Talk:Borderline personality disorder/Archive 5

Amy Winehouse
Just after she died I read one of her last interviews for Q magazine whereby she spoke about days when she felt down and lethargic. She mentioned the days where she felt hyper and excitable. She said that her mum, who was a Pharmacist, thought that she could be bipolar but Amy didn't think she was. I don't think that she was bipolar but after watching the tributes to her and what her friends said about her it does seem that she could have had BPD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spyingcactus (talk • contribs)
 * Your personal opinions about a person having a disease cannot go into a Wikipedia article. Unless a reliable source shows that Winehouse was diagnosed with BPD, it cannot be included. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Borderline Personality Disorder in Fiction
I don't know where the screenwriters deliberately intended for this but as a character Janine from EastEnders does fit a classic case for BPD. Last year the actress who plays her said that Janine and (bipolar sufferer) Stacey Branning are similar. BPD and Bipolar are similar. I think Janine even fits the profile of a real life BPD sufferer. Janine has had to deal with loneliness just like many BPD's would and this has led to her feeling bitter and disconnected from the world around her. Like the real life BPD you have to very careful around Janine because she's very smart, cunning and sometimes dangerous when pushed too far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spyingcactus (talk • contribs)
 * Your personal opinions about a character having a disease cannot go into a Wikipedia article. Unless a reliable source says that this is what the screenwriters intended, or if a reliable book described the character as having traits similar to BPD, it cannot be included. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Therapy vs Meds
I myself suffer from this disorder and "know" for a fact that therapy is honestly the only way to overcome this horrible burden. It's not a chemical problem, it's all about not regulating your emotions or developing any sort of coping mechanism to deal with your emotions. Yes mood stabilizer's can help but cannot be used as a main form of treatment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.242.114.10 (talk) 07:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Anecdotal evidence is not allowed on wikipedia, and for good reason. Everyone is different. You found therapy to be effective, many find medications to be effective. Nothing wrong with either approach, what matters is what works in each individual case. Reub2000 (talk) 23:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Per Borderline_personality_disorder, no drugs show promise for "the core BPD symptoms of chronic feelings of emptiness, identity disturbance and abandonment." Some drugs may help with comorbid conditions, and weak evidence points to a possible impact on some associated symptoms. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

page editing
This page is going to be undergoing some editing as a part of the Wikipedia Initiative. You can do whatever you want to it by Thursday. I just need to make the changes so I can finish being graded on this project. Please give me a chance to get this done. Thank you for understanding. Orca3214 (talk) 03:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

DIAGNOSIS I started the reorganization of the BPD page and took out sections that will go into other parts to help the article make more sense/flow better. PLEASE bear with me. If you can help me make it better in any way, go ahead, just don't delete everything I have done. I am new at this and once I am done I will never do this again. If something needs to be fixed I welcome any help, like I said I haven't done anything like this before. Orca3214 (talk) 04:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * At first I was a bit disturbed by the amount you pulled out, but, after looking at what you removed, I think you were correct. We shouldn't be including the WHO or Chinese diagnoses unless a reliable source has explicitly stated that the 3 different diagnoses are considered to be equivalent or at least similar.  I made some minor formatting changes, but nothing besides that.  Others, of course, may have more specific concerns.
 * Nope, that didn't actually happen, because I edit conflicted with someone else who claimed that your work was a copyright violation. I'll ask xyr to comment here. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all we do not have permission to use the DSM4TR verbatum and your changes where thus a copyvio. If you note this page they received permission to use them. The DSM have written use a letter BTW. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 05:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, I didn't notice that the criteria were copied verbatim.  And that permission wouldn't help us, because we don't generally do fair use for text outside of carefully selected quotations.   Orca3214, if that's the only part that was copied exactly from another source, then you could go back to your last version and then alter that specific part (though I'm not exactly sure how you could do that, because you can't just alter the words...I'll have to think about it).  If more of the changes were copied from another source, though, then it would be better to start over. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe that diagnostic criteria are considered facts, and thus not eligible for copyright protections. Reub2000 (talk) 12:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Orca3214, the American Psychiatric Association has complained and told us not to use their words when detailing the diagnostic criteria of DSM syndromes, and we've been instructed to rewrite all such instances. I did one, can't remember which syndrome now. It's tedious, but they can be rewritten into a paragraph or two of novel prose. I haven't compared your other changes with the old version yet, but can you outline briefly here why your version is an improvement? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think if we're going to paraphrase DSM definitions, then we should make it clear that the text was adopted from the DSM. Reub2000 (talk) 06:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Also the user in question would do well to read WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS as they will need to be followed for his changes to stick. BTW this "I am new at this and once I am done I will never do this again." does not make it sound like you are that engaged... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl gives a clear and concise outline of our copyright obligations here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

What's up with the referencing, 3 different sections with 2 different numbering systems inline? Eversync (talk) 02:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Inaccurate findings
Physicians, I believe, need to treat symptoms not a disease. The stigma is so damaging. There is no way to get a long-time career, no matter how well one can excel in their field for any length of time. The "help" by Physicians, NIH, and so on, sum up a diagnosis within a 15 minute period and a barrage of tests that are only as good as thew person who made the test. Many of the Physicians are not from this country and do not diagnose correctly. I was diagnosed from NIH first with this, ten next to DID and when I went to an Ivy League Graduate school, it was concluded that it was Culture Shock. I can never work in my field because of these incorrect diagnosis. Physicians form other parts of the world have not traveled all over this country so they do not understand, for example, what it is like to work in the Deep South to Southern California, to the North East, let alone Georgetown. They also have false ideas about what professions one may have. I, for example, have never had Breast Implants so in these Doctors eyes I could never work in the High Class Establishments, under different names, ion different cities to keep my son and myself from getting a life-long stigma. It is required that you have a Stage Name. You absolutely lead two separate lives due to safety reasons for yourself and your entire family. If it was safe you would not need a Stage Name, you could use you your own. I have been stalked on numerous occasions and was told by the Police and the Club staff that I could not leave until everyone was sure it was safe for me to pick up my son from the babysitters and then drive home. This unfair treatment and repeated diagnosis from Doctors is so unfair that I refuse to be treated than no-one except a Resident. It is an extremely unsafe profession and just because I have different Stage Names in different parts of the Country does not mean I have DID or Borderline Personality Disorder. Let them trade places with me for a week then I will have the expertise to give them the life long stigma. Liquid money, glamour, and freedom to schedule your "other life" around this one is the drive to stay in this industry. Preconceived notions and blanket statements ruin it for everyone. It gives all of us a bad name, family and friends included. The Police are more knowledgeable about this than any Doctor. They are out their with us protecting us for good reason. In some cities they have to wear Riot Gear. Where is the safety for us? Please stop with these incorrect diagnosis and blanket statements. It ruins everyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.186.191.76 (talk) 08:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but you've got the wrong place. This page is not maintained by doctors, and none of us here have anything to do with if/how this disorder is diagnosed. All we do is collect information about reliable sources. Please note, also, you can't use Wikipedia as a forum to discuss your opinions of subjects--this page can only be used to make suggestions for improving the article.  Qwyrxian (talk) 08:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Starting editing
I'm going to start editing this page. I'm wanting to practice editing, and I've noticed room for improvement in this article. I also know something about BPD from professional experience. Since this is my first attempt at editing an article, I'm going to go slowly and I'm going to be seeking feedback. I'll comment on my edits in this section. Thanks for your help. William Fleeson (talk) 01:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm going to start with the lead section. It emphasizes features of BPD that are either only part of BPD or even are questionable as features of BPD. It cites the DSM, which is a good cite, but does not cite it fully accurately. The final paragraph seems too specific for a lead section. William Fleeson (talk) 01:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, let me recommend that you don't start with the lead. Article leads are supposed to be a summary of what is in the article body. It's nearly impossible to write a lead until the body itself is well-written.  You'll end up with a better product in both parts if you start with the body first. There's no requirement here, just my own personal suggestion from doing major rewrites.
 * Beyond that, have at it. Make sure that whatever info you provide is based on reliable sources (note that sources in this article are governed by WP:MEDRS, as it's a medical article, which is stricter than WP:RS), not just on what you know as a professional. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, thanks for the suggestions. I'll look at other sections. And, I will definitely base what I write on reliable sources. Please continue with whatever other suggestions occur to you. William Fleeson (talk) 01:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (damn, I knew I meant to comment somewhere else today!) agree with starting in the body and leaving lead till last - given the volumes of information we have to stick to review articles for medical articles, unless there is a Very Good Reason. When you come across primary source (i.e. non-review articles), feel free to remove or discuss removal on the talk page. It is always reaier to discuss more rather than less. I might even help, as I have been meaning to help improve this for years. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Casliber. Does your comment about discussing more mean that I should go ahead and indicate here what I intend to change, and why, before I do it? William Fleeson (talk) 02:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I would like to mention that I find the article to be in very good shape now, by the way. William Fleeson (talk) 02:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll start with Signs and symptoms and Diagnosis, but not tonight. The two sections cover overlapping material, because DSM diagnosis is based on signs and symptoms. William Fleeson (talk) 02:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I removed the sentence about family members' expressed emotion, because it was ambiguous in meaning (it appeared to suggest that the effect of BPD on family members was beneficial), because it was not about signs and symptoms of BPD but rather about the effect of family members' behavior on the course of BPD, and because the citation was a single primary source from 1999. William Fleeson (talk) 02:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I removed the following sentence "Individuals with BPD often enact multiple low-lethality suicide attempts triggered by seemingly minor incidents, and less commonly enact high-lethality attempts that are attributed to impulsiveness or comorbid bipolar disorder or major depressive disorder, with interpersonal stressors appearing to be particularly common triggers. ". I did so for a few reasons. First, it was a very close paraphrasing of the abstract of the cited article. Second, it gave the impression that suicide attempts among those with BPD are not very dangerous or threatening -- the cited article was in fact trying to counteract such an impression. Third, the rest of the paragraph covers the issue of suicidality as a sign or symptom quite thoroughly and with less POV. (Incidentally, I accidentally hit save page before I commented on the edit in the edit box -- I tried to fix that error, but could not find an edit button to do so. Still learning. Please accept my apologies.) William Fleeson (talk) 02:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

What improvements are needed to hit good article status?
There is a banner at the top of this page that says this article was once listed as a good article, and no longer is. It continues "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." However, I don't see any suggestions. If there are such suggestions, please direct me to them. If there are not such suggestions, at what point should this article be renominated? I'm not saying it should be nominated now, I'm just wondering whether there are specific criteria or suggestions for this article beyond those in the general criteria for good articles. William Fleeson (talk) 17:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Aha, I'll take a look - I have been interested in this article from time to time but have alot on my plate. Medical articles should have all facts cited by Review Articles unless there is a good reason. Will have a look. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Casliber, your help is much appreciated. I am finding things on my own to edit and I am using the Wikipedia guidlines. But I wondered whether there was a specific set of changes needed on this page in particular, given that the banner at the top of the page said "There are suggestions below...". It may be that the banner is generic, and that clause did not apply to this page very well. On the other hand, it would at least be useful to know the rationale for demoting this page from Good Article status. William Fleeson (talk) 01:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've expanded the to-do list. (The to-do banner on this article is non-generic.) I can't seem to find the original GA nomination/de-listing...(which is strange). You should also be aware that there is an article for Management of borderline personality disorder.Smallman12q (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Smallman12q. I will work on some of the to-do list, and I will look at the management of BPD article. If you find the original GA nomination/de-listing, please let me know. William Fleeson (talk) 01:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * According to here, it was delisted because it had several "citation needed" several times in the article. I haven't found the original nomination, likely in some subpage somewhere. In 2007, the GA nominations/reviews weren't as well structured as they are now.Smallman12q (talk) 22:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I don't see many "citation needed" comments any more, so it seems that the page is improved along those lines. I'm trying to learn what a "good copy edit" is. Unless you correct me, I'll assume that the comments you made in the to-do list constitute a good copy-edit. William Fleeson (talk) 00:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, so there appear to be 6 "citation needed"s. I'll work on them (although slowly). William Fleeson (talk) 00:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * A good copyedit involves properly sourcing the article(adding appropriate references/verifying existing ones), making sure the article style is consistent, that relevant areas are covered, and that its pleasant to read. You'll get the hang of it after a few edits.Smallman12q (talk) 02:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Joan Crawford
There appears to be many professionals who believe that Joan Crawford, as depicted in Mommie Dearest (film), has BPD. I found two citations from Google books within a few clicks. Bearian (talk) 20:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

notable people section
I think it's interesting that there are people talking about they're BPD diagnosis. Can we write something on the subject instead of just creating a list? Also, do the 2 books about Joan Crawford contain anything other than speculation? Do they include people who've interview her as sources? Reub2000 (talk) 19:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Incoherent contrast
Evidence suggests that individuals with BPD, while being high in intimacy- or novelty-seeking, can be hyper-alert

I can't make head or tail of this sentence as viable ensemble or contrast, and the source is paywalled. &mdash; MaxEnt 19:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Why do BPD people alternate between idealisation and devaluation?
The article should explain the motive of a typical BPD person when she tells her partner that he is wonderful, that she loves him and that she couldn't survive without him. Minutes later, she shouts and him, telling him she hates him and that he is a worthless piece of shit. Do her feelings vacillate so rapidly and severely that she genuinely viscerally hates the same person that she loved only minutes earlier and that she cannot control her feelings or behaviour? Alternatively, is it a form of psychological warfare that she is deploying; if so, for what purpose? BPD people hate being or feeling abandoned, so why do they drive their partners away by often viciously insulting them and / or physically attacking them? It is obvious that if you want someone to love you and care about you, don't verbally or physically attack him. Why is it that BPD people frequently do what is severely detrimental to themselves as well as to those around them? 188.29.146.125 (talk) 12:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There are a few hypothesis about why this is, but AFAIK no one has been able to establish any solid theory on why they do this. Reub2000 (talk) 21:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Aspects of this are related to the affect dysregulation that people with the condition have. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * More to the point, the destructive effects of BPD on family members, alternating idealization/abuse, violence, the time cycle of such abuse, etc. are largely ignored by the article and need attention from an expert--Anuoldman (talk) 11:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but we can't add anything unless it's first verified in reliable sources. If you know of some, feel free to try adding them, though take care that the sources are very good, since some of the article may be governed by WP:MEDRS. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Confused
I typed an address for the site of a friend who is a musician. That address directed me to the Borderline Personality Disorders page on Wikipedia. I am wondering if this is someone's idea of a sick joke. Matildatwerp (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it probably is, but it has nothing to do with Wikipedia--some else must have hijacked your friends webpage and made it come here. You'd best talk to your friend and see if he can sort it out, or contact the webmaster of that site. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Medications section
I'm wondering why Venlafaxine isnt mentioned in the meds section? Its a newer antidepresant with good results in depression with anxiety comorbid, which the article states (in other sections ) is quite common in BPD people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.33.34.79 (talk) 09:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Manipulation paragraph
The following needs clarity, IMO:

"Some mental health professionals (and the DSM-IV[13]) describe individuals with BPD as deliberately manipulative or difficult, but analysis and findings generally trace behaviors to inner pain and turmoil, powerlessness and defensive reactions, or limited coping and communication skills.[14][15][n 4] There has been limited research on family members' understanding of borderline personality disorder and the extent of burden or negative emotion experienced or expressed by family members.[16] Parents of individuals with BPD may show co-existing extremes of over-involvement and under-involvement."

The first sentence is disjointed. First, what "behaviors?" It seems to be about manipulation, but one of the sources is about self-mutilation. Second, the DSM is more than "some" mental health professionals, at least in the U.S. If we're acknowledging that the "Bible of psychiatry" views manipulation as a characteristic of BPD, we shouldn't dismiss what we've just said in the same sentence. Otherwise, why bring it up at all? I argue for a simple statement that many BPDs display manipulative behavior (or are judged by the medical community to do so). Period. There are a number of sources that treat manipulation as a common symptom of BPD, including this 2007 study in the American Journal of Psychiatry: http://psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleid=98510. If we want to explain the psychological sources of this behavior and note that "manipulation" can be a prejudicial concept, we can do so in a separate sentence using the citation we already have.

The second and third sentences here make no sense. The source for the second sentence says family members can suffer emotional difficulties of their own based on how much information they receive about BPD. The source for the third sentence says the involvement of family members in the lives of BPD sufferers may play some role in their destructive behaviors. At least based on the abstracts, neither source says anything about manipulation. Yet taken together, given their place in this paragraph, and given their poor construction, these sentences read as though they're blaming family members for the manipulative characteristic of BPD. These sentences belong elsewhere and need a rewrite.

I don't feel comfortable editing myself, as I get the impression this article has been the source of major contention. I mean no value judgment about BPD myself. It looks like this page has been scoured clean.Ctnelsen (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Went ahead and made the edits anyway.Ctnelsen (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I was referred to this page by a therapist on line after I talked to him about one of my close ones who has some sort of mental disorder that resembles BPD. But some of the simptoms mentined consistantly in this article are not present in this person. Like oscilating in idealizing a person and then devaluing the same person, or trying to harm oneself etc..but the other simptoms mentioned for BPD are prasent. Should this person be classified as having BPD or is he having a different type of disorder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.194.80.234 (talk) 13:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is a great encyclopedia, but all diagnoses should come from a licensed mental healthcare professional who has met personally with your close one. Best wishes to you and yours!  Firecatalta (talk) 22:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Article updates: witness reliability & brain abnormalities
Hi all! I've added how BPD can affect reliability as a witness (under Controversies) and specified which brain abnormalities accompany the disorder. Should I remove these from the To-do list? Firecatalta (talk) 07:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC) Great job! Feel free to remove it from the list. Lova Falk    talk   07:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Chinese psychiatry
Earlier today an IP removed the section on Chinese psychiatry, and another editor reinstated it. Actually, looking at the info, the removal is correct (even if the original motivation wasn't). First, the section used a primary source for the information, which is always worrisome. More importantly, inclusion here was pure original research, and thus forbidden. Unless we can find a reference that explicitly says, "This disorder in China is the same as BPD", we cannot include it here. That is, we cannot look at the description of the Chinese disorder and say, "Hey, that's the same!" Doing so is an act of interpretation, and thus not allowed. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your explanation!  Lova Falk     talk   11:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

To do list
On the to do list it says: Add details about pre-adolescent diagnosis. I wonder if whoever put this on the to-do list really had enough knowledge of BPD. As the article correctly says: "... clinicians are discouraged from diagnosing anyone before the age of 18, due to adolescence and a still-developing personality." Some of the criteria for BDP are not uncommon and not pathological in children and adolescents. So I wonder if this really should be on the to-do list. Lova Falk    talk   08:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed! I'm in favor of taking it off. Does anyone feel strongly that it should remain? Firecatalta (talk) 00:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I've not heard of children being diagnosed with BPD and I can't imagine that many healthcare professionals are doing so. Hence I agree to take it off the to-do list.
 * Childhood/adolescent precursors and how BPD starts to form in childhood/adolescence should be stated in the article. It is important in learning how to notice its development and to try to reduce the likelihood of a child/adolescent who is at high-risk of BPD from developing it. For example, ADHD always shows during childhood and people who have it are many times more likely to develop BPD. Eating disorders often start before a person develops BPD, sometimes before she is old enough to be diagnosed with BPD. Jim Michael (talk) 19:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Go ahead! As long as you have good sources.  Lova Falk     talk   20:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Mamoru Takuma
Hi everyone!

I was looking at the Notable persons sections today after Jim Michael’s addition of Nicola Edgington, and I realized that I hadn’t checked the source for Mamoru Takuma yet. When I followed the source, the diagnosis of emotionally unstable personality disorder is only listed in the section copied below, in the paragraph at the bottom. This website’s links for this section of information all go to “Page not found” notices, and there are no other sources for this information listed on the page. I checked on Takuma’s Wikipedia page, and the information is backed up with the same unsourced website. Unless someone can find where the site sources their info for Takuma’s BPD diagnosis, the website does not meet Wikipedia guidelines for reliable sources – it is self-published (see the description in the upper right hand corner of its page), has no editorial oversight, and does not cite the info in it that is relevant to our article. Mamoru Takuma should be removed from the Notable persons with comorbid diagnoses section until a reliable source can be found. If anyone finds a reliable source, feel free to put him back in! Firecatalta (talk) 19:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

午前08時頃 　 起床 午前09時30分 　 アパートの賃貸人にも復しゅうしようと考え、マンションを出る前に火を付けたたばこを布団の上に置く. 午前９時３０分過ぎに部屋をでる. 火は自然に消えた. 午前09時40分 　 猛スピードで発進する車が住民の取り付けたビデオに録画　京都新聞 午前10時頃 　 池田市槻木町7-15秋田刃物店で7480円の出刃包丁を購入　時事通信　 午前10時10分 　 大阪教育大附属池田小学校、自動車通用門に到着 　　　12分頃? 体育館東側付近にて２年南組担任の教諭と遭遇する. 教諭は宅間を父兄と勘違いして会釈する. 宅間、そのまま校舎へと進む. 午前10時13分 　 南校舎に近づき１階の２年南組教室の窓越しに５名の児童を発見する. ５名の児童は偶然、教室に残っていた子供たちだった. 同教室テラス側出入り口より襲撃、５人全員を刺殺 午前10時15分 　 宅間はテラスに出て、東に隣接する２年西組の教室を襲撃. 午前10時18分 　 学校より１１０番通報 午前10時20分 　 児童が逃げ込んだスーパーより１１９番通報 午前10時24分 　 学校より１１９番通報 午前10時25分 　 河上洋介教諭、矢野克巳副校長が宅間守を取り押さえる 犯行時の被告の精神状態 　 被告は、かねてから妄想性人格障害、非社会性人格障害及び情緒不安定性人格障害（衝動型）などの精神状態を示し、社会に適応することができず、社会や個人との摩擦が絶えなかったが、犯行時及び前後を通じ、責任能力に影響を及ぼすような精神障害には何らかかっていなかった.

p.s. having trouble linking; still figuring out how! So, here is the Wiki article for identifying reliable sources, for those who want to have a look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Questionable_sources Firecatalta (talk) 19:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Firecatalta, this is how you could have linked: WP:Identifying_reliable_sources. Links to articles about Wikipedia always start with WP: (or Wikipedia:). WP:HELPDESK is a good place for asking questions about editing, or the WP:teahouse.  Lova Falk     talk   19:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your help, as always! :-) Firecatalta (talk) 20:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

DSM-IV criteria
Unfortunately, DSM has forbidden us to cite their diagnosis criteria. I had heard about it, but was not sure, so I asked at Wikipedia talk:Copyright violations, and well, it's true. So I blanked the section. As far as I understand from the discussion, the criteria can neither be copied, nor can they be paraphrased closely. Lova Falk    talk   06:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Argh. Weird though, this website supposedly has permission to use them (see where it says "reprinted with permission," toward the bottom of the page):  http://behavenet.com/apa-diagnostic-classification-dsm-iv-tr.  Firecatalta (talk) 08:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you think we're allowed to paraphrase them loosely? :-(  Obviously I want to respect the copyright request of the DSM, but it would be really sad to completely lose that info. Although I guess we could also look up some secondary sources and take general principles from there. Firecatalta (talk) 08:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This is very annoying as omitting it rather rips the guts from the article although a poor second best is to just link to the bravenet page. Anyway i have seen countless reproductions of small chunks of the DSM without any comment about permission sought, for example see the end of http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/5ff67be2-b636-11df-a784-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2Klckne1Z . It would be almost a full time job for the DSM to process all the "permissions sought" and in many cases would take prohibitively too long to meet publication dates. I would guess that every day a new publication of one sort or another reproduces small chunks of the DSM. One thing that cannot be done is provide an abbreviated version. It is all or nothing to retain its integrity. I really cant see why DSM would have any problem with this if it is faithfully reproduced and referenced. The above FT article for example looks to have reproduced it without permission and the FT is a commercial organisation while Wikipedia is a non-commercial purely educational body. I really cant see how the DSM can argue against the worthiness of Wikipedia as long as the integrity of the DSM text is retained.--Penbat (talk) 08:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think this article is so good that losing the DSM-criteria is not ripping the guts out of it. We can have a look at other articles to see how they have solved this.  Lova Falk     talk   09:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the article has come a long way! A lot of the DSM criteria are described in our "Behaviour" section, and I know there are more good secondary sources out there that I just haven't had time to incorporate.  We'll find a way to compensate.  Firecatalta (talk) 18:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Make sure that the wikilinks that were within the deleted DSM text are now put in elsewhere in the article where the same words occur.--Penbat (talk) 18:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Notable people all Americans
Have any notable non-Americans ever been diagnosed with borderline personality disorder? As a non-American, none of the people listed now are notable to me anyway. HiLo48 (talk) 23:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Nobody? Anybody? HiLo48 (talk) 02:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, actually, I don't know anybody. We could change the heading of the section into "Not so very notable Americans"  Lova Falk     talk   07:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that they have WP articles, and only notable subjects may have said articles, the people must be "notable" in a WP sense. Of course, I think it would be helpful if we had verified non-Americans on the list, too. Is it possible (I'm completely guessing here) that the diagnosis is simply more common in the US, either because US doctors are more likely to make a finding of BPD, or because something about US culture makes people more susceptible to BPD? Or is it simply the fact that it is more "socially acceptable" for celebrities to publicly announce their mental problems in the US (again, I'm just guessing here? Qwyrxian (talk) 14:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it mostly comes down to people in the US being more open to talking about this sort of thing. There are a number of British celebrities that in all likelihood had this disorder. Reub2000 (talk) 15:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keith Moon almost certainly had BPD and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder; Amy Winehouse almost certainly had BPD and described herself as bipolar. If anyone is able to find reliable sources that says they had BPD, please add them to the article. Jim Michael (talk) 01:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And the former Princess Of Wales too. Now if only we could get reliable evidence! Reub2000 (talk) 23:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added a Brit (Jane Andrews) to the list. The evidence for Diana, Princess of Wales is insufficient - all we have is one biographer's assertion. The large majority of borderlines are habitually very confrontational and destructive with chaotic lives. All borderlines are habitually markedly impulsive. Diana received a massive amount of media coverage continuously from 1981 - where is the evidence of such acts from her? Jim Michael (talk) 23:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler is often cited as being a BPD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.150.95.237 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 6 December 2012‎
 * By a reliable source? In that case, please be bold and add him, and of course the source!  Lova Falk     talk   18:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe they're harder to find. These symptoms sound like adverse birth imprints.  See "hispanic paradox"/ Rwinkel (talk) 23:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It is very difficult to find reliable sources stating that someone had BPD who died before it was defined. Hitler died in 1945 and whilst he was clearly personality disordered, I don't see evidence of him having had BPD. He did not have an unstable self-image, nor was he impulsive. Jim Michael (talk) 20:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Identifying_reliable_sources says: "Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons. Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material immediately if it is about a living person, and do not move it to the talk page. This applies to any material related to living persons on any page in any namespace, not just article space." I'm sorry but your source is not good enough...  Lova Falk     talk   18:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I didn´t knew about this. Thanks for letting me know.188.179.184.76 (talk) 07:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Mostly correct, but...
The info below is mostly correct, except for the time frame on mood swings in BPD, which is really minutes - days, not weeks; I already took off the ridiculous duration of "months" in one of my previous edits. However, not a word is present in the source provided, unless I'm missing something. The info would be useful, so ultimately I would like us to keep it, but first we need to find a source that actually provides it. And I would like to clean up the wording, too; this is not the clearest explanation I've ever seen. I'll keep an eye out for more sources, hopefully the info will be in one of the sources already provided for this section, and let me know if you guys find anything! Also, the source does give a nice overview of treatment options (from a behavioral perspective) for BPD and diagnostic methods, so that might be nice to incorporate into the relevant sections at some point.

Removed info: Symptoms known as "mood swings" are common in both BPD and bipolar disorders. In borderline personality disorder, the term refers to marked intensity and variability of mood, typically in response to external psychosocial and intrapsychic stressors. Changes in mood, and changes in intensity, may occur abruptly and last for minutes, hours, days, or weeks.

Here's a link to the source for those who are interested: http://65.122.17.152/BAT%20Journal/VOL-10/BAT%2010-1.pdf#page=13 Firecatalta (talk) 04:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Can also be days, but we need to reflect the source. Important info as the term "mood swings" is used so much for bipolar disorder and clarifying the time frame is critical.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a very important point! I'll see what sourced info I can find for that section (check out the mood disorders section of comorbid diagnoses and let me know if there's a type of info missing there that you would like included).  Days is possible for BPD but is pretty unusual, and that's reflected in the sources I've found.  That is, outside observers often think that the mood has lasted for days because they only see the person when the client is in a certain mood, but self-report of the inner experience of moods is usually minutes-hours.  But of course, if you find a source that includes days, put it in, and I'll keep an eye out as well!  Firecatalta (talk) 23:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. chronic feelings of emptiness often do last for days (Chapman, p. 23), but that's a different subject from mood swings. So much info to put in this article and nowhere near enough time!! Firecatalta (talk) 23:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Epidemiology
The study by Grant et al. (2008) was cited as finding significant differences in prevalence rates between sexes. In the actual article's abstract, and in its results section, the authors note that they found no statistically significant differences between men and women on prevalence rates. I corrected the error. Calitheic (talk) 16:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi there, and thank you for the edit! If you read the original sentence closely, it says that "the difference in rates between men and women was found to be statistically insignificant," not "statistically significant."  So the sentence now reads "the difference in rates...was not found to be statistically insignificant," i.e a double negative.  I do like the phrasing you suggested though, as it's clear that the way it was worded, people could miss that it says 'insignificant' at the end.  Would you prefer to change the ending or to revert the not?  I'm happy either way!  :-)  Firecatalta (talk) 16:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * p.s. and thank you again for your editing help! Very much appreciated. Firecatalta (talk) 17:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * p.p.s. I think I'll change the ending, if that's okay; I think it is much clearer the way you've worded it. Thank you again for catching that!  Firecatalta (talk) 17:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Good article
And now... for something more cheerful. What do you others think about nominating DPB as a good article? Lova Falk    talk   10:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes! I think we are there.  :-)  The only thing is we have a bit of work to do regarding the WP:MEDRS guidelines for not giving info about the articles.  i.e. There are a lot of places where I wrote "A 2008 study..." instead of just putting the info, so I say let's clean those things up (we can still leave in the dates for the info in our charts), and then yes, let's do it!!  Firecatalta (talk) 18:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. One other thing is that when I was checking the sources for the section on mood disorders, some of the sentences were lifted word-for-word from the original source (you can find them on google books), so let's go over that section as well.  I am so excited for this! Firecatalta (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It is important to say what the sources say, i.e. if a source is a2008 study which finds X, then we can't generalise that to 'X is true' unless it is also said in the source. I haven't looked at this article in a while but have been aware of the work on it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see what you mean! I hadn't read the guidelines carefully enough.  I think most of the edits I just made ought to be reverted, then.  Thank you Casliber! Firecatalta (talk) 02:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Edits reverted. :-) Firecatalta (talk) 03:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The mood disorders section should be plagiarism/OR free now. I still want to check out the history section (I think it's the only section I still haven't gone through the sources in), but then I think we're good to go!  Does anyone see other sections that need inspecting before GA nomination?  Firecatalta (talk) 06:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * May be change order of the subsections of Causes: Brain abnormalities - Childhood abuse - Genetics - Neurobiological factors into Genetics  - Brain abnormalities - Neurobiological factors - Childhood abuse? And, now that I think of it, maybe the subsection Childhood abuse should be changed into Childhood maltreatment, so it also covers caregivers denying the validity of their thoughts and feelings?
 * I also think that the following sentence needs to be clarified a bit more: "High executive function appears to mediate the relationship between rejection sensitivity and BPD symptoms, potentially reducing or protecting against BPD symptoms."  Lova Falk     talk   06:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me! What do you think about "Invalidating environment in childhood" or something like that, with a note that as Linehan and many others point out, childhood abuse is the most severe and damaging form of an invalidating environment?  There are a lot of sources for such a note, and I think it could help bring in the nuance that some people with BPD grew up in homes that were simply a poor fit for their personalities, rather than experiencing child abuse (at least as typically defined; and to emphasize, such "poor fits" can of course be just as damaging to the children who experience them).  It can also include the fact that many children have loving and validating environments at home but experience invalidating environments at school, such as when authorities disregard bullying and related issues.  That info is important and not really expounded upon yet in this article.
 * Yeah, that is very obtuse. Will have a look later today (or more likely, in the middle of tonight!) Firecatalta (talk) 17:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to tell you I am still thinking about "Invalidating environment in childhood" and haven't quite made up my mind yet. What about "Adverse childhood experiences" instead?? But I don't know...  Lova Falk     talk   15:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think "Adverse childhood experiences" is right on the mark. Are there any others that come to mind, just so we have maximum options while brainstorming?  And I would be fine with "Childhood maltreatment" as well, if you prefer it, as I think it addresses the most important part of the issue.  My only concern is that headings like Childhood abuse/maltreatment don't provide a venue to discuss the difficult experiences children have that might be hurtful to a very sensitive child but not necessarily fall under the category of maltreatment (depending on how we define it).  For instance, many traditional parenting techniques (such as trying to problem-solve when the child is stressed, or scolding a child for misbehavior) can be experienced as highly painful by a sensitive child or adolescent, even though we might not call such actions "maltreatment" (depending on the type of scolding and problem-solving, of course).  I think it's important to discuss the aspect that some adults with BPD or BPD traits might have had a difficult childhood simply because their caregivers didn't know how to help them process their intense emotions (there's a great chapter on this in Loving Someone with Borderline Personality Disorder).  Although, we could just as easily make a new section for things like that. What are your thoughts? Firecatalta (talk) 19:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems we agree on "Adverse childhood experiences". The second part of your comment opens up a whole new line of thinking, because according to attachment theory, an important function of the caretaker is to regulate the infant's emotions. (The infant is upset, cries, gets comforted by a parent and the infant calms down - a emotional regulation that eventually can be internalized.) So maybe the intense emotions and problems to process them (in some cases??) can be traced back (caused by??) caretakers' inadequate response to their infant. But right now I am just thinking aloud - you are the one with the good sources. I don't know if there are any good sources, and I actually doubt that it is a generally accepted view (even though I personally think it makes good sense). Lova Falk    talk   20:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "Adverse childhood experiences" it is. And what you're suggesting is an accepted view!  Mentalization-based treatment (MBT) is based on attachment theory, especially the idea that children whose parents help them identify and label their emotions learn a language to express their emotions, and ultimately to label and validate their emotions on their own.  Some children have parents who respond in nurturing ways, but who don't explicitly identify and label emotions for the child, and for children who have especially intense emotions, this might result in difficulty understanding and communicating their emotional needs.  Those certainly are issues for adults with BPD!  And it goes without saying that if you have a parent who can't figure out how to adequately comfort their child (and many sensitive children need different "comforting techniques" than other children), then there will be further issues, as you've suggested. I think it's very interesting that MBT is one of the two treatments (DBT being the other, of course) that has been found to be especially effective, and when you think about it, a lot of DBT has to do with teaching people how to identify and label emotions, and how to communicate them effectively to others.  We should definitely include this info in the Adverse childhood experiences section, I think, and I'll see what sources I can find for it.  So much to do, but I'm very excited with how this article is coming along!  :-)  Firecatalta (talk) 23:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. I realize you probably already know everything I just wrote here.  Sometimes I get caught writing all the thoughts in my head whether they belong on the page or not!  Firecatalta (talk) 08:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes I do know, but the part I do not know is if the things we talk about in our little outpatient psychiatric child clinic in a suburb in Sweden match the "accepted view" in the rest of the world. But I am very happy to read that they do.  Lova Falk     talk   08:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * From what I've learned of you so far, if the things you talk about in your outpatient psychiatric child clinic in a suburb in Sweden don't match the "accepted view" in the rest of the world, the rest of the world ought to listen up! :-) Hope you're having a great weekend!  Firecatalta (talk) 01:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you Firecatalta, and the same to you!  Lova Falk     talk   10:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Notable People: Concerns
Hi guys!

So today someone edited the Notable people section to include the following:

Lauren Collier/Martin/Ruth, 27 year old female from Lancaster, PA. Serial dater and master seductress. Used sex and conversations of future relationship/marriage/family, with multiple men to get money and sense of security. Was extremely scared of abandonment, she will seek out multiple partners. She was a chronic liar who created false stories to gather sympathy of family and friends. Married a new partner two months after a divorce was final, while dating three men at the same time. She also lied about being pregnant to obtain money from the men.

And it got me thinking about the pros & cons of the Notable people section. On the one hand, I think it's interesting and informative, and helps point out prominent people who live with BPD. I think that can help reduce stigma, and for those who are in the Notable people section for criminal activity, it can help raise awareness about the severity of the disorder (though most are in the comorbid diagnosis section). On the other hand, I think there is a tendency to put in sensationalized criminals, such as Jeffrey Dahmer, and a tendency to make claims about people in the format quoted above, which could be stigmatizing to people who live with BPD. So I'm wondering what you all think about this section: is it a useful and necessary section for a medical/psychiatric/psychology article? Does it have potential to stigmatize or gloss over this illness, by highlighting people who are either criminals or football players? Are there changes we could make that could incorporate the information about notable people while still addressing these issues? I'd love to hear your thoughts. Firecatalta (talk) 00:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Literature section
I am frankly tired of people deleting the reference to the SF novel Komarr, and its character Tien Vorsoisson, because they think that it is merely fannish speculation that Vorsoisson has BPD. Yes, the reference is to a mailing list archive, a mailing list of the author's fans. But the specific message cited was written by the author herself, participating on that mailing list, as shown in that message. For God's sake, before one claims that a reference isn't adequate to substantiate its referent, one should read it. BunsenH (talk) 04:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Duly noted. Thanks for letting us know!  Firecatalta (talk) 04:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Notable people
I propose a removal of the subsection notable people with BPD, and the one with comorbid diagnoses. They are trivia sections that don't contribute to our understanding of BPD. Lova Falk    talk   19:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's why I delate the paragraph. Sources like, msn-news are out of question. But the main point is, our job is not to enable a quick access to all the stars and starlets are suffering from BPD and copy gossip magazines. We try to leave an access to an mental disorder for people are intrested in the scientific discussion. Another question is the issue in art. -- WSC ® 20:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed!! Thanks for taking the first step on the edits, Widescreen, and thank you Lova for this much-needed thread! I have been feeling discomfort about the notable people sections for some time and just couldn't put my finger on what the problem was, and I really appreciate that you both took the time to help.  Firecatalta (talk) 20:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The fastest consensus in the history of wikipedia.... :o) -- WSC ® 23:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

New diagnosis
My name is Jamie. I am a 32 year old female. I have recently been diagnosed with BPD. I am very discouraged and overwhelmed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.41.94.211 (talk) 21:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Jamie! It sounds like things are a bit rough right now, and I hope you're able to get in contact with some good resources near you.  Some resources that you might find useful are: www.borderlinepersonalitydisorder.com, as well as The Borderline Personality Disorder Survival Guide" by authors Alex Chapman and Kim Gratz. Please remember that there are many resources out there, and you don't have to do this alone! Warm regards, Firecatalta (talk) 14:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Predatory Journal Alert
Hello all,

The journal "Innovations in Clinical Neuroscience" (ICN) has been used for one of the sources in this article. For those who are not aware, the internet age has birthed a new phenomenon of what are known as predatory journals, which are journals that attempt to masquerade as a legitimate, peer-reviewed journal. These journals typically involve various forms of deceit (such as inventing fake professors to chair their editorial boards) and solicit or produce articles solely for profit. Their articles typically do not meet basic academic standards.

"Innovations in Clinical Neuroscience," a source recently used to back up information for the BPD article, is one such journal. The first and most significant warning sign is that this journal's main editor is a person who does not exist, or who if he does exist does not hold the position that the journal claims he holds. The journal claims that "Amir H. Kalali" holds a professorial position in the department of Psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego, but looking at the list of professors at UC San Diego demonstrates that "Kalali" does not hold any position there.

The journal's next editor, "Ahmed Aboraya," supposedly holds a professorial position at the West Virginia School of Osteopathic Medicine. He does not. I could continue with the rest of the editors on this "editorial board," but fabricating even 2 members of their editorial board is ridiculous enough as is.

Journals that involve deceit of this and other kinds are not considered reliable sources by the scientific community. As such, we should not be using any articles by ICN as sources for this or any other wikipedia article. Please spread awareness of this phenomenon in any setting that you deem appropriate, and I will be removing all information based on ICN sources from the BPD article momentarily.

For more information on how to identify a predatory journal, see the following: http://scholarlyoa.com/2012/11/30/criteria-for-determining-predatory-open-access-publishers-2nd-edition/

Best, Firecatalta (talk) 21:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your warning Firecatalta, I had no idea this even existed.  Lova Falk     talk   21:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Isn't it bizarre?? That's the internet, though, definitely a double-edged sword.  Firecatalta (talk) 22:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

301.83
the classification 301.83 refers to the DSM and not to the ICD as shown on the right side in the begining — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.94.95.111 (talk) 07:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Good Article Status + DSM 5 criteria
Hi all,

We've spoken previously about nominating this article for good article status, and I think we're ready! My last question is, do we know if the same issues about copyright apply to the posting of DSM 5 criteria as they did to the DSM-IV criteria? If so, we'll want to edit those out prior to applying for GAS. Great job everyone!

Firecatalta (talk) 02:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Firecatalta you're the one who did most of the work this last year, so all credit to you¨! As the DSM-5 has the same publisher as DSM-IV I just assume that the same issues about copyright apply.  Lova Falk     talk   07:53, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Couldn't have done it without some expert guidance and contributions from you and others! DSM-5 info has been fixed, and I think we're ready to go.  Hurrah!  Firecatalta (talk) 00:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments

 * Much of the causes section is more appropriately labeled "pathophysiology". Should be separated into these two sections.
 * A number of refs are of questionable reliability including:
 * The Borderline Personality Disorder Survival Guide: Everything You Need to Know About Living with BPD
 * http://www.borderlinepersonalitydisorder.com
 * http://www.borderlinepersonalitytoday.com/main/label.htm
 * We are missing PMIDs for a lot of papers such as "Simmons, D (1992) Gender issues and borderline personality disorder: Why do females dominate the diagnosis? Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 6(4), 219–223"
 * The previous ref is also a little old. Should be mostly sources from the last 10 years.
 * The link in this ref "Gunderson J, "Borderline Personality Disorder", "The New England Journal of Medicine", 26 May 2011" goes to the U of T. And is not filled out. There are a number of these
 * The next two refs are from 1994 and 1985.
 * The follow ref http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12923705 is a primary research study of 20 people with BPD. We need to base our article on high quality recent secondary sources per WP:MEDRS
 * Another primary research paper from 2000 and another
 * BPD today is used extensively and is not really suitable
 * More details need on this ref "Neil R.Carlson, C.Donald Heth. "Psychology: The Science of Behavior". Pearson Canada Inc,2010, p.570." Like an ISBN
 * Reference formating is not consistent. Lots of refs are not using the cite template while others are. While do a further review when these issues are addressed. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Important points! I'm going to withdraw the GA nomination until we address those.  Thank you for bringing them to light!  Firecatalta (talk) 19:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Excellent and will take another look when these are address :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Behavior: "indiscriminate"
Restored "indiscriminate" to the text from an earlier edit. It differentiates between indiscriminate sex and orgy sex. Indiscriminate sex can imply sex either with individuals or with groups. The original text used "Promiscuous", but this is a loaded word that carries with it an implied judgment as to the nature of the behavior. "Indiscriminate", however, is a neutral word. --Corjay (talk) 03:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me! I appreciate your efforts to keep the article nonjudgmental and neutral.  Firecatalta (talk) 03:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)