Talk:Immature personality disorder

One of the papers this page heavily relies upon (Almeida, Ribeiro & Moreira 2019) is from a journal which is clearly predatory; nor is it published by Elsevier, as the list of references falsely claims. I propose removing any references to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.34.7.73 (talk) 16:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Have now fixed the factual inaccuracies in the citation, plus added a "better source needed" warning. I still advocate dropping this reference altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.34.7.73 (talk) 16:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Ugh I don't think anyone really uses this diagnosis and I'm not convinced that it ever really existed.


 * https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22Immature+personality+disorder%22&btnG= it shows up in all of 69 papers, a bunch of these re case studies that incidentally mention it, and few have many citations, it also often shows up in lists of the form "X, Y, or Z disorder"
 * It doesn't really show up in any recent books on personality disorders: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22immature+personality+disorder%22&tbm=bks&ei=EhHqX42mCZa6gAbX5JT4BQ&start=0&sa=N&ved=0ahUKEwiN9-yXlfHtAhUWHcAKHVcyBV84HhDy0wMIeQ&biw=1584&bih=804&dpr=1.82

I don't believe that it is growing in the 21st century (I can't see the content of the article) and the study that talks about its prevalence is self-harm neither cites a source for the result, nor provides a definition used in their own research of a method used to find the result.

What's more annoying is that I can't find anything saying "we don't use this any more".

Talpedia (talk) 17:18, 28 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your fixing up the cites and definitely adding the bit about the "Others" making up only 2% total, however I'm going to reverse your removals like this since they are cited facts printed in acceptable sources. The fact a Wikipedian (you OR me) is "not convinced it ever existed" ultimately can't outweigh the fact it DOES show up in 69 published papers on Scholar, or the fact you or I don't think it is "growing in the 21st century" isn't relevant next to the published source that states it is (at least, until we can track down a source disputing that). What might be best is if we both looked extensively for published CRITICISM of the term, and then we could include a "Criticism" heading as soon as we find somebody saying it's not really used, or never existed, etc. It's not just the internet that says it exists, the ICD-10 says it exists (but of course gives zero helpful information). HaltlosePersonalityDisorder (talk) 20:54, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I was hoping "really really obviously not true, come on we can bend the rules just a little for this one " was going to be enough (c.f. Ignore_all_rules), but I guess that still needs consensus. There literally don't seem to be any papers that *define it*, let alone, discuss it or criticise it in the English Language. If it wasn't in the ICD-10 I don't think it would be notable, and in the ICD-10 it's just like someone has eyeballed all the literature and copy and pasted every term they've seen (or it shows up in another language under a different name).
 * yup, that was the first thing I did. I couldn't even find a paper defining the term let alone criticising
 * yup, that's was the main argument for it not being deleted, but some of the use in religious and legal processes are quite interesting.
 * I'm not sure it's a very good source though, it would be good if we could have a paper on the topic.
 * that's really not that many tho, I couldn't really find one that directly dealt with the term - by comparison there are half a million results for borderline personality disorder and 125000 for narcissistic personality disorder.
 * I don't think the claim about suicide is supported by the source really (because the paper doesn't deal with the result or cite its sources) nor is this a particularly good source (a good source would be a systematic review of personality disorders and suicidal papers - but that won't mention this diagnosis)
 * The boring procedural approach to all of this is WP:MEDRS (a newspaper article is not a medical reliable source), and WP:Due (does not reflect consensus of literature) and maybe WP:GNG - perhaps it's not notable even though it appears in the ICD-10 since it's not discussed in the literture. I personally think an overly dogmatic application of WP:MEDRS is bad for wikipedia... but imagine it's hard to draw the lines. Talpedia (talk) 22:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I agree with you that if it weren't in the ICD-10 I wouldn't look twice at it myself (though I wouldn't necessarily advocate anything about it; would just ignore it) - it's the ICD-10 that makes it "real". I think the ICD-10 has the same professional vetting standards as the DSM, so complaining about what it looks like won't get us far. I'll keep looking for criticism of it, because as I said, I don't disagree with you that there must be some professionals who have had doubts about it. I dispute your adding the "better source needed" even to sources such as a 2016 published medical journal - it seems to border on perhaps a mistake on your part. Similarly, the website about which you complain notes "MedicineWorld.Org is a peer reviewed website dedicated to medical information. This site is maintained under close supervision of a physician, who is American board certified." so unless there's evidence otherwise, it would appear to also be a perfectly valid source for the assertion it references. So I've gone and changed those. I agree 69 is very few papers, but it's too many to dismiss this as not relevant. Newspapers are actually suggested as medical resources on More medical citations needed - and again, I was actually the person to raise that exact fact Wikipedia as a poor decision...but as it stands until I get official people to agree with me, that's how it stands. (But if you agree with my comments there, definitely go support the fact that newspapers should either not be listed or should be listed with a warning of some kind, etc; right now there's just an anon). Again, I don't think you and I necessarily view Immature Personality Disorder very differently ourselves...we're just disagreeing on "what should Wikipedia do about that". One benefit of including every piece of information that can be verified (and pay attention that WP:MEDRS is per clinical claims, so things like newspapers can still be used just to say something in gaining prominence, or is a favorite of Hollywood celebrities, etc - the concern of MEDRS is that we not list things like dosages or treatments that sound like they're actual medical knowledge...but sourced only to a newspaper). Ultimately I fall back on the example of the article on female hysteria; we pretty much agree it's not a real diagnosis...but we still collect all the information we can find on it and just try extra-hard to find "criticism" or sources saying it's been debunked, or a judge somewhere said it sounded like nonsense, or some doctor said it's a diagnosis of convenience, etc. HaltlosePersonalityDisorder (talk) 01:38, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * my issue with that source is with the content itself - that for the specific claim it neither demonstrates the result, not does it cite a source for the claim. It is a primary source, but I personally don't have issues with primary sources should no review exist.
 * Hmm, I guess, it depends if it is gaining prominence generally or within the medical community. The latter feels like it should have an academic source.
 * I agree that criticism or *any* scientific material that deals with the diagnosis would be very useful. Talpedia (talk) 01:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)