|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Links to Holonomic brain theory
It's bad form to revert someone without commenting on the talk page. It leaves no room for discussion, and leads to bad blood. That's why I'm placing this comment, to give an opportunity to for consensus to emerge. Please discuss this link prior to adding it back.
brenneman(t)(c) 11:54, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi there, I was reading this article and noticed that the term "mental illness" was mentioned repeatedly. I think the term should be dropped and replaced with "mental health problems". I believe the latter term best represents the current state-of-affairs without any of the negative connotations... Can someone with expertise in this field look into this? --188.8.131.52 (talk) 19:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
The article is currently very US-Centric (only passing mentions of the ICD-10). It also needs a lot of work. eg. it makes references to disorders, but there's no real explanation of the association between the terms 'psychopathology' and 'disorder'.
Going to see if I can build this article up a bit.
- I disagree with your US-centric comment. DSM-IV is not only used in the US and there is no information in the article that is specific for the US. However, this article does lack inline references. Lova Falk talk 10:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I realize that in general, "lead follows body", and I do not mean to abandon that principle here. Unfortunately, since the article lacks content, we need to start somewhere, and I'm hoping that a succinct introduction will help.
Here are some specific problems with the previous introduction:
- it did not explain psychopathology straight away; instead, the first sentence announced a dual meaning.
- it created a fictional dichotomy between psychiatrists, who purportedly study psychopathology, and psychologists, who allegedly study only abnormal psychology.
- it betrayed a preference for a medical approach to understanding mental disorders, e.g., highlighting "disease processes" and inserting the unnecessary "non-medical" when referring to psychology.
- it confused a manifestation of psychopathology, viz., symptoms, with the concept itself.
I therefore rewrote the introduction. If you strenuously object to the changes I made, feel free to revert it, and let's discuss it more here.
I will be working on the body of the article too. For example: I will explain further what is meant by an effective classification scheme, i.e., it is one that leads to reliable, accurate diagnoses, which, in turn, lead to effective therapeutic interventions or recovery. I'll specify further what is meant by manifestations, e.g., signs, symptoms, functional impairment (disability), behavioral patterns, cognitive changes, felt experience (emotions), and somatic (physical) effects. And I will explain that treatment involves therapeutic efforts designed to alleviate suffering, improve functioning, and enhance quality of life.
Thanks! - Mark D Worthen PsyD 03:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
In-line references required
This is a very useful and helpful article HOWEVER it has NOT ONE inline citation (and its footnotes are only etymological). I would have flagged the article but doing so can have the unfortunate consequence of attracting wiki traffic wardens, with all the editing madness that results in - but nonetheless it does need inline citations. As it stands the whole article could be deleted in its entirety as being an unreferenced piece of Original Research! Please help if you can. Ta! LookingGlass (talk) 12:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
DSM section overhaul
The DSM section needs to be overhauled. It appears to have been updated in patches, to take account of new issues of the DSM, resulting in the grammar of the whole being thrown out of wack. LookingGlass (talk) 13:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)