Talk:Borderline personality disorder/Archive 2

message: I removed "The majority of those diagnosed with this disorder appear to have been individuals abused or traumatized during childhood." until a verifiable source is added.
:OK, there's one. Can get more. (Should've seen that before..)Cas Liber 19:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, Cas.  Not all Borderlines were abused! Geelin 14:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs Confirmation or source 

message: In the Wikipedia article on Richard Nixon, it was claimed that some people thought him to have a Narcissistic or Paranoid personality.  I've questioned it in the discussion page of the former Republican president, as I think it is a poor and misleading comment.  Geelin 14:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My point about Nixon is relevant to an earlier discussion on this page about posthumous classification of personality.  I didn't say anything about Nixon having BPD.  Posthumous classification is valid, as long as it's done thoroughly and objectively. Personality disorders other than Borderline have been discussed or at least mentioned on this page before and there's no reason why it can't be discussed now.Geelin 01:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Posthumous labelling of Nixon 

message: can be tricky navigating references - this particular one 
I find lacks sophistication (and an author for that matter) - I think there are better ones around. 
This one I really like ; it is succinct and has more understanding of the condition. []
Cas Liber 20:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References  

message: "If a patient with BPD has co-morbid factors of substance abuse (alcohol or other drugs), the risk factor reaches an astounding 58% dying from suicide within five years."  That certainly is astounding.  I added the "citation needed" tag to this line.  It reminds me of one of my favorite jokes:  43% of all statistics are made up on the spot.  RobertAustin 11:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I question this statistic

message: Someone (64.12.116.197)just removed the family support section without reason and I don't see any discussion of it here. Kat, Queen of Typos 22:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think it a relevant section.  There were no answers to Kat and I would like to know why it was removed -- and what was already within that section.  I realize that Wiki is not a how-to, but I think some basic substantiated reasearch could cover guidelines and maybe more.  It is, afterall, loved ones who most go looking for answers, and it seems we could at least help point them in the right direction.  ?  --A green Kiwi in learning mode 02:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Family involvement is importnat in all health manageemnt - must check out the deleted bit.....Cas Liber 05:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: OK - this is the text:
Family Support   
- Risk factors can be reduced by proper diagnosis and supportive care most often with involvement of family members. BPD victims need a strong supportive and loving security net of family and caregivers to get through this. Something as simple as validating love for the BPD victim in spite of behaviours can have a huge impact in reducing risk factors. This is not as easy as it sounds, but it is crucial.   
    
- Family members who wish to help people with BPD are advised to get clear information on the disorder from mental health professionals as this disorder is not easy to understand with the behaviors of sufferers being sometimes very difficult to tolerate and understand. The question "Why are you doing this?" may remain unanswered or validated by distorted illogical thinking. There is a tendency for some doctors to prescribe tranquilizers such as the benzodiazepine group (includes diazepam [Valium] and lorazepam) for symptoms of anxiety or distress that BPD patients may have, but these drugs can increase impulsivity due to disinhibition and may add to the risk factor.   
-    
- Victims of this disorder may be very intelligent, loving people with strong personalities in terms of holding opinions and defending their ideas, but their self-image is damaged and they seek fulfilment, sometimes in invalidating environments. 
Overall, the text is emotive but makes some valid points. I think it i worthwhile attempting to rephrase it in a more moderate way.Cas Liber 07:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Family Support

message: OK - neuroleptics = antipsychotics
strictly speaking, when we say mood stabilisers we refer to lithium, valproate, carbamazepine and lamotrigine - all of which require blood monitoring, all can cause a rash and various other side effects.
Some antipsychotics can be, broadly speaking, mood stabilisers but given there is a neuroleptic heading they are better discussed there. Actually, antipsychotic is a better name than neuroleptic. Also, one has more chance of getting tardive dyskinesia with lithium and an antipsychotic together. cheers Cas Liber 10:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, could really go to town on the side effects of mood stabilizers but that is probably better on their own page...Cas Liber 11:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Umm..getting the meds straight..... 

message: I feel that there is an over-reliance of Cochrane's limited literture reviews.  Only 4 papers on Borderline,  And, whether supported by Cochrane or not (I found their conclusions to be very non-commital for the most part), it seems they are being used to support all or nothing points of view that are very anti-psychiatry and anti-meds.  
(Cochrane is highly regarded as a research collaboration trying to review RCTs in meta-analyses. It is often non-committal because the evidence is equivocal. Because they only look at RCTs alot of data is excluded. Alot of their other material does recognise the benefits of various medicines :)Cas Liber 14:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Over-reliance on Cochrane? Also, very little NPOV here

message: I spent considerable time earlier writing some extended thoughts about the graceful and thorough integration of other POVs into the article.  And then I come back to see if I had any responses.. and find that it's not here.  Again, I must have forgotten to switch from the preview screen to the publish screen. I lost it all. So, nothing to do but try it again.  
 
I had written about how it is VERY important for ALL opposing and divergent points of view on such a volatile diagnosis in such a state of diagnostic flux.  But here is what I propose as I have seen it done to excellent effect elsewhere, textbooks et al. 
 
The one thing we all must get away from immediately is sprinkling opposing POVs hither and yon, especially within the treatment areas, but also in etiology and even diagnosis.  Some opposing points of view, the NO MEDS - ONLY THERAPY is one thing which should had its very own sub-category (under treatments) - AND there should be subcategory to links that support this point of view, including support groups.  
 
Again, in those sections that are detailing the prevailing psychiatric psychotropic approach, whether with or without directional therapy, should be allowed to fully put forward what is known to be true about these medications, both positive and negative.  But statements such as "meds aren't used" is ridiculous in this present day and have no part of an up to date encyclopedia entry.  BUT, in its own opposing POV section, it can advocate for this point IF one can find professional citations decrying the use of meds and advocating only unsupported psychotherapies.  
 
If this article is to go anywhere as a featured article candidate (and I presume some of you out there have been around a long time and are very invested in this outcome), then we must all bite the bullet and pull together to produce an exquisitely well written, tightly stitched together, and impressive presentation of the topic.
 
The treatment category, the meds section, will have to have some re-organizationsl work to bring it into a sensible presentation of psychopharmacotherapy.  I will change the OUTLINE (only the outline) on the page so you can visualize what I am talking about.  This is not a dictate, but a vision.  --A green Kiwi in learning mode 12:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How to Integrate Opposing POV

message: I am immediately bringing back in the article in it's presently edited form.  There have been FOUR edits today that I will insert as quickly as possible.   I wish to assure everyone that I have deleted nothing while keeping the article hostage in my draft page. :o))  What has been accomplished is Re-Creating the index/outline and by sorting through and relocating this and that.  
My intent in doing this was to advance this topic to FA (featured article) status.   My intent is not to take this topic away from anyone, but to make it more exciting and fulfilling to edit.  I again urge everyone to stop a moment and add something - or change something!  
Please do always add to your edit summaries as it is always nice (and helpful) to know what you were thinking or intended when you made the edit. 
I decided I really had to do this right now as I realized that I might end up losing someone's edits as the number climbed.  I had gotten two positive feedbacks and have acted on that affirmation. So here goes nothing!
PS: I have added a couple of chatty sounding bits - I will deal with them as soon as I can find them.  If you find them first, feel free to edit them! --A green Kiwi in learning mode 22:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very well done...the links were tangled up but I fixed them for now. Looking at the article the lists of references, further reading etc desperately need sorting of to a list page...there are so many, and in more than one category...so I think I'll shift them all, at least for now...sort them later? --Zeraeph 00:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you!  Go right ahead.  I was intimidated at link sorting and I trust your judgement.  (note my response to you above a few minutes ago) --A green Kiwi in learning mode 00:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriously, it really IS coming along as a very high quality, informative and objective article. The kind I like best. It is a pleasure to be able to polish the technical bits (not fully, they will need all kinds of final tweaks)...but note the magic format for making commentary disappear...notes are useful, but best kept private.--Zeraeph 01:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NOTICE

message: Shouldn't Gunderson be mentioned somewhere in that paragraph? Can't understands why no-one ever has --Zeraeph 06:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin of the term

message: this article talks about a person making great effort to avoid abandonment. does anyone have any information on a woman who will become pregnat to avoid her husband from leaving her? Keltik31 20:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fear of abandonment 

message: I am a bit surprised to see this popular press book being used as an authoritative text here.  I would prefer to see some good journal literature reviews of the use of ADs in borderlines.
In addition, children, teens and young adults are now the specific identified populations more likely to have suicide attempts in the early weeks of treatment, while older adults do not show this propensity.  Of course, the rate of suicide attempts is, still, MUCH LOWER than would be present in untreated depression.  If there is considerable independent statistical data showing specific differences in BPDs, let's present it.
If this article is to promote the notion of ADs being dangerous, it MUST have the ENTIRE picture represented.   And, of course, the entire subtopic needs citations. 
--Kiwi 05:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with all of the above :) Cas Liber 06:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The use of book "Listening to Prozac" as source material

message: I have been "hanging out" at BPD and BD forums for some years now, and within patient populations, those are the exclusively used abbreviations for BPD and BD.  It is vital that BPD NOT be used for Bipolar, because then there is too much confusion since it would too easily be sorted into the PD pile since you can't expect people to recognize that you are splitting one word into "two words."
Additionally, whether you google or check for acronyms, you get Barrels of Oil per Day. Seems best to stay away from such a little known acronym
*Acronym Definition 
*BOPD Barrels of Oil Per Day 
*BOPD Bataan Ocean Petroleum Depot 
--Kiwi 05:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At work people generally still use BAD for Bipolar Affective Disorder, though the Affective seems to have been dropped in recent times. cheers Cas Liber 06:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I noted above that BOPD is sometimes used, especially by clinicians, to distinguish borderline personality disorder from bipolar disorder.  A little further digging shows that the current standard is BPD for borderline personality disorder and BD for bipolar disorder, and BOPD passed out of favour eight or ten years ago (an abnormal-psych textbook, published eight years ago, is the latest "official" use of "BoPD" I could find, and it listed both), even though for purposes of strict unambiguity in such areas as medical documentation it might be preferable.  Apparently the reasoning was to reserve "PD" for "personality disorder", which makes good sense. So the article should use BPD.  Still, a caution to the reader that the acronyms may vary or be misused seems in order. --7Kim 23:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Two cents — Make sure the relevant disambig pages have the distinctions, and include the material that such abbreviation nomenclature is in an evolving state. // <B>Fra</B>nkB 18:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could something about this be added to the section on terminology near the top of the article? EverSince 18:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Which Acronym to Use

message: I think that the overall outline has signifant built-in room for presenting the various theories -- but I do hope that it is CLEAR throughout that most researchers consider certain populations for being more at risk for BPD and PTSD.  There is, it is presently believed, to be correlated to a genetic propensity.  
If anyone around here recalls, there is a research psychiatrist at one of a pediatric medical school department in Dallas Texas (think it is Southwestern) who published longitudial research back in 2000 or 2001 about PTSD in childhood being very strongly correlated with the diagnosis of BPD as the children grew older.  Hopefully that is still published online. 
I have heard here that SOME BPDs are considered "pure BPDs" as they do not respond (or respond only partially) to medications, only therapies... But I can tell you relatively authoritatively that there are bipolars that never manage to get good to excellent results with meds.  
Building on this is that it is common in a minority of bipolars for medications do not "last" forever.   There is a school of thought that the brain "adapts" to the "new normal" induced by medications.  The theory proposes that the brain (ANYONE's brain) struggles to regain "its OWN normal" and thus the brain chemistry is eventually changed back to its former balances.   
If this is here again (still), we need to see citations for it and for the two other possiblities being presented... 
--Kiwi 05:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One thing that jumped out at me in my first read of the article was that certain linkages are suspected, but not differentiated as being so. The section on the prevalance of suicidal tendencies comes to mind. There is no mention that there may be a disconnect, and that such people may also be suffering from clinical depression. In other words, such co-diagnoses are not uncommon and even likely, and this needs some careful handling. Best regards // <B>Fra</B>nkB 18:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Concerning Etiology

message: A generally good article, but I'm surprised about the relative lack of information about Kernberg and TFP.  TFP has been manualized and, according to presentation by his group at a Yale conference of BPD I had attended at Yale a few months ago, has been shown to be as effective as DBT with lower drop-out rates.  I will try to add stuff on this in the future...Faustian 21:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kernberg and Transference-focused Psychotherapy? 

message: OK folks are we happy with the intro? This is the place for discussion on length; same length/longer/shorter and anything else to be added or subtracted from it. Once there is a sort of consensus then the next step would be playing around with it to make a really good intro. Cas Liber 01:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I only mentioned the bipolar issue because at the moment the 2nd para says only that BPD is seen as a "particular manifestation of post-traumatic stress disorder". Whilst I don't disagree, it is also commonly seen as being on a bipolar spectrum due to things like mood changeability and interpersonal issues etc, and of course BPD onset isn't always associated to experience of trauma. I like the plans. EverSince 06:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the introduction should be limited purely to defining the disorder and perhaps discussing its relation to common society (i.e. what is means in common parlance).  Any theorized connections (be it to PTSD or bipolar) might be best off in another section, perhaps at the same place that discusses the chance of another disorder occuring with BPD. /2¢ —Keakealani 07:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eversince, I certainly understand about your desire to present a balance, but Keakealani, I agree with you, that both need to be dealt within the subtopic on etiology. --Kiwi 08:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree this should be addressed in the main body of the article. I have a dim recollection of a help guide saying that intro's should ideally summarise the range of key issues addressed in the article to follow, though, and if that is done perhaps a basic indication of the abuse/trauma/bipolar context should be included. EverSince 12:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm - agree para 3 was better elsewhere but I liked para 2 there (though it did need a bit of a tweak). The idea that BPD is pervasive and one of the main things is its effect on relationshps is central Cas Liber 12:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't disagree Cas Liber & please feel free to re-edit anything I do of course. My feeling was that the main points of that new 2nd para were pretty much covered in the 1st para, including relationships - and it seemed to be undoing Keakealani's tidying of two separate overlapping paragraphs in to one paragraph, that was discussed here. EverSince 12:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How's this? Totally agree about the overlap now that I look at it properly. According to the MOS an articel this length should have 2 or more likely 3 paras which mention the key points which are expanded upon later. I wanted to try and emphasise that it is a pervasive condition which affects all parts of life (without being repetitive). Feel free to revert or play with it. cheers Cas Liber 21:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction review

message: Didn't there used to be a good bit in this article on the various proposals of alternative names for the disorder, and the issues people have with the BPD term? Gone for a while now I think but if no objections I'll try to find it in the history and re-add it. Have a feeling there was other stuff too. EverSince 14:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was orignally in the lead somewhere I recall - putting in under a subheading under the mnemonic maybe? Cas Liber 21:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, this is great - and, in my opinion, very much needed.  I give it a thumbs up for putting it back in! --Kiwi 16:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto - many articles have a history of naming somewhere toward the beginning of the article. Go for it :)  Cas Liber 19:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whatever happened to.... 

message: A Kiwi deleted this and the Why do anticonvulsants "stabilize mood"? headers. This is legitimate, because both of them were empty with nothing but an expand-section tag under them. Yet the reasoning of "it is simply too complicated to deal with on Wiki - it's a graduate-level topic" doesn't ring well with me. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; nowhere in the guidelines or mission-statement does it state that there's a threshold for the complexity level of an article; or if does, I've never seen as much. Graduate students and doctorants and even fully-fledged academics read and edit Wikipedia. 
I feel that this is important information, and someone with the knowledge and understanding of it needs to create an explanation on Wikipedia. Anticonvulsant and antipsychotic might be a more appropriate place than here, but currently the former has no mention of mood disorders and the latter has one line about the drugs being used as mood stabilizers even if no psychosis is present. As I said, I'm not arguing against the deletion in practice, but against the conceptual deletion - the call that this information does not belong on Wikipedia. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 08:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Easily fixed - hopefully someone will expand the relevant articles - it would mainly be the articel olanzapine which is the antipsychotic with the most mood-stabilizing effect. cheers Cas Liber 08:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It is mentioned in the lead of olanzapine as it mentions it is used to treat bipolar disorder. Cas Liber 09:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why do antipsychotics "stabilize mood"?  

message: Pardon my long absence.  We had a family tragedy over the holidays and I was not up to much of anything.  Now I find the forum owner of where I had posted so many journal research articles has still not restored archives, so must do it the longer, more difficult way.  So many changes, hope I can find my way around.  The first thing I have to post is some cutting edge research on the BPD/Bipolar overlap.  Many doctors are pushing for significant changes in the next DSM. Kiwi 01:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: On overlap in BPD/Bipolar - New research

message: That whole approach seems to be missing, and it is very significant, to the point where, without it, article is not presenting all POV. Must do a little work when I have time. --Zeraeph 14:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Masterson on BPD?

message: Currently, the following is found under the heading of "Lack of impulse control", despite already being mentioned earlier in the Signs and Symptoms section:
"Rather than deciding whether they are heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual, they often change their minds between the three, resulting in ignored feelings, confused emotions and an overactive imagination which usually makes the situation worse for them."
Firstly, "deciding whether they are heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual" seems highly innaccurate, both in the use of the word "deciding" and in stating that one must be either straight, gay or bi.
Secondly, why is this under the "Lack of impulse control" section at all?! Is one to "decide" on a sexuality and then feeling anything is to be classified as "lack of control" and a possible symptom of a mental disorder?
Should this section be removed completely or re-writing and moved (possibly to a new section on difficulties in the sense of self)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.139.75 (talk • contribs) 07:28, 25 January 2007
:Personally I totally agree. Also don't like the way it talks of "they" all doing this or that. A section on sense of self sounds interesting. EverSince 23:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the wording of the section is POV, blanket-terming and somewhat inflammatory, and it could use some rewriting. Unless... well, it's not well-cited, and maybe it should be removed altogether. (Also, please sign your posts.) LeaHazel : talk : contribs 13:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lack of impulse control / Difficulties in sense of self

message: There are a lot of statements in this article that have had  and  tags for a long time.  I think these should be deleted unless someone can provide reliable and verifiable citations to support the statements.  MarkWood 23:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. DPetersontalk 23:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree too, if the information is valuable and valid somebody will put it back with citations. --Zeraeph 00:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All done...but it's left me feeling like Hannibal Lecter (I thought I'd say that before anyone else could). I hope there are going to be some new, cited edits to fill the gaps, though, when I looked closely I found quite a lot that wasn't even relevant to BPD. --Zeraeph 01:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work...the article is much improved...thanks! DPetersontalk 01:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree  -much pruning and the article looks much the better for it. Are you thinking of heading to FAC sometime soon.....Cas Liber 03:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree the pruning was necessary to tidy things and keep the focus. I do feel, though, that in some cases it's removed any reference to issues at the core of the disorder, some of the wording for which had been balanced through consensus discussions over time, which could make addressing and sourcing these issues more difficult. I added a lot of those "citations needed" tags a few weeks ago, I suppose it has been a while now. I would like to replace some of what was there and, over time, source it. EverSince 09:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: That's absolutely how I feel myself, but I also feel that, once properly sourced, a lot of the removed text would have to change for accuracy. There was a lot of wild speculation mixed up with core issues and no sources for either. (Truth is the intro itself needs sourcing or removing too, but I couldn't just remove THAT.) Best thing to do is bookmark the last revision before I got into my "Hannibal" zone  and refer to it as notes for sourcing and revision? --Zeraeph 10:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent idea. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 12:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of it did need improving and sourcing. It's not my preference but I'm OK to work on it that way and hope others are, and I certainly don't want to be chopped up to go with a nice chianti! EverSince 12:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "needs citation" tags were up for a while...no one added source material, suggesting either that there isn't interest or that the statements have no basis.  In any event, removal seems appropriate and if there are valid references, the interested parties can add the material and references.  DPetersontalk 22:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with removing material that is unsourced.MarkWood 23:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In looking to add content and sources on the main features of BPD, there is an apparent problem of overlap with the list of DSM criteria which are themselves, of course, one attempt to outline the main features (at least, those seen as most clinically significant and diagnostically relevant). I was wondering if there were any views on whether or how additional info and sources on these features should be integrated within that section, or kept separate. EverSince 20:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are refering to the five-point-description by Linehan, I am all for their inclusion, preferably in the section 'signs and symtoms'. --Grace E. Dougle 21:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was referring to adding or re-adding coverage of some of the issues removed as discussed above, and wanting to clarify this overlap between the subsection on DSM/ICD criteria and the section on signs/symptoms (aka features or issues) EverSince 22:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: (the first one is just some letters but the last two are good) Cas Liber 22:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Real can o' worms - could open up a whole section on how the discrete personality disorders in DSM IV  lack validity and the most valid seems to be the generic criteria for Personlaity Disorder. Similarly, drug-induced psychotic episodes really murk up the picture when trying to differentiate brief psychotic episodes secondary to BPD vs. schizophreniform pictrure. Cas Liber 01:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are perfectly right, and we should draw the line there, at least in this section. What you are saying also concerns the general doubts about the diagnosis of this disorder and the way it is described in DSM-IV right now, as well as the fact that personality disorders are an under-researched topic. In another section, however, maybe a qulified addition about what is expected to change in DSM-V would be interesting. This section (Differential diagnosis)as it is is harmless and common knowledge, and sourced now. I'll put it back.--Grace E. Dougle 10:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess the issue with both the BPD and bipolar articles is that both have swollen to huge sizes with numerous sections over the past year or so and rather then bloating again people are trying to be judicious about what goes in. I feel this bit is OK with refs and a bit of a rewrite Cas Liber 10:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If references that meet the wikipedia standard of being verifiable can be provided, then a section on differential dx certain belongs in this article, and any other article about a mental health disorder. DPetersontalk 21:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The references (American Psychiatric Association) are definitely ok and they cannot be any more verifiable than being linked to. As you say, a section on differential dx certain belongs in this article. Yes, right, it does belong in this article. If you don't like the wording, rewrite it.--Grace E. Dougle 22:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of unsourced material

message: I removed the following "==Differential diagnosis=="
Borderline personality disorder often co-occurs with mood disorders, and when criteria for both are met, both should be diagnosed. However, some features of borderline personality disorder may overlap with those of mood disorders, complicating the differential diagnostic assessment.
* Mood disorders
- Bipolar disorder, especially bipolar II disorder
* Psychotic disorders
- With borderline, only occurs under intense stress and is not characteristic of disorder
* Other personality disorders
- Consider patients thoughts, feelings, and behavior to differentiate borderline from other personality disorders
- High co-occurrence of borderline and other personality disorders because it does not make sense and does not have any supporting references. DPetersontalk 01:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (the first one is just some letters but the last two are good) Cas Liber 22:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Real can o' worms - could open up a whole section on how the discrete personality disorders in DSM IV  lack validity and the most valid seems to be the generic criteria for Personlaity Disorder. Similarly, drug-induced psychotic episodes really murk up the picture when trying to differentiate brief psychotic episodes secondary to BPD vs. schizophreniform pictrure. Cas Liber 01:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are perfectly right, and we should draw the line there, at least in this section. What you are saying also concerns the general doubts about the diagnosis of this disorder and the way it is described in DSM-IV right now, as well as the fact that personality disorders are an under-researched topic. In another section, however, maybe a qulified addition about what is expected to change in DSM-V would be interesting. This section (Differential diagnosis)as it is is harmless and common knowledge, and sourced now. I'll put it back.--Grace E. Dougle 10:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess the issue with both the BPD and bipolar articles is that both have swollen to huge sizes with numerous sections over the past year or so and rather then bloating again people are trying to be judicious about what goes in. I feel this bit is OK with refs and a bit of a rewrite Cas Liber 10:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If references that meet the wikipedia standard of being verifiable can be provided, then a section on differential dx certain belongs in this article, and any other article about a mental health disorder. DPetersontalk 21:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The references (American Psychiatric Association) are definitely ok and they cannot be any more verifiable than being linked to. As you say, a section on differential dx certain belongs in this article. Yes, right, it does belong in this article. If you don't like the wording, rewrite it.--Grace E. Dougle 22:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Differential Diagnosis