Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multiplicity (psychology) (2nd)

Multiplicity (psychology)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looking through the content I think it's worth beginning the AfD process. Looking back through the various versions of the article, the concept that the article refers to has changed multiple times, it's unclear whether Multiplicity refers to the use of multiple personality styles, Dissociative identity disorder, Dissociative identity disorder as experienced by some individuals, or somewhat irrelevant original research on how Plato and Shakespeare vaguely touched upon the issue. . All of these subjects are better covered by other articles. The most recent incarnation of the article is already covered at Dissociative Identity Disorder#Rights movement. Vitalis196 (talk) 21:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:22, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Between the sources mentioned in the latest afd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Multiplicity_(psychology), on the talkpages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Multiplicity_(psychology)#Parking_some_potential_sources, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Multiplicity_(psychology)#Topic and the latest revision before the clean up in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Multiplicity_(psychology)&oldid=996407983 as a distinct topic for concept of general multiplicity it at least in my eyes meets notability guidelines and is thus suitable as a topic with at least https://aeon.co/ideas/what-we-can-learn-about-respect-and-identity-from-plurals, https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/vdxgw9/when-multiple-personalities-are-not-a-disorder-400 being full articles on the topic some of the other sources having significant mentions plus there being several books written on this. There is also a lot of referenced research articles on the concept as well. Though there is certainly discussion to be had for which of the sources to use and rewriting the article to use sourced material. But it doesn't make it not a notable subject. How much it intersects with DID is in itself a topic of discussion in regards to multiplicity and should probably be included in some way but multiplicity and DID are talked about as distinct concepts here(with multiplicity being a common symptom of DID) not as a rights movement for DID specifically. Seteleechete (talk) 21:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can see where you're coming from. The version you cite from before the cleanup includes an entire unsourced section about how some multiples perceive the experiences. Many of the key claims made and the terminology used originate from this single shared understanding of how people who identify as Plurals or multiples see themselves. While you're correct to point out that some of this content can be sourced, this understanding of what multiplicity/plurality is and how it's experienced is not a universal or widely held understanding of what the Psychological concept of multiplicity is. It's very specific to a single and primarily online community of people who exhibit these symptoms.

This leads on to what I see as the main problem with the article. From it's conception and the previous articles for deletion process, there has never been a clear understanding of exactly what this article is about. There's a particular confusion between multiplicity in the sense that an individual may use multiple personality styles, or show different sides of themselves to different people or in different circumstances (as written about for example by Rita Carter), and the use of multiplicity to refer to a symptom of Dissociative identity disorder. Then beyond this there's a reference to this particular subculture (for want of a better word) of people experience these symptoms of DID.

If the article has a future, there needs to be a clear decision on how these different topics are delineated within it, and all of the aspects need to be verifiably sourced and placed within context. --Vitalis196 (talk) 02:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well in the first place I don't think there is a strong need for us to delianate what exactly multiplicity is supposed to specifically represent if there are multiple ways to represent the psychological concept of multiplicity. Trying to decide on it ourselves would be too much original research anyway. We can just add any position and view on what it can represent or how it can be viewed as long as it can be sufficiently sourced(be it relations to DID or about the online community which uses the concept). I think this is a much better way of doing things than trying to limit it to some specific idea/subpart of the concept multiplicity. Just represent the various positions/ideas of various sources on the subject rather than decide ourselves what it's supposed to refer to.

Granted the Rita idea and the plurality idea of multiplicity might still be too far apart for a single article in that regard but it's not uncommon to view plurality as distinct parts of the self in some circles even as others see it as distinct identities/people.(the confusion in this regard matches the general disparate state about the concept in general). Either way I don't think these concepts are so far apart that they need to be split up beyond maybe being within seperate sections/paragraphs/sentences in the same article(or just making sure context is clear). Though if there has to be a choice I for sure think the plurality line is more appropriate in general (there is no real conflict as I can see relating it to what it means within DID anyway, though the main focus should probably still be outside DID since that got it's own article anyway) Seteleechete (talk) 04:08, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]