Talk:Paul R. McHugh

Little information
Does anyone else find it odd that such a public figure in the culture war over abortion, gender identity, a member of former president Bush's bio-ethics panel has so little information on wiki?

I have expanded the article and provided a little more info on those subjects. Cheers! 87.196.73.190 (talk) 01:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Another user has reverted the controversy section, however most info can be verified at the TSRoadmap.com site, and is accurate as far as I can tell. More sources might be necessary, but please do not revert unless the info is indeed not correct (and please do say why and point your sources). The info is not necessarily flattering to the individual, but is pertinent and true. 87.196.173.3 (talk) 01:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So far you haven't provided any source. Each of these statements needs to be backed up by reliable sources. Please read specifically the biography of living person page. --McSly (talk) 01:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello,
 * I've added this to the references section: http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/paul-mchugh.html. It's not pretty in the way of formatting, but I believe the info to be accurate (that page also has outside references). I reckon we need other sources, but it seems to me like the facts. If I'm wrong on any of them, do let me know, ok? Thanks and cheers! 87.196.173.3 (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Erm... you guys seem a like a tough crowd :) I think at least a little of the material I added is sourced on the link I provided, as well as others in the linked page itself, and are verifiable sources. Why do you keep kaputting all of it? There does seem to be a bit of controversy around McHugh, why not add some? I'm assuming good faith all-round, can we get a discussion going here folks? I'd like to only change the page once we get round to an agreement, shall we get it going? 87.196.74.50 (talk) 00:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

To Whisky Drinker or whoever keeps tampering with this page. I am using citations and am working carefully on this article. You are destroying dozens of hours worth of work every time you revert the page. Everything that I have put into this article can be verified through other sources and I am putting references in which do just that. It's maddening to have to continue to correct your slashing of my article. Make sure you know what you're doing before knocking out huge sections of someone else's hard work!--Jxtrent (talk) 03:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Revert of material per WP:Biographies of living persons policy
Here I wholesale reverted a not very active editor's material because it either included unsourced personal opinions or removed properly sourced material. While there is a place for discussion of controversies, using WP:Reliable sources that actually call him controversial, you cannot do so just because it is your opinion. The article does seem to need some more sourcing etc., but only done within policy. I just happened by the other day after seeing his WSJournal article pop up somewhere.

Also note there has been an Arbitration re: Sexology and I added the template regarding that. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * At this diff, per the above, I:
 * tagged citation needed or dead link IF the source probably is accurate and updating with current sources are needed
 * per the box at top of this talk page, removed questionable unsourced material or material from unreliable advocacy sites. Feel free to research and add material using such sources. I'm sure there are lots if you search news and other high quality sources and avoid advocacy sites.

If you are an inexperienced or new editor please check out biography related links above. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

His criticism of PTSD, DSM, and Transgender care
Why is this profile missing the details that he actually disagrees with the consensus in his profession, and clings to treatments which in fact have higher suicide rates? There are multiple critiques in mass media, he's been a loud critic of Caitlyn Jenner, for instance. His mis-deeds should be listed along with his achievements. 50.136.158.31 (talk) 17:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

08:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC) Disagreeing with people is a mis-deed now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.224.249.17 (talk)


 * The opposition to abortion, the shutdown of the sexual reassignment surgery programme and the position on recovered memories in child sexual abuse investigations are all material facts. To remove all of this information from the lede and merely leave laudatory platitudes, as User:Drmies has done here, compromises the neutrality of the piece by turning this into a promotional article instead of presenting both sides. If this is a controversial figure, and reliable sources back this up, say so. If he singlehandedly shut down SRS at Johns Hopkins, one of the first institutions to offer the procedure, and this can be sourced, say so.
 * I also see WP:FART cited in edit comments as a rationale for removing content. That essay is a joke article, not policy.
 * One user has unilaterally removed 26598 bytes of information from the page. This should be reverted at once. 2001:5C0:1000:A:0:0:0:297 (talk) 00:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Not a joke, pal--it's an injunction to cite secondary sources to prove someone's opinion on a certain topic are worth mentioning in an encyclopedic article. If there are no sources, there is no ground to consider every thing a person said (every fart) relevant and important. One might as well cite every single opinion a person has ever held. As for the claim that I somehow impeded neutrality, that's prima facie BS--after all, I also removed a resume's worth of articles. I'm actually not here to address you: you know very well how decent writing is supposed to be done; this is for the other editors, the ones of good faith. The lead was rendered highly non-neutral by the above editor, and that cannot be. If there is well-sourced criticism, stick it in there, but be mindful of the BLP. And do yourself a favor: don't make large edits which combine BLP violations with well-sourced information, or they are likely to get reverted entirely. Drmies (talk) 01:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Paul R. McHugh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100213181437/http://www.usccb.org:80/comm/mchugh.shtml to http://www.usccb.org/comm/mchugh.shtml

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

BLP issues
I have just removed some content from the article. Since McHugh is a very prominent figure, and this removal involves some potential controversy, I'll give a detailed explanation. In the sentence, "McHugh considers homosexuality to be an “erroneous desire” and supported California Proposition 8 on the basis that sexual orientation is a choice", I removed "on the basis that sexual orientation is a choice." Looking through the source used for that claim, it seems clear that "sexual orientation is a choice" is an oversimplification of what McHugh actually wrote. It is true that McHugh does state that "Studies show that some aspect of sexual orientation is, in part, a choice", but that is a qualified statement that obviously is not equivalent to a simple "sexual orientation is a choice". "Sexual orientation is a choice" is a somewhat understandable misinterpretation of what McHugh wrote, but it is a misinterpretation nonetheless, and the claim should not be attributed to him. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Why isn't this article neutral? Why is it aggressively promoting medical malpractice?
https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-015-1867-2 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20461468 https://www.vumc.org/lgbti/files/lgbti/publication_files/ExpertLGBTIConcensusLetter.pdf

This isn't a political issue, any more than faith healing, or vaccines causing autism. You have a duty to your readers.

Biased and incomplete
I do not dispute anything here. The imbalance however is that he wrote (with Marshall Folstein) the most cited article in behavioral science the mini mental status exam (16,000 citations) He was chairman of PSYCHIATRY at Johns Hopkins and wrote the profoundly influential book Perspectives with Phillip Slavney. He was trained in both neurology and PSYCHIATRY at a time when that was unheard of and he courageously fought against Freudian pseudoscience, “recovered memory” and other fashions that have come and gone

I know the transgender movement is very popular right now, but the pendulum may swing back the other way. If and when it does make, you will be vindicated. Rberlow (talk) 02:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC)


 * What did you aim to achieve with this rant and WP:UNCIVIL claims about transgender people? If you have reliable sources about his career, then show us them. Zenomonoz (talk) 04:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC)