Talk:Narcissistic personality disorder

Deceptiveness

Editors, please devote some space to the very important issue of deceptiveness surrounding narcissism, and as discussed in the DSM more broadly.

Framed in general terms, there are different ramifications of deceptivenss. It can be purposeless (pathological lying). It can be for the maintenance of claims about the self (narcissism). Or a pattern of deception can become a covert goal indirectly reinforcing beliefs about the self. (narcissism, serial infidelity, paranoia, sociopathy, other forms of predation).

A person may directly or indirectly need to harm another person through deception, and narcissism is among those disorders in which that process occurs. For instance, serial infidelity stretching across partners seems in certain cases to be an indirect, covert goal that helps regulate shame. By cheating, the narcissist can view the partner as a dupe, allowing the demeaning beliefs that the narcissist must hold to become linked to a less shameful rationale.

Citations appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A.k.a. (talk • contribs) 17:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problems with diagnostic criteria

The American Psychiatric Association has not released its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders into public domain, but claims copyright. The Wikimedia Foundation has received a letter of complaint (Ticket:2010030910040817, for those with access) about the use of their diagnostic criteria in this and a number of other articles. Currently, this content is blanked pending investigation, which will last approximately one week. Please feel free to provide input at the copyright problems board listing during that time. Individuals with access to the books would be particularly welcome in helping to conduct the investigation. Assistance developing a plan to prevent misuse of the APA's material on Wikipedia projects would also be welcome. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth Edition. Copyright 1994 American Psychiatric Association. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

NPD vs ASPD/psychopathy/sociopathy

There has some debate on the differences between NPD and ASPD. Indeed, at first glance the disorders can appear quite similar. I think it might not be a bad idea to include some content in this article distinguishing NPD from ASPD (and two subcategories of ASPD: psychopathy and sociopathy) in order to emphasize the differences. From my understanding, people with NPD and people with ASPD share a few key symptoms such as interpersonal exploitation and lack of empathy, but people with NPD [and not ASPD] are relatively more narcissistic - albeit less crime-oriented and sadistic - than people with ASPD [but not NPD]. --82.31.164.172 (talk) 09:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

NPD and ASPD share some features, including selfishness, arrogance, promiscuity and never feeling guilt. However, the differences between the these two Cluster B PDs are substantial. Narcissists are typically educated, controlled, organised, ambitious, and have long-term goals. They are obsessed with attaining and maintaining good-looks, often to the extent of using botox and having cosmetic surgery. They are orineted towards wealth, power and high social status; a high proportion of narcissists graduate from university. Antisocials are often ugly and do not care about their appearance. They are typically lazy and don't want to become educated - a high proportion don't have any academic qualificiations. They are impulsive, destructive, reckless, anarchic and chaotic. Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder is comorbid with ASPD, but rare in narcissists. The large majority of antisocials have addictions and most are violent. They are centred on their own immediate gratification to the expense of everything. The ASPD prevalence is 2%, but the majority of prison inmates have it. That shows how strongly connected it is to criminality. Narcissists are over-represented in high levels of business and politics. They would be very unlikely to loiter on the streets in small groups, drunkenly shouting and deliberately intimidating, threatening and insulting passers-by. It would be rare for them to be muggers, burglars, rioters or petty thieves. Antisocials often do all those things, and enjoy doing so. Narcissists would not want to risk being sent to prison; they would hate the low status and lack of control they would have over their lives if locked up. Antisocials have no fear and don't care about or think about punishment or other negative future consequences. Few have any medium or long-term goals and don't regret their wrongdoing. An antisocial being sent to prison would be more likely to sadistically extort, threaten, beat and rape his cellmate than to be scared and horrified about being imprisoned. They often reoffend very soon after being released. Narcissists are indifferent to harm they do. Antisocials deliberately do harm for the sake of it because they enjoy doing so. Many of them record their crimes on mobile phones and boast about the crimes they have committed and the prison sentences they have served. Antisocials are concentrated in the underclass, but a high proportion of narcissists are upper middle-class.

To use a fictional example so as not to risk violating BLP: someone such as Gordon Gekko would not join a street gang, burgle poor people's houses, mug people at knifepoint for their mobile phones, slash car tyres or roam the streets to find a vulnerable stranger to beat up or rape for fun. Antisocials often gleefully do such things. The NPD and ASPD mindsets are significantly different, despite the fact that they are both uncaring and are interested in others only if they can use them for their own benefit. Of course, there are some violent disorganised narcissists and some successful organised antisocials, but they are a small minority in each case. 188.28.253.219 (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

All this need citation if put into the article. Much of what 188.28... is saying is completely contradicting todays psychological categorization of NPD. I don't mean to be rude, but it almost seems like 188.28... is trying to portray NPD as being something overwhelmingly positive and an advantage to gain personal achievements. However nothing as far as I have seen from journals support this claim. On the contrary, any potential positive short-term advantage of the scheming nature is by far thought to be over-compensated by the negative consequences of the unrealistic goals, the high maintenance cost of such an employee due to the self-entitlement and urge for praise, unstable social behaviour and prone to violence and so on are practically making NPD a huge disadvantage in the job career with very few exceptions (sport athletes being arguably one of them). The correlation between mass murderers and NPD is very high also. Dr Michael Stone's series "the Most Evil" is an educational and interesting source for this claim. Engolfer (talk) 20:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but isn't the modern thinking that these things are spectrum disorders and they don't neatly fit into one category or the other? 96.224.37.144 (talk) 19:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Some personality disordered people fit neatly into one PD. Many have more than one PD, and / or have features of one or more whilst meeting the criteria of another. Examples include Aileen Wuornos, who was diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder and borderline personality disorder; Sam Vaknin who has been diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder with schizoid features. 188.29.149.25 (talk) 17:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Most narcissists are not violent. Of those who are, a high proportion also have other personality disorders, especially ASPD and/or BPD. Jim Michael (talk) 13:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Cultural depictions

The character Eric Cartman from South Park would be a good addition to this section. The BP episode and the Fishsticks episode illustrate the delusions caused by NPD very well. I would have added him in myself but I was unable to find a good source to cite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.109.108.21 (talk • contribs) 06:59, 27 December 2010

Interesting suggestion. I like the Fishsticks episode, with Cartman and his delusion about who wrote the joke, and Kanye West with his delusion that leave him convinced that there couldn't be a joke that he wouldn't immediately grasp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.160.88.109 (talk) 03:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

NPD and defense mechanisms

there needs to be a proper section on npd and defense mechanisms. Splitting gets a mention but others may feature such as projection. --Penbat (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to edit

It is proposed that Narcissistic personality disorder be part of the trial of a new template; see the green strip at the top of Pain where it has been in place for a couple of months. The purpose of this project is to encourage readers to edit, while equipping them with the basic tools. If you perceive a problem with this, or have any suggestions for improvement, please discuss at the project talk page. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Gender differences

From my research on the subject I continuously see female suffers of NPD and male suffers as having completely different symptoms... within relationships and parenting. Perhaps different symptoms are presented in different degrees of severity. I think there is also a gender inequality where within the relationship there seems to be a higher degree of females with NPD. If it is equally balanced between males and females perhaps males are more likely to exhaust their NPD frustrations in the workforce whereas females are more likely to bring damage to romantic relationships. These are things that I have noticed in forums and documentaries and all sorts of places. It seems obvious to me that there are differences in gender roles but I can't find anything definitive which examines NPD specifically with regard to gender. If anyone could list some sources to cite from that would be greatly appreciated. I think it is very important NPD knowledge of course it is something that probably hasn't been thoroughly researched. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SomeUser5050 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Barack Obama

He is a textbook case of this disorder. 71.205.174.204 (talk) 04:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree with the poster below. This is pure speculation and ought to be avoided. That being said, there are a cultural misconception that a lot of the high end politicians and successful business owners are more likely than others to have NPD. However there are little to support this claim and the inconsistencies and lack of credibility the scheming nature of NPD often requires, will more often than not make it very hard for such a person to successfully get very far due to the fact that the higher up you get, the more under the loop you will be and scheming becomes virtually impossible, although it can be an advantage in short terms on lower type of occupations where the inconsistencies are not so easily detectable like in a burger shop or a simple warehouse.Engolfer (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Given that almost none of us here are qualified medical professionals, I really don't think it would be appropriate for any of us to hazard a diagnosis from afar. In addition, there are potential issues regarding WP:NPOV and WP:OR. LizFL (talk) 11:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention the biography of living persons rules. And honestly, even if we were medical professionals, none of us could possibly hope to ever realisticly make this claim for anyone. Such a thing would require personal therapy and investigation, and such therapy would of course be a matter of confidentiality. Literally claiming personality disorders in living people, politician or not, has no place on this or any other page. 74.132.249.206 (talk) 23:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

An additional thought; even if such documents were released by the therapist, the breaking of confidentiality would immediatly nullify the use of those documents, as the therapist has taken a clearly non-neutral position. 74.132.249.206 (talk) 23:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but you can toss those terms around for white people, eh? Just not on the blacks. How about Spike Lee? There's a delusional personality if I ever saw one. But, the liberal nonsense of this country fully protects them from criticism, eh? Hypocrites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.46.93 (talk) 21:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

"Liberal Nonsense"? It seems your biases are showing. Please refer to WP:NPOV. LizFL (talk) 14:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Someone removed this comment minutes after I entered it under the cultural depictions section. Since many professionals have diagnosed Barack Obama as a narcissist, I find it hard to understand how there should not be remarks in that section. Is Wikipedia politically biased? Moreover, a dialog about the US President's narcissism is arguably the single most relevant "cultural depiction" available in the entire world. Here's the passage that I entered. Instead of simply removing it, perhaps someone with more Wikipedia experience than me could clean it up and post it?

Barack Obama has been diagnosed as a narcissist In March, 2012, the Danish Broadcasting Corporation's television news magazine show, Detektor, produced a story in which United States President Barack Obama is shown repeatedly stating to leaders of various nations from around the world that they are are the United States' "strongest ally". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.3.213.43 (talk) 14:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

References

• Yes, "diagnosed" as a narcissist by political opponents and self-described therapists performing over the Internet, all collected on an anti-Obama website. Yep, that's reliable alright! Adding an unrelated slam at the end of your paragraph was a good touch, too. We would not accept that kind of crap about any living person, and we should not accept it about Obama. That is why I removed it. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 18:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• I take objection with ArglebargleIV's calling my efforts to improve this page "crap". Such acrimony is inappropriate for this community and only serves to highlight that this user cannot detach their emotions from their fingers while on Wikipedia. Would we refrain from putting into Wikipedia reports of a Hollywood super star's psychological disorder or their fight against drug abuse? Of course not! Wikipedia accepts "that kind of crap" about living people all the time! The fact is Barack Obama is a man seen by many, not just me, but others, as possessing narcissistic properties. The "cultural depictions" section has a note calling to be expanded. So, I tried to expand it. As to my "unrelated slam", that's just yet another example of the closed-minded attitude exhibited by this user. That second sentence was clearly an example intended to support the preceding sentence. I even went out of my way to avoid political bias by exemplifying the US President's disorder through content sourced outside the USA. Finally, and most importantly, this section about President Obama was in this discussion page prior to my even coming here. That fact only serves to further prove that it's not just one individual but many who believe this important matter deserves to see the light of day. So, in closing, instead of deleting my posts and putting me and every other user who has contributed to this Barack Obama section down for an honest attempt to improve Wikipedia, perhaps ArglebargleIV could check their bias and anger at the login page and invest his or her time into helping us? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.3.213.43 (talk) 12:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
• Quite an overboard paragraph, but I'll respond anyway.
  Technically, I didn't call your efforts crap, I called the results of your efforts crap -- admittedly, only a little difference, but it is there. Under Wikipedia's policy on the biographies of living persons we would not and should not report on a Hollywood star's purported psychological disorder without cited reliable sources (and they had better be expert sources!). I think that policy is a excellent one for an encyclopedia. Potshots at a living person from blogs and editorial columns do not expert reliable sources make. If you want to say more, either pro- or anti-Obama, find a blog or a tumblr. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 16:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• I have seen claims by different people that all of the last three presidents are narcissists. I strongly suspect they would violently disagree with one another along party lines. When the wrong guy gets elected, it is time to demonize him. Since a president has great power and is at the pinnacle of leadership, it is a simple step to characterize him as a power-mad would-be dictator who wants to make everyone subservient to his will, i.e., a narcissist. I am sure all of the accusers have their many facts lined up as proof. But what I think it really means is, "I don't like the way the country is being run right now, and don't ask me to join his fan club." I believe for the purpose of working out the personality structure and inward motivations of a public figure, it might be best to confine oneself to the shapers of history. Andrew Jackson might be a good one to start with in connection with the present subject. (I do share concerns about living elected leaders, but I know the Wiki page is not the place for it. I would love to see the analysis of Hillary, who for some reason told amazing and often completely unnecessary lies, but wikipedia.org is not the place for it.)Aragorn 20:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkshrews (talk • contribs)

• Using this comment section as an example, it seems fairly obvious that political candidates or elected officials should not ever be included as "text book examples" or "case studies" in this article since doing so simply stirs up controversy. Furthermore, I see no indication as to how including a controversial political figure in this article furthers a reader's understanding of this disorder. If a specific person must be used as an example, there are plenty of non-controversial or less controversial public figures that can be used. Using a politician simply turns supporters of that politician off from using Wikipedia. For the same reason, there should not be an entire section in this article devoted to Donald Trump.

-- yomrlax (talk) 20:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Dubious

Reading a section on Devaluation and Idealization, I found a much more...appropriate terming of this section of the article. "In child development idealization and devaluation are quite normal. During the childhood development stage, individuals become capable of perceiving others as complex structures, containing both good and bad components. If the development stage is interrupted (by early childhood trauma, for example), these defense mechanisms may persist into adulthood."

It shows the problem as a MAY, recognizing that these issues are very much complex and hard to ultimately determine. I think this would be a great way to frame the dubious paragraph at the bottom of "Causes." In addition, it phrases the effects of childhood influence in a far more cautious manner than the one presented on the NPD article. However, the words to rewrite this myself are elusive. Should I be able to, I will do so, but I'd encourage anyone else whos a bit better at stringing words together than I am. (my writing style being best described as "taking forever to say nothing.") 74.132.249.206 (talk) 23:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Self love?

Narcissism seems to be confused with egomania with a lot of lay people and in Pop Psychology. Having studied Psychology and read a few text books on the topic, most Psychiatrists state that someone with NPD in fact hates themselves. Even though Humanist Psychology is written off by most academics because of there appears to be no theories in Humanism that have been proved factual, Humanism cannot actually lead to NPD. When people talk about narcissism in modern society that's not to say that NPD is rife. It just means that people are more self aware? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spyingcactus (talk • contribs) 00:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Narcissistic personality existing regardless of self esteem?

Narcissistic disorder being characterised by 'image obsession',that they must always appear good and strong people to everyone that observes them.

Many narcissistic traits are displayed in inferiority complexes ,and indeed I think people with low esteem are indeed more prone to it. People with overly-highself esteem tend to have more problems to do with recklessness (perceived invulnerability) rather than obsessively proving everyone that they're the best there is, after all, in their point of view, why should they have to prove it? Is there anything they have to prove anyway? Unlike Sinebot I'm not saying this is the rule, they may too afraid that they'll lose their perceived high status.

In addition to enjoying a high standard of living, narcissists require that many other people view and treat them as superior. They have high-self esteem but don't merely need to feel it themselves. Narcissists manouevre themselves into high positions in order to gain narcissistic supply from their staff, partners etc. They demand to be looked up to and praised. They are probably insecure, although they don't admit it; they feel a need for high status and wealth to make them feel secure that they are powerful, successful and intelligent - and therefore better than those around them. It is a different kind of arrogance to that of the reckless antisocial. 188.28.253.219 (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Removing a bit from entitlement

I'm removing the following from entitlement as just undue an dleaving just the first paragraph and a link to this article. There may be some use for it here. Dmcq (talk) 11:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Narcissism

In clinical psychology and psychiatry, an unrealistic, exaggerated, or rigidly held sense of entitlement may be considered a symptom ofnarcissistic personality disorder, seen in those who 'because of early frustrations...arrogate to themselves the right to demand lifelong reimbursement from fate.

Narcissists hold unreasonable expectations of particularly favorable treatment and automatic compliance because they consider themselves special. Failure to comply is considered an attack on their superiority, and the perpetrator is considered an "awkward" or "difficult" person. Defiance of their will is a narcissistic injury that can trigger narcissistic rage.

'John Murray (1964) in his/her now classic paper of narcissism and the ego ideal' laid great 'emphasis on narcissistic entitlement and the manner in which this reflects infantile pregenital narcissistic fixations' - something which led in turn to the 'notion of the "narcissistic triad". The narcissistic triad involves (1) narcissistic entitlement, (2) disappointment and disillusionment at the frustration of narcissistic needs, and (3) narcissistic rage'.

Belief in the special, exceptional nature of 'narcissistic entitlement dictates that the patient has a right to life on his/her own terms...Such narcissistic entitlement plays a central role in borderline pathology, since the borderline sees himself as a special person with special rights and entitlements, such that any frustration of these entitled desires tends to undermine and often shatter the patient's self-esteem'.

In the wake of Kohut's self-psychology, a valorisation of narcissistic entitlement might be said to have taken place, as 'the age of "normal narcissism" and normal narcissistic entitlement had arrived...[a] child's right and entitlement that its parents are obliged to proffer at the least the minimum requisite "self-object" soothing...to allow the infant/child to develop a sense of self-cohesion'.

References

History and Systems of Psychology course

I’m editing this article as a part of my History and Systems of Psychology course and Shenandoah University, in conjunction with the APS Wikipedia Initiative. The article I will be using are: Narcissism and Narcissistic Defences in the Eating Disorders , Development and Validation of the Childhood Narcissism ScaleNarcissistic Personality DisorderNarcissistic Personality Disorders: The Egotistical PatternValentinesday1986 (talk) 18:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

References

Removal of paragraph

I think this paragraph: "To form a more accurate ideology of the mentality of one suffering from this disorder,Kent Daniel Glowinski's book Narcissistic personality disorder : poems is greatly recommended.The author delves into the mind of a narcissistic person and has composed a book of poems, very eerily written in a narcissistic individuals point of view." should be removed- it is completely subjective. Katiekillick (talk) 19:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The Cult of the Narcissist must be exposed in the article prominently, and perhaps in the introductory lines.

As a victim of the so called Cult of the Narcissist I must say it is one of the most prevalent characteristics of the NPD world. It consumes its victims on its closed circle by imposing on them his or her lifestyle in a way that is abusive since it often uses excessive Projective Identification, i.e. pushes its close ones to become him temporarily. This consumes the cult of the Narcissist into a vicious cycle of believing they have the problems Narcissist has. It is imperative in my opinion to expose this information (included in the above link or elsewhere) for these 2 reasons.

1) It is very easy to not be aware of it because the word "Narcissist" implies to most Laymen just a "just preoccupied with oneself" sense, which is very dangerous to be considered it only stays at that

2) It is probably the most dangerous of the outcomes of this condition. i.e. The NPD patient is one, its victims might be more. --194.219.131.11 (talk) 07:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

It came to my attention there has been a war on the above article and has made the bots of wikipedia to remove the information automatically. It is imperative in my opinion to include this information somehow - perhaps via another author - because it is very dangerous to steer people thinking that maybe NPD patients are "just preoccupied with oneself". They are very dangerous to their close ones and it is very possible the people with problems around them are MORE than the Narcissists simply because the Narcissists have a tendency to create flocks, the "herd" will be naturally more in numbers. i.e. Do not let a previous flamewars stop information going. --194.219.131.11 (talk) 07:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

PS. I suspect the war is a product of him hinting Obama might has NPD, which I agree might be bs, but do not make politics make you make wikipedia worse. At least use other sources. --194.219.131.11 (talk) 07:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

See my comment below in the "Symptoms" section about the lack of info in this article on the subject of the narcissistic domination hierarchy.Aragorn 14:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkshrews (talk • contribs)

Impact of recent student edits

This article has recently been edited by students as part of their course work for a university course. As part of the quality metrics for the education program, we would like to determine what level of burden is placed on Wikipedia's editors by student coursework.

If you are an editor of this article who spent time correcting edits to it made by the students, please tell us how much time you spent on cleaning up the article. Please note that we are asking you to estimate only the negative effects of the students' work. If the students added good material but you spent time formatting it or making it conform to the manual of style, or copyediting it, then the material added was still a net benefit, and the work you did improved it further. If on the other hand the students added material that had to be removed, or removed good material which you had to replace, please let us know how much time you had to spend making those corrections. This includes time you may have spent posting to the students' talk pages, or to Wikipedia noticeboards, or working with them on IRC, or any other time you spent which was required to fix problems created by the students' edits. Any work you did as a Wikipedia Ambassador for that student's class should not be counted.

Please rate the amount of time spent as follows:

• 0 -No unproductive work to clean up
• 1 - A few minutes of work needed
• 2 - Between a few minutes and half an hour of work needed
• 3 - Half an hour to an hour of work needed
• 4 - More than an hour of work needed

Please also add any comments you feel may be helpful. We welcome ratings from multiple editors on the same article. Add your input here. Thanks! -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The Treatment section - medications

There appears to be a contradiction in the article regarding the effectiveness of medication in treatment. The end of the first paragraph states simply that "pharmacotherapy is rarely effective", but the third paragraph discusses various circumstances in which medications can be "an effective addition" or even "extremely beneficial" to the patient. As someone with no knowledge of the subject, I think the section would benefit from some clarification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.57.101 (talk) 08:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Neurology

It seems to me that this article needs a section on possible neurological etiologies of "Narsicistic Personality Disorder" and any pharmaceutical treatments. It is heavily biased towards the almost- completely theoretical field of Psychology and as such seems to have an underlying departure from established scientific facts. As is well known, many, many people question the validity of many findings and theories in Psychology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.204.112 (talk) 10:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi 68.199.204.112! If you have good, secondary sources - and please also check WP:MEDRS - than please be bold and write a section about it! With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 15:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

If you can find anything about narcissism and neurology, please add it to this article. I am not aware of anything, and to be honest, I don’t know if you’re going to have much luck. This is why I, personally, question the validity of personality disorders. Charles35 (talk) 16:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Much of this is incorrect, according to DSM-IV-TM

However, I was reverted when I tried to fix the criteria. There are other major errors. For example, the narcissictic personality is incorrectly described as "sadistic" and other major misunderstandings. Apparently, editors have pieced together their own version from several diverse and conflicting sources. Hopefully, someone will be able to fix it without being instantly reverted. Farrajak (talk) 01:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Strikethrough editing in Symptoms section

The numerous uses in this section of strikethrough, followed by "- this is not on the DSM-IV-TR criteria" or "not on DSM IV-TR criteria" seems to me to be highly inappropriate. Discussing the inclusion of those particular symptoms, and their validity with regard to the DSM IV-TR, is something that should take place here in the "Talk" section, not on the actual page for the reader to see. If the contributor believes the symptoms are not found in the DSM IV-TR, and therefore does not meet the criteria set forward by the opening statement of the section which read, "Symptoms of this disorder, as defined by the DSM-IV-TR include:", then the contributor should have deleted those symptoms on the Editing page and given the explanation for doing so there, rather than muddying up the article itself with strikethroughs and statements of invalidity.

The article should appear finished, not as if it were a draft. In other words, either talk about the errors in the "Talk" section, or edit them out in the "Edit" section. But please don't bleed all over the article and then leave it in that condition for everyone to see. This is not a school paper. The contributor is (probably) not the section writer's teacher. Leaving marks of correction all over the article is neither professional nor helpful to persons reading it in search of information on the topic at hand. Lunarmovements (talk) 04:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it's not appropriate but I didn't know what else to do. I spent a lot of time fixing the symptoms to comply with the DSM-IV-TR, rewording them in my own words. I was instantly reverted. The person reverted just said more or less that since they were shorter they were wrong. (It had contained several more symptoms than the DSM-IV-TR listed, beside incorrectly phasisng others. The person reverted obviously didn't evaluate the changes, just saying shorter must be wrong. No point for me to do all that work again put them back and just get reverted again. So I just left out the correct ones I had added, and struck out the inaccurate ones, so I wouldn't be reverted again instantly. I agree a "draft" look is bad, but not as bad as wrong info. Farrajak (talk) 13:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it is a mistake to let DSM be the sole source and standard used for contributions of this sort to this NPD page. I think this section might be amended in some way to say "DSM states the following symptoms....", then followed by "Other authorities note the following additional symptoms....", which can then be individually documented. Unless, of course, it has been determined by the gods that this wiki page is a book report on DSM. There are many reasons that a committee doing an industry standards work like DSM may leave out valid and useful information, and I think it will be helpful to many readers if some of this other, perhaps more practical, info is mentioned in the page. For example, I have found the narcissistic chatter symptom is often my first clue that a person is affected by NPD. They love to talk about themselves and will shift the conversation back to this favorite subject even if the topic is changed by someone else. This item is not mentioned in the DSM symptom list. Another important set of symptoms relate to the fan club--the domination hierarchy that provides the narcissistic supply and works as the attack force against critics. This is not mentioned by the DSM symptom list. I would assert that any document describing NPD that does not deal with the domination hierarchy has seriously missed something. This is one of the prominent features of the condition that seriously affects other people. Not all of us are psychotherapists whose business is small or one-on-one meetings with troubled souls away from their real-life contexts. Some of us work daily in large organizations where the NPD person can become a big operator. Narcissists have minions, and minions go forth to do their dirty work. On three unrelated occasions in three different organizations, I have been jumped on en mass by a devoted cadre of intense followers because I disagreed with their fearless leader. For the reader like me, documentation of the NPD domination hierarchy issue might be the most helpful part of the page, especially in relation to a list of practical symptoms I can observe without having superpowers that enable me to peer into the depths of the person's heart and mind to learn that he is "envious" or that he is "preoccupied" with certain "thoughts and fantasies."--Aragorn 01:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Love

Can a narcissist love anyone other than himself? This is not stated in the article. Many narcissists fantasize about 'ideal love', but what does that mean to a narcissist? Would it be reciprocal, or would the narcissist seek only to be loved and looked up to? I cannot see how a narcissist could love anyone other than himself. A narcissist can be fixated on one person to whom he is attracted - but is it love? There is a similar issue regarding love and HPD, but no conclusion has been reached on Talk:Histrionic personality disorder. Jim Michael (talk) 14:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Symptoms

There is a contradiction here between the two successive paragraphs:

Other symptoms in addition ... appears unemotional,....

Narcissistic personality disorder is characterized by dramatic, emotional behavior....

Which is correct or has better citation creds? The rest of the article seems to favour emotional behaviour, but maybe there needs to be a distinction between subtypes mentioned in a later section. My only personal experience of the type was both openly emotional and a "drama queen", but that's just my two bits worth. In any case, it's confusing to have this direct contradiction without explanation. D A Patriarche (talk) 05:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Society and Culture - Asuka Langley Soryu

The Society and Culture section that lists Asuka Langley as an example cites a youtube video of a guy at an anime convention as the source...

At the very least, it should be made clear that it is fan speculation - if not removed altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.183.88.209 (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed that it doesn't belong here. If it's a genuine lecture by a scholar, it's of no use unless the academic is identified. I'm removing it as not meeting verifiability and reliable source standards. If anyone can provide material meeting WP:NOR, they're welcome to reintroduce this anime character. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Diagnosis

Hi All, I believe that although there is much debate regarding the disorder's presence in the DSM 5, the information is still included in DSM 5 and should therefore be present on the page. That being said, I believe that the following information should be displayed under diagnosis after the first 3 paragraphs:

However, according to the DSM-5, a diagnosis for Narcissistic Personality Disorder is indicated by 5 (or more) of the following symptoms:

1. Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements).
2. Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love.
3. Believes that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions).
4. Requires excessive admiration.
5. Has a sense of entitlement (i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations).
6. Is interpersonally exploitative (i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends).
7. Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others.
8. Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her.
9. Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes. [1]

--Jkmx09 16 April 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkmx09 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Rejected WP:COPYVIO and not DSM 5, but DSM IV. See for details.--Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed subtypes (Millon etc.)

The described subtypes appear not to be those proposed by Millon, but rather a "mixed" variant of subtype systems. In the source I have read (and I unfortunately can't find it any more, it was a book preview from Google Books website), there were two classifications described. One was Millon's system including "unprincipled", "amorous", "compensatory", "elitist" and "fanatic" narcissism, and the other one included four different subtypes named "craving", "paranoid", "manipulative" and "phallic". "Malignant narcissism" wasn't included in any of the two systems. (I hope I remember them correctly - at least Millon proposed five subtypes, but didn't include malignant narcissism but instead a "fanatic" subtype.)

So if such subtype classifications are mentioned, maybe one should mention the different classifications apart from each other, and avoid messing them up... I hope I could help. As I said I don't find a reliable source any more, but there was one not long ago... --79.243.238.86 (talk) 23:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but it's of no use without the reference for verification and establishing that it's a reliable source. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 08:09, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump Addition to Narcissistic Disorder Article

Please add comments to this.

Yomrlax (talk) 16:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC) It should be noted that a previous attempt to add a portion about a political figure as a "case example" to this article stirred up controversy. See the Barack Obama section on this talk page. Using the Barack Obama controversy as an example, it seems fairly obvious that political candidates or elected officials should not ever be included as "text book examples" or "case studies" in this article since doing so simply stirs up controversy. Furthermore, I see no indication as to how including a controversial political figure in this article furthers a reader's understanding of this disorder. If a specific person must be used as an example, there are plenty of non-controversial or less controversial public figures that can be used. Using a politician simply turns supporters of that politician off from using Wikipedia. For the same reason, there should not be an entire section in this article devoted to Donald Trump.

What's more is that the section has chosen its test subject arbitrarily. Test subjects that are highlighted in an encyclopedic article should always be chosen for a specific purpose. The wiki editor should be able to answer questions such as why was Donald Trump chosen as a person to have an entire section devoted to him in this article? Is he a unique example of narcissism - a rare case that is more interesting scientifically than any other narcissistic person? Since this article is scientific in nature, the decision to choose one test subject over any other should always be rooted in the goal of furthering the reader's scientific understanding. In this particular case, the chosen test subject and the resultant case study does nothing to further a reader's understanding of the disorder.

Since narcissism is essentially a medical condition, having a section that highlights Donald Trump as an example of someone who has it is about as absurd as if there was a section in an encyclopedia article on the flu that explains that Barack Obama once had the flu. Neither help further the reader's understanding of the medical condition. In both cases, the only interesting thing about the test subjects is that they are famous.

Putting all of this together, it becomes clear that not only should Donald Trump not be used as the test subject (or Barack Obama), but there should not be a section in this article whatsoever titled "Theoretical Study". The title is too broad and the content too arbitrary. Specific case studies should be contained in a section whose title highlights the unique features of those case studies. For example, it might be appropriate to have a section titled "Famous People with Narcissism". Or, to have a section titled "Politicians with Narcissism" (although, as I pointed out earlier, this will simply stir up controversy and cause people to not go to Wikipedia anymore).

• Comment. I agree with the deletion, it should not have been added, the section is POV and reflects American politics and not WP. No basis for its re-addition. Szzuk (talk) 16:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. I also agree with the deletion for the reasons elaborated above regarding its relevance to learning about NPD, which is the topic of this article. However, I think it takes a big intellectual shortcut to conflate the relevance of Trump's NPD qualities with those of Obama. It would be hard to argue that Obama embodies critical qualities for diagnosing NPD; he clearly has a strong ability to empathize with others, and even if he possibly lacks an inherent predilection for some of the traits in question, they have not interfered with his ability to live his life and pursue his goals. He has a strong record of demonstrating humility and empathy when needed, and the Personality Disorder diagnosis is contingent on demonstrable and consequential deficits. Most importantly, it would be hard to find enough reputable expert sources willing to say that Obama has NPD. Trump, on the other hand, has clearly allowed his empathetic deficits and other traits relevant to an NPD diagnosis to negatively impact his ambitions and impair his decision-making skills. Many prominent psychologists have linked Trump with an NPD-type disorder, including Northwestern University Professor of Psychology Dan McAdams writing in The Atlantic, Harvard Psychologist Howard Gardner, who called Trump "remarkably narcissistic," and psychologist George Simon, who is quoted in McAdams's piece as saying Trump is so inclined to narcissistic tendencies that Simon is "archiving video clips of him to use in workshops because there’s no better example” of narcissism. As I mentioned earlier, I still don't think it's a relevant topic for this article, but the vast number of expert sources linking Trump to Narcissistic Personality Disorder should probably make it a reasonable topic on Trump's own page. Unfortunately, I don't see anything on Trump's talk page indicating an openness to go there, probably as a valid point of discretion, and I certainly wouldn't want to lead an attempt to push such a prospect on such a highly monitored and trafficked biography page for a presidential candidate with a reputation for litigious threats to free speech (which, ironically, are probably a result of his NPD personality). J TerMaat (talk) 09:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Narcissistic personality disorder. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-megalomania.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The diagnostic criteria in this article don't match those in the final version of the DSM-V that I'm looking at right now.

Hi - I believe that the diagnostic criteria for NPD in this article match the *draft* DSM-V criteria (which were a change from the DSM-IV criteria) but not the *final* DSM-V diagnostic criteria for NPD (which I'm looking at right now in the Kindle version of the DSM-V, and which essentially match the original DSM-IV criteria). There was a complicated debate about the definition of NPD and the personality disorders in the DSM-V (which I did not follow closely). At one point in a draft of DSM-V, I believe that NPD was removed as a standalone disorder. Then there was a proposed alternate dimensional diagnostic definition for the personality disorders as a group, then I believe for the final version the DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for NPD itself were essentially restored (for a variety of reasons including the difficulty of using a dimensional model in therapy), while a dimensional definition of the personality disorders as a group was retained.

I'm not sure I'm getting that complicated history all correct. But what I *can* say for a fact is that I'm looking at the Kindle version of the DSM-V Fifth Edition right now, and here's the definition it shows for NPD:

A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following: 1. Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements). 2. Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love. 3. Believes that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions). 4. Requires excessive admiration. 5. Has a sense of entitlement (i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations). 6. Is interpersonally exploitative (i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends). 7. Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others. 8. Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her. 9. Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes.

American Psychiatric Publication (2016-02-13). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5(tm)): American Psychiatric Pub; 5 edition (Page 702). American Psychiatric Pub; 5 edition. Kindle Edition.

Hopefully someone who follows this topic more closely than I do can cross-check the definition in this wikipedia article vs. the definitive final DSM-5 and update the wikipedia article if necessary? As it stands, the wikipedia diagnostic criteria attributed to DSM-V don't appear to match what's actually in the DSM-V. Am I missing something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Everydayrationality (talk • contribs) 04:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Copyright violations and other issues with sources

I'm removing everything in the Signs and symptoms section under the DSM-5 and DSM-IV-TR subsections per WP:COPYVIO. It's all copied verbatim from this source. The DSM-5 stuff is out of date anyway as the source was published 2 years before the DSM-5 came out and the finalized criteria were different (as Everydayrationality mentioned above). I have access to the DSM-5, so I'm working on rewording those symptoms in a way that isn't a copyright violation, so I'll re-add that bit soon. I'm going to leave out the DSM-IV-TR stuff at this point.

I also removed the green lines below from the Signs and symptoms section, because of issues with the cited sources. I'm pasting it here, so other people can have it on hand if they want to reinsert something similar later with better sources.

Extended content

"Other symptoms in addition to the ones defined by DSM-IV-TR include: Is inter-personally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends, has trouble keeping healthy relationships with others, easily hurt or rejected, appears unemotional, and exaggerating special achievements and talents, setting unrealistic goals for himself/herself... Another narcissist symptom is a lack of empathy. They are unable to relate, understand, and rationalize the feelings of others. Instead of behaving in a way that shows how they are feeling in the moment, they behave in the way that they feel they are expected to behave or that gives them the most attention." Source: Freeman, Arthur; Angela Breitmeyer; Melissa Flint (2000). "The Challenges in Diagnosing Narcissistic Personality Disorder: Difficult to Define, but "We Know It When We See It"". Clinical Forum. That source doesn't seem to exist. I believe it's actually referencing this workshop description, but I'm not sure because not all of the details match the citation (such as the date and title). Seems to me that the source is either WP:QUESTIONABLE or nonexistent. "...as well as dramatic, emotional behavior that is in the same category as antisocial and borderline personality disorders... Comments and criticisms about others are vicious from sufferers of NPD, in an attempt to boost their own poor self-esteem." Source doesn't support content. "When someone shows many characteristics of NPD but in a less severe-manner it is often referred to as narcissism (a personality trait in the dark triad) or Sub-clinical Narcissism. For example, one doesn't lack empathy though they feel a significantly lower amount of empathy than the average person." Source doesn't support content. "An extensive US survey found a high association with other disabilities, especially amongst men: mental disability, substance use, mood, anxiety disorders and other personality disorders, bipolar I disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and schizotypal and borderline personality disorders were among the associated disabilities." Needs to be reworded to more accurately reflect the source. "In 2005, Board and Fritzon published the results of a study in which they interviewed senior business managers, assessing them for the presence of personality disorder. Comparing their findings to three samples of psychiatric patients, they found that their senior business managers were as likely to demonstrate narcissistic traits as the patient population, although they were less physically aggressive. However, the self concepts of figures achieving senior influence or responsibility, positions attained during specialised careers measured in years or decades, cannot reasonably be commensurable with fantasies of dominance and supremacy among those commonly presenting with NPD, whose lives tend to show little distinction in any area of attainment." Source doesn't support content, especially the bolded part. The first part misunderstands the source and conflates different findings, but hypothetically could be re-worded and re-inserted. It's not a strong source anyway though b/c it's from 2005 and it's original research. It would be better to find a more recent review article talking about about the prevalence of NPD among business managers, if someone feels that's an important topic to include. "Narcissism is often associated with other personality disorders, and sometimes even disorders in general. Theodore Million listed five "sub-types" of NPD, four of which NPD was associated with another disorder. Narcissism is often associated with psychopathy, as on Robert Hare's Psychopathy Checklist Revised the very first item is having a grandiose (unrealistic sense of superiority) about themselves, which is also the first item on the DSM IV-TR for Narcissistic Personality Disorder." Unsourced, reads like WP:SYNTH, and it doesn't make sense the way it's worded anyway.

I haven't looked at the rest of the article yet, but based on this one section, it doesn't seem like it would be a bad idea to attempt to verify the rest of the sources in the article. PermStrump(talk) 03:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

FYI to future editors.... I updated the sources and consolidated redundant content in the first two sections, Signs and symptoms and Causes, and stopped at Diagnosis. IMHO all of the sources beyond that point should be checked. I've only skimmed the rest of the article, but my gut instinct is to be skeptical about the tables in the subtype section. The See also section is kind of odd too. PermStrump(talk) 12:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Duplicate references

References 1 and 35 are the same reference, which is at http://www.bdlive.co.za/articles/2011/01/07/megalomiacs-abound-in-politicsmedicinefinance

I don’t have the citation skills yet to combine them into one reference entry.

Here is how they are shown now:

1. a b "Megalomiacs abound in politics/medicine/finance". Business Day Live. Jan 7,2011. Retrieved 17 July 2016. Check date values in: |date= (help)

35. Megalomaniacs abound in politics/medicine/finance Business Day 2011/01/07

ProfessionalCommunicatorEducator 00:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Professionaleducator (talk • contribs)

 Fixed —PermStrump(talk) 07:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2016

in the Treatment section, you have a missing NPD as indicated by where I put the brackets in the following sentence, the second of paragraph 4: "Researchers originally thought group therapy among patients with [NPD] would fail because it was believed that group therapy required empathy that NPD patients lack."

Here is the corrected sentence, reproduced in order to provide better grammatical clarity: Researchers originally thought group therapy among patients with NPD would fail because it was believed that group therapy required empathy that NPD patients lack.

Best,

d

Anonymiscellaneous (talk) 17:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done Nice catch! Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

The change in Millon's subtypes

Seems like someone replaced "Fanatic Narcissist (+ Paranoid traits )" with "Malignant narcissist (wich is very similar to 'Malevolent Antisocial variant' and 'Malignan Paranoid variant')" I have never heard of read anything about millons ver. of "malignant narcissist " as a subtype of NPD from his writings. Id like to know the source of Millons ver. of "Malignant narcissist and why the "Fanatic narcissist (which I consider to be very important clinical concept, also you can find this NPD subtype from Millon's book. )" has been eliminated.

"Fanatic narcissist Including paranoid features An individual whose self-esteem was severely arrested during childhood, who usually displays major paranoid tendencies, and who holds on to an illusion of omnipotence. These people are fighting delusions of insignificance and lost value, and trying to re-establish their self-esteem through grandiose fantasies and self-reinforcement. When unable to gain recognition or support from others, they take on the role of a heroic or worshipped person with a grandiose mission."

By what it seems, this just sounds like normal narcissistic behavior under severe narcissistic supply abstinence. Even histrionic comorbidities might eventually develop those features in such a scenario. Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 08:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

There's also a fanatic subtype in the paranoid personality disorder article. Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 08:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Cause

The cause is currently posted as "unknown". Is it not well established that Narcissism is caused by childhood abuse/neglect and epigenetics? The general consensus seems to be threefold which are: (1) pathological pampering (typically due to a narcissistic caregiver projecting onto the child an idealized perception of them to satisfy the narcissists beliefs in the child being a perfect extension of themselves), (2) rejection of child (often in a environment of conditional attention, high criticism, and hyper-competitiveness), (3) epigenetic inheritance from recent ancestors with NPD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyrus Freedman (talk • contribs) 01:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2017

SwansenAcc (talk) 10:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@SwansenAcc:  Not done. Your request is blank. CityOfSilver 14:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2017

@SwansenAcc:  Not done. Calling that number "plain wrong" is an issue because the reliable source this article uses was published in 2009 and yours is a bit older. And even if this concern were addressed, I wouldn't be comfortable adding this in light of your last paragraph, which indicates you've personally dealt with NPD in a highly negative way and are trying to edit this article accordingly. I don't know if our conflict of interest guideline necessarily applies but it's still worth a look. CityOfSilver 15:06, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Forgot to add: this is the source in question. CityOfSilver 15:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)