Talk:Paul R. McHugh

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism 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.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sexology and sexuality Top‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality 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.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Paul R. McHugh. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Paul R. McHugh at the Reference desk.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Little information

Does anyone else find it odd that such a public figure in the culture war over abortion, gender identity, a member of former president Bush's bio-ethics panel has so little information on wiki?

I have expanded the article and provided a little more info on those subjects. Cheers! 87.196.73.190 (talk) 01:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another user has reverted the controversy section, however most info can be verified at the TSRoadmap.com site, and is accurate as far as I can tell. More sources might be necessary, but please do not revert unless the info is indeed not correct (and please do say why and point your sources). The info is not necessarily flattering to the individual, but is pertinent and true. 87.196.173.3 (talk) 01:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So far you haven't provided any source. Each of these statements needs to be backed up by reliable sources. Please read specifically the biography of living person page. --McSly (talk) 01:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I've added this to the references section: http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/paul-mchugh.html. It's not pretty in the way of formatting, but I believe the info to be accurate (that page also has outside references). I reckon we need other sources, but it seems to me like the facts. If I'm wrong on any of them, do let me know, ok? Thanks and cheers! 87.196.173.3 (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erm... you guys seem a like a tough crowd :) I think at least a little of the material I added is sourced on the link I provided, as well as others in the linked page itself, and are verifiable sources. Why do you keep kaputting all of it? There does seem to be a bit of controversy around McHugh, why not add some? I'm assuming good faith all-round, can we get a discussion going here folks? I'd like to only change the page once we get round to an agreement, shall we get it going? 87.196.74.50 (talk) 00:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To Whisky Drinker or whoever keeps tampering with this page. I am using citations and am working carefully on this article. You are destroying dozens of hours worth of work every time you revert the page. Everything that I have put into this article can be verified through other sources and I am putting references in which do just that. It's maddening to have to continue to correct your slashing of my article. Make sure you know what you're doing before knocking out huge sections of someone else's hard work!--Jxtrent (talk) 03:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revert of material per WP:Biographies of living persons policy

Here I wholesale reverted a not very active editor's material because it either included unsourced personal opinions or removed properly sourced material. While there is a place for discussion of controversies, using WP:Reliable sources that actually call him controversial, you cannot do so just because it is your opinion. The article does seem to need some more sourcing etc., but only done within policy. I just happened by the other day after seeing his WSJournal article pop up somewhere.

Also note there has been an Arbitration re: Sexology and I added the template regarding that. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At this diff, per the above, I:

tagged citation needed or dead link IF the source probably is accurate and updating with current sources are needed
per the box at top of this talk page, removed questionable unsourced material or material from unreliable advocacy sites. Feel free to research and add material using such sources. I'm sure there are lots if you search news and other high quality sources and avoid advocacy sites.

If you are an inexperienced or new editor please check out biography related links above. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

His criticism of PTSD, DSM, and Transgender care

Why is this profile missing the details that he actually disagrees with the consensus in his profession, and clings to treatments which in fact have higher suicide rates? There are multiple critiques in mass media, he's been a loud critic of Caitlyn Jenner, for instance. His mis-deeds should be listed along with his achievements. 50.136.158.31 (talk) 17:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

08:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC) Disagreeing with people is a mis-deed now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.224.249.17 (talk)

The opposition to abortion, the shutdown of the sexual reassignment surgery programme and the position on recovered memories in child sexual abuse investigations are all material facts. To remove all of this information from the lede and merely leave laudatory platitudes, as User:Drmies has done here, compromises the neutrality of the piece by turning this into a promotional article instead of presenting both sides. If this is a controversial figure, and reliable sources back this up, say so. If he singlehandedly shut down SRS at Johns Hopkins, one of the first institutions to offer the procedure, and this can be sourced, say so.

I also see WP:FART cited in edit comments as a rationale for removing content. That essay is a joke article, not policy.

One user has unilaterally removed 26598 bytes of information from the page. This should be reverted at once. 2001:5C0:1000:A:0:0:0:297 (talk) 00:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a joke, pal--it's an injunction to cite secondary sources to prove someone's opinion on a certain topic are worth mentioning in an encyclopedic article. If there are no sources, there is no ground to consider every thing a person said (every fart) relevant and important. One might as well cite every single opinion a person has ever held. As for the claim that I somehow impeded neutrality, that's prima facie BS--after all, I also removed a resume's worth of articles.

I'm actually not here to address you: you know very well how decent writing is supposed to be done; this is for the other editors, the ones of good faith. The lead was rendered highly non-neutral by the above editor, and that cannot be. If there is well-sourced criticism, stick it in there, but be mindful of the BLP. And do yourself a favor: don't make large edits which combine BLP violations with well-sourced information, or they are likely to get reverted entirely. Drmies (talk) 01:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Paul R. McHugh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100213181437/http://www.usccb.org:80/comm/mchugh.shtml to http://www.usccb.org/comm/mchugh.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BLP issues

I have just removed some content from the article. Since McHugh is a very prominent figure, and this removal involves some potential controversy, I'll give a detailed explanation. In the sentence, "McHugh considers homosexuality to be an “erroneous desire” and supported California Proposition 8 on the basis that sexual orientation is a choice", I removed "on the basis that sexual orientation is a choice." Looking through the source used for that claim, it seems clear that "sexual orientation is a choice" is an oversimplification of what McHugh actually wrote. It is true that McHugh does state that "Studies show that some aspect of sexual orientation is, in part, a choice", but that is a qualified statement that obviously is not equivalent to a simple "sexual orientation is a choice". "Sexual orientation is a choice" is a somewhat understandable misinterpretation of what McHugh wrote, but it is a misinterpretation nonetheless, and the claim should not be attributed to him. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't this article neutral? Why is it aggressively promoting medical malpractice?

https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-015-1867-2 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20461468 https://www.vumc.org/lgbti/files/lgbti/publication_files/ExpertLGBTIConcensusLetter.pdf

This isn't a political issue, any more than faith healing, or vaccines causing autism. You have a duty to your readers.

Biased and incomplete

I do not dispute anything here. The imbalance however is that he wrote (with Marshall Folstein) the most cited article in behavioral science the mini mental status exam (16,000 citations) He was chairman of PSYCHIATRY at Johns Hopkins and wrote the profoundly influential book Perspectives with Phillip Slavney. He was trained in both neurology and PSYCHIATRY at a time when that was unheard of and he courageously fought against Freudian pseudoscience, “recovered memory” and other fashions that have come and gone

I know the transgender movement is very popular right now, but the pendulum may swing back the other way. If and when it does make, you will be vindicated. Rberlow (talk) 02:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What did you aim to achieve with this rant and WP:UNCIVIL claims about transgender people? If you have reliable sources about his career, then show us them. Zenomonoz (talk) 04:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]