Talk:DSM cautionary statement

Mention vs Categorize
I have changed this entry. We should not get bogged down in what DSM mentions. It's the categorization that's important. --CloudSurfer 18:48, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * It should be merged with the DSM page. JFW | T@lk  23:21, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


 * keep: The fact that the diagnostic labels used in the DSM are not strictly scientific in nature underscores the significance of the black box warning label the tome well deserves.  The reason for the split between neurology and psychiatry boils down to the lack of any verifiable psychopathology for virtually all DSM diagnostic labels.  To shove the issue off of its own well deserved Wikipedia page would be a disservice to the Wiki community.  Ombudsman 06:55, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

This is a small page unlikely to grow and conceptually a child of DSM. It is also likely to become a POV fork. Why do you oppose the merge? JFW | T@lk  09:27, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I think the DSM cautionary statement should be merged with the page, or, at the very least, a link to it should be maintained on the wikipedia site. Beyond the obvious argument to this end--i.e., to prevent unintended use of the DSM code system--it highlights an ongoing and important debate in the psychological community--that of the subjectivity of "mental health" v. the rigidity of DSM codes. Perhaps a section on this debate could be added to the cautionary statement page. --laminado 16:05, 16 Aug 2005 (PST)

Can a redirect point to a Cautionary Statement section within a larger DSM article? If so, then I would agree that this page should be merged for the reason that the information contained within the cautionary statement is specifically intended to address the layperson reviewing the DSM without clinical supervision. Since the majority of wikipedia readers are in this category, I think the cautionary statement belongs in the main text of the main article. My only concern about merging the articles is that many pages that reference diagnostic criteria about specific disorders should have a specific link that helps the reader quickly and easily access the information in the cautionary statement without scrolling through the history of the DSM. -- Erik 9:49, 23 Aug 2005 (PST)

Ya but does anyone really care about this? I mean so what am irght

POV tag
I've added a tag to this article. Specifically, I believe it constitutes a POV fork, though there is not POV problem with the body of the article (which I actually wrote myself, but into a different article). Also, the title is a self-reference and overtly indicates a POV. For further explanation, please see the ongoing discussion at Talk:Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Thanks. –Sommers (Talk) 17:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I just took it off, the original DSM cautionary statement is part of the DSM itself see It's not a POV, it's a caveat, REMOVING it is more POV than retaining it, there are also other issues: see Talk:Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. --Zeraeph 20:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Please do not remove POV tags until the disagreement has been resolved. The fact that the actual DSM has a cautionary statement does not mean that it's NPOV for Wikipedia to give the same caveat. I still contend that this article is a POV fork. I'd like to make a proposal: rewrite the article "DSM cautionary statement" into a stub about the APA's statement linked to above. After that it would probably need to be merged into the DSM article for style reasons anyway, but at least then we'd be including the same information while describing the opinion of the APA, which is much more agreeable to WP:NPOV than reflecting the opinions of some Wikipedians. What do you think? –Sommers (Talk) 15:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Sommers, I genuinely think you are making a mountain out of a molehill. Trouble is that it involves the APA, who, as far a Wikipedia are concerned, are a powderkeg waiting to go up.


 * As for the rest, I am pernickety about valid premise. Currently the DSM Cautionary statement article is three or 4 lines.


 * I do not want to see you put that POV tag back until you can explain your exact premise for calling it POV and show the words you feel are POV line by line. Explaining why you feel they are POV. Because I can't see anything remotely POV or not neutral about it, and if you can't show cause for POV from the actual content of those lines you have no business tagging it at all, if you can, I will leave the tag there whether I agree with you or not.


 * "Because I think so" or variations of same, does not qualify as "valid premise". --Zeraeph 14:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I said at the top of this section that I do not think any of this article's actual content is POV. I wrote that content. Rather, I placed the POV tag because putting said content in an article by itself, in order to highlight the limitations of the DSM, is POV forking per "Content forking". Please read this page and tell me how I am wrong. I gave this exact justification quite clearly when I first added the POV tag, so please do not accuse me of doing so "because I think so". –Sommers (Talk) 14:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, perhaps now you would like to give a similar depth of explanation as to how you see the article as a POV Fork, because, after careful perusal, I really cannot see that either. Sorry but I just don't see it. I would have thought the reason for putting the content in a seperate article was pretty obvious...clarity! But even if you can (which I beg leave to doubt, for instance at least "Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not content forking, provided that all the sub-articles, and the summary conform to Neutral Point of View." would seem to apply) make a valid case for claiming this article as a POV fork, that still doesn't justify using a POV tag, that you admit yourself does not apply. It makes little to no sense to tag articles inaccurately!--Zeraeph 22:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The POV tag does apply. It reads "The neutrality of this article is disputed" and by calling the article a POV fork, I was disputing its neutrality. I really don't see any inaccuracy in that. Does it matter that I was objecting to the title and existence of the page and not the actual words and sentences that made up its body text? (I understand that my use of the tag didn't carry quite the same connotation as a typical instance, in which someone is writing biased text, but I'm not aware of any different POV tags that would have been more specifically suited to what I meant.) I've already tried in good faith to explain why this page is a POV fork, but to reiterate in a nutshell: it takes certain facts about the DSM and sets them aside in order to advance a particular view of the DSM, namely, a cautious one. (I have always conceded that this was done with the purest of intentions, to prevent harm to the reader, but unfortunately this is not an excuse for being unencyclopedic.) Saying that this is done for the sake of the "clarity" of that information doesn't change the fact that it's being given preferential treatment over other information about the DSM. Also, the cautionary statement is not a "sub-article giving greater detail" (if anything, it gives less detail), nor is "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders" a "summary-style article", and the cautionary statement is far too short to justify separating it from the main DSM article purely for reasons of style and organizations. Also, my objection to the inherent POV problem in making a statement to the reader (which I explained in more detail in my most recent post to Talk:Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) has not yet been addressed. If you think the statement is NPOV, I'd really like to hear an explanation of how this is acceptable. Thanks. –Sommers (Talk) 16:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not POV, it is a description (or "sub-article giving greater detail" ) of a part of the DSM IV TR. However CLAIMING that part of the DSM IV TR is POV would be a POV statement --Zeraeph 22:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * But right now the text of "DSM cautionary statement" isn't describing that part of the DSM. It's describing (and giving a caution about) the DSM as a whole. It doesn't even mention the DSM's own cautionary statement.–Sommers (Talk) 22:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, and easy enough fixed, as it is now --Zeraeph 11:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * And I have no idea what you mean by "CLAIMING that part of the DSM IV TR is POV". At no point have I tried to say that the DSM's cautionary statement was "POV" (nor would it really make any sense if I did); I've been saying that the Wikipedia page "DSM cautionary statement", which is a completely different thing, is unencyclopedic and a POV fork. –Sommers (Talk) 22:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I read the POV fork page, and cannot see for the life of me how it applies here, but even if it did, it would be squeaking in on a technicality that did not actually mean the article is POV at all, which means it is a bit senseless to use a tag that states it IS. Find another tag that actually applies or make a template, otherwise you might as well tag it "pornography" (is there such a tag?).--Zeraeph 11:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for comment
I have listed this page at Requests for comment because of a persistent disagreement about this page's suitability. This disagreement has been civil and constructively-minded so far, but unfortunately, it also seems to be at an impasse. My suggestion in this matter is to redirect DSM cautionary statement to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (merging its contents, if and where necessary) and remove all reference to the statement from other articles.

Most of the discussion regarding this page has taken place at Talk:Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. I'm afraid that, because this issue is so complex and went through many stages of discussion, my opinions were not expressed very concisely as they evolved there and here. So, for the sake of clarity for anyone who steps in from RFC, here is an itemized (and hopefully briefer) summary of my arguments in favor of the above suggestion:


 * 1) It is inherently unencyclopedic, and it represents a point of view, for an article to (a) caution the reader or (b) make a statement to them. The DSM cautionary statement, by its own title, explicitly does both.
 * 2) The statement takes information that supports a negative view of the DSM and corrals it into a separate page, for the stated purpose of highlighting the DSM's weaknesses. Therefore, even if this information is presented in a neutral tone, it is a POV fork.
 * 3) The links in other articles to the statement, whether they are meant to or not, reflect a POV critical of the DSM. Qualifying every citation of the DSM by saying "(See the DSM cautionary statement)" strongly implies that Wikipedia thinks the statement is necessary because the DSM is not necessarily trustworthy.
 * 4) It has already been decided at No disclaimer templates that no special warnings need to be given to the reader above and beyond the "Disclaimers" link at the bottom of every page. (The TFD for Template:Medical in particular is relevant here.)

I will also summarize my rebuttals to some of the argument that have been raised against what I'm suggesting. (It's not my intent to speak for those making the arguments, but to expedite the discussion by summarizing what I've said in response.)


 * Argument: There is a real problem of laypeople harmfully misusing the information in the DSM, treating it like an incontrovertible reference book instead of one source of diagnostic opinions. The average reader won't dig deep enough to learn and recognize the facts that would prevent them from doing this. Rebuttal: I agree that this is a problem. The responsible thing is for Wikipedia to neutrally provide these facts and characterize experts' criticisms of the DSM, which can and should be given quite a bit of prominence under WP:NPOV. Hopefully this will be done in such a way as to prevent any dangerous misunderstandings. But it's still POV to make a statement directly to the readers, shaking them by the lapels and making sure they get the point, even if there's a potential for harm otherwise. I point again to Medical disclaimer and No disclaimer templates.
 * Argument: The DSM itself has a cautionary statement much like the one in Wikipedia, which contains much of the same information. Rebuttal: Although that statement and its contents should indeed be covered in the article, this does not mean that it's NPOV for Wikipedia itself to issue the same caveats.
 * Argument: When the APA gives permission for someone to reprint material from the DSM, it does so under the condition that the DSM's real cautionary statement must be linked to. Rebuttal: Wikipedia has been given no such permission (and shouldn't be reprinting this material beyond fair use) and is therefore under no such obligation, and ours isn't the same statement anyway.

Thank you for your attention and replies. I apologize again if I'm still being verbose, but as I've said, this matter is both important and subtle. I look forward to getting it figured out once and for all as soon as possible. Thanks.

–Sommers (Talk) 02:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * In response:


 * 1) It is not unencyclopaedic, in any sense, to STATE that the DSM makes a cautionary statement, because it does.
 * 2) It is not a POV fork, in any sense, to STATE that the DSM makes a cautionary statement, as a seperate article, because it does.
 * 3) It is clearly only the DSM's Statement, not any statement from Wikipdedia, that you suggest could be interpreted as suggesting the DSM is "untrustworthy".
 * 4) No disclaimer templates is, in fact an agrugument in favor of retaining the article as a disclaimer template was one of the alternatives to retaining the article (I believe you suggested it yourself at some point?)


 * Argument 1: Irrelevant, it is not POV to state that the DSM makes a statement, which it does.
 * Argument 2: Irrelevant, Wikipedidia is not "issuing a caveat" just pointing out that the DSM does.
 * Argument 3: Wikipedia has been refused permission to reprint this material at all, the APA contests "fair use", not least on the grounds that any material reproduced is subject to alteration, which would be a very strong case. The APA loves to litigate, and has huge funds at it's disposal to do so. Common sense suggests that the less sticks we poke up the APA's nose the better.

--Zeraeph 22:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that the changes to the article of March 31 do address some of the concerns I presented above. I wrote the previous statement in regard to the statement as it was for some time before that, when it was not at all an article about the DSM's actual cautionary statement, but a separate statement unto itself. (This is especially true of my three rebuttals, which concerned arguments meant to support the old version.) I apologize for not being aware of the changes made to the current version; I've been largely inactive for the past week or so and I didn't see them on my watchlist.
 * However, there are still two problems with the current version that I think need to be addressed:
 * There's no reason to have a tiny article concerning one section of the DSM separated from the article Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. (For this reason, I'm adding merge tags.)
 * Most importantly, everything I said in "3" above still stands. As you say, the links to DSM cautionary statement in other articles may (now) simply be (indirectly) citing a statement by the APA, but this doens't solve the problem: it's not the APA who chose to put those links there, but Wikipedia editors. This reflects the opinion on the part of those editors that citations of the DSM need to be qualified with special, up-front warnings—doesn't that sound like a POV to you? (The fact that the APA would agree with those editors is no excuse.) We don't warn people against the weaknesses of Windows by saying "(see also Criticism of Microsoft)" every time it's mentioned. We don't encourage critical thinking of George W. Bush by directing readers to Movement to impeach George W. Bush every time he's quoted. And we shouldn't be urging readers to question the trustworthiness of the DSM by saying "see DSM cautionary statement" every time it's cited in another article. Put information about the cautionary statement in the main article, along with everything else about the DSM, and let the readers decide.
 * –Sommers (Talk) 23:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * 1 Because most of the DSM article is not relevant to the DSM Cautionary Statement
 * 2 When I get round to replacing all the links, with no personal opinion, or agenda, one way or the other, soley because the APA will bust b*tts, sooner or later, on a wide variety of infractions if somebody doesn't (which is a fair enough synonym for "the APA chooses to put them there" to my mind). That will no longer be a problem. --Zeraeph 02:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "1" doesn't make any sense. Firstly, this is no reason to leave the article unmerged. Even if the rest of "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders" doesn't directly concern the cautionary statement, that doesn't mean the statement needs to be covered in a separate article. (By analogy with a recent featured article, the biological information covered in the first three sections of Kakapo has nothing to do with the "conservation" section, yet "conservation of the Kakapo" is not its own article.) Secondly, how can you argue that the article about the DSM isn't relevant to a statement in the DSM about the rest of the DSM? "DSM cautionary statement" is a tiny, one-paragraph stub that does not cover a topic independent from the DSM itself. There is no reason that the statement needs to be covered in its own article. As for "2", I don't really understand what you're saying. Could you clarify what you're actually suggesting be done or saying that you'll do? But as for your concerns about the legal situation, this really is not relevant to the merge. You are concerned that other articles may be infringing on the copyright of the DSM, and I believe you may be correct about that. The proper action in that case is to remove the offending material from those articles, or to take one of the other actions described in WP:COPYVIO and WP:C. (Of course, you'll have to explain such actions on the corresponding talk pages, and you'll likely encounter some disagreement. I'm probably not the only Wikipedian who believes that individual diagnostic criteria can be cited within fair use.) However, none of that has anything to do with this article, and does not give us any reason to give the cautionary statement special treatment or undue emphasis in its own article, except for your own unsubstantiated guess that mimicking the requirements over at BehaveNet will somehow appease the APA lawyers into not pursuing legal action. While I'm sure you have the best intentions, no one seems to share this assumption. Please do pursue any potential copyvio problems according to Wikipedia's existing guidelines, but inventing your own remedies, such as the links to this article, is unnecessary. And if the APA does decide to bring the wrath of God down on Wikipedia, I'm sure that the Wikimedia Foundation's lawyers will be more than able to handle it. I think I've made my case very clearly and unless you can produce a reason under Wikipedia's normal policies and guidelines that the cautionary statement needs to be treated in its own article – and I don't believe one exists – I'll be carrying out the merge shortly. Thank you, however, for your continued civility and willingness to discuss this. Hopefully, soon we'll be able to cooperate on improving the article on the DSM and the related psychological topics, which is certainly needed. Thank you. –Sommers (Talk) 12:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * 1 The fact remains that most of the DSM Article IS NOT RELEVANT to the DSM cautionary statement, though, arguably, perhaps not as irrelevant as your refutation of this point?
 * 2 Very simple, when I replace all the links you have deleted, to impartially avoid antagonising the APA, the following point on your part will no longer apply:


 * "Most importantly, everything I said in "3" above still stands. As you say, the links to DSM cautionary statement in other articles may (now) simply be (indirectly) citing a statement by the APA, but this doens't solve the problem: it's not the APA who chose to put those links there, but Wikipedia editors. This reflects the opinion on the part of those editors that citations of the DSM need to be qualified with special, up-front warnings—doesn't that sound like a POV to you? (The fact that the APA would agree with those editors is no excuse.) We don't warn people against the weaknesses of Windows by saying "(see also Criticism of Microsoft)" every time it's mentioned. We don't encourage critical thinking of George W. Bush by directing readers to Movement to impeach George W. Bush every time he's quoted. And we shouldn't be urging readers to question the trustworthiness of the DSM by saying "see DSM cautionary statement" every time it's cited in another article. Put information about the cautionary statement in the main article, along with everything else about the DSM, and let the readers decide. "


 * You haven't proven any of your points at all as yet, in any context, but regardless of that, you must merge as you feel your conscience dictates...as I will, no doubt, later unmerge, in accord with mine. It would be far better to place this as RFC, or even raise a Copyright issue, and try and get the whole DSM situation resolved sitewide, once and for all.--Zeraeph 18:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I certainly agree that it would be good to get the situation resolved on a wider basis. However, your assertion that I haven't proved any of my points is ridiculous – I've tried in very good faith, and at greater length than I would have liked, to present a clear explanation of why this article needs merging and why the qualifying links to it carry a POV implication. If you have any specific questions or objections I'd be more than happy to answer them, but if I tried to answer your vague challenges about not proving my points, I'd only be repeating myself, which I've done plenty of already. Incidentally, I've already listed this under "clinical and medical topics" at RFC (hence the name of this section), but no one seems to have responded yet. Regarding your concern about the perceived threat of lawsuit from the APA (which, as far as I can tell, is your only reason for wanting to prevent this merge and keep the links intact) – please do deal with any perceived copyright problems in the manner prescribed in Copyrights, but please do not try to appease the APA into not suing by inserting extraneous "(See the DSM cautionary statement)" links into articles that already refer to the rest of the DSM. (And I strongly suggest you skim Copyright paranoia as well.) The whole point of WP:NPOV is that no point of view gets preferential treatment, and by succumbing to copyright paranoia about the DSM and directing readers to learn about the cautionary statement in particular, you're giving preferential treatment to a point of view that is mildly but significantly wary of the DSM. This is unacceptable. And in the unlikely event that the APA does bring legal action against Wikipedia, the matter can be resolved then under the normal method of removing infringing content. This preventative measure that you've made up is unnecessary and harmful to NPOV, and frankly I don't see why it would change the APA's mind anyway. –Sommers (Talk) 14:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

But you haven't proved your points at all, that's fact, you've just tried to bend a few rules to breaking point to support your assertion, and, truth is, you have failed. If you had made your points you would have convinced me and you haven't even come close.

It really isn't for you to say what is, or is not, my "only concern", that is for me to say...but with regard to the APA suing or not suing, you only get the "final word" on how people should act, think, and behave about that when it is YOUR personal *ss they will sue.

That references to the DSM link the DSM article is not remotely relevant to the need (as perceived by the APA within the DSM) for a caveat.

I will in turn politely request that you refrain from antagonising the, already litigation-happy APA by removing that caveat. --Zeraeph 00:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * By "bend a few rules to breaking point to support your assertion", I have to assume you're referring to my description of this page as a POV fork. I was only trying to describe the situation with an existing and well-understood term; if my use of the term didn't fit perfectly, it doesn't mean I was trying in bad faith to abuse the rules. Please remember to assume good faith. As for the much more significant problem of the cautionary links to this article, I don't think I've bent any rules, especially considering that there are no relevant rules to bend, only policies and guidelines (which, by their nature and WP:IAR, are meant to be "bent" in any case, if you can call it that). I never did say what was or wasn't your only concern or otherwise speak for you. Please note the words "as far as I can tell" in my previous post. I was talking about what you've told me, not attempting to read your mind. As for your assertion that I haven't proved my points, I can only direct you to my previous post, in which I told you that I feel I have explained myself quite thoroughly and that, after the tremendous number of words that have already been expended on this subject, I have nothing new to say in response to your vague challenges. If you can give me any specific questions, or even some idea of what sort of further "proof" you expect, I can work with that. Otherwise, scroll up. Now I'd like to, in turn, ask you to offer some more support for your points. You mention "the need (as perceived by the APA within the DSM) for a caveat". That need as perceived by the APA may exist (or at least, that's what you tell me), but is there a need as required by Wikipedia policy or guidelines for such a caveat? If so, please prove it. If not, let's get rid of it. WP:COPY provides established policy on what measures are necessary to protect Wikipedia, and these caveats go beyond that to the point of harmfulness. (If you are genuinely concerned that WP:COPY is insufficient, by all means take it up at the village pump or the appropriate talk pages.) So, I don't think it's necessary to "refrain from antagonising the, already litigation-happy APA"—in fact, it would be unacceptable. Surely many groups feel antagonized by Wikipedia, but we follow WP:NPOV and the other policies regardless of what they may want. Should we give the APA special treatment merely because it (according to you) might threaten litigation? Certainly not; that would seriously compromise Wikipedia's integrity. So unless you can come up with a better justification for keeping the cautionary links intact and DSM cautionary statement unmerged, I'll expect you not to revert the edits when I make them. –Sommers (Talk) 19:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Sommers, it seems to me you are a long way out of line now and still hell bent on travelling.


 * In the first place how on earth can you justify informing me what to assume? That's something I like to decide for myself.


 * In the second place it is quality, not quantity, of words that proves points, and, in spite of all the words, you ain't proved nothing yet that I can see.


 * In the third place, you can "expect" whatever you like, because I will do as I see fit, not as you expect --Zeraeph 00:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm here via the RfC. First, I must say that I completely misunderstood the current wording of the article (version I see). I thought it was saying that the DSM carries a cautionary statement (presumably in the foreword or in big letters at the top of the first contents page or something!); and that this article was describing this cautionary statement. On re-reading the article and re-reading this talk page and Talk:Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, I now think I misunderstood, and that the problem is: some Wikipedians think we need a big "self-diagnosis is bad" reminder for those people who type things into Google; that this page was created to hold a warning to that effect; and that now there is debate on whether this should be done here, or in the article on the DSM itself. Further, whilst the APA itself would caution against self-diagnosis, we can't actually quote anything they say. Is that right? I fear that if I re-read again, I shall come up with a new understanding :(


 * I do have a slight (and dated) knowledge of mental health issues, but from a European perspective. I don't understand enough about US law to know whether the APA position on copyright and fair use is tenable. So not so helpful so far! That said, I am personally wary of many very small fragments being split off a page. Summary style is one thing, but I think wide-ranging topics require wide-ranging articles. There is a comment that "much of the DSM article is not relevant to this one", but it doesn't all have to be. It would be the other way around, I think: all of this article ought to be relevant to the DSM one. I would be inclined to get rid of this page and keep all the information on the page about the DSM itself.


 * Telsa (talk) 23:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I am responding to the RFC. Should there be a separate page for every drug's black box warning...probably not! This article, which seems to be serving in the role of a POV fork, should be merged with the main article for DSM. Andrew73 11:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)