This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am posting this RfC in regards to the image that is used in the self harm section of this article, I don't think it's inclusion is necessary because it adds nothing to the article and everyone knows what cutting is and we don't need the visual. Also the image can be triggering to people who have self-harmed before. However, due to the non-censorship policy, I thought I should get some consensus first before removing it. Thank you for your attention and input on this matter. ThatGirlTayler ( talk) 01:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Did you read the discussion above? Jytdog ( talk) 01:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
"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."Apologies if the quote is a bit long. — Gestrid ( talk) 07:31, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Would people be more comfortable with this one instead? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16740834 found that pinching or scratching was the most common form in that sample. Why don't we use a picture of someone pinching or scratching? I understand that cutting is "iconic" and "dramatic", but I think that we'd be better off educating our readers about what's common instead of what gets people to click on headlines. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 23:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm thinking I should leave this discussion open for another week before moving for closure, what do you guys think? Would that be long enough? SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 00:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 02:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
On the "policy-based reasons":
Quack, your argument about "No policy-based reasons have been given" is nonsense. You are wrong. First, a policy-based reason for excluding it was actually given (namely, that it may have given undue emphasis on a minor point). The fact that you personally disagreed with other editors' policy-based reasoning does not mean that policy-based reasoning was not given. Secondly, no policy-based reason for including the image has been given.
We've now established that including cutting in the article is due, but nobody has mentioned a single policy-based reason for why that inclusion must take the form of an image (i.e., instead of just being text).
And, frankly, you're going to have a hard time coming up with any such policy, because there simply are no policies on Wikipedia that say "if you talk about skin lacerations, then you always must include images of it, even though any little kid who's ever skinned his knee knows what that looks like". NOTCENSORED says that we don't remove images for the sole purpose of preventing offense, but that policy does not actually mandate the inclusion of any images at all in this, or any other, article.
There is exactly one policy-based reason for including any image in any article on the English Wikipedia. That reason is "to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter". No policy authorizes any other reason for including images in any article.
This means that the only policy-based reason for including this image in this article amounts to "I think most readers are too stupid to know what a cut looks like, so we need to 'increase readers' understanding of [this aspect of] the article's subject' by showing them a picture of skin lacerations". I don't happen to subscribe to that stance myself, and I didn't see anyone above saying this. So even if you buy Quack's argument that there are no policy-based reasons for removing the image (and I don't), it is at least equally true that no policy-based reasons for including the image have been given. (Again, waving at NOTCENSORED is not "a reason for including an image".)
The fact that nobody's put forward a policy-based reason for inclusion doesn't mean that the image must be removed. That just means that this decision has to be made on some basis other than the "policy-based reasons" basis that Quack has been over-emphasizing here. Not every decision can be (or should be) supported by a policy-based reason, and that's okay. We have other valid bases for making decisions, which in this instance include both guidelines (it's probably WP:PERTINENT) and our best editorial judgment (it's probably unnecessary; it may be distressing to a few readers). WhatamIdoing ( talk) 16:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Statement_should_be_neutral_and_brief an RfC needs to be neutrally worded. A bunch of sentences in the wording of this RfC definedly are not. Additionally the RfC makes medical claims without proper sources. We may need to restart this RfC but I guess we can do it with the next image. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 05:57, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
@ Doc James: Not sure which of WP:MEDRS stipulations the review and metaanalysis fails. Can you be specific? You didn't give any detail in edit comment, I presume for reasons of space. Cheers. -- BowlAndSpoon ( talk) 15:42, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
"About 1.6% of people have BPD in a given year". Where? In the USA? In the world? 81.155.219.227 ( talk) 19:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Borderline personality disorder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://med.unsw.edu.au/publication/axis-oneaxis-two-disordered-borderlineWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
There is no footnote covering the list of Signs and Symptoms under that subhead. Where is the list from? DSM? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.127.26.247 ( talk) 00:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
The article features this painting in a prominent place, but gives no source where the idea comes from that the painting features idealization. Searching the keywords on the internet leads only back to this page, or others that seem to derive from it and only feature the sentence "Idealization in Edvard Munch’s The Brooch", without explaining it further either.
I think most of them are UNDUE, especially the "neurotic psychopathy". I haven't seen sources using the term other than Mario Maj. 185.43.229.130 ( talk) 10:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
This article has a problem with the presentation of the data, evidenced by the following two statements:
1. 10% of people with BPD commit suicide
2. 1.6% of people suffer BPD in any given year.
This suggests to the casual reader (although it doesn't actually say) that somewhere around 0.16% of the population are expected to commit suicide at some point, i.e., that the (presumably) life-time risk of suicide due to BPD is 0.16% = 160 per 100,000. Given that the total age-corrected suicide rate for Australia is around 11 per 100,000. I am not qualified to try to convert the 160/100,000 presume life-time risk to annualised to match those statistics, however, it intuitively strikes me as being very high. My gut feeling is that the 1.6% figure has been taken out of context, and is rather 1.6% of some sub-population, or more specifically, that the 1.6% figure is of people who suffer BPD at any point during the year, however short.
Without some indication of the incidence at any point in time, this apparent paradox appears ready to trip readers up (and I have a PhD, so if I got caught by it, others will, too), and to me at least, undermines the authority of the article, unless fully and correctly understood. I tried to hunt through reference 4 to find the missing data, but I can't find a PDF of it anywhere, to match the page numbers from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.210.126.35 ( talk) 07:34, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree- this tripped me to and clearly is wrong - especially when you take into account that for females (whom suffer much more from BPD) the suicide rate is much lower.
Since the original authors of the 1.6% figure have removed it from their article, I will remove the claim from wikipedia - hopefully someone will be able to update in the future with the correct figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.237.146 ( talk) 02:02, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
The discussion of literature needs secondary sources not linking to the actual books themselves (which is simple original research). Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 13:17, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
I would ask the editor wishing to add this in a "literature" section of the BPD article: what is it about this book, that makes it such a salient contribution to the discussion on BPD? . spintendo⋅⋅) 21:59, 13 May 2018 (UTC)Hazelden, which has "treated 70,000 "residents" (never "patients"), behaves as much like a well-endowed college as a detox center. Its bucolic grounds, 50 miles outside the Twin Cities, are called "the campus," while discounts on Hazelden's $12,300 month-long "tuition" are called "scholarships." The nonprofit Hazelden empire, which includes a publishing company and a mail-order business selling 12-step gewgaws, has an annual budget of $53 million. [1]
References
Hi. I edited the article on Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) to capitalise it correctly. This is a name of a psychiatric disorder and should be capitalised in the same way that Asperger's or Alzheimer's should be. I believe I have made this correction twice now and twice it's been revoked without this even being discussed with me first. What can I do to make sure this is corrected permanently. You can see the article below, which uses the capitalisation correctly.
Stevenhayward ( talk) 20:21, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Should "Cluster" be capitalized? We do not capitalize most diseases or conditions unless named after a person? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 00:49, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Personality disorders are a "long-term pattern of abnormal behavior". Not sure why this was removed?
Which ref supports "but in rare cases, signs might not appear until much later after a life-altering stressful event occurs"
Which ref supports " Many affected experience such mild symptoms that they can still have productive lives"
"unstable relationships with other people, unstable sense of self " was changed to "conflicting relationships with other people, poor sense of self"
Ref however says "intense and unstable relationships" and "Distorted and unstable self-image or sense of self" so not sure why the change? The terms do not exactly mean the same.
Which ref supports "BPD is similar to other cluster B personality disorders—particularly, antisocial, narcissistic, and histrionic—in that it is correlated with varying degrees of dramatic and narcissistic behavior."
"Symptoms may be brought on by seemingly normal events." which is supported by the ref does not mean the same as "The disorder may be brought on by seemingly normal events"
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 15:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Long term rather than life long.
Not sure which text of the ref supports "and sensitivity to rejection or criticism"?
Here is the ref https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/borderline-personality-disorder/index.shtml Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 12:00, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
The term Borderline Personality Disorder resembles the phrase living on the edge for a bpd sufferer in my case and might be unhealthy for people with BPD 666nirvanarules666 ( talk) 22:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
No. See Euphemism Treadmill for starters. Zezen ( talk) 15:27, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
It’s not offensive to me and the thousands of others I’ve talked to. In fact it’s an accurate name. It feels like living on the borderline of psychosis and neurosis. Aliswho ( talk) 19:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Estimates are generally around 1.6% per https://web.archive.org/web/20160322130612/http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/borderline-personality-disorder/index.shtml
Though the DSM 5 says 1.6% but may be as high as 5.9%. Do not think we need the primary sources in the lead. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 23:51, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
The lowest estimate is 0.5%, highest is 1.6% and this includes trying to estimate undiagnosed patients. It is not as high as 6% or other nonsense. Aliswho ( talk) 19:50, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Can someone explain what in the world the "self-complexity" section is trying to say? It is unintelligible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.14.6.193 ( talk) 03:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Per this ref from 2001 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=11288605
The apathy and other emotions are supposedly in the therapeutics / clinician rather than the pt per
"Cluster B patients stir up a host of feelings; hatred, rage, despair, impotence, apathy, helplessness, feelings of sexuality, the illusion of omnipotence, omniscience, and love. As clinicians, we often try to cope with this affect by disparaging our patient, questioning our own competence, or feeling guilty over what we may have said or done."
Have moved to the body of the text to the diagnosis section. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 23:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
The user Morslyte that changes the picture from Jacobson's and gives the reason of no opposition in the talk, a talk that doesn't exist so is a false reason, should be changed back I'm not going to get into an edit war with this user on this, but I follow this page frequently and there's no reason for it to be changed ,the previous and rightful image is more correct, it gives the page more identity and is more fitting for BPD, thank you /info/en/?search=User:EmilePersaud 10:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmilePersaud ( talk • contribs)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am posting this RfC in regards to the image that is used in the self harm section of this article, I don't think it's inclusion is necessary because it adds nothing to the article and everyone knows what cutting is and we don't need the visual. Also the image can be triggering to people who have self-harmed before. However, due to the non-censorship policy, I thought I should get some consensus first before removing it. Thank you for your attention and input on this matter. ThatGirlTayler ( talk) 01:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Did you read the discussion above? Jytdog ( talk) 01:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
"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."Apologies if the quote is a bit long. — Gestrid ( talk) 07:31, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Would people be more comfortable with this one instead? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16740834 found that pinching or scratching was the most common form in that sample. Why don't we use a picture of someone pinching or scratching? I understand that cutting is "iconic" and "dramatic", but I think that we'd be better off educating our readers about what's common instead of what gets people to click on headlines. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 23:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm thinking I should leave this discussion open for another week before moving for closure, what do you guys think? Would that be long enough? SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 00:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 02:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
On the "policy-based reasons":
Quack, your argument about "No policy-based reasons have been given" is nonsense. You are wrong. First, a policy-based reason for excluding it was actually given (namely, that it may have given undue emphasis on a minor point). The fact that you personally disagreed with other editors' policy-based reasoning does not mean that policy-based reasoning was not given. Secondly, no policy-based reason for including the image has been given.
We've now established that including cutting in the article is due, but nobody has mentioned a single policy-based reason for why that inclusion must take the form of an image (i.e., instead of just being text).
And, frankly, you're going to have a hard time coming up with any such policy, because there simply are no policies on Wikipedia that say "if you talk about skin lacerations, then you always must include images of it, even though any little kid who's ever skinned his knee knows what that looks like". NOTCENSORED says that we don't remove images for the sole purpose of preventing offense, but that policy does not actually mandate the inclusion of any images at all in this, or any other, article.
There is exactly one policy-based reason for including any image in any article on the English Wikipedia. That reason is "to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter". No policy authorizes any other reason for including images in any article.
This means that the only policy-based reason for including this image in this article amounts to "I think most readers are too stupid to know what a cut looks like, so we need to 'increase readers' understanding of [this aspect of] the article's subject' by showing them a picture of skin lacerations". I don't happen to subscribe to that stance myself, and I didn't see anyone above saying this. So even if you buy Quack's argument that there are no policy-based reasons for removing the image (and I don't), it is at least equally true that no policy-based reasons for including the image have been given. (Again, waving at NOTCENSORED is not "a reason for including an image".)
The fact that nobody's put forward a policy-based reason for inclusion doesn't mean that the image must be removed. That just means that this decision has to be made on some basis other than the "policy-based reasons" basis that Quack has been over-emphasizing here. Not every decision can be (or should be) supported by a policy-based reason, and that's okay. We have other valid bases for making decisions, which in this instance include both guidelines (it's probably WP:PERTINENT) and our best editorial judgment (it's probably unnecessary; it may be distressing to a few readers). WhatamIdoing ( talk) 16:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Statement_should_be_neutral_and_brief an RfC needs to be neutrally worded. A bunch of sentences in the wording of this RfC definedly are not. Additionally the RfC makes medical claims without proper sources. We may need to restart this RfC but I guess we can do it with the next image. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 05:57, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
@ Doc James: Not sure which of WP:MEDRS stipulations the review and metaanalysis fails. Can you be specific? You didn't give any detail in edit comment, I presume for reasons of space. Cheers. -- BowlAndSpoon ( talk) 15:42, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
"About 1.6% of people have BPD in a given year". Where? In the USA? In the world? 81.155.219.227 ( talk) 19:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Borderline personality disorder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://med.unsw.edu.au/publication/axis-oneaxis-two-disordered-borderlineWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
There is no footnote covering the list of Signs and Symptoms under that subhead. Where is the list from? DSM? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.127.26.247 ( talk) 00:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
The article features this painting in a prominent place, but gives no source where the idea comes from that the painting features idealization. Searching the keywords on the internet leads only back to this page, or others that seem to derive from it and only feature the sentence "Idealization in Edvard Munch’s The Brooch", without explaining it further either.
I think most of them are UNDUE, especially the "neurotic psychopathy". I haven't seen sources using the term other than Mario Maj. 185.43.229.130 ( talk) 10:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
This article has a problem with the presentation of the data, evidenced by the following two statements:
1. 10% of people with BPD commit suicide
2. 1.6% of people suffer BPD in any given year.
This suggests to the casual reader (although it doesn't actually say) that somewhere around 0.16% of the population are expected to commit suicide at some point, i.e., that the (presumably) life-time risk of suicide due to BPD is 0.16% = 160 per 100,000. Given that the total age-corrected suicide rate for Australia is around 11 per 100,000. I am not qualified to try to convert the 160/100,000 presume life-time risk to annualised to match those statistics, however, it intuitively strikes me as being very high. My gut feeling is that the 1.6% figure has been taken out of context, and is rather 1.6% of some sub-population, or more specifically, that the 1.6% figure is of people who suffer BPD at any point during the year, however short.
Without some indication of the incidence at any point in time, this apparent paradox appears ready to trip readers up (and I have a PhD, so if I got caught by it, others will, too), and to me at least, undermines the authority of the article, unless fully and correctly understood. I tried to hunt through reference 4 to find the missing data, but I can't find a PDF of it anywhere, to match the page numbers from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.210.126.35 ( talk) 07:34, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree- this tripped me to and clearly is wrong - especially when you take into account that for females (whom suffer much more from BPD) the suicide rate is much lower.
Since the original authors of the 1.6% figure have removed it from their article, I will remove the claim from wikipedia - hopefully someone will be able to update in the future with the correct figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.237.146 ( talk) 02:02, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
The discussion of literature needs secondary sources not linking to the actual books themselves (which is simple original research). Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 13:17, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
I would ask the editor wishing to add this in a "literature" section of the BPD article: what is it about this book, that makes it such a salient contribution to the discussion on BPD? . spintendo⋅⋅) 21:59, 13 May 2018 (UTC)Hazelden, which has "treated 70,000 "residents" (never "patients"), behaves as much like a well-endowed college as a detox center. Its bucolic grounds, 50 miles outside the Twin Cities, are called "the campus," while discounts on Hazelden's $12,300 month-long "tuition" are called "scholarships." The nonprofit Hazelden empire, which includes a publishing company and a mail-order business selling 12-step gewgaws, has an annual budget of $53 million. [1]
References
Hi. I edited the article on Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) to capitalise it correctly. This is a name of a psychiatric disorder and should be capitalised in the same way that Asperger's or Alzheimer's should be. I believe I have made this correction twice now and twice it's been revoked without this even being discussed with me first. What can I do to make sure this is corrected permanently. You can see the article below, which uses the capitalisation correctly.
Stevenhayward ( talk) 20:21, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Should "Cluster" be capitalized? We do not capitalize most diseases or conditions unless named after a person? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 00:49, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Personality disorders are a "long-term pattern of abnormal behavior". Not sure why this was removed?
Which ref supports "but in rare cases, signs might not appear until much later after a life-altering stressful event occurs"
Which ref supports " Many affected experience such mild symptoms that they can still have productive lives"
"unstable relationships with other people, unstable sense of self " was changed to "conflicting relationships with other people, poor sense of self"
Ref however says "intense and unstable relationships" and "Distorted and unstable self-image or sense of self" so not sure why the change? The terms do not exactly mean the same.
Which ref supports "BPD is similar to other cluster B personality disorders—particularly, antisocial, narcissistic, and histrionic—in that it is correlated with varying degrees of dramatic and narcissistic behavior."
"Symptoms may be brought on by seemingly normal events." which is supported by the ref does not mean the same as "The disorder may be brought on by seemingly normal events"
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 15:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Long term rather than life long.
Not sure which text of the ref supports "and sensitivity to rejection or criticism"?
Here is the ref https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/borderline-personality-disorder/index.shtml Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 12:00, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
The term Borderline Personality Disorder resembles the phrase living on the edge for a bpd sufferer in my case and might be unhealthy for people with BPD 666nirvanarules666 ( talk) 22:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
No. See Euphemism Treadmill for starters. Zezen ( talk) 15:27, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
It’s not offensive to me and the thousands of others I’ve talked to. In fact it’s an accurate name. It feels like living on the borderline of psychosis and neurosis. Aliswho ( talk) 19:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Estimates are generally around 1.6% per https://web.archive.org/web/20160322130612/http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/borderline-personality-disorder/index.shtml
Though the DSM 5 says 1.6% but may be as high as 5.9%. Do not think we need the primary sources in the lead. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 23:51, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
The lowest estimate is 0.5%, highest is 1.6% and this includes trying to estimate undiagnosed patients. It is not as high as 6% or other nonsense. Aliswho ( talk) 19:50, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Can someone explain what in the world the "self-complexity" section is trying to say? It is unintelligible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.14.6.193 ( talk) 03:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Per this ref from 2001 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=11288605
The apathy and other emotions are supposedly in the therapeutics / clinician rather than the pt per
"Cluster B patients stir up a host of feelings; hatred, rage, despair, impotence, apathy, helplessness, feelings of sexuality, the illusion of omnipotence, omniscience, and love. As clinicians, we often try to cope with this affect by disparaging our patient, questioning our own competence, or feeling guilty over what we may have said or done."
Have moved to the body of the text to the diagnosis section. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 23:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
The user Morslyte that changes the picture from Jacobson's and gives the reason of no opposition in the talk, a talk that doesn't exist so is a false reason, should be changed back I'm not going to get into an edit war with this user on this, but I follow this page frequently and there's no reason for it to be changed ,the previous and rightful image is more correct, it gives the page more identity and is more fitting for BPD, thank you /info/en/?search=User:EmilePersaud 10:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmilePersaud ( talk • contribs)