Talk:Borderline personality disorder

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleBorderline 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
DateProcessResult
March 4, 2006Good article nomineeListed
March 9, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 24, 2007Good article reassessmentKept
July 5, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Typo[edit]

In the manipulation section:

"In one research study, 88% of therapists reported that they have experinced manipualtion attempts from patient(s)." 144.118.77.123 (talk) 19:24, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks! Dawnseeker2000 21:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

paragraph duplication[edit]

The two paragraphs before the symptoms title contain the same information with different phrasings. 2A02:14F:17C:B4EE:0:0:1B0B:339B (talk) 01:16, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that, fixed. OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article is too big[edit]

At almost 10,000 words this article should definitely be trimmed, per WP:TOOBIG. I suggest we create articles for some sections, such as Causes of borderline personality disorder (redirect to the "Causes" section), diagnosis, signs and symptoms; like we already do for management and misdiagnosis. The Blue Rider 16:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I’ve done copyediting to most of the current content. Snipping out excess or twice-repeated content. However, for the most part it was just fact checking, updating some facts that play an important role, and letting it all flow nicely. I’m sitting with the following facts after my huge copyedit:
  1. Causes should be grouped into three: genetic, neurobiologic, psychosocial. And then we expand if so on the new research into that.
  2. In diagnosis, we put the criteria into prose, possibly removing the subtypes or prosing the subtypes by Millon as I haven’t seen their substantiveness in all the medical literature I’ve read there isn’t much mention of them?
  3. Adolescence should move more forward or to a separate section termed prodrome where like schizophrenia there may be a prodrome or adolescence behaviour pre-disease pattern prior to developing the disease, as this is so “pervasive” unlike a mood disorder there is a prodrome of sorts I’ve picked up on although that is original research.
  4. The differential diagnosis section is giving me the “ick”. It’s very overwhelming as summarised BPD can occur comorbid with a lot of other conditions, and not so typically talked about vice versa, if you get what I mean. And it speaks of the statistics in the old terms of Axis I and II instead of Sections I and II and I think we should speak of them in comorbid other personality d/o and comorbid other mental d/o (like mood d/o, trauma d/o etc.)
  5. Management I need to tackle the main article, then we can filter what needs to be there knit pick onto the BPD article, maybe by {transclusion}? -- I’ve never done that before so you’re suggestions would be appreciated.
  6. Epi I touched a little with the latest stats
  7. Prognosis and History and Controversies I haven’t touched at all!!
What do you think? waddie96 ★ (talk) 15:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all the points, I will start by putting the criteria into prose. The Blue Rider 17:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The Blue Rider I don't think there's anything wrong with it being long it provides the most information 45.19.219.33 (talk) 19:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good day, and welcome to Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Welcome and Wikipedia:Article size. waddie96 ★ (talk) 20:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why does Edvard Munch get to have this disorder posthumously awarded to him?[edit]

Isn't it a basic principle in psychiatry that you have to meet someone in person before you can tell what mental illnesses he has? But some Danish dude writes an article and now it's a "sourced fact". Well good on you, Danish dude, I hope no one writes an article calling you a manic depressive, for example, because that would obviously become a fact. 212.3.197.113 (talk) 21:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - this is a tiresome hobby of medics, which journals are too ready to publish, often in their Xmas issues. Johnbod (talk) 01:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]