Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Borderline personality disorder/archive1

Borderline personality disorder
Somewhat a self-nomination. I have made two minor edits to include citations. ThisA article is compelling written and highly informative. This is difficult given the nature of BPD and the diverse opinions on the subject in the psychiatric field. The NPOV is excellent given the fact that people suffering from BPD (Like me) are likely to contribute. From what I have seen in the history there has never been an edit war. All in all I think this is a perfect article to feature on Wikipedia. I will be more than happy to address anyone's objections and make corrections as needed. Billyjoekoepsel 20:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Object. Lack of inline citations mainly. Plus, theres only one reference. The lead is slightly too long- see WP:LEAD. Future Progress and Effects on family members, significant others, and friends seem rather weak (especially without inline citations). AndyZ 20:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I have addressed some of the problems you have with the page. Part of the lead has been made its own category and more reference material the article is created from has been added. I am looking into the inline citations. Thank you for the help. Billyjoekoepsel 22:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I just added footnotes to citations. I don't know if this style is Wiki Standard. Billyjoekoepsel 00:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I found to proper method for Wikipedia footnotes. I hope this has addressed most of your objections. If not that's cool. I think the article is greatly improved and that is what counts.Billyjoekoepsel 01:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Object. Lead is now too short (sorry!) and fails to summarize the article.  Also, many unreferenced claims; "...characterised by extreme "black and white" thinking" is either confusing or wrong, for instance.  Lists should be changed to prose.  "External links" is suspiciously long -- how many of these contain unique encyclopedic content?  Jkelly 05:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * After how i have had it explained to me(by professional trained people), it fits very good to this description of "black and white thinking". And this is how it is to a certain extent. And BPD is a very controversial disease, and have been under serious discussion by professionals. It's almost never diagnosed to people under 18, since it's hard to distinguish from the regular teen hormones and other diseases, such as regular depression or other personaility disorders. Therefor alot of input and external links is required in my opinion. Mriswith 21:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I think "all or nothing" thinking is more accurate than "black or white". Example: a suggestion given to a BPD might be heard as "nothing about me is right" or "she totally rejects me", etc. It is an inability to see/hear gradations; an inability to separate the negative behavior under discussion from their total self-concept.
 * I disagree. People with BPD are often described as thinking in either "black or white" about a particular situation.  They also idolize and later devalue people.  Point being that they don't see a gray area, something or someone is either all good or all bad in any given instance (and it often switches back and forth.)


 * Object. References and an unexplained Bibliography in separate sections, obvious self-promotion (hint: if a book identifies the writer's degree, it's usually self-promotion)... That whole area needs work.  --zenohockey 01:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)