Talk:Borderline personality disorder

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good article Borderline personality disorder was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
October 17, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted
September 24, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
July 5, 2008 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Synonyms[edit]

I think most of them are UNDUE, especially the "neurotic psychopathy". I haven't seen sources using the term other than Mario Maj. 185.43.229.130 (talk) 10:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Use of my photo[edit]

I was looking at this article and noticed a picture of my arm with self harm scars and I have never given permission for this to be anywhere and I am not okay for it to be on wikipedia. If you could please remove it I would be grateful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.151.105.237 (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Whether or not this is a picture of your arm, this is a very serious issue. These scars are very identifiable and there is no formal release for the use of this picture from the actual person. It should be deleted immediately. --I am One of Many (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
1) I'd like to see some evidence that the IP's claims are true or how they're even able to tell. Random IPs have been doing drive-by deletions of the image for awhile now, and this strikes me as an awfully convenient claim. 2) Have a read of this discussion. --Calton | Talk 00:11, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't buy 95.151.105.237's claim either, I would like to see proof too. In any event, it is not personally identifiable, no face is shown, we can't even tell if it is a male or female in the picture. At face value, it seems like a strategy to get the image deleted.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:09, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
If you email me through Wikipedia your name and date of birth I will check your consent form. If you are the person in the picture and wish to withdraw consent happy to do that. But we need to verify this first.
No volunteer is certified to handle consent forms. I might be willing to share with legal at the WMF. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Confusing presentation of statistics?[edit]

This article has a problem with the presentation of the data, evidenced by the following two statements:

1. 10% of people with BPD commit suicide

2. 1.6% of people suffer BPD in any given year.

This suggests to the casual reader (although it doesn't actually say) that somewhere around 0.16% of the population are expected to commit suicide at some point, i.e., that the (presumably) life-time risk of suicide due to BPD is 0.16% = 160 per 100,000. Given that the total age-corrected suicide rate for Australia is around 11 per 100,000. I am not qualified to try to convert the 160/100,000 presume life-time risk to annualised to match those statistics, however, it intuitively strikes me as being very high. My gut feeling is that the 1.6% figure has been taken out of context, and is rather 1.6% of some sub-population, or more specifically, that the 1.6% figure is of people who suffer BPD at any point during the year, however short.

Without some indication of the incidence at any point in time, this apparent paradox appears ready to trip readers up (and I have a PhD, so if I got caught by it, others will, too), and to me at least, undermines the authority of the article, unless fully and correctly understood. I tried to hunt through reference 4 to find the missing data, but I can't find a PDF of it anywhere, to match the page numbers from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.210.126.35 (talk) 07:34, 5 March 2018 (UTC)


I agree- this tripped me to and clearly is wrong - especially when you take into account that for females (whom suffer much more from BPD) the suicide rate is much lower.

Since the original authors of the 1.6% figure have removed it from their article, I will remove the claim from wikipedia - hopefully someone will be able to update in the future with the correct figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.237.146 (talk) 02:02, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

About 1% of people die by suicide.
0.2% of people have BPD and dye by suicide
Numbers looks fine to me. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:06, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Literature[edit]

The discussion of literature needs secondary sources not linking to the actual books themselves (which is simple original research). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:17, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

yep. Jytdog (talk) 17:09, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
The citations are in proper academic format. The links are to Amazon pages which describe the books. Surely that's more reliable than secondary sources about them. The message from Lois Bujold is directly from the author describing her intentions regarding her novel _Komarr_. Again: surely more reliable than a secondary source quoting her. Why is this inappropriate? BunsenH (talk) 18:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Having read the Wikipedia guidelines regarding original research, it appears to me that you are grossly misusing the term. The comments about the books contain no assertions that are not closely supported by the linked information. BunsenH (talk) 19:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Well it is not a gross misuse. WP content should be driven by independent, secondary sources. What you did here was select books that you are aware of, and cited the books themselves. You selecting them and citing the books themselves, with no independent secondary source, is OR. If you were to cite book reviews instead - book reviews which said something about why the books were important in culture with respect to BPD, we would not be having this argument. You are trying to asset they matter, with no independent, secondary sources to back you up. that is just a waste of your time and everybody else's.
The third item is sourced to a forum and is forbidden under WP:USERGENERATED which is unambigiuous policy. Also a waste of time. Just cite independent, secondary sources and you will have way fewer problems. Jytdog (talk) 19:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't believe that your use of "original research" is consistent with how Wikipedia uses the term in this context. I also don't believe that information posted on a mailing list is intrinsically unreliable; it's just the medium. The *source* is the author. I have requested dispute resolution in this matter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Borderline_personality_disorder . BunsenH (talk) 19:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
@BunsenH: Get Me Out Of Here is published by Heath Communications, also known as HCI. They are associates of the Hazelden Foundation, which is a treatment center for mental health. HCI distributes Hazelden's many self-help titles to retail chains and mass merchandisers. According to The New York Times:

Hazelden, which has "treated 70,000 "residents" (never "patients"), behaves as much like a well-endowed college as a detox center. Its bucolic grounds, 50 miles outside the Twin Cities, are called "the campus," while discounts on Hazelden's $12,300 month-long "tuition" are called "scholarships." The nonprofit Hazelden empire, which includes a publishing company and a mail-order business selling 12-step gewgaws, has an annual budget of $53 million.[1]

I would ask the editor wishing to add this in a "literature" section of the BPD article: what is it about this book, that makes it such a salient contribution to the discussion on BPD? .spintendo) 21:59, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
I was not aware of those background details. From the book's description, it appeared to be relevant. I had restored that item from a previous deletion (which gave no such explanation), after removing details from the item that could not be substantiated from the Amazon page. I entirely agree that it's important for info on Wikipedia to be adequately sourced, especially for complex/technical matters, and particularly for medical subjects where misinformation could have serious consequences. However, when the assertion is simply "this book is about that subject", it does seem to me that the Amazon page is adequate to substantiate the assertion. The dispute was/is over that, and over the assertion that the item's inclusion was "original research", not because the item was/is inappropriate for the article. BunsenH (talk) 01:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not really sure a character in a SF novel has a place in a Wikipedia article about a medical condition. Looks like classic WP:TRIVIA to me. If that is the nexus of the dispute that initiated DR, then my opinion would be the solution is to just delete it. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:36, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Is the SF novel less relevant to the subject than the items in the "Film and television" section? BunsenH (talk) 01:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Karlen, Neal (1995). "Greetings From Minnesober". The New York Times.