contact WP:Med to weigh in on this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 05:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Alerted. Flyer22 (talk) 05:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:COMMONNAME and MEDMOS appear to be often in conflict with regards the naming of medical articles. I tend to favour MEDMOS advice, however typically these discussions end up favouring COMMONNAME. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 06:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * , and I don't see how "Mental disorder" is not the primary common name. Above, Amakuru stated "'mental illness' has been several times more common in books than 'mental disorder' for at least the last 40 years." Language evolves, as we know. For an article move, I don't think that we should be considering what was the common name (at least not as a primary concern); we should be considering what is the common name now. Flyer22 (talk) 07:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, looking at other medical articles, such as Myocardial infarction (commonly known as "heart attack"), I don't see that these discussions typically end up going against WP:MEDMOS. And, recently, after multiple move debates, Sexually transmitted disease was changed to Sexually transmitted infection. But I don't see "mental disorder" vs. "mental illness" as quite the same thing as those cases. Flyer22 (talk) 07:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, if comparing this case to the "sexually transmitted disease" vs. "sexually transmitted infection" aspect, it is similar with regard to what medical sources prefer. And what medical sources prefer was noted at Talk:Mental disorder/Archive 3, with an editor referencing an ICD-10 statement. Flyer22 (talk) 07:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * support per WP: COMMONNAME --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Just Chilling (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: As others have noted, both terms are in common usage in lay publications. "Mental disorder" evolved as part of the "political correctness" hysteria, when "mental illness" was deemed derogatory.  Within the profession, both are considered too vague to be useful; one hardly ever sees either one used in medical charts, other than generic entries under "review of systems" ("no history of mental illness").  But this is not a medical textbook, so either term is probably acceptable in this context -- although I would lean minimally (perhaps 10 degrees) toward "mental illness".  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  20:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Mental disorder as that is what WHO uses. Both are equally common more or less therefore no strong feelings. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - When considering wp:COMMONNAME one does well to recall that it is just one aspect of the "Recognizability" criterion, which in turn is just one of five general wp:NAMINGCRITERIA. It requires comparison to usage in reliable English-language sources. For medical topics, the identification of reliable sources is detailled in wp:MEDRS, and the application of MEDRS to NC is elaborated in wp:NCMED. There is no solid policy argument for applying lay titles to medical subjects and indeed there is clear guidance against that practice. The discussion Flyer22 links above led to moving the article from "mental illness" to "mental disorder", but both are accepted in MEDRS sources. Site-searching at psychiatry.org and at apa.org both terms are found, and used more or less interchangably, but "mental illness" is prevalent by far. This is a very nice example. LeadSongDog come howl!  21:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * [ WP:Edit conflict ]: Ozzie10aaaa and Just Chilling, do you have any proof that "mental illness" is the common name and that "mental disorder" is not the common name? Also, keep in mind that there can be more than one common name, as is the case here. "Mental disorder" and "mental illness" are both common names for this topic, the two most common. Even when one does the WP:Search engine test, and sees that "mental illness" has more results than "mental disorder", it's easy to see that the "mental illness" results have the word mental disorder thrown in. This is an example of it being a good thing that WP:Search engine test and WP:GOOGLEHITS advise against significantly relying on Google results. And, DoctorJoeE, can you provide a WP:Reliable source supporting your statement that "'[m]ental disorder' evolved as part of the 'political correctness' hysteria, when 'mental illness' was deemed derogatory"? Going by the IP's argument above, mental disorder is more derogatory. And like an editor in the aforementioned "Mental disorder vs Mental illness" discussion stated, the ICD-10 relays, "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'." If one looks at our Disease article covering the terminology debates, that person can see what the ICD-10 means. We no longer have an Illness article; it redirects to the Terminology section of the Disease article. So for those arguing WP:COMMONNAME, take note that the WP:COMMONNAME policy states, "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." It even has a note that states, "For example, heart attack is an ambiguous title, because the term can refer to multiple medical conditions, including cardiac arrest, myocardial infarction, and panic attack." Taking all of that into consideration, LeadSongDog and Doc James, should we really have "Mental illness" as the primary title? I've changed my initial comment above so that it states "Oppose" in addition to "Comment."


 * On a side note: Cuchullain, thanks for the move back. Flyer22 (talk) 21:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I did not provide WP:RS for my statement because it was based on personal experience, and I wasn't proposing its inclusion in the article; but to answer your question, you provided the source yourself in your excerpt from the ICD-10 manual above (in bold type). I'm not a big fan of political correctness in medical terminology (Hansen's disease instead of leprosy, for example); but again, I have no strong objection to either of the proposed titles, since they are equally nebulous (and about as useful as "indigestion" in a clinical context), so I will abide by consensus.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  22:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * DoctorJoeE (last time WP:Pinging you to this section because I assume that you will check back here if you want to read replies or that this page is on your WP:Watchlist), I don't see how the ICD-10 excerpt supports your that statement "'[m]ental disorder' evolved as part of the 'political correctness' hysteria, when 'mental illness' was deemed derogatory." The ICD-10 excerpt supports "mental disorder" being more accurate than "mental illness." Again, I pointed to the Disease article's Terminology section for further clarification; but, yes, I am aware that it's a section that needs more sourcing, and that its Disorder listing states, "The term disorder is often considered more value-neutral and less stigmatizing than the terms disease or illness, and therefore is a preferred terminology in some circumstances." I also know that, regarding my note that we don't have an Illness article, the Disorder page is a disambiguation page and Disorder (medicine) redirects to the Disease article's Terminology section.


 * Also, to everyone, I don't need to be WP:Pinged to this talk page since it's on my WP:Watchlist. And for what some other sources state on "mental disorder" vs. "mental illness", you can click on the sources link below. The sources on this debate are generally (generally being the keyword) stating the same thing -- that, despite the terms mental disorder and mental illness being used interchangeably, mental disorder is more accurate and/or broader than mental illness (it's an umbrella term).


 * James Cantor, since you specialize in mental disorders, do you have any take on this matter?


 * In this 2002 "The distinction between personality disorder and mental illness" review article by the British Journal of Psychiatry (which, yes, I know is a bit outdated WP:MEDDATE-wise), different pieces state, "Whichever of the four concepts or definitions is chosen, it is impossible to conclude with confidence that personality disorders are, or are not, mental illnesses; there are ambiguities in the definitions and basic information about personality disorders is lacking. [...] The historical reasons for regarding personality disorders as fundamentally different from mental illnesses are being undermined by both clinical and genetic evidence. Effective treatments for personality disorders would probably have a decisive influence on psychiatrists' attitudes. [...] Psychiatrists, and perhaps British psychiatrists more than most, are ambivalent about whether to regard personality disorders as mental illnesses. [...] Personality disorders are described in the International Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders (ICD-10) as ‘deeply ingrained and enduring behaviour patterns, manifesting themselves as inflexible responses to a broad range of personal and social situations’; they represent ‘either extreme or significant deviations from the way the average individual in a given culture perceives, thinks, feels, and particularly relates to others’ and are ‘developmental conditions, which appear in childhood or adolescence and continue into adulthood’ (World Health Organization, 1992a). They are distinguished from mental illness by their enduring, potentially lifelong nature and by the assumption that they represent extremes of normal variation rather than a morbid process of some kind."


 * This 2005 WHO Resource Book on Mental Health, Human Rights and Legislation source (from the World Health Organization), page 21, states, "A number of consumer organizations oppose use of the terms mental illness and mental patient on the grounds that these support the dominance of the medical model. Most international clinical documents avoid use of the term mental illness, preferring to use the term mental disorder instead [...] Disorder is not an exact term, but is used here to  'imply the existence of a clinically recognisable set of symptoms or behavior associated in most cases with distress and with interference with personal functions. Social deviance or conflict alone, without personal dysfunction, should not be included in mental disorder as defined here'  [...] The term mental disorder can cover mental illness, mental retardation (also known as mental handicap and intellectual disability), personality disorders and substance dependence. Not everyone considers all of these to be mental disorders; yet many legislative issues that pertain to conditions such as schizophrenia and bipolar depression apply equally to other conditions such as mental retardation, and therefore a broad definition is preferred."


 * This 2007 Humanising Psychiatry and Mental Health Care source (from Radcliffe Publishing), page 59, states, "In the field of mental health, however, the term mental illness is the term often used to encompass all meanings and situations. Furthermore, when mental health professionals, especially psychiatrists, use the term mental illness, they are often implying a concrete abnormality or disease process, i.e. something objective rather than subjective. It was this that led Szasz to denounce the term mental illness as a myth because, according to him, no physical lesion has been, or is likely ever to be, demonstrated. [...] Within medical circles mental illness is sometimes referred to as a 'functional' disorder because the diagnosis is based on a disorder of function, e.g. of speech or thought processes. In this way it is distinguished from an 'organic' disorder, where there is demonstrable physical pathology. Use of the term functional is usually made in general hospitals as a way of saying it's 'mental not physical' or 'we haven't found a physical cause so over to the psychiatrists'. To add to the potential confusion of this array of terms, whilst mental disorder and mental illness are often used synonymously, within mental health settings mental illness is referred to as one particular type of mental disorder, mental disorder being a broader umbrella term."


 * This 2011 Mental Illness source (from Polity), pages 13-14, states, "The term mental disorder (literally 'not order', and another 'dis' word) has fewer medical connotations and does not make specific assumptions about the underlying disease process. It has been used in all post-Second World War psychiatric classifications, since it better encompasses the diversity of conditions they cover, which include mental retardation (formerly mental deficiency and hardly an illness) and personality and behavior disorders. It has also become common to talk of mental health instead of mental illness, even though the focus in studies of mental health is in practice largely on mental illness. [...] However, in many contexts the words mental illness and mental disorder are used interchangeably."


 * Flyer22 (talk) 01:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Once again, I don't feel strongly on this question one way or the other -- but to spell out what I thought would be obvious, the ICD-10 excerpt says, "the term 'disorder' is used so as to avoid the even greater problems inherent in the use of terms such as 'disease' and 'illness'." One of those "inherent problems" is the derogatory connotation attached to "disease" and "illness" that evolved as part of the political correctness fad. But we're making a mountain out of a molehill here --  I basically agree with the Polity excerpt, above, that the two terms are usually used interchangeably, rightly or wrongly. Mental health professionals prefer more precise terms, such as psychosis (schizophrenia, bipolar, etc.), neurosis, personality disorder, etc, etc -- any and all of which are subsets of either "mental illness" or "mental disorder".  One can argue that the latter term encompasses a larger group of abnormalities, or that the former implies a more serious situation, or make any number of other distinctions; but for WP's purposes they are interchangeable.  Pick one.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  06:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll just add: This article getting moved to Mental illness will be a mistake, per the reasons and sources I cited above. And if I see editors changing "mental disorder" to "mental illness" in our Wikipedia articles, such as the Major depressive disorder article, based on the "mental illness" title of this article and the fact that they don't know about or do not adhere to the WP:NOTBROKEN guideline, I will be revisiting this case (via a WP:Med discussion and/or another WP:Requested move discussion). Flyer22 (talk) 02:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose per given the negative connotations. If changed to "mental illness", will we be renaming to "attention deficit hyperactivity illness" and "autism spectrum illness"? They are within the spectrum of mental illness. Ping me with &#123;&#123;u&#124;Jim1138&#125;&#125; and sign "&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;" or message me on my talk page. 03:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per and per the difference between saying that "you have something that is not conventionally in order" and saying "you're sick".  Within a sets view point any condition that may arguably be labelled as a "mental illness" may also be considered to be a "mental disorder" but the reverse is not true.  In some cases even "disorder" may be POV.  In the case of the so called Sexual masochism disorder and Sexual sadism disorder sexual stimulation is given in certain circumstances which, in safe, sane and consensual contexts may potentially be totally in order.  However the current proposal goes one stage further and labels a wide range of people with a word associated with disease.  GregKaye 06:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment- I am interested to hear the result of this discussion. I do feel the guidance needs to be discussed and consensus reached. Currently there seems to be conflict between COMMONNAME and MEDMOS with regards how articles should be named. It appears from the evidence presented above that mental disorder would be the choice according to MEDMOS and mental illness according to COMMONNAME. As I mentioned previously, there have been a few of these discussions, which typically end up going with COMMONNAME. E.g. this is why we have an article vaginal yeast infection and not vulvovaginal candidiasis anymore (a less precise term imo). Matthew Ferguson (talk) 07:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * , as you may have seen, I responded to you above about this. I have asked editors above what proof there is that "mental illness" is the common name and that "mental disorder" is not the common name. No proof/solid evidence has been provided. I also noted the Google searches aspect. And it has been made clear above by more than just me that "mental disorder" and "mental illness" are both commonly used for this topic. Flyer22 (talk) 07:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The term "Mental Illness" is far from being common name for many of the potentially negative medical "conditions" presented within Wikipedia's List of mental disorders. (Please note that the presence of articles such as this also raises issues related to WP:CRITERIA : consistency).
 * In the example of autism, search results indicate the words autism AND disorder to coincide in usage in "About 8,050" books while indicating the words autism AND illness to coincide in usage in "About 2,180" books.  Autistic people have mental conditions that don't work in the conventional order and yet they can be very highly and beneficially functional.  Autism is not defined as a mental illness although there may be a higher rate of other mental illnesses in people with autism.  Tell someone that only has autism that they have an illness and face the consequences.
 * However I admit that I may be wrong regarding boundaries of definitions and any other potentially related issues. Pinging  for a second opinion.  GregKaye 10:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The autism comparison is a very good example, GregKaye. Imagine if we started off the WP:Lead sentence of the Autism article calling autism a mental illness. It is definitely not precise to call autism an illness. It's also rather distasteful. And in this case, I can see how "mental illness" is derogatory. Having a relative with autism (someone who is currently age 4), I know on a personal level that it's not exactly an illness. But then again, we don't call autism a mental disorder in the Autism article either; we call it a neurodevelopmental disorder. Flyer22 (talk) 12:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. Hi, folks. Happy to add what I can.  On the one hand, “mental illness” is indeed the more common term among the public.  It is generally vaguer and broader than “mental disorder.”  It also gets used as a euphemism or synonym for someone with any psychotic symptom(s). (I am not aware of much discussion in which “mental disorder” is a euphemism for “mental illness.”  In my experience, both terms, and all medical terminology, are stigmatized.)  “Mental disorder,” is the medical/scientific term, about which experts and large professional organizations update/reconsider specific definitions and debate exact boundaries for what ought to count or not count.  Which WP policy should have precedence here, you folks are much more experienced with than I am. — James Cantor (talk) 17:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * James Cantor, thanks for commenting. I hope you don't mind that I moved your comment down. I moved it down because it had cut in between my comment (I mean the sources I listed above), and because I have a preference for chronological order for comments when it can be done without messing up the flow of a thread. If you want your comment moved back up, but beneath the sources, feel free. As for your take on this matter... Like I stated to others above (for example, my "7:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)" post), I see no proof that "mental illness is indeed the more common term among the public." Furthermore, sources I listed above imply or state that mental disorder is the broader term, and that medical professionals commonly prefer mental disorder over mental illness. Flyer22 (talk) 22:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - I've been offline for a while, so I've only just seen that debate has surfaced. I was giving my personal experience that I've not heard of "mental disorder" before, but that's just me, and of of course not relevant. As to suggestions that the two terms are equally common, I'd have thought the ngram clearly shows that they are not. WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIALNAME are there for a reason, and local guidelines at MEDMOS or elsewhere do not override those policies. This is an encyclopedia, not a medical journal or scientific paper, and even the WHO or government used terms do not override what's commonly used in reliable sources. The public would expect this article to be at the common name that they recognize. As for the "negative connotations" of mental illness, I don't even understand that... one of the reasons the current title actually jarred with me because the term "disorder" sounds much more negative than "illness". I've had plenty of illnesses in my life, but never something I'd call a disorder. That is a major negative term. Anyway, I stand by my support as nominator, and I think the argument is clearly rooted in Wikipedia policy, without a major reason to ignore the rules in this case. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * In reality howerver MEDRS routinely "overrides" RS. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 19:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Possibly, although in what I've seen of the matter, actually MEDRS isn't usually in conflict with RS, it's more an attempt to enforce RS (particularly the preference for secondary sources) rather more rigorously than is the norm in other articles. I don't have an issue with that, I am persuaded by the usefulness of that approach, particularly as there is a wide body of secondary research available for medical topics, as well as the undeniable fact that despite our explicit disclaimers on the subject, many people self treat or seek guidance on symptoms from Wikipedia. However, when it comes to naming, that's a different ball game. We are not risking people reaching the wrong conclusions by calling this "mental illness", in fact we're aiding their research on the subject, as that is the name they will expect the article to be called. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 19:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Amakuru, regarding your ngram argument, I commented: Above, Amakuru stated "'mental illness' has been several times more common in books than 'mental disorder' for at least the last 40 years." Language evolves, as we know. For an article move, I don't think that we should be considering what was the common name (at least not as a primary concern); we should be considering what is the common name now.


 * I also commented: Even when one does the WP:Search engine test, and sees that "mental illness" has more results than "mental disorder", it's easy to see that the "mental illness" results have the word mental disorder thrown in. This is an example of it being a good thing that WP:Search engine test and WP:GOOGLEHITS advise against significantly relying on Google results.


 * So, yes, I still see no solid evidence that "mental illness" is the common name and that "mental disorder" is not the common name. Since both of these terms are common names for this topic, and are the two most common names for it, we should be going with the more precise/more clinically appropriate name. Even the WP:Common name policy is clear about that. I noted that it states, "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." And I added, "It even has a note that states, 'For example, heart attack is an ambiguous title, because the term can refer to multiple medical conditions, including cardiac arrest, myocardial infarction, and panic attack.'" And as noted by the sources I listed above, the more precise/more clinically appropriate name in this case is "mental disorder." Flyer22 (talk) 01:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Using the word "illness" puts it into the same light as cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and HIV/AIDS. The word "disorder" implies that the condition is "wrong" without actually defining what it is. At least "illness" gives the assumption that it is curable. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 21:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Editors' personal opinions about whether the world should use the term disorder or illness are entirely irrelevent here. The decision is based purely on what the majority of high quality sources use. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 21:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * , that is incorrect. Look at the sources on this matter, including the sources I provided above. Having a mental disorder is not necessarily about rightness or wrongness, but more so about the mind functioning in a way that is non-standard. Rightness or wrongness can be an aspect, of course. But to use your terminology of "wrong," disorder is clear about why a disorder is "wrong" when the article is clear about it. This Wikipedia Mental disorder article has a Definitions and Classifications section, for example. Furthermore, the term mental illness has been argued above as more derogatory than mental disorder. Your rationale for moving this article or keeping it where it is should be in compliance with what Matthew Ferguson 57 stated in his "21:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)" post above. WP:IDON'TLIKEIT or WP:ILIKEIT rationales are not valid and should be discounted by the closer of this thread. Flyer22 (talk) 01:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * plenty of people have argued against the move above because they think "mental illness" is offensive. Those arguments should be equally disregarded. The only solid non-opinionated evidence provided in this debate, is (a) my ngram, which is *not* a search engine test, it's more reliable than that, as it searches published books, and we routinely do use them in move discussions, and (b) evidence that some official bodies prefer the term "mental disorder". In other words, the only valid arguments in favour of the move here rely on WP:COMMONNAME, a well established policy, with ngram evidence, whereas the arguments against the move rely on WP:OFFICIALNAME, and as we know, that says we should *not* automatically use any official name where reliable sources use another more name more commonly. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Amakuru, what "plenty of people have argued against the move above because they think 'mental illness' is offensive"? There are not even plenty of people in this thread. I discourage any argument that is WP:IDON'TLIKEIT-based or WP:ILIKEIT-based. If an editor personally dislikes the title of an article, that is fine; what is not fine is if that editor presents an argument for the article move based primarily or solely on that rationale. Their rationale should be somewhat policy-based or guideline-based. And I completely disagree that "The only solid non-opinionated evidence provided in this debate" is "your ngram." Your suggestion to move this article is partly based on your personal experience and on your statement that "'mental illness' has been several times more common in books than 'mental disorder' for at least the last 40 years." I already stated, "Language evolves, as we know. For an article move, I don't think that we should be considering what was the common name (at least not as a primary concern); we should be considering what is the common name now." I see nothing solid in your arguments for why this article should be titled "Mental illness." As for my arguments? They are based on what the WP:Common name policy states (you know, the exception about accuracy), what the title guideline of WP:MEDMOS states, and on what medical and scholarly sources state. If this move discussion was the same, or close to the same, as a different disorder move discussion that I recently started, I would agree to move this article to "Mental illness." But it's not the same thing or close to it. In this case, as is clear from above, we have two common names. I believe that we should go with the more precise/more clinically appropriate option, which is "mental disorder." My opinion on that won't be changing. The arguments against your move request are because of my arguments, not WP:OFFICIALNAME.


 * And once again, since this talk page is on my WP:Watchlist, there is no need to WP:Ping me to it. Flyer22 (talk) 08:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, I count "https://books.google.com/ngrams" as a Google search. Flyer22 (talk) 08:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Well that's up to you, but the general consensus at WP:RM is that ngrams can be used as evidence of common name in a discussion, whereas Google searches cannot. Of course, like everything, they are not binding or infallible, but if you are contending that my ngram is wrong, and that "mental disorder" really is on a par with "mental illness" in terms of the common name as used in reliable sources, you'll have to demonstrate why (and I'll be happy to agree with you if you do). At the moment your simply state "my opinion on that won't be changing", which is a rather strange position to take, and possibly even a little reminiscent of the WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments that you rail against above. But as I say I'm happy to see evidence to the contrary if you have it. Also, since my text about my personal experience above is bothering you, let me strike that out. The ngram alone is sufficient evidence of WP:COMMONANME for this example in my view. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * You stated "the general consensus at WP:RM is that ngrams can be used as evidence of common name in a discussion, whereas Google searches cannot." That is false. Google searches are commonly and successively used in Wikipedia move discussions. But as the pages I linked to above about relying on them are clear about, relying on them should be used with caution. Considering what I see in the lay sourcing and medical sourcing about the terms mental disorder and mental illness, your ngram evidence is not convincing. It used to be that mental illness was more prevalent/more common to use than medical disorder in the medical literature, but that is no longer the case, as reliable medical sources (including authoritative medical sources) I have listed above are clear about. And yet you state that your ngram evidence is relying on mental illness being "several times more common in books than 'mental disorder' for at least the last 40 years." Outdated, plain and simple. And as if books are the only sources we should be looking to in this case. I've already presented good evidence for keeping the article titled Mental disorder; you simply keep discarding it and clearly don't like it. And, yes, I find it ridiculous to insist on going with "Mental illness" as the title when both mental disorder and mental illness are common terms for this topic (the two most common terms for it)...but reliable medical sources (including authoritative medical sources) are clear that mental disorder is the term we should be using. You can call my rationale WP:IDONTLIKEIT-based all you want, but it's easy for anyone to see that my rationale is based on what the sources state. There is nothing "rather strange" at all about me stating that "my opinion on [this matter] won't be changing." It won't be. I see no reason to remain open-minded about this matter. Stating that "my opinion on [this matter] won't be changing" also means I see no reason to keep discussing this with you; I don't like repeating myself. And since moving this article to "Mental illness" will be a mistake, it will only be a matter of time before it is moved back to "Mental disorder." Flyer22 (talk) 02:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Mental Disorder per Doc James above. I also like that the term 'disorder' encompasses things we might consider 'illnesses' or 'sicknesses' such as say major depressive disorder (though it is interesting that it is called a disorder....) or paranoid schizophrenia as well as stuff like autism (which I've never heard anyone call an illness) or ADHD.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * weak Oppose Can we all agree that there is disagreement even among experts about the exact definitions of these terms, and thus whichever term wins out as the article title, the other expression will be a redirect to it? This doesn't necessarily mean that they are synonyms, but only that readers searching for the article will be well served by having either expression they choose to type in the search box leading them directly to the article.  Does anyone disagree with that, thus far? Mathglot (talk) 10:55, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


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

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Mental disorder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090913095407/http://www.healthengland.org/publications/HealthEnglandReportNo4.pdf to http://www.healthengland.org/publications/HealthEnglandReportNo4.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Prevention
I added a reference to Dr Allen Frances ( lead figure in psychiatry) who wrote that misdiagnosis or preventive treatment can be devastating to patients. The exact quote of Dr Frances is "We should preserve uncertainty when it is the most accurate prediction of the future."Doc James removed the reference without debate here on the talk page. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/saving-normal/201303/the-dangers-premature-diagnosis
 * Yes so you added "A self-fulfilling prophecy is a prediction that directly or indirectly causes itself to become true. Author and and leading figure in psychiatry Dr Allen Frances wrote "We should preserve uncertainty when it is the most accurate prediction of the future...Diagnosis most often helps, but sometimes hurts." "


 * First of all I have no idea how that relates to the prevention of mental illness. Second we do not use blogs for sourcing medical content. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2016
In the third paragraph of the "Mental Disorder" page, there is a sentence about who in the field is permitted to diagnose. Here is the relevant portion; ."..and assessments are carried out by psychiatrists, clinical psychologists and clinical social workers, using various methods but often relying on observation and questioning." While this is accurate, it is not complete. In fact, Licensed Marriage and Family Therapists (LMFT) are also allowed to diagnose. There may be others as well, but as I licensed MFT, I wanted to note this omission and request the sentence be modified to reflect this information.

Portablemoon (talk) 20:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 13:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Why use the DSM and not ICD?
DSM is a US thing. ICD is international. Why is the US only DSM used, and not the international ICD? DanBCDanBC (talk) 12:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The ICD is in the infobox. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 14:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The DSM is the most prominent system of mental disorder classification, and most research uses the DSM system of disorders. --Ireadandcheck (talk) 12:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

"Disturbed"
The usage and primary topic of is under discussion, see talk:Disturbed (band) -- 70.51.46.195 (talk) 05:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2016
this is a good article

45.249.69.226 (talk) 19:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Sir Joseph (talk) 19:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC)