Talk:Current diagnostic criteria for bipolar disorder
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Split/Merge[edit]
These diagnostic criteria would be more useful in the articles on the respective episodes/disorders than in an article of its own. Steve CarlsonTalk 06:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I totally agree. Split the articles and input more insight on each matter. Zisimos (talk) 01:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
-noo
I think that its useful having them all on the same page though especially because of the inclusion of mized state having the criteria of both major depressive and manic states. Although I do agree that it would be useful to have more information given in all areas. Sarahcwilkins (talk) 01:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Copyright problems with diagnostic criteria[edit]
The American Psychiatric Association has not released its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders into public domain, but claims copyright. The Wikimedia Foundation has received a letter of complaint (Ticket:2010030910040817, for those with access) about the use of their diagnostic criteria in this and a number of other articles. Currently, this content is blanked pending investigation, which will last approximately one week. Please feel free to provide input at the copyright problems board listing during that time. Individuals with access to the books would be particularly welcome in helping to conduct the investigation. Assistance developing a plan to prevent misuse of the APA's material on Wikipedia projects would also be welcome. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- I've reviewed other articles that are part of this complaint, and have fixed the problems that I found, but this one is beyond repair: as far as I can seel, almost all of this article's content is taken from the DSM. If I had seen this article before this process started, I would have tagged it for speedy deletion as a copyright violation. I don't know if I can tag it now that this other process has started, so I'll just leave this comment here. Eubulides (talk) 20:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your work here! Since we're waiting for further word from our legal counsel, it doesn't hurt to keep it until that resolves. (I should note, though, that I agree that this one is particularly extensive.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- Mike Godwin suggests handling through typical processes pending further action. Given the extensiveness of this issue, I have deleted and created a redirect pending production of new clean. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your work here! Since we're waiting for further word from our legal counsel, it doesn't hurt to keep it until that resolves. (I should note, though, that I agree that this one is particularly extensive.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)