Talk:Dissociative identity disorder

Archives
Archive 2004 Archive 2005 Archive 2006-1 Archive 2006-2 /Archive Feb 2006 - Oct 2007 /Archive Nov 2007 - Dec 2008 Dec 2008-August, 2011 /Multiple personality controversy

Information needs to be updated to include the newest information

I still do not like how this fore part is worded. It gives too much credit to those who do not understand DID and therefore do not believe it occurs.

Here is an outline that might be of help. See books published in 2011 such as E. Howells book for more information.

From E. Howell's book: Once in a GREAT while a "bad therapist" can lead someone to create an temporary and extremely limited alter, but it is not like the real thing.

ANP - Apparently Normal Parts EP - Emotional Parts

Complex Dissociative Disorders

DDNOS-1 Dissociative Disorder-Not Otherwise Described - (One ANP and Two or more EP's)

DID - Dissociative Identity Disorder - (At least Two ANP's and Two or more EP's) 1. Time Loss. 2. There are at least 2 Apparently Normal Parts. 3. Epileptic-like seizures and somatic issues. (proposed additions in the DSV-V)

• Some parts might be fixated in traumatic memories (as in the Simple PTSD and C-PTSD) and are chronically aroused while others are hypo-aroused

Also of importance:

Secondary Structural Dissociation. (SSD) SSD - Includes DDNOS-1. This is characterized by dividedness of 2 or more defensive subsystems. For example, there may be different EP's who are devoted to flight, fight, freeze, total submission and so on.

Tertiary Structural Dissociation (TSD) This is DID. There ARE 2 or more ANP's who perform aspects of daily living, such as work in the workplace, child-rearing, and playing as well as 2 or more EP's. ~ty (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I've never heard of this, and this is not what I understand to be proposed for the DSM-5. The proposed third criteria for DID is "Causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning." reference here It was added in an effort to acknowledge multiple personality in non-western cultural contexts. If "E. Howell" is a real doctor or psychiatric researcher, there's no reason his ideas can't be included. However this is pretty long and the article is already pretty long, so you might want to put in just a reference to the book at the end. --Bluejay Young (talk) 22:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

You mean her ideas. Elizabeth F. Howell, a psychoanalyst at NYU. They aren't particularly new claims, just newly printed books, so it's kind of cute that the person who brought it up presented her work as some new understanding that ultimately demolishes all criticism and everyone who disagrees is just out of touch. She's written and coauthored some books and papers. The critics of DID are already well aware of them. There's no reason the article would need to be rewritten in any way. DreamGuy (talk) 20:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Correct, it has nothing to do with the proposed DSMV, and yes it is not new, it is however well excepted by many who study trauma and is another way to identify DID.~ty (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The Haunted Self is a book by the original researchers. The Haunted Self: Structural Dissociation and the Treatment of Chronic Traumatization (Norton Series on Interpersonal Neurobiology) [Hardcover] Onno van der Hart (Author), Ellert R. S. Nijenhuis (Author), Kathy Steele (Author)

E. Howell discusses this subject in Chapter 3 of her 2011 book and that chapter can be found online in PDF format. Understanding and Treating Dissociative Identity Disorder: A Relational Approach (Relational Perspectives Book Series) Elizabeth F. Howell (Author) ~ty (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Strongly agree. So much so that I'm posting a separate section at the foot of this page about this and related matters. Thanks for your interest and concern, and I hope you've mounted up for a long ride!Tom Cloyd (talk) 02:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Controversy Section Removal

I strongly suggest that the entire section on Controversy be eliminated. It can go elsewhere on Wikipedia, but it does not belong on this page. DID is a dissociative disorder, it is in the DSMIV and proposed to be in the newer DSMV. The topic might be a controversial pop culture topic, but as far as a mental health disorder it is not. ~ty (talk) 15:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. The emphasis given this minor issue (it is NOT an issue in mental health professional circles) in this article, is disproportionate to it triviality. It suggest that the article was written by individuals lacking adequate familiarity with the serious literature on this topic, where the controversiality of the diagnosis is simply not taken up - because it is no longer controversial.Tom Cloyd (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

There are a significant number of sources published in reliable journals and by respected publishing houses indicating that there is a strong belief that at least some DID patients had their symptoms produced iatrogenically through therapy. A lot of those sources are already included in the page. Sources are not removed because editors disagree with them. A lot of professionals apparently think, and publish their thoughts, that DID may not be real - this should remain on the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

There's controversy about every psychiatric disorder out there but in the Wikipedia articles of other psychiatric disorders any significant events giving rise to the controversy in question are mentioned in the history section where they are put into perspective. Of course controversy in psychiatry is never history, but the point is that the controversy has more significance in the history section and no encyclopedic value as a section on it's own. For example: regarding Sybil, I think the respective passage in the history section of DID is very accurately worded and the controversy section does not add much to it that is worth mentioning in an Encyclopedia. In my humble opinion just two more words added to the history section should suffice: "...diagnosed from 1985 to 1995.[80] Skepticism flourished.[4][5][6][9][83][88]"

Okay, that's my sense of ^simple/_complex but to be honest it's a bit inconsiderate of me to suggest condensing this section in just two words, while others have put their efforts into creating this section and so it would be more respectful to carefully determine where to relocate the provided information.

In summary: I think it will contribute to a sense of continuity between the articles regarding psychiatric disorders on Wikipedia to eliminate this section and relocate it's content (including a more explicit mention of the controversy in the history section.)JGM73 (talk) 04:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I very much disagree, the controversy over DID, even if historical, is an incredibly noteworthy part of the disorder. The memory wars in the 80s and 90s made front page news. I'm of the opinion that currently there is still controversy (though I'll have to demonstrate it via sources).

Probably the best way to deal with the controversy is to interstitch the point-counterpoints throughout the article instead of using a controversy section (see WP:STRUCTURE) - but substantially including the back-and-forth, not as sentence fragments and mentions of "controversy was here". Though Sybil is tangential and should only be briefly discussed, controversies over diagnosis and iatrogenesis should include more meaty discussion. It's possible that 5-10 years from now the whole thing will be resolved with recognition that the massive bubble in the 80s and 90s was iatrogenic and now there's a much, much smaller number of cases that are actual DID, but right now the issue appears to be still constant. The best service we can do our readers is to explore, document and discuss these issues, not trivialize them into one or two words. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

WLU, strong opinions (yours, for example) do not equate with noteworthiness. You're an outsider to the professional mental health research and treatment community, else you'd know that the DID controversy is HISTORY now, because the science we have has resolved the diagnostic-reality question. We argue about etiology, yes, and about treatment models, for sure, but all that too is resolving as the research base builds.

The controversy to which YOU refer is pop culture stuff OR fringe viewpoints. I KNOW this because not a single recent review article/chapter I have yet studied gives any, repeat, ANY space to "the controversy" you keep hammering at. I've already covered this on this page, and it was wholly blown past. Now THAT's bias. I gave sources. Ignored. That's not scholarship, that's dogmatism. It will not fly over the long run, and will soon be gone here, I will predict.

The DID controversy was NEVER "incredibly noteworthy" - never. It was merely one of many disputes which lived as long as there was little science to resolve core questions. The fact is that the DSM-III reached for (while not always achieving) a research-based, objective diagnostic process, precisely to support the transition of the profession from dogmatism to science. DSM-IV was another giant leap, and DSM-V will do even better.

THAT is where the profession is going - and that's why this is the golden age of DID diagnosis, research, and treatment. Such controversy as there is grows yearly increasingly irrelevant. Major sources and lit. reviews do NOT mention it, and I will soon prove this. At that point, this article will get cleaned up.

JGM73's assessment and recommendation is precisely correct. You really need to pay attention, before you become irrelevant.

Tom Cloyd (talk) 08:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The restructuring WLU proposed is basically what I was headed at in my last line and the description of POV forking, which WLU referred to, pretty much sums up why. Also, the reason I suggested that the controversy deserved an explicit mention in the history section is because I believe the fact of the controversy is noteworthy (the individual theories of those who disbelieve(d) DID are not).

The controversy in general has had a significant impact on the research in the field of DID. The number of research papers on DID spiked in the mid-90s because of the publicity and with it the controversy spiked. In the late 90s the focus of the controversy shifted towards the validity of repressed memories. Outdated therapies (such as the use of sodium thiopental) were abandoned and iatrogenic cases rapidly declined. This drop evidences the general acceptance of out-dated methods posing a real risk of iatrogenisis. Most of the standpoints found in research papers from the 90s are those of the defenders of all-or-nothing theories and do not necessarily reflect the validity of controversy or general acceptance. From time to time there have been books written regarding Sybil stirring up a bit of the controversy of the 90s because of the controversy surrounding this particular case and because publishers of a book seek out radical views to generate publicity.

Placing the controversy in perspective rather than collecting the opinions of proponents and opponents is more helpful to people trying to understand the controversy and it's origin and is in my opinion more befitting of an encyclopedia. I think the page has improved structurally with all the recent changes but we will need to continue working on duplicate information, misplaced information and biased phrases... JGM73 (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: changes made to heading levels and structure

Many people do not understand that headings in an article give it an outline structure, and in proper English, one can never subdivide a section of an outline into just ONE sub-section. First, that is illogical (dividing something must at least split it). Second, inasmuch as this rule is taught in all English classes of which I know, in the English speaking world, AND evidenced in every modern printed book and encyclopedia I've ever seen (and with a couple of masters degrees, I've seen a few!), disrespect of this rule makes the article appear illiterate. (Read the article linked to in the first sentence for a longer discussion of proper outline form.) Therefore, I have, by various means, corrected in this article all such singular subdivisions (if the phrase even makes sense, which it doesn't). Tom Cloyd (talk) 03:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is bound by it's manual of style, which may differ from other professional standards. Please refer to the MOS when adjusting headings (see also WP:SECTION). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Good advice, surely. However, your references are overly general. If you are to object to what I have proposed, you need to provide specific policy or guideline references to support your objection.

WP:MOS (about which I do know, of course) does not cover everything.

Wikipedia:SECTION does not address the issue I delineate above, and, in fact, contains clear logical inconsistencies. To wit:

A page can and should be divided into sections, using the section heading syntax.

This is the opening sentence. Then, the very first section of the article is subdivided into section <- note the NON-PLURAL. As I have said, it is logically impossible to subdivide something into one thing. Yet I see this all over Wikipedia. Again, repeating myself, that this is flatly NOT the convention in standard English can be confirmed simply by looking at the next 5 randomly chosen English books you may pick up: Their contents listings will NEVER make this error.

WP:MOS itself, including specifically Section headings, does not either.

By default, then, the guidelines that apply must be those of the recognized style manuals for English currently in use. This is just common sense. To put it somewhat differently, the recognized style manuals tell us what to do, and Wikipedia does not contest their advice. Therefore our headings need to be corrected.

Any problems with this?Tom Cloyd (talk) 08:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what specific edit you are proposing, so I can't comment. What section headings are you thinking of adding, removing or changing? Are you adding, removing or changing any text within any of those headings? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Your response: Absurd, obstructionist, baffling. What part of this (the very first sentence above) is unclear?

“ ...headings in an article give it an outline structure, and in proper English, one can never subdivide a section of an outline into just ONE sub-section. ”

That assertion is then supported by the text following. Did you even read this?

This version is correct, according to standard English. The current version is not, and I will be correcting that.Tom Cloyd (talk)

Oops, I think I'm seeing the issue and it is indeed my error. Somehow I missed that the epidemiology section had a second section regarding comorbidity in it. I have struck my comment above, and in the future I won't mention it again unless it's relevant to acknolwedge my previous error. My apologies.

I would argue however that "incidence", which relates to new appearances of DID in the community at large, isn't a good subheading because the section includes a discussion of both incidence and prevalence. I suggest using a subheading with both (==Incidence and prevalence==) though another option is simply leaving it as epidemiology. The WP:MEDMOS#Diseases or disorders or syndromes doesn't give much guiance here bar noting that ==Epidemiology== should include incidence and prevalence information; no mention of subsections. Usually you leave it as a single larger section until it gets sufficiently lengthy that it makes sense to split them out (which is itself dependent on the sources). I've replaced the section heading (but both I and P). The section overall needs fleshing out with more sources, which I think are unfortunately lacking. Searching on pubmed for DID and both incidence and prevalence turns up no articles specifically focussed on either topic. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, my apologies for the error, the fault was completely mine.

I don't know what I have to do to be clear. This is NOT about content, or the wording of headings. I am NOT addressing that issue in my discussion above. I am ONLY address the incorrectness of sub-dividing a section into ONE. That's nonsense, and is not accepted usage. That's the whole point. I AM interested in wording of headings, of course, but not in THIS discussion. Is a separate issue. If what you wrote in response is an acknowledgement that you do understand the issue, we're in congruence. I'm going to assume that is the case and correct the problem...tomorrow.Tom Cloyd (talk) 09:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Please don't. You are simply wrong in the conclusion that you make about subheadings, and it is quite normal in Wikipedia to have a section with a single subsection. It is perfectly acceptable for a section to describe a issue in general (as Signs and symptoms does) and then give emphasis to a particularly important aspect of that issue by creating a sub-section (as Physiological findings does). There is no need to try to find other subheadings simply to satisfy your mistaken concept of the purpose of those headings. --RexxS (talk) 15:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rex. Nice to see another editor here. I agree with you that heading are often seen that way on WP, but would it hurt us to step up things here a bit since we do have a very intelligent group of editors here. I say raise the bar and let's do it right!~ty (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, river blindness, a devastating blinding disease contracted (I believe) by physical contact with the rivers where people get their drinking water, is perfectly normal in some parts of tropical Africa. So we should accept and support it. Now that's exceptional argumentation.

This heading sub-division issue is a glaring omission WP:MOS. The result is that the contents listing of far too many article look as if they were written by rejects from college freshman English classes.

I have asserted that what is being done is incorrect. I have reviewed P&G and found nothing there that addresses the problem. I have then found a great deal that addresses and supports my assertions - without exception - in the standard style manuals available in any decent library in the English speaking world. I have collected the requisite documentation, summarized it here and detailed it here (in case you missed the my reference to it above). Unless you have a counter to my argument, it stands. I will have made the change by the time you read this.Tom Cloyd (talk) 18:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

What a stupid parallel to draw. How can anybody of intelligence think that a high prevalence of an illness would somehow make it desirable? It bears no resemblance to the fact that Wikipedia policies and guidelines are descriptive of actual practice in Wikipedia, and therefore must represent the prevalence of such practices. I find it worrying that you claim to have all this expertise, but are unable to understand how our practices here are developed, despite being told many times. You're getting very close to Tendentious editing, and that will eventually lead to sanctions against you unless you start listening to the advice you are given.

You think there's an omission to MOS? Well don't whine about it here - start a discussion at WT:MOS and see where that gets you. Fortunately this is an encyclopedia, not an assignment in some theoretical English class.

Your assertion is false. There is nothing in P&G that demands that a single subsection is forbidden, and no amount of your claiming otherwise will make it so. Outside style guides do not determine how we organise our encyclopedia and your appeal to their authority is worthless here. If you make changes to this article simply for the sake of your own specious theory of how Wikipedia ought to organise its articles, those changes will be reverted as disruptive, because it has been pointed out to you how far wrong you are.

Finally, if you think you can brush aside advice not to make disruptive edits by fait accomopli, you need to think again, because you now have a number of experienced editors sufficiently annoyed by the arrogance of assuming that only you know what's right for Wikipedia to call a dispute on your behaviour - I'll be asking for a second certifier for an WP:RFC/U if you continue in your current vein. Please rethink your attitude to our policies and do your best to understand the advice that is offered. --RexxS (talk) 17:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

RexxS, though Tom's claims on the talk page might verge towards tendentious, the actual edits to the DID article have been minor [1]. In addition, his changes to section headings haven't been so egregiously bad that I'd call him out for that.

Everything else I agree with though. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree absolutely. Almost all of his edits have not been problematical, but that does not condone the attitude displayed here, which is so dismissive of other editors (let alone our policies and guidelines). For someone who has been registered since 2007 with almost 2,000 edits, it is beyond belief that he has such little comprehension of the way Wikipedia works, and I have to suspect that the apparent ignorance is feigned. It is always worth giving the benefit of the doubt in the first instance, but AGF only goes so far. --RexxS (talk) 03:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Tom, I know that you'd like this article to conform to what your English teacher taught you once upon a time, but this is Wikipedia, and your English teacher's rules simply don't apply. Wikipedia is following web standards. Section headings don't exist to produce an outline of the article: they exist for the sole purpose of helping people (especially people using screen readers) navigate the page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, when you cannot dispute their logic, criticize their "attitude" (without specifics). Irrelevant. It's about assertions made clearly, and with excellent supporting premises - none of which, I notice, are being addressed. It's not me who here is being tendentious. RessS, I was arguing by analogy, and the analogy was supposed to be absurd, and thus point out (because the logic was the same) the argument being criticised by me is also absurd. Somehow you missed the point.

An error propagated 10,000 times is still an error.

We rely here on authoritative sources - or did someone change the rules over the weekend? I'm consulted them, detailed them here, and now the article conforms to them. Why is this a problem? And, surprisingly, my English teachers are not involved, although I know that all of them would agree with me.

My "attitude" is one of surprise that people who consider themselves capable of editing an article on what is arguably the most complex diagnosis in the psychopathological nosology somehow don't know how to construct an article structure that conforms to standard usage.

Question: What percentage of the books in English in your local library have tables of contents in which there is a subdivision of any chapter into ONE section? Care to draw a random sample, collect the data, and give the statistics on what you find? And, of course the TOC is an outline. It's a hierarchical list - the very definition of an outline.

English Wikipedia is in no way an authoritative source for English language usage. It's a place where English get used, with varying degrees of success, by editors, a number of whome have questionable credentials, and it shows. I regret that. Helps no one. If Wikipedia is its own world, then are we to expect that soon we'll see special Wikipedia spellings for common English? Oh boy, that should be fun to read.

If you dispute my position on this matter, cite an authoritative source that disputes my sources. Until then, my argument stands, and I've certainly done the job required of me in forming it and giving it here.

Tom Cloyd (talk) 07:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

We do not rely on "authoritative sources" for how to structure a Wikipedia article. We rely on authoritative sources for the content, but not (for example) the layout. That's the meaning of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Not_part_of_the_encyclopedia, which directly says that we do not need to follow "an outside authority in determining Wikipedia's editorial practices". Whether to permit single subsections is an editorial practice, not a content decision. Wikipedia, unlike your English teacher, does permit single subsections. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

You misread this, but this section is a bit technical, and even confusing, so that this might happen is understandable. Allow me to explain.

This P&G section accepts the concept of validation of encyclopedia content by reference to outside authority, and indeed this mandated. It then says that THAT concept itself, an administrative P&G, is validated by the Wikipedia community itself, NOT some some outside authority. Put simply: We get to make the rules by which we will do this (one of which states that content is valid only if supported by an external authority). We make our rules, not our content - another way of stating it.

So far, so good. No dispute.

The problem, as I clearly pointed out above is that the P&G does NOT address the question I raise. It COULD, but it doesn't. I then point out that in the English language we already have a standard re: subdivision of headings. I make this very, very clear. My logic merely says that that standard is in force unless overruled by the P&G, which of course it could be (but isn't).

You are trying to equate community practice with the consensus-validated P&G. "Practice" is NOT P&G. That's erroneous thinking, pure and simple, else we would have to accept this notion: "If we do it, it's right." That's and odd, and even dangerous idea. Tom Cloyd (talk) 06:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Tom, I wrote the P&G section. I assure you that if one of us is misunderstanding it, then it's not me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Tom Cloyd

Thank you Sir. Your services are greatly appreciated. I have DID and am interested in cleaning up this article as well. I found many things in it offensive. I do not know all the ins and outs of Wikipedia as you seem to, but I hope I can offer some insight from where I stand. ~ty (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding my reversions of 2012.01.13 and 2012.01.14 concerning DID and "controversy"

Reason for reversions

"There is a great deal of controversy surrounding the topic of DID." Bunk. This lede paragraph, one of several addressing "controversy" and DID which were recently removed by an apparently well-read editor, were recently reverted by another. I have reversed these reversions. This material simply does not belong here. Much of this article clearly is coming from writers who are insufficiently familiar with both the professional literature on DID and the present state of the diagnosis in the professional community. "Multiple personality" is a lurid topic in some regions of the popular press, and those seeking the lurid (e.g., some journalists who write books on DID) can fan the flames forever. This doesn't make the topic controversial, nor does it qualify such writings for inclusion in this article about a clinical psychology/psychiatry diagnosis that is gravely disabling and challenging to treat. Pop culture does not belong here.

In the professional literature there is little or on controversy regarding the legitimacy of the diagnosis. There is certainly discussion about which model of its etiology is most accurate (excluding the model which suggests that it is created by the suggestion or manipulation of a therapist - an idea which has NO standing in the professional community). There is also difference of opinion about which treatment approach is best, and...about a number of other things. This discussion is normal, healthy, and is NOT in any way indicative of "controvery". All diagnoses in the consensus diagnostic protocols of the DSM-IV and OCD-10 receive such discussion.

The sheer column inches devoted in this article to the purported "controversial" nature of DID, when I arrived here a few days ago, was appalling to me. There has been a great struggle in the profession to delineate the nature, bounds, dynamics, and legitimacy of this diagnosis, and the struggle has led to its full legitimacy in the professional mental health community. Yes, you can find professionals who still dispute the diagnosis, but that is true of virtually every diagnosis in the DSM-IV and the ICD-9-10. There will always be such outliers. The clear consensus, however, is what is expressed in those same authoritative documents, where there is no suggestion that the diagnosis is questionable or controversial in any way. That settles it.

Why do I say that? Because "DID" is a term and concept OWNED by the professional mental health community. AND because it is our agree-upon obligation here at Wikipedia to summarize the best literature on any topic which is available. That means that the noise of the popular press, if it is relevant to this article at all, should get attended to ONLY after the professional literature receives full, fair, and adequate treatment here. The article as it presently stands does not meet this standard.

Lay opinion and should never trump professional literature on any mental health topic, and especially on the topic of Dissociative Identity Disorder. If this were not so, we should expect to see insertion in the Wikipedia article on lithic stratigraphy (OK, I don't know if this article exists, but the example stands) several column inches about the theories coming from some Biblical literalists that it was the Devil who laid down all those rock layers, to lead men to doubt the Word of God which clearly says (and it does NOT) that the world was created in 5000+ years ago. Oh...and those fossils which appear to show evolutionary progression - we must make very notable mention in various paleontology articles that they too are the work of the Devil!

We do not allow such nonsense because we have agreed that Wikipedia articles should present a synopsis of the best thought we have on any subject. That current best thought re: DID is summarized in the professional literature coming from the clinical psychology and psychiatry communities. I cannot recall ever seeing mention of "the DID controversy" in this literature - not in 3 years of graduate school and 25 years of clinical practice.

It is a matter of priorities, pure and simple. Material about "DID controversy" might belong in the article I understand exists on "DID in popular culture", because that's where the controversy lives on - popular culture. In the professional mental health conmunity, the consensus is clear, and expressed in the DSM-IV and OCD-10.

Justification of my position

Let's look at some major references on the topic:

• Merck (2010) - No mention of controversy at all. But Merck is always synoptic, and maybe there just wasn't room. Let's look further.
• Steinberg, M. (2001). The stranger in the mirror: dissociation - the hidden epidemic (316 pp.). This major work on dissociation and the disorders in which it is prominent, by the psychiatrist who developed the SCID-D diagnostic inventory, addresses the "controversy" in her ch. 3, under "Myth #6 - DID is not a real illness" (pp. 26-27). Her summary is that multiple scientific investigations have validated the reality of the disease and its symptoms, and that assertions to the contrary are based solely on anecdotal evidence and hearsay. She backs up her assertions with careful sourcing. But this was written over 10 years ago, and may need updating. Let's investigate further, after a brief digression...

One of the topics taken up in graduate program in clinical psychology/psychiatry is symptom faking (factitious disorders) and iatrogenic causality. Basically, we are advised always to be initially skeptical of a clients' symptom presentation, until we can reasonably rule out causes OTHER than legitimate etiology. Some diagnoses are more vulnerable to this problem than others, and several have unique problems associated with them. Then, too, there is the problem of differential diagnosis - e.g., depression due to a medication side-effect is not legitimately termed "clinical depression". The DSM formally addresses this problem in diagnosis after diagnosis, including the dissociative disorders.

If there is indeed a real problem with faked or iatrogenic symptoms relative to DID, serious professional literature on DID should validate this problem and address it. We already know that Steinberg (2001) does not. Let's next consider...

• Haddock, D.B. (2001). The dissociative identity disorder sourcebook. (311 pp.) Written for professionals and informed laypersons, this book was very highly praised when it was published, and is still an essential reference. Haddock writes (p. 129) of clients' possible rejection of a DID diagnosis (not all are ready to accept a diagnosis this grave), but not of any professional controversy about the concept. Her discussion of differential diagnosis (pp. 76-77) makes no mention of there being a problem with faked or iatrogenic symptoms.
• Spira, J. L., Yalom, I.D., eds. (1996). Treating dissociative identity disorder (388 pp). Note that this was published well before both Steinberg and Haddock, which simply means that it was written closer to the time when there WAS a debate in professional clinical psychology/psychiatry as to the legitimacy of the DID diagnosis. It is also a very notable publication because of the outstanding roster of contributors the editor rounded up, most of whom are still very prominent in the field today. However, we see here exactly what is seen in Haddock: possible client rejection of the diagnosis is addressed; professional controversy and iatrogenic or faked symptoms is not.

WHERE is the alleged "controversy"? Maybe it took a while for the profession to catch up with something the popular press already knew. Let's look at some more recent major publications...

• van der Hart, O., et al. (2006). The haunted self: Structural dissociation and the treatment of chronic traumatization (418 pp.). This extraordinary synoptic treatment of DID and other trauma-related disorders (PTSD, Borderline Personality Disorder, etc. is a major milestone in the history of thought about such disorders. It has received exceptional reviews by a number of luminaries in the field. In the book's detailed index, there are no main entries addressing conceptual controversy relative to DID, nor any for iatrogenic symptoms, symptom faking, or factitious symptoms. The entries in the index under "assessment" take up almost an entire column on a two-column page, and there is no mention under this subheading of any of these topics, either.
• Howell, E. F. (2011). Understanding and treating dissociative identity disorder (308 pp). This work, both articulate and scholarly, is one of my personal favorites. The author has previously authored a well-received book on the topic of dissociation, and here addresses treatment of dissociative disorders in a manner that is both accessible to educated laypersons and exceptionally valuable to professionals. The first rule of treatment is "get the diagnosis right". She devotes 18 pages to assessment, producing the most useful statement on the subject I've yet seen. Interestingly, she does address factitious disorders (pp. 159-160), and as is her treatment of many things in this book, her remarks are detailed, thorough, and very useful. But she does not suggest that this issue is a significant problem, or that it is due to iatrogenic causes.

There is one other reference I'd like to review - Dell, P.F. & O'Neil, J.A., eds. (2009). Dissociation and the Dissociative Disorders: DSM-V and beyond (898 pp). This award winning book is a review of the literature which aims to supplant all others. My copy is due to arrive any day. I'll add to this review what I find when it arrives, but I honestly don't expect to see a deviation from the pattern already established: Professionals don't take up the alleged controversy surrounding DID because there is none.

So, why should this article? It shouldn't. Readers should not be misled, nor be forced to wade through inches of summary of the irrelevant ruminations of idle journalists, people out to disparage clinical psychology/psychiatry in general, and others who simply haven't anything useful to say. Let's stick the good science we do have, and theories based on that science, and on actual clinical experience. We can do no better, and our readers deserve no less.

We do not shrink from controversy in professional mental health - witness the ongoing flap about (alleged) overuse of anti-psychotic and psycho-stimulant medications. That there is none to be seen regarding DID should be noted and respected. The controversy is over, and has been for years.

If someone can come up with a professional quality reference that treats this alleged controversy with any real seriousness, let's consider referencing it in the article. But, we still have to content with the fact that the vast majority of serious thinkers in this field simply see no need to address the topic. Why should we? I can think of no good reason to do so, other than in the history section, and there we should not let the material use up valuable article real estate which would better be used addressing topics like assessment, treatment, and outcome, all of which are presently given seriously inadequate coverage in this article. I, for one, intend to redress this.

I have taken some very real time to write this because I want to dispense with this issue once and for all. We have important things to do with this article. Rehashing old issues is surely not one of them.

Tom Cloyd (talk) 07:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Only two of the books linked appear to be published by an academic publisher (Routledge). My preference is generally to draw from the published literature (i.e. journal articles), though of course books are also permissible. The fact that there are so many sources that actively criticize DID indicates that yes, at least historically there was a controversy. It may be ongoing, which also requires demonstration via sources. That'll take time to dig up. It's possible the field has polarized, with neither group citing or discussing the other. That still means there are at least two sides and a controversy. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I cannot agree more with this statement! KUDOS!

Professionals don't take up the alleged controversy surrounding DID because there is none. ~ty (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

[2], [3], [4] WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Controversy and History sections - in need of a major re-write

"Controversy"

First problem: It's way too long. The topic, if addressed at all, is properly seen only as historic, and minor mention may be made of it in the history section. It's simply unbalanced to give it this much space. It suggest lack of familiarity with the professional literature.

Second problem: That it appears at all! The existence of a FEW professional papers arguing that the diagnosis is illegitimate, etc., etc., is far outweighed by the clear consensus in the profession that the diagnosis is legitimate, period. DID is controversial ONLY in non-professional circles, and certainly not always there, either. This article should not read like a tabloid presentation of this topic.

That this is taken up here at all cannot be justified by NPOV (see quoted lede sentence below), which does NOT require that we bring into the article every hair-brained idea in print. If so, then I want to see a major section on my favorite bogus DID etiological model: space aliens have implanted their children in various people's brains, and the kids won't shut up. I read it on the Internet, so it must be true!

"Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Significant is the key term here. I have demonstrated in my section above re: "Controversy" that this topic is not currently significant, and hasn't been for a long time.Tom Cloyd (talk) 08:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow. Your opinion on this topic is so strong you falsely believe that an opinion you disagree with must be "hare-brained" and "insignificant". Claiming it's not currently significant is just nonsense, as there are more and more books, articles and other reports coming out supporting that idea that DID/MPD is either nonexistent or hugely misdiagnosed coming out all the time. You simply are either not familiar with these works (and ignored the references made to them in this article) or dislike them so much you want to ignore them. That's your own personal POV. That cannot be made to take over the article. DreamGuy (talk) 17:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Dream Guy

The first thing I ever learned in Graduate School is to disregard popular media. I think you are off base Sir. How is a story in the popular media relevant to DID. Is a war story relevant to PTSD? I do understand when people think of MPD they think of Sybil, or Tara, or Fight Club or any of the other media based stories, but again, this has nothing to do with a serious page on DID. I have DID. It is not nonexistent. Bringing stories such as Sybil into this has nothing to do with if it is misdiagnosed or not. ~ty (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

What popular media are you even talking about? The critics of MPD/DID have been published in respectable journals, and have produced mainstream books. It is laughable for someone to claim that these are only popular media and are not significant. Someone would either have to be colossally ignorant or outright lying. Considering that Tom Cloyd claims to be a professional, I would hate to think he is that ignorant, but of course I don't want to believe he is a liar either. But simply claiming it is only popular media and insignificant because you say so doesn't make it so. As far as Sybil goes, this was a hugely famous case. It was not fiction, it was a real therapist making professional conclusions. The publication and popularization of those conclusions can be directly linked to a massive increase of diagnoses for multiple personalities. It is one of two cases that all therapists who know anything about MPD/DID refer back to, and it is frequently cited in professional books on the case. We aren't talking about some TV show here. Of course this topic belongs on this article, and it is frankly mind-boggling that anyone would seriously try to argue otherwise. Oh... well, of course the therapist in the Sybil case has since been proven to have fabricated much or all of the claims, which makes all the people who promoted it as the best example of this alleged mental illness looks silly, so now of course they want to come up with any lame excuses they can to pretend it never existed. That's intellectually dishonest. Now, "Ty," you appear to be here to try to vindicate your own personal belief that you have more than one personality. That's not how Wikipedia works, but I can see how you would not know that. I can also see maybe how you never heard about Sybil and don't understand it's importance in the history of this topic. But someone we are supposed to believe is a professional in the field shouldn't be ignorant of the case and its importance. Wikipedia cannot ignore this topic and censor it from the article just because some people with strong biases want it to be removed. DreamGuy (talk) 20:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Reply to dreamguy

"As far as Sybil goes, this was a hugely famous case. It was not fiction, it was a real therapist making professional conclusions."

This I will agree with.

• As for your next point --- in all the professional books I had read on this topic, and there are many, not once have I ran across mention of "Sybil." I have read accounts of many cases however.
• Now the arguments on this page are starting to make sense. You, dreamguy believe the bunk in Nathan's book, but I sure hope you are not part of http://www.fmsfonline.org. That would be an extreme POV and COI to be sure! You are not part of that organization are you?
• As for your next point, I have no need to vindicate my personal beliefs because I don't fall for the mumbo jumbo of the popular media. I know what I have - dissociated parts of the self, not multiple personalities and I am not as weak as you seem to think.
• I really doubt that Wikipedia supports fanatics that try and promote popular media over current science.
• As for the next matter you bring up, of course I have heard of Sybil and read articles on it, but no I have not read the actual book (1974 pub) and have no interest in it either. I do understand the book/movies importantance to the popular media version of MPD, yes.
• I say the opposite from you - Sir. Wikipedia should not keep popular media dribble in the article just because two old time editors want it here and those same two are guarding the gates and not allowing anything on the page they do not deem acceptable.

~ty (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I am not part of that organization. But if I were it would make no difference to my right to edit this article. Your declaring them to be extreme and unacceptable only proves that you have no basis upon which to make judgments about what is acceptable here or not. Some of that group's members (or former members, I have no idea who is currently involved with them) are highly respected, reliable sources. Elizabeth Loftus, for example, is the world's foremost expert on recovered memories and is extremely well respected around the world. I believe she was associated with that group. Coincidentally (?), in the past this article had someone trying to edit Wikipedia with an agenda to discredit that organization in every way possible. That editor was banned from Wikipedia for constant POV pushing and the use of multiple sock puppet accounts. Now we see some new accounts acting in much the same way. And, again, the claims that this is popular media are nonsense. Anyone who claims to know anything about this topic would be very familiar with this case and its importance to this topic as a whole. It is, unquestionably, one of the most famous cases and certainly the most influential, both in the minds of the public as well as the actions of professionals. The content in the article is well cited and in fact already conclusively demonstrates its importance. All we have are two naysayers who have expressed extreme POVs just trying to declare whatever they want to believe to be the absolute truth. With bias that strong you should not be trying to edit an encyclopedia. If you want to make activist stances on topics, you are in the wrong place. DreamGuy (talk) 02:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Update: about my edits in the "Controversy" section

I HAVE decided to dive into this section and try to fix a number of problems. I've tried to document my changes carefully.Tom Cloyd (talk) 08:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Is it "controversy" or is it "professional ignorance"?

This "controversy" topic is a great example of the reason why we need professional involvement in this article. As a mental health professional, I can offer a couple of relevant facts I'm aware of which well may not be common knowledge:

1. Clinicians are casual, to put it mildly, about keeping up on research literature. Many are 15 or more years behind (depending upon when they left graduate school). As a class, they are very busy with practice management (their business), clinical activities (their clients), and families. Many never cared much about research to begin with, which is why they went into clinical practice rather than academia. Even academics have trouble keeping up with the research journals; clinicians usually just give up, unless, like me, they're a bit fanatical (and unmarried, which really helps). THUS, it is likely that as a group clinicians, most of whom do NOT treat trauma or dissociative disorders, are NOT up to date about the scientific status of these topical areas. A couple of studies cited in the first paragraph of this Controversy section reflect this, although the studies do have some serious methodological issues (small samples, in the face of consider parametric variance, coupled with significant subject non-response).

This doesn't mean there is controversy about DID. It means there is ignorance. The two are hardly the same, and to call one the other is to completely mis-characterize the problem. Why am I so confident? Read on...

2. Very little mention is made, even in professional clinical circles, of the science behind the diagnostic categories published in the DSM-IV. Behind this well known tome there is a published set of research reports (multiple volumes, I'm told) documenting the research done SPECIFICALLY to validate these categories. The diagnostic categories do not make it into print until adequate validity is achieved in a clinical setting. When there are problems, the categories are re-conceived, and the research is done again. THIS IS THE REASON WHY THE DSM-V HAS BEEN DELAYED FOR YEARS - they are working to tighten up some of the diagnostic categories.

Conclusion: If it appears in the DSM, it has demonstrated diagnostic validity.

This doesn't mean that clinicians, much less the general public, knows or appreciates this. Nevertheless, it's fact. This demonstrated validity is a major, major development in the history of clinical practice, and it all began with the DSM-III. Again, not common knowledge, but a fact nevertheless.

So, again, don't mistake ignorance for controversy. I can find people who still think the earth is flat. Does that mean that we have controversy on our hands? I'll let you decide...Tom Cloyd (talk) 08:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Yet more personal opinions being presented as fact. As far as point one goes, lots of people are behind on current research, many decades behind, yet you seem to want to believe that only those people who do not support DID/MPD are behind and those who do support it must be up to date. Many people would argue just the opposite. As far as point 2, lots of things in the DSM have been controversial. Homosexuality was in there as a disorder for a while, for example. This article is not supposed to be the mouthpiece of the DSM. Similarly, the DSM is very very slow to be changed to meet consensus of the outside world of professionals, and those professionals themselves are slow in changing their minds. By the time the DSM is finally released it reflects already very old ideas. DreamGuy (talk) 17:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Reply to All Editors

I do not want to be as brash as Tom Cloyd in this point, but he is right. I am sorry, but please give those of us that would like to work on this a chance and with an open mind read it. You might end up agreeing with us in the end. ~ty 04:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

If the controversy section is titled Professional Ignorance, then I will agree that there should indeed be one.

~ty (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of paragraph beginning "It is suggested that on rare occasion symptoms that mimick (sic) DID can be created iatrogenically..."

This paragraph is simply incoherent, and concludes with citation (including quotes) of a study that has NO bearing whatsoever. If there is an argument actually asserted here, it escapes me. I refuse to attempt to turn a sow's ear into a silk purse. "Out, damned spot..." And so it came to be. Good riddance.Tom Cloyd (talk) 08:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

"History"

This contains much interesting material, but some of it is off-topic, and the narrative flow is jumbled in spots, such that the article would benefit from a significant rewrite. I do appreciate the meticulous sourcing in evidence here, though. Someone put some real work into this section. I respect that.

There are some interesting sources used, but I fear that some are more cherry-picked than representative of the literature. Some also look suspiciously likely to have been mis-characterized. I have elected to leave this mostly alone for now, until I can acquire the sources (some of which are due to arrive in my office very soon). I can then do the rewrite with the proper materials in hand.Tom Cloyd (talk) 08:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding my removal of "Sybil" material from "History" section

This is not relevant to the history of this diagnosis. No detailed history of the concept of dissociation, or of the dissociative disorders, that I have yet been exposed to takes up this materials. We should follow this model and omit mention of it here.

The implication that the book about Sybil had influence upon the mental health profession is unlikely, and in any case this assertion is the opinion of the writer - no citation for it is given. It is more reasonable to assume that the case arose, was treated, and was written about because of the growing professional interest in the subject, which began in the 19th century with Janet, than to assert that some trade press book had a magical influence upon academic, research, and clinical psychotherapists, psychologists, and psychiatrists.

In any case, this is a popular culture topic, and irrelevant to the development of thinking and practice relative to the diagnosis of DID. It can be treated in an article on DID and pop. culture, or DID and literature, or whatever.

Tom Cloyd (talk) 08:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

It's very relevant to the history of the diagnosis, as described in several books of the topic. Only someone trying to whitewash the history of it could possibly make such a statement. Plenty of citations were given for its inclusion here. DreamGuy (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Dream Guy

I am sorry Mr. Dream guy. Can you tell us why you have such strong feelings about keeping things like the Sybil story here. I don't understand at all. I must agree with Tom here. I know the story of Shirly Mason, but she is just one of many who had DID. There was a brilliant book written by Flora Rheta Schreiber about "Sybil" as well as two movies, but this has nothing to do with a serious page on DID anymore than any other story of "multiples." Schreiber might have brought the disorder to the public but that is all. As a compromise, I do think Sybil should have a page all about her and the controversy can go there, it is after all a controversy of popular media, not the science world. Then there could be a link to that from this page for those interested in pop culture rather than science and what DID really is. ~ty 04:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

DreamGuy and Tom Cloyd

I am not a wikipedia editor. I am someone with DID who is just about as knowledgeable as a layman can be about the topic (if I do say so myself). My POV is not neutral but be that as it may. I have never read the book Sybil, nor seen the movie (add a point in the column of it being not important to the diagnosis presently), but I know much information about the case. It is mentioned tirelessly whenever DID comes up. I think it needs to have some space in the article as it is a valid part of the modern history of the diagnosis. However, the controversy re: Debbie Nathan's book and possible fraud allegations on the original Sybil has no place here, discrediting Sybil does not discredit DID or any part of the history and the way it is written now it is being used as a proxy to bring in controversy to the article that certainly is not warranted or weighted enough to be included. If this wasn't a new book it would not be notable at all and it has not proven it has any importance or significance in any field at all let alone psychology. This is doing a huge disservice to this article. Let that be on the book's own personal page where people can read all about it. Please consider this. I am also thinking of doing some slight editing myself but I have no experience so bear with me if I do. Forgottenfaces (talk) 08:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Forgotten Faces

I would love to see your edits. I would also like to see Tom Cloyd's and my own put back that were ALL reverted back to a very incomplete historical version by Mr. Dream Guy. I give no credit to Nathan's book at all and I too have never read the book Sybil, but I have read other information about it recently. I tend to enjoy reading science based books. I think however that the subject of Sybil will always bring controversy and as stated before that one case does not have anything to do with what dissociative identity disorder is. Its' one story of so many that could be told. I again suggest that the topic of Sybil has its own page and this page can link to it for those who have interest, but it does not have a place in a serious page on Dissociative Identity Disorder.~ty (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Reverted back to consensus version

While Wikipedia appreciates new input from editors, editors new to a topic should refrain from making massive and controversial changes to an article that has been written and rewritten following a long standing discussion of several points through a consensus building process. This is especially important as above comments make it clear that these changes were made to push a specific POV and to minimize another well documented POV. Calling the controversy based upon ignorance may be the opinion of the editor who made the changes, but Wikipedia does not take sides.

In the upcoming days I will try to go through each edit one by one to restore any individual changes that might be good, but the changes as a whole simply will not stand. Another editor besides myself already removed them, and I would caution the editor who made them to try to find consensus for any changes before making them again. Wikipedia is not a battleground. DreamGuy (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Dream Guy

Just because I don't have tons of edits on Wikipedia, that does not mean that I don't have a right to work on a page that interests me, but this page I am willing to fight for. I am tired of mis-information out there on DID. On your personal WP page you state the following: "Usually what I end up doing is undoing really bad edits by other people: spam, hoaxes, trying to put their own opinion into an article as if anyone else cares, and so forth." In this page you are trying to do the opposite. You are trying to keep hoaxes and POV rather than allowing the page be one of science and real psychology. Just because you have positioned yourself as guard of this page does not make you an expert on DID and the one who should decide what is on the page. This is not meant to be rude, but dang it, you keep deleting everything!~ty (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Consensus Version

Oh my! I would not call what was here a "consensus version", but then I am not well versed on Wikipedia. To me the page seemed half thrown together, lacking in real and up to date data and sporting popular media instead of science and psychology. I don't want to be rude by any means, but let go of the ego a bit guys and let us do some work on this page. I really am embarrassed when someone goes to Wikipedia to read what Dissociative Identity Disorder is. It needs some real hard work. Please help us make a page we can all be proud of and all those who have DID can be proud of. :)

~ty (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Who's consensus?

Could someone direct me to where Wikipedia talks about consensus? Or explain Who's consensus. I want to understand this better. -Bug unitybicycle 10:03 16 January 2012

WP:CONSENSUS. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: editor Tomcloyd's possible "conflict of interest" here

It has been suggested on my user account talk page that my edits to the DID article may violate Wikipedia's COI guidelines. Anyone suspicious of this should now make that argument, here. Vague allegations annoy me. Stand up where I can see you.Tom Cloyd (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

[warning: satire ahead]

<deleted by original editor>

PS And the fact that you tried to explain your edits at length here on the talk page make things even worse, why couldn't you just be BOLD. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

[end of satire!]

Guillaume2303, I have restored your comments, which you deleted in an apparent fit of despair. Despair not. Wikipedia editing always has room for satire, I will assert, and yours, here, absolutely nailed it!

This spurious "You're in the field, therefore you're advancing a personal agenda, and have no place here, dammit!" argument has been thrown at me before. I'm more than ready to deal with it. What DreamGuy SHOULD have done is what I did, care enough to take the time to really make an argument, which he didn't, so he's still lost in his dreams, apparently. He might well consider that there will be no more dreamin' around here.

You're damned right I have some biases, and they are on full display at my user page, by design. I'm ruthlessly transparent, which by the way is a cherished value in my profession. We make our living by our reputation for honesty, part of which means we try to keep up on the literature so we can actually defend the assertions we make. I actually do this, which may make me a bit unusual.

Vacuous, ill-considered assertions hurt, and in some cases, kill people. They have no place in articles relevant to professional mental health, such as this one. This is non-negotiable. Part of my transparency, it may be noted, is that I use my real name here, and provide links on my user page to other places on the Internet where I have expressed myself at length regarding professional matters. The idea that all this should in some way disqualify me is laughable!

As for my biases, they are the biases of scholars and thoughtful people the world over, and yes, even of good Wikipedia editors. I value and will promote:

• the highest levels of scholarship attainable;
• the best argumentation achievable;
• orderly consensual development of knowledge (science as social process).

Anyone having a problem with these biases, I will be bold to suggest, needs to get their attitude adjusted!

Stay with us. Do not despair. Fight the good fight. Why? Because there are those who cannot who will greatly benefit from our good work here. Also, because this sort of activity requires practice if real skill is to be attained. One of the great things about Wikipedia is that it provide a laboratory for such skill development.

I look forward (he says hopefully) to your continued participation here.

Tom Cloyd (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Tom, I must say I was a bit worried when I saw you had done such a big edit especially with the possible NPOV problems with this article. I have not reviewed all of your sources for edits but they all it seems fine to me so far, at least the majority of your edits should be kept imo. There needs to be some discussion on this on why this is NPOV if it is indeed that, not just edit reversals. Thanks Forgottenfaces (talk) 01:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Reply to User:Guillaume2303

Someone needs to stand up for those of us that have DID and write the real facts instead of popular media mumbo jumbo. Wikipedia is a scary place for many of us. I think without Tom here many would run off the rest of us. That is very sad. Those of us with DID would just like a page that we are proud of. A page that people can go to and get the real facts about Dissociative Identity Disorder. ~ty (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Guillaume! I got it now. I too am learning Wikipedia. Forgive my ignorance of your satire. It was brilliant!

~ty (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Ty - thanks for the support for my effort. I have been laying low today to allow people who wanted to to react to my long series of edits last night. Wikipedia is a community. We work together, even when we fight. I absolutely respect that, because it is an accurate reflection of how our larger society works. I will respond to the reactions being posted here soon enough. There's no hurry. Things are proceeding exactly as they should.

I do believe you misread Guillaume2303. While monitoring my watch list page today, I saw him make the post above, then remove it with the following "edit summary" - forget about it, won't change anything anyway. I was instantly sad to see his discouraged point of view. I also enjoyed his comments, which, and this is what I want you to understand, I recognized as a satire of a particular point of view which appears on Wikipedia too often, and always with destructive effect. I appreciated the injection of some humor (which we all need from time to time), and want to urge him that there is really no reason for discouragement - not here at least. I'm a Wikipedia veteran, and I'm not worried about the outcome here. Furthermore, I want everyone, and I mean everyone, to put forth their best arguments here, so that the best thought we can produce will carry the day. People who retreat in discouragement take their views with them, and it's better that they remain here for us all to consider. So, you see, you and Guillaume2303 are actually pulling for the same thing!

No need to apologize to Guillaume, by the way. I'm sure he understands. And your misread is also completely reasonable. Sorry I didn't post a flag of some sort making it clear that this is satire.

Finally, you make a VERY important point when you say Wikipedia is a scary place for many of us. This is especially so when the DID article appears to be hostile to the concept that DID is a fully legitimate diagnosis, and suggests that there is continuing (much less growing!) controversy about the diagnosis. It pains me to imagine someone with DID reading the article and thinking "So they think I'm faking this disaster?". That just should not happen, and that's one of the major reasons I'm working to upgrade the article. I will address this particular issue in a separate section I'm going to add soon to the Talk page.Tom Cloyd (talk) 05:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I am someone with DID and I do read this page as it is now and wonder how many people think i am a fake. I look forward to the page getting back to how you had it Tom and maybe even improving it more than that. Especially making the section about controversy smaller or getting rid of it completely. -bug

Hello Bug

I could not agree with what you stated here more. The page needs a lot of work and Tom just started to make a dent in it. This somehow seems to threaten Dreamguy's position of power. ~ty (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Dream Guy

Those of us speaking here are not here to wield a POV or take over your power. We just want a Wikipedia page on DID that is something we can be proud of. You accuse me of wanting changes to prove I have DID. This is no more true than I want to go to a Wikipedia page on anything and find correct information. I will respond more to this where you posted it.

~ty (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Tom Cloyd!

YAY! I like that whole paragraph. Trust me! This is a fight I will not quit on. It's so important! Thank you for explaining all that! :)

~ty (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Nice Guy

I think that was Tom Cloyd being so nice rather than Dream Guy. I will get this all down. I should have known it was too good to be true, but my fingers are still crossed you will let us fix this page. Tylas 17:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Forgotten Faces

It's nice to see someone of reason speaking. I have read all the books that Tom Cloyd has listed. They are fascinating and some of my favorites - mostly because they are quite current and written by some of the leaders in the field of DID. I think you will also find them enjoyable when you are able to read them. ~ty 04:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring all the useless chatter from the new "editors" above, it is pretty damn obvious that someone who says he professionally treats people with DID and comes to the talk page saying that there is no controversy has both a strong bias on the topic as well as an interest in protecting his source of income. The controversy section here basically shows that many experts on the topic think that what you are doing to earn money is basically hurting your patients instead of assisting them. It's not a stretch at all to see why that is a conflict of interest. Your comments have shown very clearly that you are way off the charts biased, as you want Wikipedia to say whatever *you* happen to believe and nothing else. That's completely against how things are done here. People editing article with a demonstrated bias and doing so to support their own professional standing get blocked. DreamGuy (talk) 20:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Dreamguy You are saying that we new editors are just posting useless chatter? Let us edit the actual page and this chatter will halt. You ask for discussion then you call it useless.~ty 04:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

'Dreamguy States the following:

"The controversy section here basically shows that many experts on the topic think that what you are doing to earn money is basically hurting your patients instead of assisting them."

Professionals are accused of making page better for profit by an editor

I cannot begin to express how inappropriate I find this statement. You are making a blanketed statement that all healthcare professionals that have interest in making the Wikipedia article on DID better are doing it to extract money from potential patients! This is the sort of statement I would expect from the False Memory Society, not an experienced editor on Wikipedia. I am floored at this!

~ty (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Funny, you should already see that my earlier response below shows exactly what I meant. I certainly did not say all healthcare professionals who want to make an article better are doing so to extract money. Hell, healthcare professionals who are real professionals would agree that the topic is controversial even if they disagree with the people on the other side. It is not professional to try to censor opinions you do not agree with. And again you seem obsessed with FMS - that's a trait we have seen here before. Bringing it up randomly just makes you looks suspicious. DreamGuy (talk) 02:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• DreamGuy, are you really saying that Tom Cloyd is hurting his patients to make money? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not saying that, but I am pointing out that the experts who say MPD/DID is primarily caused by therapists do say that these therapists cause more harm than good while at the same time making money of the treatment of something they themselves put into their clients' heads. So it would not be surprising that someone who is a proponent of MPD/DID would want to remove anything these experts critical of the diagnosis and their work have to say. There is a clear and obvious COI here. DreamGuy (talk) 00:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

DreamGuy are you saying none of Tom's edits are appropriate? Why not hash out what exactly the discrepancies are, isn't that what this page is for? I may be new but I believe what I addressed re:Debbie Nathan is valid. Please tell me why it is not. I may not know exactly how to edit and not have enough time this weekend to learn sufficiently, but I can still input ideas. Debbie Nathan's book maybe deserves a sentence about it's existence related to Sybil. let's see here:

"The highly influential book Sybil (which was purported to be true, but has since been identified as likely heavily fictionalized[76]) was published in 1974, which popularized the diagnosis through a detailed discussion of the problems and treatment of the pseudonymous Sybil. An October, 2011 report on NPR included discussions with Debbie Nathan, author of the book "Sybil Exposed: The Extraordinary Story Behind the Famous Multiple Personality Case", and other psychology professionals, about the allegations that the "Sybil" story was, if not a fraud, then a case that involved questionable or duplicitous behavior by the patient, as well as by her doctor, who was interested in the theory and who wanted to believe this was an actual case and who may have been intent on making sure it would be seen as such, and also by the original "Sybil" book's author, who had a large amount of money involved in the book contract"

First of all, for someone who wants to put Sybil in the history section you are devoting way more space to talking about it being a hoax then on it's actually place in history when it happened. In fact I don't believe Debbie Nathan's book should be here at all but if it must you are giving it a lot of influence. This is a blip on the radar that will be gone in six months. It is not a scientific book and in fact Ms. Nathan attributes all kinds of thoughts and feelings to people she never met who are long dead. Again I have no opinion on the Sybil case, it may be false it may be true, but this article makes it overwhelmingly seem false. Debbie Nathan's book is sensational journalism. Why is it on this page?

This is not idle chatter and I would appreciate a good faith response. Thank you Forgottenfaces (talk) 21:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, none of his edits are any good, as detailed below and mentioned in the new section. The entire point behind the edits were to censor facts he doesn't want people to know about and to slant the article. Your personal opinions on Nathan's book are less than a blip on the radar. Her book is a reliable source, and it has been covered extensively in other reliable sources. DreamGuy (talk) 00:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Consider this diff. Among the changes I object to:

• Removal of the "controversy" paragraph from the lead, despite a total of seven references to verify the text
• Replacement of "Unexplainable headaches and other body pains" with "Somatic Symptoms". Keeping in mind the audience of wikipedia is a general one, and that the merck reference specifies "severe headaches or other pains", the former is most appropriate in my mind.
• Change of "Physiological findings" to "Physiological research on DID", which duplicates the page name, which MOS:HEAD urges against
• Movement of the possible iatrogenesis of DID out of the "Causes" section - considering a considerable number of sources support people thinking DID is at least in part iatrogenic in at least some groups, this is inappropriate.
• The inclusion of a subheading of "prevalence" in the second level heading of "epidemiology" is not appropriate, since there are no other subheadings. Nope, I was wrong - WLU
• The removal of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde as an image is not appropriate in my opinion; we can't get many images in a page like that, and Jekyll & Hyde is considered a classic example of DID in popular culture. Popular culture is how findings like this reach a broader audience and a place in the general cultural consciousness. This means we should mention notable works of literature, particularly when sources have explicitly made these links for us.
• Ditto for Sybil. This could be shortened, but not removed - Sybil was enormously important in introducing DID to the world, and it's debunking is also important. The discussion of how Sybil led into the introduction of DID/MPD into the DSM followed by increased media coverage is also an important part of this, and again appeared to be removed not because of sources or other concerns. It looks like a single editor decided they didn't like it and removed it on the basis of personal taste or disagreement.

...and that's why I did a full revert to the previous version - there are too many reliable sources being removed, not because other sources have criticized them but instead because one editor doesn't like them. Professionals can disagree, both publicly and privately. This is only an issue when one professional uses their opinion to edit the page and ignore the opinions of others. I would venture this is the problem in the current page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your response. I don't think Sybil should be removed, I just don't think Nathan's book debunks the story as the language of the article seems to imply. She is not a mental health professional. She's not a doctor. She's not qualified to debunk the story, if it needs to be mentioned that it exists I don't think there should be so much space devoted to it. Feel free to debunk with published articles or books by professionals, this is not even really a non-fiction book, it has at least as many problems as the original book is purported to have (I didn't read the original book but have read Nathan's). Regardless, take away all of that and it is just unnecessary knowledge. It does not add anything except that one doctor and one patient's stories might be false. This is the problem with the book itself and the problem with putting it in the article. It will not matter in six months and even people who believe DID is iatrogenic should see that. One (possible) example does not make a rule or even a suggestion of a rule that may exist. This will take us to further topics so I will stop there.Forgottenfaces (talk) 23:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

And forgive my rustiness on logical fallacies, but isn't this whole thing begging the question? DID is controversial/fake so Sybil must be fake <-> Sybil is fake so DID must be controversial/fake. Perhaps I am misunderstanding? Forgottenfaces (talk) 23:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Sybil doesn't prove or disprove DID, it's merely part of the phenomenon. It deserves a mention, how it impacted DID entering into popular consciousness. Its debunking deserves a mention. But the entire page doesn't hang on it. If we want to discuss how Sybil is used on the page, I suggest using a new section since my comments above have a much, much larger breadth than a simple book. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

WLU - Debunking of Sybil

Debunking of Sybil has yet to be proved. This is a debate in itself. It is not part of a serious DID discussion. Nathan presented evidence that supports what she WANTS her audience to believe and not even being a professional, she diagnosed Shirley with pernicious anemia instead of the MPD. Everything about this book is shaky and it certainly does not deserve room on a serious page on DID. ~ty (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

You are quite correct, I will create a new section asap with more complete criticisms and suggested changes. Thanks Forgottenfaces (talk) 01:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

If you bring up Sybil then many other books need to be presented such as Dr. Suraci's book. Again, the topic of Sybil has no place in a serious discussion on DID, but I agree with much of what Forgotten Faces says.Tylas 01:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Suraci's book publisher was Abandoned Ladder, which has published a total of three books and might be vanity press. Nathan's book was published by Free Press, an imprint of Simon & Schuster. Though not scholarly, since the topic is essentially how Sybil impacted popular culture's perception of DID through a popular book and movie, it's quite relevant. Numerous scholarly sources mention Sybil, for instance [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], and sometimes within the context of Sybil starting a DID/MPD epidemic. Based on this I would say Sybil is very relevant to the page, as is its debunking. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

WLU

Yes, Nathan's book is not scholarly as you point out and has no place in a serious discussion on Dissociative Identity Disorder. That we do agree on. The book is Nathan's interpretation of how the book Sybil impacted popular culture. Please site experts in the field for references. I don't think you will find any that do site Sybil. You can all talk all the pop culture and Sybil you want, but please do it on another page than this one. This page should be a serious discussion of Dissociative Identity Disorder. ~ty (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Nathan's book is relevant. I'm not saying we spend a large amount of time discussing Sybil and Nathan's debunking. I'm saying Sybil deserves a mention, as does Nathan's claim that Sybil didn't actually have DID. Nathan's book is a valid source for this sort of thing, and even medical pages allow for history and impacts on culture, see WP:MEDMOS. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

WLU and Sybil

Perhaps under the culture section. I could give a bit on that, but when I see this sort of thing it takes over conversations. I would really like a good page here. I have read a great deal about Nathan and her work and I know she does not have a clue how the brain works or what DID actually even is. I cannot give her any merit, I am sorry. The original work "Sybil" I could slide on, but that brings with it all the pop culture garbage. Again, I would like to see Sybil mentioned, but then a link to other pages where people with that interest can discuss it to their hearts delight! Thank you for being reasonable. I can as well. I have read many of the Wikipedia rules and I do not like people throwing out their interpretations of those rules. I am not saying you are doing this, because I have not gone to your link yet, but it what I keep seeing happening here. ~ty (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Sybil should be discussed in the history section, particularly since it preceded introduction of DID into the DSM-III and sources appear to link these two incidents causally. I don't care what you think of Nathan's work or abilities, I care what reliable sources say. Completely discard the notion that your personal opinion matters, because it doesn't and nor does mine. You need to use reliable sources to verify text, not your opinion. Also, please stop chatting about irrelevant tangents, we are not a forum. The current section could probably be trimmed, but it certainly should not be eliminated. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

DID was in the DSM prior to Sybil The problem is that "Sybil" has no effect on the scientific community. I believe this current Wikipedia page already talks about how DID was in the DSM under the heading of hysteria, prior to the book "Sybil." I have seen a great letter written by Kathy Steele about this. Kathy Steele is without a doubt one of the leaders in the area of DID research and knowledge. It is not only my personal opinion about Nathan, but also that of experts in the field like Steele. I could link to those letters if you like. ~ty (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, nobody is saying Sybil had a significant effect on the scientific community (yet, the sources may actually say otherwise). That's why it's in the History section, not diagnosis, epidemiology, symptoms or treatment sections. There are a multitude of sources that point to Sybil being historically relevant to DID; I've linked 9 above and you have yet to provide any sources saying otherwise. "A letter from Kathy Steele" is not a source; even if it were a letter to the editor of NEJM it's of very limited use on this page. If you've done a lot of research, prove it by linking to the sources that verify the text you want to change. Anyone can say they've done lots of research, it's a whole other world to demonstrate it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Will do Sir! Can I now actually edit the DID article? I have hope that Mr. Tom Cloyd will keep my editing up to Wikipedia standards, but I will review the rules and do my best to abide by them. ~ty (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I am perfectly willing to jusify my own edits and explain my actions, and I will ensure that any edits to the actual article are in compliance with the policies and guidelines. Given your lack of experience, I suggest you propose edits in advance on this talk page or on a user subpage. Always refer to policies and guidelines, and I will ensure I point out any that will make your edit better or why your edit shouldn't be made. Anyone can edit, but not everyone can edit well. Competence is required. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I concede to you that you have fine editing skills, but I do have a lot of knowledge on this subject. Wikipedia states that one try to clean up material rather than tossing it completely. I will work on my Wikipedia editing skills if you will work on your professional knowledge of DID (not pop culture). I will follow Tom Cloyd's methods. They appear unbiased and clear and easy to understand. He has a fine balance of real knowledge of DID and Wikipedia editing skills. I shall attempt to follow in his footsteps! Peace WLU. :)~ty (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not enough to assert you have a lot of knowledge - you have to demonstrate it through the citation of reliable sources. Ironically, what you are accusing me of doing - tossing out material - is what I have been undoing. Most of Tom Cloyd's edits consist of removing well-sourced material with no good rationale I've seen. Don't mistake the fact that you agree with Tom Cloyd with him being right. Wikipedia requires verifiability, not truth. If Tom Cloyd is correct about DID, it is expected he cite the appropriate scientific journal articles and books to demonstrate it. Note that I never ask anyone to simply take my word for things - I cite sources. I expect everyone else to do the same, per WP:PROVEIT, WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV. This is why I am sharp and caustic in this dispute - you and Tom Cloyd keep asserting you are right, that I should just trust you because you know what you're doing. Bullshit - show me with sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a passing comment on the first part of this conversation:

Being a healthcare professional (or a patient) with a strongly held opinion does not create a conflict of interest. Having such opinions might make the person biased and a POV pusher, but that's not the same thing as a conflict of interest. COI problems exist when you harm (in the opinion of other editors, not your own opinion) Wikipedia's articles for the purpose of gaining a real-world advantage. POV problems, which are far more common, exist when you want Wikipedia's articles to reflect your opinion (which, naturally, you believe is correct, because if you didn't, you'd change your opinion). Some of the editors here might like to read WP:MEDCOI for some advice on how to avoid unnecessary disputes (e.g., by providing top-quality sources rather than saying "I'm the doctor and I said so"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Comparison of full text of two versions

As promised, I said I would look line by line through the changes to the text made recently to see if any part of it was salvageable or improved the article in any way. I just went through the whole thing, and I can honestly say there was nothing in it worth keeping. There were no improvements, no added reliable sources, no new information, or anything of the sort. The sole purpose of those edits appears to be to remove large amounts of text about the controversy to try to hide it and to remove historical facts that would be impossible to deny were important historically except for the fact that they were later used within examples of why the topic is controversial.

In short, the article was not edited in any encyclopedic sense, it was outright censored.

Again, as there is consensus to make these controversial changes, and indeed the changes quite dramatically violate our policy against slanting articles to a particular viewpoint, I can safely say they will never be acceptable without extremely solid and numerous reliable sources proving that there is no substantial controversy anymore. We can't just take the word of some random people on the Internet swearing that there is no controversy, especially when those people have not been shy in demonstrating the extent of their bias. DreamGuy (talk) 00:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Dreamguy

If you will give us some space and allow those of us who are interested to edit this article, by giving us some time and leeway to work, we will put in the work to do as you have stated above. I for one wanted to see if any work and research I did would just be met with the delete button and it was. Therefore, yes, most of the editing done, at least by me (I can't speak for others) was deleting and moving of things that should not be in a serious article on Dissociative Identity Disorder - in my opinion, yes, but also I have not seen this sort of thing in any of the academic books, journals and papers I have read.Tylas 00:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

WLU

Please don't swear. That was a very bad word you used! I don't like that type of language and I am sure many others here do not either. You deleted a link to complaints about Dreamguy. That is relevant to this page because he is exhibiting the same behavior here that he did in those past complaints. ~ty (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Is there any reason I can't say fuck, cunt, twat or douchebag? Can you point to a policy? No? Alright then. While I am prohibited from calling a specific editor a fucktard or moron, there's no such prohibition I'm aware of against using the words shiteater, asspenguin or fucknugget. Want me to stop swearing? Engage on substance, cite policies, guidelines and sources. Stop using your opinions and assertions in the absence of those three things.

If you have a serious issue with DG's actions, take it up at the appropriate venue, not here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Swearing on Wikipedia

Wikipedia rules aside there is manners. Bullying and swearing are inappropriate anywhere. I shall file a formal complaint against dreamguy. Thank you for the suggestion.~ty 16:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you cite any policies? If not, why are you wasting my fucking time. Cite a policy and I'll strike those bastards. And you better have a good fucking idea of what the "complaint" will say or you're wasting your goddamn time too.

Again, opinions are worthless, what matters is policies, guidelines and sources. I don't give a pile of steaming dogshit about manners, and you sounding off about nonsense and bullshit with no understanding of what the community mores are is a whole fuck of a lot ruder in my opinion. Jesus Christ, stop polite-trolling and learn the fucking rules. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• WLU, please tone down and remain civil. This kind of behavior is unwarranted and continuation on this path is going to get you blocked. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Mr. WLU

I see these 3 rules have not been put to good use here. All I want is to work on the DID page. I am not trolling or fighting. I simply want to contribute to this page and have been met with strong objection. I will read Wikipedia rules, but I will not blindly follow your interpretation of these rules. WLU, is it inappropriate to ask you why you are so dead set against me and other working on this page? Thank you Guillaume for your post and the link to Civil behavior.

Be polite, and welcoming to new users Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks ~ty (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

What personal attacks have I made?

User reliable sources to verify actual or suggested changes to the main page.

Link your signature.

Thread your posts per the talk page guidelines.

When I give a policy-based reason for why a change, comment or suggestion is a good or bad idea, do me the courtesy of actually reading the link I'm providing, and don't make the same suggestion again. You may consider profanity to be rude - I consider wasting my time to be far, far ruder, and it pisses me off. You are an extremely inexperienced editor giving lectures that betray your ignorance of the community. Learn the rules, post something mores substantive than your personal opinion, and respect will follow. Continuously lecturing about politeness while not bothering to understand why your edits are inappropriate just irritates me further. Pretending to be concerned about politeness while doing the wikipedia equivalent of pissing on my flowers won't help you anywhere. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

History re: Sybil and Sybil Exposed

I made a minor edit, changing the language to be less loaded in this section. It being 'likely' fictionalized has one source, and likely is too strong of a word. Also I changed the sentence to say the book helped popularize the diagnosis and not that it was the only thing that did.Forgottenfaces (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Blarg, I'd rewritten much of the section to shorten it and hit an edit conflict my web browser is currently choking on. I'll re-rewrite. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you WLU, I appreciate your time. Forgottenfaces (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

WLU - Let others edit too and what does Blarg mean?

Why is it that no one else is allowed to rewrite. This is a community. Let others do work on the page. Forgettenfaces has a right to edit if they want! [conflict]~ty (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe he was expressing annoyance on the fact he lost his edit, not the fact that I am attempting to edit the article. I didn't take it as personal and am in good faith hoping we can make this section more balanced. Let's all calm down and take a deep breath. :) Forgottenfaces (talk) 18:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I am cool and not upset in the slightest. I totally enjoy debate and it does not bother me at all. I just want to be able to edit the actual article instead of spending days talking on the talk page throwing out Wiki rules, which is were we all seem to be stuck! ~ty (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

We aren't here to debate. Saying things like "throwing out wiki rules" is yet another indication that you don't appreciate the importance of policies and guidelines in this debate. I am upset that you've the gall to lecture us on the appropriate contents of the page without any indication you know what governs their contents. We are not a place to chat. We are not therapy. We are not a place to promote a viewpoint. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. I will be a lot calmer when Tylas shows some indication of understanding that this page is not the place to publish his or her own ideas about DID. I take a lot of time and effort to justify my edits and talk page postings with reference to policies, guidelines and sources. It's a point of pride for me. It's in my signature. I do this because they are important. For someone to blithely wave them away is more than aggravating, it makes it difficult if not impossible to arrive at a consensus because we're working with different sets of rules. So stop "enjoying the debate" - that's not why we're here. Learn the rules, cite sources and this will go much, much more smoothly. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Mr. WLU, as soon as you allow others to edit the actual page you might be rewarded with our ability to follow the wikipedia rules. I just ask for a chance. You have been debating and citing rules instead of just letting us work on the page.~ty (talk) 19:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

(unident) Guys, let's keep this section about this specific topic. I don't know the policies on conflicts like this but it sure doesn't belong on this talk page. Forgottenfaces (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you WLU, the section is much more neutral and condensed. I will let you know if I have any other changes, right now I am satisfied with the changes. Forgottenfaces (talk) 19:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Status of this article - clarification of my position

[warning: satire ahead]

G'morning boys, time to rise and shine. We don't allow people sleepin' in our gutters, and it's daylight now anyway. Decent people are waking up and headin' off to work. It's time for you get yer boots back on, find your horse (I sure hope ya got one), saddle up, and head on back to wherever ya came from. I know you had a good rowdy time here over the weekend, but the saloon's closed now, and it's time for ya both to skiddadle.

I know that some of boys are getting a posse together and they're going to come lookin' fer ya. I just think ya should at least have a head start. They do love to shoot varmints, ya see, and some of 'em aren't real good shots, so they could hit just any part of ya. If I were you I'd ride out of here like there's no tomorrow, 'cause for you there just might not be!

[end: satire warning]

So, here's a quick synopsis of what I see happening:

Article page activity

• FRIDAY NIGHT AND SATURDAY MORNING (2012.01.13-14 - USA Mountain time zone):Over a period of about 6.5 hours, I make about 20 carefully thought-out edits, all with edit summaries and the whole explained in length on the Talk page. I then retire for the weekend to observe reactions of the community of editors interested in this article.
• SATURDAY (2012.01.14):
  • At about 9:30AM (MST - USA Mountain Standard Time), Editor DreamGuy reverts all my edits, in a single reversion, with the edit summary: "highly POV edit from editor with few edits on Wikipedia - there is no consensus to make these controversial changes)
  • At 7:22PM (MST), Editor Tylas reverts the reversion, with the edit summary: "(The new edits are in order with the newest information on DID. Controversy is (sic - she means "if") really needed can be added to that paragraph.)
  • At 7:46PM (MST), Editor DreamGuy restores his initil reversion, with the edit summary: "highly POV edit from editor with few edits on Wikipedia - there is no consensus to make these controversial changes."
• SUNDAY: At 2:45PM, editor WLU removes a reference from the "Controversy" section, with the edit summary: "removed primary source used to debunk secondary, per WP:MEDRS)"

Talk page activity

A large number of entries have been made to this page. It's clear to me that Editors DreamGuy and WLU are extremely rejecting of my edits, and apparently even of my presence here. Their intent appears to be to defend the status quo text existing prior to my arrival, which is fine, if [a] the defense is legitimate, and [b] properly carried out.

In contract to this reaction, Editors Tylas, Bug, Guillaume2303, Forgottenfaces post to the page a variety of comments in support of my work and my revision. Several reveal that they have DID and want the page to be more reflective of the current state of knowledge about DID in coming from the professional psychology community, as do I.

Of particular note is an extended attempt by Editor DreamGuy to mount an ad hominem attack on me by asserting that I am illegitimately advancing a personal bias.

Overall summary

By a 5 to 2 margin, we have a consensus supporting my revisions, or most of them. I will be restoring this new consensus version shortly.

The idea of "consensus" in Wikipedia is interesting and crucial. The core source document makes the following critical statements:

• "Consensus refers to the primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia, and it is accepted as the best method to achieve our goals."
• "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. This means that decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's norms."
• "A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised."
• "...often we must settle for as wide an agreement as can be reached."
• "Editors may make changes without prior discussion."
• "Repeated reversions are contrary to Wikipedia policy under WP:Edit warring.

There is much more of value in this article, and I encourage all interested parties to study it carefully, while remembering that it has not the status of "Wikipedia law". It is the normal way things are done here (by consensus - pun not intended), and there are exceptional cases where non-normal solutions are best (although I don't expect that will occur here).

About restoration of the new consensus version

We do have a new consensus clearly expressed, but it is a consensus-in-progress, and discussion of core ideas behind my revisions should certainly continue, in a thoughtful and civil manner.

I ask that DreamGuy and WLU respect the expressed views of the very clear majority (by more than 2 to 1) of editors in this conversation, and NOT initiate an edit war over my revisions. Let's have a discussion, instead.

PLEASE NOTE (and this was one of your initial mistakes, DreamGuy, in effecting your single massive revert), that my edits have been very deliberately made serially, expressly so that each may be considered on its own merits. I have tried very hard to thoughtfully justify my edits. The attempts I have made at justification may NOT merely be sidestepped. You must address them as to their merit.

That will involve not mere gratuitous assertion of conclusions, for which you offer no argument, but rather engaging in proper argumentation. For every assertion of importance you offer, I expect to see recognizable premises and some kind of logic which produces the assertion. Failing that, your assertion has no merit, and will properly be ignored. This sort of discussion is, indeed, work, I know, but it is essential work. It's how thoughtful people decide things productively. Neither my several degrees and vast clinical experience nor your presumed good looks and magnetic charm count at all - only our argumentation. This is not negotiable.

Behavior

I see on the Talk page, and also on at least one editor's user Talk page which is on my watchlist, some completely improper and indefensible behavior, by both Editors DreamGuy and WLU. I will address this in another section, which will serve as the mandatory "discussion of the issue" that must ensue before I report you both to the Administrators' Incident Noticeboard, and ask that you be blocked. I warn you that if either of you preempt the discussion here of my individual revisions which I have asked for for, it will but serve as additional fodder in support of my request that your accounts be blocked, or in the case of one of you, banned. You have mistaken me for a newcomer to Wikipedia. You have not done your homework. I suggest you visit my user page and do a little reading, and check into my edit history. Informed action is more likely to produce fruitful outcome than impulsivity.

[warning: satire ahead]

So, now, good luck boys, 'specially the one a ya that's walkin'. What happened - ya get kicked in the butt a while back? Oh well, it's today you need to pay worry 'bout. I know there's not much comfort where ya headed - up there in the hills with the coyotes, snakes, and scorpions. I just heard someone say "Well, at least they'll be with their own kind..." But I don't think that's very charitable. Coyotes are fine animals, once ya understand how they think..."

[end: satire warning]

Tom Cloyd (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:TLDR. What specific changes do you propose, based on what sources? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I read every bit of Tom Cloyds post. It was very informative and helpful. Thank you Sir! I would love to review your individual edits! Progress at last! YAY! ~ty (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

What sources did he present that you found convincing and should be used in the main page? Since I didn't see any sources, the whole thing looks like a lengthy opinion and the mere opinion of an editor is not sufficient to adjust a page. What do you think about the removal of a large number of sources in his edits? Pseronally I think this removes what is at least a significant minority opinion, as there appears to be a significant number of skeptics who have published several articles in peer reviewed journals regarding the actual or potential iatrogenic nature of DID. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

My edits are individually documented. There were almost entirely cleanups (OBVIOUSLY). It is totally legitimate to remove material that is not relevant to this professional topic (although it may be to some popular culture topic). I am NOT required to find substitutes (although I may well in the future, where the topic is relevant to the article). In many cases, if not all, the sourcing was illegitimate, i.e., not professional literature. But, these edits must be discussed individually. This global discussion is not useful because it does not deal with specifics. I will NOT accept wholesale reversion. That is disrespectful of me, of the other editors here who like my revisions as a whole, and of the critical nature of this topic. You simply have no idea how out of order you are. Yet. Tom Cloyd (talk) 20:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

How is the controversy over the potentially iatrogenic nature of dissociative identity disorder not relevant to dissociative identity disorder? Why should I accept wholesale reversion? Why should I respect you when you are doing the exact same thing to me and my edits? And how do you propose to resolve this, through the fringe theories noticeboard? Through the reliable sources noticeboard? Via a request for comment? Mediation? Are my actions sufficiently destructive you should seek help from the administrator's noticeboard? Some other form of dispute resolution? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Tom's post was not too long, and your assertion that it is not worth reading is very good evidence of your unwillingness to participate in a constructive discussion. I agree that a mass reversion of many individual, carefully made, documented changes is highly inappropriate. —danhash (talk) 21:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Considering only one of his posts above contained sources, it's a lot of reading for not much benefit. I actually went over those carefully made changes [14] and found a lot of problems with them. I'm also not the only editor to revert them [15]. I can't see any reason to remember the controversy over iatrogenesis from the lead, or move it out of the "causes" section into a ghettoized "controversy" section. Since iatrogenesis is a theory about how DID develops through faulty therapeutic technique, "causes" seems appropriate. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

My restoraton of the consensus version of 2012-01-14T02:36:14

This had to be done manually due to edits made to the reverted version; this is regrettable, but unavoidable. Some of these edits may still be relevant to this new version, and I will be sure they are included in this version. Also, there appear to be some errors in the reference list; I will chase these down and fix them - don't know why this happened.

Tom Cloyd (talk) 19:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

...except you've got at least two editors who disagree with your edits, thus it does not represent WP:CONSENSUS. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

You are not reading carefully or interpreting correctly - either my comments above or WP:CONSENSUS. I do not need to repeat what I've already written, but to summarize, per WP:CONSENSUS, Perfect consensus is not required. Your actions are inappropriate. I have warned you multiple times. I'm finished with warnings. I'm placing the matter in other people's hands. Tom Cloyd (talk) 20:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Please alert me to where you are raising this issue with a notification on my talk page per WP:NOTIFY. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course. I read carefully and understand quickly, and I am well aware of the procedure. You will be notified when it happens. Am very busy tending to other matters just now. Soon...Tom Cloyd (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

What Tom Cloyd states above is how I am reading the Wikipedia rules that I have been directed to. The rules clearly state that a consensus need not be "perfect". I will also join the complaint process against WLU and Dreamguy. Working on this article should not be met with such abrasive resistance. Tom Cloyds carefully done edits should be restored.~ty (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fine and dandy - but irrespective consensus we have to adhere to the policies and guidelines as a whole. Those policies and guidelines require even minority opinions have a place on the article, per WP:UNDUE. Hence, my objections to scholarly sources being removed. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• "...we have to adhere to the policies and guidelines as a whole" - No we don't, and you know that; they are recommendations. Furthermore, this is irrelevant. The issue is consensus. We have one and you won't recognize. You're bullying, again.
• "Those policies and guidelines require even minority opinions have a place on the article, per WP:UNDUE." - Incorrect. Again, you have the appearance, but not the substance, of authority. What is required (i.e., recommended/advised) is that all "significant" points of view be represented WP:NPOV. WP:UNDUE says precisely the same thing: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources," As I have said previously on this page - the operant word is significant. By that criteria, the material I deleted will have to stay deleted. More on this later.

Pop-culture literature is NOT significant in a professional topic. It's that simple. Sybil is not relevant to the professional world. I address this issue at length in my reversion documentation. You're simply ignoring me. I can promise you that [a] this tactic will not work, and [b] I will not allow you to ignore my argument. Stay tuned.Tom Cloyd (talk) 22:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I could not agree more Mr. Tom Cloyd. It is nice to have someone here working on this subject that knows the different between a professional topic and pop culture. I am greatly relieved to have your presence here. Mr. WLU, please let others also work on this page. You are very much trying to dominate and bully and scare everyone away. I am not leaving no matter how hard you try.~ty (talk) 22:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Funny that the thing you are calling pop culture is one of the two most famous cases in the history of this diagnosis. Repeating the same lie over and over does not make it any more true. DreamGuy (talk) 01:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

WLU is being too polite here. The heading of this subsection is nothing short of a lie. There is no way that revert can at all be considered a consensus version, and the editor who did so damn well knows it. While we do not need a perfect consensus (And on this topic that would be impossible), but putting a version that he knows multiple long time editors say is wholly unacceptable on all levels is the complete opposite of consensus. To claim otherwise is to engage in WP:WIKILAWYERING, and badly at that. This kind of behavior is the sort of aggressive editing that can lead to topic bans and blocks from WIkipedia. It is patently dishonest and violates several core policies of this encyclopedia.DreamGuy (talk) 01:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know whether to go apoplectic or laugh. "...we have to adhere to the policies and guidelines as a whole - No we don't, and you know that; they are recommendations. Furthermore, this is irrelevant. The issue is consensus. We have one and you won't recognize." Put simply, you don't know what you are talking about. Take that point up at WP:ANI and see how far you get. WP:CONSENSUS clearly, clearly, clearly states that local consensus on individual pages does not override the site-wide consensus that is embodied and exhibited in the broader policies and guidelines. You don't know what consensus is or what it means, or you wouldn't be discounting the opinions of two experienced editors. Do you even know the difference between a policy and a guideline? How do we as editors determine what views are "significant" or not? How can you claim that Sybil isn't relevant to the history of DID when there are many, many, many reliable sources that make an explicit connection between the topics? Even medical pages have history sections, per WP:MEDMOS, and that is exactly where topics like Sybil should go. What policy- or guideline-basis do you have for these claims you are making? I haven't seen anything that bears a remote resemblance to how wikipedia has functioned despite my 5.5 years and 47,000 edits. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Sources

Collapsed to move to a new section

• [16] Paris, 2008, Prescriptions for the mind: a critical view of contemporary psychiatry
  • This link doesn't work Tom Cloyd (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

It does for me, google books previews are pooled with your IP address. I have a gmail account I am logged into, therefore I don't share my "pool" with others on my IP address. I can stil read the page, and have already integrated in into the page. The citation is to the book, always, the google books preview is merely a convenience link which makes it more accessible. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• [17] Farrell, 2011, Dissociative Identity Disorder: Medicolegal Challenges
  • This is a legal article. That the abstract asserts DID to be controversial is hardly an argument. The author's credentials are nowhere in sight. Merely being a physician doesn't count for much. Not very useful.Tom Cloyd (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

It's published in a reliable source, I've yet to read it and I'm assuming the body will have more information. Since it's published in a peer reviewed journal, the author's credentials don't matter and it's perfectly acceptable to discuss any legal ramifications. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• [18] Boysen, 2011, The scientific status of childhood dissociative identity disorder: a review of published research
  • This is an interesting abstract, looking only at the question of etiology in childhood DID, and its findings are reported as inconclusive. The iatrogenisis hypothesis was not disproved. Not too surprising, considering how difficult getting good histories are for early childhood.Tom Cloyd (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

If the iatrogenesis is not disproved, why was it removed from the lead? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• [19] Foote, 2008, Dissociative identity disorder and schizophrenia: differential diagnosis and theoretical issues
  • This addresses the co-occurrence of psychotic symptoms in dissociative identity disorder and schizophrenia, relative to the problem of differential diagnosis. Interesting, but does not speak to the validity of the DID concept in any way. Psychosis co-occurs with a number of disorders, including grave depression, mania, drug intoxication, and so on. Are we to question the validity of these as well? Absurd.Tom Cloyd (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I would suggest we integrate them in the section on Differential diagnosis or Comorbidity. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• [20] Reindeers, 2008, Cross-examining dissociative identity disorder: neuroimaging and etiology on trial
  • This abstract raises questions that it does not answer (although the article itself may). Useless.Tom Cloyd (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

How is it useless? It's a pubmed-indexed journal article. If nothing else, it'll be useful discussing neuroimaging and DID. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• [21] Khilstrom, 2005, Dissociative Disorders (pubmed)
• [22] Pope et al. 2006, Tracking scientific interest in the dissociative disorders (integrated)
• [23] Manning 2009, Convergent paradigms for visual neuroscience and dissociative identity disorder
• [24] Brand et al. 2011, A survey of practices and recommended treatment interventions among expert therapists...

• [25] Drob et al, 2009, Clinical and conceptual problems in the attribution of malingering in forensic evaluations.

This article does list a nice selection of experts on DID: Brand, Bethany L.;Myrick, Amie C.;Loewenstein, Richard J.;Classen, Catherine C.;Lanius, Ruth;McNary, Scot W.;Pain, Clare;Putnam, Frank W. I reviewed the rest of the list and they are not from anyone that would be considered a leader in the field of Dissociative Identity Disorder. Most argue methodology.~ty (talk) 00:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

That's not how WP:MEDRS works; these are all peer-reviewed reliable sources that directly address the topic of the page. There seems to be a perception that sources can be dismissed because people personally disagree with them. This is not the case. Reliability is made up primarily of the degree of oversight found in publishing - in this case the reputation of the journal for peer review and in the case of books, the reputation of the publisher. In some case, the author alone can provide an opinion if sufficiently notable but that's quite rare. If these authors are genuinely seen as experts in the field, if any of them are, then that adds more credibility to their opinion. If you have a genuine issue with any of the sources here or on the main page, they can all be presented for review at the reliable sources noticeboard. Again, individual editor opinion doesn't really matter much regarding whether the source is reliable or not, the policies and guidelines do. Publishers and peer review are what matter here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• [26] (PMID 19724751) Gillig, 2009, Dissociative Identity Disorder - A Controversial Diagnosis
• [27] Lowenstein, in Vermetten et al., 2007 (ISBN 158562196X), Traumatic dissociation: neurobiology and treatment
• [28] Weiner & Craighead, 2010, The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology
• [29] Weiten, 2010, Psychology: Themes and Variations (integrated)
• [30] - ISSTD advising against "truth serum" interviews
• [31] NPR story, probably better for looking into sources rather than actual citation
• [32] Ross, 2009, Errors of logic and scholarship concerning dissociative identity disorder (addresses Piper and Mersky I believe)
• [33] Kluft, 2007, The older female patient with a complex chronic dissociative disorder.
• [34] Korol, 2008, Familial and social support as protective factors against the development of dissociative identity disorder.
• [35] Clancy, 2010, The Trauma Myth ISBN 046501688X

It's great to have a pile of sources to look at, and I do love reading abstracts. However, so far (and I will return and read the rest) there's nothing here that really useful.

What I see you doing is what we call "shotgunning". You've pulled up a pile of abstracts which involve some kind of question about DID. To what extend this pile has been cherry-picked is not easy to determine, and in any case, so far I see nothing of much import. Ultimately, any group of sources must somehow hang together, to support an argument. I don't see any consistent thread here, yet. THAT is "shotgunning", and it's an amateurs tactic.

The real problem here is that you do not appear to understand some basic concepts in psychology, much less the need for systematic literature synthesis. THIS is why we need to rely upon systematic reviews of the literature done by recognized experts. I will be bringing some more of this material into the discussion, to add to what I have already presented.

You are not recognizing what I have already done. Look at those several books I reviewed in my edit documentations - I looked for any sign of "controversy" and simply couldn't find it. Individual articles rarely count for much, and if you had graduate training you'd know that. Sorry to have to say that, but it's true. You simply don't know your own ignorance, which makes you hard to argue with. When a good source is produced, you declare it "biased", and discount it. That is simple demagogy. It won't fly here, I can promise you.Tom Cloyd (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I too will spend time looking through this list of articles. So far I agree with your conclusion on each and will review the others as you do. I have read ALL the books Tom Cloyd listed, in fact, I have them all here in my home library, plus more. I have found them to be excellent sources of professional information on DID.~ty (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a list of pubmed-indexed and otherwise reliable sources that I found searching for "dissociative identity disorder" and "iatrogenesis". All can be used as integration is determined by reliability. You may disagree with the content, but your opinion doesn't determine which can and can't be used. You may see nothing of import, I disagree. I haven't even read most beyond just the abstract. The important thing is they are all reliable enough to verify information on the page. If you have sources that contradict them, then that's fantastic - we can use them to describe the controversies that exist. What we can not and must not do, is decide a priori what is the "right" answer, and exclude the rest. Calling something "useless" doesn't make it useless. I don't want the page to only give the iatrogenic perspective, but I do want this notable controversy to be included, per our policy on neutrality. Neutrality is demonstrated by reference to reliable sources, and includes both majority and minority opinion. It is not asserted by editors and significant minority opinions, as demonstrated by being able to support sources that support them, must be included. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

One problem is that professional researchers do not address the types of things that are listed here because they are as Tom Cloyd said - useless to real research on DID. LSU, you just don't get it. The page should include real research on DID, not things like this. They need to be eliminated, not debated.~ty (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:MEDRS. Wikipedia should be based primarily on secondary sources - review articles, books, consensus statements and the like. I've deliberately selected these types of sources. It's not like there's one central question to be answered here - wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It should include a summary of all major issues relevant to DID - of which iatrogenesis is one, but only one issue. I don't know where anyone got the idea that these sources would somehow "resolve" things - there are a multitude of sources, most can be used and it is important we document the controversy, not pick a side and selectively cite only sources on that side. These sources are real, they're not any less real because anyone disagrees with them. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no side. There is pop culture and there is professional research by those that study DID. Pop culture should be presented on its own page on Wikipedia, just as a professional paper on DID should have its own page. They can link to one another, but they are very separate things.~ty (talk) 00:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

What sources here are "pop culture"? What supports a professional paper having its own page? I can't think of any "papers" that merit a separate wikipedia page, can you point to any policies or guidelines that support your assertions? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I've moved the sources to a new section and hidden this discussion (not for any real reason, it just makes it neater). Having the date stamps in the section means it will eventually be archived, while leaving them out leaves a perpetual list of sources that's never archived. I don't think there are any points left in this section that merit further discussion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Canvassing

Following guidelines in WP:Canvassing, I have posted notices on the Talk pages of the following three users, inviting them to join the discussion under way about my revisions. Please note that I DO fully understand the guidelines, and also that I am NOT required to post this notification at all. It is, however, good practice, and courtesy to other editors.

I give reasons for my selections, below:

• User:Bluejay_Young - this editor has made a number of edits to this article in the recent past, and declares at his user page that he is a "healthy multiple".
• User:Danhash - this editor has posted here from time to time and very recently posted to the article page. Because of his interest in trauma disorders, evidenced by his involvement in the PTSD article, I thought his opinions might add some perspective here.
• User:Jmh649 - this editor is an ER physician with a sustained serious interest in improving the quality of health care articles. He also well knows the ropes in the Wikipedia world - he's an admin.

I do not think I'm in any way out of order with my recent contributions to this article, but I'm certainly open to reasonable suggestion. I don't perceive that I've received much so far. Perhaps these folks may offer some.

Tom Cloyd (talk) 21:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Your talk page notices are appropriate. WLU either has not read WP:CANVAS or else was assuming bad faith. In any case, I have read your talk page notices and the policy and it is obvious that your notifications fall well within what is accepted and reasonable. Any objections to your attempted recruiting of other editors should be specific and grounded in policy and reason. —danhash (talk) 21:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I too just finished reading Wikipedia policy on Canvassing and this seem to be perfectly in order. Thank you for posting this Tom Cloyd, even though you did not need to.~ty (talk) 22:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I've read canvass. I would simply have preferred to use some form of dispute resolution in which neutral editors were solicited. Alerting specific editors is allowable, but it is much, much easier to abuse the process by being selective.

I have absolutely no issue with Doc James being involved, he's an excellent and scrupulously fair editor. In the past he has also been very generous in providing me with sources, which could be very helpful here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

What you would have preferred has absolutely no bearing on whether or not Tom's actions were illegitimate canvassing. They weren't, and that is very clear, so there is no need to defend yourself. —danhash (talk) 17:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

They obviously were, as he sought ought people he thought would agree with him and did not make any attempt to get anyone else involved. Claims to the contrary are plainly false. Certainly your actions here do nothing to disprove that either. DreamGuy (talk) 04:50, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

"They obviously were, as he sought ought people he thought would agree with him and did not make any attempt to get anyone else involved. Claims to the contrary are plainly false."

Evidence, please??? This is yet more argument (and I use the term very casually here) by slander. You don't belong here. I will see what I can do about that.Tom Cloyd (talk) 10:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

DreamGuy, Tom explained who he mentioned the discussion to and why. You don't like what he did, but that doesn't matter, because (politely) policy doesn't care what your opinion of the matter is and neither does anybody else. Also, it doesn't matter because it didn't even make much difference. I was already planning on joining the discussion, which I have already said. I do not have to do anything to disprove any ridiculous idea you choose to believe; indeed proving anything to you is totally unnecessary. Until and unless you have anything relevant to say about the issue we can consider this chapter of discussion closed. It is quite obvious that at least as far as the canvassing issue is concerned, you only care about wasting time with needless discussion about baseless claims in order to keep the focus of discussion from the issues that matter. —danhash (talk) 16:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Does it matter anymore? Numerous editors are currently engaged on the page. If we need further input, we have dispute resolution available to us. Shall we move forward? Unless someone is going to take this issues to a noticeboard or request for comment, deciding who is "right" is pointless. Nobody is going to get blocked over the appropriateness or inappropriateness of the canvassing that took place, why perpetuate the drama? Does anyone have any suggestions regarding how to improve the actual DID page? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Editing of the DID Article

LSU, I see you are making many edits. Are the rest of us yet allowed to edit without being reversed? I have read many Wikipedia rules now and am ready to proceed. I am sure others feel the same way. I would like to see Tom Cloyd's edits replaced, then let others of us read through and see what we think. Right now it seems hopeless to try until you stand down a bit.~ty (talk) 22:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, of course. But if significant changes, and in particular removal of a single perspective on DID, occurs then I will oppose it and there is a good chance I will revert.

I sincerely doubt anyone could spend a day reading policies and grasp them all but I appreciate you familiarizing yourself with them. For instance, if you understood WP:UNDUE and WP:LEAD, you would have noted that removing the information on iatrogenesis from the lead was inappropriate because a significant opinion on DID's etiology was completely eliminated. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, as Tom Cloyd has stated - popular culture does not belong in this article. The research from experts in the field of Dissociative Identity Disorder is what should occur. So - I still disagree with you. Newbies should be give room to work without being harassed. Wikipedia Rule Assume Good Faith Rule ~ty (talk) 00:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

LSU, also at least twice today you have reverted Tom Cloyd's edits if I read this correctly. Please restore those so that we are not writing over each other. If I read the rules correctly, if you revert once more you are banned for 30 days. Please restore his edits or I will. Thank You. Edit Wars~ty (talk) 00:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no pop culture section, it's linked as a {{main}} article. What sources were removed that supported "pop culture"? I can't see any text that I replaced that was "pop culture" so please be specific.

AGF doesn't mean "let new people keep making mistakes". I pointed out why I reverted, I pointed to policies, I pointed out that the edits inappropriately removed sources and text that represented at minimum a significant minority opinion, and the only responses I got were "trust me, I'm an expert" and "I think the expert is right". See the Essjay controversy - experts don't get to make edits because they are experts, experts must use the same reliable sources to verify text. It should in fact be easier for them because of their familiarity with the literature and access to the sources themselves.

Also, you are somehow miskeying my name repeatedly. I don't care that much, but it can be confusing to figure out who you are addressing your comments to. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh no! I am sorry sorry! That was not intentional! I do have some dissociative problems. I will try and pass that on to my 200 plus parts and demand they all get that right! WooLoo = WLU I can remember it like that. Can we play nice yet? I fixed your spelling on culture. Does that make us even. :) ~ty (talk) 01:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Sir, you can fix all my Wikipedia edit mistakes you want. I only want to fix the information on the DID article. If you will let us work on the article, we will reference things. Give us a bit of leeway. A little trust. Okay? :) ~ty (talk) 01:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

You can claim that "pop culture does not belong in this article" all you want, but you are ignoring two important things: 1) your claims that the material in question is pop culture has been disputed (and in fact the claim is laughable on the face of it) and 2) YOU NEED CONSENSUS for any conclusion you come to, and you don't have it. Furthermore, as a new editor to this page you (and Tom) seem to be filling this page up with commentary that frankly doesn't do anything toward progressing toward any consensus. All yoga re doing is saying the same things over and over, and you know you do not have consensus for what you have said so far. Please consider either saying something different or refraining from repeating the same exact things. DreamGuy (talk) 01:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Please do not edit others' comments, even to make minor corrections to spelling and grammar. It is rude, and can result in misrepresentation (see WP:TPO). I don't care if you misspell my name, I just want it to be clear who you are addressing comments to you. In order for me to trust you, I need an indication that you understand the rules. Most importantly, I need you to understand that the page will contain information you won't like and personally disagree with. It is inevitable, because the iatrogenesis hypothesis is a significant part of the DID debate. As I've said repeatedly - your opinion, like mine, is worthless. The only important things are finding and integrating the best reliable sources available. Simply by finding and integrating the best and ideally most recent secondary sources on this topic available, a neutral version giving appropriate weight to all sides should essentially drop out naturally. That should be our primary focus, and as DG says - all this pointless, source- and policy/guideline-free bickering helps nobody. Dismissing obviously reliable sources helps nobody. Removing obviously reliable sources and relevant texts from the lead helps nobody. Reliable, secondary sources are the bones, heart and blood of any decent article, so please focus on them. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Bogus threatening edit comments

A person who has been edit warring on this article left the edit comment: "partial consensus is fine; final warning - do not revert; discuss)" This kind of comment is frankly UNACCEPTABLE. You cannot give a "final warning" when you are the one editing against consensus. YOU need to discuss and GET APPROVAL for something controversial BEFORE adding it. The language here seems threatening as if you think you are capable of handling out warnings -- to the contrary, it is your behavior here that is a violation of WIkipedia policy and can and will likely lead to blocks if it continues. 01:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Sir, Dreamguy - That is not threatening. His edits keep getting reverted. There are 2 of you that stand here like police and won't let anyone do anything on this page. That is threatening! :( ~ty (talk) 01:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

How is "final warning" not intended to be threatening? And OF COURSE his edits get reverted! He KNOWS they are controversial AND that he does not have consensus to make them. Editing the article under those circumstances will OBVIOUSLY lead to being reverting. If you or he want to contribute something to the article and not see it reverted I would suggest either making sure it is a noncontroversial edit or getting consensus first. It's simple, and you can't say you haven't been told already. DreamGuy (talk)

This has already been discussed. Quit writing things that have already be done please. (Not being rude, just repeating what you guys wrote.)~ty (talk) 01:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

You and Tom must come to a common understanding regarding the policies and guidelines, or this whole thing will end in blocks, bans and tears - and I'm very, very sure that I will not be on the receiving end of them. You and Tom give every indication of not understanding why I and DG object to your edits - not because we have personal dislike of you, but because your posts show little indication of the applicable policies and guidelines; to whit, dismissing obviously reliable sources without any reasonable reason. Neither DG nor I are admins, so we can't block you - but both of us have seen POV-pushing accounts blocked because of a refusal to edit according to the same rules. That's why I keep emphasizing things like NPOV, RS, OR, UNDUE, NOT and MEDRS. If you are going to discount a source - you need a rule-based reason why. As I've said many, many times - mere opinion is not enough. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I issued that "final warning". I'd already warned you about your behavior; I was not willing to do it again, hence "final". What word would you have chosen? It was a courtesy, and of course you want to recast it as some kind of behavioral or procedural transgression. I am required, by the policies of the Admin. Board to which I will shortly be going, to attempt to resolve disputes about behavior before initiating formal disciplinary action. I'm following procedure. You should love that. I have no control over what you feel threatened by or not. I can certainly say that my intent was not to threaten. I very rarely feel any need to do that.

I'm not edit warring, you and DG are. I initiated discussion by documenting my original edits, at length, on the talk page. The response was simply to revert my edits, which are now buried in a flurry of updates. It's probably rather obvious to all here that you are feeling threatened. A calmer, more thoughtful response to my edits would have been to respond immediately to my initiation of discussion, which would have led to some kind of consensus, and THAT could have been followed by reversion or by further edits. But you appear simply to want to bury any opinion but yours. That's not playing fair, and that will have consequences, as I've said elsewhere.Tom Cloyd (talk) 04:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

From my understanding of the Wikipedia rules that WLU has so kindly directed me to, Tom Cloyd is again correct. He made some small and well thought out edits and there was a full revision of them by WLU or Dreamman?, then updates were made over the top of them by WLU. Tom Cloyds edits were made in small sections so they could be talked about, but the revisions were in bulk.~ty (talk) 04:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring takes two sides. If you have reverted (and you both have, [36], [37], [38], [39]) then you have engaged in edit warring, as have I and DreamGuy (not Dreamman). Tom Cloyd's edits had both large and small issues [40] that need to be addressed.

Both of you need to realize that you can't just claim you're correct and we're wrong. That's not how it works. Everybody thinks they're "right" and the other version is the wrong version. We resolve these disagreements through reference to reliable sources - not by edit warring and assertions. Feel free to make minor changes, but please do not repeat the errors I pointed out earlier - ghettoizing information on iatrogenesis and removing it from the lead; including unnecessary subheadings; overly-technical language, removal of significant aspects of the history of DID. It's not enough to think you are right; everyone thinks they are right. Demonstrate it through sources, reference policies to back your edits and seek outside input when disagreements can not be resolved here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Tom: hate to say it, but we already have a consensus. The fact that you disagree is unfortunate to you, but not really relevant. Trying to lecture highly respected, tenured editors on this encyclopedia about policies you have routinely misinterpreted and ignored makes you look kind of silly. Claiming you haven't edit warred shows you do not understand the term, because you clearly have. The difference is the "war" you have been waging is to introduce highly controversial changes that violate policies, and others have edited to restore the status quo of the long-supported, well-demonstrated consensus version. You seem to have the misguided idea that any action you do is fine and can be rationalized because you are so obviously right that what you do must be right and that anything anyone does to deny that must be something they are doing wrong and that they will get into trouble for. You are sadly mistaken, just as some previous editors who thought the same thing and got banned for being unwilling to follow policies have learned. It is the height of hypocrisy to complain about others allegedly trying to bury opinions when your stated goal is to remove well documented, reliable expert opinions from the article itself. DreamGuy (talk) 04:47, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Introduction on the Article

I would like everyone reading the page to see where we are at. WLU, is this the sentence in the introduction you are fighting to keep? What other text - exactly are we debating over. This discussion as it is will get us nowhere. So to keep or loose this paragraph it's all about validating the references. Correct? I understand that what we want is references and we want secondary and tertiary types rather than primary.

Another point. Is cause of DID something that goes in the intro?

Let's look at the paragraph and it's references. This is a page from the introduction of the article, not something I agree with: "There is a great deal of controversy surrounding the topic of DID. The validity of DID as a medical diagnosis has been questioned, and some researchers have suggested that DID may exist primarily as an iatrogenic adverse effect of therapy.DID is diagnosed significantly more frequently in North America than in the rest of the world." ~ty (talk) 03:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The lead section should be a brief summary of all significant issues in the article; the lead follows the body and the current lead is less than ideal. A major controversy and source of disagreement within the scholarly community is whether DID is caused by trauma, iatrogenesis, both or neither. This is readily apparent based on the number of sources that mention or discuss this disagreement. Removal of the above sentence from the lead was inappropriate and that is indeed something I object to. Another point of disagreement is regarding Sybil in the History section. I think the current, brief, well-sourced summary is adequate and would not support substantially expanding it. I would also strongly disagree with removing it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The quoted text has been supported through constant discussions over the course of this article. It also is extremely well sourced and accurately summarizes the rest of the article and it's reliable sources. To even suggest it should be removed shows a clear attempt to push a POV and not to edit Wikipedia per its policies. DreamGuy (talk) 04:39, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Lack of Consensus on Consensus

This information is from the Wikipedia page: Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity nor is it the result of a vote.

So this means that just because there are 2 editors here that act like they police the page, WLU and Dreamguy, you two are not the consensus. Anyone argue that?

I go down the list of things to try and none of those are working here.

1. We have 2 men who refuse to allow any changes to what they deem is their page. 2. We have others here who would like a chance to edit the DID page.

Rationally the 2 police would stand down and let others edit and the others would find references as suggested in the talk above and try and work together.

I am willing to do this. Any others willing?~ty (talk) 04:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, harrumph. You've just made, again, the point I have already made, and was about to repeat. (The article to "Wikipedia page" to which you refer, is, of course, here.)

So, for your viewing pleasure, and for the third time, is my original point (it's so very economical to quote yourself!):

By a 5 to 2 margin, we have a consensus supporting my revisions, or most of them. 

(That's five editors who have expressed support of my edits, by the time of the original writing, versus two who have not.) But, of course, we're forgetting something critical here: We're all equal here, but some are more equal than others. There's apparently a default seniority system in place. The old-timers, or at least two of them, have considerably fine opinions...of themselves.

So, we have a NEW CONSENSUS, by the stated standard in general use at Wikipedia. And, you see, it is it not me who is ignoring or acting in ignorance of "Wikipedia Policy", which I did study, and then quoted and discussed above. It is WLU and DG, who have not even entered into the discussion I initiated. THAT is refusal to discuss, refusal to engage in the consensus development (as in "improvement", 'cause we already have one) process. THAT is bad behavior, and bad behavior has consequences. Oh...did I already say that? Sorry.Tom Cloyd (talk) 04:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Misunderstandings happen. Everyone take a deep breath! I think we are all getting our back against the wall for no reason. I think we are not all that different in our ideas for the DID page. WLU and DG - I believe you misunderstand where I am coming from. I don't want to remove all controversy even though I do find most of it objectable and not for the reasons FF said on DG's talk page - but because anyone that agrees with the work of top researchers in DID would see those controversial things as I do. I think you both might be more reasonable than I first thought after reading your talk pages. I see you both sort of like over zealous lawyers too lost in the law to see what is best for the page. Granted I made a clean sweep of a couple of things at first, being new to editing and all, but I will go slower this time around and accept some controversy. I learn fast. I have read a lot of scholarly texts and most that have come out recently (and have in fact read all those that Tom Cloyd listed and more) and it is the opinion voiced in those scholarly texts written by experts in the field of DID that I mirror when I talk of DID. I will site those references when I make edits on the article. Now that I have read your talk pages, I think WLU and I we will have few problems. DG, we might have a bit more to disagree on. Tom, I really like most things you have posted and attempted to communicate.~ty (talk) 05:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Consensus means evaluating the quality of arguments, not merely the number of adherents. If only two people disagree with ten, but those two cite polices, guidelines and sources while the remaining ten don't, the two "win". That's why I keep hammering on the WP: links. I would ask, for instance, who are the "five", what policies do they cite, and was one of them this guy?

The central points are - if you can't cite a source to support your edit, you shouldn't make it. If a policy disagrees with your edit, you shouldn't make it. If you can't cite a secondary source, you should be very, very cautious to use a primary instead. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

She, not he, wants to express her opinion, but she has felt bullied. I can't blame her a bit. This has been the problem here WLU and DG run potential editors off. Don't discount her. She will be here when you stop being a bully and probably so will others. This page has been run by whoever has the biggest bark and that needs to stop. Those with DID can't always stand up to bullies, but I can. I have a strong system of protectors that many with DID do not have.~ty (talk) 15:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The account asked a question and I provided a link to the relevant policy. Hardly bullying. The problem is that you and Tom Cloyd need to accept that you can't discount sources based on not liking their conclusions. All I'm asking is that you become familiar with, and adhere to the policies, including WP:RS and WP:NPOV. After dozens of posts basically repeating myself, I've yet to see an acknowledgement of what started this - the removal and minimization of an active and notable controversy and perspective regarding DID; to whit, the potential for iatrogenesis. Sources are not removed because editors disagree with them. Can we agree to that? If so, we can move on. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, besides focusing on the quality of arguments, we also don't just count votes because it is trivially easy to stack votes through use of sock puppets, meat puppets, canvassing and tag teaming. This article has seen numerous attempts to do so in the past, and it's quite clear that some of that is going on now as well. There is nothing like a new consensus, not even close. The consequences of trying to falsify consensus and make bad faith comments are pretty severe. Tom keeps making veiled threats while at the same time participating in behavior that has already gotten people banned from this article and Wikipedia in general in the past. Others of us have been here a long time because we are actually following policies. DreamGuy (talk) 04:36, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Per the request on my talk page

I have been asked to comment:

• In this edit [41] the source in question http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=9653418 is a primary source rather than a secondary source such as a review article or major textbook. We should use secondary sources per WP:MEDRS especially if content is controversial. Also we should be trying to use sources from the last 5 years (ten years at most). Would this ref de Ruiter, MB (2006). "Dissociation: cognitive capacity or dysfunction?". Journal of trauma & dissociation : the official journal of the International Society for the Study of Dissociation (ISSD). 7 (4): 115–34. PMID 17182496. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) be useful?
• I notice a fair number of other primary sources which will need replacement with secondary sources before this article can be brought to GA. For an overview of a major topic there are few reasons for primary sources. Hope this helps... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Wonderful suggestions Doc James. So much has changed in the area of Dissociative Identity Disorder including knowledge and research in the last 5 years that this is essential. I also agree with using secondary sources for references.~ty (talk) 06:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it's painfully obvious that too much of this article is based on a small number of primary sources. One reason for that is that it's the only way one can provide documentation for trivial assertions. Only important topics and assertions about them are taken up in review articles. Scholars know this. I know this. It's why I offered substantial reviews of the literature from current (and some older) major books by authors of known reputation. But...there's a problem: See my next post.

Thanks for your thoughts.Tom Cloyd (talk) 06:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I also agree secondary sources should be used, which is why I removed it in the first place. Tom, based on Doc James' comment would you please undo the last edit to the page?

Also, I would venture that the one place where primary sources could be used judiciously is the Dissociative identity disorder#Epidemiology section to indicate preliminary levels of dissociation within the populace. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Beware of the trap of focusing too much on journals specifically devoted to a particular POV -- for example, the Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, which just from the name you know has one viewpoint only and won't even entertain papers with contrary views -- you've already stacked the vote. It's like trying to populate the Astrology article with papers from the Journal of Astrology is Real and Everyone Else Is a Poopyhead. It's a sure fire way to try to minimize all contrary views, which has the end result of significantly bias. DreamGuy (talk) 04:31, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that, at minimum, we'd need to draw from other journals and sources that don't have at least this particular POV. I would personally never rely on the JTD for anything - but that's personally. For wikipedia, the trauma theory of DID does represent a distinct, at least minority and possibly even majority, viewpoint. I would suggest bringing this up at the RSN for comment. However, the real "heavy lifting" for this kind of thing would be finding sources that actively disagree and integrating them. I've said it before and I'll say it again - I would not be at all surprised if the field has divided into two acrimonious camps that completely disagree with each other and essentially ignore each others' work. That means a lot of work for everyone involved, in terms of gathering and integrating a lot of sources, as well as discussing how much weight to give each one. That was what happened in the field of memory and child abuse regarding the SRA moral panic and repressed/recovered memory controversy, it could still be echoing down through the years at a slower boil. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Erroneous assumptions I've been making - but need not any longer

I've just realized some serious mistakes I've been making in my thinking, here at the Wikipedia DID article. I've been at this so long that I've lost some needed perspective. I'm basically a 7-day a week psychotherapist (either clinical or academic), and have been for years. Not realizing some of my blind spots, until now, has resulted in some needless chaos and acrimony here. My fault, and I'll gladly assume the blame. I have regrets about this now.

First erroneous assumption. I've been assuming that those most invested in this article understand professional culture in psychology and psychotherapy, and basic research and scholarly method, not to mention the fundamental literature in the field. I could see how minor contributors to this article might not, and would basically be functioning at some "undergraduate" level of understanding, but not 'major' contributors.

I'm "projecting" here, in that I myself just would not attempt to be a major contributor to, say, a sociology article, because while I do have considerable graduate training in cultural anthropology, a related field, I have NOT invested the time studying and learning (two separate tasks) the most important thinkers and literature in sociology that one must invest to attain a reasonable level of competence.

This has a critical implication: not only do I not know some essential facts, I do not know essential values in the field. Combined, this means I lack informed perspective.. I know, from painful experience, that this means that it would be quite easy for me to make a major mistake, to over-reach in some statement or action, and not even know it. I used to do this, when I was young and eager, and green as grass. I got "clipped' more than a few times, and now I'm a healthy bush (as it were), but only in about three fields: philosophy (my weakest), anthropology, and clinical psychology (including research method, where I'm especially strong). Outside of those areas, I can get in trouble fast.

Second erroneous assumption. Given the erroneous assumption above, it was easy for me to think that basically all I had to do here was show up and remind the major players here of a few things, which they already basically knew, and things would soon be on the right track. Well, this sure hasn't been working, and it's been baffling and frustrating to me. However, it is precisely what has led to my making statements which it never occurred to me needed backing up. To me, what I have been saying is just obvious. Not true.

My major insight came when it occurred to me that Wikipedia policy and guideline articles (P&G) are procedure laid out to substitute for lack in editor's minds of the knowledge I assumed (first assumption above) was already there. Now I get it what without the P&G, we'd have major chaos here. I've been thinking to myself "You really don't need the P&G, 'cause it's already clear how to do this right."

When I make these "obvious", unsupported statements, it appears that I'm expressing personal opinion. I know that in a way I am, but it's an opinion I've had to develop, to earn, refine, over many years. It did not seem to me to need explanation or justification, in good part because I know that it is the opinion of my field. This is a huge blind spot I've been displaying, to be sure.

Needed remedy. Actually, WLU's been trying to tell me this, and it just didn't make sense until now: I need to be more lawyerly, as it were (not the way he put it, but that's the way it makes sense to me.). He's been stressing the essential value of the P&G, and I've been thinking (yeah, yeah, sure...) and running right on past key problems. That clearly won't work, I now see, and it hasn't been working. So, I will become a scholar of the P&G - that's certainly something I know how to do. I've a high degree of confidence about that.

Example: "reliable sources in psychology". Now that's obvious, yes? Research and theory articles in peer-reviewed journals, and most particularly review articles. But what is not obvious is that material of approximately equivalent value can be found in book chapters. Indeed, what is and is not a peer-reviewed journal, or a quality review article, is also not obvious.

So, from now on I'm going to go forward more slowly and deliberately. I'll cover myself with the P&G. We may have interpretations difficulties at times, and can, if needed, consult guidance groups at Wikipedia already set up for this purpose. This all feels, quite frankly, just a little strange, but I can get used to it. I just need to adjust my thinking.

I think that if I had to justify the P&G to a newcomer, now (something I actually do, in my other role at Wikipedia), I'd simply say that its role is simply to show us how to work together to produce excellent results. It allows people to become major contributors who otherwise would become baffled, or discouraged, or produce bad work, or be unable to work with others. Rather like democracy, I suppose - doesn't look all that great, until you consider the alternatives!

I'm HERE because I'm a professional, and I NEED the DID article to be a reliable source of summary information of the best that we know about DID - for my clients, for interested laypersons (some of whom have relatives or loved ones with DID, and for my fellow professionals who are not DID specialists and need a quick, reliable overview, with some quality references to follow up with. Having this at Wikipedia would be a great service for all. THAT's what I want.

So, let's see if we can get there. If I start to lose my newly gained perspective, feel free to remind me.

Tom Cloyd (talk) 07:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I have absolutely no issue with books and book chapters being used, several of the #Sources I listed above are books. Books are generally secondary sources, and many books discuss the possibility of iatrogenesis in DID. More caution must be used however, because while journals generally have visible peer review and pubmed-indexing to indicate reliability, the reliability of books is based more on publisher and author.

The policies and guidelines are indeed a substitute for expert judgment. If you want to use your expertise much more liberally, Citizendium is a project that welcomes experts and encourages them to use a judicious degree of original analysis. Wikipedia does not. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Tom Cloyd, this is beautifully written. I look forward to when you edits are put back in place and you are able to lend your numerous skills to this article. I could not agree more with what you wrote. ~ty (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Tom, your first "erroneous assumption" is that you are in any way more qualified to edit this article than other editors here. Another is that you and you alone get to choose who the experts are. While discussing sources above you routinely immediately dismiss anyone regardless of their credentials when they disagree with what you want to believe. Yet another is that the goal of this article is to represent what *you* and people you approve of "know" about DID. Frankly, based upon some bizarre comments you have made I think it's safe to say I have a more rounded professional background in psychology and this specific topic than you have demonstrated. Any of the sources you want to censor from the article have a more valid and valuable opinion than you do, at least as far as Wikipedia is concerned. You can't smugly insist that you know what is best while professing to be a professional while at the same time saying monumentally simplistic and unprofessional things about the topic. All you have demonstrated is a dedication to removing all content you disagree with. That's not allowed here. That's all the perspective you need. DreamGuy (talk) 04:20, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Response "Tom, your first "erroneous assumption" is that you are in any way more qualified to edit this article than other editors here." A conclusion, with no supporting argument. Worthless. Here, however is a conclusion that is not:

Premises -

• Assertions derive their value from argumentation.
• Argumentation is a process of stating premises, operating upon them with correct logic, and deriving a conclusion.
• Conclusions (which are always in the form of an assertions) of such argumentation are correct if the logic is correct, and true if the premises are true.
• When an assertion is presented without supporting argumentation, the assertion has no demonstrated meaning.

Argument -

• Your assertion has no supporting argument, therefore it has no demonstrated meaning.

If you are to refute my conclusion, you attack my premises or my logic. This is basic, and I won't even attempt to document it. It should have been a part of your education, formal or informal.

I do make that assumption - that I am more qualified, because I have made known my background. Yours is unknown. You may or may not be more qualified than me. We just don't know. Your behavior, globally, indicates to me that your less qualified. Just my impression. However, all my qualifications should do is support an obvious argument that my expressions and work here ought to be thoughtfully evaluated, NOT summarily dismissed. That is, of course, not what happened. I went to obvious effort to support my original group of edits, and you responded with outright arrogance, and a specious explanation for your action. If there is support in the P&G for your peremptory reversion of my work, give the reference. Failing that, admit you erred, and seek remedy, if you have enough character to do this. I should have been given minimal respect, and was not. That minimal respect would have been visible in a thoughtful consideration of the documentation I offered of my edits, BEFORE they were reverted. Didn't happen.

My edits do not necessarily have more value than anyone else's. Of course. No issue there. They have to stand on their own merit, else we have a visible ad hominem fallacy, right? You are failing to distinguish the issue of my qualifications, which are a rare and precious thing here, or ought to be (how many clinical hours treating DID do you have?), from that of the inherent value of my edits. My edits MUST (of course) stand on their own merit. I have NEVER argued otherwise. If I thought they needed no justification I would not have provided any. Please reread this paragraph and see if you can't get your thinking straight about this. It is irritating to be accused of something egregious which [a] is manifestly untrue, and [b] for which you offer no support whatsoever.

The rest of your assertions aren't worth my time to discuss. I'd rather work on the article. You have in effect attempted to slander me by asserting things for which you offer no support. I responded with a single example of your poor thought which is well supported. Enough said.

As for the value of any particular reference removed or inserted in this article, we'll deal with that issue in a while. It's a fair and essential question, and needs to be handled correctly. What you don't seem to have any appreciation for at all (I wonder why?) is that professional graduate training makes very very clears to its participants that conclusions have value because of the method used to reach them. Nothing else counts. You can assume that any professional knows this (although after a while some need to be reminded). Person opinion is the method of demagogy and the uneducated. To suggest that I work that way is simply ignorant, especially when I have bent over backward to justify what I did with reasons having nothing to do with me. But enough of this. I know I'm wasting my time.Tom Cloyd (talk) 10:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The use of logic on wikipedia, at least in article space (not talk or project pages) is pretty much a no-go per WP:OR. We don't get to criticize articles, we only get to cite criticisms that others' have published. Edits to articles must stand on the reliability of the source - that's pretty much the sole measure of merit (though the weight given to the scholarly prestige of the source is also something to consider). Tom, your actual background and training matters much, much less than the number and quality of sources you can cite. As a professional, I have no doubt that you are familiar with the literature and have access to a lot of it. Please demonstrate this through citations, not assertions. I'm not going to give your arguments any credibiltiy becuase of your educational background - and why should I when I have no less than three PhDs in psychology, psychiatry and the psychoneurobiology of stress and coping, and four prestigious post-doctoral fellowships at such august institutions as Johns Hopkins Hospital, McGill University, the Veterans Health Administration Office of Research and Development and Oxford University?

Of course, I have none of those qualifications - my point is that anyone can claim expertise and it doesn't matter (again I point you to the Essjay controversy). The important issue is that you demonstrate your expertise through reference to sources - again, wikipedia is about verifiabilit, not truth. I am perfectly willing to consider any source you present, the text it is used to verify, and the wording you would like to use, but I'm not willing to take at your word any edit you wish to make. You must verify with reliable sources. You must give consierations to neutrality, which means giving space to ideas you professionally disagree with so long as they are sourced to reliable sources. We must explore controversies, we can't simply ignore the bits we don't like. From the perspective of our readers, we do them the greatest assistance by including, in detail, the back-and-forth on issues, the bitter disagreements, the publications criticizing different ideas and so on. Feel free to "champion" one side and focus primarily on one aspect of DID or set of disorders - but don't dismiss other sides if they have genuine reliable sources to cite. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

":The use of logic on wikipedia, at least in article space (not talk or project pages) is pretty much a no-go per WP:OR. " - Relevance, please? The statement if, of course, quite correct. But it's irrelevant, as the logic to which I am clearly referring is mine, here, on the Talk page. It seems to me like you're being obtuse just to find something to argue about. Always have to have the last word, too, it seems. Having some control issues? It sure looks like it. What you say will carry a LOT more weight if you give people the due - agreeing with them when they are right, disagreeing when you think otherwise. If I may be a bit punny, you're excessively disagreeable. You DON'T have to dispute every blasted thing I say, day after day. THAT is simply tedious.

As for lecturing me on the irrelevance of my background relative to my additions to the article, I observe that you appear to have real difficulty with reading comprehension. I have stated multiple times that my background merely ought to suggest to others that my contributions be respectfully considered. Of COURSE, they have to stand on their own merit. I said that. And you missed it...and then lecture me about it. Amazing.

As for my ignoring controversies I don't like, you repeatedly construct straw men, then demolish them. I didn't ignore the controversy, my sources, which were outstanding, did. I will redo this edit, in due time, and it's met again with such an improper response, I'll ask for censure of the offenders. You see, WLU, we have rules, both in the larger world of scholarship and here at Wikipedia. You don't get simply to dismiss an edit because you don't like it. You have to justify the dismissal. Revert without justification and you're being disruptive.

Kind of silly, don't you think - my lecturing you about WP process? Well, now you might know how I feel when you lecture me about something I learned 30 years ago, and about mistakes I plainly am NOT making. But from now on I'll be dealing with this double standard problem in another, likely more satisfactory way. We'll see.Tom Cloyd (talk) 08:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's please stop editing article until consensus dispute is resolved

It seems obvious that Tylas has hit upon a key issue: We have a dispute to resolve about which version of the article to go forward with. I'm not sure how we resolve this, but I imagine that can be worked out OK within a reasonable period of time. Autocratic resolutions, in either direction surely are not the way to go.

My request is simply that ALL edits to the article stop until we resolve this dispute. Continuing to edit creates problems if we reach a non-unanimous consent to revert to my version. It also assumes that there is no dispute to attend to, and that is plainly wrong and disrespectful to one side of the dispute.

I expect this editing hiatus will be reasonably brief. It will also give us a single question upon which to focus, and in relation to which we can all work on our dispute resolution skills. I think that might be a very good idea, yes? We can let all other matter slide while we try to do this one thing reasonably well.

If we can agree to this, then the logical next question is 'how to resolve the dispute'. Agreed?

Tom Cloyd (talk) 09:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Please remove your last edit to the page as it replaced a primary source.

In practice, once the basic policies and guidelines are agreed to, WP:BRD works quite well. The basic issue here for me is that you have been discarding or discounting sources because you personally disagree with them. If you accept that most, if not all reliable sources are at acceptable at least in potential then editing should be much easier in practice. Nobody gets to discount a source solely based on their personal opinion - and that includes me.

How to resolve this dispute is easy - agree to use only reliable sources to verify text with due weight given to their prominence and reliability. Don't discount sources because your personal opinion disagrees with them - and in this case "personal" includes your personal opinion as someone working in the field. Psychiatry appears to have split (and changed since the mid-90s publication bubble, see here) regarding the question of iatrogenesis, which might be why some sources completely ignore it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, Tom Cloyd, I could not agree more with what you wrote. It goes back to your introduction to this page saying something about Ignorance of the topic does not mean consensus. This page is like working from a 3rd world country. It's possible to make progress, but while so policed that progress will be slow. I do strongly ask that the two police on this page introduce themselves to new literature and research on DID that has been done and wrote about by the respected experts in the field. WLU and DG might be upset at my lack of Wikipedia knowledge, but I feel the same about their lack of knowledge on DID.~ty (talk) 15:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Do I need to repeat myself again? Read the policies! All I'm doing is insisting on complying with the core content policies including WP:NPOV, which requires all significant viewpoints, majority and minority, be represented. Lack of knowledge can be corrected, but blatant unwillingness apparently read the policies or abide by them can not be. You may agree with Tom Cloyd, that doesn't mean he's right and it doesn't mean we get to selectively ignore policies that we don't like. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

WLU, this is not my take of what consensus is. You are stating YOUR interpretation of the Wikipedia Consensus Guidelines. Both Tom and I have stated our take of it above.~ty (talk) 16:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

What is your interpretation of the statement "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope"? It's from WP:CONLIMITED. I have yet to see any justification for ignoring WP:NPOV's insistence on including all significant perspectives on the subject. Do you have one? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Mr. WLU, Please see Tom and my posts above. Tom wrote out a LONG explanation of it. You discounted it - saying something like it was too long for you to bother with. There is no need to repeat it. Go back and read please. I can understand how possessive you appear of the work you have done, but this is WP and its meant to be a work of a community, not just those who positioned themselves as guards of a page - your idea of guard is again your own OPINION of how this page should be edited and its very extreme. I have read several times your interpretation of consensus, the WP rules of consensus and what Tom wrote. Quit quoting the same rule over and over again please! We strongly understand your OPINION of the WP rules and guidelines. You don't have to keep ramming them down our throats. And I say this in a nice way. :) This is crazy how hard you are making it for anyone to work on this page! You are not going to run me off at least. I am staying.~ty (talk) 17:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Which section? There's more than 300 edits to the page in the last couple days. Also, how is providing a verbatim quote from the policy page "my opinion"? I will cease repeating myself when there is an indication that you understand my point - most substantially, that NPOV applies throughout wikipedia and supports the inclusion of information on iatrogenesis. If you'd like to get into more specifics, please do so and I'll indicate specifically why I think an edit is appropriate or not, mine or someone else's. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Mr. WLU, you are discounting the work again that Tom Cloyd did and saying just your work matters. That is your opinion and your extreme POV and you can have your opinion but it does not belong on the page. You can't just keep reverting others work like this. You act like a bully. You have swore, shown anger, voice your opinion over and over and claim that everyone does but you. Would you like me to find the WP rules about that or do you understand the word without them? I hope you do. Try working those of us that want to edit instead of trying to block every single move please! Your actions are irrational and self important. ~ty (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying your work doesn't matter. I'm saying the specific issues raised here are problematic and should not be repeated. Don't repeat them and I don't have a problem.

The rules on civility do not specifically forbid profanity, or showing anger. If I'm wrong, please point me to the appropriate policy or guideline. At this point, I don't know whether you want to edit. While I've made a variety of improvements to the page, and limited myself because of the activity on the talk page, the only substantive edits I've seen are minor edits [42], [43], full-fleged reverts [44] [45] claiming "partial consensus" is adequate, and the return of a primary source [46] which I think is inappropriate, as does Doc James. What do you think of including Jang et al PMID 9653418 in the page? I would still like to remove it because it is a primary source. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh my! WLU! You know full well what you have done. You have bullied those that want to edit, so all editing was stopped except YOURS! We have agreed time and time again to follow WP rules and yet you still have not brought back Tom's version! That is the version we need to work on. You need to allow others to work here and not just you and those you approve of!~ty (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

If you have a problem with my conduct, feel free to bring it up in an appropriate venue such as WP:WQA or a WP:RFC/U. Please indicate why the issues I raised in this talk page posting are not legitimate. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

WLU - I am working on that, don't rush me. All good things come in time. In the meantime, I still have hope you can be reasonable and actually let others, who would like to work on this page, do so. You appear so lost in rules you cannot see clear anymore. You need to step back and take a look at your obsessive behavior. While I agree you have some good purpose here, you have taken it way too far, which happens often when someone gets too close to a subject. I have as much time as you have to devote to this page and I am not going anywhere. I am a writer, so I stay home all day and have nothing more pressing at the moment.~ty (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

How is asking people to adhere to the core content policies unreasonable? How is asking people not to remove reliable sources and significant controversies unreasonable? How is adding recent, reliable sources and removing primary sources unreasonable? How is asking people not to add unnecessary section headings unreasonable? How is asking for a short summary of Sybil, which several reliable sources indicate was a significant part of the history of DID, be included in the page unreasonable? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

If people need high quality refs drop me a note.

If all stick to high quality sources I am sure problems will decrease. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, my issue is not with the inclusion of high-quality sources. It's with high-quality sources being removed or excluded. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I enjoy your input Doc James. I would like to repeat what you mentioned before. Those references should be new. As you know the area of trauma research has gained enormously the last few years. The International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation is a great site to find new research by respected professionals. www.isst-d.org The ISSTD seeks to advance clinical, scientific, and societal understanding about the prevalence and consequences of chronic trauma and dissociation.~ty (talk) 15:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

A standard starting point is PubMed at [47], which selects for pubmed-indexed and thus more respected journals and allows for review articles to be selected. The ISSTD is one notable source on DID, but I would guess its perspective is heavily weighted towards DID being solely or primarily the result of trauma - naturally other opinions published in reliable sources should be included.

Newer sources are important, and right now there are a considerable number of sources produced during the DID "bubble" ([48]) from the mid-90's. I agree that updating and replacing older sources with newer ones is important and should be a priority. However, that doesn't mean old sources can be discarded based solely on age; better is to replace them with newer ones, which has the advantage of demonstrating a more current perspective and weight on the relevant issues. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

WLU - The problem with old sources is that they support old information that is now known to NOT be true. This is a rapidly changing area of psychology and either you stay current or you are just handing out incorrect information. Please consider reading some of the information at the ISSTD. This will help you with your knowledge base of current knowledge of DID and trauma issues.~ty (talk) 17:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Great, point me to sources that indicate the old information is not true. Point me to secondary sources that state there is no controversy over iatrogenesis. Point me to sources where scholars who formerly supported the iatrogenic hypothesis have now publicly stated they've changed their mind. If you can do this, then the information on iatrogenesis could be moved into the history section, or referred to in the past tense with qualification and exploration of how people used to think DID had iatrogenic components but now do not. I've found and integrated newer sources that discuss the iatrogenesis hypothesis, suggesting the issue is not dead [49].

A front page of a website isn't a specific source. I don't plan on reading an entire website. The most relevant sources are secondary - review articles and meta-analyses, as well as book chapters from respected mainstream publishers. Please don't point me to primary sources (i.e. single experiments and surveys) unless there is very good reason to integrate them, based on the restrictions found in WP:PSTS and WP:MEDREV. Wikipedia lags behind the cutting edge, we can only cite the most recent secondary sources available. In addition, we have to cite a balance of sources - it's very possible the ISSTD ignores or discounts the iatrogenesis hypothesis, and reading only sources published in their journals would completely ignore the other side of the debate. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Laughing - But MR. WLU! You have to first let us edit so we can do this! You revert edits then put your own edits on top of those so it's hard to do anything. You are holding up progress with your own opinions and extreme POV's! The ISSTD is the place were current information can be found on trauma and dissociative identity disorder. You should read it and educate yourself. The ISSTD is far from a primary source!~ty (talk) 17:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead and edit, just please do not repeat the edits I raised here. If you wish to repeat them, please raise them specifically on the talk page.

The ISSTD is an organization, it is not a source. It publishes reliable sources, but we link to each one individually - you can't just say "it's on the website". WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Saluting - YES SIR! Thank you for your permission oh General, but you keep forgetting Tom Cloyd's edits you reverted! I will first see what Tom Cloyd has to say since it is HIS edits that are in question that should be put back first before more editing is done. I did not suggest the ISSTD for a place to link, but for a place for you to go and read and learn about what Dissociative Identity Disorder is and is not. A place to read up to date information and the knowledge of experts.!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tylas (talk • contribs) 18:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

My rationale for the revert is here. DreamGuy appeared to agree with it here. I prefer to do my research on pubmed and google scholar; the former is a rough measure of reliability and the latter is very accessible. In this case specifically, I doubt the ISSTD presents a comprehensive picture of the opinion of DID within the entire field. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

WLU, You discount the ISSTD by saying you "doubt". This means to me that you have not even bothered to go there and look. It is a wonderful place to find references to up to date material on DID and dissociation by the leaders in the field. See this ISSTD page and the following sources.

• Literature Searches
• PubMed Literature Search: Dissociative Disorders (pdf + links)
• PubMed Literature Search: Epidemiology, Comorbidity Dissociative Disorders
• PubMed Literature Search: Neurophysiology, Dissociative Disorders (pdf + links)
• The PubMed Search Engine at the National Library of Medicine ~ty (talk) 17:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

As I said above - linking to a front page proves nothing (nor does linking to a bunch of raw search results) and I think the ISSTD is a possible, if potentially biased, source of information. At no point did I say "anything published by the ISSTD is unacceptable". Feel free to integrate any of the more recent secondary sources found in the above searches into the main page (pubmed has an option on the right to select only review, i.e. secondary, articles). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:21, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Editing Start Point - Restore Tom Cloyd's Edits

I suggest that Tom Cloyd do this himself so it is done correctly. ~ty (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

This statement by Tom Cloyd is powerful and bear repeating! "I NEED the DID article to be a reliable source of summary information of the best that we know about DID - for my clients, for interested laypersons (some of whom have relatives or loved ones with DID, and for my fellow professionals who are not DID specialists and need a quick, reliable overview, with some quality references to follow up with. Having this at Wikipedia would be a great service for all. THAT's what I want."

I hope this is what we all want. WLU, your interpretation of the rules and guidelines of WP bears no more weight than others interpretation of them. We have agreed to follow WP rules as we read them - not as you define them to us however. You need to compromise as well and put back Tom Cloyd's edits and work with us to improve this page.~ty (talk) 16:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, as I mentioned two days ago there were several issues and problems with "his" version that I consider problematic and should not be replaced. The page is not "correct" merely because one or two editors agree it is, the page must be in compliance with our core content policies of neutrality, verifiability and no original research. Neutrality is most relevant here, and NPOV requires all significant majority and minority views be represented. Do you agree to this? If so, most of the issues I have with your and Tom's edits will disappear.

The relevant body regarding interpretation of policies is the community as a whole. The consensus and interpretations of the policies by the community can be independently sought at a variety of noticeboards, including neutral point of view. I would suggest reviewing the NPOV tutorial, in particular the section on one-sided presentation. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

WLU - As we proposed. His version was well done, but you had some issues with it. Restore the version and we will work on it from there. Your OPINION that your version is better is simply an opinion. Wikipedia is set up to allow improvement to the page, which you are stopping Tom Cloyd and others from doing. The page as it is not in compliance with compliance with our core content policies of neutrality, verifiability. The page is a mess, to put it mildly. It needs work. This is the ongoing process of WP, to IMPROVE a page. Please allow this process to move forward. Again, for the UMPTEENTH TIME, we are not going to remove all your precious controversy, but we do ask that you educate yourself in the area of DID please. The rules you keep posting we are following. Stop accusing us of doing otherwise! This same argument is getting so old!~ty (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, as I stated aboved and linked to via diff repeatedly. Your opinion is also an opinion and I don't see any reason that it is superior to mine. I propose you work with the current version to make incremental improvements that do not discount or remove criticisms of the iatrogenesis hypothesis and are in compliance with the manual of style.

How is the page out of compliance with WP:NPOV? You keep saying it is, but how do you know? What specifically is wrong with it? What sources support your claims? How is the page out of compliance with WP:V? Are there any unsourced statements? Feel free to remove them per WP:PROVEIT. Are any sources misrepresented? Please indicate which ones and how they are misrepresented.

Editing wikipedia isn't easy, it takes time, reading and experience and is based on specific sources and citations. So let's get specific. What, specifically, do you want to change on the page currently? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Does every editor for every page have to go through such policing to edit anything? I think not. Stand down and let others do work on the page. Nothing would ever get done. You can object if the edits do not meet WP criteria. This is getting ridiculous! Tom Cloyd did a lot of work and those edits need to be replaced! We can start from there. Your reverts of those edits were done because of your own OPINION!~ty (talk) 17:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

No, most pages work on the much more simple principle of WP:BRD. To date, I've made eight revisions to improve the sourcing with more recent textbooks and some citegnoming of the references to {{cite pmid}} which improves page loading speed. The next edit before this block of eight was Tom Cloyd's replacement of a primary source, which I and Doc James thought was inappropriate. Before that was one substantial reversion followed by five edits to replace a deleted source, add a point verified by a book published by Oxford University Press in 2008 and the addition of a 2006 study that describes the "bubble" of publishing on dissociative disorders in 1990. So, what, specifically, do you think was wrong with any of those edits? Feel free to make your own improvements as well. The issues I had with your previous edits can be found here; if you don't repeat them, I don't have any issue. If you do, I request you discuss them on the talk page first and include references to policies, guidelines and sources saying why you think they have merit. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

No offense Tylas, but your sole comments here seem to be to parrot anything and everything Tom Cloyd says, no matter how much they violate policy or how little sense those comments make. By now you have demonstrated a strategy consistent with sock puppetry or meat puppetry. It's odd that you call yourself a proponent of multiple personalities when you don't even seem to have a personality separate from Tom at all. DreamGuy (talk) 04:00, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I do take offense to that DG. Everyone on this page has made huge progress and you come and start problems again! Tom Cloyd and I agree on many things because we both understand DID and logical thinking. You and WLU could be said to mirror each other and be sock or meat puppets in that you are both ignorant of what DID really is and you try and wikilawyer and bullying everyone you do not agree with into leaving this page as stated by other contributors. You are like two guys pulling each others strings! You both gang up and try your best to eliminate editors you do not want contributing to the page. I am someone with DID who has read a great deal on the subject and am a writer. Tom Cloyd is a learned scholar, writer and seasoned therapist. Just because we are both rational thinkers and have a vast knowledge of DID does not make us what you claim! Quit throwing around threats and get with the program! Everyone here right now was trying to work and had made progress until you came back and start slamming people again! ~ty (talk) 05:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Consider the fact that you and Tom Cloyd may be wrong. DG and I mirror each other because we have a common understanding of the policies and guidelines, while you and Tom and DrJem don't appear to. For an experienced editors, the kinds of changes made by Tom Cloyd and your self and reverted by DG and I are both obvious and apparent in their errors. I have tried to point out why they were wrong by citing policies and guidelines - not using obscure interpretations, but in some cases exact quotes. I don't want to eliminate editors - I want my fellow editors to adhere to the same rule set that I do. For instance, I want Tom to use his expertise to find and summarize sources; if he stuck to that, I'd have no issue. However, using "expertise" and personal opinion to change the page without referencing sources, policies or guidelines is flatly inappropriate. You wouldn't write a review article, or even primary article, without reference to the extant literature - why would it be OK here (it's not per WP:V)? If you were submitting an article to a peer reviewed journal you'd have to format it according to their guidelines, why the objection to having to do so on wikipedia (it's not per WP:MOS)? And any expert can be biased by ignoring specific sources or viewpoints because they think the viewpoint lacks merit - however on wikipedia that's not appropriate per WP:NPOV. And why is it OK for yourself and Tom Cloyd to "echo" each other but if DG and agree - somehow that's different? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

disruptive editing

So much for "assume good faith". Personally, I have had it with WLU and his throughly disruptive ways. I have been following this discussion for a while. I too am a physican editor who has been the recipient of WLU's disruptive editing. See Abram Hoffer, where the same thing that is going on here went on, substitution of questionable sources for good ones, and so forth. Clearly, this editor is quite skilled in tying things in knots and at wikilawyering. Perhaps he hopes to make editing so difficult for expert editors that we leave. Enough is enough. Much more signifcant admins than him have been tossed off of here. Drjem3 (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikistalking, delightful. Individual character conduct should be dealt with through other venues than article talk pages, including WP:ANI, WP:WQA and WP:RFC/U. Do you have any specific concerns regarding this page, or do you have a specific concern regarding dissociative identity disorder.

I'm not an admin. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Your accusation of wikistalking is interesting given your stalking of Tom and his posts to other people's talk pages (which were inappropriate in content as well). —danhash (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edit replaced a link to the Merck manual that doesn't verify the text it is attached to, replaced The Skeptic's Dictionary which is not sufficiently reliable to be on the page anymore, removed two new recent and reliable sources verifying the text, replaced a large number of very old sources, undid considerable citegnoming that improves page performance, replaced the DSM as verifying text it doesn't actually verify, removed a secondary source and replaced it with a small sample primary source that was two years older and replaced added an unsourced block of text (per WP:PROVEIT, please provide a source before replacing it). I have reverted your change.

This looks like little more than an importation of an unrelated, pre-existing dispute we have on a totally separate page. Wikipedia is not a battleground, please do not carry grudges across pages.

Danhash, Tom Cloyd indicated he was going to be contacting other editors in #Canvassing. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Tom created that section after you posted on two talk pages. —danhash (talk) 19:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

See here, specifically "I'm placing the matter in other people's hands", which suggested a noticeboard posting was forthcoming. Note my first comment on a user's talk page based on Tom Cloyd's contribution history is here, which my timestamps puts 15 minutes later. Do you have any substantive comment regarding the policy, guideline or source-specific issues on the talk and article-space page? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

My comment is that you stalked his contributions and placed warnings on other people's talk pages in order to try to bully other editors out of the discussion that you are intent on dominating. Whatever you call it, that is inappropriate. —danhash (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

This is exactly right Mr Dan Hash, or at least it is how I see it. I am glad new people like you and Dr. Jem are here to speak up. Maybe you can get WLU and DG to listen to reason. :) ~ty (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Nope, I noted my preference for an independent review from one of the noticeboards. Where do you see bullying in my two brief comments indicating I would prefer an independent review? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The page has been reverted, which simply doesn't make any sense. It wasn't reverted to the version which eliminated iatrogenesis from the lead. All that was reverted were my citation improvements. Can anybody justify it to me? I could understand if it were reverted to this version or this version, but the latest revert by Tylas looks like little more than spite. Is there any policy or source-based reason why this is the version reverted to? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Your bullying is an obvious pattern continued by those two edits. And your bullying includes throwing CANVASS around like there's no tomorrow when Tom's actions were clearly within the limits of CANVASS. —danhash (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

WLU has been a very,very, bad boy. The shrinks here likely have already made a diagnosis. As I note above, he has performed the same disruptive activities on other pages such as the bio of psychiatrist Abram Hoffer. Easily documentable-- same techniques, same spinning. Might be time to see just what else he has done. FWIW, I'm a physician, trained in the neurosciences. Far from cyberstalking, I have been following this page with interest, but holding off editing it because of him. What is the point when he disrupts everything and bullies everyone ? Only now have a decided to say something. Unfortunately, editors like him run off other editors who have better things to do. Needless to say, I agree with the concensus that WLU keeps trying to disrupt. Drjem3 (talk) 19:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Cue WLU's holier-than-thou response to every single word in your post... —danhash (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Danhash - yes, it was - but it was also questionable. For instance, he didn't alert DreamGuy, who he could be reasonably expect to disagree with him - part of canvas is not alerting a biased selection of editors as indicated by the "audience" column. I expressed my opinion and preference for a neutral opinion in a brief, polite fashion - hardly bullying. I didn't threaten, I linked to the relevant behavioural guideline, I didn't insist on my preference and based on his first two posts, there was a risk of attracting a partisan audience. It didn't turn out that way.

Drjem3, can you provide any diffs or policies that I have contravened? Can you point to a mainstream source that supports megavitamin therapy as anything but a fringe theory? An irrelevant question I shouldn't have to ask here. Can you explain why you have reverted to the page you did, aside from you disliking me personally?

So everybody is convinced that I'm a terrible, biased editor who is breaking numerous rules and can't work with others. Can anybody point me to those rules? Is there a reason my conduct hasn't been brought up by anybody in the appropriate venue, either WP:ANI, WP:WQA or WP:RFC/U? Can anyone point to any policies or guidelines that illustrate problems with my edits to mainspace or talk pages? And most importantly since it disrupts the actual point of wikipedia (we're an encyclopedia) can anyone justify why the page is on its current version? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have no wish to expand the current discussion beyond its current venue (here and a limited number of user talk pages), and I also am not trying to get you blocked or otherwise "in trouble". Even if I wanted to, your actions haven't risen to the level of "giant dick" yet, so there would be no point in advocating a block. I think it would be helpful for the discussion and edits to slow down quite a bit for a while, and for you to stop policing so hard and give others more of a chance. —danhash (talk) 20:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Check out Abram Hoffer and Talk:Abram Hoffer for another example of the same thing WLU is doing here. Complete to the same pleadings, misleading references to the wikirules, etc.. Drjem3 (talk) 20:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Please, by all means put together a general post to discuss my conduct. I've provided numerous venues that could be appropriate. I have no issue with it whatsoever and I will happily demonstrate how my actions are in line with the policies and guidelines. In the mean time, please do not let dislike of me affect the quality of the actual wikipedia page. Please justify how this revert improves the page, how the removal of sources and replacement with lower-quality, older sources, makes wikipedia better. I can't see it, it just looks like pique and spite. I get that people don't like me and find my approach high-handed, dickish and offensive. None of which are reasons to make the main page demonstrably worse. If my edits and references to the policies and guidelines are in any way misleading, please feel free to bring them to the attention of the larger community or point out how they are wrong. Please give specifics, diffs and links to policies and guidelines. Assuming I am wrong and everyone else is right - this will help me become a better editor. Vague pronouncements doesn't help anyone and doesn't help the actual page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

WLU, I reverted your revert because Dr. Jem made edits and 2 minutes later you reverted them - if I read the stats correctly, even if I did not, you need to let others edit as well. I don't need to point out WP policy on this I hope. It's rather obvious. Don't accuse me of spite. Have I shown once bit of that in any of my posts? I have been kind and easy going but still trying to get my point across. You had no chance to even examine what Dr. Jem did before you reverted his edits! You did the same to Tom Cloyd and this is why I don't bother to try and edit yet, and I have a feeling it's the same reason others don't as well. Please stop your bullying! It would be very nice if you would stop it on all pages (as Dr. Jem points out) where you are doing it, not just this one. As I said early today, you serve a purpose, but you don't have to have such a strong hold on everyone! I think it's often referred to as control issues. I can deal with controlling people, but you are taking it to extremes! This is not an insult, but you wanted to become a better editor. It's about cooperation and all of us working together. To begin you must let go of your stranglehold a bit please and for you I am working on learning WP rules. :) ~ty (talk) 20:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

So your reason is that I reverted quickly? There is a substantially poorer version of the page, with worse referencing, unsourced text and longer page loading because of the replacement of {{cite pmid}} because you don't think I had time to review the changes? Can you point to a policy that would support it being OK to revert a change based on how long it was standing? I really, really think you do need to point the policy out here, more specifically I don't think there is a policy that supports your revert. Please do me the courtesy of linking to it. I know exactly what Dr. Jem did - he reverted to the last version before me by Tom Cloyd for no policy or guideline-based reason whatsoever [50]. My edits demonstrably improved the page, both your reverts worsened it for no reason other than you dislike me personally. There's no policy or guideline that justifies "I don't like the editor who made the edits" as a reason to change the page. None. However, both WP:BATTLE and WP:POINT strongly suggest both of your edits were flat-out wrong. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't dislike you at all! I don't dislike anyone! I don't like some of the things you have been doing here however. I would be even nicer, but you hammered me even for that, so I stopped. It's your opinion that was a better version. It is apparently not Dr. Jem's.~ty (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Neither you, nor Drjem3 has explained why the previous version is better. Can you please do so? I have provided several reasons why it is substantially worse. Why is The Skeptic's Dictionary superior to two textbooks? Why is {{cite journal}} better than {{cite pmid}}? Why is a primary source from 1998 better than a secondary source from 2000? Why is an unsourced block of text better left in the page despite WP:PROVEIT? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Stepping back and applying shrink-skills-- if it is attention that WLU seeks, he is quite sucessful at getting it. Like a kid acting out, but well-practiced. In case anyone needs further examples of WLU's WP:ownership, he is also at it right now over on Abram Hoffer. Typical history-- I originally got tired of tussling with him, no cites were good enough, etc.,straw arguments (a speciality), and so went away (which was likely his intent). Got to allow that the boys has got staying power. Came back, half-expecting him to do the same behavioral repertoire, and was not disappointed. As before, miscites wikirules, rationalizes everything, etc.. And then dares anyone to call him on it. Drjem3 (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

This might be appreciated on this page. All normal brains have parts of the self. WLU, you seem to have a part that is disruptive when allowed to run to wild. It is of course not your entire personality at fault, but a part of it needs some guidance. If someone like me with DID and well over 200 parts of the self can control her-selves, I would think that you could. Please try and smile :) some today too! By the way, I agree that you should manually get rid of that reference to the Skeptic Dic. That's an awful link, but the page needs to stay where it is and let everyone work on it. ~ty (talk) 21:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, Abram Hoffer was a proponent of megavitamin therapy, a form of quackery with no mainstream respect and no reputable evidence base. If you want to discuss that page - do it over there.

Not a single person has cited any meaningful policy, guideline or source based reason to revert the page, though you're spending an awful lot of time ignoring my arguments and playing psychologist. Tylas' suggestion of "getting rid of Skepdic" addresses only one of several improvements I made to the page. What about the inclusion of Rubin, 2005 and Weiten, 2010? What about the information verified by Skepdic that would be unsourced if removed, but sourced to Weiten if reverted? What about the use of the DSM to verify that DID is iatrogenic in suggestive individuals, which the DSM doesn't actually say? What about the use of a small sample primary source used to verify a list of comorbidities, which was replaced by a secondary source that was two years newer? What about the placement of Rhoades & Sar in a citation template that links to a google books preview? What about the use of Rubin, 2005 to verify proponents believe DID is underdiagnosed and lacks a population-wide assessment of incidence and prevalence? Why is the removal of Skepdic, a minor change that didn't substantially alter the content of the page but merely improved the referencing, more important than these changes? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

WUL - Thank you for your patience. Of course, go in and edit what you deem fit, just lets all do things slowly and let everyone work on the page. I do appreciate you! ~ty (talk) 00:37, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Fine, I'll revert to the improved version while keeping the subsequent changes made by other editors. Note that I was very scrupulous to retain subsequent edits [51]. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:09, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Reverting everything back to your version again is not what the rest of us here were working towards and you know it. You just do not seem to be able to control yourself. You keep reverting the page. I would have to call this an edit war and you are the one doing it. This is against Wiki rules and you know the one I mean.~ty (talk) 17:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Tylas, can you provide me any reason why this version is better than this version? If you can't, I would venture that reverting to the former version was a bad idea and ended up making the page worse in the process. If you can give me any reason why the former version is better than the latter, I will gladly listen and give you my opinion. Insisting that I am simply wrong without giving any actual reasons serves only to perpetuate the conflict and takes time away from actually improving the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, listen. Accusations of wikistalking are very poor form here. Also, trying to justify edits here by attacking someone for allegedly improper edits on another article are also not cool. All this wikidrama accomplishes nothing. Please focus on this article and this article only. Editing here to complain about edits on another article is not editing in good faith, as it appears solely to be revenge edits. Furthermore, claiming someone should not be allowed to edit by claiming they made improper arguments about canvassing rules only works if they actually made improper arguments. There is very clear vote stacking going on here through extremely blatant meat puppetry and tag teaming. The new editors magically showing up here to weigh in don't see to have anything on topic to discuss and only occasionally manage to stay on topic long enough to repeat back word for word what was already said. This is not editing in good faith, and it is not any sort of informed discussion. The ones screaming the most about bullying here are the ones clearly guilty of it. DreamGuy (talk) 04:06, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

So the only way to make DG and WLU happy is to use their version of the article and discount all that Tom Cloyd did. For the umpteenth time - please return the version to Tom Cloyd's version and keep edits since that point. WLU, your reversion of all those edits and work he made was wrong and you won't give an inch! You are forcing him to do all that work again, just so you get your way. His edits were excellent. DG, you just back up whatever WLU says, so yeah, I know you disagree with this already. No need to pop in later after things are working again and cause trouble. You are both still playing Wiki police and not allowing anyone do to anything other than minor clean ups. This page in is major need of work, as even WLU has said on his talk page - if I remember right.~ty (talk) 05:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

No, the only way to make us happy is to adhere to a common set of policies and guidelines. You're right I won't give an inch - but you keep ignoring why. You claim Tom Cloyd's edits are "excellent", what about the issues I pointed out here? Or my objection to your revert here? You claim we're biased and mean, yet we're not the ones making edits without reference to policies, guidelines and sources. Competence is required, understanding the policies and guidelines is required, and some degree of understanding, at this point I'd settle for evidence of my posts even being read, is required. Edits like this aren't minor clean-ups, they're the very opposite. You removed a series of unarguable improvements to a main page, and never, ever gave any justification despite multiple posts both pointing out the improvements and asking for a justification [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57]. If you genuinely want the page to improve, you need to focus on the specific edit, no the editor who makes it, and why the edit does, or does not, improve the page - based on the policies and guidelines.

Yes, I did say the page needed an overhaul, here. This is a diff, they're very important to use when referring to other editors' conduct and bring broad statements down to specifics. It would be very helpful if everyone used them. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Developmental theory - #3

tylas, I kept in the spirit of your small edit but I believe the way I've written it is clearer. Thoughts? diff Forgotten Faces (talk) 23:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, see this one. I forgot something. Forgotten Faces (talk) 23:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you FF! You Rock!~ty (talk) 00:34, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I have a question about the source used. Google books does have the book, but does not have a free preview, only search inside [58]. The developmental theory section of the page mentions sects and torture, which tickles the part of my brain keenly aware of the satanic ritual abuse moral panic. I've done keyword searches in the book for torture, tortures, cult, cults, sect and sects and none returned anything within the appropriate page range of 266-7. Does anyone here have the book handy? Can you confirm, and ideally provide a quote, of the section in question? The idea that DID can be deliberately and reliably induced by torture is a pretty far-out claim and I'd like to make sure the source isn't being misrepresented. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:22, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

An extreme claim? Hardly. Once again, you show how little you know about this subject. This is why we spend years in graduate school doing supervised reading, until we master enough of the literature to be able to speak with authority, and to be able to continue our study post-graduation without driving ourselves into some kind of intellectual ditch. I'm not addressing the specifics the above reference, or the assertion which it is supposedly supporting (which I haven't looked at). I'm just saying that your ignorance is showing.

That said, kudos for how you're handling this, for once. For the most part, I find your response to Tylas refreshingly appropriate. I like what I'm reading, a lot. Good job.Tom Cloyd (talk) 08:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm asking what this source has to say about this point. Can someone provide me with the relevant quote? Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. If you can't link a specific piece of text to a specific and explicit statement in a source - the text should be removed. Rather than lecturing me on the benefits of a graduate education, I would appreciate it if you had spent your time looking up the source to find the appropriate page number and quote because I have a genuine concern that it doesn't actually verify the text it is attached to. Your graduate education didn't include a lecture on how to edit wikipedia, or you'd realize why I'm asking for the clarification I am. The relevant quote, please, or a substitute reliable source, or I'll remove the entire section for failing verification. That is what I am asking for and why. Again, you don't get to change the page because you agree with a point, like it, or have a vague idea that it's true - you need a source. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:21, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

WLU, check out this (reference 40 in the current article) - pg 5 right up corner. "A related phenomenon is encountered in those MPD patients, often alleging a history of ritual abuse, who have had the experience of having had their dissociative structures deliberately shaped and influenced by their abusers." There is an example of Kluft mentioning it, although I don't know if it's enough to be a reference for developmental theory. I'm trying to find more references, in any case. What do you think everyone? Doing my best, still learning. Forgotten Faces (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, see here. #10 listed on page 46 Forgotten Faces (talk) 13:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC).

And #3, pg 16 Forgotten Faces (talk) 14:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The PDF by Kluft is from 1989, which makes it 23 years old - and it was a busy 23 years. The SRA phenomenon itself went from a major and serious concern to the general conclusion that it was a huge moral panic. I'd really, really rather use a newer reference than that one.

Link two is, astonishingly, to a book focussed on satanic ritual abuse published by Springer. I'm frankly astonished to see such a prestigious and respected publishing house turning out something giving this topic credibilty. There is indeed a list on page 46 and the whole chapter, probably the whole book, discusses the ability to create DID through torture and ritual abuse. The section in question cites no references, in fact the entire chapter doesn't seem to cite any. The book doesn't even seem to have a references section, just a list of resources [59]. My preview cuts out, so perhaps the start of the references list is on page 288 which I can't see.

Is your third link actually a journal? I think it's a google books preview (a convenience link) for this article. Karnac as a publisher makes me leery because they published an astonishingly credulous book on, again, satanic ritual abuse in 2008. The section I think you're alluding to actually starts on page 15, and cites Noblitt & Perskin's 2008 self-published book on satanic ritual abuse. I had thought Karnac was the only mainstream publisher that's still putting out information on SRA that actually takes it seriously and on that basis alone I would be very cautious to use them - though the second reference makes me question that statement. The greater problem is that this is a "throwaway" mention in an article on a substantially different topic. If we're going to discuss the potential to deliberately induce DID through torture, I'd want a source that discussed it in detail (#2 for instance). I'd only use this source to verify something like "some people believe DID can be induced by torture" and even then I'd rather find something of higher quality and more detail.

2 and 3 could be used to verify text that DID can be created by torture, but if we were going to use it I would like a comment from the reliable sources noticeboard before integrating anything. I also would use #2 rather than #3 since it's specific and lengthy. I had thought the SRA issue was dead and buried, only of interest to people operating outside the mainstream. Perhaps I'm wrong - I'm curious if there are any more recent peer reviewed articles on the topic, not just books. Books are good, they can be reliable sources, but they're also easier to use to push fringe and minority ideas.

However, the issues for this section specifically would be that integrating 2 or 3 into the developmental theory section is that the numbered list is currently sourced to Carson et al. and just sliding in these extra references would be original research (specifically, a synthesis). If this is a genuine, credible theory (deliberate torture can be used to actually induce dissociative identities) it should be part of a separate section section of Causes. We can't just slide it into that list.

This opens a whole different topic, my original issue was this - does Carson et al. 2006 actually contain this list, or more specifically the idea that DID can be induced by torture? If so, fine (though I would prefer a quote if at all possible - otherwise I'll try to find it at my local library). If Carson doesn't say this, the idea should be removed from the list and reworded to be closer to what Carson actually says. If not, the idea that DID can be deliberately induced via torture should be discussed in a different section with different references. It's a section that I'm currently extremely uncomfortable with including, but if the appropriate sources can be found and RSN gives the OK then my only consideration would be the weight given, with particular consideration to what the current journal articles are saying about it. If we can find a lot of books, but very few journal articles, I would question giving it much space. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, WLU! I feel as if we are actually starting to get something done here after all the dramatics (on all sides) of the past few days...

I am obviously lost on weight of references and things like that - thank you for explaining your reasoning and I will learn from your remarks - and I will attempt to find more information on this. I knew you were looking for the Carson et al. information, but just had an idea in the meantime to look for other possible sources of information on the same topic. The reason I am stuck on it is despite not having the educational background and expertise of yourself and people like Tom, I do have a very good understanding of how the disorder itself works and know there are good references somewhere about deliberate creation of parts of self (as we are referring to them on the article). You might notice I am picking out rather minor things to change/work on but I am sticking to stuff I have more of an idea about for now. Everyone else can argue on the other points... I am trying to not get involved in the back and forth... thanks for your time, WLU and everyone. On another note, I can see where you are coming from on the possible weight given if it's added to causes. I'm sure we can come to an agreement on something once we have further information regarding the source materials. Forgotten Faces (talk) 19:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

If everyone provided sources as you did rather than focusing on blaming me for everything bad on the page, we'd be much further along.

I may have access to the 5th edition, if nobody else can check the text I'll see about digging up a copy.

Weight, in practice, isn't that hard to deal with - you generally just keep looking up sources until you run out. Parse them by quality of publisher (for books, if they have a wikipedia page, good, if that page says "scholarly", better, if there is a reference praising it for high-quality scholarship, best; articles are usually assessed on the basis of journal reputation, impact factor, number of times cited and author reputation), check for any reviews (for books), post questions at the RSN, and if it's really weird, you might try the fringe theories noticeboard. I'm genuinely curious what Tom Cloyd's assessment of the satanic ritual abuse angle is since I had thought the issue had died. To see Springer producing what I thought had been seen as patent nonsense by professionals has forced a re-assessment. My reading regarding the ability to induce DID deliberately through torture, not to mention the evidence for this, indicated it was considered utter nonsense. I'm not sure if the books represent the lonely writings of those few still nursing the theory of if there is genuine scholarly interest. From my understanding, efforts to produce Manchurian candidates were tried and failed and the original source for these rumours (specifically, RA to induce alters was developed by Dr. Greenbaum, a Jewish doctor working for the Nazis(!) who was scooped out of Europe post WWII via operation paperclip) was a patient of D. Corydon Hammond's answering yes/no questions through finger movements - and generally this is considered an extremely suspect source. I believe Dr. Hammond himself ended up declaiming it a couple years after his famous speech. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I re-wrote the developmental theory part again to hopefully be more even more clear, as I realized I missed the point about the/a caregiver which is an important one (imo) and put the part about deliberate induction at the end. I don't object to removing it completely as long as we are actively working on adding something about it wherever it'd be most appropriate based on what pans out with the books/articles.

Personally, I believe parts of self can be induced purposefully. But I have no proof of that of course and don't believe it happened to me. That's pretty much the extent of my knowledge of it, though in my experience I've met many clinicians who definitely believe it has/does happen. But then we get into further controversy so I'll stop there. Forgotten Faces (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Err, I reverted my changes. Got way too ahead of myself there... Forgotten Faces (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

(ec)As I indicated on your talk page, without the original source this is pretty tricky to do in a way that respectes WP:V. One very helpful thing would be a key word or phrase in the original source that I could pop into the snippet view avaiable to me; I just can't find any of the original keywords appearing in the relevant page range. Also, look at this version from January, 2010 (picked at random as I was trying to figure out the original context added by whoever first included it). This includes no mention of groups, torture, cults, sects or anything related. It looks like the original insertion was here, and again no mention. Somewhere between January 2010 and now the text got changed. I'll try to figure out when and by who. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I finally found the original edit to introduce this bit of information, it was added in August and not by the original poster. In fact, this person added several bits of unsourced information. On that basis, I'm going to remove the text for failing WP:V, and returning the list to a bulleted format (nothing to do with the bad info being added, I just think it's neater). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The only thing I would like to change is any mention of 'separate personality', if that isn't too far away from the source material... parts of self or something similar is more accurate and less sensational. Forgotten Faces (talk) 20:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I actually managed to track down the section with the snippet view (search for "subconscious", this link might work too [60]) and it looks like that list is verbatim (and a copyright violation!)

I've reworded. Probably not great but possibly true to the source. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Eh, I don't really like the wording but I can't seem to come up with anything better right now. Maybe someone else can or I'll try again later. Thanks again. Forgotten Faces (talk) 21:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers

WLU and Dreamguy - please review this Wikipedia Rule

Here are some points perhaps that were forgotten long ago.

New members are prospective contributors and are therefore Wikipedia's most valuable resource.

We must treat newcomers with kindness and patience — nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility.

Observe for a while and, if necessary, ask what the newcomer is trying to achieve before concluding that their efforts are substandard or that they are simply "wrong".

When giving advice, tone down the rhetoric a few notches from the usual mellow discourse that dominates Wikipedia. Make the newcomer feel genuinely welcome, not as though they must win your approval in order to be granted membership into an exclusive club. Any new domain of concentrated, special-purpose human activity has its own specialized structures, which take time to learn (and which benefit from periodic re-examination and revision).

Do not call newcomers disparaging names such as "sockpuppet" or "meatpuppet".

Assume good faith on the part of newcomers. They most likely want to help out. Give them a chance!

The principle "Ignorantia juris non excusat" (Latin for: "ignorance of the law does not excuse") is incompatible with the guidelines of not biting and assuming good faith. In this case, ignorance of Wikipedia's guidelines can excuse the mistakes of a newcomer. Furthermore, you yourself violate Wikipedia's guidelines and policies when you attack a new user for ignorance of them. Try instead to follow the points set forth in this article to relieve new editors of their ignorance. Keep in mind that this is not the way many other things work, and even seasoned editors fail to follow our guidelines from time to time. Ignorance of the written law is one thing, disregarding suggested laws regarding unrestrained editorial construction of an online Encyclopedia is quite another. If you exclude editors without "Barnstars" and the like from your circle you probably diminish the final product.~ty (talk) 06:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. This is a superb post.

These ideas were nowhere in evidence when I showed up with 6.5 hours of carefully crafted edits a few days ago. No welcoming, no invitation to assist in improving the article, no discussion of the reasons for my edits. Simply across the board rejection. So much for assuming good faith.

To WLU and co.: It's really good to know that my years of research, scholarship, and thousands of hours of clinical work are welcome here, as presenting a fresh perspective and valuable resource. THAT, folks, is how you work to keep Wikipedia the realm of tweeners with keyboards, and amateurs with an over-inflated sense of themselves. The people who really know a subject usually just walk away in disgust.

However, in this case, you made a huge miscalculation. Had you done the most elemental homework on me, and had you been capable of an adaptive response to what you learned, we'd be in a different place today. As it is, if I see the slightest chance to run you out of here permanently, I'll take it. I know why I'm here. I also have a pretty good idea why you're here, and I do not like what I see. I have, in the last 24 hours changed my mind about filing a complaint. You will be notified.

All my other plans, re: working for a more constructive social climate here, are unchanged.Tom Cloyd (talk) 08:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Competence is required. Right now most of the newcomers don't actually understand the policies or guidelines. Edits to the main page don't get to stay because the person that made them is super nice. All editors are expected to use reliable sources to verify text that is summarized in the page without engaging in original research to the proportion they are found in the scholarly community. WP:BITE doesn't over-ride that. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Pointing new editors to the policies they need to follow in order to edit Wikipedia is not biting the newbies. Pointing out that certain activities fall under rules concerning meatpuppetry,sockpuppetry, POV pushing, edit warring, Wikilawyering, gaming the system, cavassing, etc. is educational in nature. When people do things that violate important policies they need to be told about it so they can stop, or so that if they continue the eventually blocking from editing that they receive shouldn't come as a surprise.

Furthermore, Tom is not a newbie, and I doubt the other new accounts are actually new editors. They appear to be old editors come back to repeat the same POV pushing they couldn't accomplish in the past.

But, most importantly, it is absurd for someone to be complaining about alleged bad behavior while at the same time saying, "As it is, if I see the slightest chance to run you out of here permanently, I'll take it." The editor who said this is not even pretending to try to work collaboratively on a website. That statement proves bad faith. Continued statements like that and dsiruptive activities WILL result in a block, and sooner rather than later. DreamGuy (talk) 17:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Tom, I and Dr. Jem, the only other active editors right now do not want to block progress! We want just the opposite. You have a twisted view point of the world Sir. You and WLU and been very mean to me. Even if I was not a newbie, no one should have been treated like I was here when I came. The bottom line is the you and WLU prevent many editors (past and present on this page) from doing great work on this article. You are both obstacles that are not needed here on the DID article. As you pointed out - Tom Cloyd as well as Dr. Jem are very good at editing. The talents of editors that don't know the subject are not really needed all that much imho. It would be great if you would both stop acting like you own the DID page and work with the rest of us. WLU has tried to work some with us, but still it appears so hard for him to do and I honestly can't see it lasting long. When I say work, I do not mean that all here need to buckle to your and WLU's intimidation. WLU himself has suggested many times that if we do not like his ways we should submit a complaint. This is not a threat. It's a normal action on WP when a resolution cannot be reached. Both Tom and I have said we are going to do this, but then we work on that Good Faith idea again and give you both the benefit of the doubt, and hope you will loosen your death grip on this page, but you do not or you do for a short period. A complaint will be submitted about both of you. You both are probably wonderful men, you are obviously intelligent, but you have become far too obsessed over this DID page and will not let progress proceed unless its done under your thumb and manipulation. I am sorry. I want to and it appears others also want to work on this page and we want to work as a community, but the 2 of you refuse to allow this. I too would not be heartbroken if you and WLU left. In my opinion we could quickly make this a page that Wikipedia would be PROUD of!~ty (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

You keep talking about community, but your version of it seems only to include those who want to slant the article to fit your point of view, and your idea of who knows anything about the topic is limited to those who agree with you. Based upon that, Wikipedia most certainly would not be proud of the article that would result if you and Tom got to make the changes you want. The edits you already tried to make that got reverted and your continuing comments in support of making the same sorts of edits again are proof enough of that. Also, please see the meat puppet section below and respond there, because, from the evidence it looks like one or both of you will have to step editing here or be blocked. DreamGuy (talk) 02:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

No progress being made on the DID article

I don't like to use the word police, because I adore these people, but when the word extreme is added to it, I think many know what I mean. I am in no way a therapist with psychology training, but WLU and Dreamguy appear to be exhibiting many obsessive tendencies such as their anger and threats. Also, Mr. WLU, I think you have a good heart and really want what is best for WP, but you appear to have become far too obsessive in this work. You have become a hindrance to WP instead of a help. One example of many that those involved in this conversation, I am sure have noticed.

You, Mr. WLU reverted ALL Tom Cloyd's edits, then instead of working to improve the citations, you instead use Wikilawyering and argue that his edits do not follow THE exact rules that you cite, (I am not saying I agree with you that he did not by the way.) no matter what the excellent content is that he added. So, you totally revert ALL Tom Cloyd's work. Then another professional shows up and reverts your edits. Within 2 minutes you revert this back to your version, so I revert it back to his version. Granted I thought I was taking it back to Tom Cloyd's version, which is where we should be and keeping all after edits.

At this point you become kin to a caged animal. You hit my talk page and rant and demand immediate revision back to your version. I can only imagine the panic you felt at this time. Then you could not contain yourself and you reverted the whole thing back to your version, but I am sure you did make sure you kept the small edits that were done after your revert since these did not really change anything you cared about on the page. Please don't use the excuse again you don't know where all this occurred and tell me that I need to go back and link to every single incident. This is not Kindergarten. As a psychologist on here mentioned - most here have probably done a quick (non-professional) diagnosis of your impairments. I again want to impress your importance to Wikipedia and this page, but I must point out that you have become so extreme in YOUR position that you cannot allow normal editing or progress to take place. It's become something far too obsessive for you.

As you requested many times, let me site some Wiki Rules.

Wiki Rule Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy While Wikipedia has many elements of a bureaucracy,[5] it is not governed by statute: it is not a moot court, and rules are not the purpose of the community. Written rules do not themselves set accepted practice. Rather, they document already existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected. When instruction creep is found to have occurred, it should be removed.

While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused. Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures. Furthermore, policies and guidelines themselves may be changed to reflect evolving consensus.

A procedural error made in a proposal or request is not grounds for rejecting that proposal or request. [edit] Wikipedia is not a battleground The fifth pillar of Wikipedia's five pillars: "Wikipedia does not have firm rules."' Editors should interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner.

“ Respect and be polite to your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree. Apply Wikipedia etiquette, and avoid personal attacks. Find consensus, avoid edit wars, and remember that there are 3,849,772 articles on the English Wikipedia to work on and discuss. Act in good faith, and never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Be open and welcoming, and assume good faith on the part of others. When conflict arises, discuss details on the talk page, and follow dispute resolution. ”

One of, if not my first interaction with you is you coming to my talk page swearing at me and threatening me. As one person here said, you have been a very very very bad boy! But you don't see it! You just see us all as being non-wiki professionals and as such have no right to edit a page on DID, of which many of us are quite capable of doing!

The bottom line is you really need to let people edit. You should pop in once in a while and make sure that the page is in accordance with Wiki rules, but if you give us some leeway, we will do that ourselves. You DEMAND immediate adherence to your interpretation of the Wiki-rules thereby enforcing your EXTREME POV! - but my interpretation of all that is, you have an obsessive problem, and you bring it here and that obsession is stopping many editors from working on this page.

I will go and find more Wiki rules if you really insist, but this is getting old. To be honest I don't want to spend my time appealing to a board and dealing with more of your wiki-lawyering. I would much rather you find in yourself a way to be reasonable and let work progress on this page. ~ty (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Please do find, read and cite more policies and guidelines. Per WP:TALKNEW could you change the section heading?

It doesn't matter if you're a therapist or a professional, wikipedia's articles are not edited based on the diagnosis of other editors - only sources. Please understand - qualifications do not matter, if you can't justify an edit to an aritcle with a policy, guideline, or most importantly a source, the edit should not stand. If you are referring to Drjem3's revert of my work, I've repeatedly pointed out why that revert was a bad idea, here is one spot.

What specifically do you think should be replaced of TomCloyd's edits, and why? I will address each one specifically. If I have made an error, I will not only correct it but ensure other editors do not revert without a good reason. I've repeatedly pointed to the list of reasons why I reverted TomCloyd's edits but here it is again[61]. Please engage substantively - do you agree with any of my points? Which ones do you disagree with? Why?

You don't think citing IAR to justify a revert to a worse version of a page is wikilawyering? You think attempting to diagnose me, calling me a caged animal and police officer and comparing me to a third world dictator is civil?

Despite all these reams of posts on the talk page, I can't recall a single edit you've suggested or source presented for review. You've spent a lot of time calling me a bad man and claiming I own the page, but you've yet to actually substantially reply to my core points - TomCloyd's work had numerous flaws. I listed them. I just re-reviewed the comparison between my revert and the pre-revert version [62] with an eye toward any changes I inappropriately reverted. I found, and replaced one. The rest I stand by and will re-explain why each change is inappropriate if you'd like.

If you genuinely want this page to be productive and move forward - let's talk about specific edits to the main page, and the sources we should use. Lengthy posts about who got done wrong by whom when doesn't help at all, nor does comparing me to a dictator. It does nicely keep the acrimony and drama rolling forward, which I'd rather avoid. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required

Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. For instance, one person may start an article with an overview of a subject or a few random facts. Another may help standardize the article's formatting, or have additional facts and figures or a graphic to add. Yet another may bring better balance to the views represented in the article, and perform fact-checking and sourcing to existing content. At any point during this process, the article may become disorganized or contain substandard writing.

Bottom line is 2 editors here are not allowing any progress on the DID page.~ty (talk) 17:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70].

This is the opposite of progress in my opinion, and I have yet to see anyone provide a reason why they were good changes.

The major problems I had were generally those of ommission; text was not preserved. Sometimes poorly-sourced or undue weight items need to be removed. I don't think any of the changes bar one were appropriate removals, particularly from the lead section which must summarize the key points of the body. Iatrogenesis is one such point since it is a major source of disagreement in the field. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

No Progress Continued

What WLU says is unobjectionable. The problem is that that is not what he does. Sometimes a duck is a duck and every now and then "assume good faith" breaks down. Time after time, professinally-trained editors who come here in good faith and with the intent of collegial editing get driven off by this sort of thing. I myself have a lot better things to do than get into editing fights on wikipedia. Drjem3 (talk) 18:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

So take it to a WP:RFC/U, make a WP:WQA post, or start a section at WP:ANI. You're not going to resolve it here. I also have better things to do than bicker over hairsplitting over policies and arguing with accounts who don't understand MEDRS, NPOV or FRINGE but when those misunderstandings affect page quality and content, I respond.

Seriously, if my actions are so genuinely harmful to wikipedia, I'll be blocked or page banned - but only if you take it to the appropriate venue. You're wasting your time here, but feel free to complain about me on Wikipedia Review or a personal blog. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I have been here essentially as long as you have and have even contributed a bit to the policy pages. Same with the other editors who find your behavior objectionable. Can't speak for them, but I figure I understand what is good wikipractice about as well as anyone can. What you are doing is not it. Minimally, the concensus here seems to be very strongly against you. So stop disrupting this page. Drjem3 (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Have a look at these two links: [71], [72]. Notice any differences? I dare say I've more contributions than my "opponents" combined, probably several times over. However, this matters about as much as your credentials. I've made many, many posts here asking specific questions about specific points and sources, while the response has been vague assertions of bias. You still haven't given any reason for the revert you made. I daresay you can't justify it and it looks very, very much like tit-for-tat spite editing.

You've made four minor grammatical edits to one policy page, and three edits to the relevant talk page.

Vague pronouncements are all very well and good, but wikipedia is built on specific sources verifying specific points. Have any specifics to comment on? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

No, WLU. Normally, the call for specifics would be welcome and appropriate. But at this point, it's irrelevant, because you do not know how to agree, to join with someone, and to make constructive consensus. You know how to argue endlessly. The problem isn't ignorance of the P&G, which after all only codifies, for the most part what we are all taught in our professional graduate and research training (if we had such training).

The problem is your behavior - your and DreamGuy's. You do make some excellent points about procedure, etc., and I'll address that shortly. But that won't help unless you grasp the real message here.

It's quite simple: Two mental health professionals have appeared here in the last few days, who, combined, surely have decades of study, research, and clinical practice. We've paid dearly for what we now have. We see value in sharing it. Were we in any way welcomed? Was it in any was articulated that there was some kind of positive response experienced in either of you when seeing our interest in the article? Did you ever think that we might be worked with so as to materially improve the article?

YOUR answer is irrelevant, because our clear subjective experience is No, No, and No. I think that's been made clear. That appears to be irrelevant to you. I was never met with "good faith", and still am not.

All you know how to do is run us off. You have no idea how to accomplish consensus, or possibly no interest in it, or more likely both. This is, to my eye, sociopathic behavior. It doesn't matter how "right" you are - if this is the EFFECT of your actions, you're wrong.

You need both to leave, immediately.Tom Cloyd (talk) 22:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

That would be ideal!~ty (talk) 09:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• Tom, just like DreamGuy's personal attack on you a while ago was not acceptable, it is not acceptable for you to accuse other editors of sociopathic behavior. Neither can you tell people to stay off a page, nobody owns an article. The level of discussion on this talk page is way below what is acceptable and usual here at WP. I call on everyone to stop calling each other names and to discuss only issues, not each other's behavior. In the last two weeks, more text has been added to this talk page than in all the years before together. I call on EVERYBODY to take a deep breath and step back for a while. Why don't you all stop editing here for the weekend, do something fun in real life, and then come back on Monday. I propose that at that time, you rationally and reasonably discuss this page, one edit at a time. Go slow, as the subject obviously is contentious and you all obviously care about it deeply. Hence: my proposal to take it one edit at a time. Don't make the edit. Propose it here and try to come to an agreement on it, then carry it out. Then go to the next edit. As everybody here has the same goal (i.e., writing a high-quality encyclopedic article), it should be possible to find consensus. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

What you see as "arguing endlessly" I see as pointing out why the P&G don't justify your actions but do justify mine. You can't just say "I learned it in grad school" and leave it at that - you have to see how the P&G line up with, and diverge from, your grad school training. For instance, you focussed on psychotherapy, but you might not have a general or specific knowledge of the physiological underpinnings of consciousness, for which you may have to delve into a different set of literature and knowledge base that uses different standards. I certainly lack your understanding of the traumatic theory of DID, but I do appear to be more familiar with the iatrogenesis hypothesis of DID (however, with changes to the use of hypnosis, sodium thiopental and the types of suggestive or leading questions in therapeutic interviews, iatrogenesis may be on the decline). As long as we can reference these opinions, as long as we can verify text with reliable sources, our efforts are equal in substance and merit. That's the point I've been making for several days now. Your criticisms also completely ignore the fact that I've pointed to ways to move forward, made numerous edits which materially improve the page (including improving the sources for iatrogenesis thus indicating its removal was inappropriate), and made constant reference to the policies and guidelines. I'm trying to help write a good article, and I'm acknolwedging when you've made good points as well as errors. I just noted I myself made an error and corrected it. I want to move forward. Asking me to leave simply isn't going to happen unless you can get the community to support a page ban. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Straw. Yes, we all understand and accept that our years of training and experience, multiple graduate degrees, certifications, etc. don't matter here. However, what wikipedia does recognize is that "experts" do have special talents wrt knowing the sources. That is all we have been doing. If there is a lot of hubub here, it is because this page finally drew some expert attention and an editor seems to feel he has wp:ownership rights to it and continues to revert pretty much everyone else's posts. As above, this extends to the point of asserting that his objection alone is sufficient to overcome any concensus arrived at by other editors operating well within the rules and guidelines.

All other issues aside, we do seem to have arrived at some sort of wp:concensus, abiet one which WLU objects too. True, wikipedia is not a democracy. But this alone should be enough to resolve the matter, even if the concensus is arrived at by a bunch of pointy-headed experts, throughly tainted by education and experience. Drjem3 (talk) 21:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

And another consensus that many of us here have arrived at is that we will not fall for the games that WLU has fine tuned over a great period of time - the result of which is running editors off, making sure there are not well educated editors here. I am sure that you, Dr. Jem and Tom Cloyd both see this as well as others that might be watching this page, but don't have time to commit to the problem. The only way to get any work done on the DID page is doing what FF is doing with WLU, but unfortunately for WLU, others here see clearly what he is up to and has been up to for a while and it won't work any longer. These edits that FF are doing are nice and I am glad they continue, but WLU is still blocking others work, unless we also do what FF is doing and that just will not work - despite WLU's claims. You know what you are doing WLU, you are very intelligent, but it won't work here anymore - please stop pleading innocent. Some of us might do an edit or two while waiting for things to progress, but real work on this page cannot continue until you stop your bullying of editors here. Please stand down, but you know that not only will we edit the page, but those you have ran off in the past, such as Dr. Jem might also work on it and I don't think you can stand this. You are quite transparent to many of us. I am sorry and don't want to keep bringing this up, but you leave me no choice. I won't fall victim to your well rehearsed practices. I do see and appreciate your talents and I do like you, but some of your actions need to end. ~ty (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone have a suggested edit for the page? Otherwise, I will again point to WP:RFC/U, WP:WQA or WP:ANI as a more appropriate location for everyone to declaim my many and varied flaws. Despite the many accusations of blocking edits to the page, I've only actually reverted twice. Once my wholesale revert discussed above and a second time that being the revert of my own work that nobody has managed to actually justify in any meaningful way. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I offered a number, in a carefully crafted manner, with extensive documentations, set up so that each might be addressed individually - as my initial substantive contribution. I was mistaken to expect that my efforts would be met with appreciation and intelligence. They were first reverted 'en masse', then reviewed by an editer who claimed but did not demonstrate a careful examination. They were then declared to be wholly without merit, again 'en masse' - there was no overt explicit consideration of each of the matters I had addressed.

Most impressive. I see this as injury to the community, to the community's objectives, and when coupled with absolutely no remorse for the injury, as sociopathic behavior. My time is precious, and I gave this initial effort an entire day. No visible outcome on the page resulted. If you think professionals can come here and tolerate this kind of experience, you're nuts.

What's left when the professionals leave is an amateur hour circus.

Suppose I know the rules of professional football rather well. I can cite specific rules as they apply to specific cases. I'm now qualified to enter the National Football League, right? Yes, as an clown.

I'm deriding no on one's sincere effort here. But sincere effort won't get the ball across the goal line, nor will it produce a game worth buying a ticket for.

I have to very very seriously question the wisdom of my even being here, and indeed of the whole Wikipedia project, at this point. I'm sad about that, but it's true. My time, carefully invested, has made a huge difference in a number of deeply damaged people's lives. I did not acquire that ability by reading comic books and hanging out at the bar. I got it by years of supervised reading and study (and writing), and several decades of clinical work. If I say a reference is a widely respected review article, it bloody well ought to get at least seriously and thoughtfully discussed. That did not, and has not, happened. For shame.

Guillaume2303: One cannot be accused of exhibiting sociopathic behavior (it's not a crime), but one certainly can be described as exhibiting it. You might have asked why I said that (note that I did explain - in what I just wrote above), reasonably assuming that as a professional I would NOT throw the term around casually, and indeed I do not. Manipulation (use of power plays, charming the innocent, etc.), self-centered focus in social interactions, and injury to others - without remorse or evidence awareness that injury has been done. I've seen all that here in recent days, and THAT is sociopathic behavior. If it walks like a duck...

I accept your suggestion that an edit-by-edit discussion might work. The only problem is that I offered that opportunity in my initial edit contribution (as I have already described), and it was flatly turned down. How about you direct your remark to the people who did, and supported, that? I do not need to be told that, as my behavior indicates I already appreciate the value of working this way. However, the P&G explicitly says that I "...do not need to seek permission before making changes". What I did was entirely appropriate. Didn't matter much though, did it?

Tom Cloyd (talk) 10:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Tom Cloyd, you either do not sleep or do not live in the US. I am humbled and appreciative of your work here and don't you dare think about leaving us, that does not mean my 268 parts by the way (bad joke I know), but all the editors and potential editors here. Guillame confessed to not reading the entire battle and this would probably be the reason for his rush to judgement of you. Take joy now though. You were correct and editing is finally underway - at least for the moment. Seize the moment!~ty (talk) 13:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Tom, you can stay up there on the cross and complain about being done wrong, or you can thicken your skin and realize you're going to get reverted at times. I've replaced the changes I made mistakes on, or agreed with. We can continue to argue if you'd like, but I'd rather spend the time reading and editing.

Again, what specific changes do you now suggest? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Is that an attempt to minimize and then ignore my complaint? Yeah, I thought so. My skin is plenty thick. It's my ethical sense that is outraged. Wholly different problem.

I'm working on the disruption problem we've seen here in another way, at the moment. When I'm finished with that, I'll back here with doubt. You can count on it.Tom Cloyd (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

That's great, notify me when you've got a real venue instead of vague menacing. I don't give a shit. My core point is - griping, whining and making vast pronouncements, along with diagnosing other editors, in this case me, with sociopathic disorder, doesn't help the page, doesn't change the page, and doesn't help your case or point. It does produce a lot of pointless bickering. Tylas has managed to move on to specific improvements, to the benefit of the page. The purpose of wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia, not hold grudges. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Dreamguy, please do not swear here. I have tried to make changes to the page, (forgiving my lack of WP editing skills) but WLU really has been blocking me with just about everything I try and improve. I can fix a mis-spelling, but beyond that he balks and changes things back to how he wants them. I can't see this getting better, but I am trying to lend him and YOU good faith. Without Tom here I strongly believe that both you and WLU would try and make others your robots or run us/them off. I am trying to be nice to both of you, but I am not soft headed, stupid (please don't judge me by my WP editing skills. lol) and easily manipulated and threatened. I am sure its worked on many others, but it will not work on me. You should accept a free DX. That could cost a lot of money in the real world. I really have given up as much as Tom appears to, but being your robot seems to be the only way to get work done until other arrangements can be made and I do want to get work done on this page. Please help us instead of stopping us. That is all we are asking. No one wants to take the time to apply to any board but you must understand that this page is important to us. I am sorry. I am so ready for a group hug and us to all work together is you 2 tough guys will allow it!~ty (talk) 21:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you please pay attention to who posts what here? You are responding to WLU while saying my name. Do you just skim the posts before you respond? DreamGuy (talk) 00:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, Tom... If you are indeed a mental health professional instead of someone pretending to be one to try to justify your position, it's irresponsible for you to be angrily calling people you disagree with sociopaths. That's not professional in the slightest. It also suggests unfamiliarity with some basic terms as used in the field you claim to be employed in. DreamGuy (talk) 00:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Sybil again, in over-representation in N America

"Skeptics claim that people who present with the appearance of alleged multiple personality may have learned to exhibit the symptoms in return for social reinforcement. One case cited as an example for this viewpoint is the "Sybil" case, popularized by the news media. Psychiatrist Herbert Spiegel stated that "Sybil" had been provided with the idea of multiple personalities by her treating psychiatrist, Cornelia Wilbur, to describe states of feeling with which she was unfamiliar."

Are there references for this that I am not seeing? And if it must be mentioned here, shouldn't it have to do with it catching on and not the specifics of the case (that she was possibly provided with the idea etc)? Especially because we already mention all of that in the history section. Thoughts? the reference is about comparisons with borderline pd, and reclassification, not Sybil. Forgotten Faces (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Good catch, FF: Sybil, from my understanding had the symptoms of DID or DDNOS-1 long before she met Dr. Wilbur. Tom should have the references to this. I do not believe it needs mention again in that section. Sybil is a part of history, one of many cases in history, but one that was overly exposed to the general public and sensationalized by popular media.~ty (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

There's a NY review of books article that seems to allude to this, I've got an electronic version from Google Scholar [73] but it'd be better to track down the paper version. That doc has the following statement:

HS: Not at the beginning. Our understanding was that she was not going to tell me that much of what was going on in the therapy. But one day during our regression studies, Sybil said, "Well, do you want me to be Helen?" And I said, "What do you mean?" And she said, "Well, when I'm with Dr. Wilbur she wants me to be Helen." I said, "Who's Helen?" "Well, that's a name Dr. Wilbur gave me for this feeling." So I said, "Well, if you want to it's all right, but it's not necessary." With me, Sybil preferred not to "be Helen." With Wilbur, it seemed she felt an obligation to become another personality. That's when I realized that Connie was helping her identify aspects of her life, or perspectives, that she then called by name. By naming them this way, she was reifying a memory of some kind and converting it into a "personality."

And that's pretty close to the idea being expressed. Does seem like a statement better suited to Shirley Ardell Mason than here but I haven't read the full article yet and perhaps there's more info in it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not about whether Sybil is a 'real' multiple or whatever, it's about info basically being repeated from the history section. I think Sybil being included in possibly why the diagnosis is over-represented in North America is okay, but going more into her personal case definitely belongs in her article, especially like i said because we already went into it in the history section. Maybe it should be a reference in that section if it isn't already? The info has nothing to do with it being possibly over-diagnosed. Forgotten Faces (talk) 21:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been clearer in my comment - that statement should probably be removed, even if I've located the appropriate source originally verifying it. Best case scenario for that reference is to use it in history as part of the "Sybil was controversial" statement, but removing it from the current location is a good idea. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, glad we agree then. I removed it and changed the wording slightly in the proceeding sentence. Forgotten Faces (talk) 00:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

That section is a improvement. Good work, but still is this part needed at all? What Shirley Mason said to HS (is this guy even significant to DID? I doubt it.) could have been interpreted by different people differently.~ty (talk) 00:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

However is any of it needed. Sorry this is so long but... Let's look at this:

HS says:... one day during our regression studies, Sybil said, "Well, do you want me to be Helen?"

When working with DID patients a therapist will often be working with one part or had been working with one part. This is all I see here.

And I said, "What do you mean?" And she said, "Well, when I'm with Dr. Wilbur she wants me to be Helen." I said, "Who's Helen?" "Well, that's a name Dr. Wilbur gave me for this feeling."

What a part of the self or an alter was clearly was not understood at this time. Even today many might refer to this as a feeling. It is a part of the self. Part of the personality.

So I said, "Well, if you want to it's all right, but it's not necessary." With me, Sybil preferred not to "be Helen." With Wilbur, it seemed she felt an obligation to become another personality.

I would not be comfortable and in fact am not comfortable lettings most parts come out. With someone I know and trust I will, but not otherwise. This is how I would look at what Shirley felt. Therapy is a trusting time when personalities can come out, rather than having to try and hold them back. I will find references to all this if needed, but it's clear as can be to me.

That's when I realized that Connie was helping her identify aspects of her life, or perspectives, that she then called by name. By naming them this way, she was reifying a memory of some kind and converting it into a "personality."

We know now that we can only have one personality, but we can have parts of that one personality. The normal brain has parts too which are referred to as ego states. The DID brain has what is called alters. An Alter is much like an ego state, but more separate and dissociated. Some alters have names, others choose a name or want the host or someone to give them a name. It gets confusing to not have a name for them. This paragraph only shows the ignorance of HS. It is in no way showing that Shirley Mason did not have DID.~ty (talk) 00:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I've just removed it from that section outright; as unsourced information, WP:PROVEIT applies. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh my! WLU, you are being reasonable! I could hug you! This is the sort of stuff that drove me nuts in this article. :) ~ty (talk) 01:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

My behaviour hasn't changed, I'm following the policies and guidelines as I always have and always will. It's the point I've been driving home for several days now if you'd been paying attention. This is the first instance in which a specific point has been raised that you happen to agree with me on. I've always been reasonable, this is just the first time you've actually suggested a reasonable change. Your praise is utterly meaningless to me. As I've said repeatedly, if you bring up specific points I'll give you my honest, informed opinion. Like I did here. Pardon me if I appear indifferent to your appreciation.

Do you have any further specific points about the page you'd like to discuss? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

WLU, I appreciate indifference! This I can work, with but you will still have to tolerate my exhuberance when you are agreeable. Since you are in such a wonderful indifferent mood, lets work on this first paragraph in the section of the article labeled "controversy". ~ty (talk) 02:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Great, we got something done. Sincere thanks to both of you. Forgotten Faces (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Controversy - Heading in the DID Article

"DID is a controversial diagnosis and condition, with much of the literature on DID still being generated and published in North America, to the extent that it was once regarded as a phenomenon confined to that continent[4][10] though research has appeared discussing the appearance of DID in other countries and cultures.[80]"

Let's take a look at this one. My daughter is away at college writing her thesis on DID and has my multitude of books at college right now, so I have to rely on Tom or others for their text references at the moment, but this sentence needs work: "DID is a controversial diagnosis and condition" As Tom Cloyd mentioned many many words ago, the controversy in the DX is due to ignorance, not in the condition itself. Tom could you site references or send them to me please to site please or anyone else that has up to date texts (2011 preferably) by experts in the area of DID. ~ty (talk) 02:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Without any references to support the claim the problems with diagnosis are due to ignorance, there's not much to discuss. Already noted in the epidemiology section is that misdiagnosis might be an issue. One specific criticisms made are of the validity of the condition. I'll have to re-read Piper & Mersky's lengthy critiques - as should everyone else. Also relevant and new are Boysen, 2011 and Brand, 2011 ((DOI 10.1037/a0026487). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 03:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Patience. :) I will get them! I am just giving fair warning since this is the section under controversy. ~ty (talk) 03:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Reference #80 This is a 1999 reference. It is very old and I can't see how it could be used to claim anything currently. It might be used for history, but not for the claim that TODAY there is controversy in the DX, etc.... Tom has a huge library on the older books and newer books about DID and might have this. I don't see anything on the link. I have a huge library of the newer books on DID.

Reference #10 does not confirm this statement, just the opposite. It is saying that education is needed because it is due to lack of education that therapists do not recognize or understand DID. This is the point that both I and Tom Cloyd have been making.

Reference #4 I need to see the material they reviewed. Without this material I can only conclude that these researchers have not yet been educated about new information how the DID brain works. I will find references that support the new research and how indeed it is known to work.~ty (talk) 04:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

WLU, you and others that have not read the newer major texts put out the last year or so on DID might find this 2011 article interesting. In fact, anyone with doubts should read this entire article. When you understand dissociation this will all make sense to you. Bear with me however, I have so many current books that site these same sort of things. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15299732.2011.537249

Parts that put to rest many of your concerns: 1.) Although the entire document is excellent, several sections seem particularly noteworthy. The discussion of whether DID is a real or clinician-created iatrogenic phenomenon is one that I particularly appreciated and one that I believe psychotherapists and clinicians working within forensic contexts will find to be particularly helpful both in allaying their own concerns about possible iatrogenesis and also in refuting challenges from doubting colleagues who are poorly informed about dissociation. The authors do a nice job of not demonizing or getting into an intellectual struggle with that particular hypothesis about DID; rather, they carefully explore and challenge it in light of the empirical knowledge base and scientific scholarship about dissociative phenomena. A similarly thoughtful and scholarly job was done with the entire false issue of so-called false memory.

2.) Another especially helpful component of these guidelines is their international focus. Critics of the dissociation field and those who have questioned the reality of the dissociative disorders have frequently asserted that DID is a phenomenon unique to the United States. The authors of these guidelines hail not only from the United States but also from Canada, Israel, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, and Turkey. Research on DID from elsewhere in the world is also cited, including studies from Argentina, Norway, Switzerland, Northern Ireland, Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Oman, Iran, India, Australia, the Philippines, Uganda, China, and Japan. This document thus puts soundly to rest the myth that DID occurs only in the United States and only because a handful of clinicians are creating it through suggestion. Rather, these many studies from both developing countries and the industrialized world make it clear that DID and other dissociative phenomena are very real, diversely human results of coping in the context of intolerable trauma.~ty (talk) 04:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Isn't reference 80 (91 in this version - please refer to the sources specifically rather than by number; author, year or PMID number would be best) to Rhoades & Sar, from 2006?

I don't mind removing 10 outright, it's pretty old and Piper & Mersky makes the point anyway.

You don't get to discount a reference because you disagree with the material they reviewed; Piper & Mersky's articles are published in the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry which is a reliable source. Colin Ross has published a critique of the articles, but I haven't read it yet (it's in the sources section above, PMID 19306208, but then again Ross also thinks the CIA managed to successfully induce alters through Project MKULTRA which I was under the impression was a complete failure, waste of money and also totally batshit insane).

Do you have a PDF copy of the article you are discussing above? If so it would be very helpful if you could e-mail it to me so I also have a copy. The only way to do so is if one of us first e-mails the other via their wikipedia page, then the other replies with the attachment. Don't post your e-mail address in raw text on any pages, it invites harassment and may be harvested by spambots. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I have not nor am I planning to remove anything because I disagree with the contents. I am removing citations based on weight. I do understand this. As painful as it is, I was leaving Piper unless I find information to discount those studies.~ty (talk) 14:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it'll be appropriate to remove Piper & Mersky due to weight for a pretty long time, and I think it would be best to have a formal request for comment on the issue (or NPOV noticeboard posting).

They aren't studies, they're review articles - important distinction 'cause you can remove individual studies, review articles not so much. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I did obtain my MS (physiology) long ago, so I know the citation rules - primary, secondary and tertiary and I do know what a review article is. When and if the time comes to remove Piper I will bring about a lengthy and detailed discussion on this talk page. I don't mind you reminding me however, since I do appreciate your WP editing skills WLU.~ty (talk) 15:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Your comment assumes that we will remove Piper & Mersky. That's a very dubious assumption. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The controversy section is EXTREMELY well sourced. Removing Piper and other sources for bizarre reasons is a transparent attempt to push bias onto this article and to censor notable and well sourced content. Arguing in favor of it with long-winded paragraphs repeating the same thing said over and disagreed with above does not get anyone anywhere. It is arguing for argument's sake. Find an alternate proposal, or give up and accept that you cannot have your way through Wikilawyering. DreamGuy (talk) 18:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Causes section of the DID Article

Looking at references for the following text: This disorder is theoretically linked with the interaction of overwhelming stress, traumatic antecedents,[32] insufficient childhood nurturing, and an innate ability to dissociate memories or experiences from consciousness.[11] A high percentage of patients report child abuse.[33][34] People diagnosed with DID often report that they have experienced severe physical and sexual abuse, especially during early to mid childhood.[35] Several psychiatric rating scales of DID sufferers suggested that DID is strongly related to childhood trauma rather than to an underlying electrophysiological dysfunction.[36]

1. 32 - Goes to a "Link not found page"
2. 11 - This goes to a medical website rather than a secondary source. It needs to be deleted. I did not even bother to read it.
3. 33 - This is the same website. We can do so much better than this!
4. 34 - Kluft 2003 - Article not found. This is too old to use for this particular item anyway, but Kluft is a classic for sure.
5. 35 - The DSM IV - Can't argue this one. It's a keeper.
6. 36 - 1988! Please! This has its place, but not for this section.

Others believe that the symptoms of DID are created iatrogenically by therapists using certain treatment techniques with suggestible patients,[4][6][7] but this idea is not universally accepted.[34] Skeptics have suggested that a small subset of doctors are responsible for the majority of diagnoses that a small number of therapists were responsible for diagnosing the majority of individuals with DID.[7] Psychologist Nicholas Spanos and others skeptical of the condition have suggested that in addition to iatrogenesis, DID may be the result of role-playing rather than separate personalities, though others disagree, pointing to a lack of incentive to manufacture or maintain separate personalities and point to the claimed histories of abuse of these patients.[8]

4 and 6 are the same paper and authors

1. 4 - Please see this more recent and more authoritative article instead. I will read this one carefully and counter it's problems with article such as the one I cited above under controversy.
2. 6 - Same paper, part II - also by Piper.

1. 7 - Adult psychiatry: Blackwell's neurology and psychiatry access series: This is a general text on psychology, it is not research or writing by those who study dissociation and DID.
2. 8 - Psychology: Themes and Variations: This is again a general psychology book. References need to be from books that focus on dissociation and DID, otherwise we are back to listening to those that simply are ignorant of these things.

~ty (talk) 04:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Development theory Severe sexual, physical, or psychological trauma in childhood by a primary caregiver has been proposed as an explanation for the development of DID. In this theory, awareness, memories and feelings of a harmful action or event caused by the caregiver is pushed into the subconscious and dissociation becomes a coping mechanism for the individual during times of stress. These memories and feelings are later experienced as a separate entity, and if this happens multiple times, multiple alters are created.[37]

1. 37 - This reference is terrible. I can get some great one from 2011 major text books.

~ty (talk) 05:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Since there are no objections, I am deleting these poor citations. I will be adding "better ones". 32,33,34,36,37,11,7,8. Okay? You are right WLU. I just caught those on my list as I was working on them. Piper is not one I intended to delete. Patience my man! Patience! You keep jumping ahead of me!~ty (talk) 14:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't delete them yet, give me a chance to comment. I've missed this section up to this point. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Regards 32, you're confusing the convenience link with the source. The convenience link is nice to have, but it is the actual source (which exists) that is used to verify the text. It's old though, it should be replaced with something newer.

Regards 11, this is a link to the on-line Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy. Websites can be reliable, depends on the website. Merck is a WP:MEDRS. The page was last updated in 2008 but I believe it was integrated earlier, so it's possible the info has changed.

Regards 33, this is the Merck webpage for patients and caregivers. Still reliable, though there's no reason it can't be improved, supplemented or replaced. Websites are very easy to verify, for both editors and readers, so it's of tremendous advantage to link to them. Other websites like WebMD and eMedicine are other examples of reliable sources, and the ISSTD would itself be considered reliable for certain things on the topic.

Kluft (34) is another convenience link, the actual citation is what we are using. It's not that old, but it would be better to find newer sources. I'm also inclined to distrust any journal that attempts to bridge "eastern" and western medicine. Medicine either works or it doesn't. It's not geographically delimited.

36 is also a primary source, it can and should be removed.

Piper and Mersky are reliable, published in an acceptable journal, and should be kept.

Textbooks are acceptable, particularly for broad overviews of the field. They indicate that the iatrogenesis hypothesis is still valid. Should be supplemented and expanded, but that'll take time. Several items in the #Sources section should do this, but they need to be acquired and read.

Carson isn't terrible, it's acceptable but I'm sure there are better sources for this.

The advantage of having sources like general textbooks is they deliberately adopt very broad outlooks of the field and are good for giving overviews, noting broad points of disagreement and the like - what you won't get by looking at very specific sources focusing on only one side of the debate. Better, of course, are specific, lengthy sources like Piper & Mersky covering the controversy in depth. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you WLU. I do appreciate this part of your personality. The helpful editor part. It is an essential part of WP, which you are correct, in that I am lacking.~ty (talk) 15:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

So, WLU - can I now delete or replace all those I listed? Were there a couple you thought should stay?~ty (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Uh, no... posting "Since there are no objections, I am deleting these poor citations." when you know there are or will be objections to the edits is patently dishonest. You are on this talk page, so you see that the kinds of edits you want to make have been disputed, and that you have no consensus to make them. Any anything you have a good reason to believe will be controversial, you must get consensus approval first. And, frankly, from your comments on this page about your stated goal, it's safe to assume any change you want to make at all should be considered controversial. DreamGuy (talk) 00:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Which sources would be removed, supplemented or updated? I don't mind having a WP:BRD cycle. There are flaws with the sources. They should be addressed, and some of the statements are sufficiently broad it should be easy enough to find better sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

FYI, the fact that a URL isn't working is never a reason to delete a citation to a reliable source that was once published on paper. You can tag it as {{dead link}} (to alert readers that they're likely to get a file-not-found error if they click on the link), and you can follow the steps at WP:DEADREF, but you cannot pretend that the source itself doesn't exist merely because it's no longer online. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you WhatamIdoing. Some of those were good ones like the one to Kluft who is a leader in the area of research on DID. I did not have in mind getting rid of them, but citing a place they can be found. I understand now, to do that first instead of just cleaning up all the non-working and incorrect parts of an article.~ty (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Epidemiology Section on the DID Article

Epidemiology - This chart needs some major work.

The DSM does not provide an estimate of incidence; however the number of diagnoses of this condition has risen sharply. A possible explanation for the increase in incidence and prevalence of DID over time is that the condition was misdiagnosed as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or other such disorders in the past; another explanation is that an increase in awareness of DID and child sexual abuse has led to earlier, more accurate diagnosis. Others explain the increase as being due to the use of inappropriate therapeutic techniques in highly suggestible individuals, though this is itself controversial.[7][8] Figures from psychiatric populations (inpatients and outpatients) show a wide diversity from different countries:[56]

1. 7 - This one is discussed above.
2. 8 - Psychology: Themes and Variations - Again this is just a general text on psychology. It really should be one that has a focus on Dissociation so it is clear they understand what it is and do not follow old thought on this.
3. 56 - 1991 - This is too old, there is so much out there that is good and far newer.

Comorbidity

Conditions freequently comorbid with DID include:[70] <- mispelling on the DID page.

   bipolar disorder
   major depressive disorder
   posttraumatic stress disorder 
   anxiety disorder
   somatization
   personality disorders
   psychotic disorder

In addition, higher incidences of substance abuse and eating disorders are found in individuals with a diagnosis of DID.[70]

1. 70 is an interesting reference to be sure, but it is quite old. We need to look for something much more up to date.

~ty (talk) 05:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

You don't need to quote whole sections of the page, simply mention them. PMID 15912905 (what you call reference 70, reference 78 in this version) is indeed rather old, it was the newest reference I could find on pubmed that discussed comorbidities.

Textbooks are useful for demonstrating scientific consensus or broad overviews of issues that are intended to cover the issue overall - including specific controversies. I wouldn't suggest basing much on it, particularly with such a short reference, but it does indicate iatrogenesis is an issue to be considered.

Rather than pointing out a misspelling I suggest simply correcting it. Nobody is going to object to fixing spelling mistakes. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

But I like to. Then we can discuss that part of the page here. I have a lot to discuss on each section I pasted on the talk page, but give me time. ~ty (talk) 14:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you stop quoting whole sections unless absolutely necessary? And there's no point in listing spelling errors. The talk page is already very long and gets longer with each irrelevant post. Try WP:BRD instead; it's faster and more efficient. Wikipedia is a nonprofit that does have to pay for its servers. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I have so much more to discuss on this section though! It's not irrelevant. :) Give me some time to work on it. I am only one person!~ty (talk) 15:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you left out the spelling problems and typos so that people will actually discuss important things. Some of our editors have very limited time available. You don't really want them to spend time discussing trivial little things like spelling when there are important issues that they need to discuss. You want them to spend their time discussing the important things. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I did not bother explaining myself before, because it's getting old to do that, but since you are helping out here and I do appreciate it - I shall. I was making a category so we could all discuss parts of the article, but it did not work. The category had nothing to do with a misspelling actually even though there was one. I have since learned it's far easier to do this on my sandbox. Thank you for reading and helping out here though!~ty (talk) 18:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Pictures

I have an issue with this edit. We are extremely limited on the number of images we can include on the page, but we are urged to include a reasonable number. Though Jekyll and Hyde are indeed fictional, we simply don't have that many images that are applicable and fair use. Jekyll and Hyde is a well-recognized precursor in the history of DID, referenced by numerous sources as being relevant, even if only in the popular imagination. If we have a picture of Pierre Janet, which we don't, best practice would be to include both. See WP:IRELEV. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Are photographs of book covers acceptable to upload to WP? I am sure the community can find something that portrays real DID much better than Jekyll and Hyde. Also perhaps we can use pictures of those like Kathy Steele or E. Howell, who are current leaders in research. There are some men we could throw in that mix too, but it would be nice to have at least one female. I could contact either of them and ask to use their photos or if they have a photo they would like to contribute.~ty (talk) 13:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Depends on how old it is - normally book covers are only fair use for the wikipedia page discussing the book itself and can't be used elsewhere. If the copyright has expired I believe they can be used anywhere. I generally download book cover images from Amazon or Google Books rather than using a picture, the quality is much better.

If 'better' pictures can be found, we can have a discussion but even if we do, Jekyll and Hyde is still part of the history and culture of DID and therefore a good choice to include.

"Current leaders" is an opinion and somewhat dubious unless that person is unarguably important, we'd have to first get an image, then decide if it works. I'm not sure about including images of people with DID - for one thing it exposes their identity to the entire internet. For another, there's nothing to "see" - unlike a head wound or smallpox scar, DID is intrapsychic. Shirley Ardell Mason (Sybil) might be a candidate, but the one image we have isn't fair use. Unfortunately pop culture references are probably going to be the easiest to find.

If you are seriously going to try to convince individuals with DID to submit their pictures, I strongly suggest you bring it up for discussion somewhere first. The only place I can think of to start would be WT:IMAGE. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I suggested important contributors to research on DID, not patients. I just sent an email to the ISST-D asking for material we could use. I reject to using Ms. Masons photos for many reasons, but mostly because she wanted to remain anonymous, dead or not, and people keep dragging her through the mud. Out of respect her picture should not be used here. She was a private person that agreed to her story being made public, not her private life.~ty (talk) 13:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, WLU, you reverted my edit. I get the point. You want the picture replaced, not deleted - correct? I can do that!~ty (talk) 14:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I want the image supplemented. This page will always be image-poor simply because it's not a physical thing. Jekyll and Hyde should stay (it's caption expanded) as there are numerous references linking it to DID.

Uploading images is a pain in the ass, the simplest way is to get the ISSTD to release the image under open license (probably require an e-mail sent to the OTRS team). BUT, an open license image can be reused freely - people can use it, republish it, modify it and make a profit from it once released. Some people don't mind, some people don't like that. I am not familiar enough with image use policy to know if you can put limitations on these sorts of things.

Whether or not Mason wanted to remain anonymous is irrelevant; she's dead and we're bound by image use policy. However, the point is moot - I don't think the image can be used on this page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Old sources

Some of the sources added in this edit to the treatments section are pretty old. Brown et al. is from 1998 (14 years) and is not focused primarily on treatment. Judith Herman's is from 1992 (20 years). Bremner & Marmar is also 14 years old. Rather than saturating the page with old references, if they all substantiate the same point as the references from 2011 I would suggest removing them. Ditto for the sources in this edit - it's pretty rare that a research topic is so slow to develop these days that information from 10 or more years ago is truly relevant. I have no issue with the information remaining, but would prefer it be better sourced. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Boy do I second that vote!~ty (talk) 13:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you remove them then? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh yeah! I love the delete button! Thanks!~ty (talk) 13:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The age of the sources are hardly the problem, it is the weight that is the difficult part. DID is boarderline fringe but not treated as such in the article. Fixing a few old sources, some spellingmistakes etc is essentially meaningless at this point until proper weight have been given. Juice Leskinen (talk) 14:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Treatment heading on the DID Article Treatment of DID is phase-oriented. The first phase focuses on symptoms and relieving the distressing aspects of the condition and ensuring the safety of the individual. The second phase focuses on stepwise exposure to traumatic memories and prevention of re-dissociation. The third phase focuses on reconnecting the identities of disparate alters into a single functioning identity with all its memories and experiences intact.[1][56][57][58][59][60][61]

Treatment methods may include psychotherapy and medications for comorbid disorders.[1] Some behavior therapists initially use behavioral treatments such as only responding to a single identity, and using more traditional therapy once a consistent response is established.[62]

Brief treatment due to managed care may be difficult, as individuals diagnosed with DID may have unusually difficulties in trusting their therapist or fear rejection and lengthy, regular contact (weekly or biweekly) is more common. Different alters may appear based on their greater ability to deal with specific situational stresses or threats, and some cognitive behavioral therapy strategies involve learning coping strategies other than transitioning between alters. While some patients may initially present with a large number of alters these number of alters may reduce during treatment, though it is considered important for the therapist to become familiar with at least the more prominent personality states as the "host" personality may not be the "true" identity of the patient. Specific alters may react negatively to therapy, fearing the therapists goal is to eliminate the alter (particularly those associated with illegal or violence activities). A more appropriate goal of treatment would be to integrate adaptive responses to abuse, injury or other threats into the overall personality structure.[56] [1] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] ~ty (talk) 13:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

How do I open this list to delete some? I know you really wanted me to ask that WLU. ~laughing~ I humbly ask for your help. :)~ty (talk) 14:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Juice, DID is a mainstream topic that appears both in the DSM and the ICD. With the reduction of iatrogenic techniques (leading questions, truth serum interviews and hypnosis) and the calming of the recovered memory/satanic ritual abuse moral panics, it's probably much less frequently diagnosed - but still exists and existed before the 80's. My issue is that the ISSTD seems to be a very polarized organization ignoring one part of the issue - but I could be wrong. Have to see what the sources say, particularly the sources not published by the ISSTD. The mainstream interest seems to have died down considerably and the ISSTD is by default "winning" on wikipedia simply because nobody else publishes much. Which could be an issue but one we can't really deal with unless there are sources to substantiate.

Tylas, I'm not sure what you're asking me for. If you want to delete sources, you need to edit the actual article. The tricky part is figuring out which ones to delete, but all you have to do is parse the list for anything that's a) redundant and b) more than a decade old. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I know I'm just a professional with several decades experience in the field, so my view is in inextricably tainted by my years of study and clinical practice, and my POV has hardly any relevance here any longer...however: The fact is that this is the golden age of research and publication in the dissociative disorders. The quality of work coming out is extraordinary. Consider just one single recent publication (all I have time for right now): Dell & O'Neils (eds.) (2009) Dissociation and the Dissociative Disorders. 864pp, 46 chapters. An amazing piece of work, each chapter making a significant contribution to the field, and many providing fresh reviews of aspects of it. I could easily provide 10 more such high-quality recent publications, all of which indicate NOT that the field is dying down but that it is maturing, consolidating, and better defining the research yet to be done in the field. I haven't the time right now, but it could be done in about 15 minutes.

As for ISSTD - this is THE international professional organization for researchers and clinicians in the field of dissociative disorders. I realize that the American Geological Society might have more to say of relevance about DID than the ISSTD...but then again maybe not. It is an extremely good bet that most of the widely recognized professional (as opposed to pop-culture) writers on the dissociative disorders ARE members of the ISSTD. A first-year grad. student in clinical/counseling psych. would know this.

Tom Cloyd (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

On wikipedia, all editors are equal in content disputes bound only by our ability to justify our edits through reference to the policies and guidelines, as well as the sources for specific points. Due to your expertise and access to sources, you should have ample advantage and opportunity when editing the page. However, your personal experience and knowledge counts for naught. Please feel free to integrate Dell & O'Neils and your other ten high quality recent publications. I don't think the American Geological Society would even consider DID as a specific topic, but if they publish such a journal article then it would probably be best to bring it up at the reliable sources noticeboard since it's such a questionable venue. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

References

Why is there a footnote section? If you're trying to include references on the talk page, you don't get them by pasting numbers like this [1]. You need to find the actual source. The best way is to link pubmed-indexed articles by pubmed number (PMID 12345678 and the software automagically turns it into a hyperlink), other journal articles by weblink or DOI and books by google books preview, author/year, ISBN or something similar. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

You can delete this or we can use it for reference work. You just got to it before I did. It copied in some odd way and we were both editing at the same time and your changes stayed and mine did not. I was trying to delete the last question you answered since I had already found the answer.~ty (talk) 23:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

See WP:EDITCONFLICT. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

New Source Suggestions to Replace Others

Cite suggestion which can go many places in the article but certainly under cause of DID and under therapy for DID: The Haunted Self: Structural Dissociation and the Treatment of Chronic Traumatization - already cited by 157. The original research is online and online. The book was published in 2011 and the editors are leaders in the area of dissociation and trauma. This book/and research needs to be sited in these sections since one of their contributions is the 3 treatment phases used today to treat DID. Pages 263 to 337 discuss the 3 phases. "In this book, three leading researchers and clinicians share what they have learned from treating and studying chronically traumatized individuals across more than 65 years of collective experience. Based on the theory of structural dissociation of the personality in combination with a Janetian psychology of action, the authors have developed a model of phase-oriented treatment that focuses on the identification and treatment of structural dissociation and related maladaptive mental and behavioral actions."~ty (talk) 18:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Someone else should add this. I am making a mess with the references!~ty (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Activitas Nervosa Superior

A recent edit [74] replaced WebMD with an article from ANS. It's not pubmed indexed and I've never heard of it. WebMD I know and trust, this I don't recognize, and it doesn't necessarily duplicate what WebMD said and was used for. I'll update the references throughout but I may end up taking this to the WP:RSN.

Our emphasis, as much as possible, should be on high-impact journals, particularly for main points found in the lead. High impact journals have wider readership, broader focus, higher standards and by using them as much as possible we'll be much more likely to produce a neutral article. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but you are going too far again, do you need to go and take your anti grumpy pills? You need to quit policing so hard! Thank you for the help with editing but I and others can choose far better references than what are used right now in this article. The citation I made is from leaders in the field of DID and its a November 2010 Review Article. This is a better source than WebMD, who does not even have all their information correct on their site. You are not the Prof here and the rest of us Kindergartners. Granted you know editing, but you keep showing your lack of knowledge of the subject we are writing about. Do I need to paste the WDMD page here and show you all the errors. Quit citing P&G all the time. Sometimes you have to just use common sense. That is a great resource and the WebMD is a horrendous one especially for the lead. I have an odd feeling you are more partial to controversy than neutrality, but I will of course assume good faith for a while longer and see what you continue to show.~ty (talk) 22:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I can do without the condescension, thanks.

I'm not planning on removing the article, but if it can be replaced by a more prestigious publication we should do so. WebMD has the advantage of not being committed to a particular viewpoint, thus being broader.

Your comment suggests that somehow you and others get to choose the better references, and that you inherently know them. That's not how wikipedia works. Reliability is determined by quality. A low impact journal won't get the same play as NEJM or JAMA. Pubmed is a rough-and-ready measure of a journal's impact and respect. Non-pubmed-indexed sources generally but not always are lower quality than pubmed indexed.

My approach to controversy is that it be discussed, each side laid out and the issues explored. The points and counterpoints should be juxtaposed per WP:STRUCTURE. The current "controversy" section is less than ideal, the ideas it contains should be put next to the ideas they oppose in the other sections.

Also, per WP:WEASEL, "some researchers" is a poor choice of wording. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

WLU - stop. Just stop. Your endless nit-picking gives you away. You always have a complaint. "Some" is just fine, and better, it's also true. You seem always to have to have the final word, and to give approval of the actions of others. You are NOT the community here. You are just one. Move on.

As for WebMD versus the reference Tylas replaced it with: In the scholarly world, we do NOT judge a publication by WHERE (the venue) it's published, although approaching the literature that way is minimally decent way for college undergrads to begin locating good literature. E.g., Oxford University Press is generally superior than, say, Arkansas University Press in its choice of manuscripts to publish (but this may be decisively reversed when considering any of a number of specific topic domains). In any case, all that is trumped by WHO is doing the writing (i.e., their reputation in the field), and WHAT they say. Some utterly brilliant and enduringly useful material has been published in strange places.

Example: E. Sapir's article, in the 1929 Encycolopia Brittanica, on Linguistics is his first articulation of the famed "Sapir/Whorf" hypothesis in comparative linguistics, and as such is studied by every grad. student in graduate schools of anthropology (where I encountered it) and is endlessly cited. Why? Because of WHO wrote it, and WHAT was said. One does not normally cite encyclopedia articles, but this one is cited to this day, and for excellent reasons - the who and the whatjustify it.

Turning to the reference Tylas is using (and I have NOT looked at what she's actually doing with it, as to appropriateness, etc.), the very first thing I notice (after the 2010 publication date) is the authors:

• Ellert Nijenhuis - this man is an eminent authority in the field of the psychology of dissociation. I have at hand 14 - FOURTEEN - publications of his, just since the year 2000, all in peer reviewed Journals, all about dissociation and/or the dissociative disorders.

• Onno van der Hart - this man has done pioneering research in the early history of the concept of dissociation and its application by the pioneers of modern psychopathology and psychotherapy. He is also the lead author in the seminal The Haunted Self: Structural Dissociation and the Treatment of Chronic Traumatization. He is honorary professor of chronic traumatization, Utrecht University, The Netherlands, one of the world centers of research into the dissociative disorders.

• Kathy Steele - President of ISSTD for 2008-2009. Clinical Director of Metropolitan Counseling Services, a non-profit low-fee center for long term psychotherapy, and private practice, Atlanta, Georgia. She's a co-author of The Haunted Self: Structural Dissociation and the Treatment of Chronic Traumatization, with Van der Hart (above) and Nijenhuis (above).

The next thing I notice, in the upper right corner of the full text version is the words, in all caps, "REVIEW ARTICLE'. And you want to substitute something off of the WebMD website for this?This is a joke, right? Please tell me you're kidding.

Your challenge of this publication is far more than spurious. It is an example either of your bullying or of your gross ignorance. ANYTHING these people publish, regardless of where it is published, deserves very serious consideration. Unlike those who do not know what they're talking about, these people do not make their living, much less their reputations, publishing crap. If you don't know this, you don't belong here. If you do, you are being disingenuous. This is just shameful. Stand down.

Tom Cloyd (talk) 23:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

"Some" is not fine, see WP:WEASEL. Policies and guidelines demonstrate what the broader wikipedia community believes.

On wikipedia we do judge where something is published. Author is a consideration as well, but it's harder to parse.

I'm not suggesting we substitute or replace WebMD for the ANS. WebMD is, however, a useful reference with some limited applicability. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

AH! The sound of reason and education. I savor it! I felt like I was running up hill as fast as I could, but someone kept kicking me down. Take a look at this article. It's also wonderful. It's a review article and this time OF Structural Dissociation, etc... It should also take place in the articles introduction.~ty (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the lead should follow the body, best practice is improve the body then write the lead to summarize it. Often this means using the body sources to verify text in the lead. But right now the lead is very, very lacking in information on the trauma theory of DID. Sources from the body can easily be pulled into the lead to expand it.

That looks like it might be better used in the treatment section focusing on one aspect of CBT treatment ("One approach to treatment is CBT using the theory of structural dissociation of the personality. It involves..." - in other words, it's a very specific source about a very specific aspect of the treatment of DID). But that's a comment based on only the abstract. It does look reliable though, and could be used in any section of the article (depending on what it verifies). Wouldn't mind a copy if you have a PDF. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Here is a wonderful reference I found for the section on Structural Dissociation of the Personality that I am working on. This article reviews this.05:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

This appears to be a book review, are you referring to the article (i.e. the review) or the book?

Also, the section is currently unreferenced. I'm inclined to either hide it or delete it per WP:PROVEIT. Works in progress might be better drafted in a subpage and moved over once finished. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I made a category on the talk page to talk about drafts and you complained about that, so I just put the information in the article. Please let us do one or the other. We keep filling these sections I made with drama instead of work. I want to work on the DID article. I am so tired of all the roadblocks. I would like the community here to work on my additions. You however just try and find ways to block things, but you can't block everything. Again I am spending my day on this talk page instead of being able to work on the actual page. I understand this is what your goal is, but this is getting so old. I am not leaving here and I will work on the DID page.~ty (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

There's a difference between adding a new reference to an existing section, and creating a new section ex nihilo. It's easy to simply add or change a reference, it's harder to completely write a section integrating multiple sources to express a coherent idea. A tremendous advantage of a subpage or sandbox is anyone can work on it, you can use full wiki markup, it has a dedicated talk page, there are essentially no limits or constraints on the quality or contents of the page and generally you have a lot more personal control over the contents - meaning you are free to delete anyone else's contributions without any reason. Subpages are extremely useful and I have several. It's just a suggestion, feel free to ignore it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

"Some"

Before replacing the word "some" on the page, everyone should have a look at WP:WEASEL. "Some" researchers may indeed question DID, but without a more precise (and sourced) notation, all editors should leave it out. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I guess it's obviously implied it's not all researchers based on the rest of the article, but I still dislike the wording. Forgotten Faces (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

So if I (or someone) can find a reliable source that says there's no way it's ever iatrogenic it can be listed in some way, like... "DID is a controversial disorder and its validity as a medical diagnosis has been questioned. Researchers have suggested that DID can exist as an iatrogenic adverse effect of therapy, although others reject that assertion outright" (or something, just an example)? Forgotten Faces (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I or others can try as well to rewrite it without using the word some, but I have a feeling that it if does not use the word controversy you can't handle it, but I have good faith and will trust I am wrong in that. WLU, you do not have to hound me with every single change I want to make. I feel like I am carrying a HUGE load of weight on my back. Please back off some and let myself and others do some work. I have asked you so many, many, many times. (Yeah, I am sure there is a WP rule somewhere that says not to keep repeating many. These are GUIDELINES and they are of course good to follow, but you keep hammering us with YOUR extreme POV of them! Please stop! Please! We get no where like this.~ty (talk) 22:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Getting around "some" is difficult. It's already obvious that not everyone believes it just by stating there is disagreement. Reading over the section what is really needed is the inclusion and expansion of the traumagenic hypothesis. A significant group thinks that sexual, physical or other abuse is responsible for DID - it's not mentioned at all and it really, really should be.

A better way to approach it might be "Two theories exist regarding the cause of DID. One is that DID is induced by extreme childhood trauma, while a dissenting group believes DID is induced iatrogenically by inappropriate therapeutic techniques. I don't really have the interest or expertise to add it, does someone else want to take it? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Tylas, for crying out loud, you need to calm down. When someone explains a rather simple and well known fact about how things are done on Wikipedia, it's bizarre to start calling that an extreme POV and hounding. If you want to get anywhere, your first step is to realize that there are certain rules of conduct everyone is supposed to follow and accept that. DreamGuy (talk) 00:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

FF, the statement "Researchers have suggested that DID can exist as an iatrogenic adverse effect of therapy, although others reject that assertion outright"' is not neutral wording in the slightest. You would undoubtedly not approve a sentence saying "Some have suggested DID is caused by traumatic experiences, although others reject that assertion outright" No matter what side there is they often outright reject the other side. You cannot take one side and make the wording wishy washy ("suggest") and then take the side you support and use much stronger language ("reject outright"). That quite clearly has the end result of slanting the article. DreamGuy (talk) 00:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure, that makes sense. I was more trying to just express the point, still I shouldn't have said it like that. I don't have enough expertise for sure but what WLU suggested seems like it could be a good idea. It could definitely use being re-written in any case. Forgotten Faces (talk) 01:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

No worries FF, the reason we ask for feedback is so our first thoughts can be refined. As long as you make a good faith effort to try to reach an acceptable wording, it's all good. That's why I'm emphasizing expanding the trauma theory in the lead.

Regarding iatrogenesis specifically, you can't really say "Some researchers say there's no way DID could be iatrogenic". A reasonable way of addressing it would be to say there is a traumagenic hypothesis and an iatrogenic hypothesis but people disagree with both. But really it comes down to the sources.

A nice thing about secondary sources is they tend to be written at a pretty readable level. Reinders for instance, is a very readable summary of the neuroimaging of DID, and Gillig is also a very readable overview. Try reading some of the available sources and see what you think. You might be surprised how easy it is to slot things into the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been noticing that while working on the ISSTD page (how easy it is). I have lots to read, but the lead can definitely be made better as well as the developmental theory or whatever it ends up being called. Forgotten Faces (talk) 02:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

WEASEL is complicated to apply. The fact is that if the reliable sources are saying "some researchers believe the sky is green" (or "a few", or "most", or other such imprecise phrases), then it's perfectly fine. We are not permitted to exceed the precision of our sources. If the source is saying "some", we are not permitted to turn that into "17%" or some other precise answer.

We are also not permitted to supply false precision, e.g., taking a position that our knowledge of the literature indicates is held by a sizeable minority and representing it as only "Alice Expert and Bob Smith believe...". When the position is held by enough people, the in-text attribution is also silly: We do not want statements like "Alice and Bob and Carl and Daisy and Ed and Frances and George and Hailey and Ian and Jane and..." It's far better in such an instance to say "some".

We also can't take such a position and pretend that it is widely held ("Experts believe the sky is green" or "The sky is green"). These three examples are all legitimate reasons to use words like some in an article.

It would be best, of course, if we had a source that provided precise information on this point. But it would also be UNDUE to exclude information merely because we haven't yet found a perfect source for a statement that is indisputably accurate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

There needs to be some qualifier, because not all researchers agree. Ideas? If we can't come up with something, "some" is better than nothing. Right now it reads like it's a fact all researchers think DID might be iatrogenic only. I'm putting "some" back unless someone comes up with something better. Forgotten Faces (talk) 19:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you FF! I of course agree with this change. ~ty (talk) 19:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I see the wording in this section is way different than the last time I worked on it. I still added "some" but it might not be as necessary now. Thoughts? Forgotten Faces (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is much better, but I still do not think this part is needed. It even seems to be out of place. "and that the disorder is controversial" ~ty (talk) 19:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Still don't like it and I've reworked it. I've placed emphasis on the fact that the DSM links DID to trauma and abuse - but note that it also questions this link (not included in the lead, it's already there). Until we can get a firm estimate on those who think one versus the other, I don't think it's legitimate to try to even put vague, non-numerical estimates on who thinks one. Surveys from 1999 and 2001 indicated singificant skepticism in North America (and there's not a whole lot of research elsewhere, certainly nothing approaching the massive bubble from the '90s). There are explicit references supporting DID being controversial, these shoudln't be ignored or swept under the rug. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

How exactly is saying some sweeping it under the rug? I completely disagree. The fact is it is some. 'Some' is more accurate than 'researchers', which is even more vague. Forgotten Faces (talk) 21:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, good job changing the wording completely so we can avoid this silly argument. I should have read the changes before replying. Thanks. Forgotten Faces (talk) 21:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I'ts not a silly argument, it's what happens when trying to represent a controversial topic :)

The lead still needs a complete rework, but thanks for the feedback. "Some" is "always" a bad idea "in my opinion"; it's very difficult to work around, but it's good to do so whenever possible. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

And here we come back to 'some', which I agree in tylas' most recent edits (see this diff) should probably go - "There are some researchers that suggest that DID can exist..." has the same meaning as "There are researchers that suggest that DID can exist..." - in this case, with the wording you are using. just IMO might want to get rid of it now. Before it was the equivalent of "(All) researchers suggest..." and "some" was necessary before the whole thing got reworded. Forgotten Faces (talk) 21:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Physiologic findings

I've gutted the physiologic findings section. It was 90% primary research. I used Reinders 2008 to include what information she had as of 2008 on physiology. There may be newer information since then, I haven't looked in depth. Interestingly, Reinders also discussed the iatrogenesis-traumagenic dispute and how the two sides disagree with acrimony. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Yet more proof that the diagnosis is controversial and the iatrogenic theory is mainstream. The more the people who want to censor the article complain about sources the more sources turn up proving that the edits they want to make are not supportable by our policies. DreamGuy (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Yet more proof that you haven't the slightest knowledge of the professional literature. When I nail this assertion, I will be reiterating the summaries of the review chapters I have already summarized on this page, and which you dismissed. Even when it's right in front of you, you can't see it. Having a POV problem? Again?Tom Cloyd (talk) 00:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you dispute that Reinders is a reliable source? Does Reinders in your mind not have "the slightest knowledge of the professional literature"? Do you believe your own personal opinion as an (alleged) professional outweighs what Reinders and other demonstrated experts have to say? Dr. Reinders is at the Institute of Psychiatry at King's College in London. And your experience is what, again, exactly? If we can take the claims you make on the blog you linked to you on your user page, you do not have a doctorate and work in the middle of nowhere, Utah. Do you honestly believe that Wikipedia should recognize you as an expert on this topic above what published, reliable sources have to say? Please get serious. DreamGuy (talk) 01:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, your website has a list of publications. It appears that if that page is accurate you have not been published at all on this topic. Why again do you expect us to treat you as more important than recognized experts on the topic? DreamGuy (talk) 01:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone have any issues with my recent edits to the section? Otherwise why are we talking? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

We're talking about a different but related issue now. But since Tom won't answer me... you and anyone else can answer: Reinders is a reliable source, correct? Her description of the controversy in the field attests that the iatrogenic theory is both current and notable, correct? This on top of the other sources pretty much rules out any policy-based rationale for deleting coverage of that theory in the article and lead, correct? DreamGuy (talk) 01:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Ya, I would say it pretty clearly is. It's from 2008, and the journal itself is pubmed indexed; that was four years ago, a ref from 2011 would be nice, but it's recent enough to indicate it's still an ongoing topic. It also discusses the division between the iatrogenic and traumaugenic groups and how the two argue bitterly. Short read, I can e-mail it if anyone wants it. There's a whole world of research outside what is published by the ISSTD and I think we pretty clearly need to tap it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Prison Break

This whole article has been riddled with errors and problems and DG and WLU have done nothing to fix them until we arrive. Now editors are here and want to work on this page you are both kin to a prison guard and watch our every move. Controversy does not equal equality. What gives guys. What are you protecting so darn hard.~ty (talk) 01:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

If it's riddled with errors, please point them out.If there are indeed errors, they will be fixed. But the problem is that you and Tom seem to have trouble telling the difference between actual facts and your own rather quirky personal opinions. That's why your edits have been reverted. Nothing more, nothing less. And please stop creating brand new sections of this talk page to make the same rants over and over. DreamGuy (talk) 01:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Your persistent misread of me is pathological. I have presented well-documented points of view from mainstream authorities. You then call them my personal viewpoints. That they may be, but that's irrelevant. What is NOT is that they are accurate summaries of review articles written by recognized authorities. I can and will prove that. You need to do some reality checking. Seriously. Tom Cloyd (talk) 01:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, per the above section, *you* dismissed information that was well-documented and from a mainstream authority because you chose not to believe what it had to say. You can come up with whatever other sources you want, but we won't ignore experts on the topic just because you disagree with them. Do you seriously think you can come up with some source that justifies ignoring all the other ones out there that disagree with you? That's not how Wikipedia - or the real world for that matter - works. So you will have to forgive me if your opinion on who needs a reality check doesn't mean anything to me. DreamGuy (talk) 01:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

What I will do is collect all relevant review articles from the recent past (there aren't that many). I know what I'll find, as I've already done most of the review. You guys are pushing a fringe POV, not me. I'm entirely comfortable with that assertion, but I rather expect you're not. That would be a wise reaction...Tom Cloyd (talk) 02:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Uh, no... Are you claiming that Dr. Reinders is pushing a "fringe" view by discussing the controversy in her work? Above you asked "Is it "controversy" or is it "professional ignorance"?". Are you accusing Reinders of being professionally ignorant? What about all the experts used as sources in the article currently? Your opinion on whether the theory is fringe or not means nothing to Wikipedia and nothing to the world as a whole. We use the reliable sources, and you aren't one. Even if you track down a bunch of other sources saying whatever you want them to say, that doesn't make these existing ones go away. Your stated goal here is impossible to accomplish under Wikipedia policies. If you persist you will only frustrate yourself further. DreamGuy (talk) 02:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Tom, that's an excellent idea and how all wikipedia articles should be written. I've been doing the same. Pubmed shows 46 review articles on DID and 122 for MPD, though numerous are not in English and only the first page should really be used (once you get past the first 20, you're already getting into pre-2003). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Sigh - I see what I added to the page has again been deleted by WLU~ty (talk) 16:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you talking about this edit that hid the section? It's still there, I could have removed it outright per WP:PROVEIT, hiding retains it. This is why I suggest a subpage. Mainspace is open to anyone to edit. If you find that frustrating, try drafting on a subpage until you've got something referenced and high quality to move over. Not frustrating, you've got complete control, and you don't have to worry about WP:PROVEIT. On any page with a lot of references I'd remove an unsourced bit of text no matter who added it as a matter of course. It stands out and can get mixed in to sourced text by later edits, which is a huge headache to verify later - note for instance the problems discussed in #Developmental theory - #3 above where an inexperienced account added unsourced text to sourced text and it took 45 minutes of digging before I figured out what was verified and thus should be included, and what was just some nutters idea about DID being induced by satanic cults. The emphasis on specific attribution and verification on wikipedia is one of its great advantages and shouldn't be discarded lightly. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Not to get off topic, I believe that DID can be induced by groups/people purposefully - but we need sources and this was some random person putting it in with no attempt to source. If anyone can find reliable secondary sources discussing the phenomena we could list it again somewhere. Forgotten Faces (talk) 21:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Ugh, did you have to bring that up? Bleah.

I really, really think this is a tiny minority opinion; the book discussed above could be used but I'm strongly in favour of phrasing it like "It has been suggested that DID can be induced via torture". I'd really like to see what journal articles there are on this topic these days, books are OK but it's easier to get this kinda thing past book publishers than peer reviewers. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

From experience I can tell you, at least in the portion of mental health professionals who treat DID and DDNOS, it is a widely held opinion. The problem is I think when you think of induced via torture you automatically go to satanic panic. There are organized groups who aren't cults or at least not religious cults. SRA is another thing and we could probably debate that too in some respects, and it might be hard to find many examples in literature outside of that (hopefully not), but in reality there's are a lot more possibilities to "organized groups" than satanic cults and that's not what this issue is really about. I'll look for stuff but I only have what I can find on google scholar and books and internet ingenuity as it were. I have no problem phrasing it "It has been suggested...". I'll spend a bit of time on this soon and we can work out something. Forgotten Faces (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

It was a widely held opinion, and to my surprise there are still books published on the topic. I'd prefer to focus on recent journal articles, as it's easier to get a bad book published than a bad article (depending on the venue). Find the sources first, then let's look into it. I don't think it's really taken seriously that you can create Manchurian candidate-style identities dedicated to specific tasks and topics. I'd be intrigued to see what the ISSTD thinks of the idea. I know Colin Ross gives it credibility, but that was back in 2000 just after the peak of the moral panic and false memory battles. I wonder what he thinks now? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not talking Manchurian candidate stuff. That is much more complex than anything I am thinking of, which is for example a part who is formed/made specifically to self harm and nothing else. Stuff like that. I'll have some time to poke around with this tonight probably. I'll make a new section if I find some sources so it gets more attention on this talk page. I also wonder what the ISSTD thinks officially but I'd be extremely surprised if a majority/most of the practicing members don't think it possible at least in theory. Forgotten Faces (talk) 22:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry

Interesting. While going to the site that Tom so helpfully linked to on his user page, I see he has a rather sparse blog discussing some issues. It's worth noting that there is a commenter there who made posts on that blog who has a user name very similar to the other editor here parroting pretty much everything he says. These comments were posted before Tom Cloyd made his first edits on this article or talk page. The two know each other off of Wikipedia and are coordinating their edits and comments here. Despite the protests above, this looks like a pretty clear case of meat puppetry at the very least. Per that page, ArbCom has ruled that ""whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sock puppets." DreamGuy (talk) 01:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

So anyone that comments on anyone's blog is a meatpuppet. That's really farfetched. I can think for myself and post for myself! I am NO ONES Puppet! Period! Do I need to post that WP rule again about calling new comers a meat puppet or sock puppet. Am I getting too close to something you don't want me to so you are looking for anything you can to get rid of me. Tsh Tsh Tsh... and I have never got upset even once, so no need to demand I calm down like you did above, but I will not be bullied into not editing the DID article. I am here to stay! I find all this roadblocking you and your buddy WLU are doing transparent tp the point of comical. It is frustrating and much as entertaining, however I do need it to stop so I can work on the article. What about Dr. Jem? We seem to agree on everything too? Am I that man's puppet as well? If FF or bicycle saw Tom's blog and went to comment on it, would they then be his sockpuppets. Tom is a fortunate man to have such a harem. ~ty (talk) 02:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Not farfetched. Open and shut. DreamGuy (talk) 02:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry? That's simply impossible. I've been a vegetarian since 1973. I would NOT use meat. I would use an athletic sock or a large piece of unbleached muslin. Meat? Bleaugh!!! Tom Cloyd (talk) 02:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Funny. Read the policy. Which of you wants to voluntarily leave this article and talk page? DreamGuy (talk) 02:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, this is getting out of hand. Apparently I have a harem and don't even know it. What's the point of that? Life is so unfair sometimes. Furthermore, you clearly need to review your William of Ockham. As Bill put it so adroitly -

“ Entia non sunt multiplicanda sine necessitate ”

Contrary to the interpretation of this by those whose memories of their education, such as it was, are flawed, if not outright false, this is not a prohibition against unnecessary sex. No! It is a prohibition against being fatheaded.

Therefore, we must seek the easiest explanation possible for Tylas' intermittent approval of my actions here, to wit:

I represent the Forces of Light, and you represent the Forces of Darkness. So, you see, she's only trying to earn her wings.

So simple. You completely missed it. Tom Cloyd (talk) 04:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I am shot through the heart Dear Sir! I will have to leave my Master because the evil huntsman Dreamguy. I fear that I shall die. At least he has his harem of meatpuppets to follow him around and gang up against the evil Master.

Oh my gosh! I just looked at Tom Cloyd's talk page and you accused him of Sock Puppetry earlier too because he has an old unused account. This is so funny. What tricks will you 2 pull out next to try and get rid of us?~ty (talk) 05:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

By the way Dreamguy - On a serious note, all joking ends if you try and track me down offline. That I am sure is expressly forbidden. I now feel threatened as if some angry man from the internet is going to try and find me. This is not right! I am getting tired of the threats and it needs to stop!~ty (talk) 05:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Dreamguy clearly is grasping at straws here. Probably he is feeling threatened of losing control over some articles, and while i sympathise with that, I really do not thing that his approach is the right one. Just make better edits and they will eventually find themselves into the articles at some point. Juice Leskinen (talk) 08:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

No straw grasping here. This is a picture perfect example of meat puppetry. Those two do not act as separate users. All they do is support whole-heartedly everything the other says, no matter how nutty the other gets. Per policy, one or both of them needs to go away, and if they won't do the right thing themselves maybe someone will force them to. DreamGuy (talk) 03:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with you Juice, but I can only be in one harem at a time! lol ~ty (talk) 16:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not particularly concerned about this. I'd noted Tylas' presence on Tom's blog before and didn't think it worth mentioning. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

So you were tracking me down too. Please stop.~ty (talk) 16:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Tylas, you've posted not one, but two pictures of yourself on your user page. If you are genuinely concerned about your on-line life affecting your off-line life, I suggest asking they be deleted immediately. The longer they stay up, the longer the chance they will be harvested and reused by a wikipedia mirror or other site.

I also wouldn't worry about DreamGuy actually tracking you down, I don't think he cares that much. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you speaking for DG now? Do you know him that well?~ty (talk) 16:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Finding someone with just a picture to go by is a dang hard thing to do. I like people to know who they are talking to and I like to know who I am talking to. I find it refreshing to see real names and photos used like with Dr. Jim, but as a female that can be scary. There is no self harm in posting a picture of myself. I am working hard not to hide and this is important to who I am. Don't force me back into a closet. I have posted to both of your user pages as well, but because I don't agree with you, I am not your sockpuppet or meatpuppet. I'm not going to leave the DID page, but I would love to get off the talk page! Now, can we please work on the article without all this drama and blocking! I have so much I want to share about DID.~ty (talk) 16:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I know DG well enough to say he is an aggressive editor who always defends his perspective very strongly within the constraints of the policies and guidelines. We started working together very early in my wikipedia career on some very controversial articles and generally agree on the intent of most thing, if not on the degree. I cut my editing eyeteeth on a lot of articles where DG was a frequent collaborator. It's only my opinion, maybe he's actually a blood drinking serial killer but I haven't seen any evidence on wikipedia.

I'm more making the comment about your photo because you expressed a concern about your safety and you may not be aware of how images are pulled off of wikipedia and used elsewhere. I don't care if you've got an image on your page or not; you mentioned a concern, and if someone asked me about whether it was a good idea to post an image on wikipedia when they had concerns about their real life safety, that would be the comment I make.

I'm not "tracking you down". Tom Cloyd has a link to his blog on his user page. Not only is wikipedia a topic of one of the posts on the front page, "Tylas Raine" appears as the first four entries in the "recent comments" sidebar which shows up on all pages. It's not rocket science. The latest comment was from December, 2011 and wasn't about wikipedia, so my concerns about meatpuppeting are nil. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Tom, if you can type "I represent the Forces of Light, and you represent the Forces of Darkness." and actually mean it, you really are far too biased to be editing this talk page or article. DreamGuy (talk) 03:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Have you noticed that that "light" rhymes with "right", and "darkness" rhymes with...well, nothing one can easily think of? Coincidence? I think not. Of course, "humor" rhymes with "tumor", but that may just be a wrinkle in the fabric of the universe. What we clearly need here is for WLU to parse the P&G and explain to us what this all means...which I'm sure he will do in the next 30 seconds or so. Blessed are the literate, for they shall never rest. Tom Cloyd (talk) 07:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

DID - science or pseudoscience?

If we look at the beginning of the article, it is written as if it is a scientifically valid diagnosis and only as a small side-note it is mentioned that there are some who might not agree with this. The reality is quite the opposite, from a scientific perspective DID have been completely crushed and is today considered not much more than pseudoscience.

The article ought to reflect this, not doing so is a violation of the NPOV standard that Wikipedia abides by. Juice Leskinen (talk) 17:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I will take DG and WLU over this type of thinking any day! I am so tired of people stating Wikirules to try and prove their POV. Educate yourselves please and not just on WP policy, but on science and reality. ~ty (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

A good example is this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston and I believe that we can make this one in a similar fashion. That is, give a overview of the theory, its history and eventually its demise. No one would think of writing the Phlogiston article as if it was a valid scientific theory today. So why do it with this one that at this point in time has been completely discredited from a scientific point of view. Juice Leskinen (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Juice, I don't think you can argue that DID is considered pure pseudoscience. Inclusion in the DSM-V alone argues against that fact. There are many, many sources that discuss DID in a serious and in-depth manner and I've yet to see one that called DID pseudoscience (overdiagnosed, iatrogenic, folie à deux, but not pseudoscience). Neutrality requires both sides be discussed, not traumagenic or iatrogenic (or any other) and this must be demonstrated by referencing reliable sources. The greater issue seems to be DID is a normally rare, but now either overdiagnosed, induced or much, much better-screened disorder.

If you have reliable sources, in particular recent, peer-reviewed review articles, please present them, integrate them, or list them in #Sources above. Like all other editors, mere opinion is not sufficient to adjust the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: WP:NPOV, before we commence "neutralizing" this article, it needs to be made clear whose views are even to be considered at all. Many people or groups of people have viewpoints on dissociation and on DID. Only some qualify for inclusion here, in a "neutral" way. Why? Because DID is a concept which came from and is "owned" by the professional psychological community. When we want a definition, we don't consult a journalist. When we want diagnostic criteria, we don't do research in the US Congressional Record. We consult the published statements (in various forms) of members of the professional psychological community. Their views alone are what this article is about.

Others' views are interesting, and worthy of consideration - but only in other contexts, other articles. This is why you won't find, for example, the viewpoint of the Flat Earth Society in the Geophysics article. Their views are irrelevant, because that article is about the science of the earth, and the FAS is not a part of the science community.

I will make the argument (but haven't yet, as I haven't finished my lit. review) that the number of professionals who dispute the validity of the DID diagnosis is small and dwindling, as the supportive science grows. What little "controversy" there is about it is approaching the irrelevant. Again, this needs to be demonstrated by an appropriate lit. review, and I have not finished this nor presented it yet. By the time I get there, the extant version of the article may not be out of congruence with the literature at all. We'll have to see.

There are advocacy organizations which seek to dispute the whole idea of trauma memory and of psychopathology derived from its presence in the brain. Their views are not a part of mainstream professional and scientific psychology community, although individuals belonging to such organizations may publish research in peer reviewed professional journals which is friendly to the positions taken by such advocacy organizations. If any of this research is covered in the review articles relevant to a discussion of the etiology of DID, that qualifies it for summary here, surely. And if not, then it should not be mentioned.

In addition, in a summary of literature which presents a balanced NPOV perspective, the coverage of each view addressed should reflect its importance in the professional community, which does, after all have "fringe" viewpoints on a number of things. To give equal coverage both to a mainstream view and a fringe view would NOT be a balanced summary, would it? Of course not.

As I see things, the article when I got here not only omitted important mainstream views but also seriously overemphasized some fringe views (I know I'm not being at all specific here). If my assertion is true (and only a good lit. review will resolve the question), that's a problem. Such a lit. review may result in the omission of someone's favorite point of view in the literature summary. That doesn't mean the summary is not NPOV, but that the fringe view simply didn't merit mention. This may be difficult for some people to live with, but that IS how things are done when done correctly.

There is nothing radical in what I've said here, and I don't need to consult WP P&G to support it. This is just basic scholarly method, which after all, is what the P&G summarizes. (I also don't need someone to jump up and nitpick about something here. Try instead to see the main ideas in what I've said FIRST, and see if there's any problem. Let the little stuff slide...'cause it's "little", OK.)

What NPOV means seems to me often to be misunderstood, and furthermore that misunderstanding gets too often used to force the inclusion of material in articles which simply doesn't belong. A balanced summary of a valid lit. review will not allow this.Tom Cloyd (talk) 09:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

First of all, we have the science and then we have the opinion of the psych community. These may not necessarily say the same thing. The science is quite clear-cut today, there simply is no convincing evidence for DID as a major phenomena, or even anything beyond a few and rather questionable cases. The psych community is in the majority of being either sceptical of DID or wanting to completely remove it from the DSM. So, you can pretty much take your pick, in neither the pure science category nor the community opinion DID is to be first and foremost considered to be an accepted scientific diagnosis.

However, if you actually can show that either: 1) The science has changed, or 2) The community have changed opinion; then I will completely agree that the article should be written as it is written now. But unless such material can be found the article is simply not living up to NPOV standards today.

I'm in no rush, so take your time. Juice Leskinen (talk) 10:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Juice, are you here to make WLU and DG seem rational about accepting real science. This is where I see these two's importance to the page. I might very much disagree with their swearing at me, their anger at me, their removal of almost anything I add to the DID article, but its still better than someone that is totally lost. I am not going to fill up the talk page with reply's to you Sir - your point is so far off the wall that I just cannot.~ty (talk) 19:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

IMPRESSIVE TOM CLOYD! Now that is a response. I am going to contact you to see if I can use parts of that elsewhere. That does not belong buried on a talk page. Again, you express the things here that have been frustrating me so horribly.~ty (talk) 20:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Juice, if your summary is correct you are still required to demonstrate it through the use of reliable sources. There is an obvious and active community that believes in the truamagenic hypothesis - it should be included and summarized. There's another group that believes iatrogenesis is either a contributing factor or the causal factor regarding the appearance of DID that should also be summarized. Our job is to document both. Ignoring the traumagenic theory or the iatrogenic (or a third, fourth or fifth theory found in the scientific literature) is equally problematic. Please help us document this theory by providing reliable sources to summarize the text. Your word and opinion alone are not sufficient - just like everyone else's. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not in the fringe-division so I really shouldn't be doing this, but oh well. Let's take a simple example: "CONCLUSIONS:

Dissociative amnesia and dissociative identity disorder have not generated consistent scientific interest over the years, but instead apparently enjoyed a brief period of fashion that now has waned. Overall, our observations suggest that these diagnostic entities presently do not command widespread scientific acceptance." Pope HG Jr, Barry S, Bodkin A, et al. Tracking scientific interest in the dissociative disorders: a study of scientific publication output 1984-2003. Psychother Psychosom. 2006;75:19-24.

Richard McNally also has HUGE and completely crushing review of the memory component in his book Remembering Trauma and so forth. Does DID has anything going for it these days? Enlighten me. Juice Leskinen (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I own Remembering Trauma. It's from 2005. We're better with newer sources. I've also integrated Pope et al. 2006 in the page. Those sources do not mean we get to discard other publications - and one of the things DID has "going for it" on wikipedia is a still large body of recent publications discussing it. McNally's 2005 book and Pope's 2006 publication no more get the last word than anything published by the ISSTD. Please stop thinking there is a "right" answer. There is not, but there are at least two sides. We need to document both. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

One of the sides is in the minority but is represented in the article as if they where in the majority (not to mention the pure science). I have no problem at all with two sides, I do however have a major problem with this level of reality-distortion. Juice Leskinen (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I've yet to see the promised literature reviews proving your and the others point of view. Juice Leskinen (talk) 21:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Nor have you provided one Juice. Sources, not assertions, will help the page. Expand the appropriate sections with sources, documenting where the traumagenic hypothesis has been criticized, and nobody will be able to bicker with you about which position is superior. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

WLU - you're totally on track here, as to method. What you describe IS how things are done in reasoned discourse, and at Wikipedia. Carry on.

Juice - I have the lit. reviews. I do not yet have the time to use them here, but I will. What this article talks about here (in part) I actually do, although at this precise moment what I'm doing is writing (elsewhere) and organizing (a public health intervention project in my community. Both of these are intensely time-consuming activities. I can and do heal people with PTSD, DID, and other trauma-related diagnoses - see Colin Ross (2000), The Trauma Model for a full account of them. When I resume my practice in about 3 months, I'll have even less time. But I'll be here, for sure. For you to propose that DID is pseudoscience is both cruel and absurd.

You haven't done your homework, else you have a more balanced perspective. There will always be dissident voices in the clinical psych. and psychiatric communities. This is actually a good thing, for reasons I won't take time to explain just now. However, they don't all sufficient merit to deserve mention in this article, most particularly when the consensus opinion is expressed in the Diagnostic and Statistics Manual (yep, DSM-V is holding that pesky persistent view that DID is a real thing - damn them!) and ICD-10. THAT is the mainstream view, and it IS so precisely because the science we have (which IS published and readily available) supports that view. You can count on it. If you had any idea what goes into those documents before they hit the presses you would trash-can your POV and slink away, because it's shamefully ignorant.Tom Cloyd (talk) 02:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The DSM is a view, it's an authoritative view, one could even argue it is the mainstream view, but it is not the only view. The DSM-IV-TR's own position is far from absolute. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

DSM - mainstream? Well, only in the English speaking world. The Aleuts of the Canadian far north have a very different view of things, as do the sorcerers of the Trobriand Islands. NPOV demands that we bring their views onto this page as well. It's simply outrageous that we allow research-based nosology, with its absurdly empirical POV, to bias this fine article. Be bold! Be neutral! Let's find a place here for everything, regardless of relevance! We just need a reliable source (I volunteer!!!). Significance? Validity? Those concepts are for wimps and pointy-headed intellectuals, not for us bold Wikipedians! Tom Cloyd (talk) 07:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Misza bot

I've activated miszabot to archive the talk page. I'm not sure which one, I think Misza I. Doesn't matter much. It should kick in automatically tomorrow.

The bot will automatically archive old sections of the talk page. It's currently configured to do so 7 days after the date stamp of the last comment in the individual section, leaving a minimum of five threads on the page each time.

Normally you're supposed to establish a consensus first, I didn't do so and that's my bad. If anyone has any objections, I'll disable it as soon as I notice them (or anyone else can do so, just edit this section of the talk page and remove the very bottom template that starts with "User:MiszaBot"). The talk page is very, very long and most of these sections don't demonstrate much consensus beyond acrimony. The thought of archiving them individually made my head hurt, hence Misza. For the new editors, the information and sections are not lost, they're merely placed into an archive, which you can access at the top of the page. The dates included in the archiving template need to be adjusted manually.

There is no effect on the article itself. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking about the same thing. However, I recommend increasing the archive trigger to 12-14 days. Reason: professional/academic people often have very crowded schedules. They cannot "live" here live some editors do. Seven days, for them (I speak from personal experience) can be the blink of an eye. A topic could come and go and never be seen, for these folks. Not exactly the idea behind a Talk page, I think.Tom Cloyd (talk) 07:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Tomcloyd. Juice Leskinen (talk) 07:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. A month is more normal but much of the above is drek and doesn't help the page. Once the page calms down I'll try to remember to bump it again. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Bloody hell, what a huge talk page! Maybe a longer interval and some manual archiving...? Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Once it's cycled through the full two weeks and much of the above has disappeared unless kept alive, the interval should be changed. I simply don't want to figure out what should and shouldn't be archived right now. If anyone wants to do the heavy lifting and change the interval, be my guest. Misza has the advantage of being indifferent to editors. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Clean list of sources

Please use this section to list any sources not already in the page. Please do not use it to discuss them. Please do not add signatures or datestamps as this will cause them to be archived.

Iatrogenic model has been renamed "sociocognitive", google scholar search [75]

• [76] Farrell, 2011, Dissociative Identity Disorder: Medicolegal Challenges pdf
• [77] Boysen, 2011, The scientific status of childhood dissociative identity disorder: a review of published research
• [78] Foote, 2008, Dissociative identity disorder and schizophrenia: differential diagnosis and theoretical issues
• [79] Manning 2009, Convergent paradigms for visual neuroscience and dissociative identity disorder
• [80] Brand et al. 2011, A survey of practices and recommended treatment interventions among expert therapists...

• [81] Drob et al, 2009, Clinical and conceptual problems in the attribution of malingering in forensic evaluations.
• [82] Lowenstein, in Vermetten et al., 2007 (ISBN 158562196X), Traumatic dissociation: neurobiology and treatment
• [83] Weiner & Craighead, 2010, The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology
• [84] - ISSTD advising against "truth serum" interviews
• [85] NPR story, probably better for looking into sources rather than actual citation
• [86] Ross, 2009, Errors of logic and scholarship concerning dissociative identity disorder (addresses Piper and Mersky)
• [87] Kluft, 2007, The older female patient with a complex chronic dissociative disorder.
• [88] Korol, 2008, Familial and social support as protective factors against the development of dissociative identity disorder.
• [89] Clancy, 2010, The Trauma Myth ISBN 046501688X
• [90] Lilienfeld & Lynn, 2003, Science and pseudoscience in clinical psychology (chapter 5)
• [91] Lilienfeld, 2011, Distinguishing Scientific From Pseudoscientific Psychotherapies (possibly useful)
• [92] MacDonald, 2008, Dissociative disorders unclear? Think ‘rainbows from pain blows’
• [93] Kring, 2009, Abnormal psychology
• [94] Lynn et al. 2010, Dissociation and dissociative identity disorder: Treatment guidelines and cautions
• [95] 2008 Singh, A study in dualism: The strange case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde

in intro, "describes" or "claims to describe"

As I wrote in the edit summary, the debate is not whether DID exists - it is why it exists. The DSM no more "claims to describe" this illness as any other. It describes it. Forgotten Faces (talk) 21:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Most--if not all--cases are believed to be false. The debate is sceptics vs believers. This article is extremely distorted in that some users have skillfully made the debate to be about the finer details of DID with the underlying assumption that DID actually is a valid diagnosis. In the scientific community, such a view is in the minority. Juice Leskinen (talk) 21:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

"Only about one-quarter of respondents felt that diagnoses of dissociative amnesia and dissociative identity disorder were supported by strong evidence of scientific validity." Am J Psychiatry. 1999 Feb;156(2):321-3. Juice Leskinen (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I've substituted a direct quote from the DSM, which I think is more than adequate. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks good. Juice Leskinen (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks good to me as well and is much easier to understand. Juice, I disagree on the point of most cases being considered false by a majority of the mental health community, but that is not what I reversed the edit for at all. The literature is obviously mixed, as seen by the multitude of references in the article. Forgotten Faces (talk) 21:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Just because there are two sides doesn't mean that they are equal. DID has suffered heavy losses in all areas and is increasingly becoming a fringe perspective. This has been well documented. Juice Leskinen (talk) 21:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I again disagree. Of course just because there are two sides to anything doesn't mean they are equal. But as for the other, WP:PROVEIT. Forgotten Faces (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Just because you all believe something does not make it true. There is newer research out there that says it is not true and that research needs to be presented.~ty (talk) 22:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Without any hard numbers provided by any reliable sources, the discussion of relative proportions is not appropriate on the main page and fruitless on the talk page. The best way to deal with this is to expand both positions as much as possible with the highest quality reliable secondary sources. The weight should naturally fall out of such a summary. More detail will help everyone. Again, sources are paramount, premiere and the starting point for something like this. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The best way to deal with this is to expand both positions as much as possible with the highest quality reliable secondary sources. The weight should naturally fall out of such a summary. ...Again, sources are paramount, premiere and the starting point for something like this.

Yep.

Juice - what have you been smokin? Seems like bad stuff, man. See to your health, or you won't make the next lap!

Tom Cloyd (talk) 07:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Still Working on the Heading of the DID article

This sentence is too bold for what is really the case: "DID is an extremely controversial and disputed diagnosis with bitter disagreements between groups supporting different explanations for the disorder's."

WLU and Juice, you are way over representing it perhaps because of your involvement on the pop culture and False Memory pages of WP, I don't know, but you are. There is such a thing as false memory, but it does not have much merit for presentation in this paper. There is a whole page on WP on it where you can go and rave about it all you want. A simple link from here to there should satisfy those that want to know about false memory. This page is about DID.

WLU, I am so tired of saying this, but as soon as I change anything on this article WLU, you revert it, then of course post some reason why, which I don't agree with, but only what you think is right seems to be what is allowed here. This paragraph as you have it now is promoting an EXTREME POV of the false memory people (many consider them wackos). This paragraph is riddled with error again. How I had it was acceptable and the main word that seems to make you guys crazy is removing the word controversy. As Tom Cloyd pointed out before. I asked you to wait while I put in references to 2011 information to PROVE what I wrote, but you could not. You had to change my edits again.

WLU, you keep telling me to edit, but each time I do anything you REMOVE it. Please, don't tell me to put this on my sandbox where you will ignore it and then delete any changes I do make after I move it here. It would be nice if you don't bring people over from the Sybil, Shirley Mason, False Memory pages if you did. Perhaps they are following you, but this page is not for pop culture.~ty (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

All of you please read the E. Howells's 2011 book. E. Howell Ph.D., is Associate Editor of the Journal of Trauma and Dissociation and Co-Director of the Dissociative Disorders Psychotherapy Training Program of the International Society for the Study of Dissociation. Dr. Howell is a faculty member of the National Institute for the Psychotherapies Trauma Studies Program and an adjunct associate professor in the psychology department of New York University. She has written and lectured widely on various aspects of trauma and dissociation. I am at a disadvantage right now since my daughter has all my books away at school to write her thesis on DID. I asked for patience while she looks up the exact page numbers for me in this book. I have not heard back yet, but you already reverted my edit again.~ty (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't come from the memory articles, one of your personalities must have imagined that. At any rate, feel free to edit, but add the source when you do the edit, and if you are going to downplay the controversy of DID then you better have some seriously good sources to back it up. So far, that haven't been the case. Juice Leskinen (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Close enough. It's still one the WLU is working on as well. Rind et al. Controversy "The Rind et al. controversy was a debate in the scientific literature, public media, and government legislatures in the United States regarding a 1998 peer reviewed meta-analysis of the self-reported harm caused by child sexual abuse (CSA)" You are not the one that blocks me from editing - that is WLU. So far you have been reasonable in the respect and only made one change, but then you just showed up too.~ty (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

What is wrong with my summary of the source I used to verify this? Asserting that I'm wrong or misrepresenting the source is inadequate. Please read the source and indicate how I've inappropriately represented it. I believe this is Reinders, I've a copy if you can't get your own, e-mail it to me and I will reply with the PDF. You may also try requesting it at WP:LIB.

Based on the title, that book looks like it focuses on treating DID from a specific perspective (relational psychoanalysis). I wouldn't base an entire page on it, but it could certainly be used to expand the treatment section. I'm not going to read an entire book unless I have to or I enjoy it. That one isn't high on my list. I see no issue with being used, but I won't make any effort to include it.

Your assertions that I'm promoting an unduly-skeptical position on DID has a serious flaw in that I'm able to find and summarize high quality sources to verify my edits. I'm not basing this on my opinion, I read a source, it verifies a point, I put it into the page in the appropriate section. You are welcome to do the same. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I will hold you to that statement that you will not change my edits as long as I have references to back them up. But if you remember, a day or so ago, I put up a great reference in the lead (A November 2010 review article by some of the best researchers in the area of DID) and made a couple of changes referencing that source and you still quickly reverted it back to a version you want - as has been the case with every important edit I do. I do believe you kept the source however after arguing about it. In fact, I think you have done the same with Tom Cloyd and Dr. Jem. I wish you were unbiased, but I don't see it. I think you spend too much time on the pop culture pages and it has tainted your POV. It's hard to read all that pop culture and not become influenced. I wish you would start working with us, instead of against us. I think you are bright and quite efficient at writing, but the fact is you run off every serious editors that comes to work on this page. I bet you were not working on this page until I showed up, then you zipped back here to defend what you seem to feel is your page and have quit working on other projects for the most part. I want to work with you, but you won't let me. I have tried to do everything you have requested and still you won't let any of my important edits stay. Please just mellow and work with me instead of against me.

THIS IS NOT CONTROVERSY! IT IS FACT

I do know that SYMPTOMS (a limited part)can be produced by bad therapy and that is a fact, but that does not produce a controversy in what causes DID. It simply says with bad therapy a limited part can be formed. That is not DID. E. Howells book that I linked to above explains this in detail. I don't argue this point at all and by all means it should be brought up in the article, but that is nothing like the big drama you guys want in the lead. Chapter III of her book can be read online in PDF form. ~ty (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean this reference? The one that is still there? I don't think I ever removed it.

DrJem was a wikistalking troll with no real comments to add to the page beyond disliking me, and an even worse understanding of the policies and guidelines than you and Tom.

I'd take your "you only reference pop culture" comments more seriously if I weren't so easily able to justify my changes with extremely reliable sources. You're seeing what you want to see here I think.

Anyway, comment on contributions, not contributors. Provide diffs, not general comments.

Sources discussing iatrogenesis do not specify "symptoms" as far as I can recall. And if I tried to rewrite the page portraying only iatrogenesis, you might have a point. You don't. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I said, my source you put back after arguing about it, but my changes to the DID page you still removed or changed - at least last I looked. I should look into that to be sure, but I remember you doing a quick change, then a bunch of things were done - and I am not sure how it all ended up. Again, I have to point out that I think you are an invaluable editor and agreeable in many ways, but you just have too extreme of a POV on this article and that it is getting in the way progress. All I ask is give me some leeway. Don't police me so hard please. This is what is causing all the problems. I gave you a source. Read E. Howell since you are so interested in this subject. If I remember right, the information is near the first part of the book and might even be in the chapter that is online in PDF form. Her books are fascinating to read and among the best out there on the subject of DID.~ty (talk) 00:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

You do realize the exact same things regarding POV could be said of you, and Juice for that matter. This is why we rely on sources.

Feel free to integrate the source. I don't demand that you integrate the sources I locate - I just integrate them. I'm not going to read an entire book on an aspect of a subject I don't really care about. You have it, or will soon. You integrate it. If you can get me a relevant PDF, I'll certainly put it in my folder of sources. But I'm focusing on the iatrogenesis aspect, along with whatever I pick up along the way. Feel free to do the same, or not.

A point of note - you may want to consider attempting to document your assertions using diffs. It will force you to check, confirm or disconfirm your assertions and thus lend credibility to your claims or possibly lead you to change your mind. You might be surprised that on occasion you are wrong about your beliefs about what I've done. I don't really care either way, but it'll be easier to work with you if you either demonstrate specifically what I've done that you think is wrong, or you stop accusing me of edits I didn't make. Sometimes I do make mistakes and a diff is hard to argue with. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

WLU - you pick things to death, and apply your over-hyped "rules" erratically and strategically. That is manipulative, pure, and simple. I see you doing it, and as soon as I return to the article I'll nail you on it every time you do. I'm not going to support any of this with specifics, as I feel no need to right now. I see it. It will stop. You know just enough to buffalo most people here, but what you're doing simply isn't all that clever. You are really on track a certain amount of the time, and that's a dandy cover for the manipulations you engineer the rest. I have no issue with the good work you do at times - none whatsoever. It's the other stuff that I'm going after. You're clever, but not clever enough. 'Nuf said, for now.

Now let's look at the last paragraph of the lede. This is a disaster of misrepresentation:

DID is an extremely controversial and disputed diagnosis[8][9][10][11][12] with bitter disagreements between groups supporting different explanations for the disorder's etiology.[13] Two hypotheses exist regarding the development of DID. The first, documented in the DSM, is that pathological levels of stress that disrupt normal functioning, forcing some memories, thoughts and aspects of personality from consciousness.[14] The second hypothesis is that DID can exist as an iatrogenic adverse effect of therapy.[13]

1. first sentence: two of the citations are to parts 1 and 2 of the same article. Clever. Also dishonest. ALL the quotes are cherry picked and do NOT represent the literature as a whole. I know this; you should. Finally this is not a summary but an assertion that belongs in the text itself. You're trying way too hard. I can guarantee that I have more and better sources that knock this crap back to the dark ages. Just need the time to use 'em.

2. remaining sentences: This isn't even right. There are three hypotheses. But you'd have to do a balanced review of the lit. to know that. Since your primary reason for being here, I'm forced to hypothesize, is to promote your FMS-sympathetic POV, you're not interested in such a review. That's simply dishonest, again. You have no interest in reviewing the literature objectively, although you promote this when you can use such promotion to knock someone else's references out of the article. This is intolerable.

You consistently misunderstand something: RELIABLE sources are not enough. RELIABLE and VALID sources are what is needed and what you very often do NOT provide. A source cannot be valid if it is not reliable, and if it IS reliable, it is valid only if it is used to correctly represent the literature on a topic as a whole. Otherwise, you are using reliable sources to misrepresent what the literature as a whole actually says. A well done lit. review. or a review of the available review articles, correctly presented (usually in a table) will make this sort of cherry picking obvious, and then impossible.

I would prefer to attribute your perpetrating these distortions to simple ignorance and lack of skill. But I cannot. Your bias is consistent, and that gives you away, absolutely. You are engineering a distortion. And it is that, more than anything else, which I will be stopping soon.

I'm not saying this for your ears. It will have no effect on you and those who mimic you, although none approach your level of cleverness. I'm saying this for other ears, to expose your deceit. It just may have an effect, but not as good an effect as my getting back into the article.

You'r in MY field, and I will bring all available forces to bear to stop your doing this. Count on it. I have no interest in your reply to this. This isn't for you. Tom Cloyd (talk) 11:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Dreamguy, claim I am a parrot of Tom Cloyd all you want, but it's the first time I have ever been accused of not speaking my own mind - I have never been known to be a puppet. I cannot express the points that Tom presents as well as he does, but that does not mean I do not agree with them. He has a great deal of education to his credit. I am not as intelligent as he is, but I do understand DID. WLU is good at manipulation and he has the ability and personality to turn most people into his puppets, but it's not going to work with me - I don't follow. Juice, you might be a wonderful person, but you are so lost on this subject. FF brings up many good points and is beneficial to this discussion. The above post by Tom Cloyd sums up all that has been going on here since I began to work on this page. I am looking forward to finally seeing some progress and an article on dissociative identity disorder instead of a page that drags false memory politics into it. That stuff keeps getting stuck on this page where it does not belong, except of course some of it should go under history. The information in E. Howells book that does focus on poor therapy causing limited parts to develop states: those parts are not persistent and do not causes Dissociative Identity Disorder. Ref will be presented to agree with this as time allows and I get my hands on my books. The false memory material has it's own place, elsewhere on WP, where you guys do spend a lot of your time.~ty (talk) 13:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Working on the Lede paragraph

WLU and others. You do NOT want the section work done here, so you suggested we work on sections in User talk:Tylas/Sandbox Please do so instead of changing the entire paragraph or reverting. By the way! I have the E. Howell book in hand plus one more. I will be posting those references and exact pages soon. Please be patient! 01:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)~ty (talk) 02:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Tylas - I initially agreed, but that was before I realized you wanted community comment and contributions to the developing draft. THAT notion makes putting the material on your talk page a bad idea, for, as you have noted, most people will simple not know what's there, or just ignore it. I see no reasonable alternative to bringing the material back here. Your basic idea (group contributions to a draft) seems sound to me, even if it is unusual. Wikipedia is full of people who deviate from the norm (you know who you are). Feel free to join us!Tom Cloyd (talk)

Change notes

BY THE WAY - It's "lede", not "lead" - it's a piece of journalistic jargon, who benefit is that it has but one meaning (that I know of!) - it's always the "lead" paragraph of an article.

Tom Cloyd (talk) 08:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry Tylas, I ended up fixing the links before realizing you might want to do it yourself to learn. Sorry. They are fixed now, in any case. Forgotten Faces (talk) 13:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not taking any references from 1982 and 1994 seriously on the topic of whether DID can be introduced by hypnosis and whether they persist or not. Similarly, much of the work and criticisms of DID and iatrogenesis source from that time - but I'm using newer references whenever possible. In addition, the lead should not give attribution, narrowing down on the very specific opinions of two people. Put another way, why are the opinions of Elizabeth Howell and Richard Kluft so important that their opinion gets prominently raised in the lead and also gets to "debunk" all the other sources about iatrogenesis?

The templates were screwed up in part because the actual template is {{cite book}} and the title is an argument taking the form | title = BOOK TITLE.

As to the spelling of lede versus lead, Wikipedia:LEAD#cite_note-0. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Fix the links please - those are driving me batty! lol WLU, what you keep changing the text to is misleading. Two of the references are duplicates of the same study, part 1 and 2 and another is a text book that also says that DID is undiagnosed due to closed minds and lack of knowledge. Kluft is still an expert on the subject and still maintains that point along with many others including E. Howell. I will be adding more references shortly.~ty (talk) 14:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC) In fact, let's look at the references in that section one by one. I agree that the paragraph should be shortened, but not misleading.

Piper and Mersky are two different articles published in two different volumes, and are cited separately [96], [97]. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

WLU - you're being pathologically argumentative again (i.e., this is not needed, and benefits only you). You always have a criticism, an objection, and 'the last word'. You have a huge issue with CONTROL of this article. You betray yourself:

• "In addition, the lead should not give attribution, narrowing down on the very specific opinions of two people." Really? Back that up, or retract it. Attributions in a lede are just fine, and serve to direct the reader to major summary references supporting the lede's key assertion, as the Kluft and Howell references do. There is NO problem here. This is helpful, not hurtful. Stand down.
• "...why are the opinions of Elizabeth Howell and Richard Kluft so important that their opinion gets prominently raised in the lead and also gets to "debunk" all the other sources about iatrogenesis?" Simple:
  • They are widely recognized leaders in the field of DID theory and treatment,
  • The writings of theirs cited are reviews of the topic addressed, surveying the currently literature on the topic (precisely a lede reference should be).
  • They are recent enough that they deserve our attention. They are, without doubt, the best sources we have. If you knew how to do scholarly work, this would be obvious to you. But of course, polemicists do not do scholarly work, they simply work to present their dogma, their personal bias. There is no place for that in this article. Tylas is precisely on track here. Again, stand down, before you make yourself look even more foolish.

Tom Cloyd (talk) 20:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Do all scholars who publish on DID agree with Howell and Kluft's analysis of DID? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

That is not the question. One can certainly find minority (VERY) positions published in peer-reviewed journals, but they are not review articles, but primary sources (such as Piper, which must go, for that reason).

The position of Kluft and Howell is clearly the consensus opinion, and thus deserves more than any other to be in the lede.

I am not ready to reach a final conclusion yet, as my lit. review is not finished due to time constraints, but I can say this with certainty: None of the review articles I have yet looked at find any alleged extant "controversy" re: any aspect of it DID worthy of mention. That's rather striking, is it not? Where is that "prominent" controversy? You just cannot let this go. Why? Whose thrall are you? Should we arrange an exorcism, perhaps? Your position is the very model of perversity. "Out damned spot!" Tom Cloyd (talk) 00:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

If you're not prepared to justify any of this through reference to reliable sources, just to vague promises that in the future you'll find something, I can't see any reason to ignore the many, many sources that discuss the controversies involved in DID. If you want to see some sources that document the controversy, I suggest you look into the references already on the page, including both Piper & Mersky articles [98], [99], , Macdonald, Kihlstrom, Reinders, and the textbook references which are brief but present. I'm not asking anyone to take on faith that there is a controversy - I've provided the sources. Where is the prominent controversy? On the page as we speak, but you apparently can't read them. Again, you are not the arbiter of the ultimate POV of the page, the sources are. I've provided the sources, there is no reason not to read them or deny that they exist. Yet somehow you do - and I am the problem here? You don't even appear to understand what a primary source on wikipedia is. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

WLU - I know the word controversy is used in research papers for those that understand the area of dissociation and DID, but on the WP DID page that word would just stir up...well controversy. I doubt anyone will argue if I state that few people really know what DID is even after reading many books about it. Let me tell you from someone that knows well what it is. It's not about alters. That's the least of it. It's about having pseudoseizures (which look like epilepsy seizures), violent flashbacks, not being able to remember much of anything on a day to day basis and still get through life, it's not having a childhood because it's not remembered by the ANP's, such as me, it's having a traumatic childhoood remembered by the EP's, it's being so dissociated all the time it's dangerous to even drive, it's trying to have a conversation with someone without switching to some unstable part of yourself, it's having to rely on very separated parts of the self to be whole - such as the parts writing here which are all very young. Creating a temporary part is not this. It is not DID. Do you understand? Do you know about ego states? Every human is a multiple, everyone has these, they are simply less dissociated and separate than an alter. You can learn to talk to your own ego states. That is not DID. ~ty (talk) 05:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Your personal experience and beliefs are not helpful in editing, updating or informing the wikipedia page. Heartless as it may sound, I don't care what tragedies exist in your personal background. Wikipedia is not therapy and it is not a place to promote your point of view. Many of the people publishing critical commentary on DID are MDs, psychiatrists, people who treat people with mental illness. You may find that personally their opinions are wrong - but I don't care and neither does wikipedia. I understand that in your opinion iatrogenesis is impossible. I don't care, wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. If you want to contribute to a website using your personal experience and understanding, consider an alternate outlet. As is, your personal opinions are actively preventing significant scholarly opinions about DID from getting integrated with the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Nor do I for that matter, what I care about is your extreme POV when it comes to thinking that DID, what I describe above could actually be re-created in a lab. This is impossible. Unless of course you are going to take a child and allow someone they should be able to trust to severely abuse them on a consistent basis. The creation of an alter (although its not the real deal as has been explained already) is not argued. You just can't get that through your head. You are so stuck on that extreme POV that you will not waver. That extremeness does not belong here Sir. Please let that part of yourself go and work with the rest of us on making this a good WP article instead of a mouthpiece for the False Memory people. They don't even really get it - with DID, you don't forget, this is not the same as the false memory debate. In DID, other parts of the self (EP) hold those memories for the ANP. Having DID is NOT an extreme POV. I am explaining that I know what DID is. You Sir, do not!~ty (talk) 15:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

My perspective is that there are ample sources to verify a controversy within the field and therefore this controversy should appear in the lead. The sources I integrated are specific to DID, they are not general commentary on false memory. The page does not present only the iatrogenic perspective on DID, it also presents the traumagenic theory. In fact, I was the one who added the traumagenic theory to the lead [100]. You, on the other hand, removed and diminished the iatrogenesis theory and mentions of controversy from the lead. Repeatedly. [101], [102], [103], [104], [105], [106], [107], [108], [109], Why? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Book: Treating Dissociative Identity Disorder 1996 by James Spira and Irvin Yalom Spira in the books introduction explains "Generally, the issue of repressed or false memories refers to abuse, usually sexual or extremely violent, that occurs in childhood, is repressed from conscious recall, and surfaces later in adulthood or is created later in adulthood to rationalize/justify some adult psychosocial disturbance, often during psychotherapy.

   DID, by contrast, develops in childhood and persists into adulthood.  Rarely are memories of abuse repressed entirely, although they may be segmented into certain alters to the exclusion of others'  awareness."  

   Spira then goes on to explain the difference between repression and dissociation. "These reactions represent two very different ways of dissociative coping: repression, out of associative consciousness, and division, among dissociative consciousness.

~ty (talk) 16:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Community work on THIS paragraph

Individuals diagnosed with DID frequently report severe physical and sexual abuse as a child and the etiology at the hands of their primary caregiver(s)of DID has been attributed to the experience of pathological levels of stress which disrupts normal functioning and forces some memories, thoughts and aspects of personality from consciousness. The creation of alters has been attributed to an iatrogenic adverse effect of therapy. Disagreements exist between groups supporting the traumagenic and iatrogenic hypotheses. Prominent researchers in the field of DID point out that any parts created through improper use of hypnosis are highly limited, do not have a center of subjectivity and initiative, do not contain a personal history but most importantly they do not last. l

To shorten it, I suggest:

Individuals diagnosed with DID frequently report severe physical and sexual abuse as a child at the hands of their primary caregiver(s). DID has been attributed to the experience of pathological levels of stress which disrupts normal functioning and forces some memories, thoughts and aspects of personality from consciousness.

Actually, after looking at it, this part does not even belong there. It's about creating alters, not DID. It should go down farther in the text, rather than at the top.

Prominent researchers in the field of DID point out that any parts created through improper use of hypnosis are highly limited, do not have a center of subjectivity and initiative, do not contain a personal history but most importantly they do not last, however other researchers claim that alters can be created via poor therapy.

This is a quote by Colin Ross: The quality of argument used by DID skeptics is evidence of the failure of liberal arts education in the English-speaking world. None of the published critiques of DID have any base in research or data, and all are characterized by elementary errors of logic and scholarship. The level of skeptical scholarly discourse about DID is lower than would be tolerated anywhere else in psychiatry. He has an entire chapter on this subject and there are many authors that state similar things that I can reference, but I think Tom Cloyd is working on that already - in making his chart he mentioned above.

Ross goes on to state the errors in a study done by a skeptic of DID, who ignored his own data and skewed the results to say what he wanted that a "small number of psychiatrists who make a relatively large number of new diagnosis." In addition his data actually showed that the majority of psychiatrist he surveyed do believe in DID even though he twisted it to have another meaning.

~ty (talk) 14:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

What is used to verify the "primary caregiver" statement?

Alters are the defining characteristic of DID.

Iatrogenesis is attributed to hypnosis, but also to other aspects. I don't believe the iatrogenesis hypothesis is limited solely to hypnosis, though hypnotizability is a characteristic of those diagnosed with DID.

Where is the Ross quote from? What other references exist to support this viewpoint? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

WLU, it does not matter what you believe. Only what the evidence shows. You are in no way even an expert on DID. I will find you many references to the primary caregiver part. That is so solidly verified by so many sources.~ty (talk) 16:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

You are completely ignoring, often removing, the sources that I keep finding to verify my "opinion". The lead is meant to be a broad summary of the entire article, and should not delve into deep specifics - such as whether only the primary caregiver can cause DID. Your changes to the lead also removes the fact that there is considerable disagreement and controversy over DID - why? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Not on purpose! You keep deleting what I put on there, then I have to find it again and it all gets messed up! Quit deleting and reverting everything and that won't happen! You are ready to pounce the second I make a change to the DID page. Patience Sir! Please!~ty (talk) 16:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Also by Colin Ross: Regarding Iatrogenic - First, yes, an alter can be created. Second, "one must understand that NONE of these experiments result in the creation of trauma pathway DID. DID is not a transient phenomenon existing only in cross-section. Nor does it exist in isolation from a wide range of signs and symptoms that accompany it. There is no doubt that one can get college students to act as if they have alters, but these students don't have the history of child abuse, numerous psychiatric symptoms, extensive involvement with the mental health system with limited benefit, and specific primary and secondary features of DID stretching back for decades. None of the experiments with college students have resulted in the creation of anything even remotely approaching full clinical DID."

I know all this does not belong on the talk page, but WLU - how else do I get you to be reasonable and understand this stuff?~ty (talk) 16:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Working on references for this section Does anyone have this? It's a purchase pdf article but the search engines lead me to believe that is might be a good one to use, but I want to read the pdf.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10538710902743982 The author reviewed a two-part critique of dissociative identity disorder published in the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry. The two papers contain errors of logic and scholarship. Contrary to the conclusions in the critique, dissociative identity disorder has established diagnostic reliability and concurrent validity, the trauma histories of affected individuals can be corroborated, and the existing prospective treatment outcome literature demonstrates improvement in individuals receiving psychotherapy for the disorder. The available evidence supports the inclusion of dissociative identity disorder in future editions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse Volume 18, Issue 2, 2009 Colin Ross

This is a good reference to the childhood abuse issue Journal of Trauma & Dissociation Volume 9, Issue 2, 2008 Special Issue: Trauma and Dissociation: Lifespan Development and Family Context

RJ LOEWENSTEIN - Traumatic dissociation: neurobiology and …, 2007 All of these are factors among the many consequences of the (iatrogenic) failure to correctly diagnose and treat DID (see also Kluft 1989). ... 2000; Gheorghiu et al. 1989; Hilgard 1991; Page 311. Dissociative Identity Disorder 283 Schumaker 1991b; D. Spiegel 1994)

~ty (talk) 17:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

"First, yes, an alter can be created"^{[citation needed]}

I have a copy of Ross, 2009. If you e-mail me I can reply with the article. Otherwise you could try WP:LIB.

If you're working on the section, use {{underconstruction}} and remove it when you've finished. However, I would expect that "finished" involves replacing the citations you've been removing to this point. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

You can put those back. I did not mean to remove them, they were there in the version I had up last night. You were deleting things as I was trying to save today and it was a mess and I did not know what was going on. Of course, put back the ref you want. I was having a hard enough time keeping the ones I wanted on the page that I lost track of yours. Sorry, it was in no way intentional.

Don't you get it yet? Creating an Alter is not creating DID - there is so much more to DID than an alter or part. This is what I would like to make clear on the page. I am agreeing whole heartily that an alter can be created. This and other factors will be shown in great detail in the chart that Tom Cloyd is making. I am just hoping you can see it too. I am not saying your ideas are totally wrong, it's just they are so extreme.

~ty (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

This all needs to be put back into the page but not in the top. As many here agreed the top needs to be shortened.

The creation of alters has been attributed to an iatrogenic adverse effect of therapy. Disagreements exist between groups supporting the traumagenic and iatrogenic hypotheses. Prominent researchers in the field of DID point out that any parts created through improper use of hypnosis are highly limited, do not have a center of subjectivity and initiative, do not contain a personal history but most importantly they do not last. l ~ty (talk) 18:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

"Creating an Alter is not creating DID"^{[citation needed]} A different identity is the defining characteristic of DID according to the DSM. I don't see how you can still call something DID if there are no alters.

These aren't "my ideas" - every edit I make is verified by a relaible source. Stop stating and implying I'm just inserting my own opinion here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

But, Sir, many other sources say it's just an alter that is created, not DID - and I can't see you giving these studies any credit. Instead you just seem to be determined to dig up anything you can find to try and show that DID can be created in adults during bad therapy. Just throwing up references and ignoring others does not make something true. I do believe however that we will never agree on this, so I suppose sources are our only alternative - but let's do what Tom Cloyd suggested and to a complete review of all the literature instead of picking and choosing the ones that attempt to prove a point we want to make. I will wait to see the table that Tom Cloyd comes up with.~ty (talk) 18:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring references, you are. I'm consistently replacing and including good references that are used, to date your contribution in that regard seems to be "move it out of the lead", ignoring what the lead is supposed to do. Please read WP:LEAD. It is supposed to summarize all prominent aspects of the entire article - that includes that DID is controversial, and that iatrogenesis/sociocognitive explanations are part of the literature.

Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth - see WP:V. The fact that I can dig up these sources indicates they are important aspects of the scholarly literature - whic you dismiss with no adequate reasons, nor any indication you understand why it's inappropriate. If I can verify that a prominent position regarding DID is that it is controversial, particularly if I can find many sources that verify this - that means it should stay up.

I really don't care what Tom Cloyd has to say about this, and I don't care what you have to say about this. I care what sources have to say about this. As I have said repeatedly - your opinion is not adequate to adjust the page or remove text, you need sources to do so. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Sir, a review of ALL sources is not the opinion of myself or Tom Cloyd. It is a review of ALL the sources. I know you will revert to your version because you can't help yourself, but I do ask you be patient just this once so I and others can work on this.~ty (talk) 18:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Why does "all sources" not include PMID 15503730, PMID 9989574, Blackwell, Weiten and MacDonald verifying in the lead the text "though the creation of alters has also been attributed to an iatrogenic adverse effect of therapy"? Or Reinders, PMID 15503730, PMID 15560314, Blackwell or Weiten verifying in the lead the statement "Bitter disagreements exist between groups supporting the traumagenic and iatrogenic hypotheses."? These are reliable sources documenting a very prominent aspect of the scholarly discussion of DID. Per WP:LEAD, they should be included in the lead section. You moved them out of the lead. Why? Are you concerned with their reliability? Or the amount of weight placed on them? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: alters in relation to DID - WLU, you wrote A different identity is the defining characteristic of DID according to the DSM. I don't see how you can still call something DID if there are no alters. These aren't "my ideas" Who's calling something DID which doesn't have alters? HUH? These ideas aren't yours? They sure better be. No editor would print such nonsense. It is absolutely a beginners mistake to that think that the presence of an alter "defines" DID. This is an elementary logical error, and also lousy scholarship. To wit:

• logic: If you have DID, you have alters. (TRUE) You have alters, therefore you have DID. (FALSE - this fallacious logic is affirming the consequent. Another example: if you have hens, you'll have eggs. You have eggs, therefore you must have hens. (Damn. Get those chickens outta my fridge!!!)
• scholarship: The DSM requires the presence of FOUR conditions to make the diagnosis. Alters is but one. No experiment that I have ever read of has produced DID. Alters or pseudo-alters appear possible, but who cares? Alters do not equal DID.

And by the way, an alter is NOT the same as an identity. They are not personalities, either. They are persistent mental states possessing SOME of the qualities of a personality, but not in themselves a true personality. Equating alters with personality is a common layman's mistake, deriving in part from the unfortunately imprecision of language historically used to talk about DID. We really do not have to perpetuate this confusion.

Re: reviewing ALL sources - A formal review virtually always EXCLUDES sources, and sometimes MANY sources, and this is entirely proper. Usually NOT all sources are relevant. Furthermore the method by which sources are selected is usually given, precisely so that the review may be replicated by others. This transparency lends credibility to the review. Any review any of us do, for example, is likely to exclude sources older than some arbitrary date, or sources NOT published in peer-reviewed journals, or not in English, etc. So, no, it is highly unlikely that all sources will be reviewed, and that is as it should be. Tom Cloyd (talk) 10:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

My sources are PMID 15503730, PMID 9989574, Blackwell, Weiten, MacDonald, Reinders and PMID 15560314. I don't see any in your post, but I see a lot of personal opinion.

You don't see any problem with ignoring a specific subset of sources, specifically those critical of an idea? I happily ignore old sources and unreliable sources. I do not, however, ignore sources because I do not personally agree with them. Your approach would seem to lead to a very biased review of the literature presenting only one side of an apparently bitter controversy. Per WP:UNDUE, this is inappropriate. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I do agree that you believe that DID is caused in adults in a lab and through severe abuse as a child. Where we disagree is that DID cannot be caused in adults in a lab. We do agree that an alter can be created in a lab in adults. What we do not agree on is that this is not DID. It's simply an alter. You have stated that having an alter is equal to DID. This I argue with and have so many references to back it up, but I will not play the game of spending all my time citing references in the Talk page that should go right on the DID page. I do understand that you attempt to keep people here on this page instead of doing actual edits. We keep going in the same circle over and over again but it all boils down to what I just wrote. Does everyone understand the argument? This is what we disagree on.~ty (talk) 16:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Problems with the current lede

The current lead has significant errors. The second paragraph appears to be a word-for-word duplication of most of the contents of the first paragraph. It needs to be simply removed and I can't see any reason why it is there. Next:

Prominent researchers in the field of DID point out that any parts created through improper use of hypnosis are highly limited, do not have a center of subjectivity and initiative, do not contain a personal history but most importantly they do not last.

"Prominent researchers" (who don't appear to have a wikipedia page, which indicates just how prominent they may not be) is an absurd violation of WP:PEACOCK and carries the direct implcation that everyone who disagrees with them are amateurs and hacks. It also contains the idea that hypnosis is the only way DID can be induced through iatrogenesis. This is a straw man, the sociocognitive perspective as it now appeats to be called, is more complicated than that.

This is sourced to:

• Kluft, R (1982). "Varieties of hypnotic interventions in the treatment of multiple personality". American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis. 24 (4): 230–240.
• Howell, E (2011). Understanding And Treating Dissociative Identity Disorder: A Relational Approach. p. 207. {{cite book}}: |format= requires |url= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
• Kluft, RP (1994). "Applications of hypnotic interventions". Hypnos: Journal of the European Society of Hypnosis. XXI (4): 205–214.

The first and third references are from 1982 and 1994 respectively. If this is a current belief - source it to newer articles. Why on earth would we cite 30 a year old journal articles when the majority of the research was conducted in the 90s? The second source is adequate, the other two are simply irrelevant due to age.

Other researchers claim that alters can be created via poor therapy.

True, but how can anyone take these "other researchers" seriously compared to the "prominent" ones in the previous sentence? This is a grossly unequal presentation of the two perspectives that clearly makes it appear that the "prominent researchers" are the only group that should be believed.

I frankly can't believe I have to point this out.

Consistently removed were the references to the etiology of DID, the DSM's association with abuse, the five sources that point to the iatrogenesis issue, and the other five sources pointing to the bitter, bitter disagreement between the two groups. That's now sitting, for some inexplicable reason, in the "Causes" section. This is the lead. It is meant to summarize the body. Removing text an editor doesn't like from the lead then ghettoizing (and duplicating) it in the body is so clearly wrong and contrary to WP:NPOV I can't see there being any defence of it. "Neutral" doesn't mean "just has the parts I agree with", it means representing all sides of a dispute. I can't see any reason not to revert to my last version. None. Please, explain. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I have not purposely removed any references. Put back which ever ones I did. I have no idea which ref's you are talking about unless they are the ones I put in the cause section of the article and I am sorry if did something wrong. I am trying to learn WP editing. I have an article I have to get to my publisher today, then my kids have activities tonight. I can't work on this until much later tonight or tomorrow. Please be patient.~ty (talk) 18:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

As I said above, my response is to revert to my previous version; the errors are relocation of significant criticisms out of the lead, the inclusion of peacock words, the duplication of a section and the use of extremely old sources juxtaposed to debunk more recent ones.

Again, you imply that you're trying to be reasonable, but when I lay out my objections or revert, you in turn revert and completely fail to address them. Put bluntly - what reason is there for me not to return the page to this version? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The word "prominent" really should go. An alternative might be to attribute opinions to "supporters" and "critics", if that seems like a reasonably accurate description of the situation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I initially thought the iatrogenic/sociocognitive position was the minority opinion (to a significant degree) but particularly with the use of new search terms (sociocognitive) I keep finding more sources. Particularly since the trauma theory appears to be published in one set of journals by one set of authors. I definitely don't think "prominent" belongs, and I don't think it's justified to portray it as a minority of scholars. In fact, I don't think the current version should remain at all given the egregious errors such as the duplication of an entire paragraph. And this is completely ignoring the blatantly POV removal of the well-sourced sections on criticisms. Tylas, can you please justify any of this? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear patient WLU - I have returned to attempt to answer your questions. Now where were we? Oh yes, prominent. WAID (cute id)- says get rid of it. You say get rid of it, so let's find another word that works better. I don't like supporters and critics. These are brilliant researchers we are talking about here. As for the minority view on iatrogenic creation of alters - No one is debating that an alter can be created. What is argued is that trauma based DID cannot be created. There is so much more to DID than having alters. You need to exist in my head for a day and see! Of course my opinion is not important, but this is what I see over and over again in the literature. I was reading a new book tonight on my way out of town and back (I was not driving of course!) and it really covered this entire subject. I will be using references from it - once I locate it again. Did I miss anything I was suppose to address WLU? Thank you for sending the pdf today! I appreciate it. Oh - Trauma theory is the accepted dominant theory - that is without a doubt the way it is. Don't forget, we need to be using secondary (review articles), not primary sources. Most of the articles you have been using are primary, but I see you posted something to contrary, please explain. Never mind. Don't post a link to P&G! I can find it myself. I do understand what a primary and secondary resource is, but not if it's different on WP than in the real world. Did I duplicate an entire paragraph? I am sorry, but you were busy deleting what I was putting up as I was trying to do it and everything became a mess, then I had to attend to other real life matters. Please do not hold those things against me. I am only human. :) I removed the words you really did not like so they do not bother you too much while the community works on what should be there.~ty (talk) 05:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it funny that people find it so hard to say it isn't black and white and it's very possible some peoples alters are partially iatrogenic and others are not, or that both could exist in the same individual. I personally don't believe that DID (including prominent symptoms besides amnesia and alter parts) can be iatrogenically induced beyond superficial parts. But besides my opinion, obviously one can see why either "side" feels strongly about their views, and we are attempting here to document that, but again and again people argue all or nothing. Forgotten Faces (talk) 00:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

But FF, I don't think anyone here is saying it's black and white. We all agree (celebrate that for a moment folks!) that alters can be caused iatrogenically and through trauma. The question is if DID itself can be caused iagtrogenically and the literature simply says it cannot.~ty (talk) 04:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, honestly there have been huge back and forth changes for a couple days and I don't know who is doing what anymore, I mean 50+ edits a day is impossible to keep straight. I am glad you two are working out compromises, maybe I'll catch back up on this one and see if I can find any references that talk about it... likely you have exhausted them but another set of eyes can't hurt. I was supposed to also start looking for references that DID can be purposefully induced in children via torture, but I fell asleep this afternoon after moving in to a new place. I see that Wikipedia waits for no one! :) Forgotten Faces (talk) 05:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

That would be awesome! :) Look under the heading "Community work on THIS paragraph". I got two books back temporarily from my daughter and added some information to that section that makes this all clear. I got a new one today and will be using that to reference as well. ~ty (talk) 05:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying "get rid of it", I'm saying accurately describe the debate. You are also assuming that the traumagenic theorists are brilliant and cutting edge, apparently because you agree with them. So everyone who publishes a dissenting opinion is stupid? Even if this is true, it doesn't matter because the opinion can be verified. Many sources support that there is a controversy, and that the traumagenic position is not the only "side". This needs to be documented. You may see an opinion repeated ove rand over again in the literature - but you don't appear to be familiar at all with the dissenting opinion, or reading the dissenting articles and books I am linking to, or understand WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD. It's not enough to choose one book, then say it is the only source that matters. Saying things like "the truama theory is dominant" is worthless verbiage, you need to demonstrate this with a source. I don't care about your opinion, I care what the sources say, and I've steadily integrated more sources substantiating the iatrogenesis perspective. Stop ignoring them. Deleting sections you don't like from the lead isn't compromise, it's a violation of our policies on the basis of personal taste. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The opinion that those that relate DID to iatrogensis is less than brilliant is not mine. I have posted the opinion of leaders in the field of DID and trauma research. They said something like - these people have a closed mind and their work has elementary errors and is lacking in scholarly method. You can see above for the exact wording. I am sure you have read it and know where it is.~ty (talk) 15:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

You have posted the opinions of individuals published in scholarly venues. So have I. I did not remove your sources (bar the absurdly old). You have removed the critical sources from the lead, and given absolutely no reason for it, despite me asking for one several times now. Saying "They're the leaders of the field" without any sources to substantiate your opinion is the same thing as saying "I think they are leaders of the field". You may think that - prove it with sources. You weren't even aware of Ross's opinion about Piper and Merskey's articles, let alone had you read it. Yet you still felt you could simply remove those sources from the lead. Why? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Quit trying to spin everything. I have said a couple of times now if I did remove the sources you are talking about just copy and paste and put them back so you can have the ones there you want. I thought I just moved your section, sources and all the the cause section, but if I did something wrong, just fix that part! You appear to want to keep everyone busy on this talk page instead of letting us work on the page. Your tactics have worked for a long time, but it's time to just stop! Your extreme POV for the false memory foundation could not be more transparent. Just let the community work on this please. You seem to be overly obsessed with this page and that Sir is an extreme POV I would think.~ty (talk) 16:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

If you never remove Pipers and Mersky, Reinders and the like from the lead like you did here, and reverted after I replaced them here, I won't raise the issue again. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Jeckyl and Hyde

Robert Louis Stevenson's Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde is known for its portrayal of a split personality[citation needed]

I was thinking about this. If there are only 2 parts to the personality, this character did not have DID. To have DID one must have 2 or more ANP's and 2 or more EP's. This story does not fit the criteria for DID.~ty (talk) 04:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. But of course the person who made this improper attribution, didn't really understand DID. In addition, only a mental health professional is qualified to diagnose DID, even in fictional characters. Anyone can have an opinion, of course, but Wikipedia is not a gossip sheet. Sometimes diagnoses, medical or mental health, are offered for historical figures - e.g., the diagnosis of Bi-polar disorder that has been suggested for Vincent VanGogh. It is extremely rare that such a diagnosis can be more than speculative. In this case, without a source that can be trusted, this attribution for Mr. Hyde, in the history section, will become history itself in a week. Too bad, 'cause I rather like the image, and idea is an interesting speculation. What I do NOT like about it, however, is its luridness. It plays right into the common layman's fantasy of the mentally ill as dangerous.

If I were offering a diagnosis for Mr. Hyde, I would seriously consider Anti-social personality disorder. Good thing Wikipedia didn't exist 100 years ago - he'd probably end up trying to edit this article! (Oh...he's fictional. I feel safer already.)Tom Cloyd (talk) 10:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't care. Multiple sources point to this as an iconic fictional representation of DID in the popular mindset. Doesn't matter if it's accurate, doesn't matter if the fictional character had DID. All that matters is that in the popular imagination, Jekyll & Hyde is prominently, frequently mentioned. The page doesn't even say "Jekyll & Hyde had DID", it says the book is known for its depiction of a split personality. Again, opinions do not matter here, sources do. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

WLU, just because "you do not care" does not make it correct. This is an information page where we to our best to present correct information. Split personality is what I believe they think of Jekyl and Hyde. That could be other DX's but it is not DID. DID does not have just 2 parts. That is simple structural dissociation. DID is tertiary structural dissociation. They are in no way the same. Does it even both you that those with DID and researchers of DID might find that image disturbing. Was he not some serial killer? Few if any, real life people who actually have DID are serial killers or killers for that matter. It does not depict anything but a writers wild imagination. As I stated before a photo of a top researcher would be better here - Janet would be idea. I am waiting to get a picture of him from the ISSTD~ty (talk) 15:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Why do you think wikipedia places such a high premium on verifiability? Because it means editors can't simply change the page based on their opinion. Below I've provided numerous sources indicating the relevance of Jekyll and Hyde to the DID page.

Information is not "correct", sources are "reliable". You may think you have the truth but if you keep ignoring the policies and guidelines in favour of your personal interpretation, you will get blocked.

It doesn't bother me that two editors find the image disturbing. It does bother me that you so consistently ignore policies in favour of your personal opinion.

Do you mean Pierre Janet's picture? By all means add that image. Just don't remove Jekyll and Hyde's in the process. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Why are you so set on using a picture that is less than dignifying to dissociative identity disorder and also have nothing to do with it. You need to allow change. You cannot even bring yourself to allow a photo to be changed out. I am not stating my personal opinion, but wikilawyering which you appear to be doing is simply using the WP to bully. I am sure there is a rule out there that can be thrown in here to prove just about any POV, but most of us will not go there because it's simply wrong - at least in the way you are using them. They have their place, but you misuse them to get your POV here on this page. Can we get beyond this and just edit the darn page. I am so tired of this same conversation over and over and over again!~ty (talk) 16:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Revert, again

I've again reverted, here is a step-by-step explanation. This diff will make it easier to compare the changes to the lead.

• The quote is directly from the DSM and needs to be explicitly attributed; though authoritative, the ICD-10 also exists. Using a quote means no bickering over wording.
• I removed the duplicated section that I pointed out yesterday.
• An anon IP added qq to a sentence which I removed
• The discussion of the iatrogenic-traumagenic debate was replaced in the lead. This well-sourced section was repeatedly removed, allegedly to be replaced, and unless there is an active effort to edit the page (please use {{underconstruction}} if that is the case) this section should appear in the lead, discussing the debate, with detials. The "old version" attempted to present a shoddy, unsourced charicature of the iatrogenic hypothesis which it then proceded to criticize. I get it, Tylas and Tom Cloyd don't like the fact that there is a debeate in the literature about DID. I don't care. The debate exists, and per WP:NPOV, it needs to be documented. Stop removing it from the page out of personal dislike.
• I removed the first citation to the DSM in the "Signs and symptoms" section. The DSM has a wikilink already, you don't need an external citation here; what does it verify here? That the DSM is actually the DSM? It's included at the end of the paragraph anyway, there's nothing controversial here.
• The large section of the lead inappropriately removed was placed in "Causes". I moved it back to the lead.
• In the "Iatrogenesis" section I made minor modifications to the linking and prose regarding recovered memory therapy.
• Minor wording changes regarding Reinders' summary of the disagreements between trauma and iatro.
• Not sure why the "Treatment" section got flagged.
• Claiming Jekyll and Hyde isn't relevant to DID is ridiculous. It's an iconic fictional example of one of the first popular representations of a split personality. Do you really need sources? Fine. [110], [111], [112], [113], [114], [115], [116], [117], [118]. Let me know if you want more, google books shows about a thousand, google scholar 2500, and even pubmed has a couple that mention Jekyll in the title [119].
• I incorporated Pope's analysis of the literature twice, in "History" and again in "Research directions". The latter is a recommended section heading in the MEDMOS while the former does make sense (though I've since shortened).

I have yet to see any reasonable explanation for removing the more detailed discussion of iatrogenesis from the lead. I can see no reason to portray it is essentially debunked. I realize that other editors may not like the fact that there is a considerable literature on the topic, but I don't care. Both WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV clearly support including this information, and not "debunking" it with sources from 1982 and 1994. If this happens again, I will raise the topic at the WP:NPOVN. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Sir WLU, this is a community project. Quit reverting everyone. As you probably predicted I put it back to the version the COMMUNITY is working on. You do not own this page. Please quit acting so obsessive. Go smell the flowers and realize there is a life outside of this page.~ty (talk) 15:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Except the community is made up of people, and people disagree. That's why we have policies and guidelines. What "community" supports reverting the page? More specifically, what policies and guidelines support reverting the page? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

You cannot just spout a bunch of policies and keep reverting the page. If we all did that it would be a mess in here - worse than it already is. How long have you been doing this here? How long have you stood guard so that no changes you do not want will never occur here. There is a community here working on this page, WP is a community arena. This is not the work of just you. You need to let others work on this page too. Please quit reverting community work Sir! I have work to do today. Please leave the page as the community had it and allow them to work on this page. Do not revert it back to your sole POV please. Again I ask that you be patient. I do understand this is difficult for you, but try.

WLU Please quit reverting! It really messes everything up! Go in and made edits like the rest of us! I have no clue again what is going on and what version we are back to. Please just stop! ~ty (talk) 15:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

My reverts retained all improvements made, I was quite scrupulous to include this block of edits made by JGM73. I retained this copyedit by Tom Cloyd to the lead and this edit to "Signs and symptoms". My justification discusses every change I removed or reverted. I review and evaluate every single edit made by any editor on a diff-by-diff basis, integrating those that are appropriate, discarding those that are not. It's not hard, it barely takes any time. You can speed it up by installilng popups which uses java to give you an even different preview.

I am not "spouting" policies. I refer to the policies and guidelines that govern page content for the entire site, the broader consensus of an entire community. I've made many, many changes to the page, including integrating information about the traumatic theory of DID into the lead - because a policy supports including it (two actually, WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV). I've made no mess. You claim the support of the community - the wikipedia community is not just you and Tom Cloyd. It includes me, and everyone who contributes to or is bound by the policies and guidelines. You're claiming consensus when you don't even understand what it means. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Just please put it back to how it was before you did this revert and work on individual edits like the rest of us and quit causing problems by doing mass reverts. At least agree to stop reverting and do individual edits. This will resolve a huge amount of contention. There are other editors here as well as myself and Tom Cloyd, but they apparently do not bother you. I do understand you are also part of this community, but you are acting to put up road blocks to progress instead of working together to improve this page. I assume you do this to make it difficult for me because I am new here. This is not the way to treat new editors Sir. I don't see the revert button to put it back to what I reverted this morning. I have asked that kind man, JGM73, who did so many edits yesterday to do it. I had no idea I reverted anyone else but you. You used the word revert - which to me means going back to an earlier version, which I think you did but kept the edits you wanted to keep. This is such a mess!~ty (talk) 16:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

POV-tag

Hey guys, I added the POV-tag with the following reasoning:

"Place this template on an article when you have identified a serious issue of balance and the lack of a WP:Neutral point of view, and you wish to attract editors with different viewpoints to the article. Please immediately explain on the article's talk page why you are adding this tag.

An unbalanced or non-neutral article is one that does not fairly represent the balance of perspectives of high-quality reliable sources. A balanced article presents mainstream views as being mainstream, and minority views as being minority views. The personal views of Wikipedia editors are irrelevant."

As has been shown before a majority is sceptical or downright against DID and only rather small minority believe there is a strong evidence for DID. (Pope HG Jr, Oliva PS, Hudson JI, et al. Attitudes toward DSM-IV dissociative disorders diagnoses among board-certified American psychiatrists. Am J Psychiatry. 1999;156(2):321-323.)

The article is however written as if DID was the majority view. I essense the article goes like this: "THIS IS HOW DID IS, ...but there are some critics" rather than the sceptics having the main perspective with the believers stating their counter arguments after.

The earlier discussions show that there is an ongoing dispute in this area. And I am now giving notice on the talk page about the POV-tag i have added. My purpose with this tag is to attract different viewpoints and that the article needs insight from new people. (We have mostly people with vested interests (one who claims to have DID, one who partly makes a living off DID and one layman)).

--Juice Leskinen (talk) 16:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Juice - I make my living turning people's lives around - from desperation to hope and productivity. Can you do that?

Your perpetual denigration of skills, and my academic (research and teaching) experience, is the sure sign of a FMS fanatic. THAT is a minority point of view. If you are unable to see this, you are simply ignorant; if you don't care, you are a POV-pusher, and that behavior, in this context, is sociopathic. I'm a writer, and I choose my words with great care.

As previously declared, in multiple locations, I have a POV - that of professional and academic psychology. THAT is the proper POV for this article, as DID is a topic delineated by, defined by, and treated in the real world, by member of this community. Get over it. By the way, what exactly are YOUR creditials? Education? Training? Work experience. Mine are plainly visible. You have to hide, perhaps?

This article MUST exhibit the POV of professional and scientific psychology. That is what people expect. That is all that makes sense. I will insist on this. I'm not leaving. This a key topic in my profession. You have no idea how much I care about it.

Your repeated assertion that "...a majority is sceptical or downright against DID..." is simply not supportable by reference to valid sources. I already know this. You should. Study up. Tom Cloyd (talk) 20:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)