Npkozlov
| This user is a student editor in Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Boston_University/KHC_Studio_Sections_B1_and_M1_(Spring_2020) . |
Welcome!
editHello, Npkozlov, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with Wiki Education; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.
I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.
Handouts
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Primary sources
editHi, I saw that you used primary sources for the following paragraph:
- Paula Caplan illuminates how the diagnostic process continues to fail patients due to its unscientific basis for describing symptoms and furthermore its questionable process of determining what is a disorder. Caplan discusses her stance in an interview with Alexandra Rutherford for Psychology’s Feminist Voices. She explains that she got involved with the DSM after hearing a proposed diagnosis which targeted female stereotypes, and had no scientific studies backing it up: Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder. This disorder, proposed for the new DSM manual (the DSM-III-R), is harmful for the female gender due to its apparent attempt to validate harmful societal stereotypes. The disorder is in fact disproven by studies that find male irritability to be just as prevalent as female irritability, regardless of time of month (Caplan). She describes conversations she had with Robert Spitzer’s team, who was making the DSM III-R, in which they agreed with her critiques on the proposed Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder. Nonetheless, this disorder was still included in the updated DSM manual. Not only are the symptoms used to diagnose patients not based on quantitative data, but the actual diagnoses listed in the DSM appear to have questionable accuracy as well. The inclusion of disorders which target stereotypes and lack scientific backing question the DSM’s use as a diagnostic tool. [1][2]
- ^ Caplan, Paula. Interview by Alexandra Rutherford. Skewed & Reviewed, 2010, https://www.feministvoices.com/assets/Feminist-Presence /Caplan/Paula-Caplan-Oral-History.pdf. Accessed 13 Mar. 2020.
- ^ Caplan, Paula J. They Say You're Crazy: How the World's Most Powerful Psychiatrists Decide Who’s Normal. Addison-Wesley, 1996.
Now while you can use primary sources to back up basic claims, they should generally be avoided when it comes to controversial claims. At most we could use it to back up some of her claims from the book, as long as we clearly attribute the claims to her. This runs into the second issue: the latter half of the section is written like it's a definitive statement on the topic rather than us summarizing what Caplan believes. For example, saying that studies disprove something is controversial in general, as this fact would need to be covered in multiple independent, reliable sources, especially those who aren't coming into the discussion with a specific viewpoint. Also, it's important to avoid wording like nonetheless, as this is a fairly casual format and can come across persuasively to the reader, like we're petitioning them to see things in a certain light.
I've removed this paragraph for the time being. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC)