Talk:DSM-5

Coverage of criticism in the lead
The paragraph about the criticism of DSM-5 in the lead can be made shorter. I recently moved the part saying Many of the members of work groups for the DSM-5 had conflicting interests, including ties to pharmaceutical companies.[2] Various scientists have argued that the DSM-5 forces clinicians to make distinctions that are not supported by solid evidence, distinctions that have major treatment implications, including drug prescriptions and the availability of health insurance coverage. in the main body of the article, as a prologue to the Criticism section. This content is more or less repeated in the paragraph before, for example compare with Critics assert, for example, that many DSM-5 revisions or additions lack empirical support and the psychiatric drug industry unduly influenced the manual's content

There is no reason to elaborate on the critisim in the lead. It can be argued that this is a form of biased editing. Moving part of the paragraph in the main body makes the lead easier to read and more neutral. Nxavar (talk) 10:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I reverted you here. But I explained that I did so because the content is already lower in the article and, per WP:Lead, the lead is meant to summarize the article. It's not biased to put notable criticisms in the lead. See what WP:Lead states. But, yes, the material on those matters can be trimmed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)


 * My point is that the lead summarizes the content well with and without the trimming. The difference is only the degree of generality. Nxavar (talk) 11:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * What are you proposing? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you do a rewrite that reduces the last paragraph to half? Nxavar (talk) 15:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Per WP:Lead, the lead is meant to adequately summarize the article. We should not leave out any important material. You can propose a version here on the talk page and see if we can come to an agreement about what should be in the final lead paragraph. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The lede (introduction) as a whole was too long because it contained repetitive and overly detailed content. I plucked and pruned for clarity, conciseness, and comprehension (diff). The current lead (after my edit) still complies with WP:LEAD.  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)   (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.)  02:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks for the input! I still take issue with the extent of the lead that is devoted to criticism. It is more suited for an introduction to the 'Criticism' section, which starts bluntly by presenting the specific comments made by various parties. Actually, the coverage of critisism on the lead can be made very short:

Criticism on the the DSM-5 has been centered around the influence of the psychiatric drug industry and the inability to verify the validity of new categorizations and diagnoses with existing clinical data. These reliablity issues have led to a petion, signed by many mental health organizations, for an outside review of the DSM-5.
 * Nxavar (talk) 10:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Add the following too:

The British Psychological Society has protested that the DSM-5 allows for diagnosing as illness normal human behaviour, while the National Institute of Mental Health has retained its recommendation for clinical practicioners.
 * Nxavar (talk) 11:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, the lead is meant to adequately summarize the article. It should not include material not included lower in the article. Look at how big the Criticism section is in the article. Why do you think that a very short paragraph on critcism in the lead does the article justice? I think you should stop pushing this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Some of the criticism material can be trimmed, but it should not be trimmed to a tiny paragraph. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * How about we return to my original edit and move those two lines to the main body? Nxavar (talk) 13:53, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * To repeat what I stated above, "I explained that I [reverted you] because the content is already lower in the article and, per WP:Lead, the lead is meant to summarize the article. It's not biased to put notable criticisms in the lead." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:17, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That you can put it does not mean that you must put it. You must take other WP:Lead policies into account too. You agreed that the critisism coverage should be shortened. Why don't you take a shot at it? Nxavar (talk) 12:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Other WP:Lead policies? Which ones? Furthermore, WP:Lead is a guideline, not a policy. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:Lead says for a lead that "It gives the basics in a nutshell". Nxavar (talk) 15:11, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Eh? The nutshell states, "The lead should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." That is what I've been stating. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit to lead (23 Jan 2020)
I trimmed the lead and edited the short description (diff). My reason for trimming the lead: I realized that much of the paragraph was unsourced - I thought it was discussed in the body of the article, but it's not. The sentence about the protest petition is not relevant or important enough to be included in the lead, and it is covered in the criticism section. - Mark D Worthen PsyD  (talk)   (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.)  07:35, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Substance-related and addictive disorders
Berchanhimez rightly deleted a list of all DSM-5 substance dependence diagnoses (diff) with this edit description: "remove list that's almost certainly a copyvio, and is wholly unnecessary to describing "changes" (which this section is). I agree. The subsection is Substance-related and addictive disorders, under Section II: diagnostic criteria and codes. I am creating this section on the Talk page so that we can discuss here, if needed.  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)   (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.)