This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
To-do: Updated 2021-01-14
|
Main, 97-131.
Kriminalbiologische Untersuchungs- und Sammelstelle der Hamburgischen Gefangenenanstalten 1926 bis 1945»
Naturwissenschaften, Frankfurt am Main, 259-303.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/13372372/
HaltlosePersonalityDisorder ( talk) 20:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Length. As the article gets longer, I'm trying to "combine" two discrete statements into one where possible. For the record, WP:TOOLONG suggests article splitting is not justified on the basis of length until approximatley 50kb of prose and this article is currently 31kb. If anyone sees an obvious fork potential that I don't, feel free to speak up ("Haltlose and family relations", etc). HaltlosePersonalityDisorder ( talk) 05:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
“ | I was very pleased that you wanted to forget everything that happened, and the condition was spoken from my heart. So I hereby promise you to start a completely new, honorable life from today, to live simply and obediently according to your wishes, to go into no more debts and, above all, to tell the full truth in all, even the smallest things . You should see for once that your young son, in spite of all youthful misconduct, is not irredeemable. | ” |
— Letter quoted by August Homburger [1] |
“ | "The scrapes into which the [Haltlose] may be led are legion...he never learns, and his losses and failures teach him nothing. He is always on the brink of a disaster...The treatment of such a personality is almost hopeles under the present ordering of society...the prospects of psychotherapy are forlorn and the best that can be obtained will be reached through social control and perhaps some attempt at training | ” |
— Diagnosis and Drug Treatment of Psychiatric Disorders [Updates-December 1] |
HaltlosePersonalityDisorder ( talk) 03:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Why is there an image of the German shorthand script name as an image in the infobox? Is it related to the condition? -- Amir E. Aharoni ( talk) 10:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Could use some advice as I try to see how to get rid of "Published Summaries", add in "Sexuality" and possibly FORK out " Haltlose personality disorder in children"...main problem is that the "Childhood" really bleeds into the "Sexual life" (and slightly into the criminology in the sense of child-incest) and I cannot fathom how to either keep these sections separate...or a good way/name to merge them. HLPD ( talk) 05:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Sorry if I haven't explained myself well or sound snippy, little frustrated by all of this when I can't get five minutes of actual help translating a stub or finding an answer or getting anyone else to take an interest in contributing rather than just campaigning to delete it. There are 200 people a day reading the article, if they all decide to act like this and remove their least favorite aspect while contributing nothing...we really won't last long. HLPD ( talk) 01:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Lichko offered the footnote to Ivanov, NI, 1976 - I'm trying to track down the Russian study. Best I've got so far is that it's likely the same person, seemingly still alive, who goes by N. Y. Ivanov but not N. Ya. Ivanov...if anyone else finds the 1976 study first. HLPD ( talk) 06:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
And I have no idea why two different people have decided to declare a crusade against images on the article in the same day, more than a little frustrating to go to the work of finding and uploading the stuff when nobody else did, and then just have drive-by shootings removing the stuff but not contributing to actually doing the research, etc. :\ HLPD ( talk) 06:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Right, I've spent three months building an article where essentially no article used to exist - to the point that HLPD is now the second-most-heavily-sourced/longest/most detailed article on WP about personality disorders. I have invited input, recognizing the article is not "mine", focusing for weeks on hunting down criticism because somebody said they didn't like the article and wanted to see more criticism, and yet instead what we see is little drive-by shootings.
Amire engaged me on the Russian Wikipedia because I asked him for help creating a stub article on this topic; he not only did not make the stub article but decided to come over here and just announce that he's removing the main image - when I explained its purpose to him and restored it, he just removed it again and indicated he would just keep doing it until he felt personally satisified that I had given him a detailed enough justification...then made one of my quotes I've seen on WP [pp] "The Psi (Greek) symbol appearing on the Psychology article is pretty suspicious and should probably also be removed since it doesn't represent anything". FFS. Sandy declared that the whole article should be deleted and reduced to one sentence and "merged somewhere"...which is like suggesting Borderline Personality Disorder be "merged somewhere" as a single sentence. Somebody else insisted despite being a 100-year old diagnosis that is still used today it should just be called a "proposed" personality disorder, somebody else decided they didn't like other images so just removed them and never answered my questions for why they've done it, somebody else started "stalking" me and when I posted on other article talk page randomly lied and told people that there was a consensus on Wikipedia to delete this article and I was just defying consensus...What it all boils down to is that with the exception of one person who campaigned for the whole article to be deleted because he found a modern book by a random author that simply rubbished the entire idea of psychiatry taking note of "other" disorders... not one of those people I listed, even the ones I specifically asked for help, spending three months posting queries on the talkpages asking for help locating things, etc....not one of those people has added even a single fact to the article. Literally not one. They have not spent two minutes off Wikipedia on the subject, instead they have read the article itself and decided they "don't like" the fact it suggests kriminology is a major factor of the diagnosis and it has a very poor prognosis...so they want that information removed. Despite the fact obviously antisocial personality disorder contains the same.
This is a cesspool of negativity, of people unwilling to help constructively but instead just waiting around to tear down destructively, eager to rip off limbs and remove any facts that personally offend them. You'll see I even had to put up with somebody insisting that KRAEPELIN himself should not be allowed to be used as a source for this article because he was not from the Wikipedia editor's more recent lifetime that he felt some WP policy demanded. That's like insisting Freud shouldn't be allowed to be used as a source on Penis Envy. Basically, So the vast majority of people I've seen here have been toxic agenda-pushing charlatans who have zero interest in actually contributing or finding facts or answering questions such as how/whether to properly incorporate Bleuler's belief it was tied to his then-understanding of schizophrenia, and instead demonstrate only 100% interests in saying "this quote seems to suggest these people are bad, let's remove it!", "I know so little about this subject that instead of simply asking why the article Psychology has a greek letter as its main image, I'm going to instead say it is suspicious and should be deleted", "oh look, the article has a studying saying men have Haltlose more often than women - that's sexist, remove it unless the author of the article personally changes my worldview!"
In short, I've spent three months trying to Assume Good Faith from clearly bad-faith actors, and I'm not going to spend my life justifying every sentence a hundred times to every person who wants to pitch a fit that the article contains facts or figures they dislike. Screw this shit. HLPD ( talk) 14:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
"vagabond" nature, that they
are not capable of actual loyalty or selfless love. There's a subtle distinction here; these may be facets of the disorder that are common, or maybe even defining, but we should take care with how we use language. Surely some Haltose are
capableof such things, no? Antisocial personality disorder is definitely not written in the same way. I will write up a longer response or edit the text myself later. I hope you don't see my contributions as
bad-faith, but if you feel that they
clearlyare, as you make clear, then so be it. Urve ( talk) 22:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
arguing for the sake of arguingin
bad-faith, I am not going to continue this thread beyond this reply. I will edit the problematic language myself rather than discussing it beforehand, since what I am attempting to convey is not getting across, maybe in part because of the generality in which I am speaking. The only thing I wanted to suggest is this compromise (and I invite those more knowledgeable about the MOS and its consensus to chime in on whether this is acceptable): Feel free to reintroduce the image, but add a footnote in the image caption with a translation of the text, so that: those who use screenreaders can still have access to it (which, as an aside, matters, and is not short-sighted) and the concerns about foreign language are dealt with. Urve ( talk) 01:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
References
I noticed an edit on the to-do list. I hope my edits to the article so far have been understandable - this is the sort of thing I meant by wikivoice; when a definitive claim is made and/or when a claim is historical, attribute it to someone. I think this is the only way to comply with WP:MEDRS. However, an exception to that view is that when a claim is recent and/or the evidence is overwhelming, no need to attribute IMO, and we can state it as fact. As far as whether names are being overused - I think, maybe. I prefer attributing to years rather than to individuals because I am forgetting who is who, although that may also get tiring after some point. Discretion, feel free to alter, though I would prefer that some form of attribution stays. Although I will say my preference for dates over names is because I have cognitive effects from ongoing rounds of ECT. Hope my edits are not seen as bad faith, now that I'm doing them instead of complaining and asking that someone else do them :) (PS. I would reintroduce the picture myself, but I do not understand German [or was it Russian? either way...] enough for me to fulfill the compromise.) Urve ( talk) 03:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I do not have a problem with edits that add in the year, I think it's unnecessary to say "this study was 1961 and this was 1981 and this was 1987". For those playing along at home: Most of my changes were adding the years for sources in the 1920s and earlier.
But not sure we should be adding 75 largely unnecessary dates to an article just because an editor's personal medical history led to cognitive effects. Not the point of what I said at all. I fail to see why you repeatedly weaponize this off-the-cuff comment, that was intended to speak to my own experience reading the article. People read articles. I am a person. Authors are married to their prose, but that does not mean it is readable to most people, especially for such a lengthy article where names are invoked repeatedly. Maybe my experience is not universal, which is why I added the comment, but saying that I am trying to distort the article
based on [my] own medical treatmentis bizarre and hurtful.
The bigger issue is when you are labeling things like Dusya as unreliable sources and asking if they are peer-reviewed when simply clicking the link would answer the question for you. I don't see it in the original article. I don't see any indication that it is peer-reviewed or written by a subject-matter expert. Or that it is written by any person at all. All I see is that it is hosted on some website, which purports to be
reviewed by medical expertswithout any evidence.
or when you misuse WP:MEDRS to remove facts you appear to dislike. For those playing along at home: The source removed was a dissertation written by a law student. It was not a medical source, much less a reliable medical source. And frankly, this accusation (a continuation of the owner of this article's inability to abstain from personal aspersions) is nonsensical, because I have no relation, interest, nor care for the subject of the article in any way.
If you've found a newer source that debunks the old source, great, present it and I am happy to go along with it. But don't just complain that the statement that Graphomania has an 1896 footnote...if nothing's ever SUPERSEDED it, then the fact stands.I made no complaints about the age of sources. The graphomania example is irrelevant anyway, because there, an old source is not being used to support a medical conclusion. And even if it was, other stuff being poor form doesn't mean this article should be, too. The fact might stand without evidence to the contrary, but those playing along at home will notice I removed no facts other than the law dissertation, which cannot support a medical conclusion.
you changed "They appear amiable" to "To early twentieth-century researchers, they appeared amiable" - that suggests that information is now abrogated. No. That is not what it suggests. I frankly have no idea how you can read it that way. My change is a statement of fact. To those researchers, they appeared amiable. That is undeniably true. What is not true is that they appear (present tense) amiable. Unless there is evidence provided for this fact, which there's not.
the simple fact it is sourced to an early study and then never contradicted does not mean we need to unnecessarily more than double the length of the words involved. Clarity is good. I disagree it's unnecessary.
You did the same making it "According to early accounts, choices are made, often in mirroring others around them" when there's no need to add the "According to early accounts" since it's consistent with ALL accounts. The citation was to Frank. Frank wrote that book in 1970. That is an early account. What is incorrect?
You throw {{ dubious}} one word into a sentence based on NOTHING EXCEPT YOUR PERSONAL OPINION. I threw a dubious tag because the word "only" is strong. There is no page reference associated with the citation. See WP:Dubious, which provides:
The accuracy of a statement may be a cause for concern if: ... It contains information which is particularly difficult to verify. I can't verify it. That's why the tag exists.
and the word you're disputing IS OUT OF THE SOURCE. That's fine. Dubious tags can go on sourced statements that are in the source. It just requires additional verification by editors to discuss whether it's true. Asserting it's true does not make it less dubious.
On the whole I'd say most of the edits are troubling, disruptive and clogging up the article for the sake of advancing a particular opinion that you appear to hold about the disorder and/or based on your own medical treatment experience apparently, but not outright bad-faith so I apologize in your instance for using the term b/f. Repeating an accusation of bad faith while also saying you're not doing so does not mean anything. It's still an accusation of bad faith. Again, I have no opinion about the disorder, and I frankly cannot imagine how my treatment, which you weaponize, has anything to do with it.
But this isn't some back-room deal where you delete an image, and then announce that you're willing to restore the image if I agree to your changing what referenced sources say about the article or throwing tags on words you personally dislike but can offer zero sources to suggest are inaccurate. Stop assuming bad faith. The edits to the citations and adding dates have nothing to do with the image. It's not a "deal" that involves anything other than a discussion of the image itself. The image without my proposal is improper and violates the MOS, and even with it still might. And nothing I changed was even a
suggest[ion]of inaccuracy.
Either present sources that contradict anything in the article, or stop vandalizing it. Accusing people of vandalism is improper when the changes were minor and based on guidelines.
up until 1923 but then it stopped. Saying the year an observation was made cannot plausibly suggest that the observations immediately stopped afterward. It just means the information was obtained in a year, which when dealing with some things that are over a century old, readers should be told. What other articles say is not relevant. False:
because someone who identifies as just a reader of the article feels offended by it, since it was not about offense.
Dubious tags are not ways to make your, or my, voice suddenly competent to overrule LITERALLY EVERY SINGLE ONE of the sources and instead insert opinions held by NO SOURCES FOUND simply because a reader "thinks it's dubious": This is not what happened and is not what a dubious tag means. Maybe it is true that
The law source you removed was relevant to the CRIMINOLOGY aspect of Haltlose Personality Disorder, but it was used to reach a medical conclusion, not one in criminology, which as I have said twice now, is not appropriate per MEDRS. I still see no explanation for your accusation of vandalism. And I am still open to adding back the image if it addresses my accessibility concerns, but I'm not translating it on my own. Urve ( talk) 07:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC) And about the 2016 suicidality source - the study might be worthy of inclusion in some way, but the text in the article is trivial. Many things are investigated, many together. The results are what matters, not that a study existed. I don't oppose it - just not to source something that doesn't really say anything. Urve ( talk) 07:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
To-do: Updated 2021-01-14
|
Main, 97-131.
Kriminalbiologische Untersuchungs- und Sammelstelle der Hamburgischen Gefangenenanstalten 1926 bis 1945»
Naturwissenschaften, Frankfurt am Main, 259-303.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/13372372/
HaltlosePersonalityDisorder ( talk) 20:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Length. As the article gets longer, I'm trying to "combine" two discrete statements into one where possible. For the record, WP:TOOLONG suggests article splitting is not justified on the basis of length until approximatley 50kb of prose and this article is currently 31kb. If anyone sees an obvious fork potential that I don't, feel free to speak up ("Haltlose and family relations", etc). HaltlosePersonalityDisorder ( talk) 05:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
“ | I was very pleased that you wanted to forget everything that happened, and the condition was spoken from my heart. So I hereby promise you to start a completely new, honorable life from today, to live simply and obediently according to your wishes, to go into no more debts and, above all, to tell the full truth in all, even the smallest things . You should see for once that your young son, in spite of all youthful misconduct, is not irredeemable. | ” |
— Letter quoted by August Homburger [1] |
“ | "The scrapes into which the [Haltlose] may be led are legion...he never learns, and his losses and failures teach him nothing. He is always on the brink of a disaster...The treatment of such a personality is almost hopeles under the present ordering of society...the prospects of psychotherapy are forlorn and the best that can be obtained will be reached through social control and perhaps some attempt at training | ” |
— Diagnosis and Drug Treatment of Psychiatric Disorders [Updates-December 1] |
HaltlosePersonalityDisorder ( talk) 03:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Why is there an image of the German shorthand script name as an image in the infobox? Is it related to the condition? -- Amir E. Aharoni ( talk) 10:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Could use some advice as I try to see how to get rid of "Published Summaries", add in "Sexuality" and possibly FORK out " Haltlose personality disorder in children"...main problem is that the "Childhood" really bleeds into the "Sexual life" (and slightly into the criminology in the sense of child-incest) and I cannot fathom how to either keep these sections separate...or a good way/name to merge them. HLPD ( talk) 05:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Sorry if I haven't explained myself well or sound snippy, little frustrated by all of this when I can't get five minutes of actual help translating a stub or finding an answer or getting anyone else to take an interest in contributing rather than just campaigning to delete it. There are 200 people a day reading the article, if they all decide to act like this and remove their least favorite aspect while contributing nothing...we really won't last long. HLPD ( talk) 01:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Lichko offered the footnote to Ivanov, NI, 1976 - I'm trying to track down the Russian study. Best I've got so far is that it's likely the same person, seemingly still alive, who goes by N. Y. Ivanov but not N. Ya. Ivanov...if anyone else finds the 1976 study first. HLPD ( talk) 06:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
And I have no idea why two different people have decided to declare a crusade against images on the article in the same day, more than a little frustrating to go to the work of finding and uploading the stuff when nobody else did, and then just have drive-by shootings removing the stuff but not contributing to actually doing the research, etc. :\ HLPD ( talk) 06:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Right, I've spent three months building an article where essentially no article used to exist - to the point that HLPD is now the second-most-heavily-sourced/longest/most detailed article on WP about personality disorders. I have invited input, recognizing the article is not "mine", focusing for weeks on hunting down criticism because somebody said they didn't like the article and wanted to see more criticism, and yet instead what we see is little drive-by shootings.
Amire engaged me on the Russian Wikipedia because I asked him for help creating a stub article on this topic; he not only did not make the stub article but decided to come over here and just announce that he's removing the main image - when I explained its purpose to him and restored it, he just removed it again and indicated he would just keep doing it until he felt personally satisified that I had given him a detailed enough justification...then made one of my quotes I've seen on WP [pp] "The Psi (Greek) symbol appearing on the Psychology article is pretty suspicious and should probably also be removed since it doesn't represent anything". FFS. Sandy declared that the whole article should be deleted and reduced to one sentence and "merged somewhere"...which is like suggesting Borderline Personality Disorder be "merged somewhere" as a single sentence. Somebody else insisted despite being a 100-year old diagnosis that is still used today it should just be called a "proposed" personality disorder, somebody else decided they didn't like other images so just removed them and never answered my questions for why they've done it, somebody else started "stalking" me and when I posted on other article talk page randomly lied and told people that there was a consensus on Wikipedia to delete this article and I was just defying consensus...What it all boils down to is that with the exception of one person who campaigned for the whole article to be deleted because he found a modern book by a random author that simply rubbished the entire idea of psychiatry taking note of "other" disorders... not one of those people I listed, even the ones I specifically asked for help, spending three months posting queries on the talkpages asking for help locating things, etc....not one of those people has added even a single fact to the article. Literally not one. They have not spent two minutes off Wikipedia on the subject, instead they have read the article itself and decided they "don't like" the fact it suggests kriminology is a major factor of the diagnosis and it has a very poor prognosis...so they want that information removed. Despite the fact obviously antisocial personality disorder contains the same.
This is a cesspool of negativity, of people unwilling to help constructively but instead just waiting around to tear down destructively, eager to rip off limbs and remove any facts that personally offend them. You'll see I even had to put up with somebody insisting that KRAEPELIN himself should not be allowed to be used as a source for this article because he was not from the Wikipedia editor's more recent lifetime that he felt some WP policy demanded. That's like insisting Freud shouldn't be allowed to be used as a source on Penis Envy. Basically, So the vast majority of people I've seen here have been toxic agenda-pushing charlatans who have zero interest in actually contributing or finding facts or answering questions such as how/whether to properly incorporate Bleuler's belief it was tied to his then-understanding of schizophrenia, and instead demonstrate only 100% interests in saying "this quote seems to suggest these people are bad, let's remove it!", "I know so little about this subject that instead of simply asking why the article Psychology has a greek letter as its main image, I'm going to instead say it is suspicious and should be deleted", "oh look, the article has a studying saying men have Haltlose more often than women - that's sexist, remove it unless the author of the article personally changes my worldview!"
In short, I've spent three months trying to Assume Good Faith from clearly bad-faith actors, and I'm not going to spend my life justifying every sentence a hundred times to every person who wants to pitch a fit that the article contains facts or figures they dislike. Screw this shit. HLPD ( talk) 14:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
"vagabond" nature, that they
are not capable of actual loyalty or selfless love. There's a subtle distinction here; these may be facets of the disorder that are common, or maybe even defining, but we should take care with how we use language. Surely some Haltose are
capableof such things, no? Antisocial personality disorder is definitely not written in the same way. I will write up a longer response or edit the text myself later. I hope you don't see my contributions as
bad-faith, but if you feel that they
clearlyare, as you make clear, then so be it. Urve ( talk) 22:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
arguing for the sake of arguingin
bad-faith, I am not going to continue this thread beyond this reply. I will edit the problematic language myself rather than discussing it beforehand, since what I am attempting to convey is not getting across, maybe in part because of the generality in which I am speaking. The only thing I wanted to suggest is this compromise (and I invite those more knowledgeable about the MOS and its consensus to chime in on whether this is acceptable): Feel free to reintroduce the image, but add a footnote in the image caption with a translation of the text, so that: those who use screenreaders can still have access to it (which, as an aside, matters, and is not short-sighted) and the concerns about foreign language are dealt with. Urve ( talk) 01:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
References
I noticed an edit on the to-do list. I hope my edits to the article so far have been understandable - this is the sort of thing I meant by wikivoice; when a definitive claim is made and/or when a claim is historical, attribute it to someone. I think this is the only way to comply with WP:MEDRS. However, an exception to that view is that when a claim is recent and/or the evidence is overwhelming, no need to attribute IMO, and we can state it as fact. As far as whether names are being overused - I think, maybe. I prefer attributing to years rather than to individuals because I am forgetting who is who, although that may also get tiring after some point. Discretion, feel free to alter, though I would prefer that some form of attribution stays. Although I will say my preference for dates over names is because I have cognitive effects from ongoing rounds of ECT. Hope my edits are not seen as bad faith, now that I'm doing them instead of complaining and asking that someone else do them :) (PS. I would reintroduce the picture myself, but I do not understand German [or was it Russian? either way...] enough for me to fulfill the compromise.) Urve ( talk) 03:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I do not have a problem with edits that add in the year, I think it's unnecessary to say "this study was 1961 and this was 1981 and this was 1987". For those playing along at home: Most of my changes were adding the years for sources in the 1920s and earlier.
But not sure we should be adding 75 largely unnecessary dates to an article just because an editor's personal medical history led to cognitive effects. Not the point of what I said at all. I fail to see why you repeatedly weaponize this off-the-cuff comment, that was intended to speak to my own experience reading the article. People read articles. I am a person. Authors are married to their prose, but that does not mean it is readable to most people, especially for such a lengthy article where names are invoked repeatedly. Maybe my experience is not universal, which is why I added the comment, but saying that I am trying to distort the article
based on [my] own medical treatmentis bizarre and hurtful.
The bigger issue is when you are labeling things like Dusya as unreliable sources and asking if they are peer-reviewed when simply clicking the link would answer the question for you. I don't see it in the original article. I don't see any indication that it is peer-reviewed or written by a subject-matter expert. Or that it is written by any person at all. All I see is that it is hosted on some website, which purports to be
reviewed by medical expertswithout any evidence.
or when you misuse WP:MEDRS to remove facts you appear to dislike. For those playing along at home: The source removed was a dissertation written by a law student. It was not a medical source, much less a reliable medical source. And frankly, this accusation (a continuation of the owner of this article's inability to abstain from personal aspersions) is nonsensical, because I have no relation, interest, nor care for the subject of the article in any way.
If you've found a newer source that debunks the old source, great, present it and I am happy to go along with it. But don't just complain that the statement that Graphomania has an 1896 footnote...if nothing's ever SUPERSEDED it, then the fact stands.I made no complaints about the age of sources. The graphomania example is irrelevant anyway, because there, an old source is not being used to support a medical conclusion. And even if it was, other stuff being poor form doesn't mean this article should be, too. The fact might stand without evidence to the contrary, but those playing along at home will notice I removed no facts other than the law dissertation, which cannot support a medical conclusion.
you changed "They appear amiable" to "To early twentieth-century researchers, they appeared amiable" - that suggests that information is now abrogated. No. That is not what it suggests. I frankly have no idea how you can read it that way. My change is a statement of fact. To those researchers, they appeared amiable. That is undeniably true. What is not true is that they appear (present tense) amiable. Unless there is evidence provided for this fact, which there's not.
the simple fact it is sourced to an early study and then never contradicted does not mean we need to unnecessarily more than double the length of the words involved. Clarity is good. I disagree it's unnecessary.
You did the same making it "According to early accounts, choices are made, often in mirroring others around them" when there's no need to add the "According to early accounts" since it's consistent with ALL accounts. The citation was to Frank. Frank wrote that book in 1970. That is an early account. What is incorrect?
You throw {{ dubious}} one word into a sentence based on NOTHING EXCEPT YOUR PERSONAL OPINION. I threw a dubious tag because the word "only" is strong. There is no page reference associated with the citation. See WP:Dubious, which provides:
The accuracy of a statement may be a cause for concern if: ... It contains information which is particularly difficult to verify. I can't verify it. That's why the tag exists.
and the word you're disputing IS OUT OF THE SOURCE. That's fine. Dubious tags can go on sourced statements that are in the source. It just requires additional verification by editors to discuss whether it's true. Asserting it's true does not make it less dubious.
On the whole I'd say most of the edits are troubling, disruptive and clogging up the article for the sake of advancing a particular opinion that you appear to hold about the disorder and/or based on your own medical treatment experience apparently, but not outright bad-faith so I apologize in your instance for using the term b/f. Repeating an accusation of bad faith while also saying you're not doing so does not mean anything. It's still an accusation of bad faith. Again, I have no opinion about the disorder, and I frankly cannot imagine how my treatment, which you weaponize, has anything to do with it.
But this isn't some back-room deal where you delete an image, and then announce that you're willing to restore the image if I agree to your changing what referenced sources say about the article or throwing tags on words you personally dislike but can offer zero sources to suggest are inaccurate. Stop assuming bad faith. The edits to the citations and adding dates have nothing to do with the image. It's not a "deal" that involves anything other than a discussion of the image itself. The image without my proposal is improper and violates the MOS, and even with it still might. And nothing I changed was even a
suggest[ion]of inaccuracy.
Either present sources that contradict anything in the article, or stop vandalizing it. Accusing people of vandalism is improper when the changes were minor and based on guidelines.
up until 1923 but then it stopped. Saying the year an observation was made cannot plausibly suggest that the observations immediately stopped afterward. It just means the information was obtained in a year, which when dealing with some things that are over a century old, readers should be told. What other articles say is not relevant. False:
because someone who identifies as just a reader of the article feels offended by it, since it was not about offense.
Dubious tags are not ways to make your, or my, voice suddenly competent to overrule LITERALLY EVERY SINGLE ONE of the sources and instead insert opinions held by NO SOURCES FOUND simply because a reader "thinks it's dubious": This is not what happened and is not what a dubious tag means. Maybe it is true that
The law source you removed was relevant to the CRIMINOLOGY aspect of Haltlose Personality Disorder, but it was used to reach a medical conclusion, not one in criminology, which as I have said twice now, is not appropriate per MEDRS. I still see no explanation for your accusation of vandalism. And I am still open to adding back the image if it addresses my accessibility concerns, but I'm not translating it on my own. Urve ( talk) 07:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC) And about the 2016 suicidality source - the study might be worthy of inclusion in some way, but the text in the article is trivial. Many things are investigated, many together. The results are what matters, not that a study existed. I don't oppose it - just not to source something that doesn't really say anything. Urve ( talk) 07:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)