Hoi,
We are talking DSM. When the DSM had never called something a disease and
never had a consistent presentation. When there is a lot of literature
showing how that something is NOT a disease, why persist on what has always
been wrong in any which case?
Thanks,
GerardM
On 14 May 2016 at 17:16, John Mark Vandenberg <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 9:37 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Gerard Meijssen, 14/05/2016 15:39:
> >>
> >> When an external ontology says that something is a disease and the DSM-5
> >> says it is not. There is a huge problem.
> >
> >
> > Until recently DSM called homosexuality a disease, we must live with
> > conflicts.
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders#DSM-III-R_.281987.29
>
> In which case this fact is deprecated because there is a later release
> which contradicts it.
> We can not just omit a fact because it is 'wrong' now.
>
> --
> John Vandenberg
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikidata mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
_______________________________________________
Wikidata mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
