Talk:Depersonalization

Popular culture

There has been some back and forth on the pop culture section. I removed several bullets containing minor mentions of the disorder in movies (Girl, Interrupted; Limitless; Numb), and some unsourced text (Existentialism; American Psycho; R.D. Laing) and some non-notable mentions (Suzanne Vega's song Tom's Diner; a self-diagnosis by Sal Governale and the one probably most contested by Vanlegg, the Collision with the Infinite book, [1]).

The unsourced material can be removed without incident per WP:PROVEIT; if it is replaced, it should have a source.

The mentions in movies and books is always a source of tension; I'm not a fan, but WP:IPC isn't explicit. In any case, the pop culture item should be explicit, and involve a substantial part of the plot. Brief appearances, short mentions and single incidents are not good choices for IPC sections.

As far as Collision with the Infinite goes - it was published by a now-defunct Blue Dove Press, which had less than 20 books published, and focussed on New Age topics. It was not a medical publisher, nor was it scholarly. The page for the book's author was deleted. The actual content added was essentially a quote from the book in which it is not specified if Segal (the book's author and apparent sufferer from a depersonalization experience) was actually diagnosed (possible original research issue), and the book itself does not appear to be notable. I can't find any reviews on google news or anything meaningful in google itself. Accordingly, I support the material being removed. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Note that I've referred the discussion at Talk:Depersonalization disorder here to centralize discussion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

SUZANNE SEGAL and her book "COLLISION WITH THE INFINITE" are reputable and just because this is being call new age (biased), does NOT mean that this information is not important to those folks that suffer from these problems. She was diagnosed to have these problems and she was also educated, which makes her "scholary" and makes her "notable". She has her Psy.D. degree from The Wright Institute and obtained licensure as a psychologist. See the link to her school. http://www.wi.edu/program.html I have asked WLU to present his "credentials" (he says this is not needed). Suzanne Segal's link was deleted at the request of WLU who seems to have a personal problem (ie biased) with this information. By the way, how many "hits" did the page that Suzanne Segal get; before WLU asked for its deletion. This would show "what" the "public interest is" and not what WLU's interests are or are not. And if WLU can't find any good links on google then he obviously is not interested in this. There ARE plenty of links to Suzanne and also references to her. How else did I find out about her, and how else do I tell other people to "find out" about her. Due to WLU desire to delete "valuable information" by defaming it (based on his lack of information) there is now even less info available (ie Wikipedia no longer is a source). This is sad.Vanlegg (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

A few things. One, better to be discussing this than editing back and forth over it. Two, WLU has policy grounds to remove unsourced info and request sources. Three, I'm particularly sympathetic to Vanlegg's desire to include literature and notable individuals who might be able to shed some accessible real-world insight to this type of problem. Although this track of thinking is bordering on WP:USEFUL, if we can we make decent references for books and celebrities who have suffered with this rare and confusing condition, it will help sufferers feel less alienated and often provides valuable next steps to research. Although rarely scientific, this kind of writing and trivia about health, especially psychological health, has a history of being extremely important for the growth in understanding of uncommon conditions (which often become much more common after people have a nonthreatening way to learn about them). In short, better sources, but don't underestimate the importance of popular culture when it comes to disorders such as these. Ocaasi ^c 16:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Vanlegg, please only post comments on one page, the point of centralizing to a single location is so we don't have to cross post or reply to the same commentary multiple times.

Please comment on the content, not the commentator. Credentials are not important on wikipedia, it does not matter if I have a PhD in psychology or never passed grade school - pages are edited based on neutral summaries of what is verifiable in reliable sources, and the overall framework of the policies and guidelines.

Segal's page was deleted as part of a routine article for deletion process which I initiated when I noted the subject of the page did not appear to be notable. You are free to bring this up at deletion review if you'd like, but I initiated the process, it was the community at large who determined whether the page was worth keeping or not. Google hits are meaningless for notability by the way. I have nothing personal against Suzanne Segal, but I dislike unreliable sources being used on wikipedia.

If a publisher focusses on New Age books, then they are unlikely to be reliable sources which are primarily the product of scholarly press or well-known mainstream publishers. If it focusses on personal experience, it is not likely to be a medically reliable source. If Segal published scholarly works on depersonalization, we should cite them, not her autobiography. Notability has a specific meaning on wikipedia, see my previous point.

I see no arguments indicating Collision with the Infinite should be included on the page.

Ocaasi, I don't think Segal was a celebrity (indeed, her page went through an AFD and was deleted). If you're talking about other celebrities whom I removed from the page, then per WP:BLP sourcing would be important, and must be explicit. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't follow the Segal AFD, but I'll look at it. I was not talking about her, just celebrities and media in general. It appeared that several had been removed. I agree they all need sources under BLP, especially since this identifies them as having a medical condition. My main goal was to get Vanlegg to realize you had policy reasons for objecting to him, and to get you to realize that since he's 29 edits deep into WP, that he has no clue what they mean and we should try and make that process easier for him, provided he's willing to stop edit-warring. Ocaasi ^c 17:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The AFD is here if you wanted to look. Agree regarding celebrities, but since this is a page about a symptom rather than a disorder, that adds a wrinkle. Presumably the people listed at depersonalization disorder should be clearer since it's a diagnosis. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Note that the statement that Adam Duritz suffered from depersonalization disorder was unsourced. It appears to be from this interview in Men's Health, where he discusses an unnamed dissociative disorder. It doesn't specify depersonalization, and to interpret his symptoms as such would be original research. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

About here versus the disorder page, I think that could go either way. It's much more inclusive to find people who are known for having the symptom than those who were formally diagnosed with the disorder, though I understand your point that the symptom is in a kind-of no-man's land regarding individuals. Sources needed either way.

I did some research on Segal here and it's very borderline--by that I mean marginal. Google, Google News Archives, and Google Scholar turn up 7 RS mentions total including her own book, a graduate dissertation, and 5 other mentions, the most notable being a Journal of the American Psychological Association book review about the book Feeling Unreal by Simeon and Abugel. It does appear that Segal has notability for popularizing this condition, though not otherwise. Her popular book Collision with the Infinite has quite a following in various forums, but it has very little RS support. In sum, I couldn't give my vote to a Segal bio page, though, I think she could perhaps have a section or paragraph in one of these two articles. Ocaasi ^c 18:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments focused on editor not content, full of caps, needs to start with basic policies

FROM VANLEGG: This is a good page to work from. I still think that you are being biased and you can prove that this is not true. Your comment on "new age" books showed bias (they are not likely??? to be unreliable). So this argument as to the publisher is NOT VALID. The publisher is valid!!! PLEASE be very specific in your next answer. On what premises do you "CLAIM" she is not notable? Don't use the words "not appear to be". It is not good style to delete INFORMATION because she does "not appear to be notable"; which was cause for request of deletion of her "page". So what was the "specific meaning" of Notability or "lack of" that you ARE refering too? CREDENTIALS are important when it comes to "defaming" others. I already told you she has her Psy.D. and this gives her AUTHORITY in the " medically reliable source " sense about a "case". She was writing about a "case" (and what better information than her own account of "her case" from a professional point of view). What do YOU say about this? True, she was not a celebrity, but she was an authority and a "case". Like Ocaasi very kindly noted, this information is useful. Under the WP:USEFUL link it is clear that..... There are some times when "usefulness" can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. Try to exercise common sense, and consider how a non-trivial number of people will consider the information "useful". —so usefulness is the basis of their inclusion; for these types of pages, usefulness is a valid argument. HOLY CRAP...WLU...you are on the WAR PATH to destruction. I just looked at how you are deleting whole sections of the DEPRSONALIZATION page. I really hope somebody is going to block your "destructive path" (is this "fun and recreation" for you?) (cur | prev) 17:42, 14 April 2011 WLU (talk | contribs) (15,741 bytes) (→Popular culture: removed cap) (undo) You took out the WHOLE "Popular culture" section. I believe this is "vandalism". Please be correct and kind to those that SEEK information. Don't destroy it.Vanlegg (talk) 18:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Vanlegg, I collapsed your comment, since its tone and lack of familiarity with policies is going to be more detrimental than you realize. The notability guideline is about coverage in WP:reliable sources. It's not about whether someone's life was important or if they were popular in certain circles. It's just about sources. I looked. Pretty hard. I found 7 that remotely fit our sourcing guidelines (forums and self-published webpages don't count). I linked to the sources above. It doesn't matter that Segal had a Psy d, what matters is that the publishing was peer-reviewed or fact-checked. Otherwise, her autobiography is only notable if it received coverage in reliable sources (you must read the RS guideline to understand what this is about). I didn't find much coverage of her book in the press either. So maybe it's an important book and maybe it was very important to you, but that doesn't mean it meets the criteria for inclusion in this encyclopedia. That discussion is not final, but slow down before you accuse good editors of being baseless content-deletionists. Chances are you mean very well but don't know what you're talking about with regards to our policies. Let me help you translate some of that in a way that makes sense. I'm not against New Age but I also find Segal to not meet notability guidelines for a separate article. I do think her book warrants brief mention here or at the P.disorder page. Ocaasi ^c 18:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Merge?

Totally unrelated, why isn't this merged with Depersonalization disorder. That's a great article and this is start-class. Is this one that much different, or headed in a different direction (or is the diagnostic classification of the other exclusive enough that less clinical aspects cannot be included there). Ocaasi ^c 16:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know enough about either to say, but it looks like one is about a symptom, the other a full disorder. That leans to two separate pages in my mind, provided the symptom has enough sources about it that the page can be expanded. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)