Talk:Scrupulosity/Archive 1

older entries

I feel that the discussion of scrupulosity should include a description of people trying to bathe repeatedly to rid themselves of sin.

Andrew Szanton, 4/06

OCD? Citation much? Any chance we could skip the psychoanalysis and discuss...scrupulosity? Nickjost (talk) 17:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Good point Nick - My father used the word in an email to me recently and I used wikipedia to look it up and was quite confused so emailed him the reference - he responded with this:

  "as defined in “The World Dictionary”, 1971 edition by Thorndyke and Barnhart, as follows:

“Scrupulosity”: being scrupulous; strict regard for what is right; scrupulous care; e.g., “Albert, with characteristic scrupulosity attempted to thread his way through the complicated labyrinth of European diplomacy.” [Note the absence from the definition of the elements of psychological disorder, obsession, religion, morality, pathology, guilt, distress and compulsion]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.97.12.2 (talk) 02:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

For Citations to Rewrite the Article

I may try to rewrite it myself, but for the moment, I'll just list two credible authors: Carol E. Watkins, MD and Joseph W. Ciarrocchi, Ph.D. MichaelExe (talk) 18:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:MEDRS, and try to focus on PMID-indexed review articles (see the Review tab at PubMed). Baltimorepsych.com is not a WP:RS per WP:MEDRS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Review articles indexed at PubMed:

• Miller CH, Hedges DW (2008). "Scrupulosity disorder: an overview and introductory analysis". J Anxiety Disord. 22 (6): 1042–58. doi:10.1016/j.janxdis.2007.11.004. PMID 18226490. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• Huppert JD, Siev J, Kushner ES (2007). "When religion and obsessive-compulsive disorder collide: treating scrupulosity in Ultra-Orthodox Jews". J Clin Psychol. 63 (10): 925–41. doi:10.1002/jclp.20404. PMID 17828763. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Bryńska A (1998). "[Obsessive-compulsive disorder in children and adolescents: a literature review. Part II]". Psychiatr. Pol. (in Polish). 32 (1): 77–88. PMID 9594586.

Books:

• Ciarrocchi, Joseph W (March 1995). The Doubting Disease: Help for Scrupulosity and Religious Compulsions. Paulist Press. ISBN 0809135531.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

OCPD

Although I made the link between scrupulosity and OCPD, scrupulosity is primarily associated with OCD. By moving OCPD to the first sentence, scrupulosity will be attributed to OCDP incorrectly. Sufferers of OCPD may be scrupulous, but scrupulosity in this article should focus on it as either an obsessive-compulsive spectrum disorder or a ritual performed by sufferers of OCD.

Also, I'm going to leave these reviews here:

• PMID 18226490
• PMID 17828763
• PMID 19108983
• PMID 16396372
• PMID 9594586

MichaelExe (talk) 03:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

See the section above, where I gave full sites to three of these, plus a book. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Scope

I did not get it. Did you object to content, or to style. If to style, why not fix it instead of delete it? Or was the style a reason for objecting to content? In any case, it is best to fix, not delete. Just wastes time on these talk pages as they get put back in. Some peopel may have OCD for style, but I am sure neither of us does... just a joke.... Thanks. History2007 (talk) 14:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The additons to the article have both content and style issues; I will get to them as soon as I can access the sources (one of which I recently donated to a book sale, so I will have to go to a library or bookstore before I can do further work). "Scruples" is not the same as scrupulosity, so the content issues are substantial, and the Catholic Encyclopedia is not a WP:MEDRS for medical articles and doesn't even mention scrupulosity; there are plenty of reliable medical sources that discuss scrupulosity in, for example, Ignatius of Loyola, so I have left the text pending better sources, but the "scruples" wording needs adjustment to reliable medical sources and has introduced confusion. Please refer to WP:CITE for how to correctly format sources. Accusing me of "butchering" the article isn't the best way to begin collaboration. Also, when you add content, please indicate so in edit summary rather than adding content with an edit summary of "ce". It would also be helpful if you would follow the conventional citation formatting already established in the article; as an experienced editor, I assume you are familiar with WP:MOS and other Wiki guidelines, so others should not need to clean up after your edits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

First, there is no 3RR issue here, I am extending with sources. As is we are not reverting each other and do not have an edit war, yet. But who determined that this HAS to be an article only about the purely medical perspective. The category "religious experience" is already there on the page. As the quotes from the two psychologists show, they BOTH use that newsletter that uses the terms scruples and scrupulous in the same context. In the extreme case, there would need to be two articles one on scruples, one on scrupulosity, but then immediately a "merge flag" would show on them for they are two short articles and will become sections in a larger article. In fact, I will do that now, and you can define scruples later. As for Cath encyclopedia not being reliable, who determined that? What better source do you have for the writings of saints? Joyce Brothers or Freud? In any case, I see no reason for my fully referenced text being deleted in the first place. History2007 (talk) 15:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

History sections (i.e. religion) are relevant and do not necessarily have to comply with WP:MEDRS, although it does with WP:Reliable sources. I've seen the use of "scruple" as "without scruples" (without hesitation, without conscience, without doubt, without anxiety, etc.) so scruple and scrupulosity are similar concepts, but I'd say scruples refer to more precise incidences, while scrupulosity is generalized and obviously more distressing, and I don't think you would say that they suffered from "scruples". The terms are similar, but not interchangeable.

So, History2007, I'd suggest that you try http://books.google.com/books to look for more reliable sources; generally we avoid other encyclopedias, except perhaps in the definition of specific words. Using sources from the Sources section at the bottom of http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01334a.htm would probably be okay (although difficult, because many of them are not English). MichaelExe (talk) 16:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

And, tbh, if you don't cite the sources properly (although you'll definitely want to leave sources), someone else will pick up after you. That isn't really a big deal.

Finally, OCPD would probably be more appropriate when about perfectionism in work. XP MichaelExe (talk) 16:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Very cute :) At any rate, the adjustments have now corrected most of the issues I encountered here this morning with the confusing introduction of "scruples" relative to "scrupulosity", but better sourcing is still needed, and reliable medical sources are available vis-a-vis saints and scrupulosity, so there is no need for inferior sourcing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you dear professors for teaching me about ref formats and the existence of Google books. I actually think ref formats should be cleaned up by bots not humans. Wikipedia technology is ever so ancient, as I said on my user page.... but that is another story. As for Google I am glad I was taught about that, but what color were the doors of the Google building on University Ave. in scenic Palo Alto when they first started? Any guesses on that? Anyway, this has been a refreshing discussion indeed, reminded me of my youth when I would get lectured by the teacher. Cheers History2007 (talk) 16:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you've never experienced scenic University Ave. in Palo Alto; at any rate, please see WP:TALK. Until a bot can clean up faulty formatting, it falls to us "babe"s. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually I have experience it plenty professor. History2007 (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, welcome to The Farm. I suggest you tame the sarcasm; you've been in WP:NPA territory for quite a while here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Is sarcasm a PA? Is humor forbidden? Are 3 Kleenex level tears necessary for editing Wikipedia? I actually liked the fact that you kept calling me cute. Keep doing that please. It is very nice. History2007 (talk) 17:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Scruple

Moving on. The use of "scruple" and related terms (well, "scrupule", because I had to use a French version, and apparently the French used the term before the English with the same meaning) in the Bible [1] always give the terms positive connotation (so the use never implies anything akin to anxiety disorder). MichaelExe (talk) 17:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The introduction of the confusion is now sourced to Ciarrocchi; I no longer have that book, so I can't verify, but I do not recommend the use of google books for sourcing medical articles, unless more than excerpts (complete text) are provided. Reliable medical sources to clear this up should be easily available, but I'm not on for the sarcasm (as FAC delegate, I do try to keep articles I write up to MOS standards, since it wouldn't seem quite right for me to be enforcing MOS at FAC while being lax on articles I edit). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

In book after book they use scruple and scrupulosity in one sentence after another in the 20th century. The average reader has to relate what is written here to books they buy. So please suggest a way to bridge the gap. History2007 (talk) 17:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've found some books with historical records of scrupulosity (although "The doubting disease..." has been mentioned above):

1. Pastor and laity in the theology of Jean Gerson
2. Confession and bookkeeping: the religious, moral, and rhetorical roots of Modern Accounting
3. The Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder: Pastoral Care for the Road to Change, p.49-63 (although a bunch of pages in-between are missing)
4. The doubting disease: help for scrupulosity and religious compulsions, p.48-49 (the rest of the chapter is missing >.>)

MichaelExe (talk) 17:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I gave away The doubting disease, but as the excerpt above from google books shows, it most certainly distinguishes developmental "scruples" from the "scrupulosity" associated with OCD. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. I did not know Martin Luther had scruples. There is a REAL problem here however, the problem that originally drove me to this page. How can anyone medically diagnose a patient who died 100 years before. I got to this page as I was editing Thérèse of Lisieux and the books about her used the term "scruples". How can one use scrupulosity when there was no access to her. So we seem to be forced to accept a less scientific term in a historical context. So the best that can be done is to clarify that via some of the books, but accept that it is hard to diagnose across the centuries, let alone diagnose the living with more complex conditions sometimes. History2007 (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

We aren't medically diagnosing them; we just provide a summary of literature that tries to, whether the authors are right or wrong (although we don't blatantly say that so-and-so dead person suffered from so-and-so mental disorder). MichaelExe (talk) 18:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know, but something keeps telling me that the books that say that are nonsense and just quoting nonsense may fly according to the rules, but is still non-scientific. I bet I could find references that say that diagnosing dead people is nonsense... but why bother... History2007 (talk) 18:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It can be done, and in the case of Ignatius of Loyola, there are surely sources. For examples, see Samuel Johnson#Health, and also refer to WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS; what we can include in articles about the people may be ever-so-slightly different than how we source a medical article. The Catholic Encyclopedia is not a reliable medical source, and removing the {{MEDRS}} tag is edit warring and subject to WP:3RR; please reinstate the tags or substitute reliable medical sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Or the Mozart example at Sociological and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome#Speculation about notable individuals may also be instructive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

First you have to establish that this is a purely medical article before you can bring up MEDRS. Who established that this is a purely medical and not also a religious article? You may say so, but I disagree. The religious catgory was there before I got here, so it is NOT a pure medical artticle. Period. In any case, I do not need the Cath encyclopedia ref anyway, but do not see this as a purely medical article unless the term scruple is removed, since that has no medical basis. If that term is removed, then it will go to a new article and then the two have to merge. First let us get new opinions as to why this is a purely medical article. History2007 (talk) 19:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know where you got the notion that the article is, must be, or should be "purely medical"; we use medical sources to cite medical facts, and equating "scruples" to "scrupulosity" (a medical condition) needs sourcing that meets medical standards. Also, please provide publishers on the book sources as you add them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

So now we agree on something at last (apart from my being cute). Namely:

• The article is not purely medical.
• We have NO sources that say scruples and the medical condition scrupulosity are identical.

That is progress. In fact, the sore that there is suggests that they are not equal. So there is no need for insisting on MEDRS when referring to scruples. Hence teh Catholic encyclopedia refs can go back in. History2007 (talk) 20:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to write an article about scruples, certainly. This article is about scrupulosity, which is associated with OCD, a medical condition; if we want to compare and contrast the terms here for clarification of the differences, that would also require medical sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said, if I do that I will have to put a merge flag on it. History2007 (talk) 20:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not; depends on how well it's written. But in this article, any text that equates, compares or contrasts the two terms will need sourcing that meets medical standards, since scrupulosity is a medical condition, and the article should not confuse the two. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Tests

By the way, I see a link to DSM-IV & DSM-IV-TR for obsessive–compulsive personality disorder in the article. Is there a test specifically for scrupulosity in DSM-IV? History2007 (talk) 20:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

There are not tests for most conditions for which there are not yet genetic markers-- such conditions are typically diagnosed based on symptoms and history. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Another interesting question now. What is the agreement rate on these dignoses? I read somewhere once that it was pretty low, but don't recall the exact number. Do you have it? History2007 (talk) 20:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Not our job. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

List of religious figures with scruples

As the article currently stands, it suffers from original research in that most of the article consists of case studies about some saints. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to do that: they're supposed to reflect what reliable sources say on the topic in general, and not be lists of case studies. Perhaps we should establish a list page, and move this material there? List of religious figures with scruples, say? Eubulides (talk) 21:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I no longer have The Doubting Disease (or one other book whose name I can't recall), but they did cover several of these figures. Perhaps if this article were more fully developed, the inclusion of this info wouldn't stand out so badly; as it stands now, we have nothing else, but that is a problem with this article, not the historical figures. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Aaaaaaahhh... This is enough.... Maybe attention should focus on crucial items like the citation formats now.... By the way, is there a medical term for obsession with sarcasm? History2007 (talk) 00:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if John Wesley's chronic self-doubt wouldn't qualify as a form of scruples? If so, perhaps a reference to him would be appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.239.152.174 (talk) 08:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Scruples vs scrupulosity

The idea that "scrupulosity" is the modern-day diagnosis that corresponds to traditional Roman Catholic "scruples" is well supported by reliable sources, but it is poorly sourced here. I suggest the following source instead:

• Bourke J (2009). "Divine madness: the dilemma of religious scruples in twentieth-century America and Britain". J Soc Hist. 42 (3): 581–603. doi:10.1353/jsh.0.0152.

Eubulides (talk) 21:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

See here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Facts

(Start of material copied here from Talk:Scruples #Facts. Eubulides (talk) 08:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC))

Exactly which facts are you disputing? And why not fix them? History2007 (talk) 00:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

See a dictionary for a definition of scruples. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

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 first cut 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#Ellipses spacing problems, but I'll wait 'til you're done. SandyGeorgia (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 modified 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)

(End of material copied here from Talk:Scruples #Facts. Eubulides (talk) 08:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC))

---

Top level decisions

(Start of material copied here from Talk:Scruples #Top level decisions. Eubulides (talk) 08:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC))

World Health Organization map of obsessive compulsive disorders, 2002.

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: [2]

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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

(End of material copied here from Talk:Scruples #Top level decisions. Eubulides (talk) 08:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC))

---

Thoughts on draft

Looking at the draft in Talk:Scruples\Prototype1:

• The suggestions for expansion look reasonable (though someone needs to find the sources and write the actual text....).
• It'd be nice to have an image. But we can forge ahead without one.
• The circa 1950 studies should be listed in History, not Epidemiology, as 1950 is far too old to be a reliable source for current epidemiology.
• The paragraph about 11 year old boys to 80 year old retired individuals is pretty anecdotal. I tried to find more-reliable evidence, and the best I could find was Miller & Hedges 2008 (PMID 18226490) which basically says that there's so little evidence that researchers are mostly speculating. I added something along those lines.
• I'm dubious that we'll find a reliable source to support claims about some historical figures recovering and others not. We don't have reliable diagnoses of historical figures, for starters.
• The paragraph about Scrupulous Anonymous reads too much like a self-help manual, which Wikipedia is not supposed to be: see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) #Audience. We'd be far better off starting with the "Treatment of scrupulosity" section of Miller & Hedges 2008. In particular, we should mention their summarizing point that there's little empirical support for any treatment.

Eubulides (talk) 09:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Mentality

Ok, let us be upfront. The issue I see is that we have a difference of mentality here. You guys are insisting on every possible little technicality here to the extent that I feel it is like writing a contract for the take over of a Fortune 500 company. And you guys seem to be writing for medical students and such not the general public. The audience of Wikipedia is the general public not med students. End result: a document that will have "perfect punctuation" and conforms to every bit of some manual of style but will lack one key ingridient: "information". The joke about which is the high quality article was half joke half tongue in cheek. An article that score low on being "informative" scores low on quality. If the article is low on information, it i slow quality, period. Since I walked over here more information has found its way into the article... that trend must continue. If info is added, and one says that it is anecdotal, I see no problem with that. The alternative is to have the little telegraphic article that was there before I got here. So I think expansion is required for quality. By the way, as a photo we can use a sharp stone an define teh term in the caption... there is always a solution.... History2007 (talk) 14:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The goal here is to write an encyclopedia article for the general public, not for medical students. But that's not the only goal; the goal is also to write an article that is authoritative because it is well-sourced. These goals don't have to conflict. Again, a small number of examples are OK, because they give the reader human interest and intuition about scrupulosity: but the article should not be a series of case studies that we select, because that's not what encyclopedias do. As for illustrations, the article definitely needs something, but the sharp stone is purely about etymology and is not that relevant to the subject. I just now tried out a portrait of Bishop Moore; what do you think? Obviously a contemporary image would be better, but that's going to be harder to do I expect. Eubulides (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the Moore image is Moore than adequate.... and puns aside it gives the article more life. But I still think the article needs to be really informative and needs to qualify the info it has, e.g. refereed pubs vs general books. As is, most of Wikipedia uses books written by PhD types as acceptable - if they were clever enough to convince a committee to stamp their dissertation they seem to be good enough for Wikipedia. So I think the Ciarrocchi class book is "totally" acceptable in Wkipedia and so is the other one by the other psychologist. I see no reason for not including info from those. History2007 (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

There are tens of thousands, or millions, of articles on Wiki that needs expansion, and two of Wiki's busiest editors can only get to them as we can; we are slowed down when we have to stop and cleanup and also do the research and writing. Many of us watchlist all the articles we can to make sure articles at least don't deteriorate, but expanding/writing takes more time, as does having to deal with AFDing an incorrectly titled article. The Ciarrocchi book would be fine under other circumstances, but in this case, peer-reviewed sources are available, and article expansion should be done correctly, based on WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS. It's better and more expedient to do it right the first time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I am so sorry to take up the precious, precious time of two of the busiest editors... Please do accept my thousand fold apologies.... And I am not surprised that I do not agree with you on with the need for peer reviewed journals. I see no reason for excluding the other books. The way I see it, a arbitrary Imperial Edict seems to have been issued here as to what references can be used, and I am not into following edicts, as any psychologist can observe. As a matter of principle, I do not see why I need to follow arbitrary edicts that block content which should be fully accepted and benefit Wikipedia readers. The way I see it, this article has improved since I arrived here. And it will improve more before I walk away. It still lacks the key item that drives Wikipedia: "information". Winning the Noble Prize in punctuation is not going to help Wikipedia readers. Establishing the fact that information can not be suppressed is. Information delivery is the goal of Wikipedia and can not be suppressed. History2007 (talk) 01:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

My, you do have a way about you, don't you? Yes, Eubulides has dramatically improved the article! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Improved yes, dramatically....? There is a long way to go yet. There is much info that has not found its way therein yet. History2007 (talk) 05:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

No Med/psych Index Librorum Prohibitorum within Wikipedia

I saw that the new article here is taking shape, but the material I had added to the previous scruples page has now been banished. I want to confirm here that no one is starting a med/psych version of Index Librorum Prohibitorum by disallowing books that are not in line with what you like. That would amount to information suppression and will run against the basic principles of Wikipedia.

In the next few days I will be adding material from that page and I would like to see no objections to material from books such as Ciarrocchi and others. They are fully acceptable to Wikipedia and any attempts at censorship will be viewed as disruptive editing. Ciarrocchi's book was listed way above on this very page as a good source and you can NOT now object to it because I want to quote from it. I will be adding material about Therese and Ignatius and the fact that he started to teach others how deal with their condition, and will quote from Ciarrocchi and Van Ornum as well as other books published by well known publlishers. Eubulides already stated above that the Ciarrocchi and Van Ornum books "looks like reasonable sources" so I expect no objection to their use in the article. And other books acceptable within Wikipedia will also have to be accepted here. History2007 (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• The objections to the proposed long section of case studies were not primarily based on a disagreement about finding a source for each individual case: it was based on undue weight and original research issues. The previous comment does not address these objections.
• It's not the case that "the material I had added to the previous scruples page has now been banished". Some of the new topics (e.g., Ignatius of Loyola, St. Alphonsus Liguori) are present, some not, and this is part of the normal editing process in Wikipedia.
• Wikipedia articles should be based on the best sources available. A source may be "reasonable" but still omitted, if we have better sources on the same point. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles) #Choosing sources for guidance about choosing sources.

Eubulides (talk) 00:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

No, and no.

• There is no OR, because most were DIRECT quotes from the books. That was not even a nice try.

• Better sources? I will add it, if you have a better source replace the source, but keep the material.

All you will left then is a weak fantasy of undue weight. Exactly where is the undue weight? And weight is sooooo subjective to be laughable. Or are you going to measure the triglyceride of the article now? Are there more Wikipedia rules to quote as fantasies for a new Index Librorum Prohibitorum? The section on treament is not a section, again it is nothing but a telegram. Needs expansion as a start. History2007 (talk) 01:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see #Notable historical cases below. Eubulides (talk) 00:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion sought

I have issued edit war warning to both editors involved. Given that Eubluides arrived via Canvassing and their history of friendship they really count as one. I will hence seek a 3rd opinion now. The text you guys removed was fully referenced. History2007 (talk) 12:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I won't pretend to be a neutral third-party as I regard both Eubulides and Sandy as Wikifriends. The allegations of edit warring do not hold. Sandy's recent edits are little more than MOS tweaks and Eubulides edits seem to be a fair application of copy editing, eliminating redundancy and keeping the correct focus/weight. I'm not going to judge whether all of Eubulides changes were improvements or otherwise, but a blanket revert is not justified. Hostile talk-page edits and threats to revert "those changes in 24 hours" are most unwise. Page protection may be appropriate if this threat is not withdrawn. Colin°^Talk 13:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

My friend, this page looks more like a "local pub" than a encyclopedia page. A group of friends seem to hang in here and support each other. Synopsis of the problem is this:

• I arrived on this page by chance as I was expanding Thérèse of Lisieux and noticed that she had scruples according to several references. The Wikiedia page on scrupulosity was more "like a telegram" than a page. And every time I try to add references it goes back to being telegraphic with all kinds of fantasies called justifications. There is effectively a barrier to adding references here, unless the "group of friends" permits it. That must stop based on the principle of information delivery on which Wikipedia rests.

Moreover, note that I specifically stated that I would be adding references and that the deletion of fully referenced text would be viewed as disruptive editing. No one explains why references are deleted. They just say "it was normal copy editing". And as for an opinion, they will just call one of their friends. Just two of the references that were deleted were:

• Clinical handbook of obsessive-compulsive disorder and related problems
• Handbook of counseling and psychotherapy with older adults

And the quotes from those were exact and direct quotes. Why? It was just "normal" copy editing they say.... I feel like I have walked into a bar full of friends who do not "allow outsiders" because that is their hangout. The principle needs to be established that Wikipedia does not work that way and a group of friends can not just keep deleting fully referenced text and call it normal copy editing. History2007 (talk) 13:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

You will get much further if you can highlight specific issues with the recent edits made. Please avoid personal attacks or claims that editors justifications are "fantasies". You may regard the "deletion of fully referenced text" as disruptive but that isn't Wikipedia policy nor is it fair to label all the edits as mere "deletion". Surely some of them were helpful or neutral. WP:V is only one of our several policies and guidelines, all of which play a factor in how or whether to include certain information. Can we focus less on the conspiracy and more on the text. Please list, with diffs, those edits you think made the article worse and why those edits were unhelpful. Can you suggest an alternative form of the text that would keep both "sides" happy? Colin°^Talk 14:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Colin, given your admitted conflict of interest, it is best that you sit this out and just observe it from the side my friend. In fact given that Eubluides arrived via Canvassing, he should really not edit either. I have asked for an "independent" 3rd opinion. Can we just wait for an independent view? History2007 (talk) 14:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Heh! This is the encyclopaedia anyone can edit. You may find your 3rd-opinion request ignored/rejected on the grounds that it involves three editors (yourself, Sandy, Eubulides) and is not a "civil disagreement" on article content but is in fact an issue with editor behaviour. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for other options. Colin°^Talk 15:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I will wait for an opinion. History2007 (talk) 15:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

As Colin has suggested, your request for dispute resolution feedback might be more effective if you filed it in the right place and provided diffs for your allegations (canvassing, edit warring, and removal of references). I see replacement of references with better (peer reviewed) sources, prose improvement, and ongoing MOS cleanup. Please point out, with diffs, which of my recent MOS tweaks [3][4] you would like reversed, and please explain why according to Wiki guidelines. I continue to suggest you adopt a more collaborative approach to editing Wikipedia, which will result in a more enjoyable and productive experience. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Colin suggested that and also stated that "this is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Yet my experience here seems to suggest to me that "anyone can edit" is but a rumor on this page, for my edits here do not last long although they are directly quoted from reliable sources. Instead they get reduced to telegraphic mini-sentences in the history section, while they belong in the treatment section. E.g.

The Clinical handbook of obsessive–compulsive disorders and related problems recognizes cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and serotonergic medications as possible treatments for OCD in general, but states that scrupulosity presents particular challenges to the use of exposure-based CBT. The handbook states that Ciarrochi's book, The Doubting Disease, is a useful resource for helping strictly religious patients.

In The Doubting Disease Joseph Ciarrocchi states that he found Scrupulous Anonymous (a newsletter published by the followers of Alphonsus Liguori) "a useful adjunct to therapy for religious persons" and the Handbook of counseling and psychotherapy with older adults states that reading Scrupulous Anonymous has increased the motivation of some patients in becoming open to exposure therapy.

had references removed, text deleted and reduced to an obscure item as "part of the normal editing process", but of course.

As for Canvassing, no one has denied it anyway. It is completely clear that Sandy left a message for Eubuildes to come assist on this page to deal with "this dude", referring to yours truly. Therefore, I have to view Sandy and Eubuildes as one "corporate entity" anyway. Colin has also also said that he is part of the "in crowd" here. So my view of this page being like a pub more than anything is getting confirmed as we go along.

And very frankly the reasons provided to me just do not sound logical to me at all - and I used to be a logician. You keep insisting on peer reviewed references and delete others, without saying why these hand books are not acceptable. I still maintain that I view this as the construction of your own version of Index Librorum Prohibitorum within Wikipedia.

The section on Treatment keeps shrinking after I expand it. Why? I am told it is part of normal editing. But of course. For what it is worth, I actually think you guys probably "want to do good" and protect the public just as Index Librorum Prohibitorum people did. But I do not see either Forbidden Index as a good idea, theirs or yours. Perhaps the fact that some editors my have an MD degree gives them the feeling that they can block content, just as those in charge of Index Librorum Prohibitorum felt they had a right to stop the presses to protect the public. They wanted to do good too. But Wikipedia does not work that way. I think the Treatment section is biased now in favor of specific approaches which ignore others, since my edits above have been deleted, and I will have to mark it as POV.

This is not just a problem with this edit, but a matter of principle. I see it as a barrier as I try to expand this article. This article needs expansion. Can a group of Wikipedia friends block content by virtue of friendship? Time will tell, but I think not. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

You didn't answer my questions: "Please point out, with diffs, which of my recent MOS tweaks [5][6] you would like reversed, and please explain why according to Wiki guidelines." Also, diffs please for edit warring, canvassing and removal of sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I have answered more questions on this page than I have received answers. As for Canvassing, the easiest thing is to go to User_talk:Eubulides and search for the word "dude" and you will see the ongoing discussion you had there to ask him to come over here and deal with the dude, aka yours truly, as I stated above. Now, given that you and Eubulides have been "clustered as a virtual entity" by virtue of canvassing, I consider his edits and yours as clustered edits, for he is your agent. I therefore issued warnings to both members of that editing corporation. And I have clearly copied the deleted text above, on this page. It is obviously there, above. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 14:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

History2007, I think it would be most helpful for all if you would begin to provide diffs for your allegations, rather than asking people to search for things to back up your claims. There was no canvassing, plain and simple. Eubulides has journal access that I don't have, he has long followed this article, and I asked him if he had sources. That is not canvassing. Please begin to base your feedback here on diffs and an understanding of Wiki guidelines and policy; doing otherwise is merely a distraction from what we should be doing, which is improving the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. I am an uninvolved editor, I will review Talk and History and try to provide some observations within the next few days. Hoping I can be of some help. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 14:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Roma. History2007 (talk) 14:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Here are a series of diffs and "warnings" that might be helpful for the 3rd opiner. [7] In spite of me clearly telling him I had recently donated some of my books to a booksale, History2007 alleges canvassing because I asked Eubulides, who follows this article, if he had sources (after he called me "baby" in edit summary and accused me of "butchering" his edits). I continue to suggest that a more collaborative tone would be helpful here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course, the focus of the third opinion request is and remains the removal of the two handbook paragraphs above, the need for balance in the article and my current and future attempts at expansion without an Index Librorum Prohibitorum. That should remain the focus of what happens next. What matters is how to fix this article. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

That's improvement; how about we all adopt a collaborative approach now and get to work discussing text and sources ? I've requested your input below (see Expansion section). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• "As for Canvassing, no one has denied it anyway." Not true. Three hours before this comment was made, I had already remarked on my talk page (in response to the incorrect allegation of canvassing posted there) that I have had Scrupulosity watchlisted for quite some time, and would have acted here regardless of any other notivations.
• "You keep insisting on peer reviewed references and delete others, without saying why these hand books are not acceptable." The older handbook citations are out of date, and should be avoided when we have up-to-date sources on the same topic. The newer handbook citation is OK: as discussed below, I readded it just now.
• "The section on Treatment keeps shrinking after I expand it" Encyclopedia articles are supposed to use a writing style that is clear and concise, and to avoid needless repetition. Many of my recent edits have attempted to avoid repetition: this is not an attempt to "censor" the article, but to make it more useful to its intended readership. Of course one can go too far in being concise; but as things stood there was so much repetition that the article was nearly incoherent. Specific suggestions for avoiding too-terse wording without undue repetition would be welcome.
• Much of the dispute appears to be a disagreement over how much WP:WEIGHT to give older material about scrupulosity, inspired by traditional sources, most of them Roman Catholic. Although this material is invaluable for the History section, the article should take some care not to present it as if it reflected current understanding.
• Two specific examples are given above:
  • "The Clinical handbook of obsessive–compulsive disorders and related problems recognizes cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and serotonergic medications as possible treatments for OCD in general, but states that scrupulosity presents particular challenges to the use of exposure-based CBT. The handbook states that Ciarrochi's book, The Doubting Disease, is a useful resource for helping strictly religious patients." All these points remained in the article, with the expection of the citation to that particular handbook, and for the mention of serotonic medications. I've readded both, which I hope addresses this objection.
  • "In The Doubting Disease Joseph Ciarrocchi states that he found Scrupulous Anonymous (a newsletter published by the followers of Alphonsus Liguori) "a useful adjunct to therapy for religious persons" and the Handbook of counseling and psychotherapy with older adults states that reading Scrupulous Anonymous has increased the motivation of some patients in becoming open to exposure therapy." Unless I'm missing something, these points are still in the article, albeit without the POV terminology promoting the newsletter, which Wikipedia is not supposed to do. There is no need to cite an 11-year-old handbook that merely turns around and cites a source that we're already citing.

Eubulides (talk) 00:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Third Opinion: Hello again and thanks for your patience. Also, thanks for introducing me to an interesting topic. I have read through the Talk page and reviewed all edits made since History2007 arrived on Jan 2 2010. My observations, which are offered informally. Some of the source reference citations did not initially follow Wiki's formatting conventions, I believe SandyGeorgia cleaned these up correctly, also made edits for style, which were not problematic in my opinion. The accusation of canvassing is a little tricky, I appreciate that History2007 felt he was being ganged up on, but it is not improper to contact editors who have been active on an article in the past, and I see no wrongdoing here. I see no problems either with Eubulides work here.

I think one turning point in the tone of the editors was this edit. Although "baby" is inappropriate it seems to have been taken in good spirit by SandyGeorgia. But I think History2007's approach was somewhat combative after that. I see that the Catholic Encyclopedia and "scruples" have been accepted and that "scruples" as a related term is acknowledged in the article. I agree that the History section is better later. The "dubious" tag may have been taken as an affront, but I see no evidence to suggest that it was intended that way.

Inclusion of Ignatius Loyola and the Scrupulous Anonymous group takes appropriate weight in my opinion. I am not in a position to evaluate the Ciarrocchi book, which seems to be another divisive point. So I don't know if it warrants an inline citation.

The involved editors here can, I hope, take something from the observations of this outsider looking in, and work together civilly to improve the article. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 03:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion Roma. I think after all the typing by everyone there is more material in the article now, but still needs work. History2007 (talk) 09:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

References

POV tag

History2007, could you please justify the POV tag, with specific references to Wiki policy that you feel are breached, so we can address the issue concretely? Thank you, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

As a start, it is clear that there are two separate components to scrupulosity: medical and religious. Indeed the very definition of the ailment revolves around religion. However, the article had as of the POV tag date emphasized the medical aspects and references and text for the religious aspects of the condition was inadequate, and my attempts at adding it were not well received. E.g. religious elements of counseling are barely mentioned. Hence balance is needed before the POV tag can come off. Very simple. History2007 (talk) 14:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

In other words, you're arguing for an unbalanced tag, which is different than a POV tag, and you're adding that to the expansion tag, which already covers the fact that the article is incomplete as of yet; which tag do you want? I asked you to justify POV per the policy description at WP:NPOV-- I don't see that. And I'm still asking for diffs for elements you claim have been deleted (from what I see, they have been retained but with better sourcing). Please justify the POV tag, per policy. It's hard to follow your argument about two components, when the definition of the medical condition is religious, warranting sources that comply with WP:MEDRS for items like treatment. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems clear to me. The Treatment section has 2 paragraphs, one with 3 lines written by me (and as yet surviving) but that only deals with children. Then there are 8 lines about treatment in general. Just 8 lines after my attempts to expand that section were reversed. That is obviously very incomplete because 8 lines can not even begin to discuss the treatment of this condition. And my attempts at expansion have met obstacles as described above. And the religious approach to treatment is not even mentioned in that section. If a tag "WP:Telegraphic" existed it would also have been applicable, for it seems to be written like a telegram. There are no examples to speak of. And I hesitate to add them for fear that they would be deleted as part of "normal copy editing". So I see the article as incomplete, unbalanced and POV. But I think 2 tags are enough for now, unless someone else wants to add more. History2007 (talk) 21:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Counting lines of text is not a POV justification. Once again, please read WP:NPOV and provide a policy-based reason, with reliable sources, for the POV tag. Since you haven't justified, I will remove it now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, well. What can I say? We were discussing it and you removed the tag during the discussion, and while we await a 3rd opinion. Clearly, that was not appropriate. The number of lines related to the incompleteness tag as a start, but also influenced the POV tag. I issued a warning on your page. Please add the tag back, for the article is written with the viewpoint that the religious angle to counselling matters not, as I explained above. History2007 (talk) 22:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

If you'd like, I can set up User:SandyGeorgia/History2007 and you can just park all of your warnings there, for archival sake. In the meantime, an expansion request is one thing; POV is another. Please provide reliable sources and a policy-based discussion or what you feel is POV in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

No thanks. But clearly your removal of a POV tag is not appropriate. Since there are multiple issues I added that tag. History2007 (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• "the religious approach to treatment is not even mentioned in that section." That's incorrect. There is material on religious counseling.
• "8 lines can not even begin to discuss the treatment of this condition." True, but the earlier expansion of this section mostly introduced duplication, which is not helpful. New points need to be added, supported by reliable sources, rather than existing points repeated. To try to help move this forward, I added some material on treatment that is well-supported by recent reliable sources.

Eubulides (talk) 00:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

References

Numbers vs. Percentages

Since numbers and percentages are not the same thing the statement 'regional differences in the number of OCD ...' is completely different in meaning from 'regional differences in the percentage of OCD ....' But, I also agree that percentage, percentage, percentage is, stylistically speaking, less than ideal. May I suggest: There are large regional differences in the percentage of OCD patients who have religious obsessions or compulsions, ranging from 0-7% in countries like England and Singapore, to 40-60% in traditional Muslim and orthodox Jewish populations.[7] --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 14:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's probably a good fix ... I saw too many percentages in the sentence, but didn't have an optimal fix. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Expansion request

History2007, per your expansion request,[8] will you please list the reliable sources and text you would like to incorporate here so we proceed with text discussion? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

As a start, please add back the material from the two handbooks mentioned above. Then we will go from there. The article remains far too sketchy. But please do not remove tags every few minutes. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

A diff would help; in what diff do you believe text was deleted (as opposed to improved with better sourcing)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you want to do it smoothly we can try that. It is easier to just show the text because diffs go all over the place. Here is the text as abive:

The Clinical handbook of obsessive–compulsive disorders and related problems recognizes cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and serotonergic medications as possible treatments for OCD in general, but states that scrupulosity presents particular challenges to the use of exposure-based CBT. The handbook states that Ciarrochi's book, The Doubting Disease, is a useful resource for helping strictly religious patients.

In The Doubting Disease Joseph Ciarrocchi states that he found Scrupulous Anonymous (a newsletter published by the followers of Alphonsus Liguori) "a useful adjunct to therapy for religious persons" and the Handbook of counseling and psychotherapy with older adults states that reading Scrupulous Anonymous has increased the motivation of some patients in becoming open to exposure therapy.

Now, the "extend tag" in Wikipedia does not apply to just one extension. The way it works is that someone puts a extend tag, 3 weeks or 3 months later someone else may come and extend it. Wikipedia was not built in one day, as they say. I have been impressed how that happens. Take the example of Matthias Stom: I started that page with hardly any content at all, and people came out of nowhere and extended it, and I learned about Stom in the process. As I was extending Thérèse of Lisieux I noticed that I did not learn enough about her condition in the Wikipedia article on scrupulosity, so I wanted, and still do want, to extend that. I have learned a LOT more abouyt scrupulosity by web searches than the Wiikipedia article states. Can that information not be entered into Wikipedia? For instance, I was surprised to learn that Martin Luther suffered from it too, so I added that. Should that info not be here? It is an interesting fact about the ailment. Some things that are currently missing are:

• Better examples. I was surprised to read about the range of people, from 11 year old boys who fear to play baseball to 80 year old people. And that info came from a book by Van Ornum, William, a PhD psychologist who did studies on the ailment Why does that info have to be absent from Wikipedia?

• The religious angle. There is also a religious component to treatment and it is currently missing from this article. Why does that info have to be absent? There are books on it.

• Mixed mode treatment. Some psychologists seem to use a mixed mode of religious and medical treatment. Again, not much here.

So I think a lot needs to be added to reflect just what I discovered in a few days of searches. That means that there is plenty more out there just via Google books. But this can be a start. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 15:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I've actually found that expansion tags are rarely helpful; there are so many articles on Wiki that need expansion, this is one of many, we can only get to things as we have time, there are really only three or four Wiki editors who work on articles of this nature, and there are hundreds of thousands of articles that could warrant an expansion tag, with few editors able to attend to them. The reason I ask for diffs is that it makes work go much faster; it shortens the talk page (without repeating text), and shows exactly what the disputed changes were, so we don't have to slow down and dig back into article history. It's really just a matter of optimizing the time investment of very busy editors. My confusion about your desire to add a "religious component to treatment" is that I don't see how they differ from other approaches, so that in my mind, improving text to reliable medical sources doesn't preclude what you term "religious" treatment; how is it different? That's why I ask for diffs and sources, as a way to shorten lengthy talk page discussions and get us to the heart of the matter quicker. By the way, I noticed on my recent MOS cleanup that you had adapted your citation style to that used in the article: that is much appreciated, and lowers the amount of minor tweaking I have to do to keep the artice in shape!! While I don't have a lot of free time these days to read entire journal artiles and add content, I do have time for these minor edits ... the less of them I have to do, the more likely I can find the time to dig up sources and expand content. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, let us agree on some extensions now, then we can have no tag. What I hope to have is provide a "feel for the ailment" to the reader for it is indeed an unusual item. History2007 (talk) 17:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps Tourette syndrome#Characteristics will give you ideas on how we can write such content from peer-reviewed sources? Hope it helps, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I just now added discussion of the abovementioned two diffs to the #Third opinion sought section above. I also just now added more material on the religious component, and some more examples; I hope that helps. Eubulides (talk) 00:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the expansion you guys are doing is on the right track. But it is getting to be too heavy for the general reader and will make the article harder to digest. My suggestios:

• Providing a "feel for the ailment" for the general reader with more clear examples. At the moment a general reader will find much of the article very hard to digest and still have little idea of what the ailment is. I have seen many simple examples on the web that explain it. Some of those need to be added.

• Sentence structure is "advanced" at the moment, and somewhat hard to digest for the readers at large. That is probably how people write in medical journals, but the public does not read those. If you could soften up the wording somehow that would be nice.

If more advanced discussions are added, it will just get harder to read. I think now it needs less advanced items to "teach the average public" about the ailment not the experts. This ailment may be obvious to you guys, but I think it is not to the public, so it needs to be explained in simpler terms. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 02:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

ISBN finder and missing publishers

Several of the book sources listed are still incomplete. The ISBN finder shows Stewart Rose as an 1891 publication, but the article shows it as 2007? [9] There are several missing publishers. I can't locate the Joan Monahan book in the ISBN finder. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I will check on those later today. The problem is that the book was first published in a year, and then gets republished another year, etc. I usually just enter the Amazon ISBN assuming that is good, but obviously needs double checking. I will look into them later today. History2007 (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Have these sources been read carefully?

The article currently has a number of citations to material that I have not read. Have any editors here read these sources? Reading the abstracts or snippets from Google Books doesn't count: one must really read the sources. The sources I'm worried about are:

• McKay D, Storch EA, Nelson B, Morales M, Moretz MW (2009). "Obsessive–compulsive disorder in children and adolescents: treating difficult cases". In McKay D, Storch EA, editors (ed.). Cognitive Behavior Therapy for Children: Treating Complex and Refractory Cases. Springer. pp. 81–114. ISBN 0-8261-1686-8. {{cite book}}: |editor= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Ciarrocchi JW (1995). The Doubting Disease: Help for Scrupulosity and Religious Compulsions. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press. ISBN 0-8091-3553-1. Scruples: common and uncommon. p. 32–47.
• Ciarrocchi. "Getting help for scruples and OCD". The Doubting Disease. pp. 103–12.
• Rose, Stewart (2007). St. Ignatius Loyola And The Early Jesuits, p. 59. ISBN 1408622556
• Jones, Frederick M (ed). Maria de' Liguori, Saint Alfonso (1999). Selected writings. New York, Paulist Press, p. 209. ISBN 0809137712
• Monahan, Joan (2003). Thérèse of Lisieux, p. 45. 0809167107
• The true spouse of Jesus Christ (The complete works of Saint Alphonsus de Liguori 1929, Redemptorist Fathers Press, p. 545. ASIN B00085J4WM
• Aho, James Aflred (2005). Confession and bookkeeping: the religious, moral, and rhetorical roots of modern accounting. Albany: State University of New York Press, p. 95. ISBN 0791465454
• Collie, Robert (2000). The Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder: Pastoral Care for the Road to Change. Routledge ISBN 078900707X.
• Osborne, Ian (2008). Can Christianity Cure Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder?: A Psychiatrist Explores the Role of Faith in Treatment. Brazos Press ISBN 1587432064
• Santa, Thomas (1999). Understanding Scrupulosity. Liguori Publications ISBN 0764803735
• Van Ornum, William (1997). A Thousand Frightening Fantasies: Understanding & Healing Scrupulosity & Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. Crossroad Publishing ISBN 0824516052

Eubulides (talk) 00:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I've read Ciarrocchi and Van Ornum; at the time I read them (years ago), they were highly recommended and I recall they were quite good (Ciarrocchi better than Van Ornum). But I recently gave them away to a book sale. I'm concerned with the publishers on some of the others; I suspect they are religious presses, but Ealdgyth would know better. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Springer's a well known science publisher. World Cat lists the second at least for me at a number of theology schools. Paulist Press lists itself as a Catholic publisher. The third one, I cannot figure out what it is, journal, book? the link is circular. The Rose ref, the ISBN is wrong. Looking it up by title, the work is apparantly from 1891 or so, and the 2007 date is probably a reprint. Amazon even says so in the Product description. The Jones ref is from Paulist press. The Monahan work is here where it is listed as an elementary and junior high level work. The "True Spouse" ref definitely looks to be a religious press. See here and here. State university of NY press is a quality university press. Routledge is a well known academic publisher. Brazos Press lists itself as a Christian publisher. I'd say Liguori publications is probably a christian publisher, given it's catalog. Crossroad publishing says it "publishes popular literature on personal spirituality, communal faith practice and current religious affairs". Ealdgyth - Talk 01:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Eubulides, Google Scholar coughs up the info that the Miller Hedges and JD Huppert, J Siev, ES Kushner review articles cite Ciarrocchi; that may help you feel more comfortable with the book? It may be a helpful source for expanding Characteristics per History2007's concerns. If you agree, I will repurchase the book. He's a clinical psychologist, but I do note that the book is published by Paulist Press. Unsure what to do here, I don't have the Miller Hedges paper and don't know if it contains descriptive content for expanding Characteristics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I wouldn't purchase Ciarrocchi merely to write a Characteristics section; the Miller & Hedges and Abramowitz sources ought to be plenty for that. If I'm wrong and those sources are not enough, we can revisit this. Eubulides (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

References

Notable historical cases

The recently-added section on Notable historical cases does not belong in this article, due to a problem of weight. Our best sources on scrupulosity are Miller & Hedges 2008 (PMID 18226490), who talk about this stuff only in a footnote, and Abramowitz 2008 (ISBN 0-8018-8697-X), who doesn't mention this stuff at all. Our article should not emphasize these historical diagnoses far more than our most reliable sources do. The sources for this section, taken from biographies of the people involved, show that this is a list derived from our own research, which Wikipedia articles cannot do. And even if it were not original research, the material is out of place in an encyclopedia. One does not find such lists at such length in high-quality articles such as Acute myeloid leukemia or Poliomyelitis.

The material might be appropriate as a list article, as List of historical figures with signs of scrupulosity, say. The main article could then refer to the list article for details, with just one or two examples in the main article.

Eubulides (talk) 00:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, except that one of the two books I gave away extensively discussed Ignatius of Loyola, and I suspect he's a worthy inclusion based on my memory of those books. Perhaps we could dig those portions up in Google books? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I also gave away an Ian Osborne book (not the same one currently in the article), so I could be wrong about which one of the three mentioned Ignatius of Loyola, but it was a lengthy discussion, making him out as the classic defining case of scrupulosity. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)