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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
REVISION OF 13/12/05 at 8:40
The text I just submitted was approved for publication at the time by Nupedia's Psychology Editor (a professor of abnormal psychology) and was peer reviewed. It now constitutes the introductory chapter to my book on the disorder ("Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited") and I grant Wikipedia copyright permission to reproduce it and treat it as its own content in any and all ways.
I am very interested in any feedback, ideas, comments, or corrections. I hope to learn more through the collaborative effort here. Samvak 16:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
You still have not explained what is actually wrong with the article. If you cannot tell us that, and feel the need to resort to personal attacks you should not be editing this talkpage. JFW | T@lk 05:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
[Really?
How sweet, the "shrinking and blushing narcissist", dragged reluctantly to the altar of personal publicity.
However, it is hardly relevant to the challenge made by the poster of overloading the article with self promotion through the medium of links to sites either directly or effectively controlled by yourself.
Would you care to name the professor of abnormal psychology who reviewed your article so that we may form our own opinions of his credentials?
After which perhaps you would do us the great courtesy of identifying the "editorial board" you refer to, for a similar purpose? edited - 12 December 2005 ] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.195.137.125 ( talk • contribs)
[JFW there is always a point where so many questions are raised that you must also "consider the source", in assessing a body of work.
Though my area of expertise is, indeed, more concerned with the dysfunction surrounding Sam Vaknin, than with NPD itself I have now researched and made several, relatively minor, adjustments to the text of the article, including restoring the DSM Criteria to their original, unembellished form, which, to me, is the only form in which they should be presented as DSM criteria at all. While the changes are subtle, minor, and, as yet, incomplete, as my time is limited and I do not intend to change anything without thoroughly verifying the change first, I think you will find that a shift in emphasis is already apparent.
This, in itself, will begin to "show not tell" what is wrong with the article - 12 December 2005]
JFW, most of the text of the article is copied, verbatim, with permission, from Sam Vaknin's page and book. You can check it out here - compare the article to this:
http://www.narcissistic-abuse.com/npdglance.html
In view of this fact, think it is only fair to leave one single link to his Web site in the External Links.
In the External Links you left a link to Joanna Ashmun's (great) Web site. Fine. But Vaknin is at least as entitled to this as Joanna Ashmun. Both of them are not mental health professionals - but Vaknin contributed the text of the article and is recognized as an authority on narcissism (see the discussion area of this article under External Links below).
So, I suggest we maintain in the External Links section one link to each resource: Vaknin, Ashmun, MentalHealth, and Femfree.
You also removed links to Web sites that have nothing to do with Vaknin and are great resources. I restored one of them (Femfree's). Hope this is OK with you. If not, let's talk on this page. OTE 22:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
[Femfree's Site is, in fact part of a peculiar, unhealthy, and often highly abusive Vaknin orientated cult, where any challenge or alternative view is ruthlessly excluded, and everything distorted in favor of the opinions of Sam Vaknin (Who is, after all, only a financial consultant and layman at best.)
I really DO think it should be considered to be at least one of Sam Vaknin's Sites, if not something rather worse, and replaced by this forum, which is run by Richard Grossman, who is a PHD psychologist who has actually taught at Harvard Med School, IMHO in terms of validity there is really no comparison: http://www.voicelessness.com/disc3/ edited 12th December 2005 ]
["Femfree's fantastic forum"? What an excellent choice of words, if we take *fantastic* to be meant in it's most literal and negative form.
Otherwise, to coin a phrase "Well he WOULD say that, wouldn't he?"
Fact remains that real, vulnerable victims are frequently recruited and then revictimised by Femfree in Sam Vaknin's name, on her boards, and he is fully aware of this.
As for the rest, though NPD may well not be the primary focus of Richard Grossman's board, I rather suspect he deals with it more accurately and impartially than any of the Sam Vaknin related forums - edited 12th December 2005 ] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.195.137.125 ( talk • contribs)
Good start at the Narcisistic Personality Disorder page. But it needs major wikification. Is this according to DSM-IV? In general, we should get rid of the pasive voice and replace it with more informative content. Is this disorder recognized by all psychiatrists? Clinical psychologists? Only some psychologists? Slrubenstein
Sam:
Thanks, Slrubenstein. Yes, as the article states, the criteria reflect the latest Text Revision of the DSM (DSM IV-TR, 2000). NPD is a personality disorder and an official diagnosis of the DSM. I am the author of a textbook on this disorder ("Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited"). Take care!
The concept of narcissistic defense is used but not defined/explained. I linked it to Defence mechanism but it should also be made explicit in the article itself what it is that narcissism serves to defend against. -- 84.188.151.51 02:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
I added the following:
In June 2005, Brian Blackwell was convicted of the manslaughter of his parents, Sydney and Jacqueline. A team of psychiatrists who were called in to analyse him all agreed that Blackwell he had a narcissistic personality disorder.
It was subsequently though that one individual patient should receive encyclopedia coverage.
Personally I find it enlightening to hear about an individual that has the disorder in the quesitonm and the fact that he is one indivudual patient is down the rarity of the disorder. I didn't feel as through the disorder was commonplace and i'd picked one person out of tens of thousands, more than this fairly unique case had come up and I had highlighted it.
The entire articles is copied, with permission, from Sam Vaknin's book/page:
http://www.narcissistic-abuse.com/npdglance.html
The link to the source of the article must remain. The other links we can discuss.
The links should stay out if all of them point at the same site/group/POV. JFW | T@lk 20:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I checked the links one by one and what he says about Vaknin is not true. This group, for example: http://groups.msn.com/NARCISSISTICPERSONALITYDISORDER has nothing to do with Vaknin (they just quote him, as do most other narcissism web sites that I saw). It is run by a woman calling herself FEMFREE. This group http://www.suite101.com/welcome.cfm/npd was edited by Vaknin a while back - but now has nothing to do with Vaknin. And so on.
I don't really care about Vaknin whoever he is. So on a diff. note, why doesn't the article link to more academic NPD resources, similar to ones here: http://www.halcyon.com/jmashmun/npd/beyond.html ? With the exception of mentalhealth.com (and possibly halcyon.com/jmashmun/npd), it doesn't look like the links (or the ones the other guy was spamming) have a professional/academic background.
http://www.halcyon.com/jmashmun/npd/index.html
This material is offered for comfort and solace to people who've had bad (or merely weird) experiences with narcissists. If you're looking for ammunition to attack someone, please look elsewhere. If you're looking for a diagnosis, you'll need to consult a psychiatrist. If you're looking for help with your term paper, go here.I've written entirely from my own experience and personal interest; I'm not a therapist or counselor, have no relevant credentials, and can't refer you to lawyers. -- Joanna Ashmun
I checked this Brainbench out. They are an online certification agency. Anyone and everyone can access their Web site and take their tests. BUT, the tests are very difficult, time limited, and you still have to PASS the tests to get a certificate! And they have a very impressive roster of clients:
http://www.brainbench.com/xml/bb/business/aboutus/aboutus.xml
"By partnering with Brainbench, 6 million members have advanced their skills and their careers, and over 4,000 businesses have found better ways to screen and select candidates, track and develop employee skills, and differentiate employees to current and prospective clients.
Corporate clients include numerous members of the Fortune 500, various U.S. Government agencies, and several universities and colleges.
Brainbench is ISO 9001:2000 certified! We are the first online testing company to obtain this accomplishment for its test development process."
So, i wouldn't say that Vaknin is NOT a mental health professional - though he himself says so in a disclaimer on his Web site, probably for legal reasons.
WebMD
http://my.webmd.com/content/article/71/81306.htm
New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/29/technology/29NECO.html
The Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/09/AR2005110902106.html
USA Today
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/life/20041130/d_bottomstrip30.art.htm
New York Post
http://www.nypress.com/16/7/news&columns/feature.cfm
"Sam Vaknin is the world’s leading expert on narcissism."
Tim Hall, New York Press, Volume 16, Issue 7 - February 12, 2003
Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC)
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/bbing/stories/s1158704.htm
"Vaknin’s a respected expert on malignant narcissists ... He set about to know everything there is about the psychopathic narcissist."
Ian Walker, ABC Radio National Background Briefing, July 18, 2004
The Infinite Mind radio program
http://www.lcmedia.com/mind333.htm
United Press International (UPI)
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20021018-013859-4113r
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20021021-101212-2299r
Cal Thomas column
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/calthomas/ct20050615.shtml
Toronto Sun
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/TorontoSun/Lifestyle/2004/08/30/608650.html
CanWest News service and Newspapers Network
http://www.canada.com/technology/story.html?id=f785f0a1-b8ec-4b00-87ff-7cf173ee2b53
http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=f1b3a271-b187-4325-8322-2b9eb3a152ff
Santa Cruz Sentinel
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2005/April/24/style/stories/06style.htm
Regarding **narcissistic defense is used but not defined/explained.**
From what I can gather it is phrased in a way that is vague and misleads
the reader to conclude it refers to "Criminal" Defenses. When you look closely
it seems to infer that the "Defenses" are Social and psychological personality traits of the individual. A good example would be easily made by saying that the
affliction causes the afflicted to "Defend" their "Normalcy". A form of denial if you will...Like the saying goes..."Refusal to believe until proof is given is a rational position; denial of all outside of our own limited experience is absurd."...Annie Besant.. Or is the latter not absurd but a case of NPD??
I'm now getting messages from both Vaknin and all others. I would like to hear what the exact contentious point is here. Just Sam "dominating the discussion" is a rather hollow argument. For all I care, he may the world expert on NPD. I would therefore like to hear from each of you (preferably with a login name) what the problem is. Only then can I begin to consider mediating.
Perhaps we should simultaneously have a look at narcissism, a very heavy page completely copied from Sam's site and possibly in need of some cleanup. Please let me know what you think. JFW | T@lk 21:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
The version that Vaknin has posted meets requirements for Wikipedia articles ( WP:NPOV/ WP:CITE etc). It was approved in that form by the Nupedia editorial team for psychology articles, which does mean something in my view. I do sense some antipathy to his work, but unless the actual criticisms are enumerated here it will be very hard to actually address them one by one. Just because one author has written a lot about NPD does not mean one can criticise his work in a blanket fashion. JFW | T@lk 12:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
But all this has little to do with this article but with Vaknin's activities online. Do you have one single criticism on the article as it is now? You are free to add links to unaffiliated sites. I would particularly value pages from professional societies, and references to scientific studies on risk factors and therapeutic interventions. Failing that, please desist from turning this page into a Sam Vaknin witchhunt. This is undeserved and irrelevant to the Wikipedia article. JFW | T@lk 17:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
http://www.livejournal.com/userinfo.bml?user=npd_family
I find it very dishonest of you not to disclose your anti-Vaknin bias here and to pretend to be objective.
Regarding the Web sites you recommend:
http://www.ptypes.com/narcissisticpd.html
Not an academic Web site by any stretch of the word. Personal Web site mainatained by an Enneagram afficionado. Very narrow, single-minded, non-conventional (rejected by the orthodoxy) approach to the diagnosis of personality disorders, utterly uninformed by current knowledge of psychology.
http://psychcentral.com/disorders/sx36t.htm
Mirror of the MentalHealth link already in the References section of the article.
The other two links your recommend deal with specific issues. They are not overviews of NPD. Additionally, the Open Site entry in the References section of the article links to ALL the articles you recommend (which is probably where you obtained them in the first place).
TlhInganHom was banned from all my online narcissism-related groups due to severe and repeated misbehavior. Hence his grudge and his repeated attempts to defame me and to vandalize whatever he can of my work. Samvak 16:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
[That is your side of the story, now I should like to know TlhInganHom's before forming a judgement.
I will also state that it has been proved to me, beyond all reasonable doubt, that you have made other, similar assertions before where there was not even a shred of truth to your claims.
I have also observed even the most polite and objective of challenges to your *idealogy* being treated as though they were "severe and repeated misbehaviour" resulting in deletions and then bans from all your online narcissism-related groups (could you specify how many of these groups there are and where they may be either found, or avoided, according to personal taste?). Indeed, I believe you state yourself that "the narcissist" (eg you) will become paranoid and perceive himself the target of grudges and conspiracies if his "false self" is in any way challenged. If we take your work seriously, why should we believe that you are any different? - 12 December 2005]
This admin has taken note. So far that user has not damaged anything and is ready for open discussion. Shall we not go ad hominem here, people? JFW | T@lk 19:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
REVISION OF 13/12/05 at 8:40
The text I just submitted was approved for publication at the time by Nupedia's Psychology Editor (a professor of abnormal psychology) and was peer reviewed. It now constitutes the introductory chapter to my book on the disorder ("Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited") and I grant Wikipedia copyright permission to reproduce it and treat it as its own content in any and all ways.
I am very interested in any feedback, ideas, comments, or corrections. I hope to learn more through the collaborative effort here. Samvak 16:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
You still have not explained what is actually wrong with the article. If you cannot tell us that, and feel the need to resort to personal attacks you should not be editing this talkpage. JFW | T@lk 05:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
[Really?
How sweet, the "shrinking and blushing narcissist", dragged reluctantly to the altar of personal publicity.
However, it is hardly relevant to the challenge made by the poster of overloading the article with self promotion through the medium of links to sites either directly or effectively controlled by yourself.
Would you care to name the professor of abnormal psychology who reviewed your article so that we may form our own opinions of his credentials?
After which perhaps you would do us the great courtesy of identifying the "editorial board" you refer to, for a similar purpose? edited - 12 December 2005 ] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.195.137.125 ( talk • contribs)
[JFW there is always a point where so many questions are raised that you must also "consider the source", in assessing a body of work.
Though my area of expertise is, indeed, more concerned with the dysfunction surrounding Sam Vaknin, than with NPD itself I have now researched and made several, relatively minor, adjustments to the text of the article, including restoring the DSM Criteria to their original, unembellished form, which, to me, is the only form in which they should be presented as DSM criteria at all. While the changes are subtle, minor, and, as yet, incomplete, as my time is limited and I do not intend to change anything without thoroughly verifying the change first, I think you will find that a shift in emphasis is already apparent.
This, in itself, will begin to "show not tell" what is wrong with the article - 12 December 2005]
JFW, most of the text of the article is copied, verbatim, with permission, from Sam Vaknin's page and book. You can check it out here - compare the article to this:
http://www.narcissistic-abuse.com/npdglance.html
In view of this fact, think it is only fair to leave one single link to his Web site in the External Links.
In the External Links you left a link to Joanna Ashmun's (great) Web site. Fine. But Vaknin is at least as entitled to this as Joanna Ashmun. Both of them are not mental health professionals - but Vaknin contributed the text of the article and is recognized as an authority on narcissism (see the discussion area of this article under External Links below).
So, I suggest we maintain in the External Links section one link to each resource: Vaknin, Ashmun, MentalHealth, and Femfree.
You also removed links to Web sites that have nothing to do with Vaknin and are great resources. I restored one of them (Femfree's). Hope this is OK with you. If not, let's talk on this page. OTE 22:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
[Femfree's Site is, in fact part of a peculiar, unhealthy, and often highly abusive Vaknin orientated cult, where any challenge or alternative view is ruthlessly excluded, and everything distorted in favor of the opinions of Sam Vaknin (Who is, after all, only a financial consultant and layman at best.)
I really DO think it should be considered to be at least one of Sam Vaknin's Sites, if not something rather worse, and replaced by this forum, which is run by Richard Grossman, who is a PHD psychologist who has actually taught at Harvard Med School, IMHO in terms of validity there is really no comparison: http://www.voicelessness.com/disc3/ edited 12th December 2005 ]
["Femfree's fantastic forum"? What an excellent choice of words, if we take *fantastic* to be meant in it's most literal and negative form.
Otherwise, to coin a phrase "Well he WOULD say that, wouldn't he?"
Fact remains that real, vulnerable victims are frequently recruited and then revictimised by Femfree in Sam Vaknin's name, on her boards, and he is fully aware of this.
As for the rest, though NPD may well not be the primary focus of Richard Grossman's board, I rather suspect he deals with it more accurately and impartially than any of the Sam Vaknin related forums - edited 12th December 2005 ] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.195.137.125 ( talk • contribs)
Good start at the Narcisistic Personality Disorder page. But it needs major wikification. Is this according to DSM-IV? In general, we should get rid of the pasive voice and replace it with more informative content. Is this disorder recognized by all psychiatrists? Clinical psychologists? Only some psychologists? Slrubenstein
Sam:
Thanks, Slrubenstein. Yes, as the article states, the criteria reflect the latest Text Revision of the DSM (DSM IV-TR, 2000). NPD is a personality disorder and an official diagnosis of the DSM. I am the author of a textbook on this disorder ("Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited"). Take care!
The concept of narcissistic defense is used but not defined/explained. I linked it to Defence mechanism but it should also be made explicit in the article itself what it is that narcissism serves to defend against. -- 84.188.151.51 02:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
I added the following:
In June 2005, Brian Blackwell was convicted of the manslaughter of his parents, Sydney and Jacqueline. A team of psychiatrists who were called in to analyse him all agreed that Blackwell he had a narcissistic personality disorder.
It was subsequently though that one individual patient should receive encyclopedia coverage.
Personally I find it enlightening to hear about an individual that has the disorder in the quesitonm and the fact that he is one indivudual patient is down the rarity of the disorder. I didn't feel as through the disorder was commonplace and i'd picked one person out of tens of thousands, more than this fairly unique case had come up and I had highlighted it.
The entire articles is copied, with permission, from Sam Vaknin's book/page:
http://www.narcissistic-abuse.com/npdglance.html
The link to the source of the article must remain. The other links we can discuss.
The links should stay out if all of them point at the same site/group/POV. JFW | T@lk 20:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I checked the links one by one and what he says about Vaknin is not true. This group, for example: http://groups.msn.com/NARCISSISTICPERSONALITYDISORDER has nothing to do with Vaknin (they just quote him, as do most other narcissism web sites that I saw). It is run by a woman calling herself FEMFREE. This group http://www.suite101.com/welcome.cfm/npd was edited by Vaknin a while back - but now has nothing to do with Vaknin. And so on.
I don't really care about Vaknin whoever he is. So on a diff. note, why doesn't the article link to more academic NPD resources, similar to ones here: http://www.halcyon.com/jmashmun/npd/beyond.html ? With the exception of mentalhealth.com (and possibly halcyon.com/jmashmun/npd), it doesn't look like the links (or the ones the other guy was spamming) have a professional/academic background.
http://www.halcyon.com/jmashmun/npd/index.html
This material is offered for comfort and solace to people who've had bad (or merely weird) experiences with narcissists. If you're looking for ammunition to attack someone, please look elsewhere. If you're looking for a diagnosis, you'll need to consult a psychiatrist. If you're looking for help with your term paper, go here.I've written entirely from my own experience and personal interest; I'm not a therapist or counselor, have no relevant credentials, and can't refer you to lawyers. -- Joanna Ashmun
I checked this Brainbench out. They are an online certification agency. Anyone and everyone can access their Web site and take their tests. BUT, the tests are very difficult, time limited, and you still have to PASS the tests to get a certificate! And they have a very impressive roster of clients:
http://www.brainbench.com/xml/bb/business/aboutus/aboutus.xml
"By partnering with Brainbench, 6 million members have advanced their skills and their careers, and over 4,000 businesses have found better ways to screen and select candidates, track and develop employee skills, and differentiate employees to current and prospective clients.
Corporate clients include numerous members of the Fortune 500, various U.S. Government agencies, and several universities and colleges.
Brainbench is ISO 9001:2000 certified! We are the first online testing company to obtain this accomplishment for its test development process."
So, i wouldn't say that Vaknin is NOT a mental health professional - though he himself says so in a disclaimer on his Web site, probably for legal reasons.
WebMD
http://my.webmd.com/content/article/71/81306.htm
New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/29/technology/29NECO.html
The Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/09/AR2005110902106.html
USA Today
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/life/20041130/d_bottomstrip30.art.htm
New York Post
http://www.nypress.com/16/7/news&columns/feature.cfm
"Sam Vaknin is the world’s leading expert on narcissism."
Tim Hall, New York Press, Volume 16, Issue 7 - February 12, 2003
Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC)
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/bbing/stories/s1158704.htm
"Vaknin’s a respected expert on malignant narcissists ... He set about to know everything there is about the psychopathic narcissist."
Ian Walker, ABC Radio National Background Briefing, July 18, 2004
The Infinite Mind radio program
http://www.lcmedia.com/mind333.htm
United Press International (UPI)
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20021018-013859-4113r
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20021021-101212-2299r
Cal Thomas column
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/calthomas/ct20050615.shtml
Toronto Sun
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/TorontoSun/Lifestyle/2004/08/30/608650.html
CanWest News service and Newspapers Network
http://www.canada.com/technology/story.html?id=f785f0a1-b8ec-4b00-87ff-7cf173ee2b53
http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=f1b3a271-b187-4325-8322-2b9eb3a152ff
Santa Cruz Sentinel
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2005/April/24/style/stories/06style.htm
Regarding **narcissistic defense is used but not defined/explained.**
From what I can gather it is phrased in a way that is vague and misleads
the reader to conclude it refers to "Criminal" Defenses. When you look closely
it seems to infer that the "Defenses" are Social and psychological personality traits of the individual. A good example would be easily made by saying that the
affliction causes the afflicted to "Defend" their "Normalcy". A form of denial if you will...Like the saying goes..."Refusal to believe until proof is given is a rational position; denial of all outside of our own limited experience is absurd."...Annie Besant.. Or is the latter not absurd but a case of NPD??
I'm now getting messages from both Vaknin and all others. I would like to hear what the exact contentious point is here. Just Sam "dominating the discussion" is a rather hollow argument. For all I care, he may the world expert on NPD. I would therefore like to hear from each of you (preferably with a login name) what the problem is. Only then can I begin to consider mediating.
Perhaps we should simultaneously have a look at narcissism, a very heavy page completely copied from Sam's site and possibly in need of some cleanup. Please let me know what you think. JFW | T@lk 21:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
The version that Vaknin has posted meets requirements for Wikipedia articles ( WP:NPOV/ WP:CITE etc). It was approved in that form by the Nupedia editorial team for psychology articles, which does mean something in my view. I do sense some antipathy to his work, but unless the actual criticisms are enumerated here it will be very hard to actually address them one by one. Just because one author has written a lot about NPD does not mean one can criticise his work in a blanket fashion. JFW | T@lk 12:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
But all this has little to do with this article but with Vaknin's activities online. Do you have one single criticism on the article as it is now? You are free to add links to unaffiliated sites. I would particularly value pages from professional societies, and references to scientific studies on risk factors and therapeutic interventions. Failing that, please desist from turning this page into a Sam Vaknin witchhunt. This is undeserved and irrelevant to the Wikipedia article. JFW | T@lk 17:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
http://www.livejournal.com/userinfo.bml?user=npd_family
I find it very dishonest of you not to disclose your anti-Vaknin bias here and to pretend to be objective.
Regarding the Web sites you recommend:
http://www.ptypes.com/narcissisticpd.html
Not an academic Web site by any stretch of the word. Personal Web site mainatained by an Enneagram afficionado. Very narrow, single-minded, non-conventional (rejected by the orthodoxy) approach to the diagnosis of personality disorders, utterly uninformed by current knowledge of psychology.
http://psychcentral.com/disorders/sx36t.htm
Mirror of the MentalHealth link already in the References section of the article.
The other two links your recommend deal with specific issues. They are not overviews of NPD. Additionally, the Open Site entry in the References section of the article links to ALL the articles you recommend (which is probably where you obtained them in the first place).
TlhInganHom was banned from all my online narcissism-related groups due to severe and repeated misbehavior. Hence his grudge and his repeated attempts to defame me and to vandalize whatever he can of my work. Samvak 16:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
[That is your side of the story, now I should like to know TlhInganHom's before forming a judgement.
I will also state that it has been proved to me, beyond all reasonable doubt, that you have made other, similar assertions before where there was not even a shred of truth to your claims.
I have also observed even the most polite and objective of challenges to your *idealogy* being treated as though they were "severe and repeated misbehaviour" resulting in deletions and then bans from all your online narcissism-related groups (could you specify how many of these groups there are and where they may be either found, or avoided, according to personal taste?). Indeed, I believe you state yourself that "the narcissist" (eg you) will become paranoid and perceive himself the target of grudges and conspiracies if his "false self" is in any way challenged. If we take your work seriously, why should we believe that you are any different? - 12 December 2005]
This admin has taken note. So far that user has not damaged anything and is ready for open discussion. Shall we not go ad hominem here, people? JFW | T@lk 19:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)