Talk:Scruples (disambiguation)

Please see WP:POINT regarding the creation of this artilce relative to scrupulosity; a dictionary definition of scruples may be helpful. Creating a faulty article, just so it can be re-merged to the accurate article, and without discussion of such, is WP:POINTy. Also, forking content to an incorrect article name isn't helpful; medical terms will still need medical sourcing. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 00:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

You said: if you want to create an article on scruples, certainly. Now you changed your mind? Now I do not want to merge any more.... History2007 (talk) 00:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:DISRUPT; create an article on scruples if you wish, but this article is not about scruples (see a dictionary), it's about scrupulosity, and will still need correct sourcing. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The demands are too brief and telegraphic. Explain exactly what the objections are using longer paragraphs here. History2007 (talk) 00:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not that hard. This is scruples; you have created two articles about scrupulosity, and merely renamed one of them incorrectly to scruples, while adding an incorrect definition of scruples to Scruples (disambiguation).  It all needs to be corrected now.  If you want to write an article about scruples, it shouldn't be a duplicate of scrupulosity; they are two different terms.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, it is not at all clear what you suggest. You suggest that the material should go back in the scrupulosity page? Or scruples be renamed to scruples (religion)? There is clearly a need for a definition of the term "scruples" in religion, and there was none before I got to it. It needs to be somewhere. Where is your suggestion. You have NOT made that clear at all. History2007 (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Facts

 * Why don't you explain it here? History2007 (talk) 00:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I suspect the problem SandyGeorgia is referring to is that the modern definition of "scruple" is not what this article is about. It's about a definition that was current in the 16th century (and even then, was probably not the most important interpretation). As such, the article is quite misleading: it would be better for the material to be discussed under Scrupulosity, the modern term. I've made a at doing that. It still needs some more work but the point is that we need to reflect what modern sources say, and take some care to avoid speculation about historical figures. For examples, some sources say Luther showed signs of scrupulosity, while others say it was a different form of OCD, so it's better that we not give Luther as an example. Eubulides (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Your first cut looks very good; Eubulides is on the job :) There are some WP:MOS spacing problems, but I'll wait 'til you're done.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I like the sections Eubulides wrote on the other page. They cover the material well, and are easy to read. But the reason I came to these pages was that the term scruples is used in Thérèse of Lisieux by Joan Monahan, 2003 ISBN 0809167107 page 45 and I thought it needed a definition. So that needs to be handled a little more than saying it was centuries ago. And Other 20th century books on Thérèse also use the term scruples. I also think what you wrote about Luther above is fine, so why not say that it is hard to diagnose it for dead people. In fact, I would say that given that it has no Demarcation criterion such diagnosis is non scientific. (by the way the demarcation article in Wikipedia has serious problems and I use the term as used in modern science not in that half written article). But that is another story. What would help would be examples of people who have had it, e.g. the 11 year old who was afraid to play etc., as I saw in one of the books. So it would be good to clarify that the spectrum of this ailment includes 11 year olds to grown saints. Then I suggest deleting this article and merging what you like from here and just redirecting. However, I think it would also be essential to discuss methods of treatment, for the reader will wonder what they are: meds, therapy... what? If there is a newsletter that means there is a market for treatment. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 01:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The above suggestions are good ones. I Scrupulosity to mention the terminology change in the lead, which should have helped in your original case. t would be nice to add the claim that you can't easily diagnose dead people for scrupulosity, as well as methods of treatments, and prevalence among various age groups (this will take some work and we'll need reliable sources of course). It doesn't hurt to have a few examples, but the Scrupulosity article should be written as a summary of scrupulosity rather than as a a series of case studies (the latter would be original research). A good model is a large featured article such as Autism, which gives three brief examples (one involving Luther!) in the space of 130 words; this is in a 7000-word article. This suggests that Scrupulosity, a much smaller article, shouldn't devote more than 130 words or so to examples, because even if Scrupulosity were expanded to Autism's size (could that happen?!?) that would be about the right size. Eubulides (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Top level decisions
I think the first decision is: "Will there be just one page for both scruples and scrupulosity or two pages?" That will affect the rest of the discussion.

Next, as for reliable sources for examples, I got the examples here:


 * There is a fascinating book on scrupulosity written by a psychologist, William Van Ornum, Ph.D., called "A Thousand Frightening Fantasies." It is a book that some people are finding very helpful. It has been given rave reviews by psychiatrists, psychologists, counselors and confessors.

And just a paragraph describing the breadth of the situation will be useful. That article taught me, so it may teach others too.

As for comparison with Autism, who said one needs to follow other articles all the time. I set precedent as I go along, so we can do whatever makes sense to the readers. The goal of Wikipedia is educating peoplewith good info and that overrides other discussions.

And I am still NOT clear about treatments. Therese recovered after 18 months, Ignatius never did. What is the norm? Is this thing curable? Any data?

Next, the article is dead without an image of some type. I found the image above that I added to OCD, does it make sense to add it here? Else do you have a good image? Cheers History2007 (talk) 19:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There should be just one page, since there's just one topic (with different names). Perhaps if the page grows too large it could be split, but we're nowhere near that.
 * The 1997 Van Ornum book looks like a reasonable source (much as the 1995 Ciarrocchi book, currently cited) but it surely must be at least a bit dated and (like the other book) not peer-reviewed. If we can get better sources we should, but in the meantime it'd be OK I expect.
 * The homily is not that good a source, as it's personal opinion and is not peer-reviewed. Surely we can do better. And it's not that good to take its examples, go and find sources for each of them separately, and cite each one; it'd be better to take examples from more-reliable sources on scrupulosity.
 * "I set precedent as I go along" Sure, but here we have a case where two editors disagree, and one (me) is giving that high-quality article as an example of why this article shouldn't attempt to do a case study series. In cases like this, convincing evidence is better than unsupported argument.
 * "And just a paragraph describing the breadth of the situation" Sorry, I lost context. Isn't such a paragraph already there? If not, what text is missing?
 * "And I am still NOT clear about treatments" We need to consult reliable sources about treatments; please see WP:MEDRS for what we're looking for. Anecdotes are not good sources.
 * An image would definitely help, but an OCD graph isn't a good choice, because this article is about scrupulosity not about OCD in general.
 * Eubulides (talk)

Ok, point by point:


 * There should be just one page: done deal.


 * The homily is not that good a source. I meant to use the book it refers to, which is a good source.


 * the high-quality article... so which one is the high quality.. just kidding...


 * "And just a paragraph describing the breadth of the situation" .. I will give an example


 * Anecdotes are not good sources... yes, but treatments should be covered.


 * An image would definitely help... so let us look for one... Is there a founder of the field whose image can be used?

Now, my guess is that the handwriting is on the wall that will be one page at the end, but you are taking the nice and diplomatic route to get there, so let me provide a short cut here: Talk:Scruples\Prototype1. It has many holes, as any prototype, but if you apply your more strict criteria for refs etc., it will make a good eventual page.

Cheers History2007 (talk) 12:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree we shouldn't have two articles on the same topic; the current scrupulosity covers it, and explains that it was historically called scruples.
 * Agree the homily isn't a reliable source, and there are peer-reviewed journal sources that could eventually replace any book sources.
 * Agree the article shouldn't be a case study of speculative past cases unless those individuals are mentioned in journal reviews.
 * Several of the journal articles cover treatment, it can eventually be added to scrupulosity from reliable sources. No urgency.
 * Agree the image would be more approprate for OCD, but not in scrupulosity.
 * Talk:Scruples\Prototype1 is interesting (presumably the content is proposed for scrupulosity, the correct current name?), but we should rely on peer-reviewed sources rather than lay sources and books; there are many sources available, just takes a trip to a good library and time. Also, it would be better to follow the suggested sections per WP:MEDMOS. Also, shouldn't this discussion be happening on the correct talk page, at Talk:Scrupulosity, since that is the current correct name for the condition?  Perhaps we can move any proposed text discussions to there.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)