Talk:Borderline personality disorder/Archive 9

Confusing infobox image
As a layman, I don't understand the usage of Edvard Munch's ''The Brooch. Eva Mudocci '' in the infobox, or the caption describing it as representing idealization. I don't see a significant connection between the image and idealization and I would question its usage in the article. At the least, the caption does not adequately describe what connection the image has to BPD.  — Ruyter (talk • edits)  20:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Replaced it with a different image for which I was able to find a decent source. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 09:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I on the other hand am more confused by the new replaced image. The Brooch. Eva Mudocci  could more easily relate to BPD not only on an idealisation level, but the whole feeling of abandonment, overwhelming emotions, especially negative ones such as hatred and depression, and the disassociation from these feelings, especially the way the dark clouds revolve around her head. Whereas the new one, evoke no such connections whatsoever, it merely depicts a man in old fashioned clothes posing for a painting. Morslyte (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Morslyte on this one. Even though one could argue the new image shows "idealisation" in a more realistic sense (what with the higher rates of BPD in women and therefore the arguably more frequent idealisation of men), the previous image (Edvard Munch - The Brooch. Eva Mudocci - Google Art Project.jpg) exactly resembled the sort of art I see people with BPD do, and I guarantee they would relate to it a lot more and that people unfamiliar with the pathology would immediately recognise the distinct style of art (especially the black and white drawing) and be able to draw the parallels in their mind. SUM1 (talk) 14:49, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yah I am good with either. The concern was the lack of a reference clearly describing this as idealization. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 11:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, I think I understand what it's trying to say understanding the disorder but yeah, it needs to be rewritten https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EmilePersaud 03:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmilePersaud (talk • contribs)

Discussing the Image of Idealization Images
I think that the change of the image, one that I feel better describes that Idealization far better than the image changed to, was completely unnecessary

I think the second image used whilst perhaps would be fine, if we didn't have the current image there, gives a wrong perception of BPD, black and white, could easily be a teenager's profile picture, vs. The reality of BPD as a whole with the man in the suit

Hopefully that is agreed upon, I make this post to reach out and gauge opinions, thank you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EmilePersaud 03:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmilePersaud (talk • contribs)
 * Moving to keep the discussion together. I have no strong feeling which image we use. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 12:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hopefully this is agreed on what, you write a comment saying you think the this one suits better, and then proceed to undo a change which was discussed without providing relevant cause? "I think this is better", well, I think this is not. Morslyte (talk) 08:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned I am happy with either image. Could start a RfC if people wish. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 06:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

You can merge my latest talk, I did not see this originally as active.

The person who says people with bpd will more identify with Jacobsons picture is absolutely correct and I can't agree with the new image change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EmilePersaud 10:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmilePersaud (talk • contribs)

Let's not change the picture on the page because of personal identity with BPD, thanks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EmilePersaud 10:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmilePersaud (talk • contribs)

Interpersonal relationships relationships section
There's a reference to "idealization and devaluation" which hinges upon the theories of psychoanalytic psychology, a field that isn't held in very high regard by most contemporary psychologists. I suggest we remove references to this concept in the article, as 'splitting behaviour' or black-and-white thinking already covers this concept. Chloehoey (talk) 00:12, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Egocentrism is a core of Borderline Personality Disorder
This study (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25710733/) on Borderline Personality Disorder (the full text of that study with the info can be found here: https://blogs.uw.edu/brtc/files/2015/03/Schilling-et-al.-2015-attributional-tunnel-vision-in-BPD.pdf) states that " 'egocentrism'—that is, an 'embeddedness in one’s own point of view'—was identified as another important feature." And because egocentrism is a core of Borderline (in addition to the unstable moods/emotions), and egocentrism is also the core for all other cluster B personality disorders, I think this should be mentioned in the article. ATC. Talk 23:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * User:ATC would be good to use a review article on the topic rather than a primary source of 60 people given a questionnaire. Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This study (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165178116317498) states, "Regarding cognitive empathy, there were no significant differences between BPD patients and healthy control subjects in recognition accuracy, but reduced decision confidence in BPD. These results suggest that patients with BPD show altered emotional empathy, experiencing higher rates of emotional contagion when emotions are expressed nonverbally. The latter may contribute to misunderstandings and inadequate social behavior." It’s the shift between all and no emotional empathy (egocentrism) that distinguishes Borderline from Cyclothymia (an affective disorder) and Narcissism (despite Narcissists and Borderlines both showing remorse for their egocentric actions). ATC . Talk 01:00, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I also found this study (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1053811911004939), which states: "Patients with BPD showed impairments in cognitive and emotional empathy... The findings thus support a conceptualization of BPD as involving deficits in both inferring others' mental states and being emotionally attuned to another person." Altered affective (emotional) empathy is understudied but is the core of Borderline Personality Disorder (as is altered social cognition) because the emotional labile outbursts aren't physiological. Is it worth noting this source about the physiology of the disorder for the body?  ATC . Talk 23:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Use of my photo
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)
 * I'm someone that suffers from BPD and self harm, if there is any issue as to the legality of that picture, I can easily provide one myself and give full consent. Morslyte (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Morslyte thanks for the offer. The IP in question never reached out to me and I have consent from this person so we should be good. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 06:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Remove photo?

 * Why not remove the image regardless? It has huge potential to be upsetting or disturbing, and contains no information or clarification that it's perfectly clear from reading the text.  I fail to see how it contributes any new information or clarifies existing information, so given its potentially upsetting nature, my understanding of the regulations is that it should be removed. Falling and Taking (talk) 03:35, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Does the photo even add anything to the article? My only trigger to coming to the talk page was that I thought that the pic was to voice that it was in poor taste and to ask that we remove it. I doubt anyone has been particularly educated by the image, and it is effectively "malady porn" if it is just there for entertainment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:F404:C400:441F:7355:E5F9:19A (talk) 12:11, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I want to second this. I came to this article to learn about my own health and saw this photo and found it very disturbing. I don't think a photo of cut scars helps the article, it would only be relevant to an article about self harm. For people coming here to find help, it's doing the opposite. Zugamifk (talk) 02:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with removing it. This photo puts undue weight on one aspect of BPD. CUA 27 (talk) 12:16, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Third, that photo was, for lack of a better word, triggering and troubling to come across. People who are disturbed by images of self-harm are going to be reading this article. It's not appropriate. 74.44.200.220 (talk) 05:18, 24 April 2019 (UTC
 * I disagree with that profoundly. I'm diagnosed with BPD and I constantly self harm. I see no way that could possibly be more triggering than looking at my own arms on a daily basis. This image helps people like myself relate and comprehend better our own disorder. This is also educational for the immense amount of misconceptions that exist about self-harm, it's more likely that the average person thinks of self-harm as either an "attention seeking act" or a "fake suicide" by slashing one's veins open. This is clearly not true, and such information should be kept on the Wikipedia. Morslyte (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Can we please remove the image? It's been long enough and I believe consensus has been acheived. I would edit myself, but I saw the comment and restrained myself. I hope this doesn't require more clear decision-making. Zugamifk (talk) 01:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I personally think it should not be removed, at least not on this basis. Wikipedia is not censored, and it illustrates a symptom of this disorder.
 * "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia.
 * Some articles may include images, text, or links which are relevant to the topic but that some people find objectionable. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text, or link. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content."
 * It illustrates an exceedingly common symptom of this disorder, therefore it is appropriate for the article. SUM1 (talk) 10:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not about 'objectionable content', it's about safety. There is no reason that specific topic should have that specific image displayed. There are other ways to add context to the idea of self harming without using an image that is very likely to cause real, tangible safety issues to someone that struggles with self harming. And given people with BPD are likely to encounter this page and people with BPD are likely to self harm, taking people people who are looking up their condition and showing them images that have the potential to make the symptoms of their condition worse is horrendously irresponsible. This image should be replaced with some other relevant image that doesn't so directly and unsafely show the effects of self harm. Lepidora (talk) 03:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Can we get another opinion from another editor? I also live with BPD and this could seriously trigger someone, especially if someone is recovering from self harm. Also what source is the photo from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DNocterum (talk • contribs) 12:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

The argument that someone with BPD would not be upset with the photo is meaningless. I don't have BPD and I find the image triggering and in poor taste. So much so that it made me question the quality of the rest of the article. It's just not necessary - most people understand what self-harm scars look like.24.86.65.58 (talk) 02:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

As someone who has BPD this image is largely upsetting. I don't want to remove it without permission but I know many people with and without BPD who would be very upset by this image. Having an image of self harm is not necessary for an article on the subject of BPD, I'm not sure why so many people are arguing to keep it. It's an unnecessary and upsetting addition. There is already a link in that section for people who somehow don't know what self harming is or want elaboration, an image isn't needed as well. Not to mention that is an actual person who's image is being spread of their self harm. You guys keep arguing about whether the person who started this topic was being truthful about it being them, but I don't think it matters honestly? There is no evidence that the individual gave permission for that photo to be used that I know of, and until that evidence shows up I think the image should be removed regardless. I will try to contact the uploader of the photo and see if I can get a more solid story about the photo, but my first point about it being an unnecessary addition still stands. Edit: Nevermind about contacting the uploader, I've just seen that the situation was sorted out at the beginning of the thread, my bad. I do still stand by my initial point though. Tarakonah (talk) 19:18, 3 April 2021 (UTC)Tarakonah

"Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers... should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available."

- Wikipedia:Offensive material The fact this thread exists shows many viewers find the image vulgar or obscene. The image does not change the accuracy or relevancy of the article. The image also adds no information on BPD to the page, and any reader curious about self harm would click the linked article on self-harm, where the image in question is displayed at the top of the page. Even if you decide to disregard the wellbeing of others here, it's clear the image should still be removed as per Wikipedia guidelines. Cian Murphy (talk) 15:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


 * This is a solid argument and actually does sway my opinion. If the photo is included on the self harm page, I don't see why we need it on the BPD page. The self harm page is linked and any reader can click through to see it there if needed. The other arguements (triggering, poor taste) don't hold any weight with wikipedia rules, but this makes a good point. --Apathyash (talk) 18:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Interpersonal relationships section - „Hoovering“
There is a mention on „hoovering“ in the interpersonal relationships section, which I suggests to delete. I attempted research on the mentioned subject and was not able to find any other psychological, psychiatric or medical reports or articles on it. However the other forms of articles that refer to hoovering, mainly pseudo-psychological or counseling articles, define it as a form of emotional abuse. I’m not sure how adding a description of possible emotional abusive behavior within an individual with this disorder will help to a better understanding of the disorder. Especially considering hoovering is not an established psychological term and refers to emotionally abusive behavior. The principle of good faith does not apply, in this case describing emotionally abusive behavior, when there is no link to the disorder except a mention in a counseling book, is simply malicious. Emotional abuse in general is not linked to this disorder, and hoovering should not be associated with the disorder at all, as not every individual will exhibit that type of behavior. Just like any other form of emotional abuse is not mentioned in the article, hoovering should not be removed as well, as there is barely any sources on it. Attributing emotionally abuse behavior to a disorder is stigmatizing and hence malicious. Also to be noted is that, besides the fact there are no psychiatric reports on this whatsoever, a google search reveals that this type of behavior is often linked to NPD by the general public that is concerned with this term, the general public of course is not the professional medical fied. However there is no mention of hoovering on the NPD page, which is reasonable. That raises the question on why it should be mentioned on the BPD then. There are no psychological reports on hoovering, the lack of sources which of course I cannot source. Outside the medical field, as it is not an established psychological phenomenon, it is strongly associated with NPD and not BPD. Regardless, describing individuals of an disorder as emotionally abusive, when there is no link presnt, is malicious without a doubt and contributes to stigmatizion. Khcnq (talk) 14:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)


 * It does appear that a search of the two phrases (hoovering and bpd) does not yield credible/citable results. Based on this, I agree that it seems we should remove the term from that section of the article. Possibly we could keep the signs of the behavior without the term? I'm not sure. What are everyone else's thoughts? Apathyash (talk) 17:17, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Unless there is a credible source that illustrates the link between the disorder and the behavior in question, I don’t see a point in keeping the description of the behavior. There seems to be no credible foundation for the attribution of the behavior to the disorder, whether the behavior bears the „hoovering“ label or not. Of course I could be wrong too, and am willing to be convinced otherwise. Khcnq (talk) 19:45, 14 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The sole article / search result on Wikipedia for "Hoovering" is a redirect to a vacuum cleaner. 2.31.164.69 (talk) 13:39, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

August 2020
With the flurry of new content and changes to existing text, I'm eyeing things and seeing at the very least some HIJACK issues. Other interested editors may want to help scrutinize the changes. That the content and or changes were made without edit summary only adds to the uncertainty of the author's intent. Dawnseeker2000 05:55, 24 August 2021 (UTC)


 * i agree. i am rolling back what i can Apathyash (talk) 06:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I just went through user u|100.34.102.182's changes and reverted them, all their additions seemed to involve well-intentioned but unsourced infobox changes to mental disorder pages, including this one.--Megaman en m (talk) 10:11, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I removed all the content that the various South Australian IP user(s) added during their spree. I find that making such dramatic changes to any article while IP hopping and not communicating with anyone (even after being asked) is questionable. Additional eyes, comments, and edits are obviously welcome! Dawnseeker2000  23:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Great change
Thanks for the change of the main Edvard Munch photo. I feel it fits much better. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EmilePersaud 21:36, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

October 2021
I've noticed quite a few changes in the last little while have been reverted, mostly by Apathyash, with little to no explanation provided for them. Perhaps we could discuss these further? Many of these changes seem to be intent on providing a further insight into the disorder, especially with regards to gender differences (in historical and current day diagnosis and treatment), as well as stigmatization. If another member contributing to the page wishes to add something that could be deemed of value, perhaps it would be worth rephrasing these thoughts or finding other ways to categorize them rather than simply deleting them if they are considered out of place or poorly worded? Or perhaps find a way to request input from other contributors. Firemaster1294 08:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello! I usually provide an explanation when I undo edits- for example, I undid your recent edit because it was new information that should be included in the main body of the page but not the lead of the article. Most of the time what I remove is unsourced or very biased. If there are specific edits you’d like to go over, feel free to bring them up here or on my talk page.  Apathyash (talk) 19:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, if you are referring to the many reverted edits from August, you can see the talk discussion above (titled August 2020- it was actually 2021). Those reverts were agreed upon by multiple editors. Apathyash (talk) 19:28, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion: Infobox image?
Hi everyone, I am a person living with BPD. As you all known, the current picture in the Infobox is Edvard Munch's The Brooch. Portraying idealization in the Infobox is not a bad idea (although I wouldn't consider it one of the main core features of BPD), however, can someone tell me why this painting is portraying idealization? She might as well be gladly looking at a bird, or having a good memory, or posing smiling away from the painter, or whatever. The idea that this painting (which is beautiful) is portraying idealization is absolutely subjective, based on the personal interpretation of another user. If we see articles on other mental disorders, the images are actual portrayals of patients, or even made by people who live with mental issues as well, like Major depressive disorder, Hallucination, Schizophrenia, or Dysthymia. I also think that idealization is not very representative of the disorder, a better picture may portray low self-steem, anxiety, suicidial ideation or low mood.

I'm aware that Munch might have lived with BPD himself, but what about this other paintings:

Please share your thoughts! Stay safe, --🩸 𝗕𝗹𝗲𝗳𝗳 🩸 (talk) 05:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

This was a fantastic post. Thank you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EmilePersaud 01:09, 9 January 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmilePersaud (talk • contribs)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Karlikolsut22.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

No evidence for effectiveness?
“Despite no evidence of their effectiveness, SSRI antidepressants and quetiapine remain widely prescribed for the condition.”

-Link goes to a meta analysis which has a study that has an RCT (black 2014) that DOES show effectiveness for quetiapine and no other contradictory evidence, suggesting weak evidence FOR effectiveness rather than “no evidence of effectiveness” 2600:6C51:767F:B959:ACA0:5AE2:E71:A2A2 (talk) 07:27, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Understanding the name
I apologize for being the one to ask a question with is almost certainly an obvious answer but I've always ben confused by the name. In most other contexts, "borderline" is used as adjective for some other condition. Borderline malnutrition, borderline diabetes, borderline osteoporosis, etc. A way of saying a patient is on the edge of the diagnostic criteria. Borderline personality disorder isn't that a patient is only 1 behavior away from being diagnosed with "Personality Disorder." It means personality disorder of the type "Borderline." Can anyone help me understand this better? I do apologize for cluttering up the talk page with such inanity. Nkuzmik (talk) 16:52, 4 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi


 * The talk page is usually reserved for discussion on improving the wikipedia article itself; however, to answer your question, I encourage you to take a look at the 'History' section of the page. BPD was named because they categorized the patients as being on the borderline "between neurosis and psychosis" or as "a certain class of neurotics who, when in crisis, appeared to straddle the borderline into psychosis". You should also read the 'Terminology' section under controversy, as there is ongoing debate over the naming of BPD as well.


 * Best, Apathyash (talk) 19:52, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Failed Verification (13 May 2022)
In the lead, there is a statement that Despite no evidence of their effectiveness, SSRI antidepressants and quetiapine remain widely prescribed for the condition. I read through the source for this statement and the statement fails verification with respect to quetiapine's efficacy: In line with this, I'm going to make changes to the way that this is discussed in the article. My reason for posting this here is to provide an extended explanation, since this would be too long to post in an edit summary. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 04:50, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * With respect to quetiapine, the source notes on page 37 that Using these data, we observed moderate to large, statistically significant effects for both doses of quetiapine (150 mg/day and 300 mg/day) regarding BPD severity, psychosocial impairment and aggression, and an additional effect for the higher dose regarding manic symptoms. In other words, yes, there is statistical evidence that quetiapine is effective for treating BPD. The current phrasing appears to be a misreading of a pair of sentences sentence used in discussing the differences between the low-dose regime and the high-dose regime. In other words, the source is saying that both doses have a statistically significant effect on the severity of BPD, but the higher dose offers more adverse effects without clear additional efficacy of treatment when compared to the lower dose.

Image of self-harm scars
May someone please remove the image of self-harm scars in "Signs and Symptoms" (Self-harm and Suicide)? As someone who deals with self-harm and self destructive thoughts and behavior this image can be very triggering, specially considering is very graphic and can lead to people to compare their own self-harm scars or injuries to the one in the picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.176.16.94 (talk) 17:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello. This is actually a topic that has been discussed at length on the article's talk page: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Borderline_personality_disorder/Archive_7#Self_harm_image and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Borderline_personality_disorder/Archive_8#RfC_regarding_the_picture_used_in_the_self-harm_section and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Borderline_personality_disorder/Archive_9#Remove_photo?


 * We have never reached a full consensus, so the image stays until a strong majority agrees to remove it.
 * Apathyash (talk) 18:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Medications
Added 2 sentences to the beginning of the paragraph about mood stabilizers to provide a definition to readers. "Mood stabilizers are anticonvulsant drugs used for both epilepsy and reduction in mood variations in patients with excessive and often dangerous mood variabilities. Often, the goal of the anticonvulsants are to bring certain areas of the brain to equilibrium and control outbursts and seizures." was added.

I added 3 peer-reviewed articles surrounding pharmacological treatment studies for BPD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckuhn22 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)


 * You don't need to – and shouldn't – leave a message on this Talk page every time you edit the article. The Talk page is generally to discuss (or invite discussion if needed) improvements to the article with other editors. What you should do, but did not, is use the edit summary to explain your edit at the time you make it.  General Ization  Talk  22:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I now see that you did use the edit summary. Generally that should be sufficient.  General Ization Talk  22:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I have a suggestion for future editing: Adding a definition for readers to understand what antipsychotics are may be really helpful before the study findings, that way people get at least a basic understanding of what antipsychotics are and what they target for treatment. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckuhn22 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program assignment
This article was the subject of an educational assignment at Lewis University supported by WikiProject Psychology and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program&#32;during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

Above message substituted from on 14:33, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Personality Theory
— Assignment last updated by Mkerr30 (talk) 02:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Media and Mis-Disinformation
— Assignment last updated by COM4850prof (talk) 22:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Tone
This article reads as though it is written to support and/or defend people with BPD, rather than as a clinical and objective report. 141.191.36.11 (talk) 23:25, 10 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree, for example it is stated in this wikipedia article that borderliners in general are not involved physical violence against others. Nevertheless physical violence is related to the aggressive outbursts of people with BPD. In Soloff PH, Meltzer CC, Becker C, et al.: Impulsivity and prefrontal hypometabolism in borderline personality disorder. Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging Section it is stated that 58% of the people suffering from borderline commit serious violence and 25% have used weapons against others. Willibord (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Emotional empathy and Borderline
The first of few RCT studies to show in 47 women with Borderline in 2018 that stress leads to reduced emotional empathy, see here: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/acps.12856. It states "The current finding provides first evidence that stress differentially affects emotional empathy in patients with BPD and healthy individuals such that patients with BPD showed reduced emotional empathy compared to healthy women after stress." Another in 2023 also indicated that 98 women had lower emotional empathy due to social exclusion, see here: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00406-022-01535-0 Although, still in its early infancy in the research literature, evidence is beginning to suggest that egocentrism and variations of empathy when in their dramatic, emotionally reactive states is the core symptom of the condition, and deserves a mention somewhere in the article. ATC. Talk 23:27, 3 August 2023 (UTC)