Talk:Callous and unemotional traits

Medical guidelines
Please see WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS for how to organize and source medical articles. This Dispatch is helpful in locating the correct kinds of sources (secondary reviews): Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches. This [http://diberri.crabdance.com/cgi-bin/templatefiller/index.cgi? template filler] is helpful in generating citations from a PubMed identified (PMID). Sandy Georgia (Talk) 02:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

POV
Here are three examples found in only one paragraph of how this article is using primary studies throughout, not secondary reviews, to assert facts and to promote a POV. Please review Wikipedia's sourcing policies on the differences between primary studies and independent reviews of those studies. Primary studies should be used rarely on Wikipedia, which reports mainly on secondary sources; see WP:PSTS and WP:MEDRS for an explanation of how those are used in medical topics. This article shouldn't be using primary studies at all, and it certainly shouldn't be stating the results of studies not yet subjected to secondary reviews as fact. If you are unsure if a particular paper is a case report, comparative study, review, etc, click on the publication type in the PMID-- we should be using reviews. When searching in PubMed, you can find reviews linked in the upper right hand corner. This article needs to be completely rewritten to eliminate POV and to account for secondary reviews. It is promoting a position in DSM-5 proposals by using primary sources (studies) incorrectly.

Frick, White, is a review. Hawes is a review. The following reviews are not used:
 * Halty
 * Dadds
 * Viding

Further, since most of this work seems to point to Frick, his opinions should be attributed inline more often. Next, I don't see this page linked anywhere, and I am next going to remove the copy of this text. The APA is very strict about enforcing its copyright, and they do not allow even quoted text. They have approached Wikipedia in the past, leading to an examination of every article that had even WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE issues. The text needs to be carefully re-phrased, I suggest avoiding their format, and rephrasing the entire thing from scratch so that we aren't even copying their structure. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 04:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I tagged some, but have made only a small dent in the inappropriate use of primary sources here; reviews are available, they should be used. If something is not in a review, it's unlikely that it belongs here.  In a few instances, I also removed some irresponsible text that was cited only to primary studies, not secondary reviews of those studies.  I did not finish.  The article still needs stenuous review still for stigmatizing statements ("CU children"?), primary sources, and POV.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio
This article needs to be checked for WP:COPYVIO and WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE. Because it has been severely edited since it first appeared, copyvio may have been obscured in the earlier versions. For example, this exact wording is found in a source: "These distinctions among children with CD made by the DSM-III prompted a great deal of research ... " Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The rest of this looks ok, but another set of eyes would be nice (perhaps the instance I caught is isolated).  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Citation style changes

 * Copied from User talk:Chris Capoccia. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Explanations aside, I've noted that you've been asked numerous times here on your talk to stop changing citation style; please don't do it again. Medical articles typically use the Diberri format, and your introduction of another style is a problem. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 15:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * care to point to even something like a guideline that says the 'diberrii' format is preferred for medical articles? or is this just your preference? —Chris Capoccia  T&#8260;C 17:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually you are both wrong and me too for not more carefully checking the history of this article ;-) This article was created largely de novo in a single edit. The original editor established a style that included list-defined references which moves the full citation from the body of the article into the references section (which IMHO is a very good idea) and free format citation style that separated the authors last name from their first initials with a comma (I am not fond of but I can live with). Then it was changed in this series of edits to move the full citations in-line with the raw text (uggh, very bad move and clearly contrary to WP:CITEVAR) and converted to the Vancouver system (which I personally like but in this particular case is contrary to WP:CITEVAR). In a subsequent series of edits, the Vancouver system was changed to a first1, last1, ... system which combines the worst of both systems (an in-line and very verbose syntax).  In order to conform to WP:CITEVAR, I propose that we  segregate the references and use the templated first1, last1, ... system. OK? Boghog (talk) 19:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not really seeing how that first edit "establishes" anything. There is no accepted style with URLs at the end like that. Most entries use "Last, F.I.;…" naming, but some use spaces between the initials and some use initials without dots. Some entries use full journal names. Some use abbreviated names. None of them use quotes around the article name or italicize the journal name. Some use dashes between page numbers. Some use hyphens. As far as I can tell, Callous and unemotional traits has no established style and can be whatever is agreable to most. I don't care whether we decide all the citations should be named in the references section or not. I definitely think the article should continue to use citation templates with PMIDs, DOIs and PMCs and not go back to using plain text with URLs. I would prefer to use full journal names and full author names. —Chris Capoccia  T&#8260;C 19:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with you that citation templates should be used. Furthermore conversion citations from non-template to template format with appropriate care can preserve the displayed format and hence does not violate WP:CITEVAR.  However the cite journal template supports both the Vancouver and first1, last1 author systems.  What I am requesting is that if a Vancouver System has been established first in an article, that system should be preserved.  If a system where the last name and first initials are separated by a comma was first established, that system should also be preserved.  Finally the list-defined references syntax is an excellent way of segregating verbose citation templates from the body of the text and if that system was first established, it should be preserved. Boghog (talk) 20:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * i agree about the list-defined references. i believe that Dolfrog was the one who changed that around beginning april 20 and not me. i agree with you about the theoretical article with an established citation system. i just don't see how anyone could honestly look at this particular article the way it was and say that there was any established style. —Chris Capoccia  T&#8260;C 20:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I realize that it was Dolfrog not you that removed the list-defined references and I apologize for not making this more clear. I am also I very aware that the history of this article has become very complicated. It took me a few minutes to figure out what happened ;-)  But in any case, I think we are now more or less in agreement.  Cheers. Boghog (talk) 21:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, we are not in agreement, and no, you didn't correctly "figure out what happened" or note all the changes introduced by bot-- similar problems have been raised numerous times here on his talk. Now, since Dolfrog and I are the ones trying to work on the article, it would be nice if the altering of citations would cease until consensus is gained. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem from my perspective is that Chris_Capoccia left the references with no information what so ever, just a list of links when his bot probably failed to work. I used the recommended reference creation template using Pubmed IDs. This seems to be a completely bogus discussion from a working editors perspective and probably more about bot design. dolfrog (talk) 10:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Whole lotta misinfo above. Let's look at the history.
 * First, there was no established citation style-- the article was put up in one edit by a new editor who never returned and has not edited the article again. Since then, Dolfrog and I have attempted to write the article. Whether or not we accept that per WP:CITEVAR we should retain the original citation style based on one edit, bot edits by Chris Capoccia altered the citation style in unacceptable ways: please stop doing that.  If you want to run a bot, gain consensus.
 * Yes, the first version, based on one edit by a user new to Wikipedia, used list-defined refs. Yes, Dolfrog later moved the citations inline (after Chris Capoccia stripped the refs, changing the style in multiple ways, preparing to run a bot, then left the job undone ).  Not only did he change from manual to cite templates, please notice the author format on the original version-- none of that bogus first name last name comma mess that these bots install and that medical articles don't use.  I would argue that since list-defined refs stink, I hate to work with them, Dolfrog and me are the ones writing the article, the original editor is no longer working on the article, then Dolfrog and me can agree to remove list-defined refs.  Boghog has now re-instated them.  That makes it hard for me to work on the article.  This is a matter for consensus-- stop changing things without discussion.
 * Now, what else are Chris Cappocia's bot edits doing. First, he stripped the refs and didn't replace them.  Next, he changed a manual citation method to cite templates-- which is most decidedly a breach of WP:CITEVAR (manual citation is an accepted method).  And finally, he installed an author name method that was not used in the original version and is not used in the Diberri format and is a mess to work with and creates inconsistent formatting, and now has to be removed.  In other words, regardless of the list-defined refs, Chris and BogHog are editing against CITEVAR and making the work that Dolfrog and I are trying to do (ummmm, actually write the article) harder.  Please stop making it harder for us to write the article.  I will fix the author name mess, and since Dolfrog and I are actually trying to write the article, it would be appreciated-- in fact most kind-- of the two of you to please stop altering the sytle and let us get on with writing the article.  BogHog is focusing on reinstating list-defined refs, and both of you are instating an author name format that is not used in medical articles and was not used in the original version.  Furthermore conversion citations from non-template to template format with appropriate care can preserve the displayed format and hence does not violate WP:CITEVAR.  Wrong.  Since we are having to engage the citations to fix the issues, it would be nice if you let us not have to deal with arbitrary citation changes, and leave us to work on more important matters. First, this conversation belongs on article talk if you are going to continue making it harder for us to work.  Second, the original author name style is much more in line with Diberri than the mess installed by bot.  Third, consensus for list-defined refs is not there; please discuss on talk.   And finally, this conversation belongs on article talk-- I will place a copy there now. It's a fine day when an important article that has so many content issues that we are struggling to correct has to be sidetracked by bot edits and citation style issues that only make it harder on those who are trying to address more substantial content and citing issues.   Much appreciated, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I really do not understand what the problem is with list defined references. They have the advantage of reducing clutter in the edit window. Furthermore where does it say that medical articles don't use list defined references? WP:MEDMOS doesn't endorse any particular style. Restoring the list defined reference style in this article is consistent with a literal interpretation of WP:CITEVAR. Furthermore there was no consensus to change from a list defined to an embedded reference style the first time it was done nor the second time. Finally I agree that this has been enormous waste of time and I will not argue this point further. Boghog (talk) 18:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I have lots of problems with them (for instance, how they separate text from source, making it harder for me to cleanup), but regardless, it's a matter of personal preference, which is why I'm hoping you'll leave that decision to those of us who are working on the article. Nowhere did I say medical articles don't use list-defined refs-- the problem with medical articles is these bots constantly change author name style.  Most of the sources here are going to be removed, and we will likely end up with about six reviews being used.  We can all spend our time in better ways, and leave the broader discussions for elsewhere.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Can we get example of the reference options? My opinion is that we at WP:MED should use a single style for consistency if possible. I like my references inline and do not consider refs to be clutter. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As an example, compare this mess (just introduced, don't know why) to the Diberri format for authors. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes I would support a policy that medical articles go with Diberri. Or vsite if too slow. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The extra authors were just added when I summoned citationbot, but only the first three display, as before. It just affects the metadata, it shouldn't change the display. The argument for using vcite isn't speed, it's template include size. Some large articles with massive use of cite templates can max out and incur errors, but vcite helps. See talk:Alzheimer's disease/Archive 9 for discussion. It's a simple change to make, "s/{{cite /{{vcite /" or equivalent. LeadSongDog come howl!  06:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Jmh, citation style isn't a policy issue, it's a matter of consensus on each article. I was fully into working on content here when the citation issue erupted, and wish it would stop so I could keep working.  (I also need full text on the reviews mentioned above.)  LeadSong, those kinds of citation bot edits create a bunch of extra muck in the text in edit mode that has to be edited around.  The extra authors don't need to be there; would you mind reverting self?  We don't need vcite on this article-- it's not that large, and the citation content will be much smaller as soon as the primary sources are replaced by the half a dozen reviews that cover everything.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to selfrevert, was just trying to help. I agree vcite is not needed here, we should reserve it for massive articles where it is necessary. LeadSongDog come howl!  15:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And now, further mucking of the authors, to yet another style not used in the article. Diberri truncates this many authors to three plus et al.  I am not going to try to repair the content in this article when uninvolved editors are mucking in something that shouldn't be any of their concern.  Unwatch, goodbye, someone else can repair this article. I've listed above the secondary review sources that can be used.  Have fun.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Calm down. Diberri 's tool supports "Don't use et al. for author list". Checking this option replaces the "et al." with the full author list.  As explained in my edit summary, using the full author list will prevent the citation bot from replacing "et al." with "author2, author3, ...". Boghog (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

All refs have now been consistently reformatted with Diberri's reference tool with "Don't use et al. for author list" option turned on so that citation bot won't add add author2, author3, .... Boghog (talk) 06:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC) {{Collapse bottom}}

Moving forward with sourcing cleanup

 * Furthermore, the citation style changes on this article have been a massive waste of everyone's time, since most of the sources in the article now will be replaced anyway-- they are primary sources, and the entire article can be written from about half a dozen reviews. See section above; could we please get to work on the substantive matters now?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Primary → secondary sources
As a potential aid in identifying secondary sources that can replace primary sources, below is the list of primary sources that are currently cited in this article and secondary sources that in turn cite those primary sources. Of course, we also need to carefully check that the secondary source is relevant and supports what is stated in this article. Boghog (talk) 14:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed primary → secondary citation changes
Below are three proposed primary to secondary source substitutions.

Behavioral


 * "Children with CU traits have distinct problems in emotional and behavioral regulation that distinguish them from other antisocial youth and show more similarity to characteristics found in adult psychopathy" (Frick_2003) →  "Extending the construct of psychopathy to [ICU] youth" (Frick_2009) ✅


 * "CU traits were more likely to engage in direct and indirect forms of bullying" (Viding_2009) → stuck on this one, however multiple independent peer reviewed primary sources (Viding_2009, Crapanzano_2010, Muñoz_2011) have observed the same association. I have added these additional sources. ✅  All three primary sources should be replaced in the future when a review of this work has been published.
 * According to Secondary_source: A survey of previous work in the field in a primary peer-reviewed source is secondary. There is no fundamental difference between the introduction of peer reviewed primary source and a review article. Both summarize previous work in the field and both are peer reviewed. Muñoz_2011 reviews the earlier work of Viding_2009 and Crapanzano_2010, and hence Muñoz_2011 is a secondary source wrt to Viding_2009 and Crapanzano_2010.  Boghog (talk) 07:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * "CU traits exhibit more severe and instrumental displays of aggression" (Frick_2005) → "children and adolescents with this more pervasive pattern of aggression have been shown to have higher rates of CU traits"  (Frick_2009) ✅

Cognitive


 * They are often less sensitive to punishment cues, particularly when they are already keen for a reward" (Fisher_Blair_1998, O'Brien_Frick_1996, Pardini_2003) →   "these deficits are especially evident on tasks in which a reward-oriented response set is primed''" (Frick_Dickens_2006)  ✅

Do these look OK? Boghog (talk) 20:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Not so long ago I was participating on the fringes of a discussion in another place regarding Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD) and Conduct Disorder (CD) and at the time I created this Research paper collection from the overall discussion. Just thought it may help, you can use the "Reviews" option to select the secondary papers dolfrog (talk) 16:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the list of refs. I will take a look. So far, the only one I am having real trouble with is Viding_2009, but as I stated above, I think we can use Muñoz_2011 for now.  I must admit that psychology is way out side my area of expertise, so I would appreciate suggestions and even better, please jump in and edit the article to correct any mistakes that I have made. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 17:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just came accross this Discussion [http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/363/1503.toc Meeting Issue ‘The neurobiology of violence: implications for prevention and treatment’] August 12, 2008 table of contents. This topic is on the very fringes for me, I can find some resources and that is about it. dolfrog (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Parenting and fringe science
The parenting section does not reflect mainstream psychology. Child rearing practices have little to no effect on personality and mental illness prevalence. How do I tag that section? --76.180.172.75 (talk) 19:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Cleaned out student editing
This article was entirely generated from a student editor who never returned to the article after creating a primary-sourced mess. After a year-and-a-half, I have deleted the poorly sourced text, but I suspect everything else here may still be a mess. Noting that one student edit resulted in several hundred corrections needed, and it's unclear what we are left with. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 20:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've just had a new look, and the article is still full of primary sources, when secondary reviews are available. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Callous and unemotional traits. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131019204551/http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/changes%20from%20dsm-iv-tr%20to%20dsm-5.pdf to http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/changes%20from%20dsm-iv-tr%20to%20dsm-5.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Callous and unemotional traits
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Callous and unemotional traits's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "HareNeumann2008": From Robert D. Hare:  From Psychopathy:  From Psychopathy Checklist:  From History of psychopathy:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:51, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

War vs peace traits?
I am missing the evolutionary background. My lay take is that such genes and traits are useful in large scale conflicts: German leaders like Balck and the famous Erwin Rommel provided fearless, even brutal leadership from the front, inspiring their troops to overcome their fears and push their bodies well beyond what they thought they could endure. It is worth noting, however, that French soldiers did not enjoy the same caliber of leadership... - a sample quote from The National Interest

as opposed to peace times. Have yous found any RS analyses of these? Zezen (talk) 09:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)