Talk:Classification of mental disorders

Criticism

The criticism about the DSM is with the DSM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.91.10.232 (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean? Lova Falk talk 10:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Inter-rater reliability

A large part of the criticism section concerns the reliability of diagnoses. Are categories accurate and are we able to categorize patients properly?

The criticism mentions several critics, but it's hard to form a global opinion without numbers. It would be interesting to have studies on the reliability of diagnoses of specific disorders, for example ADHD or schizophrenia. While that would be much harder or more misleading, a global score would be great (for example, for any 100 mental disorder diagnoses in Europe, 20 are bogus). --Chealer (talk) 18:35, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Classification of mental disorders. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130507060046/http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/updates/2013/mental-disorders-as-brain-disorders-thomas-insel-at-tedxcaltech.shtml to http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/updates/2013/mental-disorders-as-brain-disorders-thomas-insel-at-tedxcaltech.shtml

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 00:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Significant Scientific Debate & Significant Controversy?

The following two claims are made in the lead section of this article:

There is a significant scientific debate about the relative validity of a "categorical" versus a "dimensional" approach to classification, as well as significant controversy about the role of science and values in classification schemes and the professional, legal and social uses to which they are put.

WP:POLICIES states:

Policies have wide acceptance among editors and describe standards all users should normally follow.

The WP:UNDUE policy states:

...articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views...Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views...Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject...If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents...If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

In accordance with the above, I hereby make the following arguments:

1. Both uses of the word "significant" are unsupported attributions. Even verifiable existence of scientific debate or controversy does not automatically mean either are significant, and making claims regarding their significance without attribution is editorializing.
2. Prominent adherents of the claims have not been named in order to demonstrate the viewpoints are held by a significant minority. Unless prominent adherents can be verifiably named, these views should not be included in this article.

2601:240:4600:F870:21BA:4448:D376:1835 (talk) 01:45, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

applicant for referenation accring idc 10

paradondoblis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:E0:8F08:2593:E80F:2CB7:52F1:5B1B (talk) 09:05, 20 August 2020 (UTC)