Talk:Borderline personality disorder
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archives |
---|
[edit] Needs Confirmation or source
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)
- Good idea, Cas. Not all Borderlines were abused! Geelin 14:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Posthumous labelling of Nixon
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)
what does narcessistic or paranoid personality disoders have to do with borderline personality disorder? are you suggesting that he also had that? if not, why are you mentioning it on this page? do you have any proof that he had it? if not, then it isnt relevant. posthumous analysis is not valid. olayak
- 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)
Yes, Nixon... OK... But shouldn't there be a picture of G.W. Bush on the page? Bush very obviously has a borderline personality disorder.
- Lol! GWB has something, all right, but it may be a "disorder" unique to him. In all seriousness, though, I don't think it's BPD. And I'm no fan of his. RobertAustin 11:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- Yeah, he has some serious PD stuff going on, but not BPD - just doesn't hang together, any way I look at it. If we open this can of worms, then we definitely have to put up Lady Diana. And if we do that, the s**t will hit the proverbial fan. :o) --A green Kiwi in learning mode 02:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- To my mind G.W. Bush clearly has very strong psychopathic tendencies, to the extent of probably being a full-fledged psychopath - charismatic, glib, cold, lazy, egotistical, a pathological liar, easily bored, unable to distinguish truth from lies, semantically aphasic (although he has no language problems when he is being overtly glib or malicious), possessing a sense of personal entitlement, grandiose, cunning, prone to bullying without provocation, manipulative, a convicted criminal, drug addicted, parasitic, remorseless, reckless and unable to control his impulses over long periods (which is why they keep him on a tight leash and let him spend so much time on vacation). Whether he is entirely incapable of love I cannot say for sure because I don't know his personal life (but I am certainly willing to make a horrible guess). I don't think I can yet justify putting all that in a wikipedia article though… Ireneshusband 19:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] References
can be tricky navigating references - this particular one [1] I find lacks sophistication (and an author for that matter) - I think there are better ones around.
- ^ BORDERLINE PERSONALITY DISORDER. Medical-library.org. Retrieved on September 25, 2006.
This one I really like ; it is succinct and has more understanding of the condition. [[1]] Cas Liber 20:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] I question this statistic
"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)
[edit] ACK!!! Inline Citatation Nightmare
I have added a lot of information this afternoon, but much of it was gathered from medical article abstracts archived at PubMed. This is the best kind of resource, especially the reviews and controlled studies I tracked down. HOWEVER, the links look really nasty down in the reference box. How can I improve the look without having two webpages, going back and forth, picking out disjoined bits - journal name, date, number and volume .. list of authors (often very long), title (often long), and the university hospital that sponsored the study. Can I do something like a "Pub-Med Abstract", work it somehow so that citation mark-up?? One way or another, I want poeple to be able to click through and read it themselves. --A green Kiwi in learning mode 00:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- OK, have alook now -looks nicer. Is this what you had (have done #17 & 18). NB: 17 is not something to get too excited about researchwise and is not a landmark paper. A much better place for Evidence is the Cochrane collaboration http://www.cochrane.org
- I work in mental health ;)
- cheers, Cas Liber 01:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- Oh Cas, they look terrific!! Thanks so much. Now I can examine the markup and then fix the other ones (tomorrow!). Okay about #17. I will read at Cochrane.org and then go looking for much better research papers. Thanks for helpie a newbie.
-
- Hey, I just noticed the thingie on the top of the page (template?) that says this article is being considered for an FA? Yep, it's got a long way to go, doesn't it? Well, I'm happy if I helped some. I will ask you to please me feedback any time you see something I can learn more about. :o) --A green Kiwi in learning mode 02:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Neuroleptics
- Yep, I can see a lot of tidying up which this article certainly needs. The medication bit is very tricky and some of the stuff you have removed is relevant. Antipsychotics have a much firmer use in schizophrenia as dopamine and serotonin blocking agents - they have been used mainly for behavioural control and brief psychotic episodes in BPD. The removal of text suggests the drugs are a mainstay of treatment, which they aren't (though can be very helpful). I think adding the bit back with a bit of wording and a citation needed is helpful. One also has to be sceptical of some studies.
- Similarly with bit on mood stabilisers - which I will look at soon.
- cheers Cas Liber 01:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- Thanks, Cas ... my modus operandi is to generally post a query to the talk page before removing something I have never come across before and that is uncited. Don't know what got into me - maybe something I ate?? ;o)
-
- There is a possibility that I accidently deleted something I didn't mean to -- moving things around in that text box while adding citations and editing text -- well, it gets so darned confusing. Once this afternoon, I actually closed a preview window, not realizing it was just a preview window. Lost everything I had compiled of course. Had to start all over - calling up all the Pub Med searches again.
-
- As for anti-psychotics. I HATE to see them prescribed for anyone who can be managed on anything else at all, alone or in combos. In my opinion, it is so wrong for doctors to take the leap from a trial on lithium and Dapakote straight to antipsychotics. In Great Britain, LAMICTAL is considered the very first med to be tried instead of those cheapies like I mentioned.
A green Kiwi in learning mode 01:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Lamictal is a pretty smooth drug for bipolar but not prescribable under the PBS in australia for that indication unfortunately. Cas Liber 05:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Family Support
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)
- 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)
-
- Family involvement is importnat in all health manageemnt - must check out the deleted bit.....Cas Liber 05:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- 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.[2] - - 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.
- ^ BORDERLINE PERSONALITY DISORDER. Medical-library.org. Retrieved on September 25, 2006.
- ^ Gardner, D. L., R. W. Cowdry (January 1985). "Alprazolam-induced dyscontrol in borderline personality disorder" (PDF). American Journal of Psychiatry 142 (1): 98-100. PubMed. Retrieved on 2006-09-25.
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)
[edit] Deleted section on suicide
OK, somebody deleted this bit, propably due to the final statement. Hwever, there are some valid points in this paragraph and I have put it here so that some of the information, once referenced may be returned. cheers. Cas Liber 02:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Old section: Patients with borderline personality disorder are at very high risk of suicide, about 5-10% or about 500 to 1000 times more than the general population. This risk greatly escalates when other co-morbid factors are present. The disorder is often poorly understood by psychiatrists and some psychiatrists simply refuse to accept BPD patients due to their instability (missed appointments, difficulty dealing with them). 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.[citation needed]
-
- I suggest that the mention of "some psychiatrists simply refuse to accept" will be removed from this suicide part. Although this is partially true (BPD interpersonal relations are often unstable), I doubt the refusal of mental health professionals would be the reason or cause for high mortility in BPD. Jalind 22:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- It seems that above mentioned information comes from Stone M (or MH?), published in book chapter "The course of borderline personality disorder" (1989; Stone found a suicide rate of 45 percent when alcohol abuse, borderline personality disorder and major affective disorder coexisted. .. The suicide rate of those presenting for treatment is 10 percent.) and article "Paradoxes in the management of suicidality in borderline patients" (1993; American Journal of Psychotherapy 1993; 47:255-272). But my source is second hand. Also IMHO these sources are getting a bit outdated.
- Also there is more recent review-article: "Pompili M, Girardi P, Ruberto A, Tatarelli R. Suicide in borderline personality disorder: A meta-analysis. Nord J Psychiatry 2005;59:319-234." which migh be useful. They tell that (see table 1 text): Expected suicides in a year in 100000 individuals would be averagely 898 if they all suffered from BPD, compared to average 16.6 general population of same size (thus 898 / 16.6 = 54 time more often?). I feel a bit stupid, but somehow their results are hard to interpret. Jalind 22:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Umm..getting the meds straight.....
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)
-
- 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)
Yes, neuroleptics ARE antipsychotics, and the use of both is not a negative for an encyclopedia article, as long as the reader understands they refer to the same kind of drug.
NO NO NO. Lamictal doesn't have blood levels drawn. No matter how much, no matter how long. I would ask for your citation. (I'll get back to you on that one)Cas Liber 13:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
And the Lamictal "rash" is not AT ALL like the types of rashed common to allergies or to Lithium (where it is a acne type break out, not an itch). It is simplistic overkill to lump all so-called rashes into one great heap. I would ask for your citation. (I'm not lumping all rashes, just that carbamazepine and valproate can have serious problems as well. I didn't mean to trivialise lamictal)
And all the psychiatrists I happen to know consider ANY DRUG THAT STABILIZES MOOD SWINGS to be a "Mood Stabilizer". Perhaps the entire medication categories deserve a rethink. (OK, will check consensus on that - yep, many categories are arbitary that is true)
Antidepressants are not mood stabilizers. Tranquilizers are not mood stabilizers. But Lithium, Neuroleptics, valproate and anti-seizure medications are mood stabilizers. --A green Kiwi in learning mode 11:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
(neuroleptics can be mood stabilisers but that is not their primary function but a (distant) secondary one)
As to a lithium/neuroleptic combo resulting in a higher incidence of tardive dyskinesia, I would as for your citation. This may very well be true, but I want to see it for myself. --A green Kiwi in learning mode 11:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC) (comin' right up)Cas Liber 13:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
(OK, I have a reference for lithium worsening the extrapyramidal effects of dopamine antagonists (i.e. antopsychotics). I was wondering whether this was veering off the path of BPD though. The reference is:
- Sadock BJ & Sadock VA (2003). “Biological Therapies”, Sadock BJ & Sadock VA: Synopsis of Psychiatry. Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, 974-1150. ISBN 0-7817-3183-6.
Question is, put it here as well as on lithium and TD pages? cheers. Cas Liber 14:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Over-reliance on Cochrane? Also, very little NPOV here
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)
I remember back, not that many years ago, where there was a virtual minority of one doctor in Florida breaking revolutionary ground in treating what he called "biological unhappiness" in his borderline patients. Nowadays, not only is it accepted and acted upon that a BPD's emotional distress and dysfunction can be alleviated. Additionally, quality of life and ability to be gainfully employed and a participating member of the community can be markedly enhanced. It is increasingly suspected by researchers that bipolar disorder and the so-called borderline personality disorder are closely related. As more brain scans and MRIs and such are done, the differences and similarities can be mapped and analyzed, and eventually scientists will have a firmer grasp.
(I have no problem with epidemiological links with BPD, Major Depression and bipolar. I also have no problem with a biological basis for BPD. If you google Allan Schore there is a load of stuff about early trauma leading to serotonin abnormalities. He did a particular paper in 2003 but I can't find the #$#$# reference at the moment, which also explains why SSRIs work well.)
By definition, personality disoders are static, unyielding, unchanging grossly dsyfunctional personalities. If a so-called personality-disordered person improves, really changes, then that is proof that they never had what psychiatry recognizes as a disordered personality. It has been common for disorders of personality and character to slip in and out of the DSM. PDs have been a major sticking point in getting the DSM-V published, having already made it 2 years late in its release.
(People are adaptive, there is research by McGlashan which shows 2 out of 3 people with BPD improve significantly over time - it is a 1985 or 86 study and should be referenced here somehwere. If you google it it will come up. Static is not a good word, longitudinal yes but people are adaptive.)
Getting back to this article not having a neutral point of view, it is not for an encyclopedia to preach and reinforce a point of view held by only a segment of society or a profession. It is not for us to influence the reader to believe that medicine for the disorder is good or is bad. It is not for us to influence the reader by misleading them in how the treatment of BPD is or is not changing. No matter how emotionally invested you are in pushing therapy over meds, it is pushing a point of view, and that cannot be allowed. You must stop deleting material that offends you personally. All that matters is whether or not it is supported by the literature and well-accepted and acted upon by a preponderance of psychiatrists. --A green Kiwi in learning mode 12:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
(Um..... nothing in this article offends me as such and I agree with alot of the edits you've done. It is just a matter of striking the right balance. I am not sure to which material deleted you are referring (?). There are a couple of other IPs as well editing. cheers :)Cas Liber 14:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] How to Integrate Opposing POV
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)
[edit] Creating Directional Outline
I imported the article to date, and then spent of few hours sorting and shuffling things about. LOTS of great stuff, but I think if it is sorted more and laid out differently, it will make a lot of difference in readability.
Take a look, and if you feel moved to so, pick a bare section that interests you and help develop it.. Or work on condensing one of the busy sections (like the links and such). I THINK that anyone can select "edit this page" and take out as much or as little as they would like to have on their own draft pages. If you want one for yourself, post to my talk page and I will explain how easy it is. --A green Kiwi in learning mode 12:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- Draft looks really good, much better than the text on the page currently. Most psychiatrists advocate the uses of various agents as you've outlined.
Incidentally Anorexia is classically related to more obsessive personalities and bulimia to the cluster B group. If the use of meds is described as outlined then I don't really think that a no meds section is needed, or something under general treatment heading like:
- Some people with BPD elect to not use medications. Reasons may be varied, from sensitivity to the medications' side effects to intrapsychic issues about what being reliant on a medication means to them. (A medication may have complex meaning for these people)
- this is not worded well but you get the idea.
- As long as a bit of discussion is on the talk page you should be able to overhaul it. Someone did it to the Psychiatry page a few weeks ago for a big improvement. I am a bit stuck with my income tax which I should be doing right now.........................................................
cheers Cas Liber 12:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- Hey Cas!!! I am so relieved that you have, so kindly and generously, responded to what I've cobbled together. Thank you for filling me in on the eating disorder thing and other things you have taken the time to explain to me. As I learn, I can refine that outline. I am very knowledgeable about bipolar, most of the Cluster B PDs, and very much on meds. Therapies, rather vague. So I am not pretending to know it all -- I am just interested in helping out here. It would be so much fun to be part of an FA attempt!!
- --A green Kiwi in learning mode 13:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Seems a very sound, solid re-write so far to me. Just a suggestion, maybe put notation numbers for the references that check out to make it easier to put them inline eventually in the right places.
-
-
-
- Also consider removing all external links except the
lastfirst category, and then sift through them very carefully and pick "six of the best". Support groups are generally considered non-notable and best excluded. Online support groups are unregulated, unacountable and there is literally no objective way to ensure the quality of them either exists, or will be sustained. It's a minefield of subjectivity unsuitable to Wikipedia in general and, to my mind, an insult to an article of the quality you propose here.
- Also consider removing all external links except the
-
-
-
- Personal pages are another kind of minefield, keep one (even the very best of them) and you make a case for keeping them all, and that just isn't possible. --Zeraeph 19:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- PS Forgot to mention the possibility of creating seperate reading list article and characters from fiction article...particularly if you want FA. --Zeraeph 23:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Feedback on keeping track of references & advice on outside links
Seems a very sound, solid re-write so far to me.
- thank you. /but I sure don't consider it a rewrite by any means. I've built a a different expanded outline (and better, I hope) and sorted and relocated dibs and daps, doing little besides dumping them in their new home categoires.
Just a suggestion, maybe put notation numbers for the references that check out to make it easier to put them inline eventually in the right places.
- ah... Notation numbers? Could you please explain this to me.. Since
-
-
- It's ok, you were putting refs in as far as I can see, they just needed a bit of polishing and square bracketing --Zeraeph 01:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
-
Also consider removing all external links except the last category, and then sift through them very carefully and pick "six of the best".
- well, at least that is a guideline, whoever tackles the task. Today has been so long and grueling. All I can think of is SLEEP.
-
-
- I did my best "hatchet job" which leaves a nice, clean slate to build on. --Zeraeph 01:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
-
Support groups are generally considered non-notable and best excluded. Online support groups are unregulated, unacountable and there is literally no objective way to ensure the quality of them either exists, or will be sustained.
- hmmm.. can see your point, but wiki is filled with statements current only for "now" (and wonders when that now expires.
-
-
- Already expired in the case of at least 3 links.--Zeraeph 01:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
-
It's a minefield of subjectivity unsuitable to Wikipedia in general
- well, it is quite the usual at wiki to include this one nod of the head to this being a web world we live in. Which Wiki pages deal with this?
-
-
- I'll post them when I get them...but it's common sense really, remember, Wikipedia isn't supposed to include anything but solid, verified information. --Zeraeph 01:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- While I am not a user of any kind of bpd forums, I am also aware that the groups of "family/loved ones" is a mixed bag of good sites and those focused on strongly communicating that the BPD is a heartless crazy monster. So that is scarcely a support group for epilepsy or heart disease.
-
-
- And NEITHER approach is a neutral point of view and thus both are unacceptable. That is, as you will learn, the relaxing part of Wikipedia, your opinions (and everyone else's) stay at home while you edit. It's just about verifiable information, a bit like paralegal research --Zeraeph 01:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
-
and, to my mind, an insult to an article of the quality you propose here.
- hmmm.. I understand.
Personal pages are another kind of minefield, keep one (even the very best of them) and you make a case for keeping them all, and that just isn't possible. --Zeraeph 19:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- ah.. wasn't aware there were links to pages like that. What do you think of AJ Mahari's site? I didn't happen to see her site on the lists. I like her strong message of recovery. good chatting with you ... --A green Kiwi in learning mode 00:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- An awkward one...like toddlertime...it's a huge site into which a lot of effort has gone over many years but way POV and toddlertime is inclined to lobbying. However, in the case of AJ it is the personal experiences of a Borderline who turns out to have been misdiagnosed and is now rediagnosed as Asperger Syndrome...which is more of an unstable nuclear missile dump than a minefield in terms of site written from pertsonal experience...also...you post AJ Mahari, you have to repost toddlertime, and then "My Borderline experiences" and THEN...EVERYBODY'S Borderline experiences...if you see what I mean??? It's so much easier to stick with medical and official resources. --Zeraeph 01:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] NOTICE
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)
- 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)
-
- 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)
-
-
- 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)
-
[edit] Origin of the term
Shouldn't Gunderson be mentioned somewhere in that paragraph? Can't understands why no-one ever has --Zeraeph 06:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Fear of abandonment
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)