Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Major depressive disorder/restart

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This pertains to the discussion on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Major depressive disorder

Suggestion for discussion[edit]

I'm new to the process of FAC, and I'm having real problems following the discussions on this page. Everything is being discussed under one big section, it's hard to see where one topic ends and another starts, and even who has written what. I was going to look into the issue of sources for Beck Depression Inventory – that particular discussion is scattered over three different places on the page... it just gives me a headache! I'm wondering: Is it possible that this page could be kept just a list of people's different issues with the article, and keep actual discussion of those issues on the talk page? That would make more sense to me. I don't know what FAC policy is. /skagedal... 15:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAC pages are no different than talk pages: responses should be threaded per WP:TP and WP:TALK. Unfortunately, interruptions happen regularly, and I seem to be the only who goes back and corrects faulty threading, attaches sigs, and adds the {{interrupted}} template; it's very time consuming, involving stepping back through the diffs to see who wrote what. I put out regular reminders to follow talk page threading conventions, to little avail :-) If anyone has more time to step back through the diffs and sort out who said what, it would help. More helpful would be correct threading to begin with, and keeping long discussions of specific issues on the article talk page, with the FAC focusing on whether the article meets WP:WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The original Question - I am wondering about the accuracy of this statement: "The Beck Depression Inventory, is one of the most widely used tools in the diagnosis of depression,". Are you saying in the U.S. or where?
Subsequently 18 entries were made in that thread under my question, many of them off topic, but including my request for a source, arguments that a primary source was better than the secondary review source as I was requesting, etc. My question was never answered, despite my repetition of my question half way down the thread:
Back to my original Question: I am wondering about the accuracy of this statement: "The Beck Depression Inventory, is one of the most widely used tools in the diagnosis of depression".
More non answers given, ending with a slam at me, "Thaks for the non-asked for little speech." My question was still was not answered.
Perhaps there could be a standard that if a post occurs under a question, it should be responsive to the question, or at least address the question. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for some of the interruptions, since some of them were mine: it is not good idea to write inside a comment but it is the only way to answer... and then debates comes... I really do not know how to do it well (and as far as I see I am not the only one). Specially sorry also for the "Thaks for the non-asked for little speech." since it was also mine: I was quite "hot" at that moment and I did not take very well your comment before since I understand why secondary sources are better than primary; I never tried to debate that. I should have taken a deep breath. My only point was that in scientific journals usually with that seminal reference would have been enough.
I have tried to search for refs for that sentence (is a widely used questionnaire for diagnosis), but right now I almost feel it is impossible (lets see if Casliber finds one). I have found many primary sources articles saying that sentence, but it is so "common knowledge" for them that they do not provide any new references for it. The only refs they give date back to the early 90's (like the one I gave); so right now I do not really know how to procceed. Eliminate the sentence? Give a the primary source and the old source as enough? Any other ideas?--Garrondo (talk) 17:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wrt the interruptions, I try to get participants to view the page from the perspective of the person who has sit down and read through the entire thing and sort out who said what and where things stand. I can't seem to convince others to look at the entire FAC page from that perspective, and sometimes I have to read FACs diff by diff to know what has been dealt with. Sometimes interruptions are inevitable: what would be very helpful would be if the interruptors added the {{interrupted}} template themselves whenever they are not responding under a signature, and if nominators would periodically peruse their FACs to make sure they are comprehensible, and do any of that cleanup as needed. When I sit down to read FAC, and have to spend half an hour to an hour sorting just one FAC, it doesn't bode well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll use the template from now on or something similar. Thanks SandyGeorgia.--Garrondo (talk) 17:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you SandyGeorgia for a very helpful response! I didn't know about {{interrupted}} before, I'll help out with adding it when I can. Hope that some day soon MediaWiki will get better capabilities of managing threaded discussions... /skagedal... 20:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did a bit more cleanup, capping and moving, but there are still some pieces where it's hard to tell the author. It's a messy one! WP:TP and WP:TALK may help. I think delldot has two sections, Colin has two, and Mattisse has about half a dozen: it may be cleaner, and easier to see where each reviewer stands, if editors keep their commentary together. But I'll get it all sorted :-) (I also noted some confusion on the FAC: if responses are threaded correctly, there's no need for the interrupted template ... the problem starts with incorrect threading.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would clarify the issue if WP:IAR or WP:MEDRS is the standard. I have wasted a lot of time if a popular vote overrules a medical article. But apparently that is the case. I humbly appeal that you change the name of the article from an offical diagnostic category. But I see that the FAC crowd is against me. So it is hopeless. No standards for psychology/psychiatric articles. Good to know that. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved[edit]

  • Followup comment - Note that the issues I complained about above have not been addressed. As stated above, I have only examined a small part of the article for accuracy in wording and sources. There is no point in doing more, given the lack of responses that actually address issues I raised. Given this, I remain skeptical about the accuracy of the rest of the article. — Mattisse 17:46, 3 November 2008 — continues after insertion below
To Mattise - We're getting there, there is no need to repeat yourself. Keeping comments brief, constructive and to the point is appreciated. I come here in my own free time to edit as I enjoy it - I do not enjoy being subjected to reams of self-righteous invective and feeling like I am being held to ransom. I am trying; it is a big article and there is alot to cover. I am sorry you were reverted which set you off like this, and I am sorry your comments were interspersed above. I think that casting aspersions on other established editors as lazy at best and dishonest at worst is bordering on a personal attack. I advise you to keep comments short, constructive and to the point and avoid making assumptions about others. Lengthy rants have the appearance of filibustering to disrupt this to make a point, I hope that is not the case. I welcome your constructive feedback and will try to work to address concerns. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apology - I am sorry. I only repeated myself because I have asked many times and these issues were never addressed and I felt like they were being skipped over and the topic changed. I am sorry that you interpret my comments as " reams of self-righteous invective". I regret that you interpret my comments as "casting aspersions on other established editors as lazy at best and dishonest at worst is bordering on a personal attack". I get your hint and will not comment any more on the article. This has been an unpleasant experience for me also, and I am sorry if I let my frustration show. I wish you the best tn this endeavor. I guess I got too caught up in the subject matter. Again, I apologize. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • thanks for that - (sigh of relief) I know this is an important topic to get right and I have generally kept awya from articles liek this as it becomes not-fun very quickly, but I do think I have something to offer in hauling this one to featured status. I don't want you to leave completely, the points you hav raised have been very valid, but as you can see with an article of this size and breadth, it is a huge task, and my time is limited, furthermore where I am at the moment ther computer is loading WP pages very slowly, which makes rapid editing of large articles problematic. As long as people strike objections when done and keep it brief the page is quite manageable. It is tricky when there are a plethora of sources out there. Snowman's contributions are important as I realise just about everyone till now who has commented is pretty familiar with biological and medical material, hence limiting our ability to make it accessible to broader population. We are getting there. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No personal attacks - However, I am upset at your personal attacks on me and the inflammatory language you used. I have done the best I can and I have not engaged the type of personal "rant" agains another that you have. You complain that I make "a big call without supplying examples" but if I then repeat my examples (already repeated many times) I am accused of "reams of self-righteous invective". When you say I engaged in "casting aspersions on other established editors as lazy at best and dishonest at worst is bordering on a personal attack", I do not know what you mean, unless you are referring to my echoing Snowman's comments. You say "I am sorry you were reverted which set you off like this", when that is not true. I had forgotten than and it is small potatoes anyway. Plese don't read my mind. I take your comments above as a personal attack on me. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(big breath) It is pretty clear both of our emotional reserves are running a bit low on this and our interpretations are going to differ. I am trying to think of a way forward from this. Especially as my computer is loading WP pages slowly, dredging up diffs is going to be extremely time-consuming, time which I'd rather spend on the article. I am waving an olive branch/white flag/whatever, I just don't want to keep arguing here, so rather than pursuing that, I am sorry your feelings are hurt, you have offered input which is valuable and will take a few days to address and I will try to get to it. Can we please just move on? Cheers, Casliber (talk ·contribs) 04:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To both Mattisse and Snowman - I will attempt to go through specific issues raised on this list for as long as the FAC remains open. If it closes then so be it. If you choose not to participate, that is your business and I am sure the closer will look at the situation/consensus once time is reached. Your call Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sections[edit]

  • Can someone explain why we don't have sections in the review page? I added a section for my comments so that they could be edited in isolation but someone has reverted to the previous monolithic format, which seems inappropriate for such a large page. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This page is getting long, and I do not know why there has not been any subheadings. As far as I am aware level 3 headings are ok. Sometimes it is called break for editing, and that is what is needed here. Snowman (talk) 16:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See the WP:FAC instructions; this problem rarely occurs, and is an issue when the FAC is used for discussions that might better occur on article talk pages. There are many reasons section headings aren't used at FAC, but the simplest solution is to use the FAC for addressing whether the article meets WP:WIAFA, and to use the article talk page to discuss article improvements. This is one of the very few FACs that has gone a bit off-tangent, and keeping extended commentary about text improvements on article talk will help prevent the jam up at FAC, which is now causing a problem on the load time of the entire page. In particular, I'd encourage Mattisse to use the article talk page, as she has started many different sections on the FAC (many of which I've tried to consolidate with the use of horizontal lines). The FAC has reached 200KB, and may need a restart if it continues to grow; issues like the DSM article, other articles linked from this article that aren't FA quality, etc. can be better discussed off-FAC). There is also a lot of repetition on this FAC, which is making it harder for new editors; it would be most helpful if editors would keep the discussion here focused on whether the article meets the criteria, and move extended discussions of bits of text to the article talk page; that will lessen editing difficulty for all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved 2[edit]

  • Support. Yes, this makes me a liar for actually coming back in and responding. But I felt as if I owed Casliber this one. Why? Because this is a damn fine article and I should be on record saying that. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this reason of "I owed Casliber this one" is a common reason for the "Supports" of this article. I am sorry to see a medical article supported for this reason, even if you are an expert in the field. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This time its you who is taking a sentence out of context: have your red how the sentence continues? Because this is a damn fine article that is as a good reason as any other. So as nobody gets lost that gives 12 supports and 1 oppose. --Garrondo (talk) 15:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see 11 Supports: who did I miss? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having followed Ottava Rima's work, I do not believe that editor has the expertise to judge whether this article is factually correct and referenced appropriately, per WP:MEDRS. As far as I know, there is no place on Wikipedia where she has claimed to be an expert in this field, other than writing articles on the mental illness of Christopher Smart and other pre-twentieth century literary figures. Maybe she can evaluate the literary style, but in that case, I would think she would comment on the lack of parallelism under the "Causes" section. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. I generally avoid claiming to be or not to be anything (other than a colour and a cheese-lover) on here, largely because I don't want to be the recipient of ad hominem judgments like the one you just made. WP:AGF, please. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know there is no need to be an expert to give an opionion about a wikipedia article and Support or oppose an article in FAC, or this would not be an open encyclopedia and anybody would have to demostrate its expertise with credentials, so do not imply that her vote is less valuable than any other, since it is very close to a personal attack. On the other hand: as said in talk page people please say things only once and in one place: you might be stressed but that does not help much...Best regards.--Garrondo (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I cited a fact. Ottava Rima, as far as I know, does not claim in any sense to be an expert in medicine-related articles or to be completely familiar with the appropriate use of WP:MEDRS in such articles, nor does she claim to be an expert in psychology. How is that close to a personal attack? Please feel free to prove what I said is wrong. It is true I feel "I owed Casliber this one" is not a good reason for supporting. Perhaps that can be considered a personal attack. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your attitude toward Ottava Rima smacks of elitism, to say the least. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith and stop attacking me. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you are saying "I owed Casliber this one" is an appropriate reason for supporting? Please stop attacking me Cosmic Latte. Why not address my comments on the article instead. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how you define "attack," although I suspect that it's in unusually broad terms. But comments like "Further, I am shocked (naive as I am) that anyone would register a 'Support' for this article on an important topic without carefully reading it through," and the attitude that you've shown toward Ottava Rima suggest that you don't hold your fellow editors in highest esteem, and are rather off-putting. And to devalue someone's opinion because she may not be an expert is pretty much the very definition of elitism. Sorry if you construe that as an attack, but I didn't write the dictionary. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I define personal attack when I am accused by you of ad hominem judgments. Please stop the personal attacks and attacks on me because of comments I make. Any comment of mine is made in as much good faith as anyone else's. I continue to suggest that a support based on "I owed Casliber this one" is not neutral. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And, per WP:WWW, it doesn't matter who she is. Her support was made in good faith and isn't flawed on account of any policy, so let her be. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:AGF, please let me be and do not assume I am personally attacking or doing things in bad faith. Please stop commenting on my comments negatively. Let me be. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit conflict] Where did I say you were personally attacking anyone or doing anything in bad faith? All I said is that your attitude toward Ottava Rima smacks of elitism. Maybe that's a good thing, maybe it isn't. But it's certainly not a great way to build a sense of community. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further, I request the personal attacks on me (this one is mild compared to Calisber's above), or insinuations of such cease on this FAC. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to point out that Mattisse was being completely unfair - I made it clear on my first line that I was referring to my declaration that I would not be participating in FAC commenting anymore. I left because of the chaos that comes from the FAC process being degraded in such a way. I commented here because I have been watching Casliber's work for a while now, and I think he deserves the support. If you want to get into my "opinion" and if it matters, here is my background: I focus heavily on the 18th century/early 19th century "mad" poets, i.e. the various poets that experienced various mental problems, which has an influence on their art. I have studied Smart's disputed "madness" and what it could mean, I have studied Johnson, and worked with SandyGeorgia on the diagnosis of TS in relation to Johnson (and studied earlier interpretations of it being just depression), I have studied the "madness" of Blake (either fantasy or actual hallucinations), I've studied the mental achievement of Keats while his body was failing him, I studied Cowper's break down, I studied Wordsworth's panic attacks and separation anxiety (including depression), and I have studied many others, most of which had some form of "depression", which has changed definitions over the years. I have also studied Foucault's sociological interpretation of "madness" used as a political label and distinct from actual mental status (and related critical works). However, never once did I claim to be an expert on this topic, nor do I think it maters. I am sorry for Casliber for my support to be taken in such a way. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just my input into this FAC that I have not been a part of. Either make it about the issues in the article or do not participate. This extended discussion about our personal grievances is pointless. Make it actionable, and make it about the article. If you have a comment about someone in particular for an offense, take it to their talk page. --Moni3 (talk) 17:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than comment on other users or other declarations, please let's all try to keep our comments focused on the article and whether or not it meets WP:WIAFA. This FAC is getting ridiculously long. Karanacs (talk) 20:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Summary[edit]

Support
  1. Garrondo (talk · contribs)
  2. Tony1 (talk · contribs)
  3. Cosmic Latte (talk · contribs) (Contributor)
  4. Orangemarlin (talk · contribs)
  5. Colin (talk · contribs)
  6. A Nobody (talk · contribs)
  7. Vassyana (talk · contribs)
  8. Skagedal (talk · contribs)
  9. Eusebeus (talk · contribs)
  10. Looie496 (talk · contribs)
  11. Ottava Rima (talk · contribs)
Oppose
  1. Mattisse (talk · contribs)
  • It would clarify the issue if WP:IAR or WP:MEDRS is the standard. I have wasted a lot of time if a popular vote overrules a medical article. But apparently that is the case. I humbly appeal that you change the name of the article from an offical diagnostic category. Please state whether or not there are standards for psychology/psychiatric articles. Or does popular vote trump standards for medical articles. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have stated very clearly that I support anyone who has actionable objections to this article based on problems surrounding the extraction of information from references. Please note that a process of checking references is under way, and voting has a tendency to distract such processes. See also, WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Snowman (talk) 00:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are misapplying WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. See my response to Mattisse here. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You just posted that very same comment to the FAC talk page. Where else will it end up? Well...at least your copy-paste enabled you conveniently to ignore my remark here about the nuance in my comment about IAR/MEDRS. While I know as well as anyone with an IQ of more than about 70 that majority doesn't necessarily equal right, I find it rather belittling of you to regard your fellow editors' participation in this FAC as a "popular vote." We aren't walking up naievely to the voting booth and punching the chad beside the candidate with the cutest name. We have read this article carefully, and with WP:WIAFA in mind. You appear to have read it with some additional set of standards in mind. Perhaps that's a good thing, but it doesn't reduce the rest of us to a mere head count. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cosmic, don't worry, actionable stuff is still being worked on. I am still annoyed at myself for sloppy adjectives in the SSRI side effect error, which was important.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notice - Casliber has asked Admin to block me. Thus I have been warned by Admin [1] that I should have been blocked for a joking response to one Casliber's many posts on my talk page regarding this article and that I will be blocked for any more comments Therefore, since I do not want to be blocked, I will not participate in this FAC any longer. I request here that Casliber and others supporting him cease posting on my talk page. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved 3[edit]

  • Notice - Casliber has asked Admin to block me. Thus I have been warned by Admin [2] that I should have been blocked for a joking response to one Casliber's many posts on my talk page regarding this article and that I will be blocked for any more comments Therefore, since I do not want to be blocked, I will not participate in this FAC any longer. I request here that Casliber and others supporting him cease posting on my talk page. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, please refrain from making personal and unsubstantiated commentary on FAC pages. (If there is a diff where Cas asked that another editor be blocked, I haven't seen it.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/Major_depressive_disorder/restart&oldid=1084178145"