 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
You can't say that here! edit
There is a meme circulating here on the wikipedia that any coverage of any individual with an obvious mental health issue represents a lapse from compliance with our policy on biographies of living people, and should be immediately removed.
I suggest that this moratorium is not in the best interests of the integrity of the project, is not in the best interests of the general public, and, finally is not even in the best interests of those specific individuals.
Rather, when our coverage of individuals' mental health is really compliant with WP:NPOV, WP:VER, that should be all that is necessary.
In the 19th Century, people who were considered "mad" were locked up, out-of-sight, in "mad-houses". Their families often abandoned them there, and treatment was often brutal. Medical science had no meaningful understanding of mental health issues. Medical science had no meaningful treatments.
It seems to me that the total prohibition on covering mental health issues that some contributors claim is already our policy is similar to the brutal lock-ups of the 19th Century. I suspect that if we consulted the literature on those lockups it would be presented as in the best interests of those being locked up.
There have been other health issues that were regarded as too shameful to have open dialogues about, until a high-profile individual outed themselves, and forced open and respectful dialogue on that issue into the arena of general public discourse.
Betty Ford's admission to a long struggle with alcoholism lead to a profound change in discourse over alcoholism. After she set an example other individuals followed it, other celebrities followed her example, and acknowledged their struggle with the disease to the general public. More importantly lots of private individuals followed her example and acknowledged their struggle with alcoholism. I don't think there is any question her introduction of an era of more open dialogue was of great benefit to both society in general and to individual sufferers and their families.
Ford's decision to out herself helped lift some of the shame felt by sufferers and their families.
Movie star Rock Hudson made the decision to out himself as an AIDS sufferer, and incidentally, as a gay man. He was the first high-profile individual to out himself, and his decision helped lift the shame that surrounded both AIDS and homosexuality. His decision to out himself was of benefit to both AIDS suffers and homosexuals because it helped lift that shame. His decision to out himself was of benefit to the general public because the wider, more open dialogue he triggered, meant that those who weren't infected became more aware of how AIDS was transmitted.
In a smaller way Angelina Jolie's recent decision to be open about her decision to have her breasts removed, due to her genetic predisposition to develop breast cancer, may similarly change the public dialogue over that kind of preventive operation.
I don't believe a moratorium on covering the mental health issues of individuals covered here is in their best interests at all -- so long as that coverage is respectful, and complies with WP:NPOV and WP:VER, and is genuinely relevant. I suggest that if our coverage is truly compliant with WP:NPOV and WP:VER it would automatically end up being sufficiently respectful.