Talk:Narcissistic personality disorder

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale. Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
B	rated as B-Class on the assessment scale
High	rated as high-importance on the assessment scale

• Archive 1
• Archive 2
• Archive 3

Contents 1 Archive 3 2 Why we must be careful with verifiability and citations 3 Creation of a False Self 4 Slight cleanup 5 Remove Link 6 Why is it all about you? 7 The Importance of Citations and WP:RS

[edit] Archive 3

Most archived material was quite old, the only more recent was almost entirely contentious and not very relevant to topic. Let's have a fresh start for 2007. --Zeraeph 12:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why we must be careful with verifiability and citations

There is an unbelievable volume of subjectivity, partial information and misinformation on this topic on the internet posted by self appointed experts, self styled "victims of narcissists", self styled "persons exceptional" (not a hint of grandiosity in that you understand), you name it. Some of these sources are malicious or mischievous, but most are well intentioned, or at worst self indulgent. There are even "schools of thought" that oppose each other that are equally misinformative on both sides!

It has got to the stage where it really would be unfair to single out any one individual as "The main source of misinformation on NPD". To the contrary, being a source of misinformation on NPD seems quite a fashionable vocation these days (the same applies to a few other Disorders and conditions).

The trouble is it is just TOO EASY fall into the trap of assuming that some of this misinformation is established and valid medical or psychological thought, often without even being aware of the source.

I think it is very important on Wikipedia to dismiss all that misinformation and get back to valid medical and psychological sources.

I personally feel that we owe it to those diagnosed with NPD, and those close to them, to present the diagnosis honestly, fairly, neutrally and accurately, without any kind of subjectivity, for or against.

I have already learned a little about what NPD really is from trying to straighten out this article (by interrogatng low flying mental health professionals, NOT from my own knowledge), as more good faith editors, without agenda, weigh in with valid, cited material, I am hoping to learn more.

Because of the plethora of misinformation already available, I am hoping we can try to achieve this by sticking to citing sources that people can, at least partially (such as PUBMED), check for themselves, rather than obscure paper only sources?

Let's do it, huh? --Zeraeph 12:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed wholeheartedly (very much so), except on the learned journals issue - monographs are not more reliable than journal articles, and decent encyclopedias regularly include salient papers on the topic.220.237.81.156 13:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't disagree, but under the circumstance I think it is wise to stick to sources that can be verified online as much as possible. Because a lot of total mumbo jumbo on this topic refers to convincing-sounding, but obscure, (physically) paper-only sources that do not say that which is attributed to them, do not originate from reliable sources, or even, do not exist altogether, and the best way to keep it straight is to avoid that? --Zeraeph 15:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Creation of a False Self

I have removed that edit for now as uncited, because it is a concept that seems to me (for some time) may have only originated in the amateur "online world of NPD". However if I am wrong about that I hope we can find valid, verifiable citations, from reputable academic or medical sources to not only support it but hopefully expand it into a subsection.--Zeraeph 12:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Masterson is an important source on this.220.237.81.156 13:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I remember the concept of the "false self" that was originally most related to Borderline Personality Disorder (in which article I do not think he is mentioned???) applied to other disorders(quoth Z, as though the whole thing was always known and had simply slipped mind, which would be untrue, because all I was familiar with was the connection to BPD). He is a really clear and understandable writer too. I have found a great paragraph of his definition of the creation of a false self that could not be improved upon for clarity. Sadly it relates to BPD and will need a second citation relating to NPD to back it up in order to relate the false self to NPD. Tricky, but I will find one. --Zeraeph 14:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slight cleanup

I made the final section more concise by removing tautology and other repetition. I also removed some rather unsubstantiated assertions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.237.81.156 (talk) 13:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Remove Link

remove link to suite101 site, as i got such response from system: "The following text is what triggered our spam filter: http://www_suite101_com" Dr.Gangino 19:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure what you mean? I didn't think there was a suite101 link and there doesn't seem to be one now? --Zeraeph 21:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why is it all about you?

@Zeraeph: Look, its a valid contemporary book addressing NPD and is readily available at all major booksellers and libraries. In response to your reference of WP-EL, there was no external link, just an ISBN # which Wikipedia automatically adds a link to (to its own ISBN search). And to your reference to WP-RS, this book has a endorsing foreword by James Masterson (the man himself!), and its published by Simon and Shuster. Sorry if the author is just a lowly LCSW, but again, it was placed under a "Further Reading" section, not references or sources. So, please reconsider adding this section, which you let stand for at least several weeks until some kid vandalized it, now all of a sudden its not restored because its no longer valid? And no, I am not the author, nor do I have a vested interest in the sales of this book. 24.38.116.118 17:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I have nothing against the book or the author, but, as Wikipedia does try to be an actual encyclopaedia, I honestly cannot justify the listing of a popular self help book as "further reading" before formal academic and medical books are listed. --Zeraeph 17:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The book does, I think(?), meet the criteria of being a reliable source. However, I suggest that rather than just mentioning it as a book for further reading, since it is not really a professional book on the subject, that it only be cited if it is used to support a statement...in other words, if it is used as a citation. DPeterson^talk 13:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea...that way the book gets the same treatment and prominence as academic and medical works and we avoid inadvertantly promoting it as a sole source of "Further Reading". --Zeraeph 14:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Importance of Citations and WP:RS

Citations and WP:RS are vitally important to this article, and not just because it's topic concerns a medical diagnosis, affecting many people directly and indirectly, though that should be more than enough reason.

There are people (who, may, possibly, need to get out more) who spend a lot of time insisting that this particular article is full of factual errors, whether it is or not, so, in order to keep such critics firmly in their rightful place, it is vital to ensure the latter, and to ensure that can be reliably verified at all times. ;o) --Zeraeph 18:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)