Talk:DSM-5 codes

Psychology Mid‑importance

	Psychology portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Mid	This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine: Psychiatry Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Psychiatry portal This redirect is supported by the Psychiatry task force (assessed as High-importance).

Incomplete[edit]

This seems far from a complete list. For example, where are the fear/anxiety disorders? --1000Faces (talk) 03:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And where are the substance use disorders? I don't have the DSM-5, otherwise I would add them. Lova Falk talk 13:54, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems[edit]

I was asked on my talk page to review this article with an eye to copyright. Agreeing that it was problematic, I have blanked it for copyright review.

While the US copyright laws that govern Wikipedia do not protect non-creative speech, the threshold of creativity is very low, and creative elements include not only descriptive language but also facts chosen and the order of facts. For one example of how low the threshold is, consider American Dental Association v. Delta Dental Plans, where even taxonomic classifications are found to be copyrightable. In one specific example selected to demonstrate the creativity, the Court noted:

Number 04267 reads "guided tissue regeneration--nonresorbable barrier, per site, per tooth" but could have read "regeneration of tissue, guided by nonresorbable barrier, one site and tooth per entry". Or "use of barrier to guide regeneration of tissue, without regard to the number of sites per tooth and whether or not the barrier is resorbable". The first variation is linguistic, the second substantive; in each case the decision to use the actual description is original to the ADA, not knuckling under to an order imposed on language by some "fact" about dental procedures.

We've got also Practice Management Information Corp. v. American Medical Association, which affirmed the right of AMA to claim copyright in a book of codes and accompanying descriptions of medical procedures. (cf. this brief), and, more currently:

the CDC's stance on the copyrightability of diagnostic codes at [1]: "The ICD-10 is copyrighted by the World Health Organization (WHO)External Web Site Icon, which owns and publishes the classification. WHO has authorized the development of an adaptation of ICD-10 for use in the United States for U.S. government purposes. As agreed, all modifications to the ICD-10 must conform to WHO conventions for the ICD."
Something quite similar in this PDF by the US Government office Centers for Medicaire and Medicaire Services: "There are over 7,000 service codes, plus titles and modifiers, in the CPT-4 section of HCPCS, which is copyrighted by the AMA. "

So that's a couple of court cases affirming copyrightability of taxonomic descriptions/diagnostic codes and two government agencies affirming copyrightability of diagnostic codes and descriptions. In this case, we're seeing copying not only of codes but also of some of the language. For one example, chosen basically at random: "cause considerable harm to others (e.g. forced sex, physical cruelty, use of a weapon, breaking and entering, stealing while confronting victim)" takes me to Google books where I see every word has been copied, although mildly rearranged ("breaking and entering" has been reversed from "stealing while confronting victim").

Worthy of note, we have previously been contacted to take down content by the APA.

While I hate to do this, I feel I have to blank for processing through the copyright problems board. I don't believe we can retain this article with the codes within it unless somebody can produce something demonstrating the content is not protected by copyright. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Someone can ask the publishers for permission.—Wavelength (talk) 22:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would be idea, but I don't hold out a lot of hope for that. As I mentioned, they have contacted us to take down their content before, with a big messy situation that crossed many articles removing DSM descriptions for many disorders. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The diagnostic criteria can't be reproduced without permission from the APA. But the codes themselves are just ICD-9 codes, no? 72.201.15.56 (talk) 14:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]