Talk:Mental disorder

Template:WP1.0

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 Wikipedia:Article size#Splitting an article 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 Wikipedia:Article size#Splitting an article 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)

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)