Talk:Haltlose personality disorder

Potential sources not yet found, but supposedly discussing Haltlose Personality Disorder
Main, 97-131. Kriminalbiologische Untersuchungs- und Sammelstelle der Hamburgischen Gefangenenanstalten 1926 bis 1945» Naturwissenschaften, Frankfurt am Main, 259-303.
 * P. Becker, 'Vom "Haltlosen" zur "Bestie". Das polizeiliche Bild des "Verbrechers" im 19. Jahrhundert' in A. Liudtke (ed.), 'Sicherheit' und 'Wohlfahrt'. Polizei, Gesellschaft und Herrschaft im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert (Frankfurt 1992), 97-132. ("From Haltlosen to Animals: The Policing Image of Criminals in the 19th Century")
 * Lewin, K. : Trieb u. Affektäußerungen haltloser Kinder, Ber. ü. d. 4. Tag. für Psychopathenfürsorge, Berlin 1927.
 * Becker, Peter (1992), «Vom ‹Haltlosen› zur ‹Bestie›. Das polizeiliche Bild des ‹Verbrechers› im 19. Jahrhundert», in:
 * Lüdtke, Alf (Hg.), «Sicherheit» und «Wohlfahrt». Polizei, Gesellschaft und Herrschaft im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert, Frankfurt am
 * Rothmaler, Christiane (1999), «Von ‹haltlosen Psychopathinnen› und ‹konstitutionellen Sittlichkeitsverbrechern›. Dir
 * Kaupen-Haas, Heidrun; Saller, Christian (Hg.), Wissenschaftlicher Rassismus. Analysen einer Kontinuität in den Human und
 * Langfeldt, G. (1937). The prognosis in schizophrenia and the factors influencing the course of the disease. Acta Psychiatrica et Neurologica (KjøBenhavn), Suppl. XIII, 228.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/13372372/

Updates Nov 2020

 * Changed short description from "Proposed personality disorder" to "Personality disorder" since it is in the ICD-10
 * Restored the image for the shorthand symbol for haltlose as no other alt image lends itself to the page unless there is a proposal for another?
 * I used the RQuote template instead of Quote template just because it's what I've seen in other Wiki articles and appears to "interrupt" the flow of the text less than having it full-width-of-the-page. I can't find a styleguide on it specifically, open to alts.
 * Find it odd that I haven't been able to find any RS that references it being a favored diagnosis in Switzerland, Germany, etc but less so even in Scandinavia or the UK, etc. I understand the ICD/DSM distinction, but it's odd nobody seems to have "officially" commented on its geographic narrowness? Would love if somebody found an RS discussing it since I don't want to add my own OR. (found one)
 * I did discover that Bleuler called it "Haltlose Schizophrenia" in 1911, (Der haltlose Schizophrene wird leicht Trinker. Wohl 10% unserer Alkoholiker sind zugleich Schizophrene), but I'm hesitant to add that under alternate-names unless I see it used more commonly. Schizophrenia is listed under the necessary differentials, but I think it would muddy the issue if we listed it as an alt-name. Open to differing opinions.
 * Seen passing reference to it being possible to acquire post-encephalatic, but I think that's true of all/most personality disorders? Hesitant to add the information myself, but someone else might find a source and feel otherwise. (found better source)

HaltlosePersonalityDisorder (talk) 20:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Avoiding an Edit War, but this change removes the most recent addition to the article claiming it is useless because it is 100 years old. Obviously many of the sources in the article are that age, because it is of largely historic interest like female hysteria - and to make the reverts more silly, they are literally complaining that Kraepelin himself should not be allowed to be a source Haltlose Personality Disorder because he's "too old". Wherein it's Kraepelin, it seems absurd, but I am still dropping this notice here out of WP:AGF. Please do not remove Kraepelin-sourced statements as "too old". HaltlosePersonalityDisorder (talk) 15:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Using historical sources when talking about the history or etymology of the topic at hand is fine, but that's about all I can think of. When describing the current state of knowledge about something, one would obviously expect modern sources. There is literally no reason why someone should ever prefer a 120-year-old source over one from this decade when it comes to describing things like symptoms of a modern disorder. Just because many sources in this article are outdated does not mean that the problem should be made even worse. I still stand by my point that an effort should be made to use modern sources wherever possible as per WP:MEDDATE and WP:AGE MATTERS; I simply see no reason to go against these guidelines.--Megaman en m (talk) 15:40, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "Use modern sources wherever possible" is fine, if it's possible feel free to add more modern sources - but Krapelin is basically the guy who "invented" Haltlose personality disorder, so it's like saying that we shouldn't be allowed to quote Freud or use articles from before 2010 in the article on Penis Envy...it just doesn't make sense. WP:MEDDATE is concerned about outdated information on whether Ciprolax is contraindicated in pregnancy, not about historical forensic psychiatric terms - and WP:AGE MATTERS likewise says absolutely nothing against this article. It suggests that a 2020 article is better than a 1994 article. Unrelated to your complaint. HaltlosePersonalityDisorder (talk) 15:57, 20 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)

Updates December
HaltlosePersonalityDisorder (talk) 03:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Would like to find Aschaffenburg's actual writings on the subject rather than attributions to him by others.
 * 2) Have started moving as much as possible out of "Published Summaries" and into more relevant categories, in hindsight I regret making that a subheading of its own since sorting opinions by author is not a great method.
 * 3) Not sure if there's a need for a "Note" explaining Kraepelin's original list of three, then four, then seven subtypes of psychopathy as he broke apart the Triebmenschen, etc
 * 4) Hermann Stutte (1960), August Homburger (1926), Scholz (1912) speak about HLPD in children. Need to find them.
 * 5) Turned up soviet author Lichko who is fantastic as a resource on childhood - wish he wrote about Immature personality disorder as well. May negate need for above, or justify a fork if other childhood authors found.
 * 6) Possible section for sexuality, pulling out the portions from other sections which are currently scattered.
 * 7) Kraepelin, Lichko, Kramer, and Homburger have 14+ references apiece, nice to have a non-German in there.
 * 8) Prose is up to 37kb from 32kb last month; doubt it will ever reach 50kb which is the FORK size
 * 9) Tidy up a couple of references that are currently messy/bare
 * 10) Created Wikiquote page, moved three rQuotes off this page onto there at suggestion of Urve



Shorthand script
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)


 * Same reason Psychology has a Psi (Greek) - it's the shorthand symbol for the subject. It's a better top image than a cartoon or letter or any of the other images in the article. HLPD (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Is it actually a symbol, though? Is it used elsewhere as a representation of this subject?
 * The Psi at the Psychology navigation is suspect, too, and I raised this at the navigation template's talk page.
 * It's fine if the infobox doesn't have any image at all. No image is better than having an obscure image that isn't used elsewhere. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 07:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ... OK, the Psi symbol was explained well on Template talk:Psychology sidebar. Do you have a similar explanation for this article? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 12:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

New sections
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)
 * Made a little progress today tidying up both "Criminality" and "Childhood" into subsections, invite opinions/improvements HLPD (talk) 19:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Urve, saw this change (the one before it, no issue beyond asking if you think the Criminality might make a better potential FORK in the future than children?) - my question is pertaining to invoking Manual_of_Style. I half-agree and half-disagree, I see the value of the argument not to list text in an image, but I think this is a unique case.
 * 1) The "text" is the contents of a letter written by a mental patient to his mother, which one of the primary authorities holds is a perfect example of the subject matter. It was separated out in "blockquotes" so to speak in the original publication, and I think we generally prefer something like a letter have an image of the letter rather than the letter typed out in an article.
 * 1.1) Since it seems quite relevant as a "perfect example" by one of the leading sources, and PD, if the image were removed I would type it all out and put it back into the article in an Rquote box or similar anyways. But that would require more reading, whereas right now we can let you just read the caption and click to enlarge if you want to.
 * 2) The text is in German, so there's no value to it being typed out in the English-language article. it's preserved here so that readers in the future cannot slowly alter the wording (other than the caption if necessary) - it is preserved to see as an artifact of the subject matter, but even if File:Ebony plaque of Menes in his tomb of Abydos (drawing).jpg could be copied out in ASCII characters...there is value to having the actual image in the article even though it is not showing the original but a copy.
 * 3) A typed-out format would be far more resource-intensive for the reader as it would require first the transcription of the text and then Bleuler's summary of why it is typical of Haltlose personality disorder. There is a reason File:Mrs Thomas Everitt automatic writing.png is simply represented as an image in Automatic writing rather than typed out.

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)

Hunting Ivanov NI
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)

Nonsense
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)


 * I removed the text image because MOS:TEXTASIMAGES is a guideline, and I think it is persuasive. Putting aside the fact that it was in German (see MOS:FOREIGNQUOTE), it is not accessible to those who use screenreaders. If the quote is valuable as you say, it can be integrated into the text in some way. My issue with the criminality section is not that it is a facet of the disorder, but that we say in wikivoice that Haltose are criminal, that they have a "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 capable of 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 clearly are, as you make clear, then so be it. Urve (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * As I said, the text/image one I disagree but not wholeheartedly with you. The MOS you provide does say "If the original, untranslated text is available, provide a reference for it or include it, as appropriate.", and I'd say this is where it's fit to include it - along with the summary of the letter in English as provided by Bleuler (?) - but I think it would be unnecessarily lengthy to include the whole letter verbatim into the article. Including the image may appear to Ignore all rules but subsequently does actually walk the delicate balance between "giving the information" but "without overwhelming the page with unnecessary text". But saying "I removed relevant information from the article because it was not readable by screenreading programs [for the disabled]" is remarkably...shall we politely say short-sighted?
 * Per ASPD, not wasting much time on the issue, but again see the statement "Children that do not show symptoms of the disease through age 15 will not develop ASPD later in life" or "children with ODD do not commit aggressive or antisocial acts against other people", those are definitive statements unmarred by anyone saying "Well in MOST cases, but SOMETIMES PROBABLY".
 * Per the wikivoice issue, here I more strongly disagree with you. I assume "wikivoice" means things not in quotation marks, but the simple fact is that the entire article is pretty much near-verbatim quotes from PD sources - so even where it is not within quotation marks there is not any sentence that is not backed up by at least one footnote. Occasionally 3-4 authors who have said something similar are "merged" into one wikivoice statement (and ideally it lists all four footnotes for each sentence, but in practice often it only includes some of them). But for example (and I'm not spending much time digging out the original quote here since it was my intention not to return to Wikipedia but you've drawn me back in to at least respond to you because you are still the most polite of detractors) Lichko's quote in the footnote given is "Истинной любви к родителям они никогда не питают. - They never truly love their parents." He doesn't say "usually" or "in some cases" or "but I'm sure some must", he says "never". Every other author I've condensed here, which really runs pretty much the entire gamut of every author who's tackled HLPD, says the same thing. "Never" "Not Able", "Cannot" "Never will". Is it depressing? Yes. Is it possible that in the future psychiatrists will publish (or we'll find) studies that say there is hope and it's not actually as bad as Lichko, Kramer, Jaspers, Kraepelin and Bleuler said it was? Yes. But until then, I'm not going to agree that we should mollify the language of Wikipedia because we happen to think the published experts in the field are too dour or don't give patients enough hope. That's akin to suggesting that Glioblastoma shouldn't say the survival rate is so low because that's discouraging...we're here to report the facts, not to give people hope or dance around the actual findings of professionals. If there are OTHER sources that say they ARE capable of selfless love, by all means let's mollify the language and say there's a dispute about the issue, I would love to do it myself - but in the absence of any contradictory information (and I don't mean "any which I agree are sufficiently NPOV/peer-reviewed/modern/whatever", I mean ANY) it is silliness to talk about some need to make it more acceptable based on emotions rather than on finding new sources. (Lichko similarly says "For them, relatives are only a source of means for pleasure.", he does not say "in some cases" or as you offer "Surely some...". If you see a quote saying some do love their parents then by all means let's add it and discuss how to balance two contradictory findings. But when ALL findings point to only one conclusion...arguing for the sake of arguing is bad-faith.
 * It doesn't say they ARE criminal, it says very clearly and heavily-footnoted "one of the strains of psychopathy relevant to criminology", "very easily involved in the criminal history", "an increased risk of criminal behavior", "without necessarily becoming criminal", "necessarily a tendency towards deliberate amorality among the demographic despite its frequent criminal violations" and "58% of recidivist criminals were diagnosed with Haltlose personality disorder, higher than any other personality disorder". None of those statements say "THEY ARE CRIMINAL", in fact I'm offended you characterize is thusly because I've gone out of my way to be very careful to use exact quotes from the authors that make clear the fact that although it is one of only two psychopathies who are "virtually doomed to commit crimes" that it is not all cases, and makes frequent references to efforts and successes to keep them out of criminal trouble.
 * Exact same deal, it doesn't say "They ARE vagabonds" in either instance, you're misquoting/mischaracterizing it, it says specifically "it is more frequent that they attract attention early from their "vagabond" nature" and "Kraepelin said they were "apt to take senseless journeys, perhaps even becoming vagabonds"". "Apt to" means exactly the opposite of what you've claimed it means, so it's difficult to continue assuming good faith, it means "likely/some/many", it does not "all". Waltisbühl uses the term "vagabond", as does Kraepelin who is literally the person who coined the term - so it seems odd to object to it. Again, that's like saying it's unfair to quote Freud referencing penis envy because it's considered too gendered a term in today's world. Nowhere does the article say they ARE vagabonds - because that is not anywhere in any of the sources. If it was, the article could reflect it - but as it stands, the article doesn't draw any conclusions, doesn't speak from common knowledge or assumption, avoids weasel words and generally does everything it can to synthesize the actual published experts in the field. Why Wikipedia thinks that an editor cruising by the article on a whim knows better, is beyond me.  HLPD (talk) 01:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Make of these what you will: WP:TEXTWALL and WP:OWN. Because of your insistence on ascribing motives, casting personal aspersions, mentioning but not pinging people so they are unable to defend themselves, misrepresenting points, and explicitly suggesting that I am arguing for the sake of arguing in 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)
 * I have already widely addressed WP:OWN and pointed out that the talk page is full of ME inviting dissenting opinions, asking others to contribute sources they find, etc. The issue is between "We want to just remove your stuff" versus "we found other stuff that merits removing your stuff". If you find other sources, please bring them in - I won't likely object to them, I want more information not less. Per WP:WALLOFTEXT, the most relevant bit I see is "However, an equal-but-opposite questionable strategy is dismissal of legitimate evidence and valid rationales with a claim of "text-walling" or "TL;DR". Not every matter can be addressed with a one-liner, and validity does not correspond to length, especially the more complex the matter is." I wasn't exactly saying "omg I served in Iraq" or "why does [politician x] have to convince people like you that [idea y] is decent" - I'm addressing the issue of drive-by editors wanting to remove or change language into a new form that actually is not what any source says. As I said, you can object to the claim "they are never able to" if you find a source saying sometimes they are - but you can't object just on the basis you don't like the facts. I have no idea how pinging or screenreaders work, and I'm not opposed to having a readable alt-text or whatever so screenreaders work I just don't know how to do it and think it is short-sighted to delete the information because it lacks the accessibility feature you want...instead of adding the feature that you apparently know, but I don't. TL:DR? "You don't get to go 'change the problematic language' unless you have a source that says something different than the sources say...the "But surely..." principle doesn't go far". So if you're changing any language, please include a new reference that supports the change. HLPD (talk) 02:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I asked above why is the shorthand image appropriate. You said that it's the shorthand symbol for the subject. I asked where else is it used. Instead of responding, you wrote a wall of text that attacks me and doesn't address my question. I received a quick and clear response to a similar question at Template talk:Psychology sidebar. If you can provide a similar response with here with examples from other relevant sources, such as books or websites, that show this image used in relevant context, then this image can be restored in the article. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 06:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Like I said, screw this shit - I'd burn the article to the ground if I could, but obviously you'd just restore it. Do whatever the hell you want with it, remove everything, let people decide they can just change what the sources say, or declare the person who invented the term is a dubious source for what the term means, or that we can just say "the childhood character Dunno" without showing his image, or the fantastic "Oh unless you can find an article saying this symptom still exists in 2021 then we shouldn't suggest it's a symptom, we should just say that in 2016 it was noted to have been believed by someone who claimed it to be a symptom at that time    Whatever. I'm done - feel free to delete my account on Wiki. HLPD (talk) 07:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Attribution
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", but it is not removing information or changing facts - so it is not a large problem, just an MOS issue with article size. So not a crusade for me. 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 really the standards by which we should be measuring. Same deal with attributing to names (which would make more sense than dates since Schneider agrees with Schneider, but not all 1980s sources agree with each other) - not a huge issue. 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, or when you misuse WP:MEDRS to remove facts you appear to dislike (they're all of the same theme, you remove or tag no facts that are of the more sympathetic view). Similarly you might want to notice Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine) is clear "a review that was conducted more than five or so years ago [may] have been superseded by more up-to-date ones, and editors should try to find those newer sources" which is exactly what I'm saying. 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.
 * Let's put it this way, you changed "They appear amiable" to "To early twentieth-century researchers, they appeared amiable" - that suggests that information is now abrogated? Yet there is no evidence it is abrogated, 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. 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. You throw dubious one word into a sentence based on NOTHING EXCEPT YOUR PERSONAL OPINION even though your opinion is not sourced to any reference...and the word you're disputing IS OUT OF THE SOURCE. 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. 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. Either information has value or it doesn't, it's not a freaking bargaining chip of "I've removed information from the article, but I'm willing to compromise to allow it to return in exchange for allowing me to rewrite what the psychiatrists actually say". Either present sources that contradict anything in the article, or stop vandalizing it or "changing it to fit your personal tastes and opinions and make it clear you disagree with Kraepelin, Schneider, Jaspers and Kramer though you lack any studies suggesting they were wrong so you'll just say they're dubious, outdated and "Surely" must be wrong".HLPD (talk) 04:27, 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 treatment is 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 experts without 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.
 * My improvements to the article will continue. Urve (talk) 05:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You claimed your medical history was relevant to how this article should be presented, not me. I merely said it wasn't relevant and wished you hadn't introduced it. I just went through and counted your changes to this article about which you claim not to care, this afternoon you have added 16 dubious clarify specify style tags (my personal favorite, adding it to a page because you don't speak the language the page is in and therefore you feel it needs a warning template), added 43 unnecessary additions that add zero information to the article including weird ones like changing "Female patients" to "Women Haltlose", removed 2-3 chunks entirely, and made five positive edits editing a verb tense in a useful manner or fixing a typo. All of those changes had the same goal in mind, to soften the language to suggest that encephalitis could....only trigger Haltlose and most other personality disorders up until 1923 but then it stopped? That menstruation changed in 1954? That they were only passive briefly for a month in 1922 despite that being pretty much literally the one-word definition of the disorder? That since 1968 it stopped frequently appearing with comorbidities? You throw two tags on the fragment "The Haltlose were said to have a dynamic instinctual drive to "cling" to others..." demanding the article say what year it was determined that they are clingy? Does Borderline personality disorder or ASPD do that? Of course not. Every symptom doesn't need to list years or face dozens of warning templates slapped on an article because someone who identifies as just a reader of the article feels offended by it. And again, you literally just removed the 2016 study on the suicide risk of Haltlose patients...and then literally complained that we have only old sources for it...but you removed the December 2016 published case control study. Why? You'd prefer I not speculate, fine - let's just say "At its most charitable, it was a mistake". 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". The law source you removed was relevant to the CRIMINOLOGY aspect of Haltlose Personality Disorder, you'll notice in the lede it talks about the fact it's heavily/mostly known for its role in criminology studies. But five of the edits seemed solid. On a stylistic note, I think you've placed warning tags you meant to go inside references outside references, but I can't interpret your intention. HLPD (talk) 07:12, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This response does not address what I said. The number of tags does not matter, and adding a tag because I could not verify the information is fine. I already explained why attribution for dates is good; repeating that it's "unnecessary" is not helpful. Removing chunks of text that are trivial or inappropriate is good. No, this is false: 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)