Talk:Trauma model of mental disorders

Psychology High‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine: Psychiatry Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Psychiatry portal This article is supported by the Psychiatry task force (assessed as High-importance).

Disability

Trauma model of mental disorders is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability articles

Trauma model article[edit]

Before writing this article I asked Dr. Colin Ross, whom I have met personally, if he would be interested to write the article. He suggested me to write it. —Cesar Tort 03:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. I have made a few changes (mostly copyedits). I also made the introduction a bit clearer, summarising key facts and added a single sentense at the end stating the opposing view. If i have misrepresented something, the please do say so. As you well know, i'm not an expert. I would also strongly suggest reducing the very long quote from Ross' literature. Its usually frowned upon to have such long quotes in Wikipedia, and certainly not so prominant in a relatively short article. Also starting off with "The problem of ‘attachment to the perpetrator’..." is a little more complex than is required for the description of the trauma model, i would have thought. I think either a much shortened version of the same quote, or perhaps a succinct summary of how Ross describes his theory would be better. If you really wish to keep a length block quote then i would move it further down and kick off the article with "Before Ross, in the 1940s, 50s, 60s and 70s...". Other than that, i think its the beginnings of a nice article. Well done. Rockpocket 05:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really like this article, Cesar, and would like to see it expanded, if possible. I'm sure you will continue to add to it and tweak it as time allows. Ande B 00:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deleted introduction[edit]

Rockpocket has just reverted this intro:

According to some researchers child abuse at home plays a causal role in depression, PTSD, eating disorders, substance abuse and dissociative disorders (Kendler et al 2000). The more severe the abuse the more probability symptoms will develop in adult life (Mullen et al 1993). In the psychiatric field it is assumed that child abuse is less related to the most serious psychoses, such as schizophrenia. However, some mental health professionals maintain that the relationship is stronger in psychoses than neuroses (Read et al 2004; Davis and Burdett 2004).

This is what Rockpocket wrote in the edit summary: ”please make yourself familiar with WP:MOS before rewriting introductions, it fails on numerous criteria. Reverted intro only”. Rockpocket could have relocated the paragraph in the text. But he simply deleted it.

As stated elsewhere, I am very busy in real life. I won’t discuss anymore with some editors because the way disagreements are handled in Wikiland is a colossal energy sink. However, if someone believes the deleted intro has some value and is familiar with “WP:MOS”, whatever that means, I would appreciate if s/he either rewrites the intro or inserts the paragraph in the proper place.

Thanks! —Cesar Tort 03:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Cesar, if you read the history properly you will note i did move the sourced content further down in the article [1], with an explanation, but you removed that when you tried to reinsert it as the opening paragraph, with complete disregard for WP:LEAD and no justification in policy. I didn't want to revert the content back, otherwise i would have removed much more content that you added at the same time, so i simply removed the intro. This was under the rationale that you do not want the content where it was in the article previously (or else you wouldn't have moved it) and that i'm not convinced it adds anything to the article anyway. But should you wish to, please feel free to contribute your sourced content in a suitable place.

Note also, that I at least left a summary explaining what i removed and why, you didn't. If, we are in the business of requesting edits of others, i would appreciate it if you reinserted the paragraph that you moved, to its proper place. That would solve both our problems. Thanks. Rockpocket 03:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware I moved a paragraph. Which one? --Cesar Tort 04:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the late 1940s several psychological trauma researchers have postulated that the relationship of childhood trauma with psychoses is stronger than neuroses (Read et al 2004).

You moved and reworded to:

However, some mental health professionals maintain that the relationship is stronger in psychoses than neuroses (Read et al 2004; Davis and Burdett 2004).

Its no big deal. The point is that i'm not trying to remove your content, its just there is specific requirements for what should be in an introduction (not least the title of the article should not be bounced to the 5th sentence!) and that content fails most of them. My second removal wasn't the most elegant, but it was difficult to revert back to the previous version with the content in an appropriate place, because you has made other edits at the same time that i did not wish to disturb. Had i done that you would have been unhappy also. I also fully expected you to revert again (as you didn't accept my very same reasoning the first time i moved it), so what was the point? If you are willing to leave this content back where it was in the body of the article, i'll happily put the effort into putting it back, or you could do it yourself. If you wish to change the intro that is fine also, but please make sure it follows the guidlines set out in WP:LEAD and WP:MoS. Let me know. Rockpocket 04:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I follow you. Do you mean it's ok to reinsert the paragraph as long as it's done somewhere below the introductory para? --Cesar Tort 04:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats exactly what i mean. It appears to be referenced and relevent to the difference between the trauma model and mainstream thinking, so i have no problem with it being in the article. It just shouldn't be the opening paragraph. Rockpocket 06:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for providing those sources, also. Rockpocket 06:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it necessary?[edit]

Re the demand by Rockpocket of adding a citation to the following phrase —:

In the psychiatric field it is assumed that child abuse is less related to the most serious psychoses, such as schizophrenia ^{[citation needed]}

—is it necessary? I mean: the above is taught even in High School psychology courses. Everybody with little knowledge of the mental health field knows it. Also, too many citations interrupt the reading flow of the article unnecessarily.

If no objections I may remove the citation tag later this Sunday. --Cesar Tort 07:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it is so ubiquitous, it should be pretty simple to source such a statement, no? My concern was more with the phrasing "it is assumed". I would imagine it is "hypothesized" or "proposed" or "demonstrated". In my experience, professionals in biomedical fields do not "assume" such factors in scholarly writing. Therefore i do object and would still like a source that reflects the wording as it is, please, per WP:RS - Unattributed material. Thank you. Rockpocket 08:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about replacing it for "it is hypothesized"? --Cesar Tort 08:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is good enough for me (again, taking your word for the fact that "Everybody with little knowledge of the mental health field knows it"). Rockpocket 08:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on Talk:Biopsychiatry controversy[edit]

An RfC has been created on Talk:Biopsychiatry controversy on the subject: "Is the majority viewpoint of the psychiatric profession, and particularly of the psychiatric research community, that the biopsychiatric model of psychiatry is, by and large, accepted or rejected?" Comments from editors involved in this article/project may prove useful. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

show me the evidence for this statement ?[edit]

In the psychiatric field it is hypothesized that child abuse is less related to the most serious psychoses, such as schizophrenia^{[verification needed]}

but what about this article and significant debate (won by John Read)

Read J, van Os J, Morrison AP, Ross CA (2005). "Childhood trauma, psychosis and schizophrenia: a literature review with theoretical and clinical implications". Acta Psychiatr Scand. 112 (5): 330–50. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0447.2005.00634.x. PMID 16223421. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
podcast of academic debate "Maudsley debate on sexual abuse as a cause of schizophrenia". Retrieved 2009-15-04. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help) Earlypsychosis (talk) 12:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeap! I agree with you. Read, Ross et al won the debate. But I remember that the claim that child abuse is less related to the most serious psychoses is taught even in some psychology departments. I would recommend therefore leave it unsourced. It seems to be a pretty common though unsupported *claim* in the mental health professions. Vindarten (talk) 13:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it doesnt belong on wikipedia if there is no source !!! Earlypsychosis (talk) 18:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Implicit in the sharp distinction are the assumptions that neurotic disorders have psychological aetiology and psychotic disorders have organic aetiology."[2]. Vindarten (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great article (although i only had access to the abstrast). So I can then delete the statement I was concerned about as the abstract states

It is argued that the empirical evidence does not support such a sharp distinction between neurosis and psychosis Earlypsychosis (talk) 07:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand well the page, it merely states biopsychiatry's axiom in order to present the alternative scientific hypothesis. The page does not look as *claiming* that psychoses are more biological than neuroses. Vindarten (talk) 10:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Positive Trauma[edit]

Much of the time "trauma" has positive effects that can outweigh any negative effects. Anyone care to add something about this? Though I believe some trauma can have lifelong negative effects, the idea that trauma is a purely negative experience is antiquated. see Posttraumatic growth. --DanielCD (talk) 20:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Trauma model of mental disorders. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060412005618/http://www.rossinst.com:80/schizophrenia_book.pdf to http://www.rossinst.com/schizophrenia_book.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

POV[edit]

This article is severely lacking when it comes to the voices of people who criticise the trauma model. At the moment they get a grand total of two sentences. Eldomtom2 (talk) 18:48, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely agree, this article fails to address a lot of the larger criticism of the trauma model. Almost feels to have deliberately chosen the more passive or "dismissable" criticism 2601:408:C404:6AD8:59E4:3AB4:9D84:732E (talk) 01:39, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]