Talk:Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Former good article nomineeDiagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 18, 2013Good article nomineeNot listed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on December 15, 2010, and December 15, 2013.

DSM Copyright[edit]

Here is a collection of historical information relating to the DSM Copyright:

December 2005 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive57#DSM-IV-TR_Copyright_question

March 2010 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Narcissistic_personality_disorder#Copyright_problems_with_diagnostic_criteria

Lede re APA revenue stream (recent efforts)[edit]

Jump down to Lede discussion part 2 (23 February 2019) Jump down to Lede discussion part 3 (26 February 2019)

Yeah, Talk should help, Flyer22 Reborn!

Disclosure (of stance / bias: not of firm opinion): I’m very sympathetic to the aims and achievements of the DSM, in pulling together a reference platform out of the mental-health disaster of last century’s total war. To me, DSM is a worthwhile target for critics because it’s the only target. Its weaknesses are not APA self-indulgence, they’re the big issues in Anglophone culture’s ideas about mental health. And maybe in US healthcare delivery too, but that’s not my thing. (I’m a Brit.)

In particular, I’m impatient with criticism that DSM should be rejected as a mere muddle of symptomatology. So was eighteenth-century physical medicine; and the solution to that was to do the work and make the progress - not to complain tht medicine was unscientific and shouldn’t be attempted!</rant>

What I was originally tackling is the way the lede closes. I experienced it as a POV ambush, a bait-&-switch from encyclopaedic style, to push an undeclared agenda, leaving a nasty aftertaste.

At the close of the lede! I presume that’s the worst possible place in an article to do that - and this is an important article!

Looking again, it still seems clear to me tht there’s a problem tht needs solving.

( There are other minor problems with the sentence: the $100m figure in the source relates to DSM-IV, not to DSM’s whole history; and annualising the figure will mislead if in fact the revenue-stream is lumpy / cyclic. )

Rather than getting into the policy long grass . . Maybe I took the wrong approach to reworking the text in the first place. How about moving the point to the opening paragraph? where it helps convey DSM’s established status?

( The following proposal includes other tweaks. )

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA), offers a common language and standard criteria for the classification of mental disorders. It is in established use by clinicians, researchers, psychiatric drug regulation agencies, health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, the legal system, and policy makers. The previous edition, DSM-IV, earned the APA over $100 million over its 19-year life.[1] Outside the US the WHO’s ICD Chapter V, Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders, has greater reach.[2]
- SquisherDa (talk) 13:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
SquisherDa, the current lead states, "The publication of the DSM, with closely held copyrights, earns the APA over $5 million a year, totaling more than $100 million over its history." Your version states, "It has been observed that the fourth edition earned the APA more than $100 million, through closely held copyrights, during its 19-year currency period." I don't see how your version is any better. All "it has been observed" does is compel an editor to add a Template:By whom tag. I understand what you mean about the POV push of the statement; I addressed a similar matter at the DSM-5 article. After I took the matter to WP:Med (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 90#DSM-5 article -- the New England Journal of Medicine piece), the material was moved to the lower part part of the article because the lead, per WP:Lead, is supposed to summarize the article, not include material not summarized lower first. The lead is supposed to summarize the article's most important points. Just like with the DSM-5 article, I don't see that this piece even needs to yet be in the lead of this article. How about moving it lower? We can ask for opinions on this at the WP:Neutral noticeboard and/or WP:Med. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
On a side note: Since this article is on my watchlist, I prefer not to be pinged to this talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:04, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Pinging: not sure how the system works: hope this is OK?

POV: great tht we’ve both felt uncomfortable! - it’s not just me! Also tht you’ve already sorted out rather the same issue elsewhere, as you describe.

Lede as summary: I had missed this, tht the point appears only in the lede. Really, that alone is decisive. That is, the first (?only) step is to transfer the point from lede to body.

You? or me? (Hint: I reckon you know the particular article better - and know what you’re doing generally rather better too!)

Other minor problems: I hope you agree with me tht annualising the revenue-stream is potentially misleading (and close to OR)? And of course the stated figure relates to just DSM-IV (presumably inc -TR)?

Policy points: what policy points apply to the new copy will become clear when it’s drafted; but if relevant . . I don’t share your qualms about By whom tags. It would help to locate the citation early in the sentence (as I did in my initial para-split attempt; forgot in my more recent effort moving the point to an earlier para). On that basis, I’d think anyone who adds that tag - while the answer to his/her question, last=, is staring right back from that exact point in the source code! - needs to be sat down in a quiet corner and listen while something is explained! And I doubt tht the suggested lede-limit of four paragraphs has a lot of weight, either, in application to an article of this length and importance.

In the body: *then* back in the lede again? Probably basically leave this until we have it in the body and we can judge how the whole thing looks. Thinking ahead, though, in case it helps with orientation / context . . I don’t fully trust my own ideas on this (because of my suspected bias in favor of DSM, + doubts tht I may be over-correcting); but my hunch is (i) there is an argument tht the APA is getting a little too comfortable with the revenue stream, and cozy with Big Pharma too; and (ii) it’s important enough for eventual mention in the lede.

Neutroboard / Med: I suppose we could? if we begin to feel doubts? But certainly at this stage it seems clear to me  :-)

Lede discussion part 2[edit]

- SquisherDa (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Pinging works by linking the editor's username with a fresh signature; see WP:Ping. That stated, I don't need to be pinged to this talk page since this talk page is on my watchlist. I prefer not to be pinged to articles I'm watching.
I'll move the content out of the lead.
If you feel that you can make the revenue-stream text more accurate, feel free to do so as long as you are sticking to what the source states. But it's best to avoid wording that can lead to a "by whom" tag. Yes, there are a lot of editors (especially less experienced ones) who will add the tag; this is because they have not read the template and they are keen on applying the WP:Words to watch guideline, often being strict with it. The template states, "Do not use this tag for material that is already supported by an inline citation. If you want to know who holds that view, all you have to do is look at the source named at the end of the sentence or paragraph. It is not necessary to inquire 'By whom?' in that circumstance." But despite what the template states, sometimes a source isn't clear about who stated what.
As for the WP:Lead guideline, it's an important guideline to follow. There's usually no need for a single-sentence paragraph in the lead, and this is definitely one of those cases since the content isn't even significantly covered lower in the article. And MOS:Paragraphs advises to generally avoid including single-sentence paragraphs.
As for whether some material on it should go in the lead once I put it lower. It's still currently a single-sentence paragraph. It's not one of the most important parts of that article that, per WP:Lead, should be in the lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:42, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Moved to the "History" section (followup edit here). Per WP:Due weight and MOS:Paragraphs, it shouldn't have its own subsection. Not yet, with it being the single-sentence paragraph (little material) that it is. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Pinging: mmm. Well, let me know if probs. (I did try looking at WP:Ping!)

I’ve now rewritten the moved copy to suit its new location - and to reflect its cited source(!) I’ve also taken care to avoid claiming to summarise the NYT article as a whole, rather than just this criticism.

As the point it makes is simply that, though - a criticism - should it really be in that section? rather than in History? (I would have said that earlier: but it wasn’t till I revisited the NYT piece, as part of this rewrite, tht I was reminded how fierce the criticism is. The piece ends with the words “laughing all the way to the bank”! - almost intemperate for the NYT?!)

Inexperienced editors: well, yes, and I’m much encouraged to see tht we’re seeing the basic issue in the same way. But shouldn’t we be pushing back? rather than surrendering the article space to contributors who need to attend to an explanation?

In this case, though, I’ve now simply mentioned the NYT in the running copy. I considered mentioning Gary Greenberg, instead of NYT . . it looks like he may be sufficiently notable to warrant mention? - but I’m not in a position to judge.

- SquisherDa (talk) 04:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Lede discussion part 3[edit]

Good discussion y'all. :O) ... SquisherDa wrote: "In this case, though, I’ve now simply mentioned the NYT in the running copy." I like it, i.e., it seems to be the appropriate balance. The American Psychiatric Association runs a smart business. As a psychologist I could whine and complain or I could contribute to the scholarly discussion about the thorny problem of mental disorder nosology. I believe the later option ultimately moves the field forward and helps more people.
SquisherDa also wrote: "I considered mentioning Gary Greenberg, instead of NYT . . it looks like he may be sufficiently notable to warrant mention?" I'd say 'no', but I don't have strong feelings about it.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 01:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
SquisherDa, regarding this, "remarked acidly" is an unencyclopedic tone. As for "should it really be in that section? rather than in History?", the content is in the History section. The General section is a subsection of the History section. And I included it in the History section because the text previously stated "over its history." It's partly about the history. As for "surrendering the article space to contributors who need to attend to an explanation," like I stated, it's best to avoid wording that can lead to a "by whom" tag and "despite what the template states, sometimes a source isn't clear about who stated what."
Markworthen, regarding this, this and this, I don't see why Insel should be mentioned in the lead. That is his opinion, and I don't see that he's even mentioned lower in the article. Criticism of the DSM should be summarized and not attributed to just one person. It's a WP:Due weight issue. If you reply, I ask that you don't ping me. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Insel was already quoted in the lede when I got here. But the quote was attributed to NIMH as a whole, which was imprecise. Therefore, I attributed the quote to Dr. Insel, and while I was at it, I re-wrote the sentence, hoping to improve the prose.
Your point about summarizing in the lede is well-taken, and since I was primarily just trying to help out with the issue regarding the APA’s DSM profits, I am perfectly fine with you editing that last paragraph as you deem it most appropriate.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
I owe you heartfelt apology, F22R, for (in essence) making you explain to me tht a subsection of the History section is part of the History section!! Thank you for your patience - and forbearance!
What I had *meant* to suggest is tht the material we’re working on should be in the *Criticism* section.
( “Over its history”: well, yes, our original report did introduce that phrase - with misleading effect. That was one of the reasons I felt it needed rewriting. Greenberg is entirely and clearly focussed, on “the current edition” - then (= 2016) still DSM-IV. )
And I think what Mark has been writing is sound in itself - just out-of-place (too detailed) in the lede. (That is, it’s too detailed for the lede, which should just summarise: it needs to be in the body, in detail as Mark suggests; and then should probably be summarised in the lede.)
What do people think? about drawing this material together and relocating it in Criticism?
“Acidly” / unencyclopaedic: hard to argue with you there! I was a bit short of ideas at that point, on how to characterise the criticism without (i) appearing to overstate it, (ii) actually understating it (we would then be misrepresenting it), or (iii) seeming to criticise the critic (for, eg, being intemperate; or polemical).
Maybe take refuge in the facts? Describe the criticism simply as “sharp”? and then quote the NYT article’s closing words in the citation? So, <ref (( cite yadda yadda )) The article’s closing words: “it [the APA] will be laughing all the way to the bank.”<ref/
- SquisherDa (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
I moved the NIMH/Insel sentences to the body of the article as discussed here (diff). Thank you both for your insights and suggestions on this point. Good teamwork! :O)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 02:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't feel strongly about the New York Times piece being moved to the Criticism section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Consistency re: "U.S." instead of "US"[edit]

Another editor changed "US" to either "U.S." or "United States" (diff). I searched the article and found two instances of "US", which I changed to "U.S." for one, and "United States" for the other (diff) for consistency per MOS:US. Unless there is a compelling reason to change the way we abbreviate "United States" in this article, I am in favor using "U.S.". The article does not frequently mention other countries using abbreviations, e.g., UK, AUS, NZ, which is one reason to prefer "US" in some articles (see MOS:US).   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 13:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Incomprehensible post

Creative work or factual description (Copyright issue)[edit]

Following the copyright issue (see top of this talk page), I'm surprised that the article does not state that this manual is a creative work, as even sated and claimed by the authors. Not so far from, for example, a novel or a personal report of a news or so on, differently form stating fact or "actual" definition of real things as "Water in rivers goes downstream ", "The Sun is a star", "The Sun rises in the East zone, set in the West zone", "New York is in Unite States", or for a medical example "Pharyngitis is every inflammation of the pharynx". We can hold to be sure that some other authors have written earlier than me, even word for word, but no one of such authors can claim a copyright stating that this wording are his/her own property and thinking tath he/sehe block anyone else to use the same sentence.

Amazing this book is introduced it this Wikipedia's article not as an authors' invention and imagination (as claimed by themself!) but as a "real thing". (Off course, we need to point out that someone actually use for the classification of mental disorders, but Iliad can not be introduced as a "real treasure map" not even if Heinrich Schliemann used it in that way). --95.239.2.134 (talk) 09:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Multiple issues[edit]

I added a multiple issues tag (banner) to the article, specifying:

  • This article may need to be rewritten to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards.
  • This article may require copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling.
  • This article needs additional citations for verification.

Please discuss here. Thank you   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 17:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Kudos to Dhtwiki and Guavabutter for their recent copy edits and other significant improvements to the article. I removed the Multiple Issues tag. :0)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 08:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

International comparisons?[edit]

It would helpful to have in this article a comparison of the DSM with other serious non-US and non-Anglophone systems of diagnosing and describing mental health, if such exist. (I myself know absolutely nothing about this, but would love to read if other experts wrote it.) Acwilson9 (talk) 20:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

While the article doesn't make detailed comparisons, which don't necessarily belong here, the International Classification of Diseases, which is published by the World Health Organization, is mentioned. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

The opening paragraph made it sound as though the DSM is the default authority in all countries. As far as I know the DSM is only an authority in the USA. I have attempted to clarify this. Please improve if you think it can be improved. SpectrumDT (talk) 11:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)