Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

DSM-IV-TR Permissions Controversy

[This discussion might be interesting to anybody interested in,or knowledgable about, DSM-IV-TR:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#DSM-IV-TR_Copyright_question -- 82.195.137.125 19:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)] reply

Expanded

I've expanded this article and removed the stub marker. EverSince 22:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Fair use rationale for Image:DSM-IV.jpg

Image:DSM-IV.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 22:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Fair use rationale for Image:DSM-IV.jpg

Image:DSM-IV.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot ( talk) 06:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Racism and support to eugenics

Decades ago, American Psychiatric Association gave full support to eugenics and racism. Eugenics sterilization had full support of this association, for many decades.The article article has nothing, about these supports. Agre22 ( talk) 18:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)agre22 reply

Then add it yourself, don't expect other people to do it for you. 69.138.243.26 ( talk) 00:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Well, I was blocked many times doing thing such as your sugestion. In this site: [ Kr] you can read at the end:

"A psychiatrist named Foster Kennedy gave an address to the American Psychiatric Association’s annual meeting in 1941. In it, he strongly advocated not only for the forcible sterilization of the mentally retarded, but for killing them, especially if they fell below a certain functional level. Because he assumed that such individuals were in constant suffering and would be better off dead, he referred to this killing as euthanasia or mercy killing. His address was published in the Journal of the American Psychiatric Association in July of 1942. In the same issue an opposing viewpoint by another psychiatrist, Leo Kanner, was also published, along with an editorial. While Kanner had no objection to sterilization, he did object to euthanasia. He also questioned the validity of assuming that people of low IQ would necessarily beget children who were also mentally deficient, but did not spend any time exploring the ramifications that would ensue for his philosophy if this were indeed the case. He believed that sterilization should be reserved only for those who could not perform useful work. He feared that stopping more functional people of low intelligence from reproducing might lead to a labor shortage in unskilled occupations which would adversely affect the functioning of society. Of note is the fact that by July of 1942, psychiatrists were already aware of what was going on in Germany. Kanner noted, “If [journalist and historian] William Shirer’s report is true – and there are reasons to believe that it is true – in Nazi Germany the Gestapo is now systematically bumping off the mentally deficient people of the Reich…”" Agre22 ( talk) 19:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)agre22 reply

Possible new section

This line was removed from the disambuation page for Young Turks, as there is no mention of this here, the target article. Perhaps with some research this could be added to the article:

ref is broken, but im leaving it here to help with research. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 01:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC) reply

I think Young Turks was used as a metaphor in that context. I don't think those psychiatrists called themselves that, or that they were a unitary/organized group, but I could be mistaken. There are some chapters in this book you may want to read. It doesn't say anything about Young Turks though. Tijfo098 ( talk) 02:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Drug company ties

Nobody in their right mind would reject that some, if not most, researchers in psychiatry take grants from drug companies, (and some even fail to declare a conflict of interest thereafter), and that US clinicians go to some pimp CMEs, but that section is written like an anti-psychiatry pamphlet, with little logic gluing the sentences together to their inevitable conclusion. Looking at reviews of the main source, they hardly seem to conclude it's an unbiased or reliable source. Seriously, this blog is a more reliable source about such matters than W's book, and while you probably shouldn't cite the blog at all, the papers and mainstream media articles it cites are probably okay. But it's hard to draw conclusions about APA as a whole. Tijfo098 ( talk) 02:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC) reply

P.S.: It looks like Carlat has a book out and an interview in NPR, [1]; perhaps it's time for Daniel Carlat? Tijfo098 ( talk) 03:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.psych.org/MainMenu/EducationCareerDevelopment/Library/APAHistory.aspx. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•( contribs) 16:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC) reply

links to psych.org broken

hej. Those 2 Links to psych.org from the references section that I tried to follow ended up "page not found" (reference 8 and 9). Using the search on psych.org for e.g. "position statements" gave "no result". maybe someone knowing the new structure of psych.org can fix the references' links. thanks Pardon my German (Fiiiisch!) ( talk) 17:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on American Psychiatric Association. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 20:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:American Psychiatric Association/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I would up the rating on this article to start or good. It seems fairly reasonable to me, certainly more than a stub-- Expo512 ( talk) 06:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Last edited at 06:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 07:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on American Psychiatric Association. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on American Psychiatric Association. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC) reply

inclusion in controversy section or creatinv new section about removal of homosexuality from dsm III

Apparently block evasion by Lazy-restless. Mz7 ( talk) 06:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I want to discuss about inclusion in controversy section or creating new section about removal of homosexuality from dsm III. Here are the references. "The former president of APA in 1987, Nicholas Cummings described the removal of homosexuality from DSM-III in 1973 as "The APA has permitted political correctness to triumph over science." [1] He also added that, contemporary APA violated their own " Leona Tyler principle" which means "not to be influenced by politics in case of research and diagnosis" in removing homosexuality from DSM. [2] Another former president of APA, Robert Perloff referred is as the willingness of many psychologists to trample patients rights to treatment in the interest of political correctness and added that making such choice unethical would deprive a patient of a treatment of choice because the threat of sanctions would eliminate any psychologist who engaged in such treatment. [3]" Some other references describing the controversy from different point of views are: Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). [4] [5] [6] [7] This pdf 103.67.159.165 ( talk) 12:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC) reply

As a historical note, there's nothing wrong with indicating that not all psychiatrists agreed with the 1973 decision to remove homosexuality from the DSM. But I don't believe it merits more than a sentence or two because it's not that notable at this point, particularly since conversion therapy has been unethical per the American Psychiatric Association for many years and the practice is illegal in many jurisdictions. I do not plan to add anything to the controversy section on this point, but you may certainly do so. Just make sure you are familiar with how to edit articles on Wikipedia. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 17:02, 19 August 2020 (UTC) reply
@ Markworthen: This IP hopping editor has been beating this dead horse endlessly elsewhere. See Talk:American Psychological Association#Discussion. Sundayclose ( talk) 17:06, 19 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Ah, good to know. Thank you Sundayclose. And thanks for linking to the WP:STICK humorous essay - I hadn't seen that before. ;o) - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 17:35, 19 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Also seems to be the same person (and different IP again) as here and on the talk page: Talk:Homosexuality and psychology#Rollback Crossroads -talk- 01:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ Reilly, Robert R. (2015). Making Gay Okay: How Rationalizing Homosexual Behavior Is Changing Everything. Ignatius Press. p. 141. ISBN  978-1-62164-086-8. Retrieved 2 August 2020.
  2. ^ Cummings, Nicholas A.; O'Donohue, William T. (2010). Eleven Blunders that Cripple Psychotherapy in America: A Remedial Unblundering. Taylor & Francis. p. 195. ISBN  978-1-135-85752-3. Retrieved 2 August 2020.
  3. ^ Wright, Rogers H.; Cummings, Nicholas A. (2013). Destructive Trends in Mental Health: The Well Intentioned Path to Harm. Routledge. ISBN  978-1-135-42355-1. Retrieved 2 August 2020.
  4. ^ Shelp, E. E. (1987). Sexuality and Medicine: Volume II: Ethical Viewpoints in Transition. Springer Science & Business Media. pp. 112–120. ISBN  978-94-015-3943-2. Retrieved 18 August 2020.
  5. ^ Engelhardt, Hugo Tristram; Jr, H. Tristram Engelhardt; Caplan, Arthur L.; Caplan, Drs William F. and Virginia Connolly Mitty Chair Arthur L. (1987). Scientific Controversies: Case Studies in the Resolution and Closure of Disputes in Science and Technology. Cambridge University Press. pp. 401–436. ISBN  978-0-521-27560-6.
  6. ^ Karasic, Dan; Drescher, Jack (2005). Sexual and Gender Diagnoses of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM): A Reevaluation. Routledge. p. 94. ISBN  978-1-317-95457-6. Retrieved 18 August 2020.
  7. ^ Cantor, Donald; Barrett, Campbell D.; Black, James C.; Cantor, Elizabeth (2006). Same-Sex Marriage: The Legal and Psychological Evolution in America. Wesleyan University Press. pp. 27–38. ISBN  978-0-8195-6812-0. Retrieved 18 August 2020.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:American_Psychiatric_Association&oldid=1204804662"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

DSM-IV-TR Permissions Controversy

[This discussion might be interesting to anybody interested in,or knowledgable about, DSM-IV-TR:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#DSM-IV-TR_Copyright_question -- 82.195.137.125 19:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)] reply

Expanded

I've expanded this article and removed the stub marker. EverSince 22:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Fair use rationale for Image:DSM-IV.jpg

Image:DSM-IV.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 22:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Fair use rationale for Image:DSM-IV.jpg

Image:DSM-IV.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot ( talk) 06:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Racism and support to eugenics

Decades ago, American Psychiatric Association gave full support to eugenics and racism. Eugenics sterilization had full support of this association, for many decades.The article article has nothing, about these supports. Agre22 ( talk) 18:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)agre22 reply

Then add it yourself, don't expect other people to do it for you. 69.138.243.26 ( talk) 00:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Well, I was blocked many times doing thing such as your sugestion. In this site: [ Kr] you can read at the end:

"A psychiatrist named Foster Kennedy gave an address to the American Psychiatric Association’s annual meeting in 1941. In it, he strongly advocated not only for the forcible sterilization of the mentally retarded, but for killing them, especially if they fell below a certain functional level. Because he assumed that such individuals were in constant suffering and would be better off dead, he referred to this killing as euthanasia or mercy killing. His address was published in the Journal of the American Psychiatric Association in July of 1942. In the same issue an opposing viewpoint by another psychiatrist, Leo Kanner, was also published, along with an editorial. While Kanner had no objection to sterilization, he did object to euthanasia. He also questioned the validity of assuming that people of low IQ would necessarily beget children who were also mentally deficient, but did not spend any time exploring the ramifications that would ensue for his philosophy if this were indeed the case. He believed that sterilization should be reserved only for those who could not perform useful work. He feared that stopping more functional people of low intelligence from reproducing might lead to a labor shortage in unskilled occupations which would adversely affect the functioning of society. Of note is the fact that by July of 1942, psychiatrists were already aware of what was going on in Germany. Kanner noted, “If [journalist and historian] William Shirer’s report is true – and there are reasons to believe that it is true – in Nazi Germany the Gestapo is now systematically bumping off the mentally deficient people of the Reich…”" Agre22 ( talk) 19:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)agre22 reply

Possible new section

This line was removed from the disambuation page for Young Turks, as there is no mention of this here, the target article. Perhaps with some research this could be added to the article:

ref is broken, but im leaving it here to help with research. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 01:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC) reply

I think Young Turks was used as a metaphor in that context. I don't think those psychiatrists called themselves that, or that they were a unitary/organized group, but I could be mistaken. There are some chapters in this book you may want to read. It doesn't say anything about Young Turks though. Tijfo098 ( talk) 02:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Drug company ties

Nobody in their right mind would reject that some, if not most, researchers in psychiatry take grants from drug companies, (and some even fail to declare a conflict of interest thereafter), and that US clinicians go to some pimp CMEs, but that section is written like an anti-psychiatry pamphlet, with little logic gluing the sentences together to their inevitable conclusion. Looking at reviews of the main source, they hardly seem to conclude it's an unbiased or reliable source. Seriously, this blog is a more reliable source about such matters than W's book, and while you probably shouldn't cite the blog at all, the papers and mainstream media articles it cites are probably okay. But it's hard to draw conclusions about APA as a whole. Tijfo098 ( talk) 02:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC) reply

P.S.: It looks like Carlat has a book out and an interview in NPR, [1]; perhaps it's time for Daniel Carlat? Tijfo098 ( talk) 03:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.psych.org/MainMenu/EducationCareerDevelopment/Library/APAHistory.aspx. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•( contribs) 16:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC) reply

links to psych.org broken

hej. Those 2 Links to psych.org from the references section that I tried to follow ended up "page not found" (reference 8 and 9). Using the search on psych.org for e.g. "position statements" gave "no result". maybe someone knowing the new structure of psych.org can fix the references' links. thanks Pardon my German (Fiiiisch!) ( talk) 17:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on American Psychiatric Association. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 20:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:American Psychiatric Association/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I would up the rating on this article to start or good. It seems fairly reasonable to me, certainly more than a stub-- Expo512 ( talk) 06:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Last edited at 06:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 07:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on American Psychiatric Association. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on American Psychiatric Association. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC) reply

inclusion in controversy section or creatinv new section about removal of homosexuality from dsm III

Apparently block evasion by Lazy-restless. Mz7 ( talk) 06:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I want to discuss about inclusion in controversy section or creating new section about removal of homosexuality from dsm III. Here are the references. "The former president of APA in 1987, Nicholas Cummings described the removal of homosexuality from DSM-III in 1973 as "The APA has permitted political correctness to triumph over science." [1] He also added that, contemporary APA violated their own " Leona Tyler principle" which means "not to be influenced by politics in case of research and diagnosis" in removing homosexuality from DSM. [2] Another former president of APA, Robert Perloff referred is as the willingness of many psychologists to trample patients rights to treatment in the interest of political correctness and added that making such choice unethical would deprive a patient of a treatment of choice because the threat of sanctions would eliminate any psychologist who engaged in such treatment. [3]" Some other references describing the controversy from different point of views are: Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). [4] [5] [6] [7] This pdf 103.67.159.165 ( talk) 12:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC) reply

As a historical note, there's nothing wrong with indicating that not all psychiatrists agreed with the 1973 decision to remove homosexuality from the DSM. But I don't believe it merits more than a sentence or two because it's not that notable at this point, particularly since conversion therapy has been unethical per the American Psychiatric Association for many years and the practice is illegal in many jurisdictions. I do not plan to add anything to the controversy section on this point, but you may certainly do so. Just make sure you are familiar with how to edit articles on Wikipedia. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 17:02, 19 August 2020 (UTC) reply
@ Markworthen: This IP hopping editor has been beating this dead horse endlessly elsewhere. See Talk:American Psychological Association#Discussion. Sundayclose ( talk) 17:06, 19 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Ah, good to know. Thank you Sundayclose. And thanks for linking to the WP:STICK humorous essay - I hadn't seen that before. ;o) - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 17:35, 19 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Also seems to be the same person (and different IP again) as here and on the talk page: Talk:Homosexuality and psychology#Rollback Crossroads -talk- 01:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ Reilly, Robert R. (2015). Making Gay Okay: How Rationalizing Homosexual Behavior Is Changing Everything. Ignatius Press. p. 141. ISBN  978-1-62164-086-8. Retrieved 2 August 2020.
  2. ^ Cummings, Nicholas A.; O'Donohue, William T. (2010). Eleven Blunders that Cripple Psychotherapy in America: A Remedial Unblundering. Taylor & Francis. p. 195. ISBN  978-1-135-85752-3. Retrieved 2 August 2020.
  3. ^ Wright, Rogers H.; Cummings, Nicholas A. (2013). Destructive Trends in Mental Health: The Well Intentioned Path to Harm. Routledge. ISBN  978-1-135-42355-1. Retrieved 2 August 2020.
  4. ^ Shelp, E. E. (1987). Sexuality and Medicine: Volume II: Ethical Viewpoints in Transition. Springer Science & Business Media. pp. 112–120. ISBN  978-94-015-3943-2. Retrieved 18 August 2020.
  5. ^ Engelhardt, Hugo Tristram; Jr, H. Tristram Engelhardt; Caplan, Arthur L.; Caplan, Drs William F. and Virginia Connolly Mitty Chair Arthur L. (1987). Scientific Controversies: Case Studies in the Resolution and Closure of Disputes in Science and Technology. Cambridge University Press. pp. 401–436. ISBN  978-0-521-27560-6.
  6. ^ Karasic, Dan; Drescher, Jack (2005). Sexual and Gender Diagnoses of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM): A Reevaluation. Routledge. p. 94. ISBN  978-1-317-95457-6. Retrieved 18 August 2020.
  7. ^ Cantor, Donald; Barrett, Campbell D.; Black, James C.; Cantor, Elizabeth (2006). Same-Sex Marriage: The Legal and Psychological Evolution in America. Wesleyan University Press. pp. 27–38. ISBN  978-0-8195-6812-0. Retrieved 18 August 2020.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:American_Psychiatric_Association&oldid=1204804662"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE