Ad blocker interference detected!
Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers
Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.
Bipolar personality disorder Edit
There are no citable reference to this term, much less the "facts" found within. --Alan del Beccio 17:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose I am pretty sure that Beverly Crusher goes over it in one of the TNG episodes and spouts information at least similar to the article's information. The article should be tagged needs attention, but not for deletion. --Dracorat 17:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Your vote would be much more valid if you could provide a source beyond "I'm pretty sure" to help pursuade or dissuade other voters. It should be deleted if no one can find a source, that is how the process usually works around here. --Alan del Beccio 17:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- My my, such hatred. Last I checked, a vote is a call for a person's opinion on a matter. I gave mine. There is no such thing as 'validity' on a vote. My vote remains as is. Dracorat 17:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
STARLING: That timeship is from the twenty-ninth century. Technology five hundred years more advanced than anything you've got. You'd love to get your hands on it. You figured I'd be any easy target, some backwards twentieth century Neanderthal that doesn't know what he's got. But you found out otherwise, didn't you. EMH: A paranoid response indicative of bipolar personality disorder. If my history is accurate, southern California in the late twentieth century had no shortage of psychotherapists, competent and otherwise. I suggest you find one. Now, return me to Voyager.
- First off Dracorat, there is a such thing as validity on a vote. If the vote does not mach the rules of MA policy, it should not be considered valid. Otherwise we would have nons running around saying that we should keep copyvios, etc. (well, we do, but there votes are not counted). I don't think your vote broke policy on that, per say, but find a source if you want to keep something. Otherwise, just make a comment saying that you think you remember it somewhere. Second off, please read MemoryAlpha:Deletion policy#Voting format. Oppose is not one of the accepted voting formats. That said, a canon source has been found, so the article just needs to be rewritten to match. Therefore, I vote keep. --OuroborosCobra talk 19:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Archiving -- Alan del Beccio 19:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- According to current classifications of mental disorders, Bipolar Disorder is a mood disorder, and not a personality disorder. The Doctor may have meant Borderline Personality Disorder, which is characterized by depth and variability of moods, including extremes of idealizing and demonizing others. It could be a dialogue or script error, or by the 24th century, the understanding of mental illness and how it's classified has changed.
- As bipolar personality disorder does not exist in modern psychological science (bipolar disorder is an affective disorder, quite separate from personality disorders), it is unclear whether the term was misused or was meant to refer to a fictitious futuristic disease.
Gonna start a discussion about this though:
(Split as in opposite for merge; dunno if there's officially such a thing :D)
Anyway; looking at transcripts for the two references in this article, one is talking about "bipolar disorder", which is a real thing yet which isn't the name of this page, and the other about "bipolar personality disorder", which doesn't actually currently exist. Now, there's kind of a taboo on mental disorders, which means people with experience of them get irked when they are misportrayed in the media, and which I'm guessing is the reason that over the last two years there have been two well-meaning comments (see above discussion) pointing out that "bipolar personality disorder" isn't an actual thing, which we've had no other option then to remove. But the page is icky anyway since there's two terms, one correct and one not, which are lumped together on this page. This ought to be resolvable, either by having two articles on the two terms (one with an explanation that it was most likely a malapropism), or maybe alternatively by renaming the page to the correct term and outright assuming the other was a malapropism. Any thoughts? -- Capricorn (talk) 04:04, September 22, 2013 (UTC)