Talk:Dissociative identity disorder/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Location of Controversy Section

Any justification for/against placing the controversy section so prominently towards the top of the article? It is mentioned in the first paragraph of the article as well. Perhaps something more akin to AIDS#AIDS_denialism would be appropriate. (Not to say they have the same amount of denial, just that it is a similar situation a medical diagnosis with controversy). IMO someone who comes to this article WOULD be interested in knowing there is a controversy, but most likely came out of curiosity of the condition. Mwv2 (talk) 05:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC) :This really fucking sucks I noticed the section has been moved back up top again. I don't see any reasoning on this talk page (unless the above "this really fucking sucks" counts?). I don't want to get into a revert war so just opening it up for discussion again.Mwv2 (talk) 04:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Woops, I forgot to check the edit summary for the change. The reason put there was "moving controversy toward the top -- having a section pointing out that many sources think the diagnosis has no validity buried at the bottom of the article means all the text ahead is out of context." I do think that the controversy is an important part of the article, but the main point of DID is not the controversy (which actually has its own article). The controversy is also mentioned in the introduction of this article in this sentence: "There is controversy around the existence, the possible causes, the prevalence across cultures, and the epidemiology of the condition."

Perhaps a stronger rephrasing of that sentence, while moving the controversy section back down, would serve the article better?Mwv2 (talk) 04:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Mwv, at least based on the little that I've seen of this. It seems odd to have the controversy section at the top? Is there precedence for this? For my part, I would put it inbetween epidemiology and history, and also I think that expanding a bit upon the controversy in the lead would be commendable. Carl.bunderson (talk) 00:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Per below, I would be open to expanding the lead and moving the controversy section elsewhere, just so it's not intentionally hidden, as the editor who first moved it to the end was clearly trying to do (he originally removed it entirely with edit and talk page comments clearly stating his personal opposition to it). DreamGuy (talk) 17:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to find this, what are the Wikipedia guidelines for a situation like this? Is there an amount of time to wait before reverting/changing or should a vote be held? Mwv2 (talk) 07:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Basically, I would suggest not making any big changes until we've come to a consensus on this page. Things like this would probly fit under the BRD process: bold, revert, discuss. Someone does something (bold); someone doesn't like it, and they (revert); then they (disuss) until they reach consensus. No reason to edit war when we all seem reasonable people. I've put a welcome template on your talk page, as no one had before; that should link to policies that might help explain more, and the pages linked will link even more places, etc etc.

Looking at your interaction with Dreamguy from some time ago, I'd just remind you of NPOV policies, and that deleting cited material is really frowned upon. If something has a cite and you want to remove it, please discuss first. Other than that, I am assuming good faith and welcome your input. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed multiple times in the past. The only reason it eve got to the end of the article in the first place was an editor with an extreme POV was first trying to remove all mention of it at all, and then rewriting whole sections to slant the warning. My rational for expecting it to be near the top s that this article is so full of rather extensive details on claims of symptoms, features, treatment and so forth that by the time readers get to the controversy section they've already had the idea that this is a real mental condition pounded into their heads.

The current mention of the controversy in the lead is extremely short and potentially very misleading. "There is controversy around the existence, the possible causes, the prevalence across cultures, and the epidemiology of the condition." is written in such a way to introduce existence but then focus on three additional items that, in order to be controversial, presumes its actual existence as a real disorder. On top of that, "prevalence" and "epidemiology" are such technical words that I think most readers will just zone out the whole sentence. The original version of the lead was much more straightforward and not written in such a way as to ghettoize the claims.

Either the controversy section needs to be at the top so people know to take the rest with a grain of salt, or the lead needs to be expanded to explain enough so people can get the basic concept and then wait for the full details for later. What we cannot have is a version as written by an editor who has straight out argued on this talk page that the idea that it's controversial is absurd and that anyone who doesn't believe in it is an idiot who can't be taken seriously and then ha a token section on controversy buried under a ton of details that become irrelevant if the disorder doesn't really exist. This is a major question of how NPOV is handled. The article used to be pretty good, but was slammed into a major pro-multiple personalities slant maybe a year or two ago that it never fully recovered from. I am open to different ways this may be resolved, but it does need to be resolved and not hidden away again.

And, of course, by WP:NPOV rules we cannot have an article that presents one view and then leaves another view to a separate section or whole article... the coverage of the topic should be neutral all the way through. If the whole article were rewritten to be neutral instead of pushing a view that this is real throughout except for the controversy section, then the controversy section wouldn't need to be highlighted. Sentences such as "The causes of dissociative identity disorder have not been identified" (assumes it is real, and thus has causes) are problematic, especially when "Others believe that the symptoms of DID are created iatrogenically by therapists using certain treatment techniques with suggestible patients" is the only balance in that section -- what person reading this who doesn't already know the topic is going to understand what iatrogenically even means? We need to be clear WHAT the dispute is, so people aren't confused. DreamGuy (talk) 17:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Where is the original version of the lead in the page history? Would it be appropriate to just revert to that version? Or at least replace the controversy sentence with whatever was there before it?

Personally, I would expand on the controversy in the lead and put the controversy section towards the bottom, just cause that seems to be how its done. But as you point out, the best solution is to integrate specific conversies/criticisms into their appropriate sections thoughout the article. That seems to be the way that FAs are moving. So if we're going to overhaul this article, that might be the best approach.

Point taken on the iatrogenically. I had to look it up, and I like to think I have a rather large vocabulary. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

DreamGuy, I think you might be confused about who moved the controversy section. I started this section on the talk page and after a while of no response I went ahead and moved the section. My edit summary when moving it was simply "Moved controversy section, suggested this in talk page w/ no responses so went ahead and did it." I hardly think this meets your accusation of calling people idiots or moving it's intentionally hidden, "as the editor who first moved it to the end was clearly trying to do (he originally removed it entirely with edit and talk page comments clearly stating his personal opposition to it)" Still assuming that you just had me confused with another editor.

Anyway I agree with a lot of what has been said here, but I do think there is a danger in making this already long article even wordier. Pointing out the controversy after every sentence that assumes DID is real would be overkill unlesss there is a specific counter point to be made. Even rewording the sentence would lead to a lot of "If DID is real, symptoms are..." which would make the article hard to read. I'm going to give a shot at rewording the intro section, but I will leave the controversy section where it is until I get some feedback.Mwv2 (talk) 22:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we're saying "point out the controversy after every sentence". Rather, where there is a specific point, putting it there. Essentially, this shouldn't make it particularly longer or shorter. What's in the controversy section would just be broken up and moved throughout the article. For an idea of what is in my mind, see Islam. I was discussing this controversy idea on another page, and was pointed there. Islam doesn't have a controversy section; rather, everything is apparently integrated into the flow of the article. Length shouldn't increase if we do this. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I never said we had to point out the controversy after every sentence, but we clearly have to spell it out in a nononfusing way at the top so people understand it before they get bedazzled with technical terms, and we also need to use language that doesn't push the idea that it's real onto everyone. We can use language that's neutral instead of using language speficially chosen by proponents of the beliefs.

Also, I never got confused about who did what... the person who moved the controversy sectiont o the end and went through trying to remove all mention of it (he even said that was his goal while doing it, and then when he was told he couldn't he pretended to add sources but very much slanted everything) was the person I was talking about who is now banned. I know Mwv2 moved it recently, but I'm talking about the larger problem: the systemic bias in the article.... and, unfortunately, it look like the guy came back with a new account and did all the same POV-pushing again, as I had to revert it again. We're going to have a tough road ahead hammering out a more neutral version of the article when someone is clearly upset that the bias that was already removed was gone and put it back when nobody was watching. We're nto even halfway to a neutral version and they want even that much to go away. DreamGuy (talk) 00:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Some resources to review:

• Wikipedia:Criticism sections and articles Starting point essay introducing the issue
• Wikipedia:Criticism - general overview of the issue
• Wikipedia:Criticism_sections_(essay) - Mostly an archive of quoted opinions
• WP:STRUCTURE part of NPOV - discussing how article organization can present issues of Non-neutral POV.
• Wikipedia:Controversial_articles - Regarding how to handle

Since my browser decided to eat my previous edit here, I'll summarize this time. I don't reccomend worrying about editor's motives, worry about whether an edit improves or harms the quality of the article. I believe the controversy section should not be first, it is confusing without a better understanding of the term and it's history. No one here seems to believe the section must be first, so I will be WP:BOLD and reorganize it. I'll also review the claims throughout the article to see that they satisfy WP:V and WP:OR. -Verdatum (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Posession?

If demonic posession (ala The Exorcist) really occurs, as many people honestly and seriously believe that it does, a psychologist would call it "Dissociative identity disorder". The traditional symptoms of posession seem to match up with this disorder idea. Has anyone else pointed this out before? Perhaps a section on what various religions make of a possible connection could be written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.173.126.197 (talk) 23:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there's another dissociative spectrum disorder I've heard of called Dissociative Possession Disorder (IIRC). I don't have a citation at this moment, though I might dig through articles I downloaded when I had access to Infotrack on the subject if you're really interested. The Crisses (talk) 22:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Recovering from an agenda-based editor

If you go to the history of this article and the talk page (especially the talk archives) you'll see that the primary person who made the drastic changes to this article a couple years back was User:ResearchEditor. He was writing from an agenda that multiple personalities were real, and that they could be proven with hypnosis, and that they are created by intense childhood abuse. He also actively campaigned that that studies of memories that prove that they can be generated by the psychologist's leading questions, and court cases proving notable examples of multile personalities and "recovered memories" were fake, and studies showing that multiple personalities are not real all could not be allowed in this article. Based upon his edits to other articles it's clear he was a major supporter of the idea of Satanic ritual abuse (in fact his original user name here was "Abuse truth" or something like that), and multiple personalities are a major plak of their belief system.

While checking today, I see that User:ResearchEditor has now been banned from Wikipedia by the Arbitration Committee, for extreme POV pushing originally related to SRA pages but branching out to other articles. He was originally banned just from articles specifically on that topic, but then from all articles when his abusive editing spread (or, rather, when it was identified, as I think it's always been present). Furthermore he was caught using multiple accounts to try to get around bans and to pretend he had a consensus of editors on his side. This article also experienced new editors jumping in to try to support his side despite never editing other articles.

What I am getting at is that the current state of this article is overwhelmingly the result of the work of a now banned editor who abused the system to advance his agenda. What I would like to do is see about re-examining all the areas he edited and the discussions above (and in archives) in light of that fact.

Now that the major problem editor is gone (though he seemed to hand a lot of the dirty work off to someone else who did most of the talking on this page that has not been archived yet -- though that editor clearly states in some of his first comments that he supposedly is not biased, he just supposedly studied the topic for 15 years and feels confident in calling things he doesn't believe in as utter crap -- complete misunderstanding of NPOV there) we have a real opportunity to fix some longstanding problems in this article. DreamGuy (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

And, actually, looking again at the comments above, at least one of the editors who showed up here to support ResearchEditor was another editor whose stated goal on this site was to advance the agenda of those who believe in the recovered memories movement, which is another plank of the Satanic ritual abuse movement... which is another way of saying modern witch hunting hysteria. DreamGuy (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. Did the problems start with ResearchEditor, or before him? it seems he didn't edit the page or the talk page until Feb/Marchish of 2008. But you obviously were on here discussing the page a lot before then. Oh, I just saw the bit about "his first name was Abuse truth"...was he editing this page on that user name prior to March 08?

I don't know how much help I'll be. My experience with medical things ended in undergrad with my 2 semesters of freshman bio. If you think it appropriate to revert back to a pre-POV push version (or to use that as the basis while incorporating whatever is new and good from the current version), I'm quite willing to defer to your judgement. Alternatively, maybe you could return to old topics on this page and I'll help as I can, and regurgitate things that are in the archives. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Abuse truth was on prior to his appearance here as Research Editor... and it look like he has a new identity now a User:Bottca, as that brand new editor managed to somehow make what were presented as minor edits to the article but that essentially reverted all the content back to his POV-pushing version, with the controversy section all but removed and all sorts of misleading and baised soures being presented as facts. He's used other sockpuppets before too. DreamGuy (talk) 23:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: The Lack of Factual Information as to Coping, Support, Treatment Options

As someone who actually has this Disorder, I could care less what the so-called "experts" think. It is quite real to me, thank you very much, and quite real to everyone who has come into my life, whether they've known about it or not. This Disorder, this curse, is all-pervasive, tainting everything it touches. It makes the smallest task an excercise in concentration in excess of what is usually required to complete said task. I have experienced these symptoms since I was nine years old. I never dreamed of saying a single word to anyone about it - one of the things my biological father beat into me everyday was not to speak about anything he was doing to me late at night, and speaking of hearing voices in my head and a great deal of time I couldn't account for would have meant revealing his - OUR - biggest secret. The underlying problem, I believe, would be with memory, something to do with memory, because I may not remember to pay my bills or eat a meal, but I remember every blow, every cut, every thrust, their stink, their taste - every single detail, as if it were happening right now. How do you get over something if, in a very real way, it's still ongoing? Also, there is one personality, Elizabeth, who is responsible for dealing with all of the rage, so that we can function. If she did not exist, all of that fury, enough to kill the entire world . . . I could not handle that without her to take it from me - I have two children that I love very much. While you are all consumed by your petty bickering over experts and opinions and controversies, I came to this site for information regarding treatment options, maybe a list of psychiatrists throughout the country who have experience in dealing with severe childhood physical and sexual trauma, maybe some support groups. How disappointing to find you all arguing about yourselves and your intellectual egos, instead of trying to contribute more meaningful information for someone like me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.238.76.171 (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Saying "I could care less what the so-called "experts" think" means that you're intentions are completely at odds with the fundamental purpose of Wikipedia. DreamGuy (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the OP is saying that whether or not the diagnosis is disputed, there are people who are suffering from the apparent effects and they would like to have some resources. It's not saying to change the article, but to post some websites that might help out. Hon, take a look at my profile. Not sure anyone will let me post resources on the article page. The Crisses (talk) 22:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Chris Sizemore

I'm a little surprised to find no mention of Chris Sizemore http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Costner-Sizemore on this page. breadmanpaul (talk) 18:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Skepdic link removal

The link to the Skepdic.com entry on MPD was rtemoved with the rationale of "offers nothing beyond what a featured article could contain" which, to me, doesn;t sound at all plausible. There is a LOT of info on that page, with multiple sources. The only way this article could contain all that same info is if it plagiarized the whole thing. On top of that, the link offers that information in a way taht this article, following NPOV rules, could never do. Our NPOV rules indicate that we should not have links supporting only one major side of an argument and remove links to another major side -- removing a link explaining why many expers think there's nothign to the concept while keeping a link endorsing it as a medical concept is basically taking sides and pushing a view, which we of course cannot do. If you want to remove a skeptical link then we simply canot have a link to the International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation" there as the only non Open Directory link, especially seeing as how that group is far more biased in favor of the existence of DID/MPD than any other source in existence. DreamGuy (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I would be in favour of removing both - ISSTD is far too credulous for my mind, and I think we are much better off mining skepdic for sources and embedding it in the page than using it as an EL - as pages improve and reliability increases, skepdic becomes less useful. I don't care enough either way to remove or re-insert, but I lean towards just the DMOZ. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Schizophrenia (sp?)

I think this should mention that Split Personality is often mistaken for schizophrenia (even though it is not) unless it already does (which is thereason I am asking) 129.3.173.156 (talk) 22:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Personal experiences

To all dissociation - or shall I say dissociative? - skeptics out there continuing the denial of DID existence, I want to tell that my personal experiences and my [history] made me motivated to stop denying what happened to me, so be ready to face the consequences of your POV denial of DID. But on the other hand I understand you, it is very hard to accept that being a dream boy is another way to say you are a dissociative boy... —Preceding unsigned comment added by DancingPhilosopher (talk • contribs)

Your personal experiences and opinions are not welcome here. Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX to work out your own issues or to advance your own agenda. Reverting the article back to an old POV-pushing verion of an editor who has since been banned for such behavior simply will not be tolerated, and neither will trying to hide the talk page contents by archiving everything except what you yourself wrote here. DreamGuy (talk) 13:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Your denial of existence of DID is not welcome here. Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX to work out your own issues or to advance your own agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DancingPhilosopher (talk • contribs) 13:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, funny, you give the link above and say it's your own personal history, but the edit was made by an editor named User:SloContributorSince2005 -- how many accounts are you using here? DreamGuy (talk) 14:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually it's not funny at bloody all, because if you could for a second stop denying dissociativeness you would be able to acknowledge that compartmentalization of traumatic experiences using two or more alters is hallmark of the condition itself, but I don't expect you to be able to tolerate it judging by your heavy investment in keeping status quo, huh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DancingPhilosopher (talk • contribs) 14:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Have you ever tried to google the keywords "compartmentalization of traumatic experiences"? Nope. I thought so, so let me help you... [1]

DancingPhilosopher 14:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

So, in absence of counter-arguments, you now use force to silence me up, or what? SloContributorSince2005 (talk) 14:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

DancingPhilosopher 14:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It's amazing how conveniently you switched to an "alter" personality so that you could use that account to post from... Got to love supposed sufferers of DID with symptoms that change as needed for whatever convenient story they want to spin. That's not compartmentalization, that's just plain old sockpuppetry. DreamGuy (talk) 14:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

DreamGuy, did you UNDO my edits because you're biased against MPD/DID as a diagnosis? These statements seem to support that. Regardless of how inappropriate the OP may have been in posting something personal here, you're letting your personal biases show. I am trying to correct an article, and you're enforcing your personal bias by undoing my edits. Read what you're UNDOing, or get out of the way. Your personal bias against a diagnosis has nothing to do with the neutrality of the article. The Crisses (talk) 15:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not "enforcing personal bias" and to try to argue that my statement above is a bias in the first place is ridiculous. So I don't take the word of a sockpuppeting disruptive editor claiming multiple personalities as an excuse to violate our policies at face value and allow him to continue to break the rules, and that's somehow in your head "enforcing my personal bias"? Get a grip. I explained my reversion of your edit below and why your rationale for your edit was incorrect. My edits have always been to enforce NPOV, and tossing off ridiculous accusations as a way to try to support yourself isn't going to help you. DreamGuy (talk) 16:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Personal experiences are very, very clearly not reliable sources, so that argument is out. Your hostile approach to editing is a contravention of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Google hits aren't useful for much. Editing a page takes patience, a knowledge of the relevant source, an ability to compromise and work together, achieve consensus and demonstrate appropriate weight using the appropriate sources. Soapboxing and ranting are not helping anyone, and will just get you ignored and blocked (again}. So settle down, suggest well-sourced, less controversial and above all less sweeping changes, or get used to being unable to edit the page. Your choice. Being bold does not mean ownership and the three revert rule is not a right. Please read WP:BRD. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The daughter article, Multiple personality controversy, is essay-like in tone and speculative. It attaches undue weight, but detracts from discussion on the diagnosis as a whole by being hived off n a separate page, and it should be all considered in one place. Size of both articles easily allows all to be in one place. It currently is a content fork. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
2. TomCat4680 (talk) 22:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
3. I proposed this same merger in the past for these exact same reasons, so I obviously support it this time too. DreamGuy (talk) 23:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
4. I agree that this can and should be merged, though note with some regret that having multiple "identities" for the article is ironically appropriate. SDY (talk) 23:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
5. As is, sure. Based on my readings, there's almost certainly enough information to have a second page. But it's not there yet. So merge is OK. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Support. The article contains a lot of useful information. Unfortunately the style is essay form. Much of the text could be removed ("Dr X says... ") without losing information, just by maintaining the in-line citations. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

   Comment: But if the info is disputed, which is kind of the point with most of that article, removing the text about who says what and making it sound like a fact instead of a belief of a specific person or group that others disagree with would be a huge violation of WP:NPOV policy. DreamGuy (talk) 15:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

7. Support - Merge, as one is an informal term for the other. All sourced information can be contained in Dissociative identity disorder. There is no reason for a content fork. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
8. Agree as well. Eusebeus (talk) 16:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
9. I agree also. Mathdude101 —Preceding undated comment added 13:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC).

Oppose

Discussion

Dreamguy's point above is exactly why it all needs to be in the one place on the one page for the time being, so that a reader can see all points of view and the wieght or strength with which they are held. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Contemporary views

DID is a controversial diagnosis with some researchers considering it a culture bound, iatrogenic condition though this idea is not universally accepted. The DSM is explicit about the controversy over the condition.

Diagnoses of DID peaked in the mid 1990s and have since declined sharply, a pattern described by Pope et al. as "a brief period of fashion"..

Supporters of the therapy view

The DSM currently treats dissociative amnesia, dissociative fugue, and DID as mental disorders characterized by dissociation. Those who believe that multiple personality is a real phenomenon usually assume that it is a mental disorder, originating in children who are stressed or abused (especially sexually abused). It is presumed that such children may split into several independent personalities as a defense mechanism. DID is attributed to the interaction of overwhelming stress, insufficient childhood nurturing and an innate ability to dissociate memories or experiences from consciousness. Prolonged childhood abuse is often cited as a factor in DID, with a high percentage of patients reporting abuse. DID has been described by Pearson as a severely lasting dissociative response to overwhelming and normally traumatic antecedents and results from childhood trauma.

Some researchers assert that the present scientific evidence is inadequate to support that the suggestive influences in psychotherapy can cause DID and argue that there is little scientific support for hypnosis alone creating DID. One supporter of DID has argued that specialists do not influence their clients to make an increased number of personalities or to develop additional diagnostic criteria. D. Brown has argued that McHugh's publications questioning whether DID exists are "speculation" and claims that McHugh has insufficient clinical experience with DID patients to comment upon the diagnosis. Gleaves states that the research on DID does not support the ideas that DID is a construct of either psychotherapy or the media (the sociocognitive model), but that there is a connection between DID and childhood trauma and that treatment recommendations that follow from the sociocognitive model might be harmful due to the fact that they ignore the posttraumatic symptomology of people with DID.

There is insufficient understanding of consciousness to be able to explain how a novel split would occur in a previously undivided mind and how it would be maintained in the mind. Psychoanalytic theorists believe a schizoid phase of development occurs in childhood, which may have encouraged this view of traumatic splitting. There has been nothing found to explain why children who are later diagnosed with multiple personalities differ from those who do not undergo comparable types of stress.

Dissociative identity disorder is diagnosed in 3 to 4% of people in hospitals for other mental health disorders and a large number of patients in treatment facilities for substance abuse.

It's possible that some of the increase in diagnosis in the 1980s correlate with the increase in awareness of child abuse through the 1970-1980s. I don't have a citation, perhaps someone can find one? I miss Infotrack :( The decline in the 1990s and beyond may very well be because of the increase in trained mandated reporters, an increasing availability of safe homes for abused women (who bring their children with them). A recognition that "shell shock" is not just for veterans (ref PTSD) also means that abused children may get more early intervention treatment. Dr. Frank Putnam wrote two clinical books on MPD/DID -- one general, one specifically about children & adolescents. He still works with children, and perhaps knows more about whether incidents are really decreasing or if children are getting earlier intervention. The Crisses (talk) 01:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a place to personally theorize about anything yourself. That'd be original research, which is of course not allowed in the article. DreamGuy (talk) 13:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Critics

Some psychologists and psychiatrists regard DID as being iatrogenic or fictitious, or contend that true cases are extremely rare and that the majority of reported cases are iatrogenic. Drs. Paul McHugh, Herbert Spiegel, A. Piper, H. Merskey are among the leading critics of the DID paradigm and have made their views known in articles and television interviews.

Skeptics contend that those who exhibit the symptoms of DID have learned to behave as though they had different selves in return for social reinforcement and reward, either from therapists, from other DID patients, or from society at large. The modern DID model relies on the premises that multiplicity is a disorder of memory and that repression of memories is a common defense against childhood sexual abuse and linked to multiplicity. As such, some critics have focused on studies citing the fallibility and flawed nature of human memory, the weaknesses of hypnosis as a tool for recall, and on disproving claims of the accuracy of recovered memories. The work of psychologist Elizabeth Loftus, who specializes in human memory, is usually cited to support this conclusion. A more lengthy review of the normal fallacies of memory is given by Nicholas Spanos in his sociocognitive model.

Critics of the DID model point to the fact that the diagnosis of DID is a phenomenon largely unique to English-speaking countries. Prior to the 1950s, cases of dual personality and multiple personality were occasionally reported and treated as curiosities in the Western world. The 1957 publication of the book The Three Faces of Eve, and the popular movie which followed it, revived the American public's interest in multiple personality. The diagnosis of Multiple Personality Disorder, however, was not included in the DSM until 1980, following the publication in 1974 of the highly influential book Sybil. As media coverage spiked, diagnoses climbed. There were 200 reported cases of DID recorded before 1980, and 20,000 from 1980 to 1990. According to Joan Acocella, 40,000 cases were diagnosed from 1985 to 1995. The DID diagnosis is most common in North America, particularly the United States, and in English-speaking countries more generally. The majority of diagnoses are made by only a few practitioners. There is a controversy around the accuracy of DID reports, as memories of childhood might be able to be distorted and DID patients are easy to hypnotize and are very vulnerable to suggestion in certain situations.

Recent history

Some of the criticisms of the diagnosis arose in the wake of the controversy over satanic ritual abuse (SRA). Allegations of unidentified cults secretly kidnapping children and using them in human sacrifices were advanced in the early 1980s by evangelical Christian writers, among them Hal Lindsey and Johanna Michaelsen. Bennett Braun and others believed that abuse by such cults was widespread, and that some deliberately used mind control to induce multiple personalities in victims. The idea is now considered a moral panic but since the memories described by some patients identifying with DID in recovered memory therapy were bizarre, and seemed to strain credibility, or described incidents that could not have happened, the debate over DID became indelibly linked to the debate over repression for skeptics and critics.

People diagnosed with DID often report that they have experienced severe physical and sexual abuse, especially during their childhood. moved in Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

A few accused criminals, especially murderers, have claimed an alternate personality committed a crime and used the diagnosis as a defense. Jeffrey MacDonald, who was convicted of killing his wife and children, and Hillside Strangler Kenneth Bianchi were among the most notable.

Chronology

• (1546) Paracelsus reportedly wrote an account of a woman who had amnesia about an alter personality who stole her money
• (1791) Eberhard Gmelin describes a case of "exchanged personality" in a 21-year-old German woman who manifested a second self, speaking French and claiming to be a French aristocrat. Gmelin believed that cases such as hers could aid in understanding the formation of personality.
• (1838) Antoine Despine describes a case of dual personality in "Estelle," an 11-year-old girl.
• (1887) to (1896) Eugene Azam, a professor of surgery interested in hypnotism, described the case of Felida X who exhibited three different personalities.
• (1906) Morton Prince's book The Dissociation of a Personality describes his work with multiple personality patient Clara Norton Fowler, alias Christine Beauchamp.
• (1954) Thigpen & Cleckley's book The Three Faces of Eve, loosely based on the therapy of Chris Costner-Sizemore, is published, reviving the American public's interest in the subject of multiple personality.
• (1957) A movie version of The Three Faces of Eve, starring Joanne Woodward, is released.
• (1973) Flora R. Schreiber's bestselling book Sybil, a novelized treatment of the life and therapy of Shirley Ardell Mason, alias 'Sybil Dorsett' in the book.
• (1976) A made-for-TV film version of Sybil is produced, starring Sally Field in the title role.
• (1977) Chris Costner-Sizemore publishes an autobiography, I'm Eve, alleging that Thigpen and Cleckley's book was a misrepresentation of her life.
• (1986) Publication of When Rabbit Howls by autobiographical author Truddi Chase, discussing "healthy multiplicity".
• (1989) Frank Putnam's Diagnosis and Treatment of Multiple Personality Disorder, is published.
• (1998) Joan Acocella's New Yorker article detailing the excesses of MPD therapy; Creating Hysteria, is published.

Further reading

• Goettmann, B. A. (1994). Multiple personality and dissociation, 1791-1992: a complete bibliography. Lutherville, MD: The Sidran Press. p. 85. ISBN 0-9629164-5-5. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

semi protection

Given the controversial nature of this age and frequency of controversial edits (not vandalism per se), semi protection is a good way to ensure the maintenance of the page, and that any who edit stick around to discuss in some detail. Anyone is free to unprotect but then promise to stick around and watch. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Sybil

I am concerned about the reference to Sybil. The case study had been fabricated as has been demonstrated in peer reviewed published research. I am going make an edit indicating that the case study has been called into question; but I shall need to wait briefly in order to either locate the journal article or a reliable secondary source which reports upon the controversy over the study.

We all have biases. I need to be clear about my own views before I make an edit on this article. I believe that DID is a real condition which is vastly overdiagnosed. True DID is extraordinarily rare. The vast majority of those diagnosed would be more appropriately diagnosed with Borderline Personality and not a specific dissociative disorder. Dissociation in itself is a natural and normal phenomena is all people to some extent; few rise to a pathology. I believe that I may have seen true DID but I am not sure. I am a psychiatric social worker by profession licensed to practice independently.--Dstern1 (talk) 18:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Others that have worked with Sybil (like Leah Dickstein) have supported her story. Many peer reviewed articles would state that DID was clearly underdiagnosed for many years (Putnam) and that there is clear scientific evidence that Borderline Personality Disorder (which is an Axis II diagnosis and not an Axis I diagnosis like DID) has clearly different diagnostic criteria. Ergito (talk) 23:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

There are more similarities than differences - the Axis I/II classification is arbitrary and has its critics. Dissociation is common to both, as is a trauma history and disturbed interpersonal relationships. I am not sure what the latest literature says...so many articles to improve...Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Though iconic, Sybil isn't worth much more than a point to the main article, and I've adjusted the wording a bit to reflect this. I'd rather a better source for a defence of Wilbur's original treatment. The Associated Press article is unlinked, I found a convenience link but I don't know how true it is to the original. Did Dickstein actually work with Sybil, or just with Wilbur? A reliable source discussing this would help the page. It's a controversy, most of the players are dead, so we probably won't be able to do much beyond point to the different sides. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

It is incorrect to state that Borderline Personality Disorder and Dissociative Identity Disorder have more similarities than differences. They are quite different. The criteria for DID does not mention disturbed personal relationships and many sufferers do not have this problem. Borderline Personality Disorder does mention dissociation as part of one of its criteria, but dissociative episodes are not required to make the diagnosis. Personality disorders (Axis II) are stated to be "pervasive and inflexible" and are not known to have as optimistic a prognosis as Axis I disorders, like DID.Ergito (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC).

There was some research by Mclashan I recall which showed BPD to have an overall fair to good prognosis. I still mean to find some material. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Use of the word "subconscious"

As far as I understood it, this isn't really a word that pops up in psychology literature. The article subconscious even claims that much too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.103.111.70 (talk) 19:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for the article to be edited to better meet Wikipedia neutrality guidelines

This is an important article containing a lot of information about a serious subject. Unfortunately this subject is one of apparent controversy but th have slipped into the page's content. I believe strongly that it is the responsibility of an editor to censor their personal opinion and maintain a neutral tone as best they can. Most of the content achieves this, but a few sections, especially the first one, could be re-written to be more neutral without subtracting any facts. Just in case anyone would like some guidelines on writing without bias heres a couple good pages to check out.

Wikipedia: Neutral point of view

NPOV_tutorial

I don't mean any offense to anyone by the way, and thanks for hearing me out.

Demono (talk) 11:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

O-kay, in what way do you thiking the first couple of sections are biased? Can you please elaborate? Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

This particular article has been the subject of some pretty extreme POV pushing in the past, so the editors here who have been through it and attempted to resolve those problems to the current version are well aware of the NPOV policy. DreamGuy (talk) 19:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Demono, just whom is your request addressed to? You're as much an editor as anyone here. So if you see something that can be improved, improve it! -- Jmc (talk) 21:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course if other people disagree with it, they'll undo it and expect you to discuss and get consensus on the talk page first from then on. That's just the way things work, so don't take offense if it happens. DreamGuy (talk) 21:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Reference number 1 does not support the statement it follows. The abstract clearly states the opposite. "Dissociative disorders are clearly not only an American phenomenon." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2006691 I will move this reference to the appropriate section. The first half of the sentence in lead "DID diagnoses appear to be almost entirely confined to the North American continent, is inaccurate, as the article itself in the "Epidemiology" section disproves this. I propose changing the statement to "Originally DID diagnoses appeared to be almost entirely confined to the North American continent."Ergito (talk) 22:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Good pickup. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

One source making a claim doesn't mean you can change the long-held consensus view on a topic which is well supported. DreamGuy (talk) 18:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

admittedly, the paper is 15 years old. alot can change in that time. Still, yet another article to review...Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for not being clearer. These references in the article, showing varying incident rates from different countries (27 - 33, 67,70 and 71) back up the minor change to the article, making the statement accurate and updated.Ergito (talk) 18:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not a "minor change to the article" and it's primarily written to push a highly controversial POV. The incident rates from the other countries don't come close to supporting the conclusion you want the article to make. DreamGuy (talk) 04:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I did just that: edited the intro to the article removing several judgement calls and unprovable statements but leaving the content, references, links, etc. completely in-tact and someone did the Undo. So now I need to defend my position: "A great deal" of controversy -- "great deal" as compared to what? This is an opinion. There is also a "great deal" of evidence supporting the disorder. How do you weigh them against each other? The purpose of the statement is to show that there is controversy, it is not to make a judgement on how much controversy. If there is a publication that thoroughly and fairly weighs the evidence vs. the discrediting, then I will rescind my request to edit. --- "there are many COMMONLY DISPUTED" points vs. "QUITE VARIED" both of which are judgement calls with "many" "common" and "quite" in those statements -- and are there commonly repeated points or many varied points? I consider these to be opinionated statements because quantity of "many" is obscure, and the dichotomy of "common" vs. "varied" leaves these two statements in a quagmire of not lending any credence to the statements. It is more educational to consolidate this point with the following statements that actually illustrate a range of disputes, which I attempted to do in a neutral fashion. "DID diagnoses appear to be almost entirely confined to the North American continent,[1][2] adding to the possibility that DID may not be a legitimate diagnosis." This statement is inflammatory to the actual content of the article. Later the article shows that there are instances in other countries. If this statement must remain, the "almost entirely" should be replaced with something more factual, such as "a higher percentage of", however, I would simply combine this statement with others refuting the existence of DID as a legitimate diagnosis, the way I did in my edit and remove the judgement call "adding to the possibility that " which is a statement of opinion. It's not a "possibility" it's a statement of position by people attempting to discredit the diagnosis. Please keep people attempting to discredit the disorder from skewing the facts. I haven't had a chance to comb over the remainder of the article. I did not remove any facts, I cleaned up opinions and skewed comments, and I believe I improved the overall readability of the page. When I read the page, it does not sound encyclopedic to me as it stands. Someone please return my edits, or make similar edits to the page. The Crisses (talk) 14:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Crisses, I do hope you aren't taking a revert too personally. Dreamguy's revert appears to have been made in good faith with the interest of improving the article. I believe your edit was a step in the right direction, and I generally agree with your arguments, but it still raised some concerns. For example, your edit caused the paragraph to end with the flat statement that DID may not be a valid diagnosis. I believe the intent of the original prefix "adding to the possibility..." was to show that the previous statement was being used by some as evidence to support the conclusion that it isn't a valid diagnosis (or whatever it says, too lazy to pull the quote). I'll take a look at the lead when I get a moment and see what I can do. -Verdatum (talk) 15:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Take a breath and look at your actual edit, Crisses. On balance the previous version was better than your version, because your version fractures sentences and removed uncontroversial information. I am completely at a loss to how you can think that "commonly disputed" and "quite varied" are at all contradictory, as they focus on different points completely. For an example you might be able to follow better because it's more tangible, the types of fictional characters on TV shows are quite varied, and a wide variety of those are quite commonly found on TV shows. Different criticisms of DID (some of which disagree with each other, showing the variety) are offered (and in case you were unclear what they are they're summarized right there in the article), and they are not rarely offered but quite commonly. They are common in how often they happen but the arguments aren't always in common with each other. You are apparently confusing the two different meanings of the word in the English language. That could be clarified, but to insist that it's wrong isn't accurate.

As far as your "Please keep people attempting to discredit the disorder from skewing the facts" goes, no facts were skewed, and the people who disagree that the disorder exists are a valid POV that is fully sourced to reliable, expert opinions, so if you think that accurately including what they say somehow "skews" the facts then you don't understand our WP:NPOV policy. DreamGuy (talk) 16:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with people disagreeing with all of my edits, but to revert the entirety of my edits does not seem to take into account that words such as "common" and "varied" are relative not exact terms. What percentage of the psychologists/psychiatrists out there disagree with DID as a diagnosis? Not enough to vote on it being removed from the DSM. I don't know whether the boards that write the DSM or the ICD or the MeSH are completely neutral, but I would guess that the boards that write these manuals are not skewed particularly in or out of favor for DID itself. The disagreement with the diagnosis should be mentioned but not given weight as per "common" or how "varied" the disputing is. I believe it should be covered as a fact, an exact illustration of what the range of disagreement is is very fair. I strongly disagree with stating the disagreements are common or not; this is a relative term that confuses me if not any other readers as to just how disputed it is as a diagnosis. Until someone surveys a broad and unbiased range of practitioners, one cannot say how common or uncommon the disputes are. Just because the detractors are loud does not make them common. It just makes them vehement and, if they are professionals, it takes time away from their practices. Actually, how many people who dispute DID/MPD as a diagnosis are actually psychologists? If there's no statistics, the detractors are just people with a lot of hot air and wishful thinking. I don't have access to all the original article texts. How many of the references cited on the page are disputing DID/MPD, and is it enough to constitute a "great deal"? And why is that stated at the head of the article rather than in a subsection on disputes rather than at the top matter which should define MPD/DID itself rather than start off debunking it? Perhaps this article can be reviewed by a specialist in the field who has read these original sources, so it can be more factual. The Crisses (talk) 22:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

So you're claiming that I have not read the original sources? And why is it in the lead? Because the lead has to accurately summarize the article, and not having the fact that the diagnosis is disputed in the lead would frame the whole topic from only one POV, which is, again, a violation of NPOV policy. DreamGuy (talk) 13:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Your profile doesn't even say your name, much less any letters or credentials associated with it, so why are you assuming that I'm discounting you when I'm saying maybe an expert who has read the source documents should review the article? Do you have any credentials? Your profile says you wrote a book, but not what the subject is. It says you're a senior editor, but not who you really are, what degrees you may have, etc. And it doesn't say you've read all the source articles noted on the DID article page. You defend NPOV, but allow subjective phrasing such as "great deal"? Kudos on your Wikipedia accomplishments, DreamGuy, but I don't know you from Adam. I still disagree with some of the phrasing on the article page, regardless of whomever you are and your estimable Wikipedia-only credentials. There was absolutely no personal attack here. I was making a very blunt statement: Maybe someone with knowledge of the field should review the articles and determine whether or not "great deal" and other such non-neutral language is warranted. It might require a statistician and some way of quantifying exactly what percentage a "great deal" constitutes -- obviously over 50%, correct? It might also require a psychologist and a review of all extant literature. If those are your credentials, and you've performed these reviews and can back them up, please list them so I don't have to have this discussion. Even if that's the case, doesn't "great deal" constitute speculation and original research? if it's a direct quote of a resource, it should be in quotes and the source noted. The Crisses (talk) 10:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of controversy section in lead

Moving this to the talk page, as it appears it does not accurately summarize the article. I have proposed a new version below as a starting point from which others can work on. version there now --- There is a great deal of controversy surrounding the topic. There are many commonly disputed points about DID. These viewpoints critical of DID can be quite varied, with some taking the position that DID does not actually exist as a valid medical diagnosis, and others who think that DID may exist but is either always or usually an adverse side effect of therapy. DID diagnoses appear to be almost entirely confined to the North American continent, adding to the possibility that DID may not be a legitimate diagnosis. Possible new version ---- There is controversy surrounding the topic of DID. Viewpoints of DID range from the position that DID has scientific evidence backing its existence and that it is created by early repeated trauma, that DID does not actually exist as a valid medical diagnosis and the theory that DID may exist but is either always or usually an adverse side effect of therapy. Originally in the 1980's, DID diagnoses appeared to be almost entirely confined to the North American continent,, adding to the possibility that DID may not have been a legitimate diagnosis, but in the last twenty years, several studies have shown varying prevalence rates around the world. Ergito (talk) 18:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do not remove whole sections just to talk about them. Removal would be a colossal WP:NPOV violation and serves no practical purpose. And you already know that the core change you suggest does not have consensus per the above discussion, adn the summary you want to tack onto the end is obviously intended to make people think that the idea that it is not a valid diagnosis is 20 years out of date, which, I shouldn't need to point out, another major NPOV violation. DreamGuy (talk) 18:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The version I put above seems to be more neutral and better summarizes the article. Perhaps another editor could weigh in on a rewrite for this section.Ergito (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Agh, this is bad timing! Will try and have a look soon. I was planning on ferreting around for the latest review articles on it soonish. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Ergito, I like where you're going. I'd add a comma between valid diagnosis & the theory that it's caused by abuse -- those are two separate POVs in a list including the theories that it's fake. If you remove "early" from repeated trauma you even cover the folks citing ritual abuse. Note that there's a footnote including a twin study (unless it's been removed...): a predisposition to DID can also plausibly be an inherited trait. This is why I'd make caused by abuse a separate view than that it's a valid diagnosis. If you want a citation that not all people diagnosed DID or MPD believe it is a disorder, there's Internal Family Systems Theory (a book -- I can get the author), Plurality Theory, and others. The Crisses (talk) 00:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

When we discussed those in the past here it was decided that there are no reliable sources that support the existence of MPD as something that is not a disorder. That is generally considered a WP:FRINGE view, with all the limitations on covering them here that comes along with that. DreamGuy (talk) 13:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

You misread me. I didn't say anything about stating that in the article. I said simply to put a comma. I also mentioned resources, although I didn't attribute them because I wasn't asking them to be included. Jung (anima, animus, archetypes, shadow self), Freud (id, ego, superego, libido -- while they may not be explicitly named they do take control over one's behaviors in his theorem), Richard C. Schwartz (Internal Family Systems Therapy, 1995). I may be able to hunt down others. The theory that everyone consists of "parts" is prevalent in psychological literature. That's why memory loss and explicit identities who take over and have names are part of the criterion to push it into the classification of a "disorder". If you have one or the other, you may have multiple personalities, but it's DD:NOS not DID. i.e. You can have multiple personalities without a disorder. Now, back to changing the opening paragraph. I like what Ergito proposed, and would ask for the addition of the comma. In the text below it would specify the criteria for inclusion as DID/MPD. At the top, it's a list comparing a range of theories on the topic. The Crisses (talk) 14:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Errr -- correction -- not all psychologists think it's a disorder re: Internal Family Systems Theory & Plurality Theory. One could also look at Freud, Jung et al re: different portions of the psyche that are recognized in early psychological literature. The Crisses (talk) 01:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

And that sounds like original research. Different "portions of the psyche" is not the same thing as multiple personalities, and we can't present them here as if they are. DreamGuy (talk) 13:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Again -- I didn't say to add that. I just used it to explain why I think the comma at the top of the article is relevant. If you wish to make it an AND statement, put a footnote siting a source and make sure it's phrased in a way that the statement with the conjunction is clearly a single element in the list of range of theories. Is the "and ---" the end of the list? I prefer the comma because it does not rule out that both are required criteria for the label as a "disorder" it merely makes it clear that the 4 items listed are indeed a list entire. The Crisses (talk) 14:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I'm not being clear enough, so I'll try to rephrase it to show what I mean: There is controversy surrounding the topic of DID. Viewpoints of DID range from the position that DID is a scientifically backed disorder created by repeated trauma that usually occurs early in childhood development, that DID does not actually exist as a valid medical diagnosis, and the theory that DID may exist but is either always or usually an adverse side effect of therapy. Originally in the 1980's, DID diagnoses appeared to be almost entirely confined to the North American continent,[1][2], adding to the possibility that DID may not have been a legitimate diagnosis, but in the last twenty years, several studies have shown varying prevalence rates around the world.The Crisses (talk) 14:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I have added an adapted version of the above to the page. It is more accurate than the present version. It more correctly summarizes the page and the different positions around DID. Ergito (talk) 17:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

And someone else reverted you (not me this time). Per WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO, please do not make changes you know are controversial until you can demonstrate WP:CONSENSUS to do so. Simply insisting that you are right is unacceptable. DreamGuy (talk) 22:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Attempting to make the lead accurate. It would be helpful if people worked toward this goal and not just erase all attempts to improve the lead. Ergito (talk) 16:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The lead is already accurate. It would be helpful if you stopped presenting your POV as if it were some ultimate truth you could force onto the article without bothering to gain consensus to do so. DreamGuy (talk) 17:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

How is it "without bothering to gain consensus" when Ergito posted it for discussion? How does one gain consensus? I've made comments but overall I find my problems with the opening of the page satisfied by Ergito's suggestions. What are your problems with it? Let's derive a consensus. I find Ergito's suggestion to be much less opinionated in any direction, it does not contain judgement calls, it's concise and clear, and very neutral. It continues to cite sources. It continues to point out that there is controversy without weighting the reader towards believing either the diagnosis or the controversy surrounding it. Do we need more people to come here and complain about the opening paragraph to establish that it's a problem? I'm willing to write to experts in the field. The Crisses (talk) 11:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

What you sound like you want to do is violate our rules against meatpuppetry. Contacting people you know would support your POV in order to rewrite an article to reflect that POV is explicitly not allowed. Posting for discussion is good... that's how someone would work toward consensus. Going ahead and editing the article with a controversial change despite knowing that the discussion shows there is no consensus and people actively opposed is a violation of several policies. DreamGuy (talk) 17:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I made a few changes to the edit in the spirit of compromise. Two editors agree with the change. One apparently does not. The one should work with the others here for a new version. And the lead was not accurate. It did not correctly summarize the article.Ergito (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC).

I changed the text to place slightly more emphasis on the appearance of DID on other continents, but re-reading the old lead, I'm not convinced it's necessarily an improvement. The rates are much, much higher in the US, sufficient to merit the "almost entirely confined to North America". I'm not too upset if the page is reverted to this version. Also, now that the recovered memory/hypnotherapy/truth serum approach to child abuse is out of fashion, I'd love to see what the newer sources say about incidence and prevalence. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

"In the spirit of compromise"?!?! There was no attempt to compromise in the slightest, you just put the exact same content there and made deceptive claims about it (which is the hallmark of an editor here who was permanently banned for POV pushing and using socks to get around the blocks, now that I think of it). The edit comment of "you don’t have consensus to undo the change, work on the talk page for a new version and stop deleting others changes unilaterally" seems to show a deliberate attempt to ignore the rules of WP:CONSENSUS, WP:STATUSQUO and WP:BRD. On top of that, pretending that the current state of matters is that "Two editors agree with the change. One apparently does not." is also highly deceptive, and probably intentionally so. User:Carl.bunderson also removed your edits with the comment of "rv unsourced changes to sourced content", User:Casliber above did not support your changes, and of course myself. Now User:WLU has stepped in to make the number of people opposed to your desires even stronger: You not only do not have onsensus to make changes, there is a full consensus (consisting of ALL the non-newbie accounts, by the way) that what was there previously (and there now) is better. Any future attempt to restore the POV-pushing content despite knowing full well that a strong consensus opposes it will be viewed as a violation of WP:POINT. DreamGuy (talk) 23:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I back up DreamGuy's comment here. Clearly I side with him in this disagreement, having reverted your edits at least once, Ergito. Moreover, I think it is an important point that the well-established editors are on DreamGuys's side, while Ergito, you have fewer than 100 edits. Any future changes to the lead by Ergito should be minor and have clear consensus prior to being done. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 00:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Originally, it was two against one. One editor deleted my edits due to no sources, which I added after. I did make a few changes to my original edit. Now it is three to two against the change. Ergito (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC).

When judging consensus decisions, you can't just choose to go with whatever a tiny group who happened to immediately participate on the talk page has to say if it goes against longstanding consensus. Saying it was two against one originally ignores that it was two new users without any history of contributing anything to the article appearing out of nowhere to try to argue against a consensus that was built up by a number of editors over time. Going straight by polling of the moment means anyone who can bring in a couple of newbies -- or sockpuppets -- can overthrow what many people put a lot of work into hammering out. DreamGuy (talk) 12:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

"Current medical classification"

As of this post, the article states, "The condition first appeared in current medical classification in the 1980 publication of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III) classification, as multiple personality disorder (MPD),"

I cannot remotely understand the intent of this sentence. What is "current medical classification"? And depending on the meaning of that phrase, what evidence is there that this was the first appearance? I think further clarification is needed, and citation through a secondary source (i.e. not the DSM) is strongly desired. -Verdatum (talk) 14:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I know, the phrase was a bit shoddy and I was having trouble thinking of an alternative. It has asecondary source in hte body of the text (not the lede). Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

If it becomes "appeared as a medical classification" then the problem should be resolved. The Crisses (talk) 01:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

--large section with one source--

This section in the article confuses me. It comes from only one source and I am unsure if the last part comes from the source or was just added in. Perhaps it should be rewritten. Ergito (talk)

Over-representation in North America

Paris[39] in a review offered three possible causes for the sudden increase in people diagnosed with DID:

  1. The result of therapist suggestions to suggestible people, much as Charcot's hysterics acted in accordance with his expectations.
  2. Psychiatrists' past failure to recognize dissociation being redressed by new training and knowledge.
  3. Dissociative phenomena are actually increasing, but this increase only represents a new form of an old and protean entity: "hysteria".

Paris believes that the first possible cause is the most likely.

The debate over the validity of this condition, whether as a clinical diagnosis, a symptomatic presentation, a subjective misrepresentation on the part of the patient, or a case of unconscious collusion on the part of the patient and the professional is considerable. Unlike other diagnostic categorizations, there is very little in the way of objective, quantifiable evidence for describing the disorder.

The main points of disagreement are these:

  1. Whether DID is a real disorder or just a fad.
  2. If it is real, is the appearance of multiple personalities real or delusional?
  3. If it is real, whether it should it be defined in psychoanalytic terms.
  4. Whether it can, or should, be cured.
  5. Who should primarily define the experience—therapists, or those who believe that they have multiple personalities.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ergito (talk • contribs) 22:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC) 

I have attempt to clarify and shorten the section above. Comments are welcome.

Paris[39] in a review offered three possible causes for the sudden increase in people diagnosed with DID: 1) The result of therapist suggestions to suggestible people, 2) Psychiatrists' past failure to recognize dissociation being redressed by new training and knowledge and 3) Dissociative phenomena are actually increasing. Paris believes #1 is the most likely. Paris believes that there is a debate over the validity of the condition. Ergito (talk) 22:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I have shortened the section as per my comment above after waiting over a week for any objections. Ergito (talk) 23:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

And I have reverted. Please get an actual consensus for changes before making them considering that you know that people have objected to your changes in the past and your changes are always of the same type. DreamGuy (talk) 14:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I have made another attempt to clarify and make the section more concise, deleting a few lines that appear to have no source.Ergito (talk) 22:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Paris' belief that therapist suggestions cause DID would be wrong: The purpose of DID is to prevent the sufferer from remembering trauma because it is not safe to do so. Thus when parts come out in normal life (as they frequently do) it is overwhelming, and would be seen as a mental breakdown. The majority of DID sufferers have had numerous breakdowns requiring compulsory hospitalization. One could argue that mental breakdowns should be interpreted within a framework that appreciates dissociation and capacity issues [kclehman]. Therapy provides a safe space, and relationship, in which parts can come out, and if the therapist is able to help resolve traumas the parts can begin to express themselves. It is not uncommon for parts to become apparent without any therapist in sight. The apparent increase of cases is easily explained, as listening therapies gain acceptance, the parts are becoming heard for the first time. Psychiatrists using the medical model treat symptoms, they don't listen with anywhere near the levels of trust and relationship needed for a frightened, abused 3 year old part to come out. Freudian Psychoanalysts don't listen to or believe their patients, since their model is based upon interpretations in terms of repressed sexual fantasies, rather than providing a safe space within which to find out what actually happened. The fact that N.America has the most cases simply indicates that they are further ahead in their use of listening therapies. Most UK Mental hospitals do not have any Psychologists, or counsellors on staff, and operate purely within the medical model. This simply hides DID behind the chemical cosh. Those who debate whether the patient may be unconsciously colluding, do so because some coping mechanisms are interpreted as manipulative or over needy. If they have any practical experience at all, they are unlikely to have had the opportunity to dealing with patients towards the end of their treatment. When trauma is resolved and all coping mechanisms, fits, outbursts, paranoia, manipulation etc are completely absent, but the dissociation and fully articulated parts remain. -- anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.128.59 (talk) 05:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Your personal opinions on the topic are not relevant to this article. This is an encyclopedia, and as such we go by what reliabkle sources have to say, not what an anonymous Internet poster thinks. DreamGuy (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Healthy multiplicity

I believe the concept of healthy multiplicity — multiple identities cooperating to function, rather than exist in conflict — ought to be mentioned. The fact that it is controversial is not a reason not to. -- Stormwatch (talk) 07:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not just controversial, it's WP:FRINGE, which is a reason not to mention it. You would need some pretty solid reliable sources from experts suggesting that the idea is plausible for it to be mentioned here. If you can find any academic sources (instead of just someperson's blog or personal site) please list them here. I tried looking for some a while back and couldn't find any that meets Wikipedia standards. DreamGuy (talk) 12:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

See if you can find anything good here. -- Stormwatch (talk) 03:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Tricky, most of those have nothing to do with DID. The first three might have something in them but one would need to see the whole source. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, find a specific source that is reliable, an a text to accompany it. There is more of a place for this sort of thing in the history/society section of the page, as I don't believe it has much support in the medical literature that perforce the rest of the page is based on. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 04:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

DreamGuy seems like a dick cheese —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.105.145.248 (talk) 04:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The practice of learning to live with your condition, though not something I agree with, since there is a cure available, is widely practiced for many mental disorders and conditions. So it does not really qualify as a fringe idea. You will find numerous books on living with schizophrenia, or living with depression, for example. For DID, when all trauma is resolved parts may be fully co-conscious, and therefore will naturally share experiences, and all begin writing on the same memory pages. After a while integration may occur naturally or as a result of specific spiritual experience [ http://www.safeplacefellowship.com/testimonies/mari/ONEMIND.HTM ]-- anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.128.59 (talk) 05:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Citation: from Diagnosis and Treatment of Multiple Personality Disorder by Frank W. Putnam (1989, Guilford Press, NY, p. 301). (If you need others, let me know.) "Although there is a general concensus among experienced therapists that complete integration of the alter personalities is a desirable goal, this simply may be unrealistic with many patients. Kluft (1985d) is the first to acknowledge, 'In a given case, it is hard to argue with Caul's pragmatism: "It seems to me that after treatment you want a functional unit, be it a corporation, a partnership, or a one-owner business"' (p. 3). It is a mistake to make integration the focus of therapy. Treatment should be aimed at replacing maladaptive behaviors and responses with more appropriate forms of coping. Ideally, integration of the alters will emerge from this process, but even if it does not, the therapy may well be termed a success if the patient has achieved a significant improvement in his or her level of functioning." The Crisses (talk) 17:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Note the entire section of fusions in his book (i.e. integration) includes numerous mentions and sections on fusion failures, etc. which may have more information about alternatives. I don't want to re-read the entire book to talk about alternatives to integration therapy. I recently "uncovered" my DID/MPD library (perhaps 20 clinical books and others), and if need be I'll be able to research citations for information needed from these sources. I don't currently have access to a periodical library for current research however. The Crisses (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

This concept may not be recognised by doctors - perhaps some do, I don't know - but I have come across a number of people online who say that for them being multiple is normal and they cope fine with it and don't want to be cured of it. Perhaps in that respect it could even be argued that it's comparable to homosexuality, which was medically classified as a mental illness until the 70s or 80s (I forget the exact date). It seems a shame if Wikipedia has to expunge any mention of a point of view that is common among multiple people themselves just because it is not the current medical orthodoxy (and I have not specifically sought out contact with multiple people online). Orlando098 (talk) 20:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Seen this? Critiquing the Requirement of Oneness Over Multiplicity by Kymbra Clayton, a psychologist in Sydney, Australia. This article examines some of the texts written by mental health professionals about multiplicity, and questions basic assumptions. --Bluejay Young (talk) 06:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Non sequitur in the history section

The history section starts off talking about the nineteenth century and earlier, then has a sequence of paragraphs which refer, respectively, to:

• the late 19th century ;
• the early 20th century;
• 1910;
• period 1903 through 1978;
• period starting in about 1927; and
• the 1980s.

But this is then followed by:

The public, however, was exposed to psychological ideas which took their interest. Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, Robert Louis Stevenson's Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, and many short stories by Edgar Allan Poe, had a formidable impact.

Erm, what? All of these influences come from the nineteenth century. They are followed by a discussion of the possible effect of publicity surrounding books published in the 1950s through 1970s, which makes sense in context. But the sentence I have quoted does not. -- 202.63.39.58 (talk) 11:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Drug use

If the symptoms are caused by drug use, does it really not count? Or is it just when the are temporarily caused by drug use. i.e. If I used to take drugs and they cause the symtoms of DID that I now get every day, surely I have DID. Yaris678 (talk) 11:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you really need to discuss this with a doctor who knows you personally. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you might be mis-reading the hypothetical situation I described above. Yaris678 (talk) 13:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Schizophrenia is often (enough) caused by drug abuse. If symptoms persist even a week since drug use, it's pretty safe to assume that there's something wrong. "Dissociative identity disorder is diagnosed in a sizable minority of patients in drug abuse treatment facilities." "The disturbance is not due to the direct physiological effects of a substance (e.g., blackouts or chaotic behavior during alcohol intoxication) or a general medical condition (e.g., complex partial seizures). In children, the symptoms are not attributable to imaginary playmates or other fantasy play." Memory loss, however, can be caused in the long-term by drug abuse, and doesn't necessarily point to DID. MichaelExe (talk) 04:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like I was right. I'll see how I can change the article to reflect this. Yaris678 (talk) 13:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Yaris678 (talk) 13:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

DISSOCIATION AND STATE-SPECIFIC PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGY DURING THE NINETEENTH CENTURY

by Carlos S . Alvarado, M .S. Some of the cases, like that reported by Despine (1838),were observed in patients that showed one of more personalities when hypnotized . For example, Lucie, a patient of Pierre Janet (1887), suffered from a variety of somatic problems, including absence of tactile and kinesthetic sensations. During hypnosis a personality named Adrienne communicated with Janet through automatic writing . When Janet pinched Lucie, Adrienne reported feeling sensations that Lucie did not feel. Similarly, under these conditions Adrienne was able to recognize objects by touch, a task Lucie was unable to accomplish. Janet measured the tactile sensibilityof his patient with an esthesiometer and found that while Adrienne 's sensation was normal, Lucie's was not.

The case of Blanche Witt, studied by Jules Janet (1888),showed similar phenomena . In her "primary" state Witt showed several sensory and motor deficiencies such as total anesthesia, lack of muscular sense, deafness in her left ear,color blindness in the left eye, restricted visual field, low visual acuity, and hysterogenic and erogenic points. Under hypnosis, however, Witt's secondary personality did not exhibit these problems. Finally, Bruce (1895) reported another case in which systematic tests were conducted . His patient, a 47 year old Welsh sailor showed two different states : one in which he spoke Welsh (was left handed, and had weak circulation and constipation), and another in which he spoke English (was right handed, and his circulation and bowel movements were normal) . According to Bruce : "Occasionally when changing from the Welsh to the English stage, or the reverse, this patient passes through an intermediate condition, in which he is ambidextrous, speaks a mixture of Welsh and English and understand both languages" (p . 62) . Additionally, the patient's pulse had a higher rate in the English state than in the Welsh state. The interpretation of these phenomena was problematic, Kazuba (talk) 03:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The interpretation of some of these phenomena is obvious. The specific content of the specific memories and experiences of each part will effect physiological symptoms. Pulse rates may vary according to the relative anxiety levels in traumatic memories. The part with constipation will have had traumatic events relating to the subject. Bed wetting is another symptom commonly exhibited by only one part. Migraine like headaches may actually be memories of childhood illnesses as experienced by one part, but not another. -- anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.128.59 (talk) 04:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Memory loss what of short and long term memory is there a difference

I have D.I.D. and have an amazing long term memory and a good memory for sequenced numbers but my short term memory is very poor for more than 3 items.

Treatment Options

The combination of 24/7 support, on demand therapy, and relaxed easy going community living with other non-survivors would be the ideal recovery framework. [2] Even with ideal conditions, support, and effective therapy, the process can take up to 10 years. Relapses and emotional breakdowns will occur, and providing this level of support is very challenging. Professional services rarely have the facilities or trained staff to offer this level of support, so treatment within lay-communities, with appropriate support and training is likely to be the most effective long term solution. Several organizations advocate this model. [3] [4]

Since DID sufferers are vulnerable to triggering, emotional overwhelm, and night terrors, the availability of support 24/7 is advised. Access to support helps prevent a small trigger spiraling into an emotional breakdown. A restful supported environment in which the the individual is able to find time and space to work on their issues will be needed for several years. Within a framework of emotional space with support, there are numerous therapy needs. 0) Safe environment and daily familiar routine 1) Resolution of trauma and lie based thinking 2) Resolution of strong truth based emotions: e.g. anger due to hurt and injustice 3) Re-parenting, close family-like relationships, and emotional development - Development of healthy nurturing relationships, and opportunuty to develop in emotional maturity (http://www.thelifemodel.org) 4) Occupational therapy, play and creative therapies 5) Caring and relationship development - i.e. Pet therapy 6) Celebrations and positive reinforcement, for birthdays, christmas, and any other excuse for a party 7) Empowerment and support for real life living and challenges 8) Regular listening sessions and normal conversations (4 times a day minimum) in order to enable natural emotional processing and to prevent headaches which are a symptom of built up stress or anxiety. 9) Memory work, good experiences, and successful therapy, should be scrapbook-ed and photo albums filled with images of good positive memories.

Items, 1 and 2 above - Resolution of Pain in memories. Specific therapy sessions are needed to investigate individual symptoms, beliefs and behaviors, with a view to resolving any underlying traumatic behaviors. "Theophostic Prayer Ministry" is acknowledged as being a pioneering technique in this field, with many derived methods applying fundamentally the same insights and techniques. e.g. [5] EMDR is discussed in this article is the best that conventional methods have available, and is not considered as effective. Effective therapy will be able to resolve a traumatic memory in a single session, and that topic will not need to be revisited again. Healing may require hundreds of similarly successful therapy sessions over several years.

Due to the complexities of helping an individual with DID, the most important success factor, is that of establishing communication with Jesus aka. God. This allows Jesus to explain things, outline specific strategies for specific problems, advising on therapy plans and to unentangle the emotional mess in a safe order. For example memory loss amy be a needed coping mechanism and should not be healed too soon. Secular practitioners have also identified a specific and possibly equivalent part known as the ISH "Inner Self Helper" [6], that maintains an objective position and is helpful in resolving disputes, and providing therapeutic direction, among other things. Given the complexities, successful treatment of DID without God's involvement would be a miracle indeed.

Dennis L: A Phenomenological Model For Therapeutic Exorcism For Dissociative Identity Disorder; Journal of Psychology & Theology; Summer2001; Vol. 29 Issue 2 - "It seems ironic that calling on a higher power is standard fare for work with patients who have addictions, yet it is frowned upon and somehow seen as illegitimate for other kinds of psychiatric disorders. If a Christian faith is already part of a patient s life, why not utilize it?"

Organisations reporting success in treating DID through to integration - THRIVE http://www.thrivetoday.org www.care1.org http://www.lifemodel.org/ - Dr. James Wilder et al - Residential fully supported programmes - "Immanuel Interventions" http://www.kclehman.com - Dr. Karl Lehman - "Theophostic Prayer Ministry" http://www.theophostic.com - Dr. Ed Smith - http://www.rcm-usa.org/What-is-DID.htm - Dr. Tom Hawkins - http://www.heartfortruth.org.uk - Carolyn Bramhall - http://www.safeplacefellowship.com - Phil Scovell - http://www.clinicfordissociativestudies.com/ Testimonies of Recovery - Carolyn Bramhall - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Am-I-Good-Girl-Yet/dp/1854247247

Many of the practitioners above write about how to treat demonization within the context of DID. Without an appreciation of this topic secular approaches are severely hindered, and will suffer frequent relapses, and conflicting behaviour. Typically a traumatic memory will contain up to 1-9 lie based beliefs, and each one may optionally have a spirit attached. This is trivially easy to handle with appropriate training.

It will take some effort to populate the main page with this information, collating references and attributions. Secular experts are charging £220 per hour for consultation in the UK, and keep much of their knowledge close to their chest. Case study material is extensive but is not publicly available due to confidentiality and is difficult to obtain and verify. Specific training courses which teach how to routinely work with DID have only been available for 15 years or so. Since recovery can take 10 years or more, papers, testimonials, publications and research is only just beginning to appear. In 30 years or so the situation will be much improved. Communicating the message that healing is possible and effective will accelerate the amount of data and research available in the public domain. This is not original research within the field, papers and articles are being written by experienced therapists [7]. Verification and statistically significant scientific analysis is limited due to the relatively small number of case studies in the public domain at this time. 84.13.128.59 (talk) 19:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Bad Treatment Approaches

Group therapy is generally felt to be a bad thing, due to the overall vulnerability of the participants and the lack of safety in the group context. The likelyhood of triggering between participants, and the stresses of the situation are likely to halt progress in its tracks.

Therapists have various guidelines [8] (ref: The Code of Ethics of the Christian Society for the Healing of Dissociative Disorders (CSHDD, 1998)) which typically advise: Do not use hypnosis, guided visualization, counseling (advice or suggestions of any form). Medication is considered counter productive since DID is not caused by any chemical deficiency [9] . Compulsion in treatment, and or coercion is extremely negative inevitably leading to re-traumatization, and many are overwhelmed such that new parts are created just to cope with the trauma of hospitalization.

Therapists who choose only to respond to one part as a coercive or therapeutic tactic are causing further emotional damage. Dissociation is like looking into a house through different windows, each part is the same individual person seen from a different perspective. Each part is therefore a whole person, having needs, hurts, and fears and a desire to be heard and known. Parts should be related to in whatever manner is most helpful, friendly and safe to them.

Archetypal christian "Confrontational Deliverance ministry", or Exorcism [10] is used by some to treat DID. This is not a helpful process because it assumes a quick fix is possible without taking the time and the effort to understand, relate and love the person. This form of deliverance may be abusive and defiling to the individual, particularly if spirits are allowed to talk or act out. The all too common practice of mistaking a hurt frightened internal child part for a demon is emotionally damaging for the child part concerned. Secondly is has been known for internal child parts to believe that they are a demon because that is what they were told by abusers or family members. Deliverance when needed should always be done after emotional healing has taken place, safe therapists will enable the individual to learn for themselves what to do, without offering and advice or teaching. When it occurs it is a low key process, achievable with one word, addressed to the entity perceived in the mind and no longer relevant, "go". 84.13.128.59 (talk) 19:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not combing this information for its suitability for the Wikipedia article page or otherwise -- but I would love for more information like this to be shared on my own DID/MPD wiki. Please contact me so I can give you information so you may contribute it elsewhere where we would welcome the information, opinions, with or without citations. The likelihood of retraumatization through Ritual abuse or Religious abuse is profound but I can't personally speak to it other than very abstractly. You seem to have something to offer on the topic and I would value it. The Crisses (talk) 18:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Brain Imaging?

I'd read long ago that brain imaging studies (CAT scans) showed that different parts of the brain were active when different personalities were active. I'd be curious to read the latest in this area. The point being that brain imaging offers physical evidence that perhaps might help distinguish this from e.g. schizophrenia, etc. linas (talk) 03:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Point to ponder

[11]. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Certainly a very good source worth citing in the article, especially the statistics on overall acceptance (or lack thereof) of the diagnosis. DreamGuy (talk) 22:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing this page still gets it substantially wrong - I'm guessing it now faces a lot more skepticism, it's less accepted, it's less common, and the fading interest is mostly found with the hard-line proponents. I'll be intrigued to see what the new DSM says about it. Right now the biggest critical sources are Piper and Mersky, presumably there's more out there. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Before the 19th century, people exhibiting symptoms similar to those were believed to be possessed.[13]

When? Where? By whom? One can only assume in Western Christian society, by The Church, etc. This just seems like a very baseless, childish statement. If nothing insightful can be stated here, let's just get rid of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.179.19 (talk) 05:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Nope, it's sourced to a reliable publisher. At wikipedia the standard is verifiability, not truth. If you're really concerned about the statement, I would suggest tracking down the source and contextualizing it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

No idea what the objection is or why it is allegedly childish or lacking insight. Please try express yourself in a more articulate and meaningful way. DreamGuy (talk) 22:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problems with diagnostic criteria

The American Psychiatric Association has not released its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders into public domain, but claims copyright. The Wikimedia Foundation has received a letter of complaint (Ticket:2010030910040817, for those with access) about the use of their diagnostic criteria in this and a number of other articles. Currently, this content is blanked pending investigation, which will last approximately one week. Please feel free to provide input at the copyright problems board listing during that time. Individuals with access to the books would be particularly welcome in helping to conduct the investigation. Assistance developing a plan to prevent misuse of the APA's material on Wikipedia projects would also be welcome. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Removed reference to MKULTRA experiments, reasoning explained

The reference to documents released under FOIA, concerning MKULTRA experiments, either contradicted or was contradicted by other information on the page. The deleted reference linked to Colin Ross's book "Bluebird : Deliberate Creation of Multiple Personality by Psychiatrists". It is true that Ross claims the documents demonstrate "The major goal of the Cold War mind control programs was to create dissociative symptoms and disorders, including full multiple personality disorder", but if that is a fact then other information on the page becomes false.

The documents in question do demonstrate that experimenters funded by the CIA created in test subjects, through hypnosis, a belief that an invented identity was their true identity. However, there is no evidence in these documents of identities asserting themselves without the intervention of outside agencies or mechanisms, as required by the preliminary definition. There is no evidence that belief in the secondary identity was permanent, no documentation of how long this belief was capable of persisting without outside reinforcement. If such belief was not permanent, then the "multiple identity" was simply a temporary condition imposed by an outside agency which again violates the preliminary definition.

Furthermore, there is no evidence of any other symptoms associated with DID arising in these test subjects. Ross's assertion that these experimenters created "full multiple personality disorder" appears to be a deliberate exaggeration. Bennet Braun and Kluft, the godfathers of multiple personality disorder, insist that hypnosis cannot create the full-blown disorder:

"Kluft and Braun found that reports of the experimental creation of multiple personalities with hypnosis were rather overstated. Experimenters have created phenomena seen in association with and analogous to multiple personality, but did not create a case of clinical multiple personality...to be a personality, an ego state must have a range of emotion, consistent behavior, and a separate life history. Kluft and Braun show that none of the authors criticizing the use of hypnosis with multiple personality produced phenomena which met these criteria. It is widely known that ego state phenomena short of MPD can be evoked with or without hypnoses.

Our discussion begins with a renewed word of caution. As noted above, one cannot "create" multiple personality, but the injudicious use of hypnosis (via pressure, shaping responses, and insensitivity to demand characteristics) may create a fragment or elicit an ego state which can be misinterpreted as a personality."

(Uses Of Hypnosis with Dissociative Identity Disorder Written by Bennett G. Braun, M.D. Nov 29, 2008)Bartlebee2010 (talk) 09:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I see what you did there. You casually changed the subject from multiple personality disorder induced by torture to MPD induced by hypnosis. Not buying it. Putting the reference back.Jeremystalked _{T C} 20:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

However, I added a note indicating hypnosis was one of the techniques investigated, even though torture techniques were investigated as well.Jeremystalked_{(law 296)} 18:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Neither Ross' book, nor the documents he cites, demonstrate that CIA funded researchers caused anyone to develop full-fledged Multiple Personality Disorder. There are references to "multiple personality" but what is described in relation to this term only constitutes belief in a false identity. There is nothing at all in those documents demonstrating attempts to induce Multiple Personality Disorder through torture, nor even awareness of that concept.Bartlebee2010 (talk) 10:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm fairly reluctant to take Ross at his word, that's an extreme claim and Ross isn't exactly the best source - more of an axe-grinder. I definitely would want this attributed, and with minimal details. This is a fringe claim that needs stronger sources than this. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I've relocated that bit of info and the source to the "controversy" section. Ross is pretty much a lone voice in the wilderness on that particular bit of information, it's certainly not seen by mainstream scholars as a cause of DID. This information is better placed on Project MKULTRA than here since it's a fringe theory and we give it a lot of weight (undue weight?) by placing it here - particularly in the "causes" section. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I've replaced the Ross citation and claim in the controversy section. Clearly, deliberate torture by the CIA is not considered one of the key causes of DID. Also, did they succeed? What medically reliable sources substantiate this? What peer-reviewed literature supports it? FOIA requests are not peer-reviewed journals. What scholars believe Ross, cite his books and other work? Is Manitou Communications a reliable publisher? I've changed the wording to reflect the source a little better, but this should not be placed in the "causes" section. Does anyone but Ross believe this? If not, it's clearly an undue weight issue - to the point that it's worth talking about removing it completely. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

To avoid future edit wars; I am moving this here

"There is a great deal of controversy surrounding the topic {{citation needed}}. There are many commonly disputed points about DID. These viewpoints critical of DID can be quite varied, with some{{who?}} taking the position that DID does not actually exist as a valid medical diagnosis, and others{{who?}} who think that DID may exist but is either always or usually an adverse side effect of therapy. DID diagnoses appear to be almost entirely confined to the North American continent{{citation needed}}; reports from other continents are at significantly lower rates."

This is unattributed material, and as such is skeptical as being original research. Let me point out the most fundamental reason for moving this here (or perhaps deleting it altogether) is that it is inexplicably vague. I understand that it may be "true" that there is a great deal of controversy surrounding the issue of a psychiatric condition; however Wikipedia is adament about verifiablity over truth. Second, there is no support to back up the claims within the paragraph itself. Indeed it may occur later in the text, but this portion claims to hold support, and yet provides no evidence for the percieved support. Let me also point that the "who?" tag does not imply that it is necessary to provide for every reliable source that tailors to the suppositions. Instead, often this is cleared up if you provide one or two examples of "Who" with a simple "such as (so and so)... and (so and so)..." Third, a broad-based claim that "DID diagnoses appear to be almost entirely confined to the North American continent; reports from other continents are at significantly lower rates" should provide the information linked to the other continents. Which continents? Which reports? In other words, what were the publications that produced the reports? Fourthly, since some of the claims are reasserted with source material in text; eliminating this, reduces redundancy. Special:Contributions/165.138.95.59|165.138.95.59]] (talk) 14:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

No it is not. See WP:LEAD. It is not unattributed, it is the lead paragraph, which summarizes the section in the body where the citations are found. Is it an inaccurate citation of this section? The verification occurs in the body, not in the lead - citations are optional. I have replacedthe information and please do not remove it again. In fact, I plan on removing the citations after you read WP:LEAD and indicate you understand why there is a reason why the citations were not there. There is no original research, it is deliberately vague because it is a summary of numerous sections, the citations are in the body, there is widespread skepticism with attribution in the text and no need to attribute the statements to speicific people when they are so widespread. You misunderstand the purpose of the lead. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I just want to make it clear; that the crux of my argument weighs not necessarily on the issue of whether these claims are verifiable... but rather that I believe that these sentences misrepresent the reliable sources that they claim to be attributed to, especially in regards to the summation sentence: "DID diagnoses appear to be almost entirely confined to the North American continent{{citation needed}}; reports from other continents are at significantly lower rates." For example: Consider; Do the developed countries in North America have more recources than other countries to handle and study mental health issues? Is it plausible that underveloped countries may not have the adequate resources to study this disorder in their region? Do other regions outside of the North American Continent concern themselves with Mental Health? (In other words, do they even care?) The "reports" from other countries, are they reputable and thourough? Are they academic, medical, psychological, governmental? Furthermore, the widespread nature of the statement is an issue in itself. When something is far too widespread, fact-checking (source-checking) becomes an obsticle. This is an oversimplification. It may be true that there is "widespread scepticism"... yet, this issue is resolved by providing verifible sources as examples that tailor to that issue. I understand the nature to be intentionally vague in a lede, however that often creates many issues. First, fact-checking is out the window if the sentence or paragraph is too vague. It opens up the usage of other vague terms. E.g. "There are many commonly disputed points about DID." How many is "many"? How common is "commonly"? Quarterly? Annually? Which of these points is said by whom? I read later in the article... some of these issues become more clear. However, this article doesn't need this paragraph. The first paragraph does a good job of explaining the nature of the disorder. Whether or not it has controversial elements is hardly a qualifier for determining the definition of the term. I am not suggesting to take out the section on conterversy... but I don't believe this paragraph in its current position, and current style is very encyclopedic. The article can stand alone without it. Incidentally, the section on Contraversy can be retained, though it too needs a litte clean-up.165.138.95.59 (talk) 14:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

From your comments above, it is you who are making your own judgments and engaging in WP:OR. We go by what the sources say, not by your trying to make rationalizations to explain away the evidence the experts use to make their conclusions. Furthermore, per WP:LEAD, any notable controversies MUST be mentioned in the lead. Removing it would also be a fairly substantial violation of WP:NPOV policy, by trying to hide an important fact. Any "clean-up" you propose to do will have to be approved by other editors here. DreamGuy (talk) 22:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Epidemiology

There are two sets of figures, one for the population of people with mental illness (numbers ranging from 0.017% through to 10%) - there is then a set of 3 figures for the general population ranging from 0.4%-1.1% under the heading that "within the general population the variation is less".

This statement is patently false - the fact that only 0.17% of the mentally ill population in one country have the disorder means that the variation between that and the 1% figure would be huge - statement should be removed.

Also - why does this second table exist, there are only 3 figures in it - is it relevant or important? 130.216.91.176 (talk) 19:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Inaccurate lede mischaracterizes DID critics

Professional critics of DID are not claiming that the disorder "does not exist"; they argue the etiology of the disorder is iatrogenic and/or sociocultural and that it is a form of somatoform or conversion disorder. This is in opposition to DID proponents who believe DID is a product of traumatic childhood abuse.

• Piper and Merskey (refs 2 and 4) say

"1) there is no proof for the claim that DID results from childhood trauma; 2) the condition cannot be reliably diagnosed; 3) contrary to theory, DID cases in children are almost never reported; and 4) consistent evidence of blatant iatrogenesis appears in the practices of some of the disorder’s proponents." They do not claim DID does not exist.

• Scott O. Lilienfeld and Steven Jay Lynn in _Science and Pseudoscience_ say

"The principle controversy of this disorder has often been framed in terms of whether this condition "exists"... There is little dispute that DID "exists," in that individuals with this condition exhibit multiple identity enactments (i.e. apparent alters)...The central question at stake is not DID's existence but rather its etiology...As we will learn shortly that some researchers contend that DID is a spontaneously occuring response to childhood trauma, whereas others contend that it emerges in response to suggestive therapist cueing, media influence and broader sociocultural expectations."

Lilienfield and Lynn define the controversy as a conflict between two etiological models of DID - the post-traumatic model (PTM) and the sociocultural model (CTM) (Science and Pseudoscience, 116).

• DID critic Paul R. McHugh has been widely quoted as saying

"Students often ask me whether multiple personality disorder really exists. I usually reply that the symptoms attributed to it are as genuine as hysterical paralysis and seizures."

• DSM IV contributors Allen Frances and Michael B. Firth in _Your mental health: a layman's guide to the psychiatrist's bible_ emphasize the effect of sociocultural trends and mass media on both patients and therapists:

"Many therapists feel that the popularity of Dissociative Identity Disorder represents a kind of social contagion. It is not so much that there are lots of personalities as that there are lots of people and lots of therapists who are very suggestible and willing to climb onto the bandwagon of this new fad diagnosis. As the idea of multiple personality pervades our popular culture, suggestible people coping with a chaotic current life and a severely traumatic past express discomfort and avoid responsibility by uncovering "hidden personalities" and giving each of them a voice. This is especially likely when there is a zealous therapist who finds multiple personality a fascinating topic of discussion and exploration."

I am going to change the lede and article to reflect this more accuracate characterizing of criticism of DID.

Factomancer (talk) 14:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you are vastly mischaracterizing the actual meaning of the quotes above. Saying that the symptoms exist is not the same as arguing that a mental disorder really exists. That same logic could be used to claim that nobody says demonic possession does not exist. The symptoms described as indicating demonic possession exist, sure, but don't try to mislead people into thinking that means nobody says demonic possession doesn't exist. I see someone already reverted your changes, but if they had not I definitely would have, because your slant on what those quotes say are clearly out of line with what they actually mean and what they people who said them believe. DreamGuy (talk) 22:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I haven't commented yet, and as the reverter, I should have. I would agree with DG's statement that the edits in question end up giving a less accurate summary of the authors' points, and is particularly problematic because they are constrained to the lead only rather than the body. The main point of the authors is one of iatrogenesis and false memory versus abuse rather than of "existence versus non". Symptoms may exist, but the crucial point made is that they may be caused by therapists, not abuse. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Reversion: 19 Jan 2011

On 19 Jan 2011, I reverted the page to its previous version (edit date: 18 Jan 2011 01:10) after checking to make sure that the only change made in the new version (edit date: 19 Jan 2011 05:34) was an inappropriate edit to the introduction of the article which used profanity and was unconstructive. ClueBot NG had attempted to revert the page, but for some reason it was not reverted. ClueBot NG had also automatically posted a warning on the user's talk page (the user was an anonymous IP address). After reverting the article, I also posted a warning on the user's talk page, and an indication that the IP address is probably shared (having traced it using the site recommended by Wikipedia in the article Wikipedia:Vandalism ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism )). Since a reversion doesn't give an option for an edit summary, I wanted to make note of my reversion here.

Economicsgirl (talk) 07:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)Economicsgirl

Undo

I just undid a series of edits. The references used in the lead are inadequate- one being a german abstract on pubmed and not the secondary source required by WP:MEDRS and the second being a webpage of unknown reliability. The ref tag was screwed up, and the abstract itself didn't seem to reference this idea (the full text may be more revealing, I'll see if I can get a copy). The see also section was deaphabetized and several unnecessary links were added since they were already in the body text (per WP:ALSO). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Qualifications for diagnosis:

Other mental health professionals,Licensed Clinical Social Workers or Licensed Professional Counselors can diagnose DID or any other diagnosis if licensed to do so in their jurisdictions. Other instruments other than the SCID-D can be used as well.Pemmett (talk) 21:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

China

I have removed this sentence fragment that was tacked on to the end of a sentence: "although in China with "virtually no popular or professional knowledge of DID (...)" where "contamination cannot exist" it has been concluded that "the findings are not consistent with (...) iatrogenic models (...)" I removed it because it does not make sense as written. It is either only incoherent or incoherent and irrelevant.Jamesia (talk) 23:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Someone put it back, and I removed it again. The lead is supposed to summarize the article. This did not, it was only tacked onto the end of the lead after a period, and it made claims that were pretty outlandish (no possibility of contamination? that doesn't even sound like something a serious researcher would say). It was clearly giving WP:UNDUE weight in order to push a particular viewpoint. DreamGuy (talk) 13:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Deletion of external links

I have had a couple of links that I added deleted as spam. http://www.dissociation.org.uk/ is a UK educational site for those affected by DID. The other http://www.firstpersonplural.org.uk/ is a UK charity for survivors of DID. I am not affiliated to either organisation. Neither are particularly controversial sites and both are helpful for anyone researching DID. I would like to put them back up, but will not if it can be explained to me why they are unsuitable for entry. petitvie (talk —Preceding undated comment added 05:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC).

External links are for encyclopedic-level sources of information, not advocacy groups or geographically-based organizations. If we were to include these we'd have to include every a ton of others, and there's no good reason for it. DreamGuy (talk) 22:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Mental health professional's first reactions to this article

Warm greetings to you all! I'm signing on as a new editor to this article. I'm not new to Wikipedia, having been here for a few years, during which I've had a variety of involvements, as my user page documents. Two things that might be notable about me, though: I'm a mental health professional who treats DID, and I'm a formalist when it comes to rhetoric in general and writing in particular. I have extensive formal training and experience in social science and psychology research. I value clear thinking, cogent writing, and good sourcing.

So...first reactions:

1. Copy editing and rhetoric - I see major problems here, and I'll deal with those first.

2. Sourcing - more current literature, including some of the recently published literature surveys, needs to be brought on board, and some of the older references dropped. There is a lot of archaic and simply misinformed literature in print and on the web re: DID. NONE of that should be referenced here, I would urge. We want the good stuff, and that comes from professionals. "DID" is a concept THEY invented, and they do the research and theory development on this topic.

3. Priorities - as a clinician and someone very concerned in community education re: major public health issues (and I consider dissociation and dissociative disorders to be such), I consider it our first obligation here to correctly and fairly represent the topics and assertions in the current professional literature on DID. In that area in particular, major work needs to be done on this article. All else (e.g., "controversy", should be dealt with later, if at all.

4. Article form - I think there are some improvements which could be made that would present the material in a more useful way. I'll make specific proposals, and ask for comments, in the future.

I do have other commitments, one of which is to the PTSD article, in which I have taken a major interest for several years. This means that I'll be proceeding here with deliberation and calmness, and that allows plenty of time for community discussion, which I invite, appreciate, and enjoy.

It may interest you to know that I have surveyed the major contributors to this article in the last 2.5 years. There are four. Two are self-identified multiples, one is a bit of a science nut like me (hello there WLU!), and the fourth, like the first three, also appears NOT to be a mental health professional. One thing that means is that there is a real chance that I can be helpful here, due to my training, experience, and perspective.

About editor/contributors who are multiples: I think it is particularly valuable to have involved here individuals who are living with DID. That they are doesn't make them experts, any more than my having a brain tumor (which I don't!) would make me a neural surgeon, but they do have a highly valuable perspective to offer, part of which is [a] their encounter with the gross misinformation about DID that continues to make it into popular culture AND [b] their experiences with various aspects of the health care delivery system in their locale, wherever that may be. We are fortunate to have some people with DID participating here. If there are other editors here who have not so identified themselves, consider doing so, if you are comfortable with this and see value in this action.

This topic is both complex and important. I'm showing up to make this article better for both clinical (multiples and clinicians) and non-clinical readers. We owe them no less, I think. And...I'm glad I'm not alone here! (Comments welcome!)

Tom Cloyd (talk) 03:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

If you are going to be removing sources, you need to provide more current sources indicating why - particularly, indicating that the opinions of the professional field have changed. Your opinion of "what's current" is inadequate. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, we normally lag several months to several years behind what is discussed during conferences. Please do not remove information unless you can indicate why, and verify this with a reliable source. Generally controversies are explored rather than eliminated. Accordingly, if these old sources have been criticized, please provide citations and summaries of these criticisms indicating the professional literature has changed. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

You know, if you treat DID patients you already come in to the topic with a very strong bias that what you are doing is not some outdated belief system like phrenology or snake oil. You have a natural desire to let the world believe that what you are doing is valid and scientific. That's fine for your personal beliefs, but it's not something you can rewrite the article to say. We need to follow the policies here, and we cannot let the article become the mouthpiece of a person who is promoting a specific belief for the basis of his job. DreamGuy (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Dream Guy

The leaders in research in the area of Dissociative Identity Disorder are not just personal beliefs. The information that is being cited is from those who are writing and working in this field to day and who understand it. Have you read current science based information from experts such as E. Howell, James L. Spira, Suzette Boon, Deborah Bray Haddock, Onno van der Hart, Ellert R. S. Nijenhuis, Kathy Steele - past president for the International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation. The ISSTD is also a great place to read about current research on DID.

Reply to Dream Guy

I was the one that removed and/or moved the items in question. I believe Tom Cloyd just put them back, for the most part, to what I had done. Granted I went too fast for the soldiers that guard this page. People come to Wikipedia, in this case, to see what DID actually is. They were hit, and are now again due to your undo's, with a bunch of China and Sybil stuff and controversy. When I go to a Wikipedia page on DID, I want to know what the leaders in the field say DID is, not a bunch of journalist, book writers or movie makers.~ty 04:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

"References" - plural? Uh...no

This is a mistake an undergraduate might make. It would be distressing for a grad. student to make it. To wit: When you have a document with a single note or reference, the list itemizing such is singular, for it contains only ONE element. When there is more then one, the plural form is called for. WP:LAYOUT does NOT take a position on this, but discusses ONLY the later case (read it - carefully, please). Since it is not covered, the issue reverts to "common law", which in this case is "common practice". My knowledge of such practice derives from the fact of my seven years of grad. school, and my experience teaching, and grading research reports written in, undergrad. experimental psychology.

Also, it's just common sense. If you have one, don't refer to it in plural!

Tom Cloyd (talk) 08:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

It'd be simpler to call the "Footnotes" section "References" (for that is what they are and any scientific/medical journal will call them this) and include the single item listed as "reference" in them. WP:LAYOUT specifically excludes "reference" (it clearly takes a position on this: "With the exception of "Bibliography", the heading should be plural even if it lists only a single item"), because articles are supposed to have multiple sources. "Reference" is discouraged, because it will become inappropriate as soon as some other editor adds another one. And: yes, I have seen that "Sadock 2002" (which properly should be "Sadock and Sadock 2002", think) occurs twice in the "Footnotes", but with two almost adjacent pages (681 and 683). Either merge the two ("681-683") or, if page 682 really is completely inappropriate to include, just make two separate references. Makes things simpler and less dissociated... Apart from this (in the end rather minor) quibble: kudos for vastly improving this article! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Ha! I yield on the "References" matter - how could I have missed that in WP:LAYOUT? But I did. I still think my line of thought makes more sense, and I KNOW it to be the practice at least some of the time, but I don't know what the style sheet of a random sample of peer-reviewed journals would say. Interesting question, but we do have bigger fish to fight than this (I just love mixing metaphors!). Glad you like the rest of what I've done. It's early in the day, and others have yet to be heard from.

Haven't considered the format of the article's end-material, as I've been too busy being annoyed by the main article content, although surely not by all of it. Some is quite acceptable, or even better, I'd say.

I don't yet have access to my copy of Sadock (which I think is actually "Sadock, Sadock, and Kaplan") - I just moved. So, I can't respond to your comment there. I didn't add the original reference. Thanks for your comments. Tom Cloyd (talk) 11:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Tom Cloyd II

Impressive Sir! Thank you for bringing this article to a state that Wikipedia can be proud of. I enjoy your writing style, your knowledge on the subject of Dissociative Identity Disorder and your knowledge of Wikipedia itself. I have been looking at your work on Wikipedia and I am impressed. Thank you for taking DID seriously. It's difficult when so many see this as interesting so they want to fuel the media and mis information. Thank you for bringing science to this page. ~ty 04:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't ever edit anything on wikipedia i find it all too intimidating but i wanted second Tylas's thank you. I am very impressed. Thank you very much. -Bug — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.178.225 (talk) 17:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Bug

I totally understand Bug. It's like trying to fend off bullies in the playground. The page on Wikipedia should be a serious page and as free as possible from the conflict that is only based in a lack of knowledge. I have read all the books that Tom Cloyd has referenced and totally agree with those references and authors who are some of the experts in the field of dissociative disorders. ~ty 04:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

[12], [13], [14] 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)

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 [15] and found a lot of problems with them. I'm also not the only editor to revert them [16]. 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)

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)

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)

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 [17], [18], full-fleged reverts [19] [20] claiming "partial consensus" is adequate, and the return of a primary source [21] 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)